Exactly. It has not been published yet so we don't know if it is the best thing since sliced bread or just another ham sandwich (tasty, but not better than any of the other sandwiches out there).
I'm guessing it's just a grab for media attention. They issued a press release before publication, the study has an eye-catching title and they claim it is the "most detailed" study yet without going into details.
Personally, I think it is very un-scientific to issue a press release before publishing (or before the claims have been validated by other scientists). Science isn't news, it's a much slower process. Scientific studies are almost always complicated and full of assumptions. The results must be independently validated, discussed and validated again before any claims can be made. Ideally, newspapers should not write about new scientific results until at least two independent groups have verified the claims. That would stop most of the "Cell phones cause cancer" headlines.
It is way too early to tell what this study actually means.
Fortunately, there are scientists studying these things. Here is a simulation of the formation of the milky way (it took 8 months to create it). http://youtu.be/VQBzdcFkB7w
So, way. A spiral of such definition can be created in 13.5 billion years.
Yes, it can be both. He's giving it away for free and asking for voluntary donations. I.e. it will be free and if people donate, he will make a profit.
The last sentence also shows he is concerned about readers misunderstanding this model of free+donations and accidentally paying when they actually wanted it for free. It is a valid concern and it shows his heart is in the right place.
I'm sorry I don't have any good advice but I hope someone else does. This type of initiative is what the world needs.
It is unlikely those were his words and the statement has most likely been "been drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own".
It not the first time I hear religious people (jews and christians) claim he was "one of theirs" using dubious or out of context quotes. I can excuse the historical inaccuracies in your old books but I can't excuse the making up of new ones.
For plain bugs such as "seg fault when doing x" I just write a test exposing the bug. This way, I won't forget about a bug even if I don't touch the program in six months. It will appear again as soon as I run the full test suite.
For more complex bugs such as design flaws, bugs from user interaction etc I keep them in my to do list in a TiddlyWiki.
TiddlyWiki is the perfect documentation/note taking tool for projects with a single developer since the entire wiki is in a single self contained html file. Therefore, it requires no installation of any software (except a browser) and you can just keep it with your sources and commit it to your repository for safe keeping.
I keep all notes related to the project, ideas, design notes, to do lists, bugs etc in it. I prefer it to plain text because it's so much easier to keep it neat and somewhat structured without being a pain to use. The ToDo list is the most important item since I never know if I will continue programming tomorrow or in six months and need to be reminded of what should be done. Bugs end up in the ToDo list since they are things that should be done just like "Redesign the crappy back end". When one item (feature/bug/whatever) gets too long, I move it to a separate tiddler (like RedesignCrappyBackEnd) and just link to it which keeps the main ToDo list clean.
When I'm finished with a bug or feature, I move it from the todo list to a "Done" list. In this way, I can keep a simple log of bugs, features and what's been done recently. This can be very handy if you suddenly remember you had a similar problem before but can't remember what it was or how you solved it.
The main drawback is that you can't/shouldn't use it for projects with 2+ developers since it handles simultaneous edits just as bad or worse than a plain text file.
I think it provides the most bang for the buck being almost as simple as a text file but much more structured. I have tried some more sofisticated tools but always come back to TiddlyWiki because of its plain simplicity.
(Actually, I use the MPTW clone which has better tagging)
Mörner is not one of the serious scientists. I thought I recognized his name and looked him up at wikipedia. One of his previous achievements is winning the "Deceiver of the year" award for supporting dowsing.
Exactly. The whole point of owning shares is to receive a part of the profits (dividends). Stock buy backs is also a way to reward stock owners since it increases the value of the remaining stocks.
The only reason to buy stocks in a non-dividend paying company is if you believe: 1. The company will grow and invest a lot and once their profits have multiplied they will pay huge dividends making up for the lost time. 2. A bigger fool will come along and buy your shares once the price has increased a lot.
This is a sound move of Apple. If they had continued refusing to pay dividends despite HUGE profits, all their investors would have to hope for (2). The question now is of course if the payoff is enough to motivate the share price ($500 per share, $2.65 quarterly, $10 bn buy back etc) but I leave that as an exercise for the reader...
Set a maximum of at most N top priority projects. If someone wants to upgrade project X, another top prio project must be downgraded. That should make people think twice before suggesting a prio upgrade.
