Note: I'm not defending the use of lethal force in this case, I'm really fucking uncomfortable with that as well. Whether they could keep him bottled up until he gave out is a good question and not one that I can answer.
However, if this is a bomb disposal robot, it is likely that the explosive that the police put onto the robot is one that it is designed to carry and initiate. One way bomb squads dispose of suspected bombs is to detonate them at a time of their choosing using a charge placed by the bomb squad robot. I don't know, but think it's pretty likely that the bomb squad robot doesn't have a general purpose 'pull pin on grenade' option to where it could be used with various grenade type objects, but instead that it only works with the specific charges it is designed for.
I'd maybe be even a bit more concerned if the bot could use 'any grenade type object', rather than something specifically made for EOD, because we'd probably see more of this kind of thing. But of course, now that someone has done it (1) more police departments are going to start thinking of this as a valid method and (2) we probably will see the rise of bots that have more general purpose munitions.
My guess is that this is the type of charge that is used to 'safely' detonate suspected explosive devices. One way to approach a suspected bomb is quite simply to trigger it at a known time, when the area is clear. The way to do this is generally to have a 'small' explosive charge on the bomb disposal robot, which can be attached to the suspected bomb, and blown up. This either detonates or rapidly disassembles the (suspected) bomb at a time when everyone is safely back and behind cover.
This is also why they probably couldn't use a flashbang or gas grenade on the bot, I have no idea how the bot initiates the charge it is designed to use, but I doubt that it has a servo to pull the pin on a grenade-type device. Most likely the charge is one that has an initiator specific to the robot.
That's my (uninformed) guess as to why (1) the police had a bomb and (2) the police didn't use a flashbang/gas/etc instead.
If I hear the engine start to growl or feel any form of torque upon depressing a pedal, I know what just happened. The accelerator is also a much lower-force pedal than the brake. There is so much instant feedback telling me what I just did I'd have to have part of my brain physically removed to not know wtf just happened. I'm pretty sure my autonomous nervous system reacts before my prefrontal cortex processes the information, too.
But it's a Tesla, so there won't be an engine growl, and there may not be any feeling of spooling up torque. Electric motors are quiet and go from zero to Holy Shit in no time. It's entirely possible the driver began depressing the 'brake' (actually accelerator), had time to notice not slowing down, and in a panic pressed harder and put it to the floor.
I can't assert that's what happened of course, but it happens/all the time/ in cars that make more noise when accelerating, don't accelerate as fast, and have less power. There was a hole in the front of my gym from someone doing it this last winter, and it was the second time that person had done it!
OTPs are great. On the other hand, you have to use each pad only once. Ever. So to encrypt 1GB of data, you need 1GB of cryptographically random pad. Which you can never use again. And must be a secret with regards to the rest of the world. And must be present on both the sending and receiving end of the communication.
If I knew how to get 1GB of unique data (be in OTP pad or the real data) from the sender to the receiver in secrecy I wouldn't need encryption in the first place.
As stated in the article (page 2, I know, I must be new here):
Columbia's 39 degree orbital inclination could not have been altered to the ISS 51.6 degree inclination without approximately 12,600 ft/sec of translational capability. Columbia had 448 ft/sec of propellant available.
Here's the list of software that is FIPS certified. Be aware that most are libraries that are used in other products, which can sometimes make it hard to tell which particular certified bit is being used by end-user software.
Or someone like RedHat could decide that they need certification (required for some FedGov projects), and pay to get something like OpenSSH certified. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.2 OpenSSH Server Cryptographic Module, when run in FIPS mode is certificate number 1792.
And what really makes my head spin: If this galaxy is moving away from us at the speed of light, and has been doing so for almost the entire age of the universe, doesn't that mean that it (and all observable universe) started out from "our" position, even though the big bang should NOT be considered to extend from a central position?
Yes, in that the universe was a point at the beginning, therefore 'our position' was at the center of it, as was the position of everything else in the universe. It might be more accurate to say that instead of this galaxy moving away from us, the space between our galaxies is expanding. All of space is expanding, with gravity keeping structures at the galaxy/local group level close enough together that they do not expand themselves.
By the time our universe is 20 billion years old, that galaxy will be 19.4 billion light years away. The above math would then result in the galaxy moving away at a speed greater than the speed of light. I guess we'll see time moving backwards?
