Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Antony Clements · Guest

"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in
[quote]Ah yes, but I think what they mean is that if they post their crypto
system the whole world does not rush over to embrace them, but rather
keeps
criticizing them and pointing out flaws.

[/quote]
this is a point of perserverance, you keep trying til people can>t point out
any more flaws. what bugs me is when peopel give up even pointing out flaws
in a system.

Antony Clements · Guest

"biject" <biject.bwts@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae86549f-147d-4151-8e58-62be2bccf8aa@g25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

[quote]Actually that>s not what I meant since before when I worked for Sam
we did little crypto but work that was done no longer was judged on
merit. It was either blessed by people who had degree>s in English
or Social Studies and managing was no longer run by PhD scientist or
engineers. I see from the paper I quoted the same thing has occurred
in climate science where only the idiots who think global warming is
occurring when actually real data suggests that an ice age is more
likely in the near future. Honest scientists who suggest looking at
real facts like the cooling trend are mostly ignored. Just look at
NASA its only political correctness that counts. We have learned
nothing from our last few big accidents and it will look as stupid as
ever when the facts about the global warming scare eventually come
out as bunk. I am some what saddened to have been associated with
NASA. At one time it was a proud think know its an embarrassment.
[/quote]
the two actually go hand in hand, the ocean heats up by a degree or two,
that melts the ice caps and does other funky things to the weather, which in
turn disrupt the ocean currents and WHAM welcome to an ice age, then there
will be a brief period of warming then another cooling before a big warming,
how do i know? because that>s what the climatic history says happens after
every ice age. there is not going to be some massive increase in mean
temperature around the world, and carbon, no matter how many people tell you
otherwise, is not the culprit, but in fact it is methane and a few other
gases.

[quote]However as an example in crypto. Just look at bijective bit padding.
You can>t get it on Wikpedia even though its excatly like the standard
bit padding except that some times its a block shorter and it is
bijective. But brain dead idiots can>t seem to understand simple math.
[/quote]
i dont know enough about bijectiveness to touch that with a 50 foot pole

Sportman · Guest

On Oct 10, 4:32 am, Thomas Richter <t...@math.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
[quote]??? Apparently, you never contributed to "real" science, because to make
a carrier in "real" science, you have to publish - which in return means
that the results *will* be available.
[/quote]
You give already my answer, what you shall do to track "forbidden
science"?
Publishing, patents other media like TV, radio, magazines, newspapers
and special Internet make it only easier to track and shutdown science
from the mainstream.

[quote]"How romantic", and what an utter nonsense. Please stay away with your
conspiracy theories, thank you. Otherwise, I can also prove you that
there is no city like Bielefeld - just a conspiracy of the German
government - or replace that by Pittsburgh in US if that matters for you....
Your reaction was so quick that you never could see the 4 hour video[/quote]
or at least the first hour.

Sometime scientist come out and leak what>s not a easy step for them
and in this case he was after the first leak even allowed to leak
again. Some serious intelligent people spend most of their time and
money to get it on tape and make it free available for all. it>s to us
to believe something of it or ignore it. From my own experience I can
say that weird recorded stories can be true later.

Maybe you can find some proof yourself, go back in your own history
and think about some brilliant scientists or persons you knew or hear
about with not main stream ideas or discoveries and check what
happened with them.

Quadibloc · Guest

On Oct 9, 4:44 pm, biject <biject.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]I see from the paper I quoted the same thing has occurred
in climate science where only the idiots who think global warming is
occurring when actually real data suggests that an ice age is more
likely in the near future.
[/quote]
To tell the real science from the oil industry shills, you need to
know a few basic facts.

Pretty well everywhere on Earth, each day it gets warmer during the
day while the Sun shines. Then, at night, it gets cooler - instead of
staying the same, and getting warmer still the next day. Why does it
get cooler at night? Outer space doesn>t come in contact with the
Earth through convection to take heat away.

No; it gets cooler at night because the Earth radiates into the
blackness of space.

