As per Google's Usenet archives
[ http://groups.google.com/googlegroup...ounce_20.html], the
first discussion of the Y2K problem on the Usenet was on January 18
1985 [ http://groups.google.com/groups?thre...0%40reed.UUCP]. That
is a good 15 years before the problem manifested. Even then, it
turned out, we were scrambling for cover when the D-day was
approaching.
Although the Y2K scare turned out to be vastly overblown, we do have a
massive problem ahead of us ------ the Year 2038 problem. On Mon Jan
18 21:14:07 2038, the Unix seconds-since-epoch count will "roll-over".
After that, the time on the Unix systems will read as Fri Dec 13
14:45:52 1901.
IMHO, if we want to avoid the last minute panic that we witnessed
towards the end of the last millennium (while pursuing the Y2K
problem), we should begin the process of debating the viable solutions
to this problem NOW. It will take a long time for the consensus to be
built, and to come up with a solution that most (if not all) people
find acceptable. We also need considerable time to test out all
possible solutions in the real world, to decide if the solutions
really work as expected. We may also need to develop a suite of
recovery strategies should the problem manifest in some system on that
fateful Monday morning. All this takes time. So, as the late Todd
Beamer would have said: Let's roll.
Bhat
Nov 14 '05
248  10177  ho*@invalid.invalid (Goran Larsson) wrote: But TinyURL is EVIL. It provides no way to show the destination of a
TinyURL and give the following as a reason to use TinyURLs:
From http://tinyurl.com/bill ...
$ telnet unicyclist.com 80 <- I typed this
Trying 66.98.140.48...
Connected to unicyclist.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET /tinyurl/redirect.php?num=bill <- I typed this too
Location: <snipped> <- Here it is.
Bill, dancing.
In article <cu*************@zero-based.org>,
Martin Dickopp <ex****************@zero-based.org> wrote: If you really must know the redirection destination in advance, just
make a TCP connection to port 80 of tinyurl.com, type two lines of
HTTP protocol, and read the HTTP headers coming back from the server.
I know I can find out the destination this way, but why should I? It
is much easier to just ignore this kind of links.
--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/
"Dan Pop" <Da*****@cern.ch> wrote in message
news:c9**********@sunnews.cern.ch... In <40***************@yahoo.com> CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> writes:
Now consider the recently passed Y2K problems, which largely
revolved around software written and used for 25 years, with
source and documentation forgotten.
More likely, with source not available in the first place.
Look at people trying to find
20 year old software on alt.folklore.computers and comp.os.cpm.
I.e. software irrelevant to the current computing community. The one
that is relevant has been carefully kept and maintained. I don't know if
CERNLIB is still maintained, but its origins can be easily traced to about
40 years ago.
Do you really think that knowledge about care and treatment of
nuclear dump facilities is going to last for 10,000 years?
Why not, as long as the information is relevant to the people
responsible for environment protection?
Should
any posted signs survive, the language in which they are written
probably will not.
No one expects any posted signs to survive, merely to be carefully
maintained. This would also take care of the language issue.
Of course, one could imagine scenarios involving the catastrophic
destruction of the current civilisation and its replacement by the
descendants of a few tribes of bushmen that survived the catastrophe
by chance. But, barring such scenarios, we have the technology necessary
to preserve the information about nuclear waste dumps *and* the motivation
for preserving it, as long as needed by the radioactivity level of the
nuclear waste.
I still say that humans are their own worst enemy. At some point someone
will re-open the containers. Perhaps is will be military, perhaps
ignorance. Either way, the "Do Not Open" sign on Pandora's box will be
ignored.
--
Mabden
>> Of course, one could imagine scenarios involving the catastrophic destruction of the current civilisation and its replacement by the
descendants of a few tribes of bushmen that survived the catastrophe
by chance. But, barring such scenarios, we have the technology necessary
to preserve the information about nuclear waste dumps *and* the motivation
for preserving it, as long as needed by the radioactivity level of the
nuclear waste.
I still say that humans are their own worst enemy. At some point someone
will re-open the containers. Perhaps is will be military, perhaps
ignorance. Either way, the "Do Not Open" sign on Pandora's box will be
ignored.
Any sign on something that looks well-secured might as well say
"Steal Me". Some people have used this to advantage to have their
trash picked up during garbage strikes by wrapping it up pretty
and locking it in their car parked in the mall.
Where is the data from the people responsible for the protection
of the environment from early Egyptian times? While we don't know
whether there is anything really dangerous in those pyramids (like
Goa'uld in stasis and the Stargate), it seems the early Egyptians
tried to keep people out with physical barriers, sometimes even
physical traps, and writings about curses. So what did archaeologists
in the last century or two do?
Gordon L. Burditt
Gerry Quinn wrote: But anyway, the disagreement also shows that the effects of moderate
amounts of radiation are far from devastating, or we *would* know!
What would happen the world if we detonated 500 nuclear weapons in the
atmosphere with an average yield of about 1 megaton? Nothing much,
apparently, because we have done... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation
Look especially at the table somewhere in the middle, the human
body can withstand quite large doses of radiation it seems.
--
Thomas.
In article <40***************@yahoo.com>, cb********@yahoo.com says... Now consider the recently passed Y2K problems, which largely
revolved around software written and used for 25 years, with
source and documentation forgotten. Look at people trying to find
20 year old software on alt.folklore.computers and comp.os.cpm.
Do you really think that knowledge about care and treatment of
nuclear dump facilities is going to last for 10,000 years? Should
any posted signs survive, the language in which they are written
probably will not.
If the waste is buried deep underground, sealed, and forgotten, people
aren't going to be digging it up, are they? And even if they do, waste-
filled glass would be bad for you, but it doesn't emit a mystical green
cloud that turns villagers into zombies overnight.
People would learn that using it for bedwarmers makes you sick. And
they would probably stop, eventually, and bury the stuff again, except
the bits they are trying to make Philosophers' Stone out of.
I doubt it would cause death on anything like the scale of the natural
non-radioactive mineral asbestos, also found underground, but not
carefully sealed, or marked with signs.
- Gerry Quinn ho*@invalid.invalid (Goran Larsson) writes: In article <cu*************@zero-based.org>,
Martin Dickopp <ex****************@zero-based.org> wrote:
If you really must know the redirection destination in advance, just
make a TCP connection to port 80 of tinyurl.com, type two lines of
HTTP protocol, and read the HTTP headers coming back from the server.
I know I can find out the destination this way, but why should I? It
is much easier to just ignore this kind of links.
Sure, you are free to ignore them. I didn't mean to imply that this
isn't perfectly your right.
Martin
--
,--. Martin Dickopp, Dresden, Germany ,= ,-_-. =.
/ ,- ) http://www.zero-based.org/ ((_/)o o(\_))
\ `-' `-'(. .)`-'
`-. Debian, a variant of the GNU operating system. \_/
In <Hy********@approve.se> ho*@invalid.invalid (Goran Larsson) writes: In article <c9**********@sunnews.cern.ch>, Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.ch> wrote:
Non-issue: you either trust the person posting the link or you don't.
