Well, if I were to use Gnome3, I'd certainly use Cinnamon as the GUI. Actually, however, I'm using Mate. I considered xfce, KDE4, and lxde. but Mate suited my needs best. Gnome3 is so bad that it wasn't worth considering. Cinnamon was mainly OK, but I didn't like the way it handled menubars...probably because of the Gnome3 underpinning.
FWIW, last year up until around the middle of the year I preferred KDE4, but then they made some change (I've forgotten what) that caused me to switch. I haven't seen a reason to experiment with switching back to see whether they've fixed things. I do occasionally think I ought to check out lxqt, but I haven't done so yet.
They're talking about a turbine generator to go with it, so the question perhaps is 300KW how often? They didn't say 300 KWHours. If it's 300 KW/microsecond they're going to need a really good heat sink if they've got any repetition rate, and since they're talking about forcing the electronics to repeatedly reboot...
As reported (and as I believe) it can't actually detect emotions. It sounds like what it detects is level of arousal, but it's probably a bit more specific than that. It might well detect arousal of Alpha, Beta, Delta waves. (IIRC, Delta waves ramp up as you drop off to sleep.)
OTOH, I expect they've also got a temperature sensor, which they didn't mention, to detect blood flow near the forehead. Hot headed isn't just a figure of speech.
Sorry, but it was correct before you changed it. There may come a technology that can read people's thoughts, in some sense, but this won't be it, and it won't be a straightforward development of this technology. I'd be really surprised if it didn't require surgery.
Well, if you assume that this is actually intended to work as described, then it could be induced currents in the connecting wires. But I think this really makes more sense if the intended actual target is drones.
As described it also sounds nearly useless, as it should be easy to shield against. Microwaves won't penetrate a solid piece of metal, and I think even a good foil wrapper around the electronics should defeat this. I think it would spark off the sharper corners of the foil on the outside of the wrapping.
OTOH, if I reconsider this as an anti-drone weapon it makes a lot more sense.
I don't know about in Europe, but in the US there are "John Doe" subpoenas, where you don't know the name of the entity being subpoenaed, but you have other identifying information. Admittedly, those have been misused at times, but they also often serve a valid purpose.
So I suppose that a court could issue such a subpoena to "the entity using this IP address at this time". (Whether that information would be available is another question, of course.)
OK. Lots of people are saying, in one way or another, that I should have used harsher terms in criticizing ICANN. I don't like doing that, but I'll admit in this case it seems justified.
What I'm not sure of is to what extent the implementing regulations were detailed by the law that got passed. If, as some have indicated (and I still doubt) the detailed measures were a part of the bill, then I was extremely much too lenient in my criticisms. I've been assuming that the implementing rules were created based on the law rather than being specified in detail in the law. I still think that most likely. I also thought that the law was recently passed, rather than passed two years ago. Another "Whoops!".
But still, my basic feeling is that the reason the regulators are being so inflexible, is that ICANN has shown no intention of obeying the regulations. The mistakes I made only reinforce that ICANN has shown no intention of obeying the regulations.
They've been on the horizon, but exactly what form they would take has been unclear. So it's reasonable that ICANN can't.
OTOH, the general tenor of the forthcoming regulation has been clear for a long time, and they should have been aware of the *kind* of change that was being requested. That they didn't stop promiscuously sharing personal information is clear sign that they didn't *want* to comply.
My general feeling is that if ICANN only needed to make detail corrections to a policy that was attempting to comply with what they knew were the desired goals, then the enforcers would probably be more lenient. But since ICANN was stonewalling, they saw not reason to be flexible. Enforcement of laws is almost always discretionary. This is often necessary, and is often used for political suppression, but it's still almost always there. That the EU is saying it's not going to give time to adapt is probably a clear sign that they feel ICANN has been ignoring more gentle requests.
While I agree with your comments, I also don't consider the new logo an improvement over the silly gopher. It's hard to think of anything good at all to say about it except, perhaps, at least they didn't color the font the same as the background.
Yes, but you'd need to use the classical channel to get the entangled bits to separate locations. So you've already used a classical channel. Admittedly, this is using the classical channel before you send the message, so perhaps the theorem still applies. But because of that I'm only willing to say "I haven't seen or heard of a design that would work.".
I don't really understand the "no-communication theorem", and in any case, as Einstein said " As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.". What he didn't say was "but that's the way to bet".
