IIUC, it's not speculative at all. It's a work of math saying that this particular math is consistent with General Relativity. There are lots of things that are consistent with General Relativity, and most of them don't have any evidence of existing. There isn't much that appears inconsistent with General Relativity that DOES appear to exist.
Think of it as a Venn Diagram. Mark one circle "consistent with General Relativity". Mark another circle inconsistent with General Relativity. Now take a couple of
I wouldn't have proven Asimov wrong, because I didn't say anything about how much energy it would take to remove the mass, or how long "temporarily" was.
I said it would be very interesting, not useful. Useful is to hope for, not to expect, especially when it comes to changing fundamentals, like temporarily removing mass.
The this is, we don't have a handle on what could be done if mass can be explained. The best guess is that it will totally match current theories. That's not only dull, and useless, that's frustrating. We KNOW the theories are incomplete.
Well, exciting if it leads to something. Say the temporary removal of mass. That would be very interesting (if also quite improbable). More likely it could lead to some purely theoretical advance that could then lead to some currently unexpected result. Perhaps storing information in quark spin states. Perhaps total conversion of mass to energy. Something.
So far, though, it's totally matched theoretical predictions, and that's dull. Also troubling, because we KNOW that current theories are incomplete.
No. Nobody has a secure career, except upper management. They have a secure career because they are the one making the decisions as to what to do, who to hire, etc. But if you don't own the company, then to you the Board of Directors is upper management, and if you do, the company can fail.
If you already have a secure career, you are MORE LIKELY to remain employable in that career. But more likely is a long distance from certain.
For that matter, there are still people drving horse drawn carriages. Damn few, though.
OTOH, you don't know which jobs will be stable, but you can guess at some that won't. E.g., anything easy to export will go to where the wages are lowest. Sometimes this just means that there are essentially no new hires in that field. (Not a good idea to study for a career there.) Other times the entire career gets wiped out. Western Union doesn't employ many boys to carry the telegrams anymore.
And you can't predict which jobs will go. Well, you can. In fact you've got to. But you can't be sure (except emotionally) that your predictions are correct.
FWIW, I've been surprised that programming has lasted as long as it has. I expected that there'd be SOME successful automatic program writing system long ago...not necessarily as good as an experienced programmer, but as good as a novice, and able to learn, and LOTS cheaper. So far I've been wrong. Thankfully. (Of course the real problem has always been the specs...but few people acknowledge that.)
FWIW, there's a company in China that's using 3-D printing to make buildings. My guess is that so far they aren't very nice buildings, but the report was that they could build one in less than a week. Get the bugs out and there goes construction work. All the construction workers move to repair, so that job market is flooded.
But what's the time-line? Probably not this year or next year. Perhaps not this decade. (HAH!) But at first the buildings will be ugly, and only for special purposes. Then.... I doubt that it will soon get as good as a well-built current house, but it could be MUCH cheaper. (Somebody else, in Germany I think, is working on printing the wires for a building. Don't know how they're coming with that, but...)
NOBODY is reasonably secure in their jobs but upper management. Trade school is reasonable advice because it's a much smaller investment. Also, as she is asking for advice, she doesn't seem to already have a strong inclination, which rules out many occupations that require a LOT of self directed endeavor (Actor, author, doctor, etc.).
What's she interested in? Many jobs will still exist, but won't be easy to get, or at least to earn a living at. Fashion designer for one. Some people will earn their living that way, but not nearly as many as will try to.
The thing is, while having credit is good, using it is terrible. If you can dependably pay off your credit card before you start paying interest on the "loan", then it's a good deal. It improves your credit without costing you much. (Most cards have a yearly fee, or some other entanglement, so it WILL cost you something. You've got to be able to be sure that what it costs you is LESS than the benefit it provides.)
OTOH, don't count on your credit rating. That can be destroyed without any action on your part by other actors. My wife had to fight for months, hours a day, to get her credit repaired because someone with the same name had died in a hospital without paying their bills. They didn't even live in the same city. And that guy was a man. This didn't help much. SHE had to find out what the problem was with no help from the credit agencies, and they still wouldn't stop hounding her until she mailed each of them a copy of the death certificate. (And that didn't stop some of the bastards.)
I think credit agencies may be full of scum one, or maybe two, steps worse than corporate lawyers.
If you think being attractive is disempowering to women, I invite you to consider Angua from DiskWorld.
OTOH, using a femal Thor is just stupid. Storm is a viable female storm Goddess, but she's not trying to be Thor. They'd have done much better to just pick a Norse feminine name that sounded good and used that, though I'm not sure that Gundred would have worked well.
Yeah, I understand your problem. But if you are anonymous from a known-to-be-biased IP range, you can't be as trusted as even ordinary anonymous posters.