How do you know who to trust on the Internet? I do, however, know that
I shouldn't trust those who post links using TinyURL.
Bullshit. Plenty of perfectly honest people use TinyURL to abbreviate
long links. There is no a priori reason not to trust them.
Why should I accept TinyURLs, something created to con and deceive
web surfers?
Bullshit. This is not the primary purpose of TinyURL. Just because a
tool can be misused doesn't automatically mean that *any* use is a
misuse.
And if you don't, you probably don't have much use for search engines,
either...
With a search engine I can see the URL and perhaps make an educated guess
where the link will end up.
Most of the time you cannot make any educated guess. If you were familiar
with the site in question, you wouldn't be using a search engine in the
first place.
With a TinyURL this information is deliberately hidden from me.
More bullshit, as others have already pointed out. It doesn't matter if the URL is spelled in its full original format or
in its abbreviated format provided by TinyURL: you don't know what's
inside before actually going there.
If a link is posted with the comment that an interesting article is
available on CNN, then the difference between a genuine cnn.com link
and a deceiving TinyURL link is obvious.
What is the *obvious* way to tell whether a TinyURL link is a legitimate
abbreviation of a cnn.com link or something else? Concrete example: http://tinyurl.com/ys356
I've lost the count of TinyURLs I've used without having any problems.
All of them pointed exactly where they were advertised to point.
If you're paranoid, thoday's Internet is not the right place for you...
Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes: In <40***************@yahoo.com> CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> writes:Should
any posted signs survive, the language in which they are written
probably will not.
No one expects any posted signs to survive, merely to be carefully
maintained. This would also take care of the language issue.
Of course, one could imagine scenarios involving the catastrophic
destruction of the current civilisation and its replacement by the
descendants of a few tribes of bushmen that survived the catastrophe
by chance.
If there are a few tribes of bushmen, what is the chance they'll
wander through several hundred kilometers of desert to find the
respository? And that they'll be able and willing to dig through
hundreds of meters of backfill? And crack open thick steel
containers? And grind the glassy waste to powder and spread it around
or ingest it? Although we shouldn't stop thinking about such things,
the repository seems okay.
-paul-
--
Paul E. Black (p.*****@acm.org)
Mark McIntyre writes: You can pretty much emulate what happens when you fill a plastic bag
with, say, natural gas and hold a flame to it.
No you can't, and for goodness sake don't try this at home. Hydrogen
diffuses into the surrounding air VERY quickly, and burns almost
immediately. Did you never set fire to a test-tube of the stuff in school?
Almost.
Had a fun/goofy JHS science teacher who once gave a demonstration on
cracking water. He collected the H in a test tube and then clicked a
Bunsen burner igniter near the mouth.
Made a nice, startling "POP!"
Then he decided to try collecting the H in a beaker.
He (and we!) were all VERY surprised.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> coughed up the following: Mark McIntyre writes:
You can pretty much emulate what happens when you fill a plastic bag
with, say, natural gas and hold a flame to it.
No you can't, and for goodness sake don't try this at home. Hydrogen
diffuses into the surrounding air VERY quickly, and burns almost
immediately. Did you never set fire to a test-tube of the stuff in
school?
Almost.
Had a fun/goofy JHS science teacher who once gave a demonstration on
cracking water. He collected the H in a test tube and then clicked a
Bunsen burner igniter near the mouth.
Made a nice, startling "POP!"
Then he decided to try collecting the H in a beaker.
He (and we!) were all VERY surprised.
I remember a similar experiment, but with different results. The POP
came from the O2.
{shrug} ymmv
--
Onedoctortoanother:"Ifthisismyrectalthermometer,wh erethehell'smypen???"
Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.ch> coughed up the following:
....[thwack]... If you're paranoid, thoday's Internet is not the right place for
you...
Today's internet requires /clinical/ paranoia...
--
Onedoctortoanother:"Ifthisismyrectalthermometer,wh erethehell'smypen???" Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes: In <Hy********@approve.se> ho*@invalid.invalid (Goran Larsson) writes:
[...] Why should I accept TinyURLs, something created to con and deceive
web surfers?
Bullshit. This is not the primary purpose of TinyURL. Just because a
tool can be misused doesn't automatically mean that *any* use is a
misuse.
I agree, but the statement about affiliate links is on tinyurl.com's
main page:
Hide your affiliate URLs
Are you posting something that you don't want people to know what
the URL is because it might give away that it's an affiliate
link. Then you can enter a URL into TinyURL, and your affiliate
link will be hidden from the visitor, only the tinyurl.com address
and the ending address will be visible to your visitors.
I think it's unfortunate that they chose to advertise this "feature",
but I don't consider that sufficient reason to boycott the service.
YMM, of course, V.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
On 2004-06-04, Paul E. Black <p.*****@acm.org> wrote:
[snip]
If there are a few tribes of bushmen, what is the chance they'll
wander through several hundred kilometers of desert to find the
respository? And that they'll be able and willing to dig through
hundreds of meters of backfill? And crack open thick steel
containers? And grind the glassy waste to powder and spread it around
or ingest it? Although we shouldn't stop thinking about such things,
the repository seems okay.
If there still is backfill. Are you sure it won't be washed away in a
few centuries? Maybe even decades? Possibly the rains have gone even
more acid, possibly enough to burn through that kind of steel in a
century. After that, well, I'm sure nature will come up with something.
Since we're talking end-of-the-world scenarios and a timescale even
engineers usually don't think about, there's simply no telling what
will happen. I'm not willing to bet on ``seems okay'' with that kind of
stuff. If you can't expect people to make sure it won't be touched (you
can't, revolutions do happen) you can't expect nature to abide by the
``no trespassing'' signs.
--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l . ho*@invalid.invalid (Goran Larsson) wrote: In article <cu*************@zero-based.org>,
Martin Dickopp <ex****************@zero-based.org> wrote:
If you really must know the redirection destination in advance, just
make a TCP connection to port 80 of tinyurl.com, type two lines of
HTTP protocol, and read the HTTP headers coming back from the server.
I know I can find out the destination this way, but why should I? It
is much easier to just ignore this kind of links.
FWIW, I agree with you. Apart from untrustworthy posters, there is
always the risk of typos; at least with a normal URL, you stand a
fighting chance of spotting it. Besides, why should I take extra trouble
to find out whether a link is worth following? If it doesn't _look_
worth the trouble, odds are that it isn't.
Richard
In <m5****************@tombstone.sdct.nist.gov> p.*****@acm.org (Paul E. Black) writes: Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
In <40***************@yahoo.com> CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> writes: >Should
>any posted signs survive, the language in which they are written
>probably will not.
No one expects any posted signs to survive, merely to be carefully
maintained. This would also take care of the language issue.
Of course, one could imagine scenarios involving the catastrophic
destruction of the current civilisation and its replacement by the
descendants of a few tribes of bushmen that survived the catastrophe
by chance.
If there are a few tribes of bushmen, what is the chance they'll
wander through several hundred kilometers of desert to find the
respository? And that they'll be able and willing to dig through
hundreds of meters of backfill? And crack open thick steel
containers? And grind the glassy waste to powder and spread it around
or ingest it? Although we shouldn't stop thinking about such things,
the repository seems okay.
