sure they are different, they just have the same entries covered in the same, encyclopedic fashion, and they are both encyclopedias, and...
Wikipedia is most useful when you treat it as a source for references, rather than blindly trusting the words on the page. then what for is Britannica (most) useful ?
Further, Trolls seek attention and sell their post as the 100% truth while serious people always write with some uncertainty - therefore my example is kind of wrong. It should contain more "I think, It could be, I am almost sure, I am , BUT" and so on... Then I'm sure that you have just discovered the new strategy for writing trolls.
..if the vehicle is in compliance with the law, then it stand to reason that from tracking the vehicle police gets a pretty good idea who is in the vehicle.No?
No. It could easily be my wife or one of my children, all of whom are legal
drivers of my car. It could be my father-in-law who is also insured to drive
the vehicle.
I can let anyone drive my vehicle as long as I am content that
they meet the necessary legal requirements.
Indeed, I agree.
And you have missed an essential point. The system is not spewing out daily
reports for each vehicle. Unless the vehicle is already flagged as being 'of
interest' to the police the data is simply stored. That is no more intrusive
than my neighbour observing me driving my car and remembering that fact (gosh,
perhaps we ought to make sure that a neighbour never sees me in my vehicle?).
Difference is quite, well, big: your neighbour are the people next door,
same building, same street, you know them, etc...
The system can also be used to prove
that someone wasn't in a certain place. For example, if my car is being used in
place A and a similar car with the same number plate in used to commit a crime
in place B, it is quite possible for the police to rule out my vehicle's
involvement in the crime simply because it couldn't be in two places at once.
Then, in order to resolve the possibility of mistaken identity/vehicle, the
system should keep a record of each and every identity/vehicle? Ok, for me
that's pretty much a summary definition of the total surveilance society.
I am assuming that you have bothered to read all of the previous posts and you
are aware that I have discounted the paranoid belief that we are all being
followed, tracked and spied upon.
Yes, I did and I'll prove it to you... Funny you should mention
paranoia. That is like: having disillusional beliefs of being watched all the
time? Of being suspected by someone one does not know in one's "real life" of
crimes that one has not committed?
But stolen cars are not a common occurrence in the society at large.
"Vehicle crime has dropped by 51% since 1997. However, there were some 1.7
million vehicle related thefts during 2005-06."
(http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reduci ng-crime/vehicle-crime/). I
disagree with you and the Home Office statistics seem to prove you wrong. I
have had my car stolen. It is not, unfortunately, a rare occurrence.
Well, I have had my car stollen too.
I must quote in full the part of my post to which you're refering:
But stolen cars are not a common occurrence in the society at large. It is also
not easy to steal a car: there are already so many legal and technological
systems in action to prevent that, none of which imposes itself upon everybody
that happens to drive something.
Again: use of the surveillance system for tracking "vehicle related thefts"
(which means cameras everywhere: highways, parking lots, streets,...) is
already too much for me, not only because it can be enforced by other
means than the total surveillance, but also because--I have to mention the
concern that has been expressed in other posts here: what happens when
the system is reappropriated for something that has not been the reason for
the system use in the first place? Like reapproriated by anti-terrorism
laws, which, as they are executed, is already very tricky: people getting shot
by police, getting in prison based on suspicions and without being charged,
etc. The concerns were also about what else is all this surveillance going
to be used in the future.
You are probably not that important unless you are guilty of some crime and you
are trying to evade detection and subsequent punishment. In which case, I'm
rather glad that the system exists because you might well be correct that, in
your case, the police are watching yo
Where in the above does it state that each individual is being tracked? Vehicles are checked for legal compliance with the relevant laws. Vehicle movements will be recorded to show the movement of that vehicle but that does not identify the occupant(s). Well then check out this perversion: if the vehicle is in compliance with the law, then it stand to reason that from tracking the vehicle police gets a pretty good idea who is in the vehicle. No?
