I'm surprised there hasn't been a Kickstarter setup to re-implement TrueCrypt from the ground up.
What would be the dollar cost to hire a team of developers to do it?
Hundreds of thousands at least. This stuff doesn't seem expensive until you actually get started. I once had a very small project that did nothing more than produce a single line of (rather clever) SQL code. It only took the developer 10min to write but all the testing, meetings, etc... involved made the project hit $25k pretty quickly.
Not quite the pitch I originally made, rather heavily edited - But nevertheless great to see the submission accepted.
I truly wish Sanaria the best of luck with their venture and hope the slashdot community will help them reach their noble goal!
Right, I'm not sure why the Slashdot "Editors" think its OK to completely alter your submission and then post it as if it were a quote directly from you. The first paragraph of your submission:
"Sanaria is a biotechnology company dedicated to the production of a vaccine protective against malaria caused by the pathogen Plasmodium falciparum has developed a vaccine that in trials has proven to be 100% effective."
Absolutely nothing like what they posted and then claimed as a quote from you. I'm not sure what they think they're doing but they're opening themselves up to a lawsuit should they post the wrong thing and claim it was from the wrong person.
It concerns me to the point that I don't think I'll be submitting any time soon. As of yet, they haven't "invented" quotes from me that were inappropriate but the potential is definitely there. Either post what I submitted verbatim or make it clear you've altered it. Don't make up your own submission and then put it into quote flags and claim it's what I wrote. I didn't write that and, to be frank, Slashdot editors aren't qualified to be speaking on behalf. I'd understand if it was just spelling or grammar corrections but completely altering the post is entirely different.
I don't see anyone else commenting on Oracle... they're fucking awful. I've been through EXACTLY what the state of Oregon has with Oracle. The exact same thing happened to me.
Good luck Oregon. I think dudes sailboat is worth more than your state.
Oracle is less likely to get future government contracts in other states or levels if they have the reputation for being a drama queen and "difficult", regardless of fault. They may be better off quietly negotiating a compromise and eating some of the costs in the short term. Is the loud approach part of their Ellison bravado culture?
You've obviously never done business with Oracle. Oracle has the same attitude about their customers as Microsoft did in the 90s. The just don't fucking care. You HAVE to have them. Everything corporate IT is in some way related to Oracle and Cisco. If you want to use anything else, you need smarter (higher paid) people, software that's not as common, and it's harder to find people that know juniper for example. Oracle knows this, but they overplay their hand. I don't know many people that like Oracle anymore. I know at least 3 companies I've worked with that have sued, and won cases against them. Nearly every contract I've been involved with them in has ended in legal negotiations of some sort. We avoid them like the plague now, but for some things we have no other choice.
If one of the largest telecom shills in congress is introducing anti-FCC legislation, this means the telecoms might be fearing a potential turn-around at the FCC.
Just a month ago it seemed like this was all but impossible to think - maybe some home for REAL net neutrality rulings from the FCC?
Oh for fucks sake. TELECOM = Phone companies. He received donations from CABLE companies. Completely different tech, somewhat related industry.
The difference here is the telecoms ARE regulated. The Cable companies are not. The Cable companies are currently killing the telecoms because they have far less regulation. Telecoms all over the country are hurting because of this and lobbying heavily to get their regulation lifted. (I've worked for both. I currently work for a Telecom)
The FCC is instead trying to bring the cable companies under the same regulatory umbrella as the telecoms (or at least something similar.) This congressman, conservative, doesn't like regulation obviously. So his goal is instead to keep Cable unregulated and likely down the road he wants to lift regulation on the telecoms. The FCC has the opposite approach. They want to regulate both industries even more.
The actual best solution is likely somewhere in-between. If you could see the enormous amount of regulation Telecoms were under, you'd likely think it was insane. Stupid things left over from 50 or more years ago... But cable companies are completely unregulated. They don't even keep plant records (track of what wire and equipment is in the ground) so if they get bought out, or go out of business, the new owners have no idea whats out there.