Do you see the ground beneath you glowing? Is the Earth as hot as a
light bulb>s filament, or the Sun>s surface? No. So what the Earth is
radiating is long-wave infrared, appropriate to blackbody radiation
for its temperature.

Carbon dioxide is transparent to sunlight - but it blocks, and is
therefore warmed by, long wave infrared of the type the Earth radiates
at night. Atmospheric carbon dioxide can be measured, it has been, and
it has gone up.

This is global warming - science, yes, but not rocket science. It>s
pretty hard to get wrong, even if there are ways to dance around it.

So here, at least, the ecology side isn>t crying "Wolf". Anyways,
there>s something called nuclear power which can produce all the
energy we want without burning oil - and the objections to *that* from
the ecology crowd _are_ bunk. So we don>t have to wait for absolute
proof, for the polar ice cap to melt, and so on - we can act now
*without* wrecking the world economy or making the United States
weaker.

John Savard

Unruh · Guest

"Antony Clements" <antony.clements@bigpond.com> writes:

[quote]"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:2yfHk.508$%%2.214@edtnps82...
it>s not so much that 'real' science has stopped... it>s that people dont
really do science for science sake anymore. it>s all motivated the dollar
signs, some areas of science have more cash funding than others therefore
the people doing the research get paid more. for example, in the US
science
is motivated by three questions. 1) how will it benefit our countries
economy 2) how will it benefit our military 3) how will it benefit our
dominance in space. if there are good answers to either of those 3
questions
you are more likely to get funding than if you cant answer either of those
questions well.

Hardly applicable to string theory, or loop quantum gravity.

i beg to differ, if either of these theories pan out, then the possability,
however remote and obscenely unlikely, is there that a soldier could point a
device at say a missile silo, and disrupt it>s inherant gravity on a quantum
scale, making said missile silo fall apart or collapse in on itself.
[/quote]
Horseshit.

Unruh · Guest

"Antony Clements" <antony.clements@bigpond.com> writes:

[quote]"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in
Ah yes, but I think what they mean is that if they post their crypto
system the whole world does not rush over to embrace them, but rather
keeps
criticizing them and pointing out flaws.

this is a point of perserverance, you keep trying til people can>t point out
any more flaws. what bugs me is when peopel give up even pointing out flaws
in a system.
[/quote]
As if everyone had time to just point out the next flaw in an idiotic
system.

George Johnson · Guest

"biject" <biject.bwts@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:68cdc7b0-9a71-456e-aeed-a3dda79f593d@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
[quote]I have long wondered what has happened to real science. It wasn>t
until I got to review papers for publication that I realized how far
gone the whole system is. What we need is a place where one can create
papers independent of Academia and the corrupt the political system
[/quote]
[ painfully obvious trolling clipped ]

Golly Pollyanna, maybe you could create your own website and publish
your information unfiltered by any other human being on this thing they call
"THE INTERNET"?

If you want funding, then pay for a patent on your work and sell it to
the public.
If you cannot create compression code without funding, then you are a
dumbass who is UNWORTHY of funding.

It is not too hard to learn programming code (if you devote yourself to
the task) when you have a logical mind that can break a big problem into
many tiny problems. Just as the tape recorder and microphone destroyed many
aspiring impatient tone-deaf singers, so in turn the basic skills of
computer programming + math skills have destroyed many aspiring data
compression attention-whores.

George Johnson · Guest

"Thomas Richter" <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> wrote in message
news:gci379$903$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de...
[quote]Antony Clements wrote:
"Carl Taylor" <carltaylor@att.net> wrote in message
news:PuNGk.63392$Mh5.37737@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I know what you mean. Recently I read Lee Smolin>s book on string
theory, *The Trouble with Physics*, very depressing indeed. A whole
generation of young physicists with wasted careers. It>s become what
John Horgan in his book, *The End of Science*, called "the woo-woo
stuff". Wall Street, Washington D.C., and Academia -- bedfellows all.