I wish they would. LaTeX is typically much better at typesetting than your average artist/editor using Word. All real programmer would use LaTeX right? (No, I haven't RTFA)
This law is supposed to be used to take down link-farm sites which have advertising alongside their pages of links. Those pages make money for the owners so they violate the 'non profit' part of the copyright exception.
Oh, you mean like this site does: http://www.google.com? Yeah, it's time someone took care of those infringing bastards!
I recently looked for scientific articles supporting the claim that fish makes you smarter. It seems the scientific consensus on omega 3/fish oil is inconclusive at best. Here's an example of what I found:
"However, Cochrane reviews of these studies have indicated that most of them are observational studies, that hardly any RCTs have been done and that all studies have led to inconsistent and contradictory results that do not support most of the claims." http://digitaljournal.com/article/284399
Here's another article with a list of contradictory studies. One of the studies was on alzheimers and showed no effect. http://www.pcrm.org/search/?cid=2723
I do C++/Python hybrid programming for a living. I do it exactly because it is so easy to rewrite performance/memory sensitive parts in C++.
And no, you will not "rewrite half the project in C/C++". I'd say at most 1/5th. I spend the majority of a regular working week programming in Python. Every now and then when speed becomes an issue, I find the bottlenecks and move them to C++ (if necessary, sometimes numpy is enough). Since I'm probably twice as productive in Python as in C++, about 1/10th of the program is in C++.
Oh, and I do numerically intensive work (for example, monte carlo simulations). Most often the major bottlenecks can not be removed by switching programming language. If it takes forever to calculate stuff on long time series in C++, it hardly matters if it takes an additional 2500 instructions to use the final result in Python.
The politicians wanted to "calm down" the markets so things would get back to normal. The loans were not that short (1+ years as far as I remember) because they wanted to "show strong, long term support". Banks have rather long mismatches in their balance sheets (like 30 year house loans but no 30 year deposits) which usually isn't a problem as long as the flow of new loans/deposits is more or less predictable over time. If the government had provided only short loans, the market would not know how long the banks would survive since the gov't could change its mind any day. The government had to provide loans that were long and large enough to make the market believe the banks would survive the crisis.
Also, many banks were in really deep shit. Asking for a large interest could have caused a couple more defaults and thus added to the mess. Yes, it was a donation to the financial industry but the fear of the alternative (a long and deep liquidity crisis) was real. The liquidity crisis was rather short lived though so that actually worked out well. We still have a crisis but not a liquidity crisis. The real crisis is about bad debts all over the world. That has not been resolved yet.
This is based on what I remember from the news and discussions back then so it may require a grain of salt or two. I'm sorry for sounding like a politician/banker. I don't exactly buy all the crap above but I do understand some of the reasoning behind it.
From a very general view, banks manage cash flows. There are in flows and out flows from both loans, deposits and various instruments. There is never a one to one match between the in flows and the out flows and there are gaps in both time and nominal amounts. The banks manage these gaps by keeping a liquidity buffer by borrowing and lending from/to each other. Banks make money by making sure their inflows are greater than their outflows. For example, a very simple way is to lend money with long maturity (high interest) and borrow money with short or no maturity (deposits, low interest).
In a liquidity crisis like the one we had, the inter bank borrowing and lending stops dead because no one knows who's gonna go bust next. So, even if a bank has solid finances with 100 billion of loans maturing next month they may still go bust if a client wants to withdraw 50 bucks and they simply don't have the cash today. That's why the government stepped in, to provide liquidity when no one else dared to (it was one of the official reasons anyway).
This is also why they lent money to foreign banks. They had obligations in dollars and couldn't get dollars any other way. I'm not an expert on this large scale banking stuff but I was quite surprised to see RBS as number 4 on that list.
Quantum theory doesn't have to be wrong for quantum computers to be impossible. We know that quantum effects are only present microscopic and not macroscopic systems (with some few, very particular exceptions like crystals, plasma etc). It is plausible that there are yet unknown consequences of the standard QM model that would prohibit quantum effects in sufficiently complex systems, thus "forbidding" quantum computers without making quantum mechanics wrong. I for one hope there are not.