The idea was that that those few tribes of bushmen would eventually
repopulate the world and create a civilisation with no "memory" of the
previous one.
Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
Goran Larsson <ho*@invalid.invalid> coughed up the following: In article <cu*************@zero-based.org>,
Martin Dickopp <ex****************@zero-based.org> wrote:
If you really must know the redirection destination in advance, just
make a TCP connection to port 80 of tinyurl.com, type two lines of
HTTP protocol, and read the HTTP headers coming back from the server.
I know I can find out the destination this way, but why should I? It
is much easier to just ignore this kind of links.
Completely agree----I don't think I'd ever click on something without
knowing where I was going to land. Whenever there is an anchor with
text replacing the link, I always hover over it. In fact, in many spam
messages I've discovered that the text is often another link than the
link itself. Sneaky.
--
Onedoctortoanother:"Ifthisismyrectalthermometer,wh erethehell'smypen???"
In <I6**************@nwrdny03.gnilink.net> "Thomas G. Marshall" <tg****************@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail. com> writes: Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> coughed up the following:
Mark McIntyre writes:
You can pretty much emulate what happens when you fill a plastic bag
with, say, natural gas and hold a flame to it.
No you can't, and for goodness sake don't try this at home. Hydrogen
diffuses into the surrounding air VERY quickly, and burns almost
immediately. Did you never set fire to a test-tube of the stuff in
school?
Almost.
Had a fun/goofy JHS science teacher who once gave a demonstration on
cracking water. He collected the H in a test tube and then clicked a
Bunsen burner igniter near the mouth.
Made a nice, startling "POP!"
Then he decided to try collecting the H in a beaker.
He (and we!) were all VERY surprised.
I remember a similar experiment, but with different results. The POP
came from the O2.
You're misremembering it. It was the H2 that POPed, while the O2 turned
a slowly burning thingie into a first class flame. It's O2 (at sea level
pressure) that was responsible for the Apollo 1 tragedy (some sparks
ignited violently things that don't burn in ordinary air or even in the
lower O2 pressure the capsule was supposed use on orbit).
Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote in message news:<ca***********@sunnews.cern.ch>... In <m5****************@tombstone.sdct.nist.gov> p.*****@acm.org (Paul E. Black) writes:
Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
In <40***************@yahoo.com> CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> writes:
>Should
>any posted signs survive, the language in which they are written
>probably will not.
No one expects any posted signs to survive, merely to be carefully
maintained. This would also take care of the language issue.
Of course, one could imagine scenarios involving the catastrophic
destruction of the current civilisation and its replacement by the
descendants of a few tribes of bushmen that survived the catastrophe
by chance.
If there are a few tribes of bushmen, what is the chance they'll
wander through several hundred kilometers of desert to find the
respository? And that they'll be able and willing to dig through
hundreds of meters of backfill? And crack open thick steel
containers? And grind the glassy waste to powder and spread it around
or ingest it? Although we shouldn't stop thinking about such things,
the repository seems okay.
The idea was that that those few tribes of bushmen would eventually
repopulate the world and create a civilisation with no "memory" of the
previous one.
Whatever happened you can be sure that, eventually, Charlton Heston
would arrive, see evidence of the previous civilisation and say "my
god it's true....", ... maybe ...
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.unix.misc.] In article <cu*************@zero-based.org>,
Martin Dickopp <ex****************@zero-based.org> wrote:
> If you really must know the redirection destination in advance, just
> make a TCP connection to port 80 of tinyurl.com, type two lines of
> HTTP protocol, and read the HTTP headers coming back from the server.
lynx -head
--
Simulations are like miniskirts, they show a lot and hide the essentials.
-- Hubert Kirrman
gswork <gs****@mailcity.com> coughed up the following: Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote in message
news:<ca***********@sunnews.cern.ch>... In <m5****************@tombstone.sdct.nist.gov> p.*****@acm.org
(Paul E. Black) writes:
Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
In <40***************@yahoo.com> CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com>
writes:
> Should
> any posted signs survive, the language in which they are written
> probably will not.
No one expects any posted signs to survive, merely to be carefully
maintained. This would also take care of the language issue.
Of course, one could imagine scenarios involving the catastrophic
destruction of the current civilisation and its replacement by the
descendants of a few tribes of bushmen that survived the
catastrophe
by chance.
If there are a few tribes of bushmen, what is the chance they'll
wander through several hundred kilometers of desert to find the
respository? And that they'll be able and willing to dig through
hundreds of meters of backfill? And crack open thick steel
containers? And grind the glassy waste to powder and spread it
around
or ingest it? Although we shouldn't stop thinking about such
things,
the repository seems okay.
The idea was that that those few tribes of bushmen would eventually
repopulate the world and create a civilisation with no "memory" of
the
previous one.
Whatever happened you can be sure that, eventually, Charlton Heston
would arrive, see evidence of the previous civilisation and say "my
god it's true....", ... maybe ...
There are a great many things that are likely to doom us as our
understanding of physics increases. I'd have to say that three of which
that are likely (eventually) are going to be:
1. The age old nuclear winter scenario
2. Particle coliders accidentally creating a mini-black hole
3. Nanobot assemblers turning us all into the "gray goo".
#2 and #3 have many issues in the way before they actually /could/ be a
problem. But they're worth looking at.
--
Everythinginlifeisrealative.Apingpongballseemssmal luntilsomeoneramsitupy
ournose.
In article <zH*******************@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, tg****************@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.c om says... gswork <gs****@mailcity.com> coughed up the following:
There are a great many things that are likely to doom us as our
understanding of physics increases. I'd have to say that three of which
that are likely (eventually) are going to be:
1. The age old nuclear winter scenario
2. Particle coliders accidentally creating a mini-black hole
3. Nanobot assemblers turning us all into the "gray goo".
#2 and #3 have many issues in the way before they actually /could/ be a
problem. But they're worth looking at.
I would say that 1 is irrelevant as even if nuclear winter is a real
phenomenon, it wouldn't come near to killing us off.
3 is very doubtful - after all we already have green goo a.k.a. mould
and bacteria of all kinds, and grey goo isn't going to have magic powers
that it doesn't.
On the other hands, an exotic high-energy event loading to a negative
strangelet, mini-black hole, vacuum phase change (or something nasty we
haven't thought of) is not inconceivable IMO.
However I would say the biggest threats such as supervirulent infections
come from the biological sciences.
And of course there are lots of big rocks flying around out there.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn <ge****@DELETETHISindigo.ie> coughed up the following: In article <zH*******************@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>,
tg****************@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.c om says... gswork <gs****@mailcity.com> coughed up the following: There are a great many things that are likely to doom us as our
understanding of physics increases. I'd have to say that three of
which that are likely (eventually) are going to be:
1. The age old nuclear winter scenario
2. Particle coliders accidentally creating a mini-black hole
3. Nanobot assemblers turning us all into the "gray goo".
#2 and #3 have many issues in the way before they actually /could/
be a problem. But they're worth looking at.
