Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 ... Last
[#] Sun Jun 02 2013 21:01:57 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I don't know about Patrick Stewart and pizza, but that Earl Grey tea sure hits the spot!

[#] Mon Jun 03 2013 12:53:04 EDT from Ladyhawke @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

As long as it's hot.



[#] Tue Jun 04 2013 14:27:49 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Jun 3 2013 9:53am from Ladyhawke @uncnsrd (Uncensored)
As long as it's hot.

There really *is* no other way. And I shudder to think of the folks that completely *ruin* it with cream and/or sugar. Just black, please, and let that wonderful flavor and aroma stand on its own!!!


[#] Wed Jun 05 2013 15:17:10 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Have had it with honey. That was rather good.


You may commence eyerolling.

[#] Wed Jun 05 2013 15:37:58 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Have had it with honey. That was rather good.

Never tried that. However it is impossible to improve upon perfection, so I most likely will not be trying that.

[#] Tue Jun 11 2013 07:33:28 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I always put honey in tea. Do you think Earl Grey is that much better that it doesn't require sweetening?

And why doesn't Picard ever have the common courtesy to help Arthur Dent to get a proper cup of tea out of the replicator?

[#] Tue Jun 11 2013 13:39:56 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Jun 11 2013 4:33am from IGnatius T Foobar @uncnsrd (Uncensored)
I always put honey in tea. Do you think Earl Grey is that much better

that it doesn't require sweetening?

And why doesn't Picard ever have the common courtesy to help Arthur
Dent to get a proper cup of tea out of the replicator?



I really like Earl Grey 'as it is' and put nothing in it at all. My original dislike of "all things tea" apparently stemmed from my childhood, and my mom's incessant use of lots of sugar and cream in tea, which I hated. I, for many years, wrongly assumed that I did not like tea. Not true. I **do** like tea - a lot - it was the **crap** that was put **into** the tea after it was brewed that ruined it for me as a kid. Once I accidentally discovered that, the "tea world" changed for me.

Coffee? Now that requires a bit of sweetening. I use roughly half a teaspoon of sugar and a little bit of creamer. And the coffee taste still comes through nicely. I am, step by step, "weaning" my taste to "coffee black" without sugar. I estimate it will take several more months, but I'll get there. Those that take their coffee "black, no sugar" have told me all my life that I'll not be a true coffee drinker until I stop "polluting" it!

We shall see...

[#] Thu Jun 27 2013 10:09:14 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I consider myself a "true coffee drinker" and I'm more than happy putting milk and sugar in it. How minimalist must one get? I could say that you're not a "true coffee drinker" if you ruin your perfect coffee beans by roasting them.

[#] Thu Jun 27 2013 11:11:35 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Jun 27 2013 7:09am from IGnatius T Foobar @uncnsrd (Uncensored)
I consider myself a "true coffee drinker" and I'm more than happy
putting milk and sugar in it. How minimalist must one get? I could
say that you're not a "true coffee drinker" if you ruin your perfect
coffee beans by roasting them.


I essentially agree with you. Even after a year of "weaning" myself from cream(er) and sugar, I still put a measured teaspoon of sugar in my coffee (being Type 2 Diabetic really forces this) and a "bit of half-and-half." I probably will remain at this "level" of Intentional Coffee Pollution 'in aeternam.'

JUST DON'T MESS WITH MY SINGLE-MALT SCOTCH!!!!!!!!!!

[#] Fri Jun 28 2013 16:41:31 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Somebody needs to invent a Star Trek teleporter so I can come over there and drink Scotch with you.  Preferably "fresh, not replicated."



[#] Sat Jun 29 2013 01:44:28 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Jun 28 2013 1:41pm from IGnatius T Foobar @uncnsrd (Uncensored)
Somebody needs to invent a Star Trek teleporter so I can come over
there and drink Scotch with you.  Preferably "fresh, not
replicated."


Ah, the teleporter/transporter.... on the way. Maybe 50 years. Preliminary work is extremely promising and successful.

Warp drive.... see previous comment. Given sufficient funding, warp drive could be a complete reality in 30 years. No, I am ***not*** kidding; I understand the math.

Tricorder... it's my understanding that it already exists and is in clinical trials in the UK.

Communicator... we've had that for about 25 years. In ham radio add 10 more years to that.

Klingons, Vulcans etc? They're out there. All we need to do is go find 'em!

Scotch.... there is and can be only one Scotland. Many scotches; all single malts (blends need not apply!). Most are good; some are great; a precious few are the stuff of legend!

[#] Sat Jun 29 2013 15:33:34 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Ok, forget science fiction, let's talk science fact for a while.

