Ubuntu has something similar. From TFA:
However, she clicked "Keep settings" straight away, and couldn't work out how to get it back... This is exactly the same problem you would have in Windows if you changed the resolution and immediately clicked the "Keep these settings" button in that 15-second dialog. After you've done that, you may find it difficult to navigate back and change it to the previous resolution.
The problem here has a lot to do with new users being inundated with confusing dialog boxes, and just clicking "OK" at the first opportunity. This problem occurs both on Windows and Ubuntu. Not that this excuses Ubuntu: a usability problem should be fixed, even if it occurs on other platforms as well.
I guess "nanamicrocopic" means "as small as your sweet old grandmother"...
I suppose they actually meant "Nanomicroscopic"... but that's actually redundant since "Nanoscopic" (in analogy to "microscopic") is gaining acceptance as the term to describe this size-scale.
The procedure I used was (on 7.10 - Gusty Gibbon):
1. Edit/etc/apt/sources.list and add:
deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/kubuntu-members-kde4/ubuntu gutsy main
2. Install using:
sudo apt-get install kde4-core
Then I get the options during login. It's possible that things have changed now that 8.04 has been released. Obviously you would have to use "hardy" instead of "gutsy" in the above deb line. In fact, it's quite possible that in Hardy, the standard repositories already include "kde4-core". So, my best guess is that if you install a standard Kubuntu 8.04 (with KDE 3.5), and then do "sudo install kde4-core" you will then have the option between KDE 3.5 and KDE 4.0 at login.
the statement "infinite space alone guarantees only that SOME Hubble volume will have a duplicate" displeases me because in a traditional probabilistic sense, that isn't true. Even with an infinite number of trials, with a finite number of possible outcomes, it is not guaranteed that every outcome will occur. I read that statement as saying "with finite states and infinite trials, it is guaranteed that you will have some repetition in the sequence"... basically akin to saying that if you roll a 6-sided die, many times, you won't necessarily roll each number, but you are guaranteed to roll some duplicates.
I agree it's then the "guaranteed that every outcome will occur", which comes next, that is then the more bothersome part.
Probability is never about guarantees. Agreed. But (and I'm no mathematician, but here goes...) I think the "infinity" in this case makes a difference. From the other paper I mentioned (pg. 7):
We have argued that (i) the number of possible histories for an O-region is finite and (ii) the number of O-regions in each of the thermalized regions of the universe is infinite. ...
The initial state of each O-region can be characterized by a density matrix, and the probabilities for all possible histories can in principle be determined following the usual rules of quantum mechanics.2 All histories consistent with exact conservation laws will have non-vanishing probabilities and will occur in an infinite number of O-regions. It follows that there should be an infinite number of O-regions whose history is identical to ours. (emphasis added)
I think of it this way: if I flip a coin N times, there are 2^N different possibilities. Only one of those completely excludes "tails". So the probability, after N flips, of never seeing a "tails" is 1/(2^N). For large N, the probability becomes very small. If you take the limit as N->infinity, then you end up with the probability of not seeing "tails" as zero. That is, you will get "tails" eventually.
Similarly, with an infinitely large universe, the probability of not realizing any particular initial condition is zero. The statistics of quantum mechanics guarantee that each state has non-zero probability. The infinite number of regions is what makes the realization of a particular state unavoidable.
Now, whether there is a difference between "guaranteed to happen" and "probability of not happening is zero in limit of infinity" is perhaps the remaining question. Let me know if you know the answer! (For instance, the argument I used above about coin flips does bother me a bit: I can easily imagine an infinite sequence of heads, with not a single "tails" anywhere in it. But the math suggests that obtaining such an infinite sequence from a probabilistic process is not possible??)
From playing around with KDE4 (this was 2 months ago), I found that it is stable enough, but it is missing features and lacks some polish. KDE 3.5 is great because of the amazing customization, tons of solid applications, and other add-ons (e.g. panel items). But KDE4 doesn't have many widgets or panel items yet, and many of the customizations are not yet coded. There are not yet any KDE4-specific features or applications that are "must have" (that don't exist in KDE 3.5).
I personally found it to be too primitive for constant use, although it was fun to play with. Luckily you can have KDE 3.5 and KDE4 installed side-by-side (and pick the one you want at login), so it's easy to keep it around and try it out every so often, without losing your KDE 3.5 environment.
KDE4 has lots of neat ideas, and I'm still expecting great things from it... but for me it's not quite ready for prime time.
The information given by the other posters should be enough to get you going. However note that if you run into problems, the Ubuntu Forums are remarkably fast and helpful, especially for "first time user" type questions.
You might also want to take a look at this tutorial, which has nice screenshots showing the steps you'll go through (it hasn't yet been updated for 8.04, but it should be very similar to what you'll see with the current installer). It explains in particular how to set up a dual-boot, so that you can keep using Windows while trying out Ubuntu.
Apparently* many modern keyloggers also capture the clip-board and record mouse movements (so as to defeat those "visual keypads" that some banking sites have implemented to thwart keyloggers). I guess the additional steps of assembling your password from pieces will prevent some attacks (e.g. where the attacker just uses the logged keystrokes, in order, for a dictionary attack on your account)... but a determined attacker may still be able to reconstruct your password from the combined key/mouse/clipboard history.
Every bit of security helps, but I don't think we should be under the illusion that keylog-writers haven't caught on to these kind of tactics.