I would say that 1 is irrelevant as even if nuclear winter is a real
phenomenon, it wouldn't come near to killing us off.
Using the current set of weapons? Maybe. But the states with them are
growing all the time.
3 is very doubtful - after all we already have green goo a.k.a. mould
and bacteria of all kinds, and grey goo isn't going to have magic
powers that it doesn't.
That's not what gray goo is. Gray goo is the /result/ of assemblers
having grabbed (disassembled) all obvious forms of matter into something
non-descript, not just more of themselves. If the assemblers make more
of themselves exponentially, the earth could turn into an amorphous glob
of the stuff. Of course there are a few things in the way:
1. fat finger issue
2. sticky finger issue
3. nano assemblers, if they know to not disolve themselves,
would only be able to affect a /surface/ of sorts and close
that in. So it would still gray goo us, just slower than
exponential grown might indicate.
On the other hands, an exotic high-energy event loading to a negative
strangelet, mini-black hole, vacuum phase change (or something nasty
we haven't thought of) is not inconceivable IMO.
As a reader of scientific american wrote in, a mini black hole could
theoretically gobble up the earth in a matter of minutes.
I've often wondered:
Is it possible that there are no black holes formed in nature? That any
that we postulate about (sort of "observe") are the results of
civilizations that have discovered how to accidentally create one?
However I would say the biggest threats such as supervirulent
infections come from the biological sciences.
And of course there are lots of big rocks flying around out there.
- Gerry Quinn
-- http://www.allexperts.com is a nifty way to get an answer to just about
/anything/.
Thomas G. Marshall writes: There are a great many things that are likely to doom us as our
understanding of physics increases. I'd have to say that three
of which that are likely (eventually) are going to be:
1. The age old nuclear winter scenario
2. Particle coliders accidentally creating a mini-black hole
Where'd you hear that one? (-:
AIUI, it's probably not possible to build one big enough... on earth.
I once read that a linear collider capable of achieving the energy
levels to unify the forces would be bigger than the solar system!
3. Nanobot assemblers turning us all into the "gray goo".
[grin] I know where that one came from. Many of the folks working
in the field seem to find it silly. There are leverage and energy
considerations that may make "nanobots" impossible (as builders of
big things). Surface tension is formidable at that scale!
Consider this: virii mutate at an extravagant rate, yet none has
ever evolved that even comes close to the "gray goo" scenario. It
might just not be physically possible.
MY doomsday suspicion is we'll be done in by disease--intentional
or accidental. At the current density and travel rates of the
human race, it'd be all too easy.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
"Programmer Dude" <Ch***@Sonnack.com> wrote in message
news:li********************************@4ax.com... Thomas G. Marshall writes: 2. Particle coliders accidentally creating a mini-black hole
Where'd you hear that one? (-:
AIUI, it's probably not possible to build one big enough... on earth.
I once read that a linear collider capable of achieving the energy
levels to unify the forces would be bigger than the solar system!
I don't know the feasibility, but if we figure out how to isolate
non-trivial amounts antimatter produced in a collider, the resulting
annihilation would release enough energy to make nucelar winter look like a
good scenario.
3. Nanobot assemblers turning us all into the "gray goo".
[grin] I know where that one came from. Many of the folks working
in the field seem to find it silly. There are leverage and energy
considerations that may make "nanobots" impossible (as builders of
big things). Surface tension is formidable at that scale!
If you have enough of them, anything would be possible, no?
Consider this: virii mutate at an extravagant rate, yet none has
ever evolved that even comes close to the "gray goo" scenario. It
might just not be physically possible.
Ever read what a hantavirus does to internal organs? Your skin and bones
stay intact because they're mostly dead, but the rest of you dissolves into
a uniform red goo in a matter of days. Very scary stuff.
MY doomsday suspicion is we'll be done in by disease--intentional
or accidental. At the current density and travel rates of the
human race, it'd be all too easy.
It's a minor miracle it hasn't happened already; the only thing stopping it
is the diseases capable of wiping out the entire human race either aren't
airborne (yet) or have too short an incubation period (and burn out local
populations before they can be transmitted far). Evolution will eventually
overcome those limitations.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
"Stephen Sprunk" <st*****@sprunk.org> writes: "Programmer Dude" <Ch***@Sonnack.com> wrote in message
news:li********************************@4ax.com... Thomas G. Marshall writes: 2. Particle coliders accidentally creating a mini-black hole
Where'd you hear that one? (-:
AIUI, it's probably not possible to build one big enough... on earth.
I once read that a linear collider capable of achieving the energy
levels to unify the forces would be bigger than the solar system!
I don't know the feasibility, but if we figure out how to isolate
non-trivial amounts antimatter produced in a collider, the resulting
annihilation would release enough energy to make nucelar winter look like a
good scenario.
The energy released by annihilating a quantity of antimatter cannot
exceed the energy required to produce it in the first place. We've
never put enough energy into colliders to produce enough antimatter to
create a significant explosion. In addition, the energy efficiency of
antimatter production is extremely small.
Antimatter is a great method of compact energy storage, but if your
goal is to blow things up, there are far more effective ways to do so
with current technology.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
"Thomas G. Marshall"
<tg****************@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail. com> writes: Gerry Quinn <ge****@DELETETHISindigo.ie> coughed up the following:
[...] I would say that 1 is irrelevant as even if nuclear winter is a real
phenomenon, it wouldn't come near to killing us off.
Using the current set of weapons? Maybe. But the states with them are
growing all the time.
But the newer nuclear states (India, Pakistan, and whatever other
states have nuclear bombs but haven't publicly acknowledged tested
them) are almost certainly not producing bombs in the large numbers
you'd need to produce a significant nuclear winter.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Keith Thompson wrote:
.... snip ...
Antimatter is a great method of compact energy storage, but if
your goal is to blow things up, there are far more effective ways
to do so with current technology.
We have recently patented the equivalent of a Dewar flask, but it
holds positrons rather than liquid nitrogen. By valving the
contents (via a positronic valve) we can get controlled
combination with stray electrons, and coincident opposing 511 kEV
gammas. This opposition minimizes vibration, much like a
horizontally opposed twin. Suitable collection devices, obvious
to anyone skilled in the art, convert these gammas into direct
current at 33.5 volts. A 2 inch diameter flask, 1 foot long, can
store roughly 1000 horsepower hours. Leakage is about 1 percent
per day, so until we make improvements here you will have to
refuel at least every few months.
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Thomas G. Marshall writes: As a reader of scientific american wrote in, a mini black hole
could theoretically gobble up the earth in a matter of minutes.
There is a problem with this. A mini-black hole has a certain
size, and matter can only go through a hole that size at a
certain rate. Also, infalling matter generates serious radiation
and the pressure of that radiation tends to push infalling matter
away.
IOW, don't believe everything you read! (-:
I've often wondered:
Is it possible that there are no black holes formed in nature?
That any that we postulate about (sort of "observe") are the
results of civilizations that have discovered how to accidentally
create one?
Such could happen, but that doesn't mean natural ones don't also
exist. However, I've long fancied the idea that some of the
more spectacular and energetic events we see "out there".....