That's sort of what I meant, but "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" seems to imply that that's not quite what is actually meant. I've got to admit I didn't really understand it. Also, I don't think any of our experiments justify making the kind of global claim that simpler interpretations give rise to. So non-local doesn't seem to me to necessarily be the same thing as global. It's a reasonable assumption to keep the theories simple, but you can't really claim that there is evidence supporting it.
Actually, IIUC, the experiments would be consistent with a theory that limited the locality to, say, a 4th power drop-off with a half-strength reached at (arbitrarily picked) a light year separation in space-time. (I picked 4th power because this is supposed to be non-local in time as well as space, and to measure the separation I'm using the Einsteinian variation of the Pythagorean Theorem for space-time, because we're measuring separation of events.) Lots of arbitrary choices picked here, but it's not being proposed as a real theory, but only as something that, AFAIKT, would be consistent with current experimental evidence, and not wildly incompatible with current theory.
Again, this isn't my favored interpretation. I don't favor hidden variables, as they seem too ad hoc. But some forms of them seem to be consistent with all known evidence as far as I know.
Spin is only one of the things that can be entangled, and also spin can be measured along more than one independent axis. I'm not really sure what spin means in this context, as it couldn't mean what it means in a larger object, but it's a quantum number. (OTOH, perhaps I'm improperly combining two separate experiments about entanglement, as what I'm thinking of seems to match the polarization of photons...which is another property than can be entangled.) Clearly with drum-heads they aren't measuring spin, but perhaps phase of vibration or some such.
I think you're taking one classic experiment and using it as a mold for what the terms mean, when they actually mean something that was more generalized, and of which the experiment was a single instantiation.
I don't think anyone has designed a system that could, even in principle, use entanglement to transmit communications FTL. I know at least one person tried, and didn't succeed while I was in contact with him.
Please note: I'm not saying they didn't succeed in building such a device, I'm saying that, assuming they had a bunch of entangled bits in separate locations, they still couldn't design a device that would work. Some people have claimed that this is, in principle, impossible, and they may be right. Being used in a science fiction story isn't really much of an argument for it's plausibility.
Well, not quite. You change the state of an atomic particle when you measure it, but that's because your sensor is so gross when compared to the mass of the thing being measured. I'm not sure what would happen with things microns in diameter.
Also, you don't change the state of the other particle, by measuring one particle you KNOW something about the state of the other particle. You can't really say you've changed it, since you previously had no idea of its state. And in the traditional examples by selecting which feature to measure, you determine which feature of the other particle is determined. Sometimes this seems spooky to me, and sometimes it seems trivially obvious, and I'm never sure which time I'm closer to understanding what's going on. I think (at the moment) that if I think of quantum actions as random, then it's spooky, but if I think of them as deterministic then it's trivially obvious. Several times I've heard claims (by people who should know) that quantum actions are deterministic in a higher dimensional space that seems random when we look at them because of the loss of information in the projection onto the lower dimensional space. At least I think that's what they were saying. OTOH, these claims never seem to get much acceptance by other people who should know. I'm not expert enough to have a defensible opinion.
Sorry, but Bell's Theorum only rules out local hidden variables. Non-local hidden variables are still within the bounds of the theory. But they're a bit weird, as they're non-local in time as well as space. I don't think the theory puts a bound on *how* non-local they can be, but a hypervolume of light years would be difficult to test. (OTOH, I'm no expert in this area. I believe that Boehm thought they were global rather than just non-local...but that was decades ago, and things may have been found out since then. OTOH, perhaps it's really implied by the theorum.)
Still, my favorite interpretation is EWG multi-world rather than hidden variables. For parsimony I add a supposition that I can't justify which is that in addition of the state space transitioning to all possible futures, it also arrives from all possible pasts, giving a lattice rather than a tree. I've got a vague feeling that this may determine the existence and strengthening of dark energy since all the pasts still exist in the hypervolume of the universe. You just can't go into the past because all of your particles have an inertial velocity along the time axis resulting from the big bang. If this *can* be made sensible, somebody much better at that kind of math than I am would need to tackle it. But it explains the rotation of the space-time axis as you accelerate near to the speed of light, or at least I think it does. I'm not quite clear how many dimensions this idea of the universe would require, but I'm sure it's less than the 16 that were used in deriving relativity, so it could probably fit into the same framework.
Well, as this requires the MSWind libraries, this exploit wouldn't touch me. But that doesn't mean something analogous isn't possible. I've got Python and Ruby installed, and both of those have eval methods. And the commands to execute the compilation on both of them have execute from command line options. I may need to be even pickier about which sites I allow to execute JavaScript.