Yeah, that looks like spin management. Now if they's moved it's position to "allegedly each year" I would have considered it acceptably parsimonious reasoning. After all, I only know that it meets occasionally, I don't know that it actually does meet yearly. Or if it had said "allegedly the most powerful men", I would have found that acceptable. AFAIK nobody from either the Chinese or Russian government attends. It seems to be mainly a US/European group.
No. But it *does* mean that in contentious areas your edits should not be as trusted as those of a possibly unbiased person. (OTOH, do note the "possibly unbiased". You are guaranteed to be biased, as well as informed. It's not clear what your biases are, or whether you will intentionally shade the truth because of them. But many will.
If you consider that you are willing to stand behind your edits, get an account.
Sounds plausible. I find most commercial beers undrinkable. Guiness is, however, quite good, especially if it's not too chilly. (It really *is* best at room temperature.)
I think we may have different definitions for "good tasting". I did do that, however, before I was of drinking age. (And then I didn't even know enough to remove the sediment. Yuck, but it was alcohol.)
Sorry, but there are lots of very specialized yeast strains. You don't use the same yeast for wine as you do for beer, and that's different from the one you use for bread. Etc. San Francisco sourdough bread used to be made from a regionally available wild yeast, but I think things may have changed so that it no longer lives here. Certainly given the urban levels of pollution I wouldn't want to depend on catching a wild yeast. There was one bakery that used to have a baker who kept his culture growing on his hairy chest, but the food & drug people forbade this., even though it had been safe and popular for decades.
You aren't going to get one strain of yeast to take over the world. Particularly not one that's become dependent on being cultured in a lab.
Not in most cookies, but there ARE cookies that use a yeast dough. The problem is the yeast eats most of the sugar, so they aren't very sweet. (Maybe you could call them biscuits?)
Actually, I was just repeating a factoid I'd heard elsewhere. I gratefully accept your correction. (But do note that it doesn't change the point, merely slightly decreases it's significance.)
Well...I'm not sure how hidden it is. We know that they are Apple surveilance devices, and we know that Apple will roll over if the Feds ask them to.
That said, I'd be surprised if there weren't zero-day exploits that haven't yet been made public. OTOH, the same is true for EVERY smart phone.
We've also be informed that the NSA records 80% of all voice conversations. (True? False? No way to check.) This plausibly means that they have all cell phone towers bugged. So they probably rarely need to bother Apple for the information.
Siri clearly requires that the phone know where you are to properly understand you. (Also to communicate with you.)
Etc.
So whether they were intentionally designed for the purpose of being a surveilance device or not (I lean towards not) the capabilities are there. It has also been reported that the microphones and cameras can be remotely activated without signal to the user. Bug or feature? Or did it start out as a bug, but has not been documented?
Whatever, what Apple has been accused of seems blatantly true. But perhaps a result of feature creep than of malign intentions.
You are embarassing. The GP was right about ONE of the messages being sent by this action. It's probably also intended to help a local company. And It's probably also intended to assist in upcoming negotiations with Apple. Etc.
Don't think that a government announcement sends only one message. Each one sends multiple messages.
Also, don't think that just because China has no problem spying on itself, that it wants anybody else to do so, no matter what it, itself, does abroad. The Chinese government is historically more insular and self-centered than even the US government, and with good reason. China holds most of the world's population, just as Africa holds most of the worlds genetic diversity (among humans). If Africa weren't so fragmented they would also be justified in thinking of the rest of the world as "insignificant tag-ends".
FWIW, you might consider that the current supercomputer speed record is held by a Chinese computer. They may have copied much of the technology from elsewhere, but they've certainly improved on it locally.
P.S.: Much of the information that you refer to as being stolen was actually transferred under contractual terms. I will grant that this isn't true of all of it, but if you look back a couple of centuries, you'll see that the North American colonies, and later the United States did a lot of technology stealing from Britain. As well as getting a lot of it via contractual transfer.
I simplified. The actual contractor subcontracted to a foreign subcontractor (with the appropriate requirements). Their actual failing was that they didn't test that the supplied parts met the specs. (This would have been difficult to do without disassembling the subcomponent.)
So, yes, I agree that it was criminal fraud. But I don't think it was ever prosecuted.
Personally I usually prefer geany or Kate. Vim is ok if you're already in a terminal environment, or if you're in a tight RAM situation, but that is a rare condition.
Note, though, if I'm working on Java, I prefer NetBeans, because I don't know Java all that well. So it's nice to have a tool that says "you need to include this particular library", or "that syntax is invalid". If I were to really learn Java, however, I'd probably prefer geany or Kate.
Slashdot Mirror
IIUC, it's not speculative at all. It's a work of math saying that this particular math is consistent with General Relativity. There are lots of things that are consistent with General Relativity, and most of them don't have any evidence of existing. There isn't much that appears inconsistent with General Relativity that DOES appear to exist.