Carl Taylor

it>s not so much that 'real' science has stopped... it>s that people dont
really do science for science sake anymore. it>s all motivated the dollar
signs, some areas of science have more cash funding than others therefore
the people doing the research get paid more. for example, in the US
science is motivated by three questions. 1) how will it benefit our
countries economy 2) how will it benefit our military 3) how will it
benefit our dominance in space. if there are good answers to either of
those 3 questions you are more likely to get funding than if you cant
answer either of those questions well.
[/quote]
[clipped]

[quote]Unfortunately, the value of education you do as a professor is not
evaluated, which means that while your lectures might suck, you can still
get away with collecting money from industry. Sooner or later this will
have to change - it>s hard to do here in Germany where university is
mostly free (or at least a *lot* cheaper than in the US) so students
cannot really support good teachers by visiting their lectures and thus
allow good professors to collect some money this way. On the other hand, I
wouldn>t have been able to study with student fees myself, so I can hardly
argue for it.

I don>t have a good solution for this problem, but it>s a complex problem
to begin with. There>s no silver bullet.

So long,
Thomas
[/quote]
Actually the students of an incompetent worthless professor can indeed
sue that professor for academic fraud (failing to teach employable job
skills in their class) and the school for the return of the portion of their
tuition spent on promised education that the incompetent teacher failed to
provide.

The students need to document the instances (preferably with video and
clear audio) of the circumstances in which the professor lectured plus
quizzed on irrevealant topics. Incorrect grading (providing quizzes in
which the teacher>s answers are obviously incorrect) and providing false
information would also provide proof of academic fraud.

There is an old saying, "What do you call a medical student that
graduated at the bottom percentile of their class? DOCTOR."

George Johnson · Guest

"Antony Clements" <antony.clements@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:jjBHk.4459$sc2.3911@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[quote]
"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:2yfHk.508$%%2.214@edtnps82...
it>s not so much that 'real' science has stopped... it>s that people dont
really do science for science sake anymore. it>s all motivated the dollar
signs, some areas of science have more cash funding than others therefore
the people doing the research get paid more. for example, in the US
science
is motivated by three questions. 1) how will it benefit our countries
economy 2) how will it benefit our military 3) how will it benefit our
dominance in space. if there are good answers to either of those 3
questions
you are more likely to get funding than if you cant answer either of
those
questions well.

Hardly applicable to string theory, or loop quantum gravity.

i beg to differ, if either of these theories pan out, then the
possability, however remote and obscenely unlikely, is there that a
soldier could point a device at say a missile silo, and disrupt it>s
inherant gravity on a quantum scale, making said missile silo fall apart
or collapse in on itself.
[/quote]
Actually, it is more than possible. The problem is that the basic
5th-directional (2-directional space is the center of a circle, a 2D being
could only spin in place and move in a vector direction) technology for
accomplishing this feat would require another 167 human years of
development. Our reality is in 3-directional spacetime (time being one
hyperspherical direction that we humans currently have no ability to
consciously alter) in which we can move in basically in weightless space in
3-directions at once. For example, we can spin on an axis like a basketball
in one exclusive rotational direction as a semi-solid object. We can also
move by displacement in a vector direction from any point in the center of
an infinite imaginary sphere. We can also tumble in yet another direction
(think of a spinning globe on a pivot and how you can pick up the globe and
rotate it around another axis spin while the globe itself remains spinning).
Note that the vector movement can move at one velocity, the spinning can
happen at another velocity, and the tumbling can happen at a completely
different velocity. The speed of this movement can be zero. The reason I
call this "directional space" is that when you move to a higher "direction",
you can move in a new way that no other creature or object can consciously
or physically do in the lower directional space. 4th-directional space = 4
directions (with a new directional vector angle range added plus the new
spin direction) of movement possible all at the same instance.

4th-directional space is pretty much similar in that you can move in a
vector direction from the center of an infinite imaginary hypersphere as
well as spin in place, tumble on another axis, and move through time vectors
on yet another axis as well as spin on the temporal axis. When a
higher-directional object pokes into our reality, it expresses itself as a
variety of effects depending on how it contacts our reality.

