how to background mutt external viewer applications
A hint is here: http://www.guckes.net/Mutt/setup.html To make it work, do e.g. the following in $HOME/.mailcap as follows (the following is to be on one line): application/pdf; (mv %s %s-\; evince %s-\; rm -f %s-)& sleep 0.2s; test=test -n "$DISPLAY" Couple keys: - mv mutt's temp file to a new name, so mutt cannot delete the file from under the viewer's feet - do the mv, view and rm in a subshell, so that this mini process can be backgrounded - escape the semi colons in that are part of the viewer mailcap entry (ampersand does not need escaping) - rm the temp file (using its new name) after viewing is finished - sleep for a short bit after backgrounding the viewer, in the hope that your kernel will schedule the viewer to do its thing within that time - this time is a racy heuristic, so can fail of course The ideal solution would be another mailcap part of the line, or option, which specifies that the viewer should be backgrounded, so that this little dance does not have to be copied for every entry of interest - although a handful of such entries will likely capture the bulk of daily requirements...
Re: EMP missile
On 5/16/19 6:18 PM, jim bell wrote: > Air Force has deployed missiles that could fry electronics of Iran > https://mol.im/a/7037549 via http://dailym.ai/android > The article as a whole reads like a "defense" contractor's press release: Bombastic, overblown, factually inaccurate (i.e. pretends real hard that facilities can not be hardened against super-duper microwave beams), and even includes this barb against anyone who would dare deprive the contractor of Yuge cash payouts: > Because of sequestration budget cuts, the CHAMP missiles did not become > operational under the Obama administration. Here's a cheap laugh: > The missile is equipped with an electromagnetic pulse cannon. This uses a > super-powerful microwave oven to generate a concentrated beam of energy. And right in the middle of the article, apropos of nothing, this non-sequitur appears: > One of those laboratories, Sandia National Laboratories, has been developing > robots the size of insects that could assassinate North Korean leader Kim > Jong-un with deadly toxins. > > These robotic weapons using nanotechnology employed in surgical operations in > hospitals are being developed secretly with funding by the Defense Advanced > Research Projects Agency. Far be it from me to cry "old news!", but I read all about that project, sitting in the Central Kitsap Jr. High library in 1973: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?57079 What that has to do with using drone-mounted microwave ovens to destroy all the electronics in shielded bunkers, I have no clue. :o) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: OFFTOPIC: physics question
>>I think you answered part of my question, which was partly didactic to > force science to get more rigor in its explanation. I think I will > have to content myself with this because I know that rainbows and the > sky being blue will NEVER be explainable by science. > Mark > > No, the reason the sky is blue was explained long ago. It's called > "Rayleigh scattering". Mr. Bell, I understand this "explanation" which is not really science. To my knowledge this data has never been replicated by any lab nor measured in the field by balloon in the upper atmosphere. It is a great example of a mansplaination--the attempt merely to hold dominance of "why everything is the way it is". > However, that explaination does not include a reference to what my > understanding of Rayleigh scattering entails. Considered on the scale of > the wavelength of the light involved, the density of air varies > statistically. Blue is a shorter wavelenth than red, so statistically that > variation in air density is greater. So, blue is scattered more than > red. Blue sky means that more blue is scattered. There is no way for the atmosphere to be so stable over both time and space on the short-scale (meters and seconds) or over time on the long-scale (every day). The variance in atmospheric content of carbon dioxide, oxygen, etc. also varies, so cannot simply be reduced to a sound bite like Rayleigh scattering. Please consider donating less at the wikipedia denomination of the Church of Science. Mark
Re: EMP missile
See also https://www.ausairpower.net/dew-ebomb.html On Thu, May 16, 2019, 3:19 PM jim bell wrote: > Air Force has deployed missiles that could fry electronics of Iran > https://mol.im/a/7037549 via http://dailym.ai/android > > >
Re: OFFTOPIC: physics question
The area of consciousness studies suffers from clarity of definition which
is a major constraint on research outside the mainstream narratives. A good
example is the widespread dismissal of Jaynes', "The origin of
consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind", mostly due to
reviewers failing to even read in detail this work and understand how he
defines a particular aspect of consciousness.
On Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:52 PM Douglas Lucas wrote:
> Hey cypherpunks / nerdcoin hoarders,
>
> On 5/12/19 6:59 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
> > If light travels at a. different speed for different colors in order
> > to account for the rainbow of a prism, how fast is the. speed of light
> > then? Is there real physics to optics? How can light know what
> > direction to bend after it leaves the lens?
>
> Tangent, but there's a somewhat similar question in philosophy of mind.
> People sometimes imagine human consciousness to be a kind of
> "theater"[1]: all the sensory input is arriving from behind the curtain
> (optic nerves etc. transmitting inbound info), then that traveling
> sensory input crosses some sort of finish line, and then is presented,
> entirely bundled up together (audio, video, etc.), on some some of inner
> theater, to some inner self, who then makes a rational decision about
> the display on the theater, and consequently sends output ("strike
> keyboard with finger") to the body, etc., until new sensory input
> arrives on the internal movie screen, triggering more decisions from the
> inner self/captain of the ship/homonculus...
>
> An interesting complication to the above is, like the different colors
> of light going through the prism at minutely different speeds, thereby
> introducing confusing complexity to a model generally taken as
> straightforward, well, the sensory input traveling through the body, the
> brain neurons, etc., do not always perform properly, do not all operate
> at the same speed, etc. So there's lag among these different inbound,
> command, and outbound signals, and perhaps the theater is dishonestly
> representing the various confusing input as straightforwardly bound
> together. Maybe one optic nerve is slightly longer than the other due to
> some congenital reason. So on and so forth.