The entire industry could use an overhaul. It's something congress should sit down and do. But since everything gets treated like a black and white all or nothing issue these days, I doubt that's going to happen.
Seems a bit big and bulky for a bicycle rider, where every ounce counts.
It's a prototype. That design lends itself to mas production. You could have that produced as a 1/4" thick flexible mat that weighed less than a few ounces and could be priced under $10. It would be pretty easy actually.
Sounds like the Ethiopian calendar. 12 months of 30 days plus a 13th month of 5 or 6 days (which are all holidays!).
Yea, my kids Ethiopian. Trying to keep track of the holidays is a nightmare. They're on a different day every year. Yet I have to honor his culture or something so I have to get out a slide rule to figure out when Christmas is every year.
so close to zero we may as well say zero. But all IT tech together is using a measureable chunk of fossil fuel. All IT together is about ten percent of electrical consumption, and fossil fuel is used in two-thirds of all electricity production, and forty percent of fossil fuel use is for electricity. So 0.03 percent of fossil fuel use is used by IT tech.
Fossil fuels are used in ALL forms of electrical production. The difference is simply how direct the use is. Current Solar Cell technology for example, puts horrible amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere because of the processes used to mine and make the glass and silver in them. (Silver mining is terrible for the environment) It's still not as bad as coal (nothing is as bad as coal) but it's still bad.
And I'm sick of gun people thinking of guns as a great equalizer that anyone can make without substantial engineering expertise. But somehow I suspect neither group is going to respect the results of this research.
But they are. I've built them from scratch for years. You need no special engineer expertise other than being generally handy with tools. I've never had one "Explode" and to be honest it would be extremely difficult for that to happen. The car you drive to work every day is by far and a way more dangerous than any gun you could make or buy. It's also far more likely to accidentally kill someone. I still don't understand why "Getting to work quickly" is somehow a more noble goal than self defense. If you want to save the most people, ban cars. There's no constitutional amendment giving you the right to own a car. It should be a slam dunk.
And here this post is modded +5 Informative but somewhere else it's modded +5 Funny
Right? I've no idea why people think Physics is dull. There's no movie, no music, no book, or even theological work (The Bible) that proposes anything nearly as insane as what reality actually is. God would be a hell of a lot easier to explain than this stuff. lol
ooo, neat. I love wikipedia. I've not read up on the collapse theories directly but after reading what you linked to I can see this is where some of the more recent theories that propose the universe operates much like a collapsing sand dune got their start. The idea being that there is some critical point where a wave will collapse, like a sand dune having a landslide. It's impossible to know when it will collapse but as more sand builds up the chances become more and more likely.
You're basically declaring yourself a pedant. Not only that, you're also completely wrong. Even an Abacus is considered a computer.
But let's just assume you want to use the more popular definition of the term:
computer - an electronic device for storing and processing data, typically in binary form, according to instructions given to it in a variable program.
So we look at ISEE-3s' Wikipedia entry and viola:
ICE carries 13 scientific instruments to measure plasmas, energetic particles, waves, and fields. As of May 2014, all but one are thought to be functional. A data handling system gathers the scientific and engineering data from all systems in the spacecraft and formats them into a serial stream for transmission. The transmitter output power is five watts.
It would be virtually impossible to put anything into space that didn't have some sort of computer on-board.
Have fun correcting my spelling. I could really care less.;-)
I have a ford with adaptive steering... You can barely tell its there. The basic goal is to give you lots of help while the car is stationary or moving slow... but make it harder to jerk the wheel when doing 80. Back in the 80s they way over did power steering so you had basically no road feel at all and if someone even bumped the wheel while you were on the freeway it could send you into a spin or cause you to roll. So they cut back on the amount of "help" power steering provided.
But my truck was recalled yesterday because faults in the system could cause power steering to fail and lead to an accident. They've had 7 confirmed accidents due to this out of some 800,000 vehicles sold.
Ironic this story pops up a day after a recall for the very feature being advertised. lol
This satellite does not even have a computer; it is all 'hard-wired.'"