Nope, actually we won't see anything at all, as the light emitted by this galaxy will never be able to reach us. The light from this galaxy will redshift to a greater degree until no more information reaches us.
Turing Completeness is based upon the ability to simulate a Turing Machine (if/else and random access to infinite memory). Obviously there is no such thing as infinite memory, but that is a nitpick that we don't pay attention to when talking about Turing completeness.
That we can create a physical system that is Turing Complete (a computer) in our physical universe strongly suggests that our universe is Turing Complete.
The initial question was about whether the universe was Turing Equivalent. A TE system must be TC, with the additional restriction that it has no more capability than a TM. According to Wikipedia, all known Turing Complete structures are Turing Equivalent.
However, as there is much about the universe we don't know, it is possible that there are some functions of it that are not simulate-able on a TM, and thus while the universe is TC, it is not TE.
So the universe is probably Turing Complete. All currently known Turing Complete systems are Turing Equivalent. This may suggest that the universe is Turing Equivalent, but answering that question is for smarter people than I.
The obvious consequence of the universe being Turing Equivalent is that as the universe can simulate/sustain a physical computer, so can a physical computer of whatever complexity simulate a universe. The simulated universe must be less complex than the one which is simulating it, as a universe has only a particular amount of information in it (so far as we can tell - size of the visible universe and all that), and only some subset of that state/information is available for simulating universe-b, each simulated universe is inherently limited by the amount of information in the universe 'higher' in the chain that is used to simulate it.
If all information in universe-a was being used to simulate universe-b either: 1) Overhead from the simulation would cause the limitation effect. 2) There is no overhead, universe-a perfectly simulates universe-b with no overhead. In this case, they are equivalent and the same.
Just because it's illegal doesn't mean that people don't do it. GP is just saying that they are shooting at the birds instead of the lines, s/he isn't saying that such a thing is legal/ethical.
They were using a Ruger.22, suppressed to be easy on the ears (no need for hearing protection). Assuming that subsonic ammunition would cycle the firearm, and keep everything quieter, you can pick up 500 rounds of.22 subsonic for less than $40. If they didn't want to use subsonic, it's less than $20 for 525 rounds. Fairly inexpensive on the whole, since the system doesn't care what you hit the target surface with.
I'm not saying that people who just experienced their first earthquake are going to be rational in their reporting. But the local geology makes a big difference. I live in Peoria, probably 200 miles away and the first woke me out of a sound sleep. Myself and my co-workers felt the aftershock later on. People in St. Louis (128 miles away from the epicenter according to the USGS) were woken up too.
It's not just the power, it's how well that energy is transmitted.
If you want to view the code without debugging, try.NET Reflector. It uses.NET reflection to show the source of non-obfuscated assemblies. All of the.NET base classes are non-obfuscated, and easy to read. You can also reflect upon Reflector if you're interested in how it does it's thing. Good stuff.
The other thing that I believe really set apart Deus Ex and DX:IW was familiarity. The first Deus Ex was the modern world plus a few interesting and logical steps forward. Police and military units augment their force with armed robots. Government surveillance is increasingly pervasive. The voice of 'the people' is increasingly dismissed by those in power.
Deus Ex started with real life and added to it logically, thus creating a world that was different, but still recognizable and 'real'. Which made the plot more relevant and interesting. The crappy part is how well it seems the writer(s) could forecast the future.
The world of DX:IW was different enough that I couldn't relate to it in the same way. In Invisible War, I had to be told the 'rules', for the most part in Deus Ex, I knew the 'rules' already. This also helped set up plot twists that actually worked.
As for prequel/alternate history, those would be my best hope for a great game. I don't think any real evidence exists either way at this point.
DX2 crappy by comparison to the original.
on
Deus Ex 3 Announced
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Like most of the people who will comment here, I really enjoyed the original Deus Ex. Yet I was also very disappointed with DX2. Whenever the discussion of great single-player games comes up, there's usually someone cheering for Deus Ex, closely followed by another comment warning potential players to stay away from the sequel.
