Yes, but there are no small number of people who would argue that *nobody* should have the right to invade anyone's alleged privacy... eg, using something like google glass or otherwise recording in a public place, and are sufficiently incensed at the notion that anybody might do something like this that physical violence is often mentioned as a recourse (which explicitly *does* violate a person's civil rights).
But one could also argue that people have the same right to attempt to invade other people's privacy (google glass, anyone?), to the extent that they do not break any actual laws in doing so.
That won't happen because depositing a layer one atom thick, unless it is depositing at least on the order of tens of thousands of layers every single second, you would be waiting days or even months for an object to finish being manufactured that is only a few centimeters high.
Chrome has nearly 50% of the browser market share all it itself... if Mozilla had just decided to not support it, then all it would accomplish by not implementing it is delegating itself to a future "unsupported browser" list... we'd be back to the good old days (sarcasm intended) when IE had a dominant market share and half of the websites out there wouldn't support anything else, except this time it'd be chrome and not IE that you'd have to have.
We know that mass generally increases with the cube of a creature's height, and the tensile strength of bone can only support so much pressure from a creature's own weight, so it seems that if there should be some limit to how large a creature in earth's gravity can be (and, for the sake of argument, not being provided any additional buoyancy due to being under water, for instance). This particular creature is alleged over 60 feet tall, and more than 10 times the height of a man, which makes it more than 1000 times the mass of a human. Cross sectional area generally increases with the square of height difference, meaning that more than 10 times as much pressure would be exerted on every square inch of a lateral cross section of bone as what human bones endure. Now granted, this creature was not shaped like a man, and having four legs instead of just two could give it some additional advantage in this department. Additionally, it could have denser bones, capable of supporting more weight, but denser bone structure in turn requires more muscle mass to move, and will tend to further increase the creature's size. Still, it seems like there's still got to be a maximum possible size. Does anyone know what this might be?
How does the recipient know the sequence of how many times each is run? Obviously, this requires a secure exchange of something that must be kept secret.... so how do you go about ensuring that what you want to exchange with the recipient, nobody else will view? Obviously, you encrypt that information... I trust you can see the recursive nature of your proposed solution.
As I understand it, they've simplified the problem to a compiexity of O(n^log(n))... this is still non-polynomial time... but the rate of complexity growth is effectively polynomial. If I understand correctly, that means that the additional security that was formerly thought to be obtained by merely doubling cryptographic key length must now be obtained by squaring it.
Yes, you can... but 911 service is also generally bundled with whatever your phone package costs. The "free' 911 calls that people make without paying for any service are relatively few, and effectively subsidized by the people who are paying for phone service.
If google needs an objective standard for "irrelevant and outdated", I strongly recommend that the standard be that the page has either been removed entirely or else the page just no longer contains the content that is described by the google search, and the "irrelevant or outdated" content may only be available in the cache.
We need to see how things evolved on other worlds, evolving entirely independently of the life forms on this planet, which may have in some way influenced eachother, in order to even begin to gauge how predictable evolution is.
Well, to be fair... it wouldn't necessarily know that the device doesn't exist any more just because it can't connect to it. It might have simply been shut off, for instance.
But yes... a web-based portal to manage your devices that would allow people to prohibit (or enable) other iPhones trying to use iMessage to send to them in the first place would be ideal.
Most quantum theories of gravity that look promising have no singularies or even horizons, i.e. do NOT lead to black holes
Interesting that you would say this, since we actually do not even have a quantum theory of gravity yet that predicts astronomical observations.
Quantum gravity was invented to try and eliminate the apparent paradox in GR that occurs when information would to gets lost inside of a black hole, but all that means is that GR may not be sufficient to explain all of its implications, it does not mean that super-massive objects do not bend space around them, which we can easily observe, nor does it mean that sufficiently heavy objects would bend space so sharply that it would curve back around itself, and no straight line passing near enough to it could actually ever leave a bounded region near it.... and we have come about as close as may be physically possible to imaging an event horizon by monitoring the behaviour of matter that appears to be near one.
