In fact this was one of the first things about Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity that he and his colleagues realized: the implication that information could not travel faster than C.
But now we have yet another recent claim from the same old supposedly-discredited source that neutrinos can actually travel faster than light.
I suspect that eventually Special Relativity will go the way of Newtonian physics: it will be deemed a very good approximation under most circumstances, with certain edge-case exceptions.
Dual layers are pretty much required too. Use some FOSS to encrypt it locally, then do it again on the cloud. No single point of failure or single point of pressure.
Depends on your point of view. If you mean someone breaking your encryption, agreed that is no "single point of failure". But from the other point of view -- legitimately retrieving your information -- there are now TWO single points of failure. That is to say, two individual points at which any failure means total failure.
"Security Audits" - In other words, making sure these governments have a way to access secure information stored on confiscated iPhones from activists, dissidents, journalists, and other troublemakers.
Not necessarily. There are legitimate kinds of audits, too. In fact the U.S. should be doing more of them.
We have already found foreign chips (guess where they were made) that were "backdoored", even in some military products. And others that were cheap forged copies of better chips.
Whenever we have electronics that are important to not just military security but even just citizen privacy and dependence (like phones), we should be doing thorough security audits.
OP says "paradox" but the issues discussed in the paper are not strictly paradoxes, just contradictions. There is a difference. If you say it's black and I say it's white, that's not a paradox but a contradiction. If one theory says it's red and another theory says it's green, again that's not paradox but mere contradiction.
The carrot works best when the donkey doesn't eat it, just as it held in front of it's muzzle and this in conjunction with the fear of the stick keeps the donkey ie the masses in check.
If you don't let the donkey have some real carrot now and then it will just sit there and tell you to go to hell, no matter how much you dangle.
Wow....it was a straight up freedom of speech decision.
No, it wasn't. It was anything but. By effectively declaring that money = speech, the Supreme Court tried to make this a country in which some people get to have much more speech than others. And that is so clearly an anti-American conclusion that it WILL inevitably be overturned.
But back to the main topic. This isn't as big a deal -- or quite the "victory" -- that some people have been crowing about.
First, it's ridiculous to try to declare science settled by legislative fiat. It's about as smart as the old story about declaring Pi equal to 3.0... and it was the Democrats who just tried to do it. So now they have egg on their faces.
Second, while the vote agreed that climate change was real, any language that would also agree that it was man-caused was left out.
So the whole thing was a huge straw man of no consequence whatever. Anybody who declares this to be some kind of "victory" is an idiot.
COBOL has increased in popularity because all the people who know it are retiring, so the people who are willing to learn it are getting humongous salaries.
That isn't an "increase in popularity". It is just a slowing of its decline. There is a difference.
A moment's thought will let you prove to yourself that COBOL is not actually "increasing" in popularity: the number of new systems being built to run COBOL is essentially zero. It would be stupid to do so. Rather, they are only maintaining old systems. And old systems are gradually replaced over time, no matter how slowly.
JavaScript is sometimes partly compiled to native instructions, but part of it is bytecode-interpreted.
And the reason, I will repeat, is dynamic typing vs static typing. It isn't so much (as many have asserted elsewhere) weak typing versus strong typing. Ruby is strongly typed, for example, but it is also dynamically typed, which makes it notoriously difficult to compile.
JavaScript is a double whammy because not only is it dynamically typed but weakly typed as well. Fully-compiled versions of JavaScript have always been strict subsets of the language, and almost always require strict typing.
The problem is that in a dynamically-typed language, data types can often change due to runtime considerations, which compilers cannot reliably predict.
OP says "paradox" but the issues discussed in the paper are not strictly paradoxes, just contradictions. There is a difference.
If you say it's black and I say it's white, that's not a paradox but a contradiction. If one theory says it's red and another theory says it's green, again that's not paradox but mere contradiction.
I am with GP. The fact that something is legal has little bearing on whether it is socially acceptable. If you filmed me while I was eating dinner at a restaurant with others, I would indeed think you were an asshole.
I would complain to the house, and if they didn't do anything about it, I would.
There is a huge difference between just incidentally picking someone up for an moment in a video, and making them the subject of your video.
Nonsense, you have some expectations of privacy, even in public.
This.
A number of courts have upheld the idea that it's one thing to, for example, take a video of a crowded street, in which case people who happen to walk by have no reasonable expectation of any say in what you do with that video.
It's quite another thing to focus in on individuals, and follow or surveil them to watch and record what they're doing for a period of time.