The most often cited reasons for the sequels 'suck factor' seem to be the (relative) brevity of the game, small areas with constant loading, as well as the simplification of the interface, inventory management, ammunition/weapon system, and character development. Many of these issues can be seen as the problems inherent with developing for the console market. The original Deus Ex was PC/Mac only, whereas DX2 had to get by without a mouse and keyboard. Those issues are the ones that everyone seems to cite when talking about 'what went wrong', and why DX2 is widely seen as inferior to the original. I believe that this is the case, but it's not the big problem.
The big issue I see is that people know what they are getting in to. The original Deus Ex was long and involved, with a plot that was interesting and unique. When I started the second Deus Ex game, I knew what I was in for. Not the specifics obviously, but the general outline of the game was pretty much known to me within the first hour. While there were some interesting changes made in structure between the first and second games, they were not enough. This is still the story of an augmented special agent, unraveling massive conspiracies, lies, and backstabbing, and ultimately deciding the fate of the world.
Long post short, what I thought was great about Deus Ex was the plot and how it was revealed to the player over the course of some fairly long gameplay, combined with very ambitious (for the day) interactivity. The second game had much the same overarching plot, but the surprise was gone and it didn't pull it off as well. Repetitive plots are the bread and butter of gaming, but the direct comparison between the two makes DX2 suffer.
I could be a great artist, and if I paint a nice half portrait of a young woman seated, dressed in dark colors, and appearing to look back at the viewer, it could be very good on it's own merits. Hang it next to The Mona Lisa, and tell people that there is some connection between the two, and it will garner nothing but scorn.
Wolves are thankfully making a comeback. They're currently headed south from the Great Lakes area in the MidWest US. Live wolves have been found in Iowa, and I believe have been found in packs. There has been direct evidence of live wolves in the very northern reaches of Missouri for some time.
Bears are also making a big comeback, in some areas, such a comeback as to make conservation departments create lottery seasons for black bear hunting.
Slashdot Mirror
The word 'pussy' isn't the problem. The problem is the word 'grab'.
Note: I'm not defending the use of lethal force in this case, I'm really fucking uncomfortable with that as well. Whether they could keep him bottled up until he gave out is a good question and not one that I can answer.
However, if this is a bomb disposal robot, it is likely that the explosive that the police put onto the robot is one that it is designed to carry and initiate. One way bomb squads dispose of suspected bombs is to detonate them at a time of their choosing using a charge placed by the bomb squad robot. I don't know, but think it's pretty likely that the bomb squad robot doesn't have a general purpose 'pull pin on grenade' option to where it could be used with various grenade type objects, but instead that it only works with the specific charges it is designed for.
I'd maybe be even a bit more concerned if the bot could use 'any grenade type object', rather than something specifically made for EOD, because we'd probably see more of this kind of thing. But of course, now that someone has done it (1) more police departments are going to start thinking of this as a valid method and (2) we probably will see the rise of bots that have more general purpose munitions.
My guess is that this is the type of charge that is used to 'safely' detonate suspected explosive devices. One way to approach a suspected bomb is quite simply to trigger it at a known time, when the area is clear. The way to do this is generally to have a 'small' explosive charge on the bomb disposal robot, which can be attached to the suspected bomb, and blown up. This either detonates or rapidly disassembles the (suspected) bomb at a time when everyone is safely back and behind cover.
This is also why they probably couldn't use a flashbang or gas grenade on the bot, I have no idea how the bot initiates the charge it is designed to use, but I doubt that it has a servo to pull the pin on a grenade-type device. Most likely the charge is one that has an initiator specific to the robot.
That's my (uninformed) guess as to why (1) the police had a bomb and (2) the police didn't use a flashbang/gas/etc instead.
If I hear the engine start to growl or feel any form of torque upon depressing a pedal, I know what just happened. The accelerator is also a much lower-force pedal than the brake. There is so much instant feedback telling me what I just did I'd have to have part of my brain physically removed to not know wtf just happened. I'm pretty sure my autonomous nervous system reacts before my prefrontal cortex processes the information, too.
But it's a Tesla, so there won't be an engine growl, and there may not be any feeling of spooling up torque. Electric motors are quiet and go from zero to Holy Shit in no time. It's entirely possible the driver began depressing the 'brake' (actually accelerator), had time to notice not slowing down, and in a panic pressed harder and put it to the floor.
