mooeypoo

Okay, good point insane_alien, but then.. can anyone tell me (or.. stipulate) what the odds are of the Earth/Moon being hit by anything substancial enough to cause grave damage?

Yikes. Well, appearantly I wasn't dreaming, even though it was 3 in the morning. How is it that we didn't hear about this further?? This is quite important, I'd say. Other than that, quite a stupid question, but still: Are we supposed to be expecting a real-life armaggedon-movie adventure next time this happens? What are the odds of something of this sort actually HITTING the earth or the moon, and can we - effectively and non-hollyoodily - protect ourselves against something like this? And, what alarmed me the most: Uhh.. YIKES?? "Unknown Ones"?? How can there be unknown ones? Something that goes very fast towards the earth and we won't be able to detect it? Will we even HAVE anything to do if we do detect it? Will this end the age of man on earth like one presumably end the age of the dinosaurs? ((I sound like an episode of "soap", but.. so many questions!)) Sorry for the multiple question style, I'm just a bit confused by this. Specifically I'm worried about this not being further mentioned in the news.. does this mean no one deals with those things, or only that people try to prevent panic? ~moo

In one of the Security Management and Anti Terrorism fairs I was in lately (yes, I have weird choice for hobbies.. bleh) they addressed a new Iris Imprint device (commercial company, so this was braught with a "we really want you to buy this product" attitude, and should be taken accordingly). The company's explanation stated a few basic things where Iris imprint is better than Fingerprint: Fingerprint is easier to fake: The fingerprint is created by oil on the hands that is shaped by the crevaces in the skin. Duplicating it with various ways is quite simple, and creates a security risk. Fingerprints tend to change with time: skin, in general, may be damaged, something that changes a person's fingerprint. This, however, was presented as a less of a flaw with fingerprints, since there are devices that can compensate for that.. But it still is something that should be concidered: if a person, for instance, burnt his finger from boiling eggs, he might not be able to use the device and prove his identity. Device maintainance: Fingerprinting devices - since handling direct TOUCH - tend to demand more maintainance, and their usage sometimes allow holes in security measures. For instance, it was proven that it is quite possible to hack fingerprint devices (a simple google search "hack fingerprint scanners" shows how easy it is). Iris scanners, however, are harder to hack, if possible at all. The only main problem with Iris scanner is that it demands much more storage space and processing power. In scanning the Iris, since it is a more delicate organ that contains many subtle unique features, you need to record many more details than when scanning the fingerprint. This is also a plus, though, since when you have more unique-detail refferences, you have a much more reliable system. On the other hand, it is wise to remember that fingerprint scanners are generally quite accurate (check this site out: http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1579301.htm showing a margine of error of about 0.8%, which is quite negligeable). As far as I remember from checking the subject back then (it's a bit too late at night for me to re-check this, I'll try to do this tomorrow morning for you), current iris scanners are still not 100% accurate, for the reason of storage and detail-accuracy. But in THEORY, they are a lot more reliable than fingerprinting. As for an experiment, well, you can try having a person record his fingerprints, eat a donut, and try to log in (his hands are covered with oil, and probably will not be read properly). You can also try one of the hack-methods mentioned in those many many sites (google "hack fingerprint reader/scanner"), it should prove easy enough to show the unreliability of the device. I would also recommend (at least to begin to understand how both devices work) to go to these links, for basics: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/fingerprint-scanner.htm and http://science.howstuffworks.com/biometrics.htm and how to trick a fingerprint scanner (and hence: ideas for your experiment): http://cryptome.org/gummy.htm Good luck! ~moo

Hi guys I recently heard about a celestial object (I THINK it was an asteroid, but I am not sure) passing by -- and missing -- the moon. I tried to get information about this, if it is really true, but I can't find any concrete info.. I've seen it at the news at 3 in the morning, and as you can guess, the broadcast wasn't too informative, and I was quite tired at the time, so only bits stuck to my memory. However, I failed to find anything online.. or anything concrete. So my question is: Did we really have some object missing us at last monday?? and second; and perhaps it is only me, but it seemed that the information was quieted and not really released fully to the public (explaining this at the 3am news, but not at the rest of the day seems a bit odd) -- was that to prevent panic? WAS there anything to worry about? Thanks for any info, it's really interresting ~moo

I'm actually building a small humble "how to" guide for people with only the basic knowledge of general programming on the subject of PHP and mySQL, after a friend asked me to teach him how to build a mysql/php site. If it will help you out, I will post you the link when I'm done.. but it deals with mySQL, so make sure this is the database you are using, if you want this. ~moo