I made a gingerbread ball out of hexagons as a teenager. The only difficulty was to make hexagons that were flat enough, hexgonical enough and with straight enough edges. The shape was distorted when cutting the warm gingerbread and also when it cooled down. I remember grinding the edges afterwards to get a better fit. Small distortions also created larger distortions as the ball grew (I used a lot more and smaller hexagons than they do in TFA).
Also, by moving the production of physical goods to China the developed countries have reduced their emissions by simply moving them abroad. If you would count the emissions from the production of a product as belonging to the country where the product was consumed, the statistics would be even better for China and worse for the developed countries. I think the best metric would be: (country emission + emissions related to imports - emissions related to exports) / inhabitants
Further more, manufacturing a phone in Sweden will use mostly nuclear and hydroelectric power but a phone made in China will use more coal and oil as power sources. Add strict vs lax regulations regarding chemicals, polution etc and it's easy to see how outsourcing the production causes increased emissions and pollution. Still, the emissions counts as 'theirs' and not 'ours' so we don't have to do anything about it. Our statistics improve, our politicians can claim success in reducing our emissions and we can still buy cheap trinkets. That's what I call a win-win situation!
It's easy to be green by outsourcing the dirty stuff.
And, only classical mechanical systems can be modeled by cellular automata. I remember reading a few pages from the quantum mechanics and relativity pages when the book first came out. It seemed like he simply side stepped all the discussions in the 1930s to 1960s about the EPR paradox, locality, hidden variable theories etc. Here's someone who took the time to prove it: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206089
Quote: "We show that this proposal cannot be made compatible with both special relativity and Bell inequality violation."
I was a simple graduate student back then so finding flaws in (some of) his arguments can not be considered hard.
I mostly agree with you. Insightful posts could be wrong in some way but still insightful. Informative on the other hand should be informative. If it is incorrect, false or misleading it should be modded overrated. Of course, if there is no proper reply yet, posting is a better choice. It hopefully stops others from modding up a faulty post.
The efficient spreading of incorrect information is one of the worst side effects of the internet.
Oh, I just realised this is actually Offtopic... The topic was Google patens the slashdot moderation system...
What really bothers me is that this is clearly a software patent of the ridiculous kind (How to stroke a touch sensitive device horizontally. There must be prior art...) How could this be valid in civilized Europe? I thought we had said no to software patents (with a few exceptions) back in 2005 or such.
"While democracy should trump all, is it wise to hold majority opinion so high that it slows down progress?"
This comment made me feel really uneasy.
First, It's a classic case of trying to hide from criticism by starting the sentence with the opposite of what you're about to say. Pretty much like "I'm not a racist but ". The whole point of democracy is to let the (voting) majority decide.
Second, it uses "progress" without defining what it is. It is just this elusive good thing that everyone knows is good but can't define. It's how politicians speak when they run out of arguments: " taxes will slow progress". Anyone can make such a general statement but no one can prove you wrong since there are way too many things which could be counted as "progress". Higher taxes can be spent on health care which gives better health and thus "progress". Lower taxes helps companies make money and thus "progress". So, do you mean progress in nuclear research (they voted no to using it, not doing research)? Or, do you mean general progress? If so then...
Third, it assumes that "progress" will slow down because of the decision which is very unlikely. Abandoning nuclear power will lead to increased investments somewhere else. They will just disappear from the general economy. It is the same logical flaw the anti-piracy people make when they talk about "lost jobs because of piracy" when they actually mean "lost jobs in the content industry".
Fourth, it assumes Italy actually makes any "progress" in anything nuclear related. I mean, seriously? Italy?
I thought they wanted to be funny but there was no punch line. If the article wasn't supposed to be funny, it must have been machine generated (like SCIgen). Statements like this give it away:
* Bitcoin is unstoppable without end-user prosecution.
What does that actually mean? Are standard coins and notes "stoppable" and "with end-user prosecution"? Could someone come up with a car analogy so I understand?
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. It has not been published yet so we don't know if it is the best thing since sliced bread or just another ham sandwich (tasty, but not better than any of the other sandwiches out there).
I'm guessing it's just a grab for media attention. They issued a press release before publication, the study has an eye-catching title and they claim it is the "most detailed" study yet without going into details.
