ICE ON PLUTO: Now frozen water and BLUE SKY found on dwarf planet giving more hope of life

a reply to: Aazadan
Nicely expounded. I'm a technician/consultant in the computer industry. That's why I used the 64-bit CPU as an example. I get your point, but I would argue the supporting tech was in place. Though I would concede production might have been design and cost prohibitive at the time. Good post.

a reply to: neoholographic

Slowly, slowly they release info of possibility of worlds that could contain life.

I wonder what time scale they have running in the background for when people are ready to accept that life is elsewhere and has been in contact with us for many years?

I say this because at one time Nasa detailed how no water was found on the moon at one point, now there is. Then how there could be no other world like our own, yet now there is not one but many. How they said pluto is too cold to support any form of life, now life may exist there due to water. The list goes on and on......

- It seems! Nasa and other agencies of the world are trying to slowly wean people of earth into the ready position of accepting other life and accepting such. How long will it take religious folk to settle their views? How long will it take ignorant humans to accept they are not so special and when is it the right time for business......

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Bicent76
a reply to: Klassified

Yea our government black projects are about 10 years ahead of current civilian tech...

I wonder if it's closer to 40 or 50 years. The 64-bit processor was invented 40 years before it was introduced to the public as the latest and greatest the computer industry had to offer.

There were a few computer manufacturers back then that had not only 64 bit, but 128 bit (DEC Alpha).
The technology was always available to the public, however the real reason for a higher bit processor is address space. The massive amounts of memory required to take advantage of them did not exist, let alone the incredible cost. Once we started measuring memory in gigabytes, and the dense packaging of DRAM chips, these processors were enabled and the rest is history.

a reply to: charlyv
I was thinking the 128-bit was on the drawing board, but had some issues left to resolve. Whereas the 64-bit was production ready. I could be wrong there, and also it was my understanding the 64-bit was not available to the public sector at the time. Here again, I could be wrong. I'm going from memory. Nevertheless, as I said above. I would concede the design and production at the time might have been cost prohibitive for the return on investment. Good addition to Aazadan's post.

I would add, that someone higher up in the computer industry told me a long time ago, nothing technological gets through to the public without first going through "proper channels".

I'd gladly spend my tax dollars, to send people that believe this stuff, ...there. A one way, ticket of my planet. I'd have no regrets.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: charlyv
I was thinking the 128-bit was on the drawing board, but had some issues left to resolve. Whereas the 64-bit was production ready. I could be wrong there, and also it was my understanding the 64-bit was not available to the public sector at the time. Here again, I could be wrong. I'm going from memory. Nevertheless, as I said above. I would concede the design and production at the time might have been cost prohibitive for the return on investment. Good addition to Aazadan's post.

I would add, that someone higher up in the computer industry told me a long time ago, nothing technological gets through to the public without first going through "proper channels".

Yea, I worked for DEC, High Performance R&D in the 80's. The scientific customers,NASA/JPL as well as MIT and Scrippts were the targets of large address space systems, and many worked in conjunction with DEC to develop them. They may not be considered public, but it was still all out in the open.

originally posted by: wildespace
Not all of it. If you step off a cliff, you will still fall down, possibly to your death. So, gravity still holds true, despite being a "theory". You might not realise it, but a lot of what makes up your ordinary day-to-day life was made possible by science and its theories. Science is our way to study and explore what makes our reality; some things get proven wrong and get discarded, others stay on and get refined. If all science was eventually proven wrong, our life would be a mess with no working stability to many aspects of our life, such as medicine, engineering, etc.

It is usually proven wrong through omission. What has been shown to be true remains true, but new rukes are found. Yes if you jump off a cliff gravity will cause you to fall to your death, but for now we still have no clue why gravity even works, we simply know that it's there, and with study into that we may even find a way to negate gravity one day.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: wildespace
Not all of it. If you step off a cliff, you will still fall down, possibly to your death. So, gravity still holds true, despite being a "theory". You might not realise it, but a lot of what makes up your ordinary day-to-day life was made possible by science and its theories. Science is our way to study and explore what makes our reality; some things get proven wrong and get discarded, others stay on and get refined. If all science was eventually proven wrong, our life would be a mess with no working stability to many aspects of our life, such as medicine, engineering, etc.