*This is based upon a talk I was recently at where a Symantec security analyst was asked about keyloggers.
In case you (or anyone else) is still interested in this question, here are some things I came across. This paper provides some rough details for the argument that every possible state is expected to occur because of inflation:
Jaume Garriga, Alexander Vilenkin "Many worlds in one", arXiv:gr-qc/0102010v2
Also, Max Tegmark has a FAQ, where (among other things) he explains: Why must we have duplicates? Q: Given infinity, why isn't it equally plausible that the worlds within it would express infinite variety, rather than repetition?
The answer is that there are only a finite number of possible states that a Hubble volume can have, according to quantum theory. Even classically, there are clearly only a finite number of perceptibly different ways it can be.
How rigorous is this? ...
A: Although classical physics allows an infinite number of possible states that a Hubble volume can be in, it's a profound and important fact that quantum physics allows only a finite number. The numbers I mentioned in the article, like 10^10^118 meters, were computed using the exact quantum-mecanical calculation, and the classical stuff about counting protons in a discrete lattice arrangement was merely thrown in as a pedagogical example to give a feel where the numbers come from, since that turns out to give the same answer.
Why must all regions have duplicates, not just one? Q: Just because something is infinite, does not mean that all possibilities are realized. The number pi is infinitely long, pi = 3.14159... and in that case, all combinations of digits are realized. However, the number 1/3, converted into a fraction, is also infinitely long, 1/3 =.33333... and in that case, all combinations of digits are not realized.
A: That's correct: infinite space alone guarantees only that SOME Hubble volume will have a duplicate, not that our own will. However, if (as in the current cosmological standard model) the cosmic density fluctuations originate from quantum fluctuations during inflation, their statistical properties DO guarantee that our (and indeed every) Hubble volume has a duplicate. So, unless I'm misunderstanding this, a crucial point is that the number of arrangements inside a Hubble volume are finite (assuming quantum mechanics isn't wrong). If there are an infinite number of Hubble volumes (which appears to be the case, based on cosmological measurements), and if the initial process of selecting states is totally random (as predicted by inflation), then each state is guaranteed to show up.
Ergodicity just means that 2 is equally likely as 2.00001 (and all other possible values), considered over a long period of time. It does not mean that there is necessarily any period of time in which the state 2 or 2.00001 occurs. It's still just a statistical and probabilistic statement. The ergodic argument, as I understand it, goes a bit further. All the states have equal, non-zero, probability. So if you imagine a point moving through phase space, it will eventually sample every possible location in phase space. Further, ergodicity implies that this time average is the same as a spatial average: if you include enough "random copies" in your space, you will eventually have each possible state. Crudely, since each point in phase space has a non-zero probability, an infinite ensemble will eventually include it (the probability of not including it is zero in the limit of infinite time or copies).
Of course this isn't my interpretation of things: this is the current consensus in cosmology. The situation is better described by others. One example: Max Tegmark, Parallal Universes, where the author explains:
If space is infinite and the distribution of matter is sufficiently uniform on large scales, then even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere. And later:
The currently favored theory is that the initial conditions (the densities and motions of different types of matter early on) were created by quantum fluctuations during the inflation epoch (see section 3). This quantum mechanism generates initial conditions that are for all practical purposes random, producing density fluctuations described by what mathematicians call an ergodic random field. Ergodic means that if you imagine generating an ensemble of universes, each with its own random initial conditions, then the probability distribution of outcomes in a given volume is identical to the distribution that you get by sampling different volumes in a single universe. In other words, it means that everything that could in principle have happened here did in fact happen somewhere else.
Inflation in fact generates all possible initial conditions with non-zero probability... I admit that I didn't mention the "distribution of matter is uniform" part in my previous posts. This addresses your concern that the matter content may not scale in the same way as the volume. Current observations suggest that the matter content of the universe is very uniform on these large scales. (Of course it's possible that this is just an artifact of our Hubble volume--we'll never know for sure).
But, assuming the universe is infinite (and roughly uniform), and the initial conditions are ergodic, then all initial conditions were satisfied somewhere (this doesn't mean that every final state is realized, only that each possible initial state exists somewhere).
Again, this is my understanding from reading the literature. You may find faults in the math that the cosmologists are using, that I am ignorant of.
This is what I see in the photo: if you look at the front right wheel, you'll see an S-shaped trench leading away from it, going off-camera in the bottom-right of the image. You'll also notice that at the bottom-right of the image a footprint appears which seems to have significantly altered the trench. Actually it looks like it filled it in.
The moondust is very light and prone to redistribution (that's the whole point of TFA, in fact), so perhaps just stepping near a tire-track is enough to fill in the trench (after the dust settles)? If so, then when you look at the back-right wheel, you'll see that there are footprints there which may have disturbed the ground and filled in the trench from the wheel (especially since he would have had to walk all over the place near that wheel while performing the repair). Actually there are some faint indications of where a track may have once been.
I'm certainly no expert in these kinds of things, but it seems to me that working near the vehicle would quickly disturb any tracks, because of how light the rocks and dust are on the moon.