Personally, I think it is very un-scientific to issue a press release before publishing (or before the claims have been validated by other scientists). Science isn't news, it's a much slower process. Scientific studies are almost always complicated and full of assumptions. The results must be independently validated, discussed and validated again before any claims can be made. Ideally, newspapers should not write about new scientific results until at least two independent groups have verified the claims. That would stop most of the "Cell phones cause cancer" headlines.
It is way too early to tell what this study actually means.
Fortunately, there are scientists studying these things. Here is a simulation of the formation of the milky way (it took 8 months to create it).
http://youtu.be/VQBzdcFkB7w
So, way. A spiral of such definition can be created in 13.5 billion years.
Yes, it can be both. He's giving it away for free and asking for voluntary donations. I.e. it will be free and if people donate, he will make a profit.
The last sentence also shows he is concerned about readers misunderstanding this model of free+donations and accidentally paying when they actually wanted it for free. It is a valid concern and it shows his heart is in the right place.
I'm sorry I don't have any good advice but I hope someone else does. This type of initiative is what the world needs.
And here is the truth behind that statement:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-01-05/
It is unlikely those were his words and the statement has most likely been "been drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own".
It not the first time I hear religious people (jews and christians) claim he was "one of theirs" using dubious or out of context quotes. I can excuse the historical inaccuracies in your old books but I can't excuse the making up of new ones.
TiddlyWiki and unit tests.
For plain bugs such as "seg fault when doing x" I just write a test exposing the bug. This way, I won't forget about a bug even if I don't touch the program in six months. It will appear again as soon as I run the full test suite.
For more complex bugs such as design flaws, bugs from user interaction etc I keep them in my to do list in a TiddlyWiki.
TiddlyWiki is the perfect documentation/note taking tool for projects with a single developer since the entire wiki is in a single self contained html file. Therefore, it requires no installation of any software (except a browser) and you can just keep it with your sources and commit it to your repository for safe keeping.
I keep all notes related to the project, ideas, design notes, to do lists, bugs etc in it. I prefer it to plain text because it's so much easier to keep it neat and somewhat structured without being a pain to use. The ToDo list is the most important item since I never know if I will continue programming tomorrow or in six months and need to be reminded of what should be done. Bugs end up in the ToDo list since they are things that should be done just like "Redesign the crappy back end". When one item (feature/bug/whatever) gets too long, I move it to a separate tiddler (like RedesignCrappyBackEnd) and just link to it which keeps the main ToDo list clean.
When I'm finished with a bug or feature, I move it from the todo list to a "Done" list. In this way, I can keep a simple log of bugs, features and what's been done recently. This can be very handy if you suddenly remember you had a similar problem before but can't remember what it was or how you solved it.
The main drawback is that you can't/shouldn't use it for projects with 2+ developers since it handles simultaneous edits just as bad or worse than a plain text file.
I think it provides the most bang for the buck being almost as simple as a text file but much more structured. I have tried some more sofisticated tools but always come back to TiddlyWiki because of its plain simplicity.
(Actually, I use the MPTW clone which has better tagging)
Mörner is not one of the serious scientists. I thought I recognized his name and looked him up at wikipedia. One of his previous achievements is winning the "Deceiver of the year" award for supporting dowsing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner#Views_on_dowsing
Oh, and his claims about the sea level is not supported by satellite measurements.
Exactly. The whole point of owning shares is to receive a part of the profits (dividends). Stock buy backs is also a way to reward stock owners since it increases the value of the remaining stocks.
The only reason to buy stocks in a non-dividend paying company is if you believe:
1. The company will grow and invest a lot and once their profits have multiplied they will pay huge dividends making up for the lost time.
2. A bigger fool will come along and buy your shares once the price has increased a lot.
This is a sound move of Apple. If they had continued refusing to pay dividends despite HUGE profits, all their investors would have to hope for (2). The question now is of course if the payoff is enough to motivate the share price ($500 per share, $2.65 quarterly, $10 bn buy back etc) but I leave that as an exercise for the reader...
Set a maximum of at most N top priority projects. If someone wants to upgrade project X, another top prio project must be downgraded. That should make people think twice before suggesting a prio upgrade.
I prefer this one:
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2001-10-25/
I wish they would. LaTeX is typically much better at typesetting than your average artist/editor using Word. All real programmer would use LaTeX right?