A lot of early computer systems were hard-wired in terms of instructions and logic paths. It didn't make them unusable, just arcane considering newer technologies like SoCs. We have come a long way.
Right. It has no integrated circuits. There's no way it doesn't have a computer. It couldn't receive signals and fire its thrusters otherwise. If there are no IC's out there that do what you need (which I assume is often the case with space craft) there's not much need for them. A lot of electronics I've built in the past has been simple enough that I did what we always called "Point to Point" meaning you have a board (like real wood!) with holes drilled into it, or metal posts... and you solder your components "point to point" with each other. There aren't even wires.
Here's a random image I found as an example: http://bgmb55.files.wordpress.... You use the physical shape of the component to design your board. There are often components on both sides of the board. This doesn't lend itself well to very complicated circuits however. If you get too many components going, you can easy create a short hazard for yourself. But it makes simple circuits a lot easier to build and maintain. It also makes each components function a lot easier to understand at a glance. This picture is clearly a Tube Amplifer for example. You can see that just by glancing at it (and the tube sockets help to)
Not voluntarily unless required by law? Why do companies release statements like this? It just makes them seem more guilty. Better not to say anything.
Maybe that's the entire point. They're not allowed to complain out loud because of an NSL but they can make it clear what's going on and that it's hurting them with a statement like this.
It's long past time for us to decide our government should not be keeping secrets. They clearly cause far more harm than they help. At worst, some criminals get away. How does that saying go? It's better to free 100 guilty men than imprison 1 innocent?
But why is it standard? There's no reason to believe its explanation is any more valid than the others other than, its the one that is most psychologically appealing because it most resembles our classical macroscopic world.
The best way to think of why it could be wrong is that, in order for you to make your argument, you are treating the observer and the act of measurement device classically, in a deterministic way... But treating the quantum state as a probability in a non-deterministic way. So which is it? Your non-deterministic theory is itself deterministic, so it is its' own paradox!
There may very well be an explanation for this, we do not know enough yet. But the issue is certainly not settled.
And with regards to Einstein being wrong about about quantum physics... his biggest mistake was second guessing himself. It's looking more and more like his Cosmological Constant is the real deal.;-)
I realize you were making a joke based on a perception common in popular culture, but the truth is that the Schrodinger's Cat paradox has a simple resolution: the cat *cannot* be both alive and dead because the detector (which detects whether the decay has occurred and which triggers the release of the poison if the decay occurred) collapses the wave function of the particle. There's no such thing as a passive detector. So while a subatomic particle could indeed exist in a superposition of "decayed" vs. "not decayed," the second you go about asking the particle whether it's decayed (that is, when you set up the detector), the wave function collapses, and no superposition is possible.
You're presenting your interpretation as fact, and it's not. It's a possible scenario, but this thought experiment is designed explicitly to show a paradox that we have yet to resolve. What you describe is the "Copenhagen interpretation" which was proposed by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and others in 1924 to 1927. It states that quantum states are not fixed but probabilities. Just as you said, once any measurement is made the wave function collapses and the state is fixed in the classical sense. If this interpretation is true, then you are correct. But there are many other interpretations that have any equally valid chance of being correct.
In the "Many-Worlds" interpretation, the cat really is both alive and dead. When you open the box you become entangled with the cat (not literally, that would hurt) and one version of you perceives it as alive and another perceives it as dead. Both results occur, you experience both, but you remain unaware of your duplicate and he of you.
Einstein himself supported an entirely different interpretation called the "Ensemble interpretation" which basically just makes the entire thought experiment irrelevant. It's wacky and hard to explain so I'll just link to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Anyways, I recommend reading up on Schrödinger's cat via Wikipedia or some other source. You're only incorrect in that you thought your explanation was the only one.
Oh, and full disclosure, I'm not a scientist, I just find this stuff incredibly interesting. Also it makes me sound smart at parties. Actually I don't get invited to parties... they say I ramble on about nonsense. Thank God for the many worlds theory... at least I'm popular somewhere.