"Infinite" does not mean "every". There are infinitely many real numbers between 1 and 3 even if you exclude 2, so an infinite set of randomly selected real numbers between 1 and 3 does not necessarily include 2. In fact the set of real numbers not contained in the infinite set of random real numbers is also infinite in size. Quite right. Which is why I specified "ergodic", which means that all of phase space is equally likely, so that a sufficiently large set will contain every allowed permutation (in your analogy, ergodicity means that all numbers are equally represented; no skipping "2"). An infinite universe is certainly big enough to contain every point in phase space.
Of course, it's possible that the universe's beginning was not ergodic, and that some sub-states were far more likely to arise than others (the number "2" is skipped). In such a case, it's possible that an infinite universe wouldn't realize each and every possible material arrangement. Our best theories and data to date suggest that the universe's origin was ergodic, but this is a very tricky question... and we may never know the answer for sure.
Similarly if we assume an infinite universe then this also means there are an infinite number of possible states, it is by no means a given that any particular set of states will appear, or appear more than once. Think of it this way: each causally-disconnected Hubble volume is large, but finite. Each of these finite volumes has a large but finite number of possible internal arrangements: there are only so many ways that you can arrange matter and energy within this finite volume. If the universe is then infinitely large, there is more than enough space to "fit" every possible one of these Hubble volumes. If the initial conditions were ergodic, then each possible Hubble volume will appear somewhere.
If the universe is not ergodic, then things can be quite different. An infinite universe in this case could contain singular instances of extremely rare arrangements, and a complete exclusion of others.
It's also important to remember that this only predicts that every possible state will appear somewhere. One can imagine many impossible states (e.g. that contain contradictions; that don't obey physics; etc.) that won't be realized (an analogy could be integers vs. real numbers; both are infinite, but the integers only contain some of the real numbers).
There are various ways of interpreting "multiple universes". Current theories outline four "levels" of possible multiplicity (see multiverse). The level I was just referring to is the first ("multi-domain universes") where an infinite ergodic universe realizes all possible initial conditions. So there are local domains, with the same laws of physics, that realize any physically-reasonable organization of matter. Since we know that life is physically-reasonable (as evidenced by our existence), then this would imply that elsewhere in the universe similar conditions appear (at a minimum, duplicates of Earth... but also any other form of life not contradicted by physical law).
There is also a second level of postulated multiplicity: universes with different physics arising from chaotic inflation. If this theory is true, then alternate universes (disconnected from our own) with totally different physical laws may also exist. (Although one can argue philosophically about the "existence" of causally-disconnected universes...)
Anyone who is really interested in these ideas should consider reading Max Tegmark's paper The Mathematical Universe. Although quite technical, it is surprisingly readable and outlines the four levels of parallel universes that might exist, and whether we have reason to expect them to exist.
It is nevertheless still entirely possible, however unlikely, that our own civilization might actually be the only one in the whole universe. We certainly don't know for sure yet. But, if the universe is infinite (our current best measurements indicate that the universe is flat and infinite), and if the initial conditions were ergodic (which is indeed the prediction of our best model, inflation, and is consistent with the data, e.g. the microwave background), then there are an infinite number of causally-disconnected Hubble volumes, which essentially guarantees that life exists at multiple locations in the universe.
What this means is that in an infinite universe that has totally random initial conditions, every possible state will be realized somewhere. That means that somewhere in the universe, conditions very similar to our local conditions will be realized. Not only does this mathematically guarantee that life exists somwhere, but also that "copies" of Earth and you and me exist somewhere. All possible variants of matter organization are realized somewhere in the infinite universe (and in fact may be repeated over and over). Of course, the distances over which you will see a repeat may be fantastically large (much, much larger than the observable universe, for instance). Also, life-forms in causally-disconnected volumes can never communicate with each other. (So you may say... who cares?)
In any case, it's not known with certainty that the universe is infinite (or that the big bang was ergodic)... but our current theories allow for models where the multiple emergence of life (and all physically reasonable variants) is in fact mathematically guaranteed. Kinda interesting.
Then there are those of us who think the prank is the people who refuse to use it (and who trot out the tired "hard drive manufacturers are stealing my disk space" myth/meme).
Seriously, the one thing we can agree on is that there is often confusion regarding whether someone meant "1000" or "1024" when they used a prefix. The difference in approach between the two camps is:
1. Stick with the status quo (where one tries to guess the convention being used based on context). That is, just accept with the confusion/inaccuracy.
2. Use SI units in the original SI sense (powers of 10) and use new binary prefixes when you really mean it (power of 2). That is, create a convention and adhere to it.
Interesting that in a discussion about standards (and failures thereof) you would argue that a standard meant to reduce confusion is a prank! I agree, by the way, that "mebibyte" sounds kinda silly... but who cares? It gets the job done. ("Quark" was a silly name, but it's now deeply ingrained in science and no one thinks twice about it.)
For what it's worth, many software products now use the binary prefix notation (e.g. Konqueror).
You can never distribute patches synchronously to all the PC:s in the world. Maybe you could.
Consider that a patch is first distributed as an encrypted file. The decryption key is kept secret until everyone has a chance to download the patch. At a pre-determined time, the decryption key is transmitted to everyone (the key is quite small so everyone getting it at nearly the same time shouldn't overwhelm the distribution server; a simplistic multicast or tree-like distribution system (like NTP) could further alleviate this problem). So then every computer patches itself at more-or-less the same time.
To prevent any attacks during the short window while systems are patching themselves, the protocol could be: download key; shutdown network; decrypt patch; apply patch; restart network.