As some of you know, Voyager 1 is in the news this week because it's exiting the solar system (as it has done many times in the past, for different definitions of "edge of the solar system"). As a network junkie I was curious about how we manage to stay in touch with a spacecraft that's 36 years old and billions of miles away.

It's got a NUCLEAR F***ING REACTOR aboard. That's so cool. The radio is two-way and we can still send commands to it! And yet, it's got fail safe programming that will cause it to perform a fixed set of activities if it doesn't hear from us, assuming that the receiver failed or something.

The nuclear power sources lose about 4 watts per year, according to NASA.
To conserve power they are gradually shutting off different parts of the probes. V1's cameras were turned off in 1990.
Last year they turned off the heaters on the backup thrusters. And in a couple more years they'll probably have to turn off the steering, letting the probe go wherever it's blown. But with those measures taken, we'll probably get another 10 years or so out of it.

I want a nuclear reactor!

[#] Sat Jun 29 2013 18:29:39 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

its got a plutonium battery - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium_battery  - so not a reactor.



[#] Sat Jun 29 2013 21:41:50 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Ah, the teleporter/transporter.... on the way. Maybe 50 years.
Preliminary work is extremely promising and successful.

I'm sure this discussion has been done to death elsewhere, but I haven't had it with anyone, so let's go...

I would imagine that the big problem with a teleporter/transporter would be that it would simply re-create the molecular structure of whomever or whatever was being transported, leaving the ugly problem of "deleting" the original.

Does the preliminary work on a real life teleporter say anything about this?

[#] Sun Jun 30 2013 02:31:17 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Does the preliminary work on a real life teleporter say anything about

this?


Nope. That's philosophy. Actually making it work is science (and engineering).

[#] Sun Jun 30 2013 21:55:51 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

What I meant was, does the conceptual work done so far imply that this will indeed be a problem.

[#] Mon Jul 01 2013 04:21:11 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Jun 30 2013 6:55pm from IGnatius T Foobar @uncnsrd (Uncensored)
What I meant was, does the conceptual work done so far imply that this

will indeed be a problem.



So far they've managed to transport very small inanimate objects over distances of several meters. The issue you raise has, I am almost certain, not been addressed at this point.

I have several "friends" of mine on a list I've compiled for test subjects once they think they are ready for human trials.... <evil grin>

[#] Mon Jul 01 2013 10:23:53 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I nominate Mark Crispin, the man responsible for IMAP not having a "move" command because in his implementation, "a move would just be a copy followed by a delete anyway."



[#] Mon Jul 01 2013 14:06:15 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Of course, the question we all seem to be side-stepping with perceived trepidation involving the Transporter is that of Dr. "Bones" McCoy - does the Transporter also move the "soul" of the person.

Which begs the question "what is the 'soul'?" or even more fundamental, do we humans *have* souls? Naturally, this is the stuff of Religion/Faith and Philosophy much more so that Science. But it is rather central to the whole Transporter business and for that reason is relevant both to this room and to the current topic.

There will always be those who will refuse to use the transporter, or will do so only with great fear and reluctance. This will be a faith-based issue for them and, hence, rather nondebatable.

Does the transporter "copy" then "delete"? Or does it truly move the subject in the same way that a car or a bus or a train moves its passengers (and cargo) from one place to another?

The special effects in the iconic Star Trek movies and TV shows would seem to indicate that it is an actual move rather than a copy/delete. Why? Because there are numerous examples from 'Trek' where people get "lost" in the transporter process. If it were copy/delete this would be almost impossible since the "original" would not be "deleted" until there was confirmation of the "copy" being correctly generated at the destination.

And if the process is a "true move" then the 'soul' (whatever that may or may not be) would "go along for the ride" in the same manner that what you had for breakfast went to work with you in the car/bus/train/whatever.


So any philosophical/ethical/religious debate on the "is it really me that gets there" issue all hinges on what the transporter really does and how it really does it.

And we are not ready to fully discuss that until the "final working model" is a lot closer to fruition than it may be today.

[#] Tue Jul 02 2013 22:23:20 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


And then *this* tidbit crossed our "Physics>" rss feed over here at Cascade Lodge BBS...

Subject: Rationale for the next-generation particle collider developed
A new theory provides the rationale for the next-generation particle
accelerator -- the International Linear Collider. The discovery of the Higgs

boson at the CERN Large Hadron Collider in Geneva Switzerland this past year

prompted particle physicists to look ahead to the development of the ILC, an
electron-positron collider designed to measure in detail all the properties

of the newly discovered Higgs particle.


And there you have it - first and very primitive step - toward....

Warp drive, folks!

Go to page: First ... 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 ... Last