Well, suppose, for e.g., that it's possible to tap into what's
called "zero point" energy, which some theories hold to be very,
very great. But suppose you need to tap into it just *exactly*
right, "or else!" (-:
(Remember, some very knowledgeable scientists were very afraid
the first A-bomb tests would ignite the atmosphere....good thing
they were wrong!)
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
"Programmer Dude" <Ch***@Sonnack.com> wrote in message
news:li********************************@4ax.com... Thomas G. Marshall writes:
There are a great many things that are likely to doom us as our
understanding of physics increases. I'd have to say that three
of which that are likely (eventually) are going to be:
1. The age old nuclear winter scenario
2. Particle coliders accidentally creating a mini-black hole
Where'd you hear that one? (-:
AIUI, it's probably not possible to build one big enough... on earth.
I once read that a linear collider capable of achieving the energy
levels to unify the forces would be bigger than the solar system!
3. Nanobot assemblers turning us all into the "gray goo".
[grin] I know where that one came from. Many of the folks working
in the field seem to find it silly. There are leverage and energy
considerations that may make "nanobots" impossible (as builders of
big things). Surface tension is formidable at that scale!
Yeah, but the surface tension is actually exploited by the little critters,
particularly for locomotion. But even so, that's a relatively small
obstacle in comparison:
The two biggest considerations that are holding the nano heads at bay are
the following:
1. Fat Fingers: The physical aperatus that would actually need to grab
small numbers of atoms would itself be made of a larger number of atoms.
Self-replicating machines are an interesting related field here, but it does
not solve the fundamentals of needing to grab something small and do
something with it. It's obviously not that simple, but I'm watering it
down.
2. Sticky Fingers: The fingers themselves being made of atoms would
continually want to bond with surrounding atoms. That is, it might be able
to pick something up, but never separate it from itself. Or, the lever arm,
being so small, would collect atoms around its joints solidifying it. Etc.
That is, a nanobot assembler would need to operate in cooperation with these
two properties, not against them. That's likely to be a very
counterintuitive operation, that's for sure! For example, looking at the
way that cells and viruses deal with those two issues is very interesting:
A dna strand doesn't just rip in half. A cell boundary isn't just glued to
a virus.
Unfortunately, I just don't understand the arguments enough to say much more
than this.
Consider this: virii mutate at an extravagant rate, yet none has
ever evolved that even comes close to the "gray goo" scenario. It
might just not be physically possible.
Well, it'd have to be pretty rugged to deal with large deposits of
non-organic compounds like, oh, a rock of Iron and Silicon. But your point
should be read in a larger sense: Perhaps if it was possible for such things
to occur, it would have happened already in nature. I'm not sure I buy it:
There are many things that haven't occured in nature by itself.
MY doomsday suspicion is we'll be done in by disease--intentional
or accidental. At the current density and travel rates of the
human race, it'd be all too easy.
It sure seems scary to me.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|___ ____________________|
Thomas G. Marshall writes: 3. Nanobot assemblers turning us all into the "gray goo".
...Surface tension is formidable at that scale!
Yeah, but the surface tension is actually exploited by the little
critters, particularly for locomotion.
Sorry, I was being sloppy. What I was referring to is:
2. Sticky Fingers: The fingers themselves being made of atoms would
continually want to bond with surrounding atoms.
That. Just couldn't think of the terminology.
There is also:
1. Fat Fingers: The physical aperatus that would actually need to grab
small numbers of atoms would itself be made of a larger number of atoms.
Not atoms. Really, really large molecules, perhaps, but I doubt we'll
ever have machines down at the atomic level (in part for the Fat Fingers
aspect, but QM starts playing a role at that level, too).
There are also energy considerations.
There are "engineering problems" and "impossible problems". Examples,
we always knew you could break the sound barrier--the tip of a whip does
it. Solving that was just an engineering problem. The speed of light,
as far as we understand the universe, is an "impossible problem".
Solving it will require re-writing our understanding of reality.
Nanobots.... seem close to the boundary to me. They may be just an
engineering problem... or there may be aspects that make it impossible.
If we DO solve it, the code programs, for example, will probably have to
be molecule size (like DNA), and mechanics may be more biology than
machine. Which makes it like a virus or bacterium.
Which brings us back to, if it's *possible* for a small machine to
self-replicate to the extinction of all else... why hasn't it already
happened? Luck?
Well, it'd have to be pretty rugged to deal with large deposits of
non-organic compounds like, oh, a rock of Iron and Silicon.
Organic critters exist that eat these things.
But your point should be read in a larger sense: Perhaps if it was
possible for such things to occur, it would have happened already in
nature.
Exactly what I'm saying.
I'm not sure I buy it: There are many things that haven't occured in
nature by itself.
Such as?
Programmer Dude wrote:
<snip> Which brings us back to, if it's *possible* for a small machine to
self-replicate to the extinction of all else... why hasn't it already
happened? Luck?
Presumably this kind of phenomenon would be restricted in scope to a
planetary scale. Interplanetary - or even interstellar - contamination
may be possible, but I'd also assume that certain limits would exist.
For example, if you dropped a mass of these self-replicating machines
into the heart of a star, would they survive the experience and begin
converting the star's matter into new replicants? Probably not, would
be my guess.
So having established some scope limits on the infestation, can we be
absolutely certain that the situation hasn't arisen somewhere in the
universe? We can barely detect the existance massive planets around
nearby stars as it is, so if something like that had happened even
nearby in our stellar neighbourhood, how would we know? :>
Remember: "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's
stranger than we /can/ imagine."
--
Corey Murtagh
The Electric Monk
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!"
On 2004-06-30, Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> wrote: If we DO solve it, the code programs, for example, will probably have to
be molecule size (like DNA), and mechanics may be more biology than
machine. Which makes it like a virus or bacterium.
On a sufficiently low level, there is hardly a difference between metal
and carbon machines. As soon as the metal ones learn to overcome the
reproduction problem, that is.
Which brings us back to, if it's *possible* for a small machine to
self-replicate to the extinction of all else... why hasn't it already
happened? Luck?
It has? Granted, the machines are built from carbon and water and
what have you, but still, in the end it's little machines. The to the
extinction of all else part, well.. we assume there was nothing before
the current system came around, but can we be sure? If there was
something before, it sure isn't now.
The novelty would be in it being built from something else than carbon,
but it would have to be sufficiently abundant. Maybe if the athmosphere
was full of some silicon-based gas we'd all be silicon based lifeforms.
Alas, silicon is abundant but not, apparently, in a form where it is
easily absorbed and used as a building compound.
I always wondered what was so magic about 293 degrees Kelvin.
For us it is, but that doesn't mean the lucky number isn't different
in another environment.
--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
Programmer Dude <Ch***@Sonnack.com> coughed up the following: Thomas G. Marshall writes:
3. Nanobot assemblers turning us all into the "gray goo".
...Surface tension is formidable at that scale!
Yeah, but the surface tension is actually exploited by the little
critters, particularly for locomotion.
Sorry, I was being sloppy. What I was referring to is:
2. Sticky Fingers: The fingers themselves being made of atoms would
continually want to bond with surrounding atoms.