This system, of course, introduces its own problems. For one thing, many organizations are not going to trust new patches without testing them first. The additional complexity may not be worth the effort, especially considering that the real problem here is that people in general don't keep their systems up-to-date.
In Eric Drexler's book "Nanosystems, he carefully analyzes questions like this regarding the possible failure modes of atomically-precise devices. The book goes through the math in detail. The short answer is that even with fairly pessimistic assumptions (e.g. that a single-atom defect created during manufacture or afterwards by cosmic rays or other radiation will completely destroy a particular functional sub-unit), you can still design highly robust devices.
The most obvious way is to build in some level of redundancy. Naively you can have dozens of redundant sub-units, and use things like "majority voting" to pull out the signal from the noise. In practice there are more elegant ways to do this (e.g. error correction). Many modern chips do indeed have some redundancies so that even with manufacturing defects, the chip still runs (perhaps with some reduction in functionality). Organizing the chip so that failsafe-checks occur during operation is certainly possible.
Again, check out the book for more details. The point is that these questions have been thought about and they are not insurmountable. The rate of defects generated from spurious environmental damage (e.g. cosmic rays) is low enough that it can be overcome with fairly straightforward engineering.
I agree with your points about OS X being a wonderfully low-maintenance operating system. However, you ended with:
My priorities are obviously going to be different from that of a lot of linux fans, but those fans need to realize that most non-fans will have no interest in linux on the desktop until it becomes less of a pain to use than Windows is. Less of a pain than Windows? In my experience, Linux is decidedly less of a maintenance pain than Windows. Just this weekend, I spent a bunch of time trying to fix some issues on a friend's computer. It involved all kinds of cleaning up, installing anti-virus software, removing malware, and installing some new applications. All of that maintenance would have been unnecessary on a Linux machine. (Tangentially, I'll mention that the Linux repository system, with its expansive set of software, not only makes administration easier in the sense that it's faster to find and install a needed app, but also because it reduces malware considerably--alot of junk on Windows computers comes in from users installing random apps from the Internet or downloading trojaned software off of P2P.) The experience reminded me why I switched from Windows to Linux.
One could argue that Linux takes a bit more care to set up, although even that is quite debatable these days. But once running, in my experience keeping a Linux system running smoothly is much easier than a Windows system.
Secondly while Hawking has made several important discoveries, he was cited by my college physics professor to be a 'pop' physicist. I think that's rather harsh. I mean, if a genius who publishes significant theoretical work and has made substantial original contributions to physics (e.g. Hawking radiation) can't be considered a "real" physicist, then who is?
By such a strict classification system, there are only two dozen physicists on Earth... and the thousands of professors in the physics departments of the world are then only 'pop' physicists?
Hawking may be more well-known for his popularization than for his fundamental contributions, but his work in both areas is significant. He's a real scientist who understands physics at a deep level, and calling him a 'pop' physicist is unfair.
(Note: There certainly are some professors who make little to no impact on research, and who are only good at popularizing science. Those are the 'pop' scientists, in my opinion.)
I suppose it doesn't matter, but it's nice to know about it.
I've often wondered why we don't have some kind of system that when I try to go to a web-page, and it is unreachable (host down? internet down? slashdotted?), I instead am given the "last known good copy" of the site. If you combined this black-hole detector with the "automatic archives" that exist (e.g. Google's cache, or the Wayback machine), then instead of getting an error page, you could get a banner that says "host not available for reason X; here is what the site looked like on datetime Y".
Seems like this could be built into a Firefox plugin perhaps, with it automatically delivering the cached version if the host is on the black-hole list or doesn't respond after a set wait time.
(Of course, typically when I have an idea like this, I then discover that people have already implemented it. So, if anyone knows of a browser-level or system-level utility that does this, please let me know!)
You set up a sweep account, or manually perform the same action. Basically you take the funds that you want to keep available (for bills, etc.) and invest them in something that is easy to quickly buy/sell without penalty (e.g. money market). Whenever you need cash in your checking account, you transfer it from that investment account. Whenever you have a surplus in your checking, you move it into the investment account immediately, so that it can get a higher interest rate than it would in you checking account.
You can have sweep accounts set up to automatically move money back-and-forth to maintain a reasonable balance in your checking, so that you always have enough to pay bills. Of course a money market (or similar) will get a better return than a bank account, but won't perform as well as longer-term investments (e.g. GIC), so funds not needed on a short-term basis should still be invested elsewhere.
As the grandparent post said, however, keeping substantial sums in a standard bank account amounts to wasting money.
Here's a link to where Goldenbrook Lane splits off from the main road (Oakleaf Ln). The presence of that sign (the post says "Goldenbrook Ln") implies that Google Maps is correct is marking Goldenbrook Ln as a public road. If follow along that road to the end, you'll see where it suddenly switches from gravel to pavement. I guess that's where it goes from being a public road to a private driveway.
There is no sign indicating "private property" or "no tresspassing". The real problem, however, is that the public road changes directly into the driveway. There is no room for the Google-van to turn around (nor any indication that they should need to). So, the driver obviously went down the path further, and turned around in front of their garage.
It's an honest mistake: if you or I were driving down that road and needed to turn around, we would do the exact same thing. Yes, it's technically driving on someone's private property for a moment, but this is generally considered acceptable (I doubt you'd get a ticket for using the first few feet of a driveway to reverse).