It is usually proven wrong through omission. What has been shown to be true remains true, but new rukes are found. Yes if you jump off a cliff gravity will cause you to fall to your death, but for now we still have no clue why gravity even works, we simply know that it's there, and with study into that we may even find a way to negate gravity one day.

Still, what I said is correct, and even the New Horizons mission to Pluto was made possible by applying science we have learned so far. Sorry to be blunt, but saying that "science is always wrong" smacks of ignorance and disrespect. People wouldn't be using their computers, driving their cars, or receiving life-saving medical treatment if science were always wrong.

originally posted by: BlackProject
a reply to: neoholographic

Slowly, slowly they release info of possibility of worlds that could contain life.

That's because scientific research itself comes along slowly.

I wonder what time scale they have running in the background for when people are ready to accept that life is elsewhere and has been in contact with us for many years?

I'd say most people are ready to accept that there is life outside of Earth. The rest are either not bothered about it at all, or are religious and believe that God created life exclusively on Earth.

I say this because at one time Nasa detailed how no water was found on the moon at one point, now there is.

That's science for you; until the actual water is found/detected/measured, they can't just state that there is water there.

Then how there could be no other world like our own

Where and when did NASA say that?

How they said pluto is too cold to support any form of life, now life may exist there due to water.

Where and when did they say that life may exist there?

- It seems! Nasa and other agencies of the world are trying to slowly wean people of earth into the ready position of accepting other life and accepting such. How long will it take religious folk to settle their views? How long will it take ignorant humans to accept they are not so special and when is it the right time for business......

You seem to profess a great knowledge of what other people think or believe in. How did you achieve that, are you a mind reader or a psychic?

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: neoholographic

My science teacher at my Catholic high school used to tell me that water only existed on Earth. It was a religious thing, to think that Earth was the center of the universe and the only planet with life on it, which requires water. And now we have water being found on Mars and Pluto. It certainly seems a lot more common than people used to think it was.

To be fair, my public school science teacher said the same thing.

So being 40 times farther away from the sun than Earth, I'm guessing it's pretty dark over at Pluto? So the night sky is blue?

originally posted by: game over man
So being 40 times farther away from the sun than Earth, I'm guessing it's pretty dark over at Pluto? So the night sky is blue?

The sky on Pluto is pretty much black, with perhaps some slight blueish haze over the horizon during sunrise and sunset. Pluto simply doesn't have enough of atmosphere to give the sky any colour.

Daylight on Pluto is about as bright as what you get on Earth in the pre-sunrise hours. Google "Pluto hour".

We have 1024bit processors but whats the point? The architecture and operating systems to support this kind of infrastructure would be overkill for 99% of applications. The reason why it took 40 years is because there is no technical/practical use for these kind of technologies.

Most systems in the world still run on 8bit processors - more then enough that fit 80% of applications, like Power Steerings in Cars, Hotel card access units, etc.

Now we have 256bit processors in modern RAM allowing to execute read/write operations at the same time.

Only because we have the technology doesn't mean we are using it on a grand scale and it's not a conspiracy if we don't!

originally posted by: wildespace
Still, what I said is correct, and even the New Horizons mission to Pluto was made possible by applying science we have learned so far. Sorry to be blunt, but saying that "science is always wrong" smacks of ignorance and disrespect. People wouldn't be using their computers, driving their cars, or receiving life-saving medical treatment if science were always wrong.

