As you see in some people's sigs around here,/. has no -1 disagree option and no, -1 overrated is not a substitute. This also goes the other way: +1 interesting is NOT the same as +1 agree. You will probably find there are many things you find very interesting wholly because you do not agree with it.
Point taken, Interesting and Troll are not mutually exclusive. And interesting to see that the post has been getting modded both in the meantime (and Insightful, which is probably more disturbing than Interesting). I'm honestly not sure whether it was a troll or not - I'd kind of like to think that it wasn't a genuine opinion.
That is morbid, but I think it would be morbid if they were following some elderly person around filming them just because they're old, waiting for them to drop dead!
I'm guessing this is a troll, but the fact that this is modded "Interesting" instead of "Troll" says something disturbing about slashdot. I can only imagine that a reasonable number of readers agree with it. Presumably embittered male readers.
So many things I could say, so let me pick the easiest: assets? Seriously? A neutral addition to the household, or a liability? How are they any more of a liability than YOU are, unless you are in fact suggesting that a woman's place is in the home and that "the skills that made them an asset in the past" are the only skills of value?
So rather than viewing women has human beings who you might want to share your life with, you're viewing them as a burdensome financial investment in exchange for sex. It's just barely possible that this attitude may go some way towards explaining the problems you've been having with women.
Just to add to what others here have said, my HTC Magic was able to use wifi before I got a data plan, and in fact I could use it on wifi before I put a sim card in it.
Also, what are you talking about.. and why is it modded +5? The Nexus One boards you link to seem to say the opposite of what you claim. Picking from the top of the boards, for instance, "Yes you can disable Data connection and use only WiFi." and "Basically Nexus One internet connection will work even with no SIM card in it by running on WiFi".
If you read TFA they actually want to spend the money on trying to chase people who pirate. So it's not officially to "pay for the music", it's to pay for punitive measures - so the music industry won't make any money out of it unless this strategy is effective in increasing sales (which I seriously doubt).
So in the eyes of the recording industry and the government, no, they're not going to be any happier about piracy or consider it paid for. In the eyes of the public being "taxed for piracy", maybe - I would not be at all surprised if piracy increased as a result of this bill.
I'd be happier if they did tax directly to support free music downloads. This money is a sheer waste. If only we could have an evil recording industry, instead of a stupid one... surely enlightened self-interest couldn't be as bad as what we have now.
Seriously, if I were in the UK, spending money on music at all would feel like being double-charged after this fiasco. I'd feel I'd already "paid" for it through taxes. The irony is that the money will be wasted on punitive measures, so the industry won't even profit from it - and if it causes music sales to drop, they will be even worse off.
I honestly suspect that normally music piracy encourages more music sales, not less. But now the industry has managed to shoot even that in the foot.
Yes! For instance, our Australian policy of public health care gave the American public a chance to see how such things work overseas, fortunately meaning they had ample warning about the DEATH PANELS!
Sigh. Nevermind. You're right, I'm just bitter about Conroy. It's so embarrassing; we can't take him anywhere.
Doesn't having your "this is a bad experience" receptors activated count as a bad experience? I don't mean the whole brain-and-laser unpleasantness, I mean having negative-association cells firing in your brain at all. It might not just count as a bad association later, it might be pretty unpleasant now. In which case it's not a fake memory, it's a real memory.
For flies maybe this question has no meaning... maybe flies aren't conscious. If they did this to a higher animal (I have a horrible suspicion they will) it would be a question to ask. But a good question for this experiment would be: when they fire those brain cells, do the flies try to avoid what's going on immediately?
I can't find it now, but I'm sure there was an experiment in which people were asked to judge how well music was being played. If they could see the players, they rated the women lower than if they couldn't see who was playing. Their expectation of skill from men presumably influenced their perception of the music they were listening to.
I would hope that anti-discrimination laws there to redress differences that arise from prejudice, not differences that arise from valid skill differences. In that case possibly price fixing is the lesser of two evils.
I can give you my understanding from reading it. The rate R they use is quantum operations per second. I believe that there are only equations in the paper because you have to assume some input numbers in order to get ouput numbers. I don't know what assumptions they made to get the numbers in the article.
I think Equation 8 is a good example because it's about qbits and quantum operations. I'm afraid I don't know a good way to get equations into/., but it's
Q = h R^2 e / 2
In the paper that e is actually an epsilon. Here Q is the heat dissipated per unit of time, R is the number of quantum operations per unit of time, h is Planck's constant and e is the probability of error (i.e. errors per operation).
Hence if your quantum computer is error-free, it doesn't interact with its environment, doesn't dissipate heat, and this "limit" is no problem. But otherwise, the heat dissipated goes up quadratically and it's going to impose a limit. How big a limit depends how much heat you can cope with and what your error rate is. It doesn't seem to give some kind of fundamental hard limit to computing speed analogous to the speed of light, as the summary suggests.