In principle someone should have caught the error and deleted the images taken on the private property. It's a mistake. And certainly if the homeowners are bothered, they should ask Google to remove the pictures. (This Slashdot article may cause someone at Google to pre-emptively remove them.)
They haven't yet decided on a name, but 'netbooks' is one possibility.
That implies that HP hasn't named their new device yet. Actually TFA describes it thus:
The machines are so new the industry hasn't settled on a name for low-cost and scaled-down laptops used primarily for surfing the Internet and performing other basic functions like word processing. Intel has labeled them "netbooks," and it expects more than 50 million netbooks to be in circulation by 2011.
And later,
HP's foray comes in the form of a new computer called a "Mini-Note"
So HP's new computer is a "Mini-Note"... and the "netbook" term is a possible buzz-word to describe generically a very small laptops (I guess UMPC isn't sexy enough?).
They think people are gonna pay tax on all that free porn they're pulling off (ahem) the internet? (emphasis added)
According to TFA, it would be a tax on the sale price:
If Calderon prevails, the 8.25 to 8.75 percent sales-tax rates in effect in most of the Bay Area would raise the cost of that 99-cent download to $1.07 or $1.08.
So, presumably, free porn wouldn't be taxed at all--but you would have to pay tax on any porn you purchase online.
This is interesting because if it's a sales tax, it won't apply to freely distributed intellectual works, like creative commons music. So if all my music downloads are free, I don't have to pay any tax. Presuming that they don't start taxing donations, this would actually make the creative commons business model (release for free, capitalize on donations, concerts, merchandise, etc.) even more compelling (for artist and consumer).
That having been said, this overall sounds like a terrible idea. We need less monetization of intellectual works, not more.
The ISP providing my home Internet connection throttles your performance by default, but if you visit one their website, you can change the settings to unthrottled Wow... so you have to explicitly opt-in to receive the service that you paid for? You have to know about this throttling, visit a specific page, and flip a switch, in order to get non-degraded service. Is that even legal?
The fact that ISPs are doing this is scary. The fact that customers accept it is also scary.
The ISP figures most people aren't going to bother changing their settings, but the people who really love file-sharing are still free to do so. Which seems kind of strange. The "problem users" are those savvy ones who transmit tons of data, who are the same ones who will probably change this setting. What's the point in throttling the non-savvy users who just do light web-browsing anyway?
Given enough power, someday they might be able to move one side of the pair a dozen feet! The current record for transmitting single photons seems to be 150 km (press release, arXiv preprint).
You know, if we have quantum computers, then cracking any key becomes a trivial matter. I don't think that's true. Some cryptographic systems are vulnerable to quantum computer cracking, but others are not (or, at least, no one yet knows of a way). And importantly, the whole point of using quantum cryptography for your communication is a secure way to generate keys. If we had this working, we could reliably exchange one-time pads and be assured perfect unbreakable encryption.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem here has a lot to do with new users being inundated with confusing dialog boxes, and just clicking "OK" at the first opportunity. This problem occurs both on Windows and Ubuntu. Not that this excuses Ubuntu: a usability problem should be fixed, even if it occurs on other platforms as well.
I guess "nanamicrocopic" means "as small as your sweet old grandmother"...
... but that's actually redundant since "Nanoscopic" (in analogy to "microscopic") is gaining acceptance as the term to describe this size-scale.
I suppose they actually meant "Nanomicroscopic"
1. Edit
Then I get the options during login. It's possible that things have changed now that 8.04 has been released. Obviously you would have to use "hardy" instead of "gutsy" in the above deb line. In fact, it's quite possible that in Hardy, the standard repositories already include "kde4-core". So, my best guess is that if you install a standard Kubuntu 8.04 (with KDE 3.5), and then do "sudo install kde4-core" you will then have the option between KDE 3.5 and KDE 4.0 at login.
Hope that helps.
I agree it's then the "guaranteed that every outcome will occur", which comes next, that is then the more bothersome part. Probability is never about guarantees. Agreed. But (and I'm no mathematician, but here goes...) I think the "infinity" in this case makes a difference. From the other paper I mentioned (pg. 7): We have argued that (i) the number of possible histories for an O-region is finite and (ii) the number of O-regions in each of the thermalized regions of the universe is infinite.
...
The initial state of each O-region can be characterized by a density matrix, and the probabilities for all possible histories can in principle be determined following the usual rules of quantum mechanics.2 All histories consistent with exact conservation laws will have non-vanishing probabilities and will occur in an infinite number of O-regions. It follows that there should be an infinite number of O-regions whose history is identical to ours. (emphasis added)
I think of it this way: if I flip a coin N times, there are 2^N different possibilities. Only one of those completely excludes "tails". So the probability, after N flips, of never seeing a "tails" is 1/(2^N). For large N, the probability becomes very small. If you take the limit as N->infinity, then you end up with the probability of not seeing "tails" as zero. That is, you will get "tails" eventually.
Similarly, with an infinitely large universe, the probability of not realizing any particular initial condition is zero. The statistics of quantum mechanics guarantee that each state has non-zero probability. The infinite number of regions is what makes the realization of a particular state unavoidable.