(No, I haven't RTFA)
This law is supposed to be used to take down link-farm sites which have advertising alongside their pages of links. Those pages make money for the owners so they violate the 'non profit' part of the copyright exception.
Oh, you mean like this site does: http://www.google.com? Yeah, it's time someone took care of those infringing bastards!
I recently looked for scientific articles supporting the claim that fish makes you smarter. It seems the scientific consensus on omega 3/fish oil is inconclusive at best. Here's an example of what I found:
"However, Cochrane reviews of these studies have indicated that most of them are observational studies, that hardly any RCTs have been done and that all studies have led to inconsistent and contradictory results that do not support most of the claims."
http://digitaljournal.com/article/284399
Here's another article with a list of contradictory studies. One of the studies was on alzheimers and showed no effect.
http://www.pcrm.org/search/?cid=2723
I do C++/Python hybrid programming for a living. I do it exactly because it is so easy to rewrite performance/memory sensitive parts in C++.
And no, you will not "rewrite half the project in C/C++". I'd say at most 1/5th. I spend the majority of a regular working week programming in Python. Every now and then when speed becomes an issue, I find the bottlenecks and move them to C++ (if necessary, sometimes numpy is enough). Since I'm probably twice as productive in Python as in C++, about 1/10th of the program is in C++.
Oh, and I do numerically intensive work (for example, monte carlo simulations). Most often the major bottlenecks can not be removed by switching programming language. If it takes forever to calculate stuff on long time series in C++, it hardly matters if it takes an additional 2500 instructions to use the final result in Python.
Python is great for it's intended use.
In other news: Walther sues Bond movie for not using a real gun...
The politicians wanted to "calm down" the markets so things would get back to normal. The loans were not that short (1+ years as far as I remember) because they wanted to "show strong, long term support". Banks have rather long mismatches in their balance sheets (like 30 year house loans but no 30 year deposits) which usually isn't a problem as long as the flow of new loans/deposits is more or less predictable over time. If the government had provided only short loans, the market would not know how long the banks would survive since the gov't could change its mind any day. The government had to provide loans that were long and large enough to make the market believe the banks would survive the crisis.
Also, many banks were in really deep shit. Asking for a large interest could have caused a couple more defaults and thus added to the mess. Yes, it was a donation to the financial industry but the fear of the alternative (a long and deep liquidity crisis) was real. The liquidity crisis was rather short lived though so that actually worked out well. We still have a crisis but not a liquidity crisis. The real crisis is about bad debts all over the world. That has not been resolved yet.
This is based on what I remember from the news and discussions back then so it may require a grain of salt or two. I'm sorry for sounding like a politician/banker. I don't exactly buy all the crap above but I do understand some of the reasoning behind it.
From a very general view, banks manage cash flows. There are in flows and out flows from both loans, deposits and various instruments. There is never a one to one match between the in flows and the out flows and there are gaps in both time and nominal amounts. The banks manage these gaps by keeping a liquidity buffer by borrowing and lending from/to each other. Banks make money by making sure their inflows are greater than their outflows. For example, a very simple way is to lend money with long maturity (high interest) and borrow money with short or no maturity (deposits, low interest).
In a liquidity crisis like the one we had, the inter bank borrowing and lending stops dead because no one knows who's gonna go bust next. So, even if a bank has solid finances with 100 billion of loans maturing next month they may still go bust if a client wants to withdraw 50 bucks and they simply don't have the cash today. That's why the government stepped in, to provide liquidity when no one else dared to (it was one of the official reasons anyway).
This is also why they lent money to foreign banks. They had obligations in dollars and couldn't get dollars any other way. I'm not an expert on this large scale banking stuff but I was quite surprised to see RBS as number 4 on that list.
Quantum theory doesn't have to be wrong for quantum computers to be impossible. We know that quantum effects are only present microscopic and not macroscopic systems (with some few, very particular exceptions like crystals, plasma etc). It is plausible that there are yet unknown consequences of the standard QM model that would prohibit quantum effects in sufficiently complex systems, thus "forbidding" quantum computers without making quantum mechanics wrong. I for one hope there are not.