I didn't say it wasn't. But one day Einstein is going to be updated because our understanding of relativity is incomplete, even Einstein himself realized that. It's not ignorance and disrespect at all, I see it as the opposite, thinking science has given us all the answers blinds you from further learning of what you don't know.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: Bicent76
a reply to: Klassified

Yea our government black projects are about 10 years ahead of current civilian tech... Also their discoveries in space.

Yet another gem from the conspiracy cliche handbook

Agreed

If you work in the government you'd know that they are behind not ahead

a reply to: charlyv

The IBM 7030 scientific computer (early 1960's) had 64-bit data words and 32 and 64 bit instruction words.

That was the first scientific supercomputer, and inspired (along with CDC) the Cray-1 which was a 64 bit architecture from the beginning.

64-bit microprocessors came in around the early 1990's in the RISC explosion.

originally posted by: flyandi
We have 1024bit processors but whats the point? The architecture and operating systems to support this kind of infrastructure would be overkill for 99% of applications. The reason why it took 40 years is because there is no technical/practical use for these kind of technologies.

Most systems in the world still run on 8bit processors - more then enough that fit 80% of applications, like Power Steerings in Cars, Hotel card access units, etc.

Now we have 256bit processors in modern RAM allowing to execute read/write operations at the same time.

Only because we have the technology doesn't mean we are using it on a grand scale and it's not a conspiracy if we don't!

The key to understanding increased address space is understanding multi-threading. There are many important scientific software tools used in electronics, medicine an meteorology that would not work efficiently without it. Tasks that are iterative and recursive spawn off thousands of threads to converge on the results. To be efficient, these threads each need a portion of the address space. If the address space is large enough, they can all be mapped without remap and swapping. It is that important.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: KlassifiedI wonder if it's closer to 40 or 50 years. The 64-bit processor was invented 40 years before it was introduced to the public as the latest and greatest the computer industry had to offer.

In the case of the processor it's not a matter of knowing how to do it but rather having the supporting technology in place. We can build 128 bit processors now actually, or for that matter processors of any bit size you want. The advantage to a 64 bit processor over a 32 bit isn't one of speed but rather one of size.

Are you sure about that 64 bit can address more memory and my 64bit cpu with 64 bit OS runs WAY FASTER than my older sysytems.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
Are you sure about that 64 bit can address more memory and my 64bit cpu with 64 bit OS runs WAY FASTER than my older sysytems.

CPU's have a number of registers that are x bits wide (the number of bits the cpu references). It takes twice as long to read or write a 64 bit number as it takes to read/write a 32 bit number. The processors having more cpu cycles per second, some mathematical tricks, and so on counter this effect to a degree.

But in practice with current hardware you'll get about 10% more speed out of a 32 bit application than a 64 bit application ignoring memory issues since 32 bit operating systems and programs are limited to a maximum of 4.3 gb of memory. Though this varies a bit based on the specific tasks the application is performing and the CPU brand you're using. There's a bigger difference between 32 and 64 bit Intels than AMD's for example.

In addition to this if you're comparing across different computers you have to account for differences in programs installed, difference in memory volume, differences in memory speed, differences in video card capabilities (if using it), and the biggest difference of all in practice hard drive speed.

a reply to: neoholographic

It amazing to me that so many people actually believe everything NASA says. I don't know if it's ego, indoctrination, or the possibility of the urge to find life in the cosmos, but ever since I started investigating the claims of NASA and watching their station The NASA channel (which is in non HD lol) they will readily admit the images you see in space are not real, they are computer generated and composites. They will readily admit that all images go through vetting and image processing centers before they are ever released to the public. The fact is none of us get to see anything they are doing which leads me to believe 2 things.

1.) they don't go to space at all
2.) they are hiding things they are finding in space

Now there is plenty of evidence to contradict or make one question both of those views, but the amount of criticism I'll get for even mentioning NASA isn't what they claim to be is beyond Insane to me...I'll I ask for is real images. Not computer images. Seems easy enough right???

Let the I'm an idiot and crazy NASA is awesome ridicule begin.