>
> I'm not sure what the implications of the above would be for, e.g.,
> neuro-surgeons performing operations, athletes trying to master their
> mind-bodies, Libet and free will[2], etc. Sometimes I think the above is
> just well-off people with copious spare time flapping their jaws --
> elementary school lunch table shit ("How do I know you see green when I
> see green?") just with bigger words and longer sentences, while everyone
> else suffers, does the jaw-flappers' unpaid domestic labor, disappears
> into ICE prisons, etc., their views and insights on the above never
> recorded to history.
>
> Doug
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater
> [2]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Implications_of_Libet%27s_experiments
>
Re: OFFTOPIC: physics question
Hey cypherpunks / nerdcoin hoarders,
On 5/12/19 6:59 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
> If light travels at a. different speed for different colors in order
> to account for the rainbow of a prism, how fast is the. speed of light
> then? Is there real physics to optics? How can light know what
> direction to bend after it leaves the lens?
Tangent, but there's a somewhat similar question in philosophy of mind.
People sometimes imagine human consciousness to be a kind of
"theater"[1]: all the sensory input is arriving from behind the curtain
(optic nerves etc. transmitting inbound info), then that traveling
sensory input crosses some sort of finish line, and then is presented,
entirely bundled up together (audio, video, etc.), on some some of inner
theater, to some inner self, who then makes a rational decision about
the display on the theater, and consequently sends output ("strike
keyboard with finger") to the body, etc., until new sensory input
arrives on the internal movie screen, triggering more decisions from the
inner self/captain of the ship/homonculus...
An interesting complication to the above is, like the different colors
of light going through the prism at minutely different speeds, thereby
introducing confusing complexity to a model generally taken as
straightforward, well, the sensory input traveling through the body, the
brain neurons, etc., do not always perform properly, do not all operate
at the same speed, etc. So there's lag among these different inbound,
command, and outbound signals, and perhaps the theater is dishonestly
representing the various confusing input as straightforwardly bound
together. Maybe one optic nerve is slightly longer than the other due to
some congenital reason. So on and so forth.
I'm not sure what the implications of the above would be for, e.g.,
neuro-surgeons performing operations, athletes trying to master their
mind-bodies, Libet and free will[2], etc. Sometimes I think the above is
just well-off people with copious spare time flapping their jaws --
elementary school lunch table shit ("How do I know you see green when I
see green?") just with bigger words and longer sentences, while everyone
else suffers, does the jaw-flappers' unpaid domestic labor, disappears
into ICE prisons, etc., their views and insights on the above never
recorded to history.
Doug
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Implications_of_Libet%27s_experiments
Re: OFFTOPIC: physics question
On Friday, May 17, 2019, 10:55:25 AM PDT, \0xDynamite wrote: >I think you answered part of my question, which was partly didactic to force science to get more rigor in its explanation. I think I will have to content myself with this because I know that rainbows and the sky being blue will NEVER be explainable by science. Mark No, the reason the sky is blue was explained long ago. It's called "Rayleigh scattering". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering Rayleigh scattering (pronounced /ˈreɪli/ RAY-lee), named after the nineteenth-century British physicist Lord Rayleigh (John William Strutt),[1] is the predominantly elastic scattering of light or other electromagnetic radiation by particles much smaller than the wavelength of the radiation. Rayleigh scattering does not change the state of material and is, hence, a parametric process. The particles may be individual atoms or molecules. It can occur when light travels through transparent solids and liquids, and is most prominently seen in gases. Rayleigh scattering results from the electric polarizability of the particles. The oscillating electric field of a light wave acts on the charges within a particle, causing them to move at the same frequency. The particle therefore becomes a small radiating dipole whose radiation we see as scattered light. This radiation is an integral part of the photon and no excitation or deexcitation occurs. [end of quote] However, that explaination does not include a reference to what my understanding of Rayleigh scattering entails. Considered on the scale of the wavelength of the light involved, the density of air varies statistically. Blue is a shorter wavelenth than red, so statistically that variation in air density is greater. So, blue is scattered more than red. Blue sky means that more blue is scattered. Jim Bell
Re: OFFTOPIC: physics question
Sorry for this little diversion, If light travels at a. different speed for different colors in order to account for the rainbow of a prism, how fast is the. speed of light then? >>> >>> The speed of light is a physical constant. The frequency (or >>> wavelength) of a photon determines its energy and therefore, to the >>> human eye, its color. >> >> If light's speed is a physical constant, then light wouldn't separate >> into colors within a prism. > > Because light's speed is a physical constant, light separates into > colors when passing through a prism. > > The higher the frequency of a photon, the higher its energy. Since more > energetic photons can not speed up, and less energetic photons can not > slow down, they behave AS IF they had more or less 'mass.' That's a fascinating view that I haven't heard proposed before. You're proposing that they DO NOT change speed, as commonly explained. The separated light would presumably lose mass, because it is now only *part* of the original. > Higher and lower energy photons deflect slightly more or less when > forced to change direction in a refractive medium, in a way analogous to > heavier and lighter moving objects acted on by, for instance, the wind... That's a more parsimonious explanation -- that they have more or less energy, not speed. But I think, in fact, that this is where there is a tradeoff in the energy vs. information/data equation of the universe. Information (or data) is the opposite side of energy. Color is data, more than illumination (at least in a rainbow, where it is questionable whether it would illuminate anything). I think you answered part of my question, which was partly didactic to force science to get more rigor in its explanation. I think I will have to content myself with this because I know that rainbows and the sky being blue will NEVER be explainable by science. Mark