The basic idea is that catching someone incidentally in public is one thing. (Filming police as they make an arrest, for example.) Stalking private individuals, and making them the "stars" of your video is quite another. There is already court precedent which says that deliberate pursuance of even public information and actions by people in public can constitute stalking. The manner in which they are being watched or recorded has a lot to do with it.
Not only what the others said, but the main reason Intel tried putting a GUID in each CPU was pressure from Microsoft, which wanted to license per CPU.
Of course loud screams from a majority of their users nipped that scheme in the bud, but that doesn't mean MS has given up on some version of that idea.
Stock market is the bathwater, and utilitarian trade is the baby.
Which was my whole point. Many people have it backward. Not only is the stock market NOT "the economy", it isn't even a good measure of the health of the economy.
Witness the fact that the stock market was always doing "just fine" or even better, just before a huge economic slump. There is a genuine negative, but not necessarily predictable, correlation.
Here's part of your answer, and it's contained in OP: the simple fact that COBOL has increased in Tiobe's "popularity index" illustrates the silliness of the kinds of measures Tiobe uses to rate popularity.
You're generally better off checking Gartner or RedMonk or even LangPop.
Stock market is absolutely not necessary for a free market to function. Goods were bought and sold in the free market long before there was ever a stock market.
My whole point was that a speculative market tends to DISTORT free market price signals by creating artificial bubbles and downturns; these are inevitable whenever price is separated from value.
JavaScript isn't just for scripting anymore. The run-time performance is acceptable for some rather serious scalable software. And there are better static analysis tools now, although Java and a few others still beats JS at unit testing and validation.
Yes, it is. The performance doesn't make it "not a scripting language".
The performance of most other scripting languages has also increased. That doesn't make them "not scripting languages" either.
The major difference between scripting languages and other languages is interpreted vs compiled. And the main reason for that is still dynamic typing vs static typing. Though by now the lines have been blurred quite a bit. Java isn't usually referred to as a scripting language even though it needs a bytecode interpreter. (But there's that static-vs-dynamic typing again.) On the other hand, JRuby compiles and runs as Java bytecode, but Ruby is still generally considered a scripting language. Go figure.
Huh, controversial use of tax dollars (and a very small percentage of tax dollars) implies that all taxes are bad? I didn't realize we took the worst reported use as the standard use.
There is nothing even slightly controversial about it. US Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement may not use electronic devices to determine what is going on inside a home without a warrant. Period. Doing so is quite illegal.
Many states, such as mine, have laws that are even stronger. But I don't pretend to know the laws in all 50.
Which is why speculative markets arguably should not exist. The historical record of the damage they have caused is long and sad.
Speculative markets are not "capitalist" in a strict sense of the term. Price signals in speculative markets are not sufficiently attached to the actual value of a good, which in turn is attached to utility.
What many forget is that bitcoin is not a regulated market. That means no one pulling the plug to let people calm down. There is no value other than the dollar against it.
That is not, strictly speaking, true. It is only true in the context of a grossly irrational market (like the current U.S. stock market, which is very far from rational and therefore subject to outrageous bubbles).
In a rational market, the stable price of any commodity will be slightly more than the cost of production + distribution. Bitcoin was originally designed to have very little cost of distribution, so this boils down to little more than the production cost. And make no mistake: production cost of Bitcoins today is considerable.
Speculation is not the same as a rational free market. They are vastly different. Speculation does not generate Adam Smith style free-market price signals. In general, it is speculation that causes bubbles. It is the speculative price that fluctuates wildly, not "fair market value". In economics one must keep in mind that price and value are often not the same things.
The peak price of Bitcoin was pretty much a classic case of a bubble caused by irrational speculation that did not take actual commodity value into account.
That said it's not three times smaller, it's three times less volume. It's only 2cm on a side smaller, not much bigger than a Raspberry Pi B+, which let's be honest, isn't game-changing at this point. 2012 was a long time ago.
"Times smaller" is an excruciatingly ambiguous phrase anyway. It is very much open to interpretation, even if you presume they mean volume.
Slashdot Mirror
Why lay fiber at all when you can gouge wireless?
Why do it? Because they received fucking Federal tax money to do it, that's why.
But instead, they illegally plowed their Federal money into wireless infrastructure.
This has been an issue for a long time now. Consult EFF about it.
In fact this was one of the first things about Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity that he and his colleagues realized: the implication that information could not travel faster than C.
But now we have yet another recent claim from the same old supposedly-discredited source that neutrinos can actually travel faster than light.
I suspect that eventually Special Relativity will go the way of Newtonian physics: it will be deemed a very good approximation under most circumstances, with certain edge-case exceptions.
