Yes, you're right. Let's give up on investigating compelling new directions in technology because there are hard problems associated with them. That's the way forward;-)
I'm quite certain that if the foundations for exploiting a larger computational basis are laid, the algorithms will follow.
The trouble is that no truly scalable proposal for QC has been developed yet. The hope would be that once a suitable system was found, it wouldn't be exponentially more difficult to add qbits. Photonic qbits have very different problems from trapped ions, for example. Not many research groups are attempting to build large systems because the potential for more extensive scaling isn't there, instead they're trying to develop systems that are scalable, then we'll see a push for large systems.
It'll probably still be decades before all the hard problems are solved, but the promise of an exponentially larger computation basis for a given number of bits is too compelling to ignore.
As a Canadian who recently moved to Australia, I can say that Australians are getting fucked by regional pricing. I guess it's partly due to the recent increase in the AUD, but there's nearly a 30% premium on most content in Australia. I refuse to pay $100 for a game when I could get the same game for $60 in the U.S.. Luckily, I have a region 1 console that I brought with me:-)
The quality of their product, regardless of profits for old white board members?
The two are inseparable. Or should be at least. Why would anyone continue to buy an inferior product? The point is, Apple, or any other company, isn't out to make you happy. They're out to earn money. Setve Jobs' job description is to make Apple as much money as possible and if he doesn't do that then he isn't doing his job (in fact, he's extraordinarily good at hid job). It's entirely up to you, as a consumer, to make judicious decisions about the products you buy.
There are plenty of companies who put altruistic things ahead of profit.
The reason that I disagree with you is that thinking that a company needs to be "good" diminishes personal responsibility. A company exists to make money, people make decisions. If you don't think that Apple makes products of value or you don't support their actions, don't buy their stuff, but it's your decision to make.
If Steve Jobs causes injury to a person through his actions, he should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. If Apple hurts Google, on the other hand, that's fine. Google is not a person, Apple is not a person. People should make decisions about what they support, not expect organizations who are only out there for profit to do it for them. I've stopped buying from Apple because I don't like what they do but I don't expect them to hurt their bottom line to make me feel better.
Needless to say, if a company causes injury to a person (poor safety conditions, etc.) then those in charge are responsible in a legal sense. Furthermore, a government can enforce trade practices, but don't expect companies to self police.
to it's shareholders. Which is the only metric that matters.
Apple isn't evil. It's very good at making money. What other criterion is there with which to judge the actions of a company? I don't like the product they sell so I don't buy their stuff. Apparently, however, some people like the walled, Apple taxed, restrictively licensed, closed products that they sell. The fact is, many people don't care that the platform is closed and Apple can take huge sums of money from them. It doesn't make them less nice, just not a company that I want to deal with.
If you think of companies as nice or not nice, good or evil, you will be constantly disappointed. They are judged on profitability. The products that they produce; however, can be judged as good or not good.
If the plan was opt-in, it would almost make sense. Either plan on buying through legitimate channels or pay the lawsuit-insurance fee for whichever organisations have the copyright for the material that you plan to pirate. Only pirate TV? Just pay the MPAA monthly fee. That one will be at least $50/month I bet.
Would that $120 a year even protect against lawsuits from artists who aren't members of SOCAN? Undoubtedly the majority of people whose music is being downloaded in Canada aren't members. How much does SOCAN expect the RIAA to charge? Then the MPAA will want in. I don't think an extra $40-$50 a month on my internet bill is a good deal for unlimited, legal, free P2P. (Then again, it would replace cable TV, netflix, last.fm, etc. Maybe it would be worth it.) Also, I have no doubt that at that point the ISPs would start demanding an additional fee for P2P traffic from someone because they would feel left out.
The trouble lies more in the press releases about the research. I don't think any of the researchers have any illusions about what's needed for a functioning quantum computer or how long it will take the get there.
There are three reasons why people keep working towards building a quantum computer despite the huge effort that it requires:
1) A lot of new and interesting fundamental physics gets uncovered along the way.
2) The fundamentally increased scaling in computing power for a given number of bits is too compelling to ignore.
3) Because it's hard to do.
Quantum computers will happen, just not 5 or 10 or even 20 years from now. Until then, chill out and enjoy your 32 nm classical transistors.
The discrepancy doesn't appear to pertain to any climate data or research. Kind of seems like grasping at straws if you want to refute the academic credibility of the entire field (or for that matter, even that one researcher).
I'll bet that the results from any given vehicle would be useless, but integrated over thousands of separate trips over the same road space it may build up a decent map of the road surface. I image that a vast oversampling would be required to average out the noise inherent to any one vehicle. I suspect that it will be useless simply because adoption will be too low to provide the necessary data smoothing.
Still, it's worth a try. All it costs is someone else's battery life.
I curse at my Mac routinely. I'm not using one by choice, the edict to go Mac was handed down from above at my work, and I despise it. The hardware is nice but I curse OS X more and more every day.
A peer-reviewed publication in The Journal of Neuroscience suggests that it is, in fact, science.