Well, my first thought was "I don't have C# installed, so I'm safe", but a very small bit of contemplation said "If it will work with C#, why not with Java?". It would be a real pain to need to use the internet from a separate partition than from my compilers.
That's not clear. Admittedly my first thought was "This is something new in the way of sensory deprivation!", but on further thought I'm less sure. From what I've heard, people who have recovered from being "locked in" don't report anything dreadful. They just became fuzzy and disconnected. It's as if because they weren't receiving any messages, they just didn't think. They don't seem to have been aware that time was passing.
Cordwainer Smith figured that mouse brains would suffice for many uses. But I think he cheated when letting them understand English. (OTOH, he had the sliced into thin sections and, preserved somehow, not really specified. But they didn't require lots of support equipment. This wasn't the same as his "underpeople", I think I'm remembering from "The Lady that Sailed the Soul".)
But the real question is: "How many requests were accepted in each year?"
It would also be useful to have access to the nature of the requests, so one could decide whether or not the request was reasonable. But when even the number of accepted requests isn't shown, that may be unreasonable even for wishing.
Each of these studies is making particular assumptions to reach their conclusions. But they don't list the assumptions in the articles presented. With the right assumptions you could even get a massive increase in employment rates. (I saw some like that around a decade ago.)
My general belief is that with any plausible set of assumptions you will get different results at different stages of technical advance, until at the end you reach the stage where nobody needs to hold a job. But one of the assumptions that requires is that energy production is sufficient, and population is stable or declining. So one of the main assumptions that is varying is the rate of technical progress...and that contains the hidden assumption that "technical progress" is a unitary term, which is false, but required if people are going to think about making a projection that's intelligible.
I generally assume that over the long term technical progress will be a lot faster than is assumed, but over the short term there will be unforeseen problems. Here the problem is picking what's short term and what's long term. Back in the day the division happened at about 15 years, but it seems to have been shrinking, probably as the result of an increasing number of independent entities working on the problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if I were to use Gnome3, I'd certainly use Cinnamon as the GUI. Actually, however, I'm using Mate. I considered xfce, KDE4, and lxde. but Mate suited my needs best. Gnome3 is so bad that it wasn't worth considering. Cinnamon was mainly OK, but I didn't like the way it handled menubars...probably because of the Gnome3 underpinning.
FWIW, last year up until around the middle of the year I preferred KDE4, but then they made some change (I've forgotten what) that caused me to switch. I haven't seen a reason to experiment with switching back to see whether they've fixed things. I do occasionally think I ought to check out lxqt, but I haven't done so yet.
They're talking about a turbine generator to go with it, so the question perhaps is 300KW how often? They didn't say 300 KWHours. If it's 300 KW/microsecond they're going to need a really good heat sink if they've got any repetition rate, and since they're talking about forcing the electronics to repeatedly reboot...
As reported (and as I believe) it can't actually detect emotions. It sounds like what it detects is level of arousal, but it's probably a bit more specific than that. It might well detect arousal of Alpha, Beta, Delta waves. (IIRC, Delta waves ramp up as you drop off to sleep.)
OTOH, I expect they've also got a temperature sensor, which they didn't mention, to detect blood flow near the forehead. Hot headed isn't just a figure of speech.
Sorry, but it was correct before you changed it. There may come a technology that can read people's thoughts, in some sense, but this won't be it, and it won't be a straightforward development of this technology. I'd be really surprised if it didn't require surgery.
You're worrying about the wrong part of the body. The balls would probably be fine a lot longer than the eyeballs.
Well, since the brakes are also electronic with a fail-safe, they lock on hard. Assuming you believe the press release.
Now *THAT* makes sense. You need to wonder what the efficiency would be though. They might need one hellacious heat sink.
Well, if you assume that this is actually intended to work as described, then it could be induced currents in the connecting wires. But I think this really makes more sense if the intended actual target is drones.
As described it also sounds nearly useless, as it should be easy to shield against. Microwaves won't penetrate a solid piece of metal, and I think even a good foil wrapper around the electronics should defeat this. I think it would spark off the sharper corners of the foil on the outside of the wrapping.
OTOH, if I reconsider this as an anti-drone weapon it makes a lot more sense.
I don't know about in Europe, but in the US there are "John Doe" subpoenas, where you don't know the name of the entity being subpoenaed, but you have other identifying information. Admittedly, those have been misused at times, but they also often serve a valid purpose.