As much as I loved Reading Rainbow growing up, I have two problems with this:
1. If you go to their website, nothing indicates this is a non-profit corporation. 2. None of the people involved has a background in education, child development, psychology, etc.
You also have no reason to believe that being non-profit or having a background in education will in any way further their goals.
The only place he'd ever get repatriated to is Leavenworth (if they're being generous) or Gitmo (if they aren't).
Poking the bear is bad enough, making the bear feel foolish (while continuing to poke) is unforgivable. In this case, the bear is not Russia.:(
If they let him go free, or off with a light sentence, he'll have a new career as a public speaker, or activist against the NSA and surveillance. No way the government would allow that sentiment to have a publicly acceptable mouth piece.
Don't speak so fast. I suspect there will be at least one person running for office in the next election that would pardon him.
Ok, I'm going to ignore the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with a hoverboard...
But doesn't this entire premise seem sketchy to anyone else? Look at the build quality. To me, that looks like 2 pieces of angle iron, attached by 2 pieces of plywood (where your feet go) with a go cart wheel in the center Looking at google images of it, that looks to me to be exactly what it is, but the angle iron might be aluminum instead I'm not sure if the motor really is in the hub, or it's that little black box attached to the frame... either way there's no way it could be big enough to provide much torque. I also see no video of it speeding up or breaking. Supposedly it can do 12mph... oh really? Down hill? Speaking of downhill... how good is it at braking downhill? Am I going to end up blowing through an intersection?
It all comes down to that motor. I can find no specs or pictures of it. I did however find this photo which is the most interesting I think: http://skateandannoy.com/wp-co... Notice the 2nd pic... a Chain drive to a giant gear. So torque clearly is an issue. Maybe electric motors have made enormous leaps and bounds but I just don't buy it.
So we should use something like ABS with that randomisation enabled? Or should we trust to download distinct blobs for every download? For the latter, nice try NSA, but I don't want you to be abled to incorporate spyware into my download and not be noticed. Its already a pity software gets signed only by so few entities (usually one at a time, at least for deb). Perhaps I know that the blob came from Debian, but I can't verify whether it is the version the public gets, or the special version with some... extra features. The blobs should be signed by more entities, so then all would have to be NSLed.
I wouldn't trust it either way. A randomized binary from some site would be insanely dangerous. But even a randomized binary that you compiled yourself is questionable. Who's to say your compiler isn't compromised? Without being able to compare binaries against other peoples with identical checksums you've now turned the effort to verify a file from a global one to just you. You're far more at risk.
Evaluate software not just on purchasing/licensing costs but also on the cost of installing the software, migrating old documents, and training users, and the time required to complete day-to-day tasks. Because sometimes FOSS is only free if your time is worth nothing.
And require open standards.
That's a BS excuse. I've been pushing FOSS for quite a while in a company that uses that very excuse quite a bit. But how many projects have you been involved in where the profit gains have been so desirable that Executives just say "You know what, I'm just signing off on this and ignoring your concerns. You'll figure it out."??? Hell, that's what happens MOST of the time on very large, complex projects. There's no reason the government can't do the same. Dump the new systems on the users, they HAVE to figure it out... in fact, isn't that what they did with healthcare.gov?
A more legitimate concern is what do you do if the community abandons the project you're basing your roll-out on? So assuming it's "Free" is incorrect. You should assume that you'll need to donate time or money to keep the project funded if you want further development and bug fixes.
a long-term vision of the project is to make flying accessible to more people
If people have problems driving without distractions, imagine if the car went where they were thinking/looking.... Now let them do it in 3 dimensions..... What could possibly go wrong?
Attractive Blondes car insurance rates would go through the roof!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised there hasn't been a Kickstarter setup to re-implement TrueCrypt from the ground up.
What would be the dollar cost to hire a team of developers to do it?
