However, if we are able to change the state of one particle and the other changes as well, then we can have data-transfer (think 1s and 0s, ON and OFF) across limitless distances.
You have hidden assumptions here. We are able to change the state at will, but we are not able to choose what state we change it to, and it's a one-time operation. All you can "communicate" is entirely random data -- which is very useful for quantum cryptography when combined with a classical communications channel, but doesn't have many other evident uses.
That's an awkward angle to take because the Earth isn't a plane, it's a globe; and Canada isn't a rectangle, it's a funny Canada-shaped landmass. Given that, there are many different geographical centres you could propose. And geographic centres are not the only type of centres
It is the political centre of Canada. After all, the epicentre was within a short drive of the political capital itself.
It's the centre of population of Canada.
And there's the fact that this is the centre of the historical region of Canada (pre-Confederation).
I'm not from Toronto, though i lived there for a few years.
Trying thinking three dimensionally. There are numerous time zones on this planet, not all of them the same as yours.
There are plenty of places where what is to you "earlier today" is "last night". Clicking on that guy's profile, looks like he's in Scotland. I'm going to guess that you're from the United States (or at the very least, aligned longitudinally with it), because otherwise I expect you'd be familiar with the idea that what day it is where you live can be different from what day it is in the US.
A common characteristic of self-absorbed prats is that they are convinced that everything ever written is about them, even when the written thing specifically excludes them.
The guy put the word if in italics, to make sure you saw it. If it's not about you, don't make it about you. Ironically, you are the one bitching about things that don't apply to you while he is bitching about a very focussed set of things (a socially acceptable level of bitching).
100 characters, maybe not, but there's a lot of software that limits you to nine for your first/given name. I know it's nine because my sister has 10 characters in her name. This comes, I assume, from certain standardized government forms that give 9 boxes for the first name and a whole fuckload of boxes into which you can stick my 3-letter surname.
I agree, but I was responding to the AC, who was essentially putting forth that it was be a binary ("if they aren't sure about what they say then they shouldn't say it"), and then being a random flamebaiting asshole ("calling it science is questionable...").
Your five megabytes of HOSTS file is probably irrelevant compared to real performance problems. That's not what a HOSTS file is meant for, and you should generally not optimize for the abusive case. Ideally you'd just use your application's native method for dealing with address-blocking, and if you need a blanket block such a huge number of addresses then a local proxy is the way to go, eg. Privoxy.
Micro-optimization is the root of all evil. The way to tune performance is to measure where the biggest problem is, and then reduce that. You do not hone in on a few bytes from a file format. For instance, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law. It's not worth putting even ten minutes of time into something that makes no noticeable difference to just about anybody, when you could spend that time working on a problem that will make a noticeable difference to some people. Therefore, the "math" does not yet support you; at least not given the evidence provided. You have to show that a reasonable HOSTS file used as recommended (or as there is no more reasonable alternative) makes a more significant difference to some important aspect of performance than any other change that could be made as easily.
Now, if you look at the Standard for IPv4 addressing, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1123.txt, you will see that dotted-decimal notation is required for Standards-compliant IPv4 applications (you can add further restrictions but not relieve restrictions), and if you look at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc952, the HOSTS file is required to have all four components. IPv6 does have a summary version in the standard, but I'm sure you won't like what IPv6 does to the size of the average HOSTS file (that is to say, marginally increase it). It's bad to break Web Standards without a really excellent reason. It had better be security, or a performance gain so bountiful and universal that none could fault it, such as when browsers started going to 6 connections per web server rather than 2.
That's not at all what happened. What happened was:
Tavis: "I found a critical flaw, will you fix it in 60 days?" Microsoft: "Hmm, we'll take a look and get back to you with a timetable on Friday" Tavis: "Not good enough". Released to the wild.
It's kind of ironic that you should snark about how many fingers you get to use on a PC vs. on a console, on an article about full-body motion control...
The 32-bit version of IE enables DEP on itself by default (at least since IE8), so that's not much of an advantage.
A 64-bit version of Windows has both 32-bit IE and 64-bit IE installed, so you can run both side-by-side and compare the performance toll without much issue. That said, there is a 64-bit toll: plugins like Flash and Silverlight that only have 32-bit versions don't work in 64-bit IE. If you hate all plugins, then fantastic; if you ever want to watch hulu, there's your toll.
Except that if Microsoft circumvented the DRM, it would be flagrantly illegal and could not happen by accident.
We're not talking about defending against a hypothetical foreign attack by a malicious adversary here, we're talking about preventing unwanted accidental or incidental installs.
Tell me, would you put down your life savings on this bet? From a pure risk analysis perspective on the amount of money, you are a moron not to, since your expected return is infinite. Yet in a rel world perspective, I'd say you would be a moron to take this bet, because the chances are extremely high (nearly 100% if you have more than a few dollars worth of savings) that you lose almost all of your money.
The fact is, the value of money has a diminishing return. The less you have, the more that what you have is worth, and the more a 50% loss hurts compared to a 100% gain. Thus, while the amount-risk is the same, the value-risk is different and skews heavily toward those who already have more money.