So I suppose that a court could issue such a subpoena to "the entity using this IP address at this time". (Whether that information would be available is another question, of course.)
OK. Lots of people are saying, in one way or another, that I should have used harsher terms in criticizing ICANN. I don't like doing that, but I'll admit in this case it seems justified.
What I'm not sure of is to what extent the implementing regulations were detailed by the law that got passed. If, as some have indicated (and I still doubt) the detailed measures were a part of the bill, then I was extremely much too lenient in my criticisms. I've been assuming that the implementing rules were created based on the law rather than being specified in detail in the law. I still think that most likely. I also thought that the law was recently passed, rather than passed two years ago. Another "Whoops!".
But still, my basic feeling is that the reason the regulators are being so inflexible, is that ICANN has shown no intention of obeying the regulations. The mistakes I made only reinforce that ICANN has shown no intention of obeying the regulations.
They've been on the horizon, but exactly what form they would take has been unclear. So it's reasonable that ICANN can't.
OTOH, the general tenor of the forthcoming regulation has been clear for a long time, and they should have been aware of the *kind* of change that was being requested. That they didn't stop promiscuously sharing personal information is clear sign that they didn't *want* to comply.
My general feeling is that if ICANN only needed to make detail corrections to a policy that was attempting to comply with what they knew were the desired goals, then the enforcers would probably be more lenient. But since ICANN was stonewalling, they saw not reason to be flexible. Enforcement of laws is almost always discretionary. This is often necessary, and is often used for political suppression, but it's still almost always there. That the EU is saying it's not going to give time to adapt is probably a clear sign that they feel ICANN has been ignoring more gentle requests.
While I agree with your comments, I also don't consider the new logo an improvement over the silly gopher. It's hard to think of anything good at all to say about it except, perhaps, at least they didn't color the font the same as the background.
Yes, but you'd need to use the classical channel to get the entangled bits to separate locations. So you've already used a classical channel. Admittedly, this is using the classical channel before you send the message, so perhaps the theorem still applies. But because of that I'm only willing to say "I haven't seen or heard of a design that would work.".
I don't really understand the "no-communication theorem", and in any case, as Einstein said " As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.". What he didn't say was "but that's the way to bet".
That's sort of what I meant, but "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" seems to imply that that's not quite what is actually meant. I've got to admit I didn't really understand it. Also, I don't think any of our experiments justify making the kind of global claim that simpler interpretations give rise to. So non-local doesn't seem to me to necessarily be the same thing as global. It's a reasonable assumption to keep the theories simple, but you can't really claim that there is evidence supporting it.
Actually, IIUC, the experiments would be consistent with a theory that limited the locality to, say, a 4th power drop-off with a half-strength reached at (arbitrarily picked) a light year separation in space-time. (I picked 4th power because this is supposed to be non-local in time as well as space, and to measure the separation I'm using the Einsteinian variation of the Pythagorean Theorem for space-time, because we're measuring separation of events.) Lots of arbitrary choices picked here, but it's not being proposed as a real theory, but only as something that, AFAIKT, would be consistent with current experimental evidence, and not wildly incompatible with current theory.
Again, this isn't my favored interpretation. I don't favor hidden variables, as they seem too ad hoc. But some forms of them seem to be consistent with all known evidence as far as I know.
Spin is only one of the things that can be entangled, and also spin can be measured along more than one independent axis. I'm not really sure what spin means in this context, as it couldn't mean what it means in a larger object, but it's a quantum number. (OTOH, perhaps I'm improperly combining two separate experiments about entanglement, as what I'm thinking of seems to match the polarization of photons...which is another property than can be entangled.) Clearly with drum-heads they aren't measuring spin, but perhaps phase of vibration or some such.
I think you're taking one classic experiment and using it as a mold for what the terms mean, when they actually mean something that was more generalized, and of which the experiment was a single instantiation.
I don't think anyone has designed a system that could, even in principle, use entanglement to transmit communications FTL. I know at least one person tried, and didn't succeed while I was in contact with him.
Please note: I'm not saying they didn't succeed in building such a device, I'm saying that, assuming they had a bunch of entangled bits in separate locations, they still couldn't design a device that would work. Some people have claimed that this is, in principle, impossible, and they may be right. Being used in a science fiction story isn't really much of an argument for it's plausibility.