Hundreds of thousands at least. This stuff doesn't seem expensive until you actually get started. I once had a very small project that did nothing more than produce a single line of (rather clever) SQL code. It only took the developer 10min to write but all the testing, meetings, etc... involved made the project hit $25k pretty quickly.
Not quite the pitch I originally made, rather heavily edited - But nevertheless great to see the submission accepted.
I truly wish Sanaria the best of luck with their venture and hope the slashdot community will help them reach their noble goal!
Right, I'm not sure why the Slashdot "Editors" think its OK to completely alter your submission and then post it as if it were a quote directly from you.
The first paragraph of your submission:
"Sanaria is a biotechnology company dedicated to the production of a vaccine protective against malaria caused by the pathogen Plasmodium falciparum has developed a vaccine that in trials has proven to be 100% effective."
Absolutely nothing like what they posted and then claimed as a quote from you. I'm not sure what they think they're doing but they're opening themselves up to a lawsuit should they post the wrong thing and claim it was from the wrong person.
It concerns me to the point that I don't think I'll be submitting any time soon. As of yet, they haven't "invented" quotes from me that were inappropriate but the potential is definitely there. Either post what I submitted verbatim or make it clear you've altered it. Don't make up your own submission and then put it into quote flags and claim it's what I wrote. I didn't write that and, to be frank, Slashdot editors aren't qualified to be speaking on behalf. I'd understand if it was just spelling or grammar corrections but completely altering the post is entirely different.
I don't see anyone else commenting on Oracle... they're fucking awful. I've been through EXACTLY what the state of Oregon has with Oracle. The exact same thing happened to me.
Good luck Oregon. I think dudes sailboat is worth more than your state.
Oracle is less likely to get future government contracts in other states or levels if they have the reputation for being a drama queen and "difficult", regardless of fault. They may be better off quietly negotiating a compromise and eating some of the costs in the short term. Is the loud approach part of their Ellison bravado culture?
You've obviously never done business with Oracle. Oracle has the same attitude about their customers as Microsoft did in the 90s. The just don't fucking care. You HAVE to have them. Everything corporate IT is in some way related to Oracle and Cisco. If you want to use anything else, you need smarter (higher paid) people, software that's not as common, and it's harder to find people that know juniper for example. Oracle knows this, but they overplay their hand. I don't know many people that like Oracle anymore. I know at least 3 companies I've worked with that have sued, and won cases against them. Nearly every contract I've been involved with them in has ended in legal negotiations of some sort. We avoid them like the plague now, but for some things we have no other choice.
If one of the largest telecom shills in congress is introducing anti-FCC legislation, this means the telecoms might be fearing a potential turn-around at the FCC.
Just a month ago it seemed like this was all but impossible to think - maybe some home for REAL net neutrality rulings from the FCC?
Oh for fucks sake. TELECOM = Phone companies. He received donations from CABLE companies. Completely different tech, somewhat related industry.
The difference here is the telecoms ARE regulated. The Cable companies are not. The Cable companies are currently killing the telecoms because they have far less regulation. Telecoms all over the country are hurting because of this and lobbying heavily to get their regulation lifted. (I've worked for both. I currently work for a Telecom)
The FCC is instead trying to bring the cable companies under the same regulatory umbrella as the telecoms (or at least something similar.) This congressman, conservative, doesn't like regulation obviously. So his goal is instead to keep Cable unregulated and likely down the road he wants to lift regulation on the telecoms. The FCC has the opposite approach. They want to regulate both industries even more.
The actual best solution is likely somewhere in-between. If you could see the enormous amount of regulation Telecoms were under, you'd likely think it was insane. Stupid things left over from 50 or more years ago... But cable companies are completely unregulated. They don't even keep plant records (track of what wire and equipment is in the ground) so if they get bought out, or go out of business, the new owners have no idea whats out there.
The entire industry could use an overhaul. It's something congress should sit down and do. But since everything gets treated like a black and white all or nothing issue these days, I doubt that's going to happen.
Seems a bit big and bulky for a bicycle rider, where every ounce counts.
