|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: I don't think we'll achieve time travel.
According to Hawking the fact that we haven't already been visited by some future time traveler pretty much "proves" it's impossible. 
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ~ Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ygnaiih wrote: I'm old
Me too!
But there's always Google; the workaround to getting a life!
|
|
|
|
|
If I remember correctly, it was Einstein who said that impossible things remain such only until someone comes up with a trick to make them possible. 
That's often the case with new discoveries and advances in science. While things may technically remain impossible, there can be "tricks" to bypass the impossibility. As in your example, FTL travel could be made possible not by travelling faster than light (which *may* remain impossible), but by warping the space around you etc. etc.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but not in practice. - Anonymous
A computer is a stupid machine with the ability to do incredibly smart things, while computer programmers are smart people with the ability to do incredibly stupid things. They are, in short, a perfect match. - B. Bryson
|
|
|
|
|
Quantum entanglement... spooky action at a distance.
Or not.
73
|
|
|
|
|
I'm so sad that the world is a mundane place, free of swashbuckling space pirates and magic wands. I've even apologized to my children that our world is so boring.
Will we make significant strides in all branches of natural science? Sure, you betcha. Will we discover new physical laws that make miraculous new things possible in shirtsleeve environments? Kinda doubt it. Will we discover new chemical elements dilithium, unobtanium, and adamantium*, with miraculous properties? Not in this part of the universe. Will we explore the planets and maybe even the stars? I don't doubt it. Will we get there at Warp 8? Don't be silly.
The really annoying thing about scientific progress is that it doesn't just tell us what is possible. It also tells us what is not possible.
*What does it mean that my spelling checker doesn't mark dilithium, unobtanium, and adamantium as unknown words?
|
|
|
|
|
Given enough time, the probability of any event occurring increases; and quantum mechanics is all about probabilities.
One (current) theory is that the speed of light is not a constant; and that it was "faster" at the "beginning of time" (Big Bang) in order to balance Einstein's mass / energy equation when all there was was "energy".
Does particle entanglement operate at the speed of light? Or is it "instantaneous"? Should be able to prove that at some point.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
I just read the entire thread and what keeps coming back to me is this one fact that flaws most of the argument that is present here. That is that the basis of measurement used for calculating what may or may not be faster than light is in fact light itself. Anything that is faster than light we don't have a reliable means of measurement of to determine its movement if indeed it were passing through space at a rate greater than the speed greater than the speed of light. Perhaps the speed of dark is many times faster than the speed of light? We would never know because we would never have a way of determining that or if there were such a thing with the current state of our knowledge and technology.
I'm never willing to say what we can't do or technology wise, short of those things that I consider the providence of God Himself. He's crafted us as wonderfully creative beings and their are very few limits to what we are capable of building or discovering.
|
|
|
|
|
Killers of two fools inhabit my hemisphere. (9)
Good hunting!
Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Assassins?
2 x ASS + I assume that you're IN the Southern hemisphere ...
Slogans aren't solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
That was quick! Well done, Mr Thursday.
Cheers,
Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
...can be found here[^].
What's more, it's written by our very own @DanNeely[^]! 
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Pity it describes something other than Diffie-Hellman key exchange. See for example Diffie–Hellman key exchange - Wikipedia[^]
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Well the guy below Dan did it right 
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
... and Bob was honored to be mentioned in the explanation ...
|
|
|
|
|
From what I read, his analogy was not very accurate, as some of the commenters pointed out. Just saying...
|
|
|
|
|
Actually it's a plain English explanation of securely shipping something in a box.
|
|
|
|
|
It called Three Pass Exchange - and considered to be less secure that DH(M)..
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
ROTFL - Indeed.
If you want a more understandable explanation of this box thing, you can have a look at the Three Pass Exchange[^] 
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding
New version: WinHeist Version 2.2.2 Beta I told my psychiatrist that I was hearing voices in my head. He said you don't have a psychiatrist!
|
|
|
|
|
I've always wondered that, and it's such a PITA trying to actually find a library that works.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
No built-in SFTP or SCP to my knowledge but you do get FtpWebRequest and FtpWebResponse for FTP. WebClient also supports FTP downloads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Snazzy - I'll take a look. Thanks!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
SFTP is not supported as it is FTP over SSH, a completely different protocol (use SSH.NET for that)
Oops.
Marc
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Heart | [heart]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/love.gif)