Dual layers are pretty much required too. Use some FOSS to encrypt it locally, then do it again on the cloud. No single point of failure or single point of pressure.
Depends on your point of view. If you mean someone breaking your encryption, agreed that is no "single point of failure". But from the other point of view -- legitimately retrieving your information -- there are now TWO single points of failure. That is to say, two individual points at which any failure means total failure.
So that does not come without potential cost.
"Security Audits" - In other words, making sure these governments have a way to access secure information stored on confiscated iPhones from activists, dissidents, journalists, and other troublemakers.
Not necessarily. There are legitimate kinds of audits, too. In fact the U.S. should be doing more of them.
We have already found foreign chips (guess where they were made) that were "backdoored", even in some military products. And others that were cheap forged copies of better chips.
Whenever we have electronics that are important to not just military security but even just citizen privacy and dependence (like phones), we should be doing thorough security audits.
OP says "paradox" but the issues discussed in the paper are not strictly paradoxes, just contradictions. There is a difference. If you say it's black and I say it's white, that's not a paradox but a contradiction. If one theory says it's red and another theory says it's green, again that's not paradox but mere contradiction.
But I'm here for an argument!
I told you once.
I don't agree that the two things are even remotely comparable.
The carrot works best when the donkey doesn't eat it, just as it held in front of it's muzzle and this in conjunction with the fear of the stick keeps the donkey ie the masses in check.
If you don't let the donkey have some real carrot now and then it will just sit there and tell you to go to hell, no matter how much you dangle.
Wow....it was a straight up freedom of speech decision.
No, it wasn't. It was anything but. By effectively declaring that money = speech, the Supreme Court tried to make this a country in which some people get to have much more speech than others. And that is so clearly an anti-American conclusion that it WILL inevitably be overturned.
But back to the main topic. This isn't as big a deal -- or quite the "victory" -- that some people have been crowing about.
First, it's ridiculous to try to declare science settled by legislative fiat. It's about as smart as the old story about declaring Pi equal to 3.0... and it was the Democrats who just tried to do it. So now they have egg on their faces.
Second, while the vote agreed that climate change was real, any language that would also agree that it was man-caused was left out.
So the whole thing was a huge straw man of no consequence whatever. Anybody who declares this to be some kind of "victory" is an idiot.
I think you might be overestimating the minimum intelligence of right wingers.
Or the education of Left-wingers who don't know that the KKK has historically been closely tied to the Democrat party?
(Even just Wikipedia will tell you that much.)
COBOL has increased in popularity because all the people who know it are retiring, so the people who are willing to learn it are getting humongous salaries.
That isn't an "increase in popularity". It is just a slowing of its decline. There is a difference.
A moment's thought will let you prove to yourself that COBOL is not actually "increasing" in popularity: the number of new systems being built to run COBOL is essentially zero. It would be stupid to do so. Rather, they are only maintaining old systems. And old systems are gradually replaced over time, no matter how slowly.
JavaScript is sometimes partly compiled to native instructions, but part of it is bytecode-interpreted.
And the reason, I will repeat, is dynamic typing vs static typing. It isn't so much (as many have asserted elsewhere) weak typing versus strong typing. Ruby is strongly typed, for example, but it is also dynamically typed, which makes it notoriously difficult to compile.
JavaScript is a double whammy because not only is it dynamically typed but weakly typed as well. Fully-compiled versions of JavaScript have always been strict subsets of the language, and almost always require strict typing.
The problem is that in a dynamically-typed language, data types can often change due to runtime considerations, which compilers cannot reliably predict.
OP says "paradox" but the issues discussed in the paper are not strictly paradoxes, just contradictions. There is a difference.
If you say it's black and I say it's white, that's not a paradox but a contradiction. If one theory says it's red and another theory says it's green, again that's not paradox but mere contradiction.
The point is now moot. The amendments failed.
I am with GP. The fact that something is legal has little bearing on whether it is socially acceptable. If you filmed me while I was eating dinner at a restaurant with others, I would indeed think you were an asshole.
I would complain to the house, and if they didn't do anything about it, I would.
There is a huge difference between just incidentally picking someone up for an moment in a video, and making them the subject of your video.
Nonsense, you have some expectations of privacy, even in public.
This.
A number of courts have upheld the idea that it's one thing to, for example, take a video of a crowded street, in which case people who happen to walk by have no reasonable expectation of any say in what you do with that video.
It's quite another thing to focus in on individuals, and follow or surveil them to watch and record what they're doing for a period of time.