It's a prototype. That design lends itself to mas production. You could have that produced as a 1/4" thick flexible mat that weighed less than a few ounces and could be priced under $10. It would be pretty easy actually.
Sounds like the Ethiopian calendar.
12 months of 30 days plus a 13th month of 5 or 6 days (which are all holidays!).
Yea, my kids Ethiopian. Trying to keep track of the holidays is a nightmare. They're on a different day every year. Yet I have to honor his culture or something so I have to get out a slide rule to figure out when Christmas is every year.
so close to zero we may as well say zero. But all IT tech together is using a measureable chunk of fossil fuel. All IT together is about ten percent of electrical consumption, and fossil fuel is used in two-thirds of all electricity production, and forty percent of fossil fuel use is for electricity. So 0.03 percent of fossil fuel use is used by IT tech.
Fossil fuels are used in ALL forms of electrical production. The difference is simply how direct the use is. Current Solar Cell technology for example, puts horrible amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere because of the processes used to mine and make the glass and silver in them. (Silver mining is terrible for the environment) It's still not as bad as coal (nothing is as bad as coal) but it's still bad.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/1...
And I'm sick of gun people thinking of guns as a great equalizer that anyone can make without substantial engineering expertise. But somehow I suspect neither group is going to respect the results of this research.
But they are. I've built them from scratch for years. You need no special engineer expertise other than being generally handy with tools. I've never had one "Explode" and to be honest it would be extremely difficult for that to happen. The car you drive to work every day is by far and a way more dangerous than any gun you could make or buy. It's also far more likely to accidentally kill someone. I still don't understand why "Getting to work quickly" is somehow a more noble goal than self defense. If you want to save the most people, ban cars. There's no constitutional amendment giving you the right to own a car. It should be a slam dunk.
And here this post is modded +5 Informative but somewhere else it's modded +5 Funny
Right? I've no idea why people think Physics is dull. There's no movie, no music, no book, or even theological work (The Bible) that proposes anything nearly as insane as what reality actually is. God would be a hell of a lot easier to explain than this stuff. lol
ooo, neat. I love wikipedia. I've not read up on the collapse theories directly but after reading what you linked to I can see this is where some of the more recent theories that propose the universe operates much like a collapsing sand dune got their start. The idea being that there is some critical point where a wave will collapse, like a sand dune having a landslide. It's impossible to know when it will collapse but as more sand builds up the chances become more and more likely.
Particularly I like the penrose version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Though I'm still hoping for many-worlds because it means we're practically immortal. Though some might consider that a bad thing.
You're basically declaring yourself a pedant.
Not only that, you're also completely wrong. Even an Abacus is considered a computer.
But let's just assume you want to use the more popular definition of the term:
computer - an electronic device for storing and processing data, typically in binary form, according to instructions given to it in a variable program.
So we look at ISEE-3s' Wikipedia entry and viola:
ICE carries 13 scientific instruments to measure plasmas, energetic particles, waves, and fields. As of May 2014, all but one are thought to be functional. A data handling system gathers the scientific and engineering data from all systems in the spacecraft and formats them into a serial stream for transmission. The transmitter output power is five watts.
It would be virtually impossible to put anything into space that didn't have some sort of computer on-board.
Have fun correcting my spelling. I could really care less. ;-)
I have a ford with adaptive steering... You can barely tell its there. The basic goal is to give you lots of help while the car is stationary or moving slow... but make it harder to jerk the wheel when doing 80. Back in the 80s they way over did power steering so you had basically no road feel at all and if someone even bumped the wheel while you were on the freeway it could send you into a spin or cause you to roll. So they cut back on the amount of "help" power steering provided.
But my truck was recalled yesterday because faults in the system could cause power steering to fail and lead to an accident. They've had 7 confirmed accidents due to this out of some 800,000 vehicles sold.
Ironic this story pops up a day after a recall for the very feature being advertised. lol
This satellite does not even have a computer; it is all 'hard-wired.'"