Now, whether there is a difference between "guaranteed to happen" and "probability of not happening is zero in limit of infinity" is perhaps the remaining question. Let me know if you know the answer! (For instance, the argument I used above about coin flips does bother me a bit: I can easily imagine an infinite sequence of heads, with not a single "tails" anywhere in it. But the math suggests that obtaining such an infinite sequence from a probabilistic process is not possible??)
From playing around with KDE4 (this was 2 months ago), I found that it is stable enough, but it is missing features and lacks some polish. KDE 3.5 is great because of the amazing customization, tons of solid applications, and other add-ons (e.g. panel items). But KDE4 doesn't have many widgets or panel items yet, and many of the customizations are not yet coded. There are not yet any KDE4-specific features or applications that are "must have" (that don't exist in KDE 3.5).
I personally found it to be too primitive for constant use, although it was fun to play with. Luckily you can have KDE 3.5 and KDE4 installed side-by-side (and pick the one you want at login), so it's easy to keep it around and try it out every so often, without losing your KDE 3.5 environment.
KDE4 has lots of neat ideas, and I'm still expecting great things from it... but for me it's not quite ready for prime time.
The information given by the other posters should be enough to get you going. However note that if you run into problems, the Ubuntu Forums are remarkably fast and helpful, especially for "first time user" type questions.
You might also want to take a look at this tutorial, which has nice screenshots showing the steps you'll go through (it hasn't yet been updated for 8.04, but it should be very similar to what you'll see with the current installer). It explains in particular how to set up a dual-boot, so that you can keep using Windows while trying out Ubuntu.
Good luck, and have fun!
Apparently* many modern keyloggers also capture the clip-board and record mouse movements (so as to defeat those "visual keypads" that some banking sites have implemented to thwart keyloggers). I guess the additional steps of assembling your password from pieces will prevent some attacks (e.g. where the attacker just uses the logged keystrokes, in order, for a dictionary attack on your account)... but a determined attacker may still be able to reconstruct your password from the combined key/mouse/clipboard history.
Every bit of security helps, but I don't think we should be under the illusion that keylog-writers haven't caught on to these kind of tactics.
*This is based upon a talk I was recently at where a Symantec security analyst was asked about keyloggers.
Jaume Garriga, Alexander Vilenkin "Many worlds in one", arXiv:gr-qc/0102010v2
Also, Max Tegmark has a FAQ, where (among other things) he explains:
Why must we have duplicates?
Q: Given infinity, why isn't it equally plausible that the worlds within it would express infinite variety, rather than repetition?
The answer is that there are only a finite number of possible states that a Hubble volume can have, according to quantum theory. Even classically, there are clearly only a finite number of perceptibly different ways it can be.
How rigorous is this?
A: Although classical physics allows an infinite number of possible states that a Hubble volume can be in, it's a profound and important fact that quantum physics allows only a finite number. The numbers I mentioned in the article, like 10^10^118 meters, were computed using the exact quantum-mecanical calculation, and the classical stuff about counting protons in a discrete lattice arrangement was merely thrown in as a pedagogical example to give a feel where the numbers come from, since that turns out to give the same answer.
Why must all regions have duplicates, not just one?
Q: Just because something is infinite, does not mean that all possibilities are realized. The number pi is infinitely long, pi = 3.14159... and in that case, all combinations of digits are realized. However, the number 1/3, converted into a fraction, is also infinitely long, 1/3 =
A: That's correct: infinite space alone guarantees only that SOME Hubble volume will have a duplicate, not that our own will. However, if (as in the current cosmological standard model) the cosmic density fluctuations originate from quantum fluctuations during inflation, their statistical properties DO guarantee that our (and indeed every) Hubble volume has a duplicate. So, unless I'm misunderstanding this, a crucial point is that the number of arrangements inside a Hubble volume are finite (assuming quantum mechanics isn't wrong). If there are an infinite number of Hubble volumes (which appears to be the case, based on cosmological measurements), and if the initial process of selecting states is totally random (as predicted by inflation), then each state is guaranteed to show up.
Of course this isn't my interpretation of things: this is the current consensus in cosmology. The situation is better described by others. One example: Max Tegmark, Parallal Universes, where the author explains: If space is infinite and the distribution of matter is sufficiently uniform on large scales, then even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere. And later: The currently favored theory is that the initial conditions (the densities and motions of different types of matter early on) were created by quantum fluctuations during the inflation epoch (see section 3). This quantum mechanism generates initial conditions that are for all practical purposes random, producing density fluctuations described by what mathematicians call an ergodic random field. Ergodic means that if you imagine generating an ensemble of universes, each with its own random initial conditions, then the probability distribution of outcomes in a given volume is identical to the distribution that you get by sampling different volumes in a single universe. In other words, it means that everything that could in principle have happened here did in fact happen somewhere else.
Inflation in fact generates all possible initial conditions with non-zero probability... I admit that I didn't mention the "distribution of matter is uniform" part in my previous posts. This addresses your concern that the matter content may not scale in the same way as the volume. Current observations suggest that the matter content of the universe is very uniform on these large scales. (Of course it's possible that this is just an artifact of our Hubble volume--we'll never know for sure).
But, assuming the universe is infinite (and roughly uniform), and the initial conditions are ergodic, then all initial conditions were satisfied somewhere (this doesn't mean that every final state is realized, only that each possible initial state exists somewhere).
Again, this is my understanding from reading the literature. You may find faults in the math that the cosmologists are using, that I am ignorant of.
