There are dozens of reasons to prefer Antarctica as a destination. Mars, in my opinion, has one big advantage: it would decouple the continued existence of humanity from the continued habitability of Earth.
Right now we could be destroyed completely by an asteroid impact, a supervolcano, anything that takes terrestrial conditions out of the relatively narrow band we can survive in. Getting off this rock would reduce the risk of something bad happening and wiping us out. Developing the technology to make a Martian colony self sustaining would widen the band of terrestrial conditions we can survive in.
Interesting idea. The baguette isn't a huge deal because it won't delay the activation of the Collider but that's only one of the absurd things to happen to it, many of which have caused delays.
If the sheer number of alternate universes is contributing to our survival
and each time we avoid destruction, the number of universes is reduced
then perhaps it would benefit us to seed the multiverse with more universes.
I'm going to be letting HotBits make my decisions for a while. They supply random numbers based on radioactive decay. I'm hoping my experiment will propagate superposition to the macro world and increasing the chance that some instance of me survives whatever nasty unexpected consequences the LHC's activation may have.
Of course one could argue that my our present existence proof that nothing happens in the future that destroys this universe's past.
Not blame them? Hell, we should thank them! Remember the last time they implemented a standard before it was finished? Remember the browser wars? the "best viewed in" buttons? the monstrous mess HTML became?... the blink tag?:(
Flagging sales at you local poolhall/pub? Keep the pool tables for your traditional customers, but have BilliadBots tournaments on tuesdays to attract a younger clientele.
I wonder, though, how hard the BilliardBots are on the soft, smooth, delicate felt surface of a pool table.
PLEASE provide references. I get that airy-fairy flaky-reiki new age balderdash all the time and I'd love to have some solid evidence to back up my repudiations.
1) We agree ahead of time that we use the x-axis spin of two atoms (each) for communication.
2) I only manipulate two atoms of my set of 4, and only observe the other two.
3) You only observe the pair entangled with my 'write' set, and only manipulate to the pair entangled with my 'read' set.
Ok.
4) I continuously toggle the spin of one atom from my 'write' set back and forth between two previously agreed upon states, and change (or don't) the state of my other atom between two agreed upon states.
No. You measure the spin of one particle from your write set. The entangled particle from my read set silently agrees to return the complementary value when I measure it. The entanglement is now broken. You continue to "toggle" the spin on your particle, where "toggle" means "measure and receive non-deterministic, random, unpredictable results". I can measure my particle's spin at any time after your initial measurement and will find the random counterpart to your random first value. I have no way of knowing whether I've received the random result of your having measured, or if I've primed your first result by measuring before you did.
5) By continuously observing your 'read' pair of atoms (the pair entangled to my 'write' pair), you can see the one is constantly flipping states, and use that to determine the binary pattern I am sending. (1bit parity, 1bit data)
By continuously observing my read pair of particles, I can see that I get a stream of random results. Coincidentally, the first random value from each particle correlates with the first random value you get from each of your particles.
I wonder if multiple instances of the same app count as one or many towards the limit. Because with Chrome opening each tab as a separate process, things could get very interesting indeed.
Chrome only shows up once under Applications in Task Manager but multiple times under Processes. Background applications show up only under Processes and they've already said they'll count those. At this stage I guess it could go either way.
A sound card is a waste of money for most people these days unless you have special requirement.
I have been using MB digital outputs to Denon receiver for about 5 years now (since my first Nforce MB). I will never buy another sound card. Pointless waste of money.
I wonder if this is the way graphics cards are heading. There was a time when a sound card was absolutely necessary for gaming and really anything more than rudimentary squeaks and beeps. Now it's just not worth bothering with one; on-board is enough.
On-board graphics are pretty disappointing right now, but (particularly after AMD's acquisition of ATI) it might not be long before a video card is a waste of money for most people unless you have special requirement. That's already true of top-end cards, although they're still providing enough of a noticeable improvement that they're probably worth getting once the price drops.
...this is a slippery slope to picking the color of your kid's eyes, and how fast they can run. If your kids eyes are running around, you have bigger concerns than how fast they're going and what colour they are.
In one article I read about the practice of penetration testing, the firm doing the testing coordinated with the local police department, so that they would be aware of what was going on.
Wow. Isn't that just the most awesome social engineering opportunity ever?
1. "Hey, police? I'm going to be penetration testing this place, so don't worry if they report a break-in, ok?"
2. *steal everything*
3. Profit!
A publicly-owned corporation does not benefit directly from the machinations of the stock market. When you buy a stock (except in the case of an IPO or reissue), you do not enrich the company. but the indirect benefit is tremendous. Companies raise capital by selling stock (IPOs and reissues, as you pointed out). Investors buy the stock issued by companies because they expect a return on their investment. The machinations of the stock market are crucial to realising that return. So, to paraphrase gp:
Stocks - because in future you will buy it, a company can (re)issue stock to get an investment to spend and improve their business.
A society/culture that consistently rewards dumb actions and frowns upon smart ones isn't a social/cultural substitution substitution for the genetic origin of stupidity. It creates a socio-cultural environment where stupidity is advantageous, and where evolutionary forces will thus select for stupidity, ceteris paribus.
If they are succesfull enough to reach the stars, then their psychology must conform to those laws; and that makes it similar to ours. We haven't reached the stars.
We don't know that reaching the stars requires psychology similar to ours. Our psychology may be the very reason that we never will reach the stars. Case in point: wondering whether we should cut SETI's funding, while pumping cash into killing each other.
RTFA. The "Phrase in English" is "Newer Version" - and in the "Translation Help" section, it reads "Link that users can click on if they are part of the trusted testers program to go to the newer UI."