That. Just couldn't think of the terminology.
There is also:
1. Fat Fingers: The physical aperatus that would actually need to
grab small numbers of atoms would itself be made of a larger number
of atoms.
Not atoms. Really, really large molecules, perhaps, but I doubt we'll
ever have machines down at the atomic level (in part for the Fat
Fingers aspect, but QM starts playing a role at that level, too).
There are also energy considerations.
There are "engineering problems" and "impossible problems". Examples,
we always knew you could break the sound barrier--the tip of a whip
does it. Solving that was just an engineering problem. The speed of
light, as far as we understand the universe, is an "impossible
problem".
You countered your own statement as you wrote it. Did you notice?
"...as far as we understand the universe..."
Even when we thought that faster than sound travel was impossible, it was
because of our understanding. You must always account for what we might
better understand later.
Though I admit: These certainly seem now to be impossible problems or near
enough so to make it a verrrrry long time before we figure it out.
Solving it will require re-writing our understanding of reality.
Nanobots.... seem close to the boundary to me. They may be just an
engineering problem... or there may be aspects that make it
impossible.
If we DO solve it, the code programs, for example, will probably have
to be molecule size (like DNA), and mechanics may be more biology than
machine. Which makes it like a virus or bacterium.
Which brings us back to, if it's *possible* for a small machine to
self-replicate to the extinction of all else... why hasn't it already
happened? Luck?
Well, it'd have to be pretty rugged to deal with large deposits of
non-organic compounds like, oh, a rock of Iron and Silicon.
Organic critters exist that eat these things.
But your point should be read in a larger sense: Perhaps if it was
possible for such things to occur, it would have happened already in
nature.
Exactly what I'm saying.
I'm not sure I buy it: There are many things that haven't occured in
nature by itself.
Such as?
Programmer Dude wrote: Thomas G. Marshall writes:
3. Nanobot assemblers turning us all into the "gray goo".
...Surface tension is formidable at that scale!
Yeah, but the surface tension is actually exploited by the little
critters, particularly for locomotion.
Sorry, I was being sloppy. What I was referring to is:
2. Sticky Fingers: The fingers themselves being made of atoms would
continually want to bond with surrounding atoms.
That. Just couldn't think of the terminology.
There is also:
1. Fat Fingers: The physical aperatus that would actually need to grab
small numbers of atoms would itself be made of a larger number of atoms.
Not atoms. Really, really large molecules, perhaps, but I doubt we'll
ever have machines down at the atomic level (in part for the Fat Fingers
aspect, but QM starts playing a role at that level, too).
There are also energy considerations.
There are "engineering problems" and "impossible problems". Examples,
we always knew you could break the sound barrier--the tip of a whip does
it. Solving that was just an engineering problem. The speed of light,
as far as we understand the universe, is an "impossible problem".
No you do not go faster than light.
What you need is a worm hole.
Say you want to travel from one side of the balloon to a point on the
other side. You don't travel along the surface of the balloon,
you travel along the diameter of the balloon (through the interior of
the balloon)!!
You could also warp space. Remember space warps in the presence
of gravitational fields.
Solving it will require re-writing our understanding of reality.
Nanobots.... seem close to the boundary to me. They may be just an
engineering problem... or there may be aspects that make it impossible.
If we DO solve it, the code programs, for example, will probably have to
be molecule size (like DNA), and mechanics may be more biology than
machine. Which makes it like a virus or bacterium.
Which brings us back to, if it's *possible* for a small machine to
self-replicate to the extinction of all else... why hasn't it already
happened? Luck?
Well, it'd have to be pretty rugged to deal with large deposits of
non-organic compounds like, oh, a rock of Iron and Silicon.
Organic critters exist that eat these things.
But your point should be read in a larger sense: Perhaps if it was
possible for such things to occur, it would have happened already in
nature.
Exactly what I'm saying.
I'm not sure I buy it: There are many things that haven't occured in
nature by itself.
Such as?
Corey Murtagh writes: Which brings us back to, if it's *possible* for a small machine to
self-replicate to the extinction of all else... why hasn't it already
happened? Luck?
Presumably this kind of phenomenon would be restricted in scope to a
planetary scale.
[grin] I read an SF story once about these trees with a core like an
SRB. When they matured, they blasted off into space to drift until
they made planetfall elsewhere....
For example, if you dropped a mass of these self-replicating machines
into the heart of a star, would they survive the experience and begin
converting the star's matter into new replicants? Probably not,...
But if they DID, they'd be tres formidable, eh? (-:
So having established some scope limits on the infestation, can we be
absolutely certain that the situation hasn't arisen somewhere in the
universe?
Yes, I think so. :-|
But all seriousness aside, with millions of years of evolution, plus
certain aspects of the physics suggesting it's very difficult...[shrug]
Who knows!
--
Somewhere in the Midwest...
Chris Sonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> in Training... http://www.Sonnack.com/
Thomas G. Marshall writes: There are "engineering problems" and "impossible problems". Examples,
we always knew you could break the sound barrier--the tip of a whip
does it. Solving that was just an engineering problem. The speed of
light, as far as we understand the universe, is an "impossible
problem".
You countered your own statement as you wrote it. Did you notice?
"...as far as we understand the universe..."
Not countered, qualified. Our understanding at this point is good enough
that our model (QM) accounts for huge amounts of behavior. In the case
of breaking C, we'd have to rewrite our understanding. Compare that to
how Einstein merely *extended* Newton.
Even when we thought that faster than sound travel was impossible, it was
because of our understanding. You must always account for what we might
better understand later.
Absolutely, and hence the original qualification. When we look back on
our worldview when we though mach speeds were impossible, we realize we
were very ignorant of the physics. In this case we seem to understand
them, and some very precise tests provide expected results.
Simply, the situation isn't quite the same now as then.
--
Somewhere in the Midwest...
Chris Sonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> in Training... http://www.Sonnack.com/
Programmer Dude wrote: Corey Murtagh writes:
<snip>So having established some scope limits on the infestation, can we be
absolutely certain that the situation hasn't arisen somewhere in the
universe?
Yes, I think so. :-|
All we can say with any authority is "we haven't observed it yet". That
doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I'd rather admit to the possibility
that I'm ignorant of the facts than to arrogantly assume that since I
can't see it then it doesn't exist :>
But all seriousness aside, with millions of years of evolution, plus
certain aspects of the physics suggesting it's very difficult...[shrug]
Who knows!
If there's even the slightest possibility of it happening, then
somewhere, somewhen, it /will/ happen.
"Space is big. /Really/ big. You have no idea just how mind-bogglingly
big space really is."
--
Corey Murtagh
The Electric Monk
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!"
Corey Murtagh <em***@slingshot.no.uce> scribbled the following
on comp.lang.c: Programmer Dude wrote: But all seriousness aside, with millions of years of evolution, plus
certain aspects of the physics suggesting it's very difficult...[shrug]
Who knows!
If there's even the slightest possibility of it happening, then
somewhere, somewhen, it /will/ happen.
"Space is big. /Really/ big. You have no idea just how mind-bogglingly
big space really is."