For example a pushpin shoved through a 2-directional reality would
cleave or compress any object contacting it. A 4-directional (hyper-space)
pushpin shoved through 3D reality would be mostly invulnerable to all 3D
matter, mostly invisible, and immobile by all beings in 3D reality. This
pushpin could be electrified or heated or spinning in place or vibrating
slightly. If something from 4D reality is pushing (but not penetrating)
into 3D spacetime, them it would appear as invisible forces (magnetism is an
easy example for any simpleton to comprehend). That 4D something can be
spinning while pushing into our reality which could also have other
secondary effects (a hot spot on the 4D object would temporally appear and
then disappear at a regular frequency). 5th-directional (quantum-space)
matter tends to express itself most commonly as photons (a 5-D particle
contacting our 3-D space) and gravity fields. As a photon pushes through
our spacetime it then appears as a waveform of temporary potential photons
which then collapse into real photons for a bit of time (for a fairly
inaccurate mental-picture description of how this works, think of a
beachball rolling across the surface of a calm lake, then a bird lands on
it, causing the beachball to sink into the water for a second and releasing
waves of motion into the lake, then the bird flies off, causing the
beachball to pop up (and sometimes for a second out of the lake and into the
air) which then reduces the penetration of the beachball "particle" (3D
object pretending to ba a 5D object) into "lake space" (2D liquid surface as
an example of 3D spacetime) back to a "wave-particle".

The other problem of using this is that without first creating stable 4D
objects the side-effects of using this technology unwisely is pretty bad.
Dangerously pretty bad, insanely horrifically, species-destroying,
world-cleaving, continent exploding BAD. Space is messy and untidy. So is
higher-directional space matter. It comes in all masses, all velocities,
all rotational speeds, a variety of thermal differences, differing periodic
tables (4D chemistry is not pretty to 3D creatures) and 6D lifeforms (some
6D bacteria eat potentialities thus collapsing the quantum-5D spacetime into
fewer potential reality divergences). Make yourself too known to 5D
lifeforms and they can find you very delicious.

This is the ultra-simplified version for the kindergarten-level readers,
so don>t expect the complex math to be posted here.

Sportman · Guest

On Oct 10, 11:50 pm, "Antony Clements" <antony.cleme...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
[quote]what about todays 'modern' comp sci classes which teach java as the core
language? why? because it>s popular... yet almost entirely worthless outside
of web development.
[/quote]
Is C# and PHP not also popular? Are desktop applications not becoming
web applications?

Good some still stick to Basic, maybe you can use this:

Dim byteIn As Byte = 255
Dim bits1and8 As Byte = 0
Dim bits2to7 As Byte = 0
bits1and8 = (byteIn >> 7) + (byteIn << 7 >> 7)
bits2to7 = byteIn << 1 >> 2

biject · Guest

On Oct 10, 6:28 pm, Unruh <unruh-s...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

[quote]
The question is not whether more CO2 increases plant yield, it is whether
the plant yield increase is able to remove it all the excess. It is not--
the evidence is there. CO2 levels have risen.
Given that CO2 levels have risen, can that CO2 act as a greenhouse blanket?
The answer is yes.
[/quote]
The fact is if global warming was occurring an ice free north pole
might be
a giood thing. But the fact is a cool period is comming you may not be
aware
of it since its politically incorrect to tell the truth. In fact water
vapor is a
better green house gas than CO2. I take it you were to lazy to read
the
paper I referenced. The sun has more effect on climate than the man
made source of CO2 thats a fact. The sun is more quiiet now then since
we started the space age. NASA being politically correct wrongly
thought
cycle 24 would have lots of sunspots. The experts that said NASA was
wrong could not get there paper published since it goes agains GORE
and he is a GOD. A false GOD but none the less the herd follows him
and to get published you have to play the game.

[quote]Does methane act as a greenhouse gas as well? Yes. Have methane levels
risen in their greenhouse effect as much as CO2 has? I believe the answer
is no.

[/quote]
Quick let>s burn the methane to keep warm

David A. Scott
--
My Crypto code
http://bijective.dogma.net/crypto/scott19u.zip
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
**TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
system is only as strong as its weakest link"

Antony Clements · Guest

"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:6ILHk.701$%%2.535@edtnps82...
[quote]i beg to differ, if either of these theories pan out, then the
possability,
however remote and obscenely unlikely, is there that a soldier could point
a
device at say a missile silo, and disrupt it>s inherant gravity on a
quantum
scale, making said missile silo fall apart or collapse in on itself.