I made a gingerbread ball out of hexagons as a teenager. The only difficulty was to make hexagons that were flat enough, hexgonical enough and with straight enough edges. The shape was distorted when cutting the warm gingerbread and also when it cooled down. I remember grinding the edges afterwards to get a better fit. Small distortions also created larger distortions as the ball grew (I used a lot more and smaller hexagons than they do in TFA).
Also, by moving the production of physical goods to China the developed countries have reduced their emissions by simply moving them abroad. If you would count the emissions from the production of a product as belonging to the country where the product was consumed, the statistics would be even better for China and worse for the developed countries. I think the best metric would be: (country emission + emissions related to imports - emissions related to exports) / inhabitants
Further more, manufacturing a phone in Sweden will use mostly nuclear and hydroelectric power but a phone made in China will use more coal and oil as power sources. Add strict vs lax regulations regarding chemicals, polution etc and it's easy to see how outsourcing the production causes increased emissions and pollution. Still, the emissions counts as 'theirs' and not 'ours' so we don't have to do anything about it. Our statistics improve, our politicians can claim success in reducing our emissions and we can still buy cheap trinkets. That's what I call a win-win situation!
It's easy to be green by outsourcing the dirty stuff.
And, only classical mechanical systems can be modeled by cellular automata. I remember reading a few pages from the quantum mechanics and relativity pages when the book first came out. It seemed like he simply side stepped all the discussions in the 1930s to 1960s about the EPR paradox, locality, hidden variable theories etc. Here's someone who took the time to prove it:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206089
Quote: "We show that this proposal cannot be made compatible with both special relativity and Bell inequality violation."
I was a simple graduate student back then so finding flaws in (some of) his arguments can not be considered hard.
I mostly agree with you. Insightful posts could be wrong in some way but still insightful. Informative on the other hand should be informative. If it is incorrect, false or misleading it should be modded overrated. Of course, if there is no proper reply yet, posting is a better choice. It hopefully stops others from modding up a faulty post.
The efficient spreading of incorrect information is one of the worst side effects of the internet.
Oh, I just realised this is actually Offtopic... The topic was Google patens the slashdot moderation system...
Now if someone could just implement Shors algorithm all 1-bit encryption algorithms will be rendered obsolete!
My dutch is very limited to sinaasappelsap but I believe this is the ruling:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/62981838/KG-11-0730-en-11-731-Apple-Samsung
Maybe some dutch person can translate the it?
This is supposed to be the patent (in english):
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=EP&NR=2059868A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=20090520&DB=&locale=en_EP
What really bothers me is that this is clearly a software patent of the ridiculous kind (How to stroke a touch sensitive device horizontally. There must be prior art...) How could this be valid in civilized Europe? I thought we had said no to software patents (with a few exceptions) back in 2005 or such.
"While democracy should trump all, is it wise to hold majority opinion so high that it slows down progress?"
This comment made me feel really uneasy.
First, It's a classic case of trying to hide from criticism by starting the sentence with the opposite of what you're about to say. Pretty much like "I'm not a racist but ". The whole point of democracy is to let the (voting) majority decide.
Second, it uses "progress" without defining what it is. It is just this elusive good thing that everyone knows is good but can't define. It's how politicians speak when they run out of arguments: " taxes will slow progress". Anyone can make such a general statement but no one can prove you wrong since there are way too many things which could be counted as "progress". Higher taxes can be spent on health care which gives better health and thus "progress". Lower taxes helps companies make money and thus "progress". So, do you mean progress in nuclear research (they voted no to using it, not doing research)? Or, do you mean general progress? If so then...
Third, it assumes that "progress" will slow down because of the decision which is very unlikely. Abandoning nuclear power will lead to increased investments somewhere else. They will just disappear from the general economy. It is the same logical flaw the anti-piracy people make when they talk about "lost jobs because of piracy" when they actually mean "lost jobs in the content industry".
Fourth, it assumes Italy actually makes any "progress" in anything nuclear related. I mean, seriously? Italy?
I thought they wanted to be funny but there was no punch line. If the article wasn't supposed to be funny, it must have been machine generated (like SCIgen). Statements like this give it away:
* Bitcoin is unstoppable without end-user prosecution.
What does that actually mean? Are standard coins and notes "stoppable" and "with end-user prosecution"? Could someone come up with a car analogy so I understand?