Given that the paper is about the limitations of a perfect quantum computer, you're going to need to improve your encryption algorithm, not just your key.
The title should be "The Ultimate Limit of Computing Speed" not Moore's Law.
Or the title could be "The Ultimate Thermodynamic Penalty for Computing Speed" since the title of the paper (not the article about the paper) is "Thermodynamic Cost of Reversible Computing".
The paper is actually about the heat dissipated when you try to increase computer speed. It doesn't actually place a hard bound on computing speeds, unless you want to make some assumptions about parameters such as error rates in your hypothetical computer and then infer compute speed limits from heat or energy limits.
The article, and hence the summary, and hence almost every comment, seems to be talking about speed rather than thermodynamics. The paper is about thermodynamics. It's about heat! I suppose it's too much to expect people to read TFP when/. doesn't traditionally read TFA....
It's not clear to me from reading the article what parameters they assumed to get from the calculations in the paper to "75 years of Moore's Law". The stuff in the paper itself is much less fluffy than that.
They are the same in essence but not identical. The PRL version appears to have been edited for format and brevity: section headings removed, equations placed in-line etc. There are also a few more material changes such as rearranged paragraphs.
The basic content and equations seem to be all the same so far as I could see.
The PRL version seems more recent, but the arxiv version is actually more readable IMO as it takes up half a page more room and is split into clearly-titled sections.
Can't the algorithm just drop back to earlier difficulties occasionally to check for consistency, and only finish the test when answers at varying levels of difficulty seem to have become consistent AND the high-resolution questions have levelled off at 50/50? Or would this make the tests too long?
I might be missing something, but the method as you describe it just sounds like it's too simplistically written, not like a fundamental problem with adaptive testing.
What happens if the aggressive idiot in the car behind you, or the hoon driving down your street has a pacemaker? Or someone standing behind them?
I have a medical device myself (not a pacemaker, but it could kill me nearly as fast). The number of people here who have apparently fantasised about the really cool idea of pointing high EM fields at anyone who annoys them is kind of disturbing to me.
Well, in part. AARNet is Australia's Academic and Research Network, UNSW is a shareholder.
Most univerisities here are part of it. It provides a big fibre backbone between them.
Slashdot Mirror
Point taken, Interesting and Troll are not mutually exclusive. And interesting to see that the post has been getting modded both in the meantime (and Insightful, which is probably more disturbing than Interesting). I'm honestly not sure whether it was a troll or not - I'd kind of like to think that it wasn't a genuine opinion.
That is morbid, but I think it would be morbid if they were following some elderly person around filming them just because they're old, waiting for them to drop dead!
I'm guessing this is a troll, but the fact that this is modded "Interesting" instead of "Troll" says something disturbing about slashdot. I can only imagine that a reasonable number of readers agree with it. Presumably embittered male readers.
So many things I could say, so let me pick the easiest: assets? Seriously? A neutral addition to the household, or a liability? How are they any more of a liability than YOU are, unless you are in fact suggesting that a woman's place is in the home and that "the skills that made them an asset in the past" are the only skills of value?
So rather than viewing women has human beings who you might want to share your life with, you're viewing them as a burdensome financial investment in exchange for sex. It's just barely possible that this attitude may go some way towards explaining the problems you've been having with women.
Just to add to what others here have said, my HTC Magic was able to use wifi before I got a data plan, and in fact I could use it on wifi before I put a sim card in it.
Also, what are you talking about.. and why is it modded +5? The Nexus One boards you link to seem to say the opposite of what you claim. Picking from the top of the boards, for instance, "Yes you can disable Data connection and use only WiFi." and "Basically Nexus One internet connection will work even with no SIM card in it by running on WiFi".
It's called nethack. The graphics aren't great, but he's said he doesn't mind that.
If you read TFA they actually want to spend the money on trying to chase people who pirate. So it's not officially to "pay for the music", it's to pay for punitive measures - so the music industry won't make any money out of it unless this strategy is effective in increasing sales (which I seriously doubt).
So in the eyes of the recording industry and the government, no, they're not going to be any happier about piracy or consider it paid for. In the eyes of the public being "taxed for piracy", maybe - I would not be at all surprised if piracy increased as a result of this bill.
I'd be happier if they did tax directly to support free music downloads. This money is a sheer waste. If only we could have an evil recording industry, instead of a stupid one... surely enlightened self-interest couldn't be as bad as what we have now.
Seriously, if I were in the UK, spending money on music at all would feel like being double-charged after this fiasco. I'd feel I'd already "paid" for it through taxes. The irony is that the money will be wasted on punitive measures, so the industry won't even profit from it - and if it causes music sales to drop, they will be even worse off.