Horseshit.
[/quote]
who says it>s not theoretically possible, to manipulate gravity on the
quantum level?

Antony Clements · Guest

"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in
[quote]As if everyone had time to just point out the next flaw in an idiotic
system.
[/quote]
not all systems are idiotic, and no i>m not referring to any of my systems

Antony Clements · Guest

"George Johnson" <matrix29@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ybMHk.10646$jX5.1007@newsfe08.iad...
[quote]Actually the students of an incompetent worthless professor can indeed
sue that professor for academic fraud (failing to teach employable job
skills in their class) and the school for the return of the portion of
their tuition spent on promised education that the incompetent teacher
failed to provide.
[/quote]
what about todays 'modern' comp sci classes which teach java as the core
language? why? because it>s popular... yet almost entirely worthless outside
of web development. can>t be sued for lack of skills, it>s just almost
entirely unsuited for the task. i read an article recently about a professor
of comp sci at i think it was NYU, who also runs a company that programs in
ADA, he said when he going through resume>s the first thing he looks for is
what language they are most proficient in, the ones that say Java meet the
trash can straight off, he doesnt even bother reading them.

[quote]The students need to document the instances (preferably with video and
clear audio) of the circumstances in which the professor lectured plus
quizzed on irrevealant topics. Incorrect grading (providing quizzes in
which the teacher>s answers are obviously incorrect) and providing false
information would also provide proof of academic fraud.
[/quote]
what about those professors who dont do that but instead adhere to a useless
cirriculum?

Antony Clements · Guest

"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:90e96906-aa9b-494b-b040-3739f5790207@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
[quote]Carbon dioxide is transparent to sunlight - but it blocks, and is
therefore warmed by, long wave infrared of the type the Earth radiates
at night. Atmospheric carbon dioxide can be measured, it has been, and
it has gone up.
[/quote]
actually that has been debunked recently. carbon in their air makes for
better plant growth, the more plant growth the less carbon in the air. so
the industrial revolution didnt do much for the atmosphere at all, but it
did do wonders for the rainforests of the world. the amazon for example is
going through a growth spurt because of the excess carbon in the atmosphere,
it levels out. on top of that, contrary to popular belief, the amazon is not
in danger of being wiped out either. in the 70 odd years since the
harvesting of that particular rainforest occured, slightly less than 13% has
been cleared. that>s about 0.43% per year. so it is as i said, carbon is the
least of our worries, it>s methane and other gases that are the real
culprits.

[quote]This is global warming - science, yes, but not rocket science. It>s
pretty hard to get wrong, even if there are ways to dance around it.
[/quote]
not hard to get wrong that the climate is changing, very easy to get wrong
the causes.

[quote]So here, at least, the ecology side isn>t crying "Wolf". Anyways,
there>s something called nuclear power which can produce all the
energy we want without burning oil - and the objections to *that* from
the ecology crowd _are_ bunk. So we don>t have to wait for absolute
proof, for the polar ice cap to melt, and so on - we can act now
*without* wrecking the world economy or making the United States
weaker.
[/quote]
they are doing both and neither. they say help us stop global warming, you
cant, it>s a natural process. they say stop dumping carbon into the
atmosphere, carbon has an almost nil effect on the atmosphere. the reason
why they concentrate on carbon is because it>s easier to do something about.
i say why bother, the effect is negligable. granted we do need more
sustainable energy options, but that doesnt change the fact that
'ecologist>s and particularly the groups that spring up around them, employ
scare tactics quite often. they go off half cocked and listen to one person
who says one thing in a doomsday kind of way when there are a half dozen
people who say almost the exact opposite.

i>ve eevn said this directly to various ecologist activists, and they just
sit there twiddling their thumbs cause they dont actually have a clue what>s
going on, they just see a cause and want to be a part of something.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Compression Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4