"You might think it's a long way down the corner to the chemist's, but
that's just peanuts to space."
I like that quote.
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"I am not very happy acting pleased whenever prominent scientists overmagnify
intellectual enlightenment."
- Anon
Corey Murtagh writes: So having established some scope limits on the infestation, can we be
absolutely certain that the situation hasn't arisen somewhere in the
universe?
Yes, I think so. :-|
All we can say with any authority is "we haven't observed it yet".
I realize it's a non-standard usage, but you do realize my "straight
face" emoticon means I'm totally kidding (with a straight face, yet)?
Anyway,... I agree. Basically.
That doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I'd rather admit to the possibility
that I'm ignorant of the facts than to arrogantly assume that since I
can't see it then it doesn't exist :>
No arrogance. Here's the thing, we are not completely ignorant of the
facts. Certain physical specifications obtain, and that, plus that it
hasn't happened (even close) on earth, simple **suggests** it may be
very unlikely. (To me, and this was my original point, is simply
suggests it's not worth worrying about when disease or asteroids are
far, far greater dangers.)
If there's even the slightest possibility of it happening, then
somewhere, somewhen, it /will/ happen.
So,.... somewhere I'm dating Michelle Pfeiffer? Lucky me!!
"Space is big. /Really/ big. You have no idea just how mind-bogglingly
big space really is."
"You might think's it a far walk down to the chemist's, but that's just
peanuts compared to space." (That's from memory...wonder how close I
got it.)
--
Somewhere in the Midwest...
Chris Sonnack <Ch***@Sonnack.com> in Training... http://www.Sonnack.com/
"Corey Murtagh" <em***@slingshot.no.uce> wrote in message
news:10***************@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net... Programmer Dude wrote: Corey Murtagh writes:So having established some scope limits on the infestation, can we be
absolutely certain that the situation hasn't arisen somewhere in the
universe?
Yes, I think so. :-|
All we can say with any authority is "we haven't observed it yet". That
doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I'd rather admit to the possibility
that I'm ignorant of the facts than to arrogantly assume that since I
can't see it then it doesn't exist :>
It might have already happened, and we may even be watching that location,
but it may take a few million years for the evidence to reach us. Or it
might have happened at some point long enough ago that the evidence is no
longer there.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
Programmer Dude wrote: Corey Murtagh writes:
So having established some scope limits on the infestation, can we be
absolutely certain that the situation hasn't arisen somewhere in the
universe?
Yes, I think so. :-|
All we can say with any authority is "we haven't observed it yet".
I realize it's a non-standard usage, but you do realize my "straight
face" emoticon means I'm totally kidding (with a straight face, yet)?
Ah, ok... will interpret that as your 'deadpan' smiley in future :>
Anyway,... I agree. Basically.
That doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I'd rather admit to the possibility
that I'm ignorant of the facts than to arrogantly assume that since I
can't see it then it doesn't exist :>
No arrogance. Here's the thing, we are not completely ignorant of the
facts. Certain physical specifications obtain, and that, plus that it
hasn't happened (even close) on earth, simple **suggests** it may be
very unlikely. (To me, and this was my original point, is simply
suggests it's not worth worrying about when disease or asteroids are
far, far greater dangers.)
Certainly there are far more interesting, and likely, dangers to be
concerned about. A lethal virus with a very long incubation and
contagion period before it hits the symptomatic phase for example.
Myself, I'm not too worried about it. I know there are a lot of people
better suited to the task who are worrying about it for me :> If there's even the slightest possibility of it happening, then
somewhere, somewhen, it /will/ happen.
So,.... somewhere I'm dating Michelle Pfeiffer? Lucky me!!
Nah, still needs to have a slight possibility :> "Space is big. /Really/ big. You have no idea just how mind-bogglingly
big space really is."
"You might think's it a far walk down to the chemist's, but that's just
peanuts compared to space." (That's from memory...wonder how close I
got it.)
Mine too. I don't have my Guide handy to check on at the moment.
--
Corey Murtagh
The Electric Monk
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!"
In article <0q********************@telcove.net>,
T.M. Sommers <tm*@nj.net> wrote: Dan Pop wrote:
So, what's the next massive problem we have to worry about, now that we
have just solved this one?
The Y10K problem, when all those 4-digit years everyone is so
proud of become obsolete. If it took several years to fix just
40 years worth of software for the Y2K problem, just think how
long it will take to fix 8000 years worth of software for the
Y10K problem. We had better get started right away. There is no
time to lose.
It's still better than the Y1K problem. The world went into the
'dark ages' and didn't emerge for about 500 years :-)
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
In article <Ny*******************@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> ,
Mabden <ma****@sbcglobal.net> wrote: "Mark McIntyre" <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:t2********************************@4ax.com.. . On Sat, 29 May 2004 09:48:24 GMT, in comp.lang.c , "Mabden"
<ma****@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>"Stephen Sprunk" <st*****@sprunk.org> wrote in message
>news:22******************************@news.terane ws.com...
>
>> Transporting large masses of H2 isn't nearly as safe as petrol, for
>obvious
>> reasons
>
>I'm sorry, but what are the reason Hydrogen is less safe than petrol or
>natural gas?
Think "Hindenberg"
The Hindenberg didn't burn because of the hydrogen. You can't see
hydrogen burn (perhaps a little bluish glow).
The Hindenburg burned the cloth coating which was treated with
the same stuff we now use in rocket fuel. It went up because of
static discharge that was supposed to be mitigated by using wire
to attach the cloth panels (to ground it), but because they used
rope instead the charge was allowed to build until a flammable
condition occured. It was a case of compounded errors.
My impression of the fabirc on the Hindenberg is that base
coating [undercoat] had some sort of iron oxide in it - reddish
looking primer - and then coated with the aluminum paint.
Those are two ingredients of thermite. And if you've ever
used or seen thermite burn you know how hot that is. It was once
used to well railroad tracks into long continuous pieces. Put
thermite between the ends of the rail and light it.
There is part of a girder and a piece of fabric at the EAA
museum. The museum has been moved to Oshkosh but I saw it when it
was in another city.
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Bill Vermillion wrote: In article <0q********************@telcove.net>,
T.M. Sommers <tm*@nj.net> wrote:
Dan Pop wrote:
So, what's the next massive problem we have to worry about, now that we
have just solved this one?
The Y10K problem, when all those 4-digit years everyone is so
proud of become obsolete. If it took several years to fix just
40 years worth of software for the Y2K problem, just think how
long it will take to fix 8000 years worth of software for the
Y10K problem. We had better get started right away. There is no
time to lose.
It's still better than the Y1K problem. The world went into the
'dark ages' and didn't emerge for about 500 years :-)
I think we have 7996 years to think about it!
Regards,
Stan Milam.
In article <40***************@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <cb********@worldnet.att.net> wrote: Mabden wrote: "Robert W. McAdams" <rw*@fambright.com> wrote in message
> But let's imagine that the water somehow breaks through the seal
> created by the clay. Well, next it encounters the metal casing, which
> is designed to be very resistant to corrosion. One of the favorite
> materials for the casing is a titanium alloy. Tests conducted in a
> abnormally corrosive solution kept at 450 degrees F indicate that it
> would survive under those conditions for a thousand years, but in
> normal groundwater at the expected repository temperature of 250
> degrees F, the casings would retain their integrity for hundreds of
> thousands of years.