Think of it as a Venn Diagram. Mark one circle "consistent with General Relativity". Mark another circle inconsistent with General Relativity. Now take a couple of
Math doesn't take as much funding, but with enough math, you can hope to get a mite of funding.
I wouldn't have proven Asimov wrong, because I didn't say anything about how much energy it would take to remove the mass, or how long "temporarily" was.
I said it would be very interesting, not useful. Useful is to hope for, not to expect, especially when it comes to changing fundamentals, like temporarily removing mass.
The this is, we don't have a handle on what could be done if mass can be explained. The best guess is that it will totally match current theories. That's not only dull, and useless, that's frustrating. We KNOW the theories are incomplete.
Well, exciting if it leads to something. Say the temporary removal of mass. That would be very interesting (if also quite improbable). More likely it could lead to some purely theoretical advance that could then lead to some currently unexpected result. Perhaps storing information in quark spin states. Perhaps total conversion of mass to energy. Something.
So far, though, it's totally matched theoretical predictions, and that's dull. Also troubling, because we KNOW that current theories are incomplete.
No. Nobody has a secure career, except upper management. They have a secure career because they are the one making the decisions as to what to do, who to hire, etc. But if you don't own the company, then to you the Board of Directors is upper management, and if you do, the company can fail.
If you already have a secure career, you are MORE LIKELY to remain employable in that career. But more likely is a long distance from certain.
For that matter, there are still people drving horse drawn carriages. Damn few, though.
OTOH, you don't know which jobs will be stable, but you can guess at some that won't. E.g., anything easy to export will go to where the wages are lowest. Sometimes this just means that there are essentially no new hires in that field. (Not a good idea to study for a career there.) Other times the entire career gets wiped out. Western Union doesn't employ many boys to carry the telegrams anymore.
And you can't predict which jobs will go. Well, you can. In fact you've got to. But you can't be sure (except emotionally) that your predictions are correct.
FWIW, I've been surprised that programming has lasted as long as it has. I expected that there'd be SOME successful automatic program writing system long ago...not necessarily as good as an experienced programmer, but as good as a novice, and able to learn, and LOTS cheaper. So far I've been wrong. Thankfully. (Of course the real problem has always been the specs...but few people acknowledge that.)
FWIW, there's a company in China that's using 3-D printing to make buildings. My guess is that so far they aren't very nice buildings, but the report was that they could build one in less than a week. Get the bugs out and there goes construction work. All the construction workers move to repair, so that job market is flooded.
But what's the time-line? Probably not this year or next year. Perhaps not this decade. (HAH!) But at first the buildings will be ugly, and only for special purposes. Then.... I doubt that it will soon get as good as a well-built current house, but it could be MUCH cheaper. (Somebody else, in Germany I think, is working on printing the wires for a building. Don't know how they're coming with that, but...)
NOBODY is reasonably secure in their jobs but upper management. Trade school is reasonable advice because it's a much smaller investment. Also, as she is asking for advice, she doesn't seem to already have a strong inclination, which rules out many occupations that require a LOT of self directed endeavor (Actor, author, doctor, etc.).
What's she interested in? Many jobs will still exist, but won't be easy to get, or at least to earn a living at. Fashion designer for one. Some people will earn their living that way, but not nearly as many as will try to.
The thing is, while having credit is good, using it is terrible. If you can dependably pay off your credit card before you start paying interest on the "loan", then it's a good deal. It improves your credit without costing you much. (Most cards have a yearly fee, or some other entanglement, so it WILL cost you something. You've got to be able to be sure that what it costs you is LESS than the benefit it provides.)
OTOH, don't count on your credit rating. That can be destroyed without any action on your part by other actors. My wife had to fight for months, hours a day, to get her credit repaired because someone with the same name had died in a hospital without paying their bills. They didn't even live in the same city. And that guy was a man. This didn't help much. SHE had to find out what the problem was with no help from the credit agencies, and they still wouldn't stop hounding her until she mailed each of them a copy of the death certificate. (And that didn't stop some of the bastards.)
I think credit agencies may be full of scum one, or maybe two, steps worse than corporate lawyers.
If you think being attractive is disempowering to women, I invite you to consider Angua from DiskWorld.
OTOH, using a femal Thor is just stupid. Storm is a viable female storm Goddess, but she's not trying to be Thor. They'd have done much better to just pick a Norse feminine name that sounded good and used that, though I'm not sure that Gundred would have worked well.
Yeah, I understand your problem. But if you are anonymous from a known-to-be-biased IP range, you can't be as trusted as even ordinary anonymous posters.
That is a denial of the accusation, not a refuation of it.
Now I will grant that they probably CAN'T refute it, and that this does not mean that the accusation is true. That doesn't make a denial a refutation.