A lot of early computer systems were hard-wired in terms of instructions and logic paths. It didn't make them unusable, just arcane considering newer technologies like SoCs. We have come a long way.
Right. It has no integrated circuits. There's no way it doesn't have a computer. It couldn't receive signals and fire its thrusters otherwise. If there are no IC's out there that do what you need (which I assume is often the case with space craft) there's not much need for them. A lot of electronics I've built in the past has been simple enough that I did what we always called "Point to Point" meaning you have a board (like real wood!) with holes drilled into it, or metal posts... and you solder your components "point to point" with each other. There aren't even wires.
Here's a random image I found as an example: http://bgmb55.files.wordpress....
You use the physical shape of the component to design your board. There are often components on both sides of the board.
This doesn't lend itself well to very complicated circuits however. If you get too many components going, you can easy create a short hazard for yourself. But it makes simple circuits a lot easier to build and maintain. It also makes each components function a lot easier to understand at a glance. This picture is clearly a Tube Amplifer for example. You can see that just by glancing at it (and the tube sockets help to)
Not voluntarily unless required by law? Why do companies release statements like this? It just makes them seem more guilty. Better not to say anything.
Maybe that's the entire point. They're not allowed to complain out loud because of an NSL but they can make it clear what's going on and that it's hurting them with a statement like this.
It's long past time for us to decide our government should not be keeping secrets. They clearly cause far more harm than they help. At worst, some criminals get away. How does that saying go? It's better to free 100 guilty men than imprison 1 innocent?
But why is it standard? There's no reason to believe its explanation is any more valid than the others other than, its the one that is most psychologically appealing because it most resembles our classical macroscopic world.
The best way to think of why it could be wrong is that, in order for you to make your argument, you are treating the observer and the act of measurement device classically, in a deterministic way... But treating the quantum state as a probability in a non-deterministic way. So which is it? Your non-deterministic theory is itself deterministic, so it is its' own paradox!
There may very well be an explanation for this, we do not know enough yet. But the issue is certainly not settled.
And with regards to Einstein being wrong about about quantum physics... his biggest mistake was second guessing himself. It's looking more and more like his Cosmological Constant is the real deal. ;-)
I realize you were making a joke based on a perception common in popular culture, but the truth is that the Schrodinger's Cat paradox has a simple resolution: the cat *cannot* be both alive and dead because the detector (which detects whether the decay has occurred and which triggers the release of the poison if the decay occurred) collapses the wave function of the particle. There's no such thing as a passive detector. So while a subatomic particle could indeed exist in a superposition of "decayed" vs. "not decayed," the second you go about asking the particle whether it's decayed (that is, when you set up the detector), the wave function collapses, and no superposition is possible.
You're presenting your interpretation as fact, and it's not. It's a possible scenario, but this thought experiment is designed explicitly to show a paradox that we have yet to resolve. What you describe is the "Copenhagen interpretation" which was proposed by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and others in 1924 to 1927. It states that quantum states are not fixed but probabilities. Just as you said, once any measurement is made the wave function collapses and the state is fixed in the classical sense. If this interpretation is true, then you are correct. But there are many other interpretations that have any equally valid chance of being correct.
In the "Many-Worlds" interpretation, the cat really is both alive and dead. When you open the box you become entangled with the cat (not literally, that would hurt) and one version of you perceives it as alive and another perceives it as dead. Both results occur, you experience both, but you remain unaware of your duplicate and he of you.
Einstein himself supported an entirely different interpretation called the "Ensemble interpretation" which basically just makes the entire thought experiment irrelevant. It's wacky and hard to explain so I'll just link to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Anyways, I recommend reading up on Schrödinger's cat via Wikipedia or some other source. You're only incorrect in that you thought your explanation was the only one.
Oh, and full disclosure, I'm not a scientist, I just find this stuff incredibly interesting. Also it makes me sound smart at parties. Actually I don't get invited to parties... they say I ramble on about nonsense. Thank God for the many worlds theory... at least I'm popular somewhere.