If my car was stolen and this assisted the police in recovering it, I would be quite content But stolen cars are not a common occurrence in the society at large. It is also not easy to steal a car: there are already so many legal and technological systems in action to prevent that, none of which imposes itself upon everybody that happens to drive something.
They still wouldn't know where I have been, only where my car has been. Indeed, that is only a restatement of the perversion that I mentioned a moment ago. Then, in order to protect their identity, people should simply swap their cars, and not tell to the police? Would that be even legal?
And this system is not new but it already has been invaluable for tracking the movements of the 7/7 and 21/7 bombers retrospectively i.e. the data has to be searched, it does not provide a list of the movements of every vehicle automatically. There is no legal justification for such a system nor has approval been given for one. I'm not sure that I understand the relation of the first sentence and the second, but, anyhow, the question of the legal justification of such a system is indeed the good question.
isn't this just enabling police to watch things happen instead of doing things about it? I think the message is not "police watches things happen" but "police watches people doing things".
How is that a myth? I think there are quite a few people who might have actually done that. Is there another way to provide and preserve freedoms? Depends on the war you're talking about: who could tell that not starting the Iraqi war would not have been the better way to preserve freedoms?
[...]I want the Germans to run my traffic systems, not the British[...] wow, take it easy bro. Germans have those camera too, also GPS-based pay-highway-toll systems for trucks, etc...
[...]
You may notice that as the number of coins flips increases, the observed ratios get closer to 5:5 (which is the same as 1:1). ok, I agree. Now, if you make an odd number of throws, you can't possibly
get the ratio exactly equal to 1 after no matter how many throws (which of course
does not imply that the ratio won't converge to 1). Then, if
you make even number of throws, and make a list of all outcomes after n throws,
there will be many with the ratio different than 1.
Let's now suppose that
we calculate some nontrivial bound on how the ratio should approach 1 as n increases: well, then, in order to keep the ratio of what we get from the throws within this bound, we will have to juice the coin to keep the outcomes from not being as you call them "abnormal", i.e to keep the ratio from getting outside the calculated bound.
In other words: There will always be some sequences that are "abnormal", and we might just as well call these random, exactly because they are hard to predict from the purely convergence-type argumentation; they may even have the ratio approaching 1, but not converging to it.
In other words: the probability of such sequences, whose ratio is outside the bound required from the criterion of converge, might even go to zero as n goes to infinity, but will always be strictly greater than zero for any n.
So while we should be vigilant we also should be thankful for the freedoms we have, grateful to those who died so that we could have them, and honor those who sacrifice so much to maintain them even to this day. This rationale illustrates a common myth. What myth? That the second world war has just finished. We had already had the third world war (the cold one), and the fourth is going on: the war on terror/the total surveillance society.
Oh come off it. Physics has a history of changing the underlying model. The current theory states that randomness is inherent, but something may come along and invalidate that theory. It may seem extremely unlikely given the current understanding, but the idea of physics being turned on its head is not unprecedented. It all depends on how one interprets this "turning on its head": one could also say that physicists were only quantitatively refining their theories through changing the underlying model, no matter how "strange" "new" theories might seem. Like if one day new theory comes that says that all this randomness is not inherent, well, it better produce some of the randomness that the old physics produced, even if it is to be called non-inherently-random.
What would be a truly-random non-quantum process? Come to think of it, what would a non-quantum process be? Flipping the coin is an answer to both of your questions.
The number Pi already contains all the works of Shakespeare, along with all other works. It's an infinite, non-repeating series of digits. well not really, Pi is not a random real umber...
If you flip a coin, initially you may see some bias towards heads or tails, but the more you flip, the closer to a 1:1 ratio you get. I don't think so. this ratio for a random sequences of 0's and 1's should not converge to 1.
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling.
Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from the grave.
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria. Yeah, that's the good stuff allright, but I always thought that
the guy sings more like:
Human sacrifice, living together - mass hysteria. I dunno about dogs and cats part...
He's pointing out that there's an unsupported statement that begs the questions. Whatever that "pointing out" might mean...
If you read the two posts again, you'll see that one guy said something about making 3d prints of Moebius strip and the other guy asked in reply: "Are you sure?", i.e, he raised a question, which,
according to the article you're referring to, could not have been "begging the question", because he asked something:
This is a common error of usage made by those who mistake the word "question" in the phrase to refer to a literal question. Of course, all this suppression of asking questions is militant:
While descriptivists and other such laissez-faire linguists are content to allow the misconception to fall into the vernacular, it cannot be denied that logic and philosophy stand to lose an important conceptual label should the meaning of BTQ [beg the question] become diluted to the point that we must constantly distinguish between the traditional usage and the erroneous "modern" usage. This is why we fight. Check out the twist (about which you might have wanted to know more, I dunno):
In the name of the purity of logic and philosophy, one is not allowed to ask when one is to say "beg the question". This means:
You're allowed to say: "This begs the question because X does not imply Y."
You're not allowed to say: "This begs the question: Doesn't X not imply Y?"
Because the second usage would be "raising the question", at the same level as:
You're allowed to say: "This raises the question: Is it really that X implies Y?"
The second twist is that the guy whom you're defending was kind of abusing the other guys argumentation via "begging"--English is sufficiently reach to allow for all kinds of other ways to ask, i.e: "This 3d-printing thing begs the question, because you are not sure what you are talking about" (sound a bit harsh, no?); or "The 3d-printings thing raises the question: are you sure in what you're talking about?" (sound little bit less harsch but fake);
he could have even raised the rhetorical question: "Are you sure in what you're talking about?" --in the sense: "the article has nothing to do with 3-d printing,
because it is about distribution of energy of an 'optimally' bent Moebius strip, which does not imply that there aren't many other possible bendings...", etc... but he didn't, he begged something...
So we see the third twist: one can indeed use "begs the question" in some sense that might make some people upset and not without good reasons...
The meanings of words change, every day. Things that meant one thing yesterday means something else today. This is not something most people understand, but it is the truth. You cannot insist on a formal code of language which is absolute because a language is a living thing. Which begs the question: if the meaning changes so fast, and if that is the truth,
and if you cannot insist on a formal code of language which is absolute, how come that what you are saying is truth? In which relative formal code of language you
can assert what you assert? Isn't it more like that language, especially if we take it to be
a living thing, does not change that fast?
The point that the parent was attempting to make is that other species are designed not to need all this intellectual baggage we drag around with us. They can still accomplish the three prime objectives of life (eat, breed, die), and never waste a moment sitting and agonizing over the wording of their slashdot posts. As a slashdotter, I find the wording of your post to be highly agonizing. And as to the really important content of it.... two outta three ain't bad. And I for one still like to slashdot inbetween those two...
Dude, when Itanium came out, it was the fastest FP core on the planet. It came out how many years late? Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I remember alphas were still kicking ass when Itanium
came out, and there was a massive outcry of people swearing on everything that is dear to them that alphas have better architecture than Itanium. Anyhow, I won't disagree that there is something very interesting about the concept of Itanium...
Anyways, RISC is quite a bit less efficient than CISC with memory bandwidth How come?
My opinion is that they should have first shipped it without any of the x86 stuff as a pure supercomputing processor, and write a solid C and fortan compilers for it. well said, can't agree more.
Yes, I agree about the architectures, but there are nevertheless some similarities among the bugs:
for Core 2 Duo, description of AI21 bug says:
Global Pages in the Data Translation Look-Aside Buffer (DTLB) May Not
Be Flushed by RSM instruction before Restoring the Architectural State
from SMRAM which is the same as the description of the bug AE30 of Core Duo that I mentioned before. For AI21, Intel also says "plain fix".
Well, there are also many other possible classical reasons for nondeterministic results of this bug, for instance due to some asynchronicity issues related to the inner design of the part of chip that deals with the non-canonical addresses, its connections to other parts of the chip, etc---the chip itself is sufficiently complex that it is hard to tell without looking into details of the design what's up. I'd just give a guess that this nondeterminism is veryvery unlikely to be due to the quantum effects.
Given that definition [of nanoparticle] every transistor's source, drain and gate are nanoparticles. And we expect them to behave classically why? Good question indeed. It is similar to asking, given that every atom is a quantum object, why should the wire made of these atoms behave according to laws of classical physics, like the Ohm's law etc? The physics answer is quite tricky, and it spins around the question how does the famous
reductionism break down, or not, in going from classical to quantum world, and vice-versa.
In the case of the chip, large working temperature of such chips will very much help in suppressing the quantum effects. The length scale of the little wires inside of the chip is very important, so, simply stated, one must counter-balance the size of the wires with the working temperature, and, in the end, you get the chip to behave completely classically, designed using standard laws of digital/analog electronics.
Going to much finer wires, like 10 fold thinner, would reintroduce quantum effect very big time, to the point of breaking the classical laws of conduction of these wires, transistors would have to be
redesigned/refabricated using completely different technology (that, AFAIK, does not exist yet), etc...
Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia is most useful when you treat it as a source for references, rather than blindly trusting the words on the page. then what for is Britannica (most) useful ?
I've checked it out and now my brain hurts, and it is all your fault!
..if the vehicle is in compliance with the law, then it stand to reason that from tracking the vehicle police gets a pretty good idea who is in the vehicle.No?
No. It could easily be my wife or one of my children, all of whom are legal drivers of my car. It could be my father-in-law who is also insured to drive the vehicle. I can let anyone drive my vehicle as long as I am content that they meet the necessary legal requirements.
Indeed, I agree.
And you have missed an essential point. The system is not spewing out daily reports for each vehicle. Unless the vehicle is already flagged as being 'of interest' to the police the data is simply stored. That is no more intrusive than my neighbour observing me driving my car and remembering that fact (gosh, perhaps we ought to make sure that a neighbour never sees me in my vehicle?).
Difference is quite, well, big: your neighbour are the people next door, same building, same street, you know them, etc...
The system can also be used to prove that someone wasn't in a certain place. For example, if my car is being used in place A and a similar car with the same number plate in used to commit a crime in place B, it is quite possible for the police to rule out my vehicle's involvement in the crime simply because it couldn't be in two places at once.
Then, in order to resolve the possibility of mistaken identity/vehicle, the system should keep a record of each and every identity/vehicle? Ok, for me that's pretty much a summary definition of the total surveilance society.
I am assuming that you have bothered to read all of the previous posts and you are aware that I have discounted the paranoid belief that we are all being followed, tracked and spied upon.
Yes, I did and I'll prove it to you... Funny you should mention paranoia. That is like: having disillusional beliefs of being watched all the time? Of being suspected by someone one does not know in one's "real life" of crimes that one has not committed?
But stolen cars are not a common occurrence in the society at large.
"Vehicle crime has dropped by 51% since 1997. However, there were some 1.7 million vehicle related thefts during 2005-06." (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reduci ng-crime/vehicle-crime/). I disagree with you and the Home Office statistics seem to prove you wrong. I have had my car stolen. It is not, unfortunately, a rare occurrence.
Well, I have had my car stollen too. I must quote in full the part of my post to which you're refering:
But stolen cars are not a common occurrence in the society at large. It is also not easy to steal a car: there are already so many legal and technological systems in action to prevent that, none of which imposes itself upon everybody that happens to drive something.
Again: use of the surveillance system for tracking "vehicle related thefts" (which means cameras everywhere: highways, parking lots, streets,...) is already too much for me, not only because it can be enforced by other means than the total surveillance, but also because--I have to mention the concern that has been expressed in other posts here: what happens when the system is reappropriated for something that has not been the reason for the system use in the first place? Like reapproriated by anti-terrorism laws, which, as they are executed, is already very tricky: people getting shot by police, getting in prison based on suspicions and without being charged, etc. The concerns were also about what else is all this surveillance going to be used in the future.
You are probably not that important unless you are guilty of some crime and you are trying to evade detection and subsequent punishment. In which case, I'm rather glad that the system exists because you might well be correct that, in your case, the police are watching yo
You may notice that as the number of coins flips increases, the observed ratios get closer to 5:5 (which is the same as 1:1). ok, I agree. Now, if you make an odd number of throws, you can't possibly get the ratio exactly equal to 1 after no matter how many throws (which of course does not imply that the ratio won't converge to 1).
Then, if you make even number of throws, and make a list of all outcomes after n throws, there will be many with the ratio different than 1.
Let's now suppose that we calculate some nontrivial bound on how the ratio should approach 1 as n increases: well, then, in order to keep the ratio of what we get from the throws within this bound, we will have to juice the coin to keep the outcomes from not being as you call them "abnormal", i.e to keep the ratio from getting outside the calculated bound.
In other words: There will always be some sequences that are "abnormal", and we might just as well call these random, exactly because they are hard to predict from the purely convergence-type argumentation; they may even have the ratio approaching 1, but not converging to it.
In other words: the probability of such sequences, whose ratio is outside the bound required from the criterion of converge, might even go to zero as n goes to infinity, but will always be strictly greater than zero for any n.
Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from the grave.
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria. Yeah, that's the good stuff allright, but I always thought that the guy sings more like: Human sacrifice, living together - mass hysteria. I dunno about dogs and cats part...
In the name of the purity of logic and philosophy, one is not allowed to ask when one is to say "beg the question". This means:
You're allowed to say: "This begs the question because X does not imply Y."
You're not allowed to say: "This begs the question: Doesn't X not imply Y?"
Because the second usage would be "raising the question", at the same level as:
You're allowed to say: "This raises the question: Is it really that X implies Y?"
The second twist is that the guy whom you're defending was kind of abusing the other guys argumentation via "begging"--English is sufficiently reach to allow for all kinds of other ways to ask, i.e:
"This 3d-printing thing begs the question, because you are not sure what you are talking about" (sound a bit harsh, no?); or "The 3d-printings thing raises the question: are you sure in what you're talking about?" (sound little bit less harsch but fake); he could have even raised the rhetorical question: "Are you sure in what you're talking about?" --in the sense: "the article has nothing to do with 3-d printing, because it is about distribution of energy of an 'optimally' bent Moebius strip, which does not imply that there aren't many other possible bendings...", etc... but he didn't, he begged something...
So we see the third twist: one can indeed use "begs the question" in some sense that might make some people upset and not without good reasons...
Thanks, that was very helpful!
Given that definition [of nanoparticle] every transistor's source, drain and gate are nanoparticles. And we expect them to behave classically why? Good question indeed. It is similar to asking, given that every atom is a quantum object, why should the wire made of these atoms behave according to laws of classical physics, like the Ohm's law etc? The physics answer is quite tricky, and it spins around the question how does the famous reductionism break down, or not, in going from classical to quantum world, and vice-versa.
In the case of the chip, large working temperature of such chips will very much help in suppressing the quantum effects. The length scale of the little wires inside of the chip is very important, so, simply stated, one must counter-balance the size of the wires with the working temperature, and, in the end, you get the chip to behave completely classically, designed using standard laws of digital/analog electronics. Going to much finer wires, like 10 fold thinner, would reintroduce quantum effect very big time, to the point of breaking the classical laws of conduction of these wires, transistors would have to be redesigned/refabricated using completely different technology (that, AFAIK, does not exist yet), etc...