Good observation.
This is what I see in the photo: if you look at the front right wheel, you'll see an S-shaped trench leading away from it, going off-camera in the bottom-right of the image. You'll also notice that at the bottom-right of the image a footprint appears which seems to have significantly altered the trench. Actually it looks like it filled it in.
The moondust is very light and prone to redistribution (that's the whole point of TFA, in fact), so perhaps just stepping near a tire-track is enough to fill in the trench (after the dust settles)? If so, then when you look at the back-right wheel, you'll see that there are footprints there which may have disturbed the ground and filled in the trench from the wheel (especially since he would have had to walk all over the place near that wheel while performing the repair). Actually there are some faint indications of where a track may have once been.
I'm certainly no expert in these kinds of things, but it seems to me that working near the vehicle would quickly disturb any tracks, because of how light the rocks and dust are on the moon.
Of course, it's possible that the universe's beginning was not ergodic, and that some sub-states were far more likely to arise than others (the number "2" is skipped). In such a case, it's possible that an infinite universe wouldn't realize each and every possible material arrangement. Our best theories and data to date suggest that the universe's origin was ergodic, but this is a very tricky question... and we may never know the answer for sure.
Similarly if we assume an infinite universe then this also means there are an infinite number of possible states, it is by no means a given that any particular set of states will appear, or appear more than once. Think of it this way: each causally-disconnected Hubble volume is large, but finite. Each of these finite volumes has a large but finite number of possible internal arrangements: there are only so many ways that you can arrange matter and energy within this finite volume. If the universe is then infinitely large, there is more than enough space to "fit" every possible one of these Hubble volumes. If the initial conditions were ergodic, then each possible Hubble volume will appear somewhere.
If the universe is not ergodic, then things can be quite different. An infinite universe in this case could contain singular instances of extremely rare arrangements, and a complete exclusion of others.
It's also important to remember that this only predicts that every possible state will appear somewhere. One can imagine many impossible states (e.g. that contain contradictions; that don't obey physics; etc.) that won't be realized (an analogy could be integers vs. real numbers; both are infinite, but the integers only contain some of the real numbers).
There are various ways of interpreting "multiple universes". Current theories outline four "levels" of possible multiplicity (see multiverse). The level I was just referring to is the first ("multi-domain universes") where an infinite ergodic universe realizes all possible initial conditions. So there are local domains, with the same laws of physics, that realize any physically-reasonable organization of matter. Since we know that life is physically-reasonable (as evidenced by our existence), then this would imply that elsewhere in the universe similar conditions appear (at a minimum, duplicates of Earth... but also any other form of life not contradicted by physical law).
There is also a second level of postulated multiplicity: universes with different physics arising from chaotic inflation. If this theory is true, then alternate universes (disconnected from our own) with totally different physical laws may also exist. (Although one can argue philosophically about the "existence" of causally-disconnected universes...)
Anyone who is really interested in these ideas should consider reading Max Tegmark's paper The Mathematical Universe. Although quite technical, it is surprisingly readable and outlines the four levels of parallel universes that might exist, and whether we have reason to expect them to exist.
What this means is that in an infinite universe that has totally random initial conditions, every possible state will be realized somewhere. That means that somewhere in the universe, conditions very similar to our local conditions will be realized. Not only does this mathematically guarantee that life exists somwhere, but also that "copies" of Earth and you and me exist somewhere. All possible variants of matter organization are realized somewhere in the infinite universe (and in fact may be repeated over and over). Of course, the distances over which you will see a repeat may be fantastically large (much, much larger than the observable universe, for instance). Also, life-forms in causally-disconnected volumes can never communicate with each other. (So you may say... who cares?)
In any case, it's not known with certainty that the universe is infinite (or that the big bang was ergodic)... but our current theories allow for models where the multiple emergence of life (and all physically reasonable variants) is in fact mathematically guaranteed. Kinda interesting.
Ha!
Then there are those of us who think the prank is the people who refuse to use it (and who trot out the tired "hard drive manufacturers are stealing my disk space" myth/meme).
Seriously, the one thing we can agree on is that there is often confusion regarding whether someone meant "1000" or "1024" when they used a prefix. The difference in approach between the two camps is:
1. Stick with the status quo (where one tries to guess the convention being used based on context). That is, just accept with the confusion/inaccuracy.
2. Use SI units in the original SI sense (powers of 10) and use new binary prefixes when you really mean it (power of 2). That is, create a convention and adhere to it.
Interesting that in a discussion about standards (and failures thereof) you would argue that a standard meant to reduce confusion is a prank! I agree, by the way, that "mebibyte" sounds kinda silly... but who cares? It gets the job done. ("Quark" was a silly name, but it's now deeply ingrained in science and no one thinks twice about it.)
For what it's worth, many software products now use the binary prefix notation (e.g. Konqueror).
Consider that a patch is first distributed as an encrypted file. The decryption key is kept secret until everyone has a chance to download the patch. At a pre-determined time, the decryption key is transmitted to everyone (the key is quite small so everyone getting it at nearly the same time shouldn't overwhelm the distribution server; a simplistic multicast or tree-like distribution system (like NTP) could further alleviate this problem). So then every computer patches itself at more-or-less the same time.
To prevent any attacks during the short window while systems are patching themselves, the protocol could be: download key; shutdown network; decrypt patch; apply patch; restart network.