He didn't say that "everybody who falls under the same umbrella denomination of environmentalist is a science wacko", that's a ridiculous strawman argument. He described an anti-nuclear environmentalist organization as an anti-nuclear environmentalist organization. Specifically, the "Greens in the European Parliament", from the link he provided, which appear to be an organization which is both environmentalist and anti-nuclear (verified from quick searches).
Do you completely lack imagination? You can generate a signature and stuff it into a binary blob only after approving them for first use. You could append metadata to an alternate data stream that is based off a per-installation GUID. There are lots of things you can do to prevent unauthorized add-ons from running.
Sure, hypothetically Microsoft could just replace firefox.exe with a version built from the same source except removing the chunk that checks signatures, but I'd bet ten thousand dollars that it would not happen.
That's further from the truth than the person you responded to.
Microsoft installed it on Firefox if a previous version was already installed on either Firefox or IE. The one case is trivial and non-problematic, the other unusual but wrong when it does hit.
Jobs just finished declaring that he had 28% marketshare. Sure, that's still not really a monopoly, but that's a lot more than 10%. And even if that number were suspect, it's Apple's number so they can't complain about it.
I think you underestimate the ability for people to be confused by well designed interfaces. Watching my mom continue to flounder whenever she wants to do something with the iPhone I got her pretty much convinces me of that -- and my mom is far from the least tech savvy person around. My grandpa? Forget it.
Ethics isn't an Olympic event. It doesn't matter which is "more" ethical. The example you're citing has no relevance to what we're talking about. In fact, the particular article you show, where everybody is given a significant raise, doesn't support your point very well. I think you were trying to blame Apple for suicides at a Foxconn manufacturing plant. Whether that's a fair accusation really isn't simple to answer, but regardless it doesn't make Gizmodo's behaviour any better.
I agree in general that a journalistic site should not fear biting the hand that feeds them, for the sake of integrity.
But Gizmodo has already proven that they do not have integrity. They fenced stolen property and then attempted blackmail/extortion on Apple, very very recently. It's not some 10 year old grudge, the fallout of this shit is still happening. This sort of behaviour really should not be condoned, and nobody should expect it to be.
Slashdot Mirror
*sigh* proof of innocence, not proof of evidence.
This is proof that I don't proof my posts.
But having no evidence whatsoever that a person committed the crime *is* considered proof of evidence.
It's unreasonable to ask people to prove the negative, even if the premise is widely-held to be true. Nobody can track a primary source for the quote.
However, if we are able to change the state of one particle and the other changes as well, then we can have data-transfer (think 1s and 0s, ON and OFF) across limitless distances.
You have hidden assumptions here. We are able to change the state at will, but we are not able to choose what state we change it to, and it's a one-time operation. All you can "communicate" is entirely random data -- which is very useful for quantum cryptography when combined with a classical communications channel, but doesn't have many other evident uses.
Read the rest of his sentence.
You've lived such a hard life.
That's an awkward angle to take because the Earth isn't a plane, it's a globe; and Canada isn't a rectangle, it's a funny Canada-shaped landmass. Given that, there are many different geographical centres you could propose. And geographic centres are not the only type of centres
It is the political centre of Canada. After all, the epicentre was within a short drive of the political capital itself.
It's the centre of population of Canada.
And there's the fact that this is the centre of the historical region of Canada (pre-Confederation).
I'm not from Toronto, though i lived there for a few years.
Trying thinking three dimensionally. There are numerous time zones on this planet, not all of them the same as yours.
There are plenty of places where what is to you "earlier today" is "last night". Clicking on that guy's profile, looks like he's in Scotland. I'm going to guess that you're from the United States (or at the very least, aligned longitudinally with it), because otherwise I expect you'd be familiar with the idea that what day it is where you live can be different from what day it is in the US.
A common characteristic of self-absorbed prats is that they are convinced that everything ever written is about them, even when the written thing specifically excludes them.
The guy put the word if in italics, to make sure you saw it. If it's not about you, don't make it about you. Ironically, you are the one bitching about things that don't apply to you while he is bitching about a very focussed set of things (a socially acceptable level of bitching).
100 characters, maybe not, but there's a lot of software that limits you to nine for your first/given name. I know it's nine because my sister has 10 characters in her name. This comes, I assume, from certain standardized government forms that give 9 boxes for the first name and a whole fuckload of boxes into which you can stick my 3-letter surname.
I agree, but I was responding to the AC, who was essentially putting forth that it was be a binary ("if they aren't sure about what they say then they shouldn't say it"), and then being a random flamebaiting asshole ("calling it science is questionable...").
Nothing in the article really suggests that they were wrong given the evidence they had at the time. They're Geologists, not soothsayers.
His employment contract with Google should be relevant:
http://www.google.com/corporate/security.html
Your five megabytes of HOSTS file is probably irrelevant compared to real performance problems. That's not what a HOSTS file is meant for, and you should generally not optimize for the abusive case. Ideally you'd just use your application's native method for dealing with address-blocking, and if you need a blanket block such a huge number of addresses then a local proxy is the way to go, eg. Privoxy.