I can't assert that's what happened of course, but it happens /all the time/ in cars that make more noise when accelerating, don't accelerate as fast, and have less power. There was a hole in the front of my gym from someone doing it this last winter, and it was the second time that person had done it!
That would probably be about the time it ceased to be a plane.
I just turned off AdBlock for the first time in years.
I believe that Subgraph Isomorphism is NP-Complete, but Graph Isomorphism is not.
OTPs are great. On the other hand, you have to use each pad only once. Ever. So to encrypt 1GB of data, you need 1GB of cryptographically random pad. Which you can never use again. And must be a secret with regards to the rest of the world. And must be present on both the sending and receiving end of the communication.
If I knew how to get 1GB of unique data (be in OTP pad or the real data) from the sender to the receiver in secrecy I wouldn't need encryption in the first place.
As stated in the article (page 2, I know, I must be new here):
Columbia's 39 degree orbital inclination could not have been altered to the ISS 51.6 degree inclination without approximately 12,600 ft/sec of translational capability. Columbia had 448 ft/sec of propellant available.
Here's the list of software that is FIPS certified. Be aware that most are libraries that are used in other products, which can sometimes make it hard to tell which particular certified bit is being used by end-user software.
http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/STM/cmvp/documents/140-1/1401val2012.htm
Or someone like RedHat could decide that they need certification (required for some FedGov projects), and pay to get something like OpenSSH certified. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.2 OpenSSH Server Cryptographic Module, when run in FIPS mode is certificate number 1792.
This is probably what you are looking for:
http://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html
There are no license restrictions on use for the output of the .NET Express series of products.
And what really makes my head spin: If this galaxy is moving away from us at the speed of light, and has been doing so for almost the entire age of the universe, doesn't that mean that it (and all observable universe) started out from "our" position, even though the big bang should NOT be considered to extend from a central position?
Yes, in that the universe was a point at the beginning, therefore 'our position' was at the center of it, as was the position of everything else in the universe. It might be more accurate to say that instead of this galaxy moving away from us, the space between our galaxies is expanding. All of space is expanding, with gravity keeping structures at the galaxy/local group level close enough together that they do not expand themselves.
By the time our universe is 20 billion years old, that galaxy will be 19.4 billion light years away. The above math would then result in the galaxy moving away at a speed greater than the speed of light. I guess we'll see time moving backwards?
Nope, actually we won't see anything at all, as the light emitted by this galaxy will never be able to reach us. The light from this galaxy will redshift to a greater degree until no more information reaches us.
But an infinite number of zeros isn't followed by anything, as there is an infinite number of them.
Turing Completeness is based upon the ability to simulate a Turing Machine (if/else and random access to infinite memory). Obviously there is no such thing as infinite memory, but that is a nitpick that we don't pay attention to when talking about Turing completeness.
That we can create a physical system that is Turing Complete (a computer) in our physical universe strongly suggests that our universe is Turing Complete.
The initial question was about whether the universe was Turing Equivalent. A TE system must be TC, with the additional restriction that it has no more capability than a TM. According to Wikipedia, all known Turing Complete structures are Turing Equivalent.
However, as there is much about the universe we don't know, it is possible that there are some functions of it that are not simulate-able on a TM, and thus while the universe is TC, it is not TE.
So the universe is probably Turing Complete.
All currently known Turing Complete systems are Turing Equivalent.
This may suggest that the universe is Turing Equivalent, but answering that question is for smarter people than I.
The obvious consequence of the universe being Turing Equivalent is that as the universe can simulate/sustain a physical computer, so can a physical computer of whatever complexity simulate a universe. The simulated universe must be less complex than the one which is simulating it, as a universe has only a particular amount of information in it (so far as we can tell - size of the visible universe and all that), and only some subset of that state/information is available for simulating universe-b, each simulated universe is inherently limited by the amount of information in the universe 'higher' in the chain that is used to simulate it.
If all information in universe-a was being used to simulate universe-b either:
1) Overhead from the simulation would cause the limitation effect.
2) There is no overhead, universe-a perfectly simulates universe-b with no overhead. In this case, they are equivalent and the same.
Just because it's illegal doesn't mean that people don't do it. GP is just saying that they are shooting at the birds instead of the lines, s/he isn't saying that such a thing is legal/ethical.