The evidence for the existence of black holes is that the theories match observed phenomena... obviously we can't directly see them, but arguing that they "haven't been proved" just because we haven't seen them when a) we're not *supposed* to be able to see them, and b) the theories seem to accurately predict what we actually can observe isn't good science, it's just being mindlessly contrary.
Alternatives to GR such as quantum gravity have been proposed not because there is any actual evidence for them (there is no working theory for quantum gravity as of yet from what I've read), but from what I understand, primarily because we won't have to worry about the possibility of information loss that seems to occur with the existence of black hole, and would appear to create a paradox. Flaws in GR may reveal that black holes to not collapse into a singularity, but that does not mean that gravity does not bend space in observable ways, nor does it mean that a sufficient amount of gravity cannot bend space so sharply that straight lines will never leave a bounded region, as seen from outside of that region, which is what a black hole ultimately is. We cannot directly observe this from outside of one because it's intrinsically unobservable from outside, but we can still observe everything that happens on this side of that boundary, and everything we can observe suggests that such a boundary really does exist at observable points in the heavens. Google "imaging an event horizon" to read about progress made in trying to more directly view the phenomenon.
None of this necessarily means that GR is sufficient to explain everything there is about the cosmos, but it does mean black holes do indeed appear to exist. They've been about as proven as anything can be... the only arguments that suggest they don't exist in the first place come from characteristics of black holes that are implied by GR... but an event horizon is not really one of those... that is implied by the bending of space by gravity which can actually be directly observed at lower levels of effect.
In most cases, at least here in Canada, marine animals that are in captivity have usually been discovered to be injured, and either would have died if left to their own devices, or worse, spent the rest of their lives suffering. Full rehabilitation takes time, and of course, after being in captivity for any extended period, releasing the creature would also unfortunately be a certain death sentence... so in some ways, it might seem like they are damned if we do take them in, and damned if we don't.
However.... there's one key difference here.
In captivity they will still live longer and/or happier than they would have if left to their own devices... and although I won't argue that being in a million-gallon marine pool no substitute for swimming in the open ocean, it's not like we are trying to make their lives uncomfortable. Further, while they are in captivity, it gives us an otherwise impossible opportunity to learn far more about them than what we already know. I don't advocate mistreatment of any creature in the name of scientific research, but in the end, such aquatic centres or aquariums do not mistreat their charges... they care for them, and by all appearances, the creatures do usually appear to at least be content, as if they realize that we are trying our best, however much like flailing in the dark it might seem to people who would advocate the closure of these places, to genuinely help them, and to make their lives as better as we know how.
Black holes are not necessarily singularities... they may be predicted to be such by GR, but we may not ever know this to be true for certain. The real defining feature of a black hole is an event horizon, and we know that such things do exist.
If your cable company owns a network it would have to sell it off. If your cable company is your ISP then it has too sell.
It's a pretty safe bet that's not going to happen. If forced to by law, they'd probably just stop being an ISP... what obligation do they have to sell their ISP business to somebody else?
Of course, when the two largest ISP's in the area are both cable providers, and every other broadband ISP provider is ultimately dependant on one of them as their upstream provider, this creates a bit of a problem....
of course, we don't even know that black holes exist,
Yes, actually we do. We know that supermassive objects exist... we know that they can bend light, and we know that space can be bent to such a degree by such objects that any light which travels too close to it travels a curved path that never leaves a bounded region of space near the object that we refer to as an event horizon, creating a region in space that is basically just "black" as it appears from outside of that region, It obviously obscures anything behind it, while its gravity still bends light in visible ways beyond its event horizon, allowing us to identify it's mass, position, and event horizon size.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but there are no small number of people who would argue that *nobody* should have the right to invade anyone's alleged privacy... eg, using something like google glass or otherwise recording in a public place, and are sufficiently incensed at the notion that anybody might do something like this that physical violence is often mentioned as a recourse (which explicitly *does* violate a person's civil rights).