I actually doubt the idea of aliens being even remotely similar to our own existance; in fact, I find it more plausible that life in the universe - at least the ones close enough for us to find - have quite different existance, and might not emmediately fall under our current definition for life (but this is for another debate) -- I am bringing this up because my point is that people who want to meet aliens - in my opinion - have the need to feel they are not alone in the universe. We keep hearing science declare that the universe is not hospitable to life, and is vast and infinite -- those thoughts are hard to grasp. Hoping aliens will come to our rescue from our many troubles is quite similar, in my opinion at least, to the belief in god: We are not alone, someone will save us, love us and help us out of the trouble we seem to be having great troubles facing by ourselves. Anyways, those were my two and a half cents ;-) ~moo

The prevention of AIDS is relying mostly on awareness.. if people state that it is not coming from HIV, then the attempts to properly prevent it is discredited... I just can't seem to find a reason for someone to do that. ~moo

Also, we need to take into account that in nature the environment changes a lot slower than what we seem to be changing it ourselves, and therefore allows the organisms to evolve in "time" to fit the environment.. for instance, different types of human beings have evolved differently due to their location on earth, the ecosystem at these locations, atmosphere pressure, heat, radiation from the sun and so on. But what we are doing now, is changing our ENVIRONMENT in an extremely rapid measure -- ozon layer dissapearing, smoke in the air, polution, cutting the trees, cars, even shoes and medicine and drugs and watching television and having our heads exposed to radiation from microwaves, cellular phones and antennas. Everything is changing so rapidly, we are not allowing ourselves to evolve properly in order to FIT that changing invironment. Is it possible that within the upcoming time the human race will just CEASE to be able to function in such an environment? Is it possible the rise in mutation at birth on places where ozon layer is thinner, or the rise in genetic deseases is higher in big cities is an indication of the human race's attempt to fit its environment? and if so, is it possible that by us STOPPING this attempt (hence, preventing mutations and such) we are actually dooming our own race to be selected OUT of the equasion as one that cannot fit to its environment soon? ~moo

I'm trying to think what the HECK kind of reason would a person (or persons) have to discredit the most wreched horrible desease in the world, the desease science has been trying to find a cure to for half a century, and a desease that it's PREVENTION relies mostly on AWARENESS. Unbelievable what kind of things people decide to invest their time in. ~moo

Okay, perhaps I understood things wrong, but I have a phylosophical question regarding evolution. It started with me and a friend discussing evolution and world population, and we ended up discussing the reprecussions of human advancements on our evolutionary process. Mainly, the genetic view. Now, I'm not talking about morality here - it is obvious that the moral issue is quite charged, and may give a different answer than the physical and phylosophical answer. We ended up discusscing this issue: One of the main ways evolutionary processes - as I understand it - is the inevitable creation of mutations; we don't have to discuss "radical" mutations (like a child with 3 hands), it is enough to only include genetic mutations or genetic imperfections. Those mutations don't survive in nature (hence the "survival of the fittest). In fact, the fact that these don't survive allow the better characteristics in an entire race to advance and evolve.. However, as far as I understood, those mutations - if not too debilitating - can start a new "phase" in evolution - like shifting it in a relatively different direction. The question we were discussing then was -- As a human race, we are changing our natural evolution, basically, by either preventing those "mutations" from being born or existing, OR by not letting other "mutations" from being fitted to nature - either "selected" or, in fact, create an evolutionary change. Again: I am not talking about morality for now. Morally, it is OBVIOUS that killing the weak is wrong. I am trying to understand the evolutionary biological/phylosophical aspect. What do you think? Are we going to end up not fitting to our environment for changing it so radically without allowing our race to slowly fit it by preventing anything that isn't similar to our own biological existance (hence mutations) from developing? ~moo

It's also VERRRRYYYYY basic.. if you want to start studying programming (specifically web programming) I would suggest going through a bit of code snippets, and reading the refferences. When I started out PHP, that's what I did. Download some free codes people did (make sure you start with "beginners" to try out simple coding first) from http://www.planetsourcecode.com or just look up "free php snippets" on google. Then, when you are reading those snippets, go to php.net to seek refferences and understand the code -- tweak it, change it, and see what your changes do, so you can understand how it works. Good luck.. ~moo

http://www.planetsourcecode.com has lots of snippets and tutorials for beginners and advanced. ~moo

its supposed to be a layer.. like a 'sublayer'... err.. dont know really does this make sense?