I honestly suspect that normally music piracy encourages more music sales, not less. But now the industry has managed to shoot even that in the foot.
Yes! For instance, our Australian policy of public health care gave the American public a chance to see how such things work overseas, fortunately meaning they had ample warning about the DEATH PANELS!
Sigh. Nevermind. You're right, I'm just bitter about Conroy. It's so embarrassing; we can't take him anywhere.
Doesn't having your "this is a bad experience" receptors activated count as a bad experience? I don't mean the whole brain-and-laser unpleasantness, I mean having negative-association cells firing in your brain at all. It might not just count as a bad association later, it might be pretty unpleasant now. In which case it's not a fake memory, it's a real memory.
For flies maybe this question has no meaning... maybe flies aren't conscious. If they did this to a higher animal (I have a horrible suspicion they will) it would be a question to ask. But a good question for this experiment would be: when they fire those brain cells, do the flies try to avoid what's going on immediately?
I can't find it now, but I'm sure there was an experiment in which people were asked to judge how well music was being played. If they could see the players, they rated the women lower than if they couldn't see who was playing. Their expectation of skill from men presumably influenced their perception of the music they were listening to.
I would hope that anti-discrimination laws there to redress differences that arise from prejudice, not differences that arise from valid skill differences. In that case possibly price fixing is the lesser of two evils.
I can give you my understanding from reading it. The rate R they use is quantum operations per second. I believe that there are only equations in the paper because you have to assume some input numbers in order to get ouput numbers. I don't know what assumptions they made to get the numbers in the article.
I think Equation 8 is a good example because it's about qbits and quantum operations. I'm afraid I don't know a good way to get equations into /., but it's
Q = h R^2 e / 2
In the paper that e is actually an epsilon. Here Q is the heat dissipated per unit of time, R is the number of quantum operations per unit of time, h is Planck's constant and e is the probability of error (i.e. errors per operation).
Hence if your quantum computer is error-free, it doesn't interact with its environment, doesn't dissipate heat, and this "limit" is no problem. But otherwise, the heat dissipated goes up quadratically and it's going to impose a limit. How big a limit depends how much heat you can cope with and what your error rate is. It doesn't seem to give some kind of fundamental hard limit to computing speed analogous to the speed of light, as the summary suggests.
.... what?
That's a fantastic book, but the calculations in this paper are neither necessary nor sufficient to support the idea it's based on.
Given that the paper is about the limitations of a perfect quantum computer, you're going to need to improve your encryption algorithm, not just your key.
The title should be "The Ultimate Limit of Computing Speed" not Moore's Law.
Or the title could be "The Ultimate Thermodynamic Penalty for Computing Speed" since the title of the paper (not the article about the paper) is "Thermodynamic Cost of Reversible Computing".
The paper is actually about the heat dissipated when you try to increase computer speed. It doesn't actually place a hard bound on computing speeds, unless you want to make some assumptions about parameters such as error rates in your hypothetical computer and then infer compute speed limits from heat or energy limits.
The article, and hence the summary, and hence almost every comment, seems to be talking about speed rather than thermodynamics. The paper is about thermodynamics. It's about heat! I suppose it's too much to expect people to read TFP when /. doesn't traditionally read TFA....
It's not clear to me from reading the article what parameters they assumed to get from the calculations in the paper to "75 years of Moore's Law". The stuff in the paper itself is much less fluffy than that.
They are the same in essence but not identical. The PRL version appears to have been edited for format and brevity: section headings removed, equations placed in-line etc. There are also a few more material changes such as rearranged paragraphs.
The basic content and equations seem to be all the same so far as I could see.
The PRL version seems more recent, but the arxiv version is actually more readable IMO as it takes up half a page more room and is split into clearly-titled sections.
You only said that because there's cake involved!
Can't the algorithm just drop back to earlier difficulties occasionally to check for consistency, and only finish the test when answers at varying levels of difficulty seem to have become consistent AND the high-resolution questions have levelled off at 50/50? Or would this make the tests too long?
I might be missing something, but the method as you describe it just sounds like it's too simplistically written, not like a fundamental problem with adaptive testing.
I have a medical device myself (not a pacemaker, but it could kill me nearly as fast). The number of people here who have apparently fantasised about the really cool idea of pointing high EM fields at anyone who annoys them is kind of disturbing to me.
Hoopsnakes are much less dangerous than dropbears, at least you see them coming.
Well, in part. AARNet is Australia's Academic and Research Network, UNSW is a shareholder. Most univerisities here are part of it. It provides a big fibre backbone between them.
.. is that the sheep weighs the same as a duck?