Yeah, that looks like spin management. Now if they's moved it's position to "allegedly each year" I would have considered it acceptably parsimonious reasoning. After all, I only know that it meets occasionally, I don't know that it actually does meet yearly. Or if it had said "allegedly the most powerful men", I would have found that acceptable. AFAIK nobody from either the Chinese or Russian government attends. It seems to be mainly a US/European group.
Considering some of the people who appear to be "trusted editor"s, I'm not sure that would be a good thing.
No. But it *does* mean that in contentious areas your edits should not be as trusted as those of a possibly unbiased person. (OTOH, do note the "possibly unbiased". You are guaranteed to be biased, as well as informed. It's not clear what your biases are, or whether you will intentionally shade the truth because of them. But many will.
If you consider that you are willing to stand behind your edits, get an account.
More to the point, how could you tell? Minus, of course, using personal bias.
Sounds plausible. I find most commercial beers undrinkable. Guiness is, however, quite good, especially if it's not too chilly. (It really *is* best at room temperature.)
So possily I'm just too picky.
I think we may have different definitions for "good tasting". I did do that, however, before I was of drinking age. (And then I didn't even know enough to remove the sediment. Yuck, but it was alcohol.)
Sorry, but there are lots of very specialized yeast strains. You don't use the same yeast for wine as you do for beer, and that's different from the one you use for bread. Etc. San Francisco sourdough bread used to be made from a regionally available wild yeast, but I think things may have changed so that it no longer lives here. Certainly given the urban levels of pollution I wouldn't want to depend on catching a wild yeast. There was one bakery that used to have a baker who kept his culture growing on his hairy chest, but the food & drug people forbade this., even though it had been safe and popular for decades.
You aren't going to get one strain of yeast to take over the world. Particularly not one that's become dependent on being cultured in a lab.
Not in most cookies, but there ARE cookies that use a yeast dough. The problem is the yeast eats most of the sugar, so they aren't very sweet. (Maybe you could call them biscuits?)
Actually, I was just repeating a factoid I'd heard elsewhere. I gratefully accept your correction. (But do note that it doesn't change the point, merely slightly decreases it's significance.)
Well...I'm not sure how hidden it is. We know that they are Apple surveilance devices, and we know that Apple will roll over if the Feds ask them to.
That said, I'd be surprised if there weren't zero-day exploits that haven't yet been made public. OTOH, the same is true for EVERY smart phone.
We've also be informed that the NSA records 80% of all voice conversations. (True? False? No way to check.) This plausibly means that they have all cell phone towers bugged. So they probably rarely need to bother Apple for the information.
Siri clearly requires that the phone know where you are to properly understand you. (Also to communicate with you.)
Etc.
So whether they were intentionally designed for the purpose of being a surveilance device or not (I lean towards not) the capabilities are there. It has also been reported that the microphones and cameras can be remotely activated without signal to the user. Bug or feature? Or did it start out as a bug, but has not been documented?
Whatever, what Apple has been accused of seems blatantly true. But perhaps a result of feature creep than of malign intentions.
I thought they already had a couple, but perhaps those are from Tiawan.
You are embarassing. The GP was right about ONE of the messages being sent by this action. It's probably also intended to help a local company. And It's probably also intended to assist in upcoming negotiations with Apple. Etc.
Don't think that a government announcement sends only one message. Each one sends multiple messages.
Also, don't think that just because China has no problem spying on itself, that it wants anybody else to do so, no matter what it, itself, does abroad. The Chinese government is historically more insular and self-centered than even the US government, and with good reason. China holds most of the world's population, just as Africa holds most of the worlds genetic diversity (among humans). If Africa weren't so fragmented they would also be justified in thinking of the rest of the world as "insignificant tag-ends".
FWIW, you might consider that the current supercomputer speed record is held by a Chinese computer. They may have copied much of the technology from elsewhere, but they've certainly improved on it locally.
P.S.: Much of the information that you refer to as being stolen was actually transferred under contractual terms. I will grant that this isn't true of all of it, but if you look back a couple of centuries, you'll see that the North American colonies, and later the United States did a lot of technology stealing from Britain. As well as getting a lot of it via contractual transfer.
I simplified. The actual contractor subcontracted to a foreign subcontractor (with the appropriate requirements). Their actual failing was that they didn't test that the supplied parts met the specs. (This would have been difficult to do without disassembling the subcomponent.)
So, yes, I agree that it was criminal fraud. But I don't think it was ever prosecuted.
Personally I usually prefer geany or Kate. Vim is ok if you're already in a terminal environment, or if you're in a tight RAM situation, but that is a rare condition.
Note, though, if I'm working on Java, I prefer NetBeans, because I don't know Java all that well. So it's nice to have a tool that says "you need to include this particular library", or "that syntax is invalid". If I were to really learn Java, however, I'd probably prefer geany or Kate.