Well, they claim that Subspace is a "Layer" of timespace.. since Spacetime can be 'curved', they claim that if you have a "hole" or tear in it, you get "Subspace".. if.. I understood correctly. I'll try to find how Startrek universe define it, maybe it'll help... Can that be existing....? ~moo

Hi guys I was reading some scifi books, and watching Star trek and was wondering about something. I know that Startrek is fictional, and is MORE fiction than science (please don't start bashing shows here;) ) but I also know that the creators at least TRIED bringing some frictions of truth in their fiction.. They talk a lot about Subspace, and they're not the only show that does that.. Does Subspace really exist? Is it theoretically possible, and.. what.. exactly.. is it? Thanks.. ~moo

.. how.. deep...

Of course, of course I don't have to have everything fit science completely, and I know that it is enough that I 'put out hints" but since I don't know which way to show the government (which is indeed one of the ideas I will use) developed a method for gravity (and indeed some other stuff they're not sharing..) i asked for BASICS i can use. I didnt expect a proven way to use artificial gravity Thanks and when I have the story ready, i'll give it here, or at laest some of it thanks! ~moo

I heard 1024 MB RAM for the entire operating system... I'm quite afraid of the "basics only" thing.. as far as microsoft's concerned, I might aswell have only the ability to have 1 window of internet explorer and the calculator running in the bg when having "only the basics"... :\ ~moo

Good to see someone with a good taste in books. I sincerely hope that Microsoft plans to give good answers as to why its operating system demands such high memory.. this is one of the highest reasons why i just don't manage to trust that program yet.. One of Microsoft's biggest problem, in all its operating systems was the memory-residues.. and the fact they caused the computer to slow-down/crash every some time.. now it seems to me that instead of getting the mem-usage correctly, they got a bigger mess.. :\ Is tere anyone here who's tried it? I know there are trial and beta versions online.. anyone can tell a bit of his own experience about Vista? ~moo

Interresting concept for Sci-Fi writers... That was completely off topic, and therefore I will drop this, but I had to thank you for explaining this, since (as the other post about artificial gravity in speculation forum) I am a sci-fi story/screenplays writer, and you just raised a GOOD point I should definately address in that story of mine. So: Thanks ~moo

This is my point: I don't think the universe HAS intent. Things happen, mostly random events that affect and exist within already existing laws. It's not that I see the universe's purpose as different than you, it's that as far as I understood you, you see it having a purpose, and I don't. Having a purpose, and having a consciousness, is being a diety. Whether you ask someone to worship that diety or no, you are reffering to the unvierse as an omniscient, intentful entity: Diety. I just simply disagree with you. Things seem to be much more random than they are intended. This doesn't trouble me, I just disagree with it; as I explained earlier in this post, the fact WE are conscious doesn't mean the universe -- parts of it or its entirety -- is conscious. Let me ask you something, since I think I don't quite understand where you're going with this. What exactly do you mean when you say our universe is conscious (or parts of it)? Does it HAVE an intention? Things that happen, created in this universe, omvements, laws that occur -- they have a purpose? Is that what you mean? Or do you mean just in terms of "admitting" we have a consciousness within our universe... ? Please explain, I think I misunderstood you. ~moo

I was just kidding about the centimeter comparison, as a small joke reffering to NASA's recent mistake with the mars rover Anyways, it could've been a funny caricature to its time, and quite a funny occasion.. but it was a joke eh Interresting though.. I wonder what would happen if human beings start a colony in a lower-gravity place (you dont have to have it in space - Mars, for that matter, or even the moon, is enough). Will children born in space have severe back problems?

Well said, sisyphus, and also, calling the entire universe as a whole "conscious" is exactly like saying it is - in its whole - a conscious entity. That has many implications, and I am not sure it is any different than calling it - or reffering to it as - 'god'. ~moo

No, we are PART of the universe. The universe, if you calculate the observations, is built to produce black holes MORE than it is to produce life. Life in this universe, it is now believed, are an inevitable side effect. That would make us PART of a universe, and not its whole.. And even if this observation is NOT true -- just seeing the vast amounts of stars out there that don't contain conscious life means we are A Consciousness Within The Universe, and not The Making of The Universe's Consciousness.. ~moo

I've heard some bad things about Vista lately, though I haven't checked them... its basic requirements seem a bit... outrageous though. Any operating system that requires a minimum of 1G RAM should supply a HECK of a lot more than winXP.. No? ~moo