Well, not quite. You change the state of an atomic particle when you measure it, but that's because your sensor is so gross when compared to the mass of the thing being measured. I'm not sure what would happen with things microns in diameter.
Also, you don't change the state of the other particle, by measuring one particle you KNOW something about the state of the other particle. You can't really say you've changed it, since you previously had no idea of its state. And in the traditional examples by selecting which feature to measure, you determine which feature of the other particle is determined. Sometimes this seems spooky to me, and sometimes it seems trivially obvious, and I'm never sure which time I'm closer to understanding what's going on. I think (at the moment) that if I think of quantum actions as random, then it's spooky, but if I think of them as deterministic then it's trivially obvious. Several times I've heard claims (by people who should know) that quantum actions are deterministic in a higher dimensional space that seems random when we look at them because of the loss of information in the projection onto the lower dimensional space. At least I think that's what they were saying. OTOH, these claims never seem to get much acceptance by other people who should know. I'm not expert enough to have a defensible opinion.
Sorry, but Bell's Theorum only rules out local hidden variables. Non-local hidden variables are still within the bounds of the theory. But they're a bit weird, as they're non-local in time as well as space. I don't think the theory puts a bound on *how* non-local they can be, but a hypervolume of light years would be difficult to test. (OTOH, I'm no expert in this area. I believe that Boehm thought they were global rather than just non-local...but that was decades ago, and things may have been found out since then. OTOH, perhaps it's really implied by the theorum.)
Still, my favorite interpretation is EWG multi-world rather than hidden variables. For parsimony I add a supposition that I can't justify which is that in addition of the state space transitioning to all possible futures, it also arrives from all possible pasts, giving a lattice rather than a tree. I've got a vague feeling that this may determine the existence and strengthening of dark energy since all the pasts still exist in the hypervolume of the universe. You just can't go into the past because all of your particles have an inertial velocity along the time axis resulting from the big bang. If this *can* be made sensible, somebody much better at that kind of math than I am would need to tackle it. But it explains the rotation of the space-time axis as you accelerate near to the speed of light, or at least I think it does. I'm not quite clear how many dimensions this idea of the universe would require, but I'm sure it's less than the 16 that were used in deriving relativity, so it could probably fit into the same framework.
Well, as this requires the MSWind libraries, this exploit wouldn't touch me. But that doesn't mean something analogous isn't possible. I've got Python and Ruby installed, and both of those have eval methods. And the commands to execute the compilation on both of them have execute from command line options. I may need to be even pickier about which sites I allow to execute JavaScript.
Well, my first thought was "I don't have C# installed, so I'm safe", but a very small bit of contemplation said "If it will work with C#, why not with Java?". It would be a real pain to need to use the internet from a separate partition than from my compilers.
That's not clear. Admittedly my first thought was "This is something new in the way of sensory deprivation!", but on further thought I'm less sure. From what I've heard, people who have recovered from being "locked in" don't report anything dreadful. They just became fuzzy and disconnected. It's as if because they weren't receiving any messages, they just didn't think. They don't seem to have been aware that time was passing.
Cordwainer Smith figured that mouse brains would suffice for many uses. But I think he cheated when letting them understand English. (OTOH, he had the sliced into thin sections and, preserved somehow, not really specified. But they didn't require lots of support equipment. This wasn't the same as his "underpeople", I think I'm remembering from "The Lady that Sailed the Soul".)
But the real question is:
"How many requests were accepted in each year?"
It would also be useful to have access to the nature of the requests, so one could decide whether or not the request was reasonable. But when even the number of accepted requests isn't shown, that may be unreasonable even for wishing.
Bingo!
Each of these studies is making particular assumptions to reach their conclusions. But they don't list the assumptions in the articles presented. With the right assumptions you could even get a massive increase in employment rates. (I saw some like that around a decade ago.)
My general belief is that with any plausible set of assumptions you will get different results at different stages of technical advance, until at the end you reach the stage where nobody needs to hold a job. But one of the assumptions that requires is that energy production is sufficient, and population is stable or declining. So one of the main assumptions that is varying is the rate of technical progress...and that contains the hidden assumption that "technical progress" is a unitary term, which is false, but required if people are going to think about making a projection that's intelligible.
I generally assume that over the long term technical progress will be a lot faster than is assumed, but over the short term there will be unforeseen problems. Here the problem is picking what's short term and what's long term. Back in the day the division happened at about 15 years, but it seems to have been shrinking, probably as the result of an increasing number of independent entities working on the problems.