But one could also argue that people have the same right to attempt to invade other people's privacy (google glass, anyone?), to the extent that they do not break any actual laws in doing so.
That won't happen because depositing a layer one atom thick, unless it is depositing at least on the order of tens of thousands of layers every single second, you would be waiting days or even months for an object to finish being manufactured that is only a few centimeters high.
That's all very well and good, but Google didn't say no.
Chrome has nearly 50% of the browser market share all it itself... if Mozilla had just decided to not support it, then all it would accomplish by not implementing it is delegating itself to a future "unsupported browser" list... we'd be back to the good old days (sarcasm intended) when IE had a dominant market share and half of the websites out there wouldn't support anything else, except this time it'd be chrome and not IE that you'd have to have.
We know that mass generally increases with the cube of a creature's height, and the tensile strength of bone can only support so much pressure from a creature's own weight, so it seems that if there should be some limit to how large a creature in earth's gravity can be (and, for the sake of argument, not being provided any additional buoyancy due to being under water, for instance). This particular creature is alleged over 60 feet tall, and more than 10 times the height of a man, which makes it more than 1000 times the mass of a human. Cross sectional area generally increases with the square of height difference, meaning that more than 10 times as much pressure would be exerted on every square inch of a lateral cross section of bone as what human bones endure. Now granted, this creature was not shaped like a man, and having four legs instead of just two could give it some additional advantage in this department. Additionally, it could have denser bones, capable of supporting more weight, but denser bone structure in turn requires more muscle mass to move, and will tend to further increase the creature's size. Still, it seems like there's still got to be a maximum possible size. Does anyone know what this might be?
How does the recipient know the sequence of how many times each is run? Obviously, this requires a secure exchange of something that must be kept secret.... so how do you go about ensuring that what you want to exchange with the recipient, nobody else will view? Obviously, you encrypt that information... I trust you can see the recursive nature of your proposed solution.
As I understand it, they've simplified the problem to a compiexity of O(n^log(n))... this is still non-polynomial time... but the rate of complexity growth is effectively polynomial. If I understand correctly, that means that the additional security that was formerly thought to be obtained by merely doubling cryptographic key length must now be obtained by squaring it.
Yes, you can... but 911 service is also generally bundled with whatever your phone package costs. The "free' 911 calls that people make without paying for any service are relatively few, and effectively subsidized by the people who are paying for phone service.
Yes it does... but it's usually bundled in with your phone service (often required by law, depending on ones jurisdiction).
If google needs an objective standard for "irrelevant and outdated", I strongly recommend that the standard be that the page has either been removed entirely or else the page just no longer contains the content that is described by the google search, and the "irrelevant or outdated" content may only be available in the cache.
[nt]
We need to see how things evolved on other worlds, evolving entirely independently of the life forms on this planet, which may have in some way influenced eachother, in order to even begin to gauge how predictable evolution is.
... you hear about a new revolutionary breakthrough in such-and-such a field, but nothing ever comes of it. </jaded>
Well, to be fair... it wouldn't necessarily know that the device doesn't exist any more just because it can't connect to it. It might have simply been shut off, for instance.
But yes... a web-based portal to manage your devices that would allow people to prohibit (or enable) other iPhones trying to use iMessage to send to them in the first place would be ideal.
If you have other apple devices, sure... but what if that was your only apple device?
What if the sim card is irretrievable?
Interesting that you would say this, since we actually do not even have a quantum theory of gravity yet that predicts astronomical observations.
Quantum gravity was invented to try and eliminate the apparent paradox in GR that occurs when information would to gets lost inside of a black hole, but all that means is that GR may not be sufficient to explain all of its implications, it does not mean that super-massive objects do not bend space around them, which we can easily observe, nor does it mean that sufficiently heavy objects would bend space so sharply that it would curve back around itself, and no straight line passing near enough to it could actually ever leave a bounded region near it.... and we have come about as close as may be physically possible to imaging an event horizon by monitoring the behaviour of matter that appears to be near one.