This system, of course, introduces its own problems. For one thing, many organizations are not going to trust new patches without testing them first. The additional complexity may not be worth the effort, especially considering that the real problem here is that people in general don't keep their systems up-to-date.
In Eric Drexler's book "Nanosystems, he carefully analyzes questions like this regarding the possible failure modes of atomically-precise devices. The book goes through the math in detail. The short answer is that even with fairly pessimistic assumptions (e.g. that a single-atom defect created during manufacture or afterwards by cosmic rays or other radiation will completely destroy a particular functional sub-unit), you can still design highly robust devices.
The most obvious way is to build in some level of redundancy. Naively you can have dozens of redundant sub-units, and use things like "majority voting" to pull out the signal from the noise. In practice there are more elegant ways to do this (e.g. error correction). Many modern chips do indeed have some redundancies so that even with manufacturing defects, the chip still runs (perhaps with some reduction in functionality). Organizing the chip so that failsafe-checks occur during operation is certainly possible.
Again, check out the book for more details. The point is that these questions have been thought about and they are not insurmountable. The rate of defects generated from spurious environmental damage (e.g. cosmic rays) is low enough that it can be overcome with fairly straightforward engineering.
One could argue that Linux takes a bit more care to set up, although even that is quite debatable these days. But once running, in my experience keeping a Linux system running smoothly is much easier than a Windows system.
By such a strict classification system, there are only two dozen physicists on Earth... and the thousands of professors in the physics departments of the world are then only 'pop' physicists?
Hawking may be more well-known for his popularization than for his fundamental contributions, but his work in both areas is significant. He's a real scientist who understands physics at a deep level, and calling him a 'pop' physicist is unfair.
(Note: There certainly are some professors who make little to no impact on research, and who are only good at popularizing science. Those are the 'pop' scientists, in my opinion.)
I suppose it doesn't matter, but it's nice to know about it.
I've often wondered why we don't have some kind of system that when I try to go to a web-page, and it is unreachable (host down? internet down? slashdotted?), I instead am given the "last known good copy" of the site. If you combined this black-hole detector with the "automatic archives" that exist (e.g. Google's cache, or the Wayback machine), then instead of getting an error page, you could get a banner that says "host not available for reason X; here is what the site looked like on datetime Y".
Seems like this could be built into a Firefox plugin perhaps, with it automatically delivering the cached version if the host is on the black-hole list or doesn't respond after a set wait time.
(Of course, typically when I have an idea like this, I then discover that people have already implemented it. So, if anyone knows of a browser-level or system-level utility that does this, please let me know!)
You set up a sweep account, or manually perform the same action. Basically you take the funds that you want to keep available (for bills, etc.) and invest them in something that is easy to quickly buy/sell without penalty (e.g. money market). Whenever you need cash in your checking account, you transfer it from that investment account. Whenever you have a surplus in your checking, you move it into the investment account immediately, so that it can get a higher interest rate than it would in you checking account.
You can have sweep accounts set up to automatically move money back-and-forth to maintain a reasonable balance in your checking, so that you always have enough to pay bills. Of course a money market (or similar) will get a better return than a bank account, but won't perform as well as longer-term investments (e.g. GIC), so funds not needed on a short-term basis should still be invested elsewhere.
As the grandparent post said, however, keeping substantial sums in a standard bank account amounts to wasting money.
Here's a link to where Goldenbrook Lane splits off from the main road (Oakleaf Ln). The presence of that sign (the post says "Goldenbrook Ln") implies that Google Maps is correct is marking Goldenbrook Ln as a public road. If follow along that road to the end, you'll see where it suddenly switches from gravel to pavement. I guess that's where it goes from being a public road to a private driveway.
There is no sign indicating "private property" or "no tresspassing". The real problem, however, is that the public road changes directly into the driveway. There is no room for the Google-van to turn around (nor any indication that they should need to). So, the driver obviously went down the path further, and turned around in front of their garage.
It's an honest mistake: if you or I were driving down that road and needed to turn around, we would do the exact same thing. Yes, it's technically driving on someone's private property for a moment, but this is generally considered acceptable (I doubt you'd get a ticket for using the first few feet of a driveway to reverse).
In principle someone should have caught the error and deleted the images taken on the private property. It's a mistake. And certainly if the homeowners are bothered, they should ask Google to remove the pictures. (This Slashdot article may cause someone at Google to pre-emptively remove them.)
According to TFA, it would be a tax on the sale price:
So, presumably, free porn wouldn't be taxed at all--but you would have to pay tax on any porn you purchase online.
This is interesting because if it's a sales tax, it won't apply to freely distributed intellectual works, like creative commons music. So if all my music downloads are free, I don't have to pay any tax. Presuming that they don't start taxing donations, this would actually make the creative commons business model (release for free, capitalize on donations, concerts, merchandise, etc.) even more compelling (for artist and consumer).
That having been said, this overall sounds like a terrible idea. We need less monetization of intellectual works, not more.
The fact that ISPs are doing this is scary. The fact that customers accept it is also scary. The ISP figures most people aren't going to bother changing their settings, but the people who really love file-sharing are still free to do so. Which seems kind of strange. The "problem users" are those savvy ones who transmit tons of data, who are the same ones who will probably change this setting. What's the point in throttling the non-savvy users who just do light web-browsing anyway?