They were using a Ruger .22, suppressed to be easy on the ears (no need for hearing protection). Assuming that subsonic ammunition would cycle the firearm, and keep everything quieter, you can pick up 500 rounds of .22 subsonic for less than $40. If they didn't want to use subsonic, it's less than $20 for 525 rounds. Fairly inexpensive on the whole, since the system doesn't care what you hit the target surface with.
It also has a lot to do with the way that earthquakes propagate in the region.
Consider this map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NMSZ_Vergleich.jpg
I'm not saying that people who just experienced their first earthquake are going to be rational in their reporting. But the local geology makes a big difference.
I live in Peoria, probably 200 miles away and the first woke me out of a sound sleep. Myself and my co-workers felt the aftershock later on.
People in St. Louis (128 miles away from the epicenter according to the USGS) were woken up too.
It's not just the power, it's how well that energy is transmitted.
If you want to view the code without debugging, try .NET Reflector. It uses .NET reflection to show the source of non-obfuscated assemblies. All of the .NET base classes are non-obfuscated, and easy to read. You can also reflect upon Reflector if you're interested in how it does it's thing. Good stuff.
The other thing that I believe really set apart Deus Ex and DX:IW was familiarity. The first Deus Ex was the modern world plus a few interesting and logical steps forward. Police and military units augment their force with armed robots. Government surveillance is increasingly pervasive. The voice of 'the people' is increasingly dismissed by those in power.
Deus Ex started with real life and added to it logically, thus creating a world that was different, but still recognizable and 'real'. Which made the plot more relevant and interesting. The crappy part is how well it seems the writer(s) could forecast the future.
The world of DX:IW was different enough that I couldn't relate to it in the same way. In Invisible War, I had to be told the 'rules', for the most part in Deus Ex, I knew the 'rules' already. This also helped set up plot twists that actually worked.
As for prequel/alternate history, those would be my best hope for a great game. I don't think any real evidence exists either way at this point.
Like most of the people who will comment here, I really enjoyed the original Deus Ex. Yet I was also very disappointed with DX2. Whenever the discussion of great single-player games comes up, there's usually someone cheering for Deus Ex, closely followed by another comment warning potential players to stay away from the sequel.
The most often cited reasons for the sequels 'suck factor' seem to be the (relative) brevity of the game, small areas with constant loading, as well as the simplification of the interface, inventory management, ammunition/weapon system, and character development. Many of these issues can be seen as the problems inherent with developing for the console market. The original Deus Ex was PC/Mac only, whereas DX2 had to get by without a mouse and keyboard. Those issues are the ones that everyone seems to cite when talking about 'what went wrong', and why DX2 is widely seen as inferior to the original. I believe that this is the case, but it's not the big problem.
The big issue I see is that people know what they are getting in to. The original Deus Ex was long and involved, with a plot that was interesting and unique. When I started the second Deus Ex game, I knew what I was in for. Not the specifics obviously, but the general outline of the game was pretty much known to me within the first hour. While there were some interesting changes made in structure between the first and second games, they were not enough. This is still the story of an augmented special agent, unraveling massive conspiracies, lies, and backstabbing, and ultimately deciding the fate of the world.
Long post short, what I thought was great about Deus Ex was the plot and how it was revealed to the player over the course of some fairly long gameplay, combined with very ambitious (for the day) interactivity. The second game had much the same overarching plot, but the surprise was gone and it didn't pull it off as well. Repetitive plots are the bread and butter of gaming, but the direct comparison between the two makes DX2 suffer.
I could be a great artist, and if I paint a nice half portrait of a young woman seated, dressed in dark colors, and appearing to look back at the viewer, it could be very good on it's own merits. Hang it next to The Mona Lisa, and tell people that there is some connection between the two, and it will garner nothing but scorn.
How to fix these issues for DX3? Good luck.
I must be dyslexic or something....
20 Million to do it, and 500 Million to tell everyone about it.
Capitalism at work.
Wolves are thankfully making a comeback. They're currently headed south from the Great Lakes area in the MidWest US. Live wolves have been found in Iowa, and I believe have been found in packs. There has been direct evidence of live wolves in the very northern reaches of Missouri for some time.
Bears are also making a big comeback, in some areas, such a comeback as to make conservation departments create lottery seasons for black bear hunting.