>
> But what if somehow the groundwater got past all these barriers and
> actually reached the waste?
Let's imagine another scenario where humans tear apart the storage. I mean,
we are talking about 10,000 years minimum, aren't we?
I mean, have you heard the music they're playing today... ;-)
[The above is about nuclear waste disposal]
Now consider the recently passed Y2K problems, which largely
revolved around software written and used for 25 years, with
source and documentation forgotten. Look at people trying to find
20 year old software on alt.folklore.computers and comp.os.cpm.
Do you really think that knowledge about care and treatment of
nuclear dump facilities is going to last for 10,000 years? Should
any posted signs survive, the language in which they are written
probably will not.
Or 10,000 years from now future archaeologists are excavating
sites to find out what happened to what appeared to be a burgeoning
population 5000 years ago - similar to how we try to figure out
things about ancient Egypt and how the pyramids were built.
They find the sealed concrete bunker and think "something important
must be sealed in there". They open it up, get exposed to
radiation, and it's like the stories you hear of the curse of the
ancient pharohs put upon those who disturb the graves.
Read "A Canticle For Liebowitz" to get another view of discovering
things from the past in the future.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
At Monday 2004-08-09 18:35 "Bill Vermillion" <bv@wjv.com> posted
<I2********@wjv.com> to comp.unix.misc:
This entire discussion is OFF TOPIC in each and EVERY one of the
newsgroups to which it is crossposted. Cease and Desist.
--
Copyright 2004 Angela Kahealani. All rights reserved without prejudice;
UCC1-207. All information and transactions are non negotiable and are
private between the parties. http://www.kahealani.com/ bv@wjv.com (Bill Vermillion) wrote in message news:<I2********@wjv.com>... In article <40***************@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <cb********@worldnet.att.net> wrote:Mabden wrote: "Robert W. McAdams" <rw*@fambright.com> wrote in message
> But let's imagine that the water somehow breaks through the seal
> created by the clay. Well, next it encounters the metal casing, which
> is designed to be very resistant to corrosion. One of the favorite
> materials for the casing is a titanium alloy. Tests conducted in a
> abnormally corrosive solution kept at 450 degrees F indicate that it
> would survive under those conditions for a thousand years, but in
> normal groundwater at the expected repository temperature of 250
> degrees F, the casings would retain their integrity for hundreds of
> thousands of years.
>
> But what if somehow the groundwater got past all these barriers and
> actually reached the waste?
Let's imagine another scenario where humans tear apart the storage. I mean,
we are talking about 10,000 years minimum, aren't we?
I mean, have you heard the music they're playing today... ;-)
[The above is about nuclear waste disposal]
Now consider the recently passed Y2K problems, which largely
revolved around software written and used for 25 years, with
source and documentation forgotten. Look at people trying to find
20 year old software on alt.folklore.computers and comp.os.cpm.
Do you really think that knowledge about care and treatment of
nuclear dump facilities is going to last for 10,000 years? Should
any posted signs survive, the language in which they are written
probably will not.
Or 10,000 years from now future archaeologists are excavating
sites to find out what happened to what appeared to be a burgeoning
population 5000 years ago - similar to how we try to figure out
things about ancient Egypt and how the pyramids were built.
They find the sealed concrete bunker and think "something important
must be sealed in there". They open it up, get exposed to
radiation, and it's like the stories you hear of the curse of the
ancient pharohs put upon those who disturb the graves.
Read "A Canticle For Liebowitz" to get another view of discovering
things from the past in the future.
Bill
After doing two years of study on the effects of nuclear waste and
management, and also coming from a town that was known all over the
world for its mass Uranium Production from the early 1950's to the
late 1990's, I can say with all confidence that there is no technology
developed yet that can protect the environment, nor us from the deadly
effects of nuclear radiation and poisoning. My Home Town - Elliot Lake
Ontario, Canada, was formerly known as the Uranium Capital of the
World - and we had over 2 dozen mines operational at one point or
another - drudging up uranium Ore, refining it to its proper weight,
then shipping it off to the US government R and D dept for development
into your chemical weapons and nuclear bombs - and the waste is still
on site, sitting in tailings ponds to this day. Even though the Pure
Ore has been shipped off, studies have shown that 6/7th of the
radioactive material still exists in the tailings, which are outside,
sitting around the old reclaimed mine sites, waiting for someone to
come and clean it up. Which means that the area is still very
radioactive, and there is runoff to deal with as well. The Point is,
if anyone tells you we have the technology to contain radioactive
material 'SAFELY', you can laugh in their face - cuz its BS - if that
was the case, hundreds of federal governments around the world would
already have forked over the BILLIONS of dollars needed to develop and
maintain the technology, and be using it to store and maintain all
their nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors, and more importantly, the
waste created after using the pure Uranium Ore - isotopes 235 and 238.
I hope this has shed some light on the subject - it really opened my
eyes when I did the study for my undergrad, and to think this was all
happening in my backyard all these years....
Manny
In article <9f**************************@posting.google.com >, manuel188
@hotmail.com says... After doing two years of study on the effects of nuclear waste and
management, and also coming from a town that was known all over the
world for its mass Uranium Production from the early 1950's to the
late 1990's, I can say with all confidence that there is no technology
developed yet that can protect the environment, nor us from the deadly
effects of nuclear radiation and poisoning. My Home Town - Elliot Lake
Ontario, Canada, was formerly known as the Uranium Capital of the
World - and we had over 2 dozen mines operational at one point or
another - drudging up uranium Ore, refining it to its proper weight,
then shipping it off to the US government R and D dept for development
into your chemical weapons and nuclear bombs - and the waste is still
on site, sitting in tailings ponds to this day. Even though the Pure
Ore has been shipped off, studies have shown that 6/7th of the
radioactive material still exists in the tailings, which are outside,
sitting around the old reclaimed mine sites, waiting for someone to
come and clean it up. Which means that the area is still very
radioactive, and there is runoff to deal with as well. The Point is,
if anyone tells you we have the technology to contain radioactive
material 'SAFELY', you can laugh in their face - cuz its BS -
<QUOTE>
Headlines in literally hundreds of newspapers across Canada and
bordering States acclaim Elliot Lake as "A Wilderness Wonderland", "A
delight in winter" and "A little piece of paradise."
Elliot Lake attracts tens of thousands of visitors each year to enjoy
its ancient forests, rivers and 4,000 lakes, which lie just north of
some of the world's best fresh-water sailing on the northern shores of
Lake Huron.
Elliot Lake is a four season destination for affordable, outdoor
recreational activities and quality experiences. We invite you to pick
your favourite season, recreational activity, or special event, and
explore the possibilities.
<END QUOTE>
Granted, that's from the tourism website, and I wouldn't expect them to
harp on about the varied actinide options for the visitor who wants to
get irradiated. But it can't be all *that* bad, now, can it?
- Gerry Quinn This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