The evidence for the existence of black holes is that the theories match observed phenomena... obviously we can't directly see them, but arguing that they "haven't been proved" just because we haven't seen them when a) we're not *supposed* to be able to see them, and b) the theories seem to accurately predict what we actually can observe isn't good science, it's just being mindlessly contrary.
Alternatives to GR such as quantum gravity have been proposed not because there is any actual evidence for them (there is no working theory for quantum gravity as of yet from what I've read), but from what I understand, primarily because we won't have to worry about the possibility of information loss that seems to occur with the existence of black hole, and would appear to create a paradox. Flaws in GR may reveal that black holes to not collapse into a singularity, but that does not mean that gravity does not bend space in observable ways, nor does it mean that a sufficient amount of gravity cannot bend space so sharply that straight lines will never leave a bounded region, as seen from outside of that region, which is what a black hole ultimately is. We cannot directly observe this from outside of one because it's intrinsically unobservable from outside, but we can still observe everything that happens on this side of that boundary, and everything we can observe suggests that such a boundary really does exist at observable points in the heavens. Google "imaging an event horizon" to read about progress made in trying to more directly view the phenomenon.
None of this necessarily means that GR is sufficient to explain everything there is about the cosmos, but it does mean black holes do indeed appear to exist. They've been about as proven as anything can be... the only arguments that suggest they don't exist in the first place come from characteristics of black holes that are implied by GR... but an event horizon is not really one of those... that is implied by the bending of space by gravity which can actually be directly observed at lower levels of effect.
In most cases, at least here in Canada, marine animals that are in captivity have usually been discovered to be injured, and either would have died if left to their own devices, or worse, spent the rest of their lives suffering. Full rehabilitation takes time, and of course, after being in captivity for any extended period, releasing the creature would also unfortunately be a certain death sentence... so in some ways, it might seem like they are damned if we do take them in, and damned if we don't.
However.... there's one key difference here.
In captivity they will still live longer and/or happier than they would have if left to their own devices... and although I won't argue that being in a million-gallon marine pool no substitute for swimming in the open ocean, it's not like we are trying to make their lives uncomfortable. Further, while they are in captivity, it gives us an otherwise impossible opportunity to learn far more about them than what we already know. I don't advocate mistreatment of any creature in the name of scientific research, but in the end, such aquatic centres or aquariums do not mistreat their charges... they care for them, and by all appearances, the creatures do usually appear to at least be content, as if they realize that we are trying our best, however much like flailing in the dark it might seem to people who would advocate the closure of these places, to genuinely help them, and to make their lives as better as we know how.
And we don't know the universe came into existence 13.8 billion years ago either.... we infer it from the evidence at hand.
Black holes are not necessarily singularities... they may be predicted to be such by GR, but we may not ever know this to be true for certain. The real defining feature of a black hole is an event horizon, and we know that such things do exist.
Maybe faith is just lack of water.
I can see it, I guess... you'd have to have a pretty strong faith to think you could live very long without water, after all.
It's a pretty safe bet that's not going to happen. If forced to by law, they'd probably just stop being an ISP... what obligation do they have to sell their ISP business to somebody else?
Of course, when the two largest ISP's in the area are both cable providers, and every other broadband ISP provider is ultimately dependant on one of them as their upstream provider, this creates a bit of a problem....
Good thing I still have my 56k modem.
Yes, actually we do. We know that supermassive objects exist... we know that they can bend light, and we know that space can be bent to such a degree by such objects that any light which travels too close to it travels a curved path that never leaves a bounded region of space near the object that we refer to as an event horizon, creating a region in space that is basically just "black" as it appears from outside of that region, It obviously obscures anything behind it, while its gravity still bends light in visible ways beyond its event horizon, allowing us to identify it's mass, position, and event horizon size.