The basic idea is that catching someone incidentally in public is one thing. (Filming police as they make an arrest, for example.) Stalking private individuals, and making them the "stars" of your video is quite another. There is already court precedent which says that deliberate pursuance of even public information and actions by people in public can constitute stalking. The manner in which they are being watched or recorded has a lot to do with it.
"Device" has always meant the motherboard.
Not only what the others said, but the main reason Intel tried putting a GUID in each CPU was pressure from Microsoft, which wanted to license per CPU.
Of course loud screams from a majority of their users nipped that scheme in the bud, but that doesn't mean MS has given up on some version of that idea.
Stock market is the bathwater, and utilitarian trade is the baby.
Which was my whole point. Many people have it backward. Not only is the stock market NOT "the economy", it isn't even a good measure of the health of the economy.
Witness the fact that the stock market was always doing "just fine" or even better, just before a huge economic slump. There is a genuine negative, but not necessarily predictable, correlation.
Here's part of your answer, and it's contained in OP: the simple fact that COBOL has increased in Tiobe's "popularity index" illustrates the silliness of the kinds of measures Tiobe uses to rate popularity.
You're generally better off checking Gartner or RedMonk or even LangPop.
A commodity.
Stock market is absolutely not necessary for a free market to function. Goods were bought and sold in the free market long before there was ever a stock market.
My whole point was that a speculative market tends to DISTORT free market price signals by creating artificial bubbles and downturns; these are inevitable whenever price is separated from value.
JavaScript isn't just for scripting anymore. The run-time performance is acceptable for some rather serious scalable software. And there are better static analysis tools now, although Java and a few others still beats JS at unit testing and validation.
Yes, it is. The performance doesn't make it "not a scripting language".
The performance of most other scripting languages has also increased. That doesn't make them "not scripting languages" either.
The major difference between scripting languages and other languages is interpreted vs compiled. And the main reason for that is still dynamic typing vs static typing. Though by now the lines have been blurred quite a bit. Java isn't usually referred to as a scripting language even though it needs a bytecode interpreter. (But there's that static-vs-dynamic typing again.) On the other hand, JRuby compiles and runs as Java bytecode, but Ruby is still generally considered a scripting language. Go figure.
Huh, controversial use of tax dollars (and a very small percentage of tax dollars) implies that all taxes are bad? I didn't realize we took the worst reported use as the standard use.
There is nothing even slightly controversial about it. US Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement may not use electronic devices to determine what is going on inside a home without a warrant. Period. Doing so is quite illegal.
Many states, such as mine, have laws that are even stronger. But I don't pretend to know the laws in all 50.
They have been using SSRIs to turn knobs in the brain, but they don't even know which way to turn them, let alone how far...
Not to mention the idiotic FDA regulations which reference Body Mass Index, which is the most ridiculous way to measure fat % I've ever seen.
Just for one example, body builders often have a rather extreme BMI. But treatments for fat people are not even remotely appropriate for them.
So why is this ancient, discredited, obviously-ludicrous-on-its-face measure being used in medicine at all?
Which is why speculative markets arguably should not exist. The historical record of the damage they have caused is long and sad.
Speculative markets are not "capitalist" in a strict sense of the term. Price signals in speculative markets are not sufficiently attached to the actual value of a good, which in turn is attached to utility.
What many forget is that bitcoin is not a regulated market. That means no one pulling the plug to let people calm down. There is no value other than the dollar against it.
That is not, strictly speaking, true. It is only true in the context of a grossly irrational market (like the current U.S. stock market, which is very far from rational and therefore subject to outrageous bubbles).
In a rational market, the stable price of any commodity will be slightly more than the cost of production + distribution. Bitcoin was originally designed to have very little cost of distribution, so this boils down to little more than the production cost. And make no mistake: production cost of Bitcoins today is considerable.
Speculation is not the same as a rational free market. They are vastly different. Speculation does not generate Adam Smith style free-market price signals. In general, it is speculation that causes bubbles. It is the speculative price that fluctuates wildly, not "fair market value". In economics one must keep in mind that price and value are often not the same things.
The peak price of Bitcoin was pretty much a classic case of a bubble caused by irrational speculation that did not take actual commodity value into account.
That said it's not three times smaller, it's three times less volume. It's only 2cm on a side smaller, not much bigger than a Raspberry Pi B+, which let's be honest, isn't game-changing at this point. 2012 was a long time ago.
"Times smaller" is an excruciatingly ambiguous phrase anyway. It is very much open to interpretation, even if you presume they mean volume.