Despite that, I have watched too much Star-Trek and know too little about neuroscience to be able to read about "cortical excitability" via "theta-burst stimulation" or about "enhanced spontaneous neuronal firing and EEG gamma band power" and not feel that I'm reading a sci-fi screenplay.
I don't believe that the implant is a prosthetic aorta at all; rather, it is wrapped around the aorta to prevent further dilation. In that light, it seems like a huge advance for people facing this problem because they will no longer need a replacement of any kind. Warfarin may not be as bad as the article makes it out to be, but I'm sure that it would be better to not be taking any thinners if you didn't have to.
The new method may not address the same problem that you have but it's certainly a worthwhile innovation. It seems very likely that other related and unrelated internal prosthetics stand to benefit from improved imaging and prototyping.
will tell you that the company in question falls under different tax law than Google or Apple. Apparently, companies with more than 100 shareholders are subject to an additional level of taxation on profits. I don't know any details, but I think that it would be worth looking into before crying foul. At the very least, one would expect the submitter to have read the article, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Of course a cell phone transmitter can't bring down an airliner. You have to turn off your phone in case it does anyway.
The point isn't that there is a clear danger, just that RF electronics can be finicky and that at take-off, landing or cruising altitude, small problems are big problems. An airliner is built to to far worse EM interference than a cell phone, but why have it flying in a continuously noisy environment when it could fly in a relatively quiet RF environment?
I think that this would be an excellent way to start. I would go on to add that you should demonstrate some of the power of using the CLI and the basic GNU toolchain to do things that would be taxing to do in a GUI environment without dedicated programs. Find a simple task, such as batch renaming, and demonstrate how simple it is to do those things with the simple and powerful tools that already exist. Perhaps you could demonstrate some programs that have similar capability to expensive software on Windows or Mac but are available as free CLI utilities on Linux; mp3 tagging or batch image conversion, for example.
Accessing a private system in a way that is forbidden by it's owner should get you fired. Accessing confidential information for personal reasons might be a breach of contract or, in the case of medical records and other sensitive information, even be illegal in its own right. However, simply misusing a private system shouldn't be a criminal act.
It seems to me that it could be likened to trespassing. A property owner could allow the public onto property providing that they abide by certain conditions. Failure to abide by those conditions would warrant getting kicked off the property. Refusal to leave would then constitute trespassing; however, trespassing would not occur the instant that an individual broke the conditions.
Accessing a system once authorization to use it has been revoked could be considered unauthorized use. Claiming that authorization is defacto revoked once the acceptable use policy is breached has the effect of using authorized use laws as a proxy to put breach of the acceptable use policy into the criminal code. That, I hope, goes against the intent of the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you're right. Let's give up on investigating compelling new directions in technology because there are hard problems associated with them. That's the way forward ;-)
I'm quite certain that if the foundations for exploiting a larger computational basis are laid, the algorithms will follow.
The trouble is that no truly scalable proposal for QC has been developed yet. The hope would be that once a suitable system was found, it wouldn't be exponentially more difficult to add qbits. Photonic qbits have very different problems from trapped ions, for example. Not many research groups are attempting to build large systems because the potential for more extensive scaling isn't there, instead they're trying to develop systems that are scalable, then we'll see a push for large systems.
It'll probably still be decades before all the hard problems are solved, but the promise of an exponentially larger computation basis for a given number of bits is too compelling to ignore.
As a Canadian who recently moved to Australia, I can say that Australians are getting fucked by regional pricing. I guess it's partly due to the recent increase in the AUD, but there's nearly a 30% premium on most content in Australia. I refuse to pay $100 for a game when I could get the same game for $60 in the U.S.. Luckily, I have a region 1 console that I brought with me :-)
I know, -1 offtopic, but fuck regional pricing.
"Buy out"? I think you mean fork.
The quality of their product, regardless of profits for old white board members?
The two are inseparable. Or should be at least. Why would anyone continue to buy an inferior product? The point is, Apple, or any other company, isn't out to make you happy. They're out to earn money. Setve Jobs' job description is to make Apple as much money as possible and if he doesn't do that then he isn't doing his job (in fact, he's extraordinarily good at hid job). It's entirely up to you, as a consumer, to make judicious decisions about the products you buy.
There are plenty of companies who put altruistic things ahead of profit.
Like Sun Microsystems. That went well for them.
The reason that I disagree with you is that thinking that a company needs to be "good" diminishes personal responsibility. A company exists to make money, people make decisions. If you don't think that Apple makes products of value or you don't support their actions, don't buy their stuff, but it's your decision to make.
If Steve Jobs causes injury to a person through his actions, he should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. If Apple hurts Google, on the other hand, that's fine. Google is not a person, Apple is not a person. People should make decisions about what they support, not expect organizations who are only out there for profit to do it for them. I've stopped buying from Apple because I don't like what they do but I don't expect them to hurt their bottom line to make me feel better.
Needless to say, if a company causes injury to a person (poor safety conditions, etc.) then those in charge are responsible in a legal sense. Furthermore, a government can enforce trade practices, but don't expect companies to self police.
Here.