As much as I loved Reading Rainbow growing up, I have two problems with this:
1. If you go to their website, nothing indicates this is a non-profit corporation.
2. None of the people involved has a background in education, child development, psychology, etc.
You also have no reason to believe that being non-profit or having a background in education will in any way further their goals.
They could, but since there are phones for less than $120 with being subsidized, I'm going to guess they potentially aren't.
You know, that subsidy doesn't mean you got a $600 phone for $100... it means you got a $600 phone for $1000, but get to pay in installments.
The only place he'd ever get repatriated to is Leavenworth (if they're being generous) or Gitmo (if they aren't).
Poking the bear is bad enough, making the bear feel foolish (while continuing to poke) is unforgivable. In this case, the bear is not Russia. :(
If they let him go free, or off with a light sentence, he'll have a new career as a public speaker, or activist against the NSA and surveillance. No way the government would allow that sentiment to have a publicly acceptable mouth piece.
Don't speak so fast. I suspect there will be at least one person running for office in the next election that would pardon him.
Ok, I'm going to ignore the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with a hoverboard...
But doesn't this entire premise seem sketchy to anyone else?
Look at the build quality.
To me, that looks like 2 pieces of angle iron, attached by 2 pieces of plywood (where your feet go) with a go cart wheel in the center
Looking at google images of it, that looks to me to be exactly what it is, but the angle iron might be aluminum instead
I'm not sure if the motor really is in the hub, or it's that little black box attached to the frame... either way there's no way it could be big enough to provide much torque. I also see no video of it speeding up or breaking.
Supposedly it can do 12mph... oh really? Down hill? Speaking of downhill... how good is it at braking downhill? Am I going to end up blowing through an intersection?
It all comes down to that motor. I can find no specs or pictures of it.
I did however find this photo which is the most interesting I think:
http://skateandannoy.com/wp-co...
Notice the 2nd pic... a Chain drive to a giant gear. So torque clearly is an issue.
Maybe electric motors have made enormous leaps and bounds but I just don't buy it.
So we should use something like ABS with that randomisation enabled? Or should we trust to download distinct blobs for every download? For the latter, nice try NSA, but I don't want you to be abled to incorporate spyware into my download and not be noticed. ... extra features. The blobs should be signed by more entities, so then all would have to be NSLed.
Its already a pity software gets signed only by so few entities (usually one at a time, at least for deb). Perhaps I know that the blob came from Debian, but I can't verify whether it is the version the public gets, or the special version with some
I wouldn't trust it either way. A randomized binary from some site would be insanely dangerous. But even a randomized binary that you compiled yourself is questionable. Who's to say your compiler isn't compromised? Without being able to compare binaries against other peoples with identical checksums you've now turned the effort to verify a file from a global one to just you. You're far more at risk.
How dare they make a fake news agency for propaganda purposes! We would never do something like... er... oh wait...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
Evaluate software not just on purchasing/licensing costs but also on the cost of installing the software, migrating old documents, and training users, and the time required to complete day-to-day tasks. Because sometimes FOSS is only free if your time is worth nothing.
And require open standards.
That's a BS excuse. I've been pushing FOSS for quite a while in a company that uses that very excuse quite a bit. But how many projects have you been involved in where the profit gains have been so desirable that Executives just say "You know what, I'm just signing off on this and ignoring your concerns. You'll figure it out."??? Hell, that's what happens MOST of the time on very large, complex projects. There's no reason the government can't do the same. Dump the new systems on the users, they HAVE to figure it out... in fact, isn't that what they did with healthcare.gov?
A more legitimate concern is what do you do if the community abandons the project you're basing your roll-out on? So assuming it's "Free" is incorrect. You should assume that you'll need to donate time or money to keep the project funded if you want further development and bug fixes.
a long-term vision of the project is to make flying accessible to more people
If people have problems driving without distractions, imagine if the car went where they were thinking/looking.... Now let them do it in 3 dimensions.....
What could possibly go wrong?
Attractive Blondes car insurance rates would go through the roof!