On the basis of being asked to translate a link to the new UI, there's a whole new UI coming out.
Slashdot Mirror
It hasn't thrown a single plane even slightly off course for years, when predictions were it should have caused at least a few disasters by now
I think it's taken some time off interfering with planes to go after cars.
There are dozens of reasons to prefer Antarctica as a destination. Mars, in my opinion, has one big advantage: it would decouple the continued existence of humanity from the continued habitability of Earth.
Right now we could be destroyed completely by an asteroid impact, a supervolcano, anything that takes terrestrial conditions out of the relatively narrow band we can survive in. Getting off this rock would reduce the risk of something bad happening and wiping us out. Developing the technology to make a Martian colony self sustaining would widen the band of terrestrial conditions we can survive in.
Interesting idea. The baguette isn't a huge deal because it won't delay the activation of the Collider but that's only one of the absurd things to happen to it, many of which have caused delays.
If the sheer number of alternate universes is contributing to our survival
and each time we avoid destruction, the number of universes is reduced
then perhaps it would benefit us to seed the multiverse with more universes.
I'm going to be letting HotBits make my decisions for a while. They supply random numbers based on radioactive decay. I'm hoping my experiment will propagate superposition to the macro world and increasing the chance that some instance of me survives whatever nasty unexpected consequences the LHC's activation may have.
Of course one could argue that my our present existence proof that nothing happens in the future that destroys this universe's past.
Not blame them? Hell, we should thank them! Remember the last time they implemented a standard before it was finished? Remember the browser wars? the "best viewed in" buttons? the monstrous mess HTML became? ... the blink tag? :(
Flagging sales at you local poolhall/pub? Keep the pool tables for your traditional customers, but have BilliadBots tournaments on tuesdays to attract a younger clientele.
I wonder, though, how hard the BilliardBots are on the soft, smooth, delicate felt surface of a pool table.
brute forcing balls with robots
... because it bears repeating.
I saw "skin" :(
PLEASE provide references. I get that airy-fairy flaky-reiki new age balderdash all the time and I'd love to have some solid evidence to back up my repudiations.
1) We agree ahead of time that we use the x-axis spin of two atoms (each) for communication.
2) I only manipulate two atoms of my set of 4, and only observe the other two.
3) You only observe the pair entangled with my 'write' set, and only manipulate to the pair entangled with my 'read' set.
Ok.
4) I continuously toggle the spin of one atom from my 'write' set back and forth between two previously agreed upon states, and change (or don't) the state of my other atom between two agreed upon states.
No. You measure the spin of one particle from your write set. The entangled particle from my read set silently agrees to return the complementary value when I measure it. The entanglement is now broken. You continue to "toggle" the spin on your particle, where "toggle" means "measure and receive non-deterministic, random, unpredictable results". I can measure my particle's spin at any time after your initial measurement and will find the random counterpart to your random first value. I have no way of knowing whether I've received the random result of your having measured, or if I've primed your first result by measuring before you did.
5) By continuously observing your 'read' pair of atoms (the pair entangled to my 'write' pair), you can see the one is constantly flipping states, and use that to determine the binary pattern I am sending. (1bit parity, 1bit data)
By continuously observing my read pair of particles, I can see that I get a stream of random results. Coincidentally, the first random value from each particle correlates with the first random value you get from each of your particles.
For instance "Millions of music" doesn't make sense.
"Hours of music"?
I wonder if multiple instances of the same app count as one or many towards the limit. Because with Chrome opening each tab as a separate process, things could get very interesting indeed. Chrome only shows up once under Applications in Task Manager but multiple times under Processes. Background applications show up only under Processes and they've already said they'll count those. At this stage I guess it could go either way.
the philosophical cart
Descartes, yes?
It's interesting, funny, and insightful!
You'd think an educational book would be aiming for "informative"...
A sound card is a waste of money for most people these days unless you have special requirement.
I have been using MB digital outputs to Denon receiver for about 5 years now (since my first Nforce MB). I will never buy another sound card. Pointless waste of money.
I wonder if this is the way graphics cards are heading. There was a time when a sound card was absolutely necessary for gaming and really anything more than rudimentary squeaks and beeps. Now it's just not worth bothering with one; on-board is enough.
On-board graphics are pretty disappointing right now, but (particularly after AMD's acquisition of ATI) it might not be long before a video card is a waste of money for most people unless you have special requirement. That's already true of top-end cards, although they're still providing enough of a noticeable improvement that they're probably worth getting once the price drops.
...this is a slippery slope to picking the color of your kid's eyes, and how fast they can run. If your kids eyes are running around, you have bigger concerns than how fast they're going and what colour they are.Same black hole. Different galaxy.
This is a joke.
Wow. Isn't that just the most awesome social engineering opportunity ever?
1. "Hey, police? I'm going to be penetration testing this place, so don't worry if they report a break-in, ok?"
2. *steal everything*
3. Profit!
A society/culture that consistently rewards dumb actions and frowns upon smart ones isn't a social/cultural substitution substitution for the genetic origin of stupidity. It creates a socio-cultural environment where stupidity is advantageous, and where evolutionary forces will thus select for stupidity, ceteris paribus.
You can find out (a tiny bit) more about the helmet at http://www.vsi-hmcs.com/pages_hmcs/03a_f35day.html (Website of Vision Systems International, LLC, the helmet's developers.)
RTFA. The "Phrase in English" is "Newer Version" - and in the "Translation Help" section, it reads "Link that users can click on if they are part of the trusted testers program to go to the newer UI." On the basis of being asked to translate a link to the new UI, there's a whole new UI coming out.