Micro-optimization is the root of all evil. The way to tune performance is to measure where the biggest problem is, and then reduce that. You do not hone in on a few bytes from a file format. For instance, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law. It's not worth putting even ten minutes of time into something that makes no noticeable difference to just about anybody, when you could spend that time working on a problem that will make a noticeable difference to some people. Therefore, the "math" does not yet support you; at least not given the evidence provided. You have to show that a reasonable HOSTS file used as recommended (or as there is no more reasonable alternative) makes a more significant difference to some important aspect of performance than any other change that could be made as easily.
Now, if you look at the Standard for IPv4 addressing, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1123.txt, you will see that dotted-decimal notation is required for Standards-compliant IPv4 applications (you can add further restrictions but not relieve restrictions), and if you look at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc952, the HOSTS file is required to have all four components. IPv6 does have a summary version in the standard, but I'm sure you won't like what IPv6 does to the size of the average HOSTS file (that is to say, marginally increase it). It's bad to break Web Standards without a really excellent reason. It had better be security, or a performance gain so bountiful and universal that none could fault it, such as when browsers started going to 6 connections per web server rather than 2.
That's not at all what happened. What happened was:
Tavis: "I found a critical flaw, will you fix it in 60 days?"
Microsoft: "Hmm, we'll take a look and get back to you with a timetable on Friday"
Tavis: "Not good enough". Released to the wild.
Cite: TFA.
It's kind of ironic that you should snark about how many fingers you get to use on a PC vs. on a console, on an article about full-body motion control...
The 32-bit version of IE enables DEP on itself by default (at least since IE8), so that's not much of an advantage.
A 64-bit version of Windows has both 32-bit IE and 64-bit IE installed, so you can run both side-by-side and compare the performance toll without much issue. That said, there is a 64-bit toll: plugins like Flash and Silverlight that only have 32-bit versions don't work in 64-bit IE. If you hate all plugins, then fantastic; if you ever want to watch hulu, there's your toll.
Except that if Microsoft circumvented the DRM, it would be flagrantly illegal and could not happen by accident.
We're not talking about defending against a hypothetical foreign attack by a malicious adversary here, we're talking about preventing unwanted accidental or incidental installs.
Have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox
Tell me, would you put down your life savings on this bet? From a pure risk analysis perspective on the amount of money, you are a moron not to, since your expected return is infinite. Yet in a rel world perspective, I'd say you would be a moron to take this bet, because the chances are extremely high (nearly 100% if you have more than a few dollars worth of savings) that you lose almost all of your money.
The fact is, the value of money has a diminishing return. The less you have, the more that what you have is worth, and the more a 50% loss hurts compared to a 100% gain. Thus, while the amount-risk is the same, the value-risk is different and skews heavily toward those who already have more money.
He didn't say that "everybody who falls under the same umbrella denomination of environmentalist is a science wacko", that's a ridiculous strawman argument. He described an anti-nuclear environmentalist organization as an anti-nuclear environmentalist organization. Specifically, the "Greens in the European Parliament", from the link he provided, which appear to be an organization which is both environmentalist and anti-nuclear (verified from quick searches).
Do you completely lack imagination? You can generate a signature and stuff it into a binary blob only after approving them for first use. You could append metadata to an alternate data stream that is based off a per-installation GUID. There are lots of things you can do to prevent unauthorized add-ons from running.
Sure, hypothetically Microsoft could just replace firefox.exe with a version built from the same source except removing the chunk that checks signatures, but I'd bet ten thousand dollars that it would not happen.
That's further from the truth than the person you responded to.
Microsoft installed it on Firefox if a previous version was already installed on either Firefox or IE. The one case is trivial and non-problematic, the other unusual but wrong when it does hit.
Jobs just finished declaring that he had 28% marketshare. Sure, that's still not really a monopoly, but that's a lot more than 10%. And even if that number were suspect, it's Apple's number so they can't complain about it.
I think you underestimate the ability for people to be confused by well designed interfaces. Watching my mom continue to flounder whenever she wants to do something with the iPhone I got her pretty much convinces me of that -- and my mom is far from the least tech savvy person around. My grandpa? Forget it.
Is it more or less unethical than apple itself?
Ethics isn't an Olympic event. It doesn't matter which is "more" ethical. The example you're citing has no relevance to what we're talking about. In fact, the particular article you show, where everybody is given a significant raise, doesn't support your point very well. I think you were trying to blame Apple for suicides at a Foxconn manufacturing plant. Whether that's a fair accusation really isn't simple to answer, but regardless it doesn't make Gizmodo's behaviour any better.
I agree in general that a journalistic site should not fear biting the hand that feeds them, for the sake of integrity.
But Gizmodo has already proven that they do not have integrity. They fenced stolen property and then attempted blackmail/extortion on Apple, very very recently. It's not some 10 year old grudge, the fallout of this shit is still happening. This sort of behaviour really should not be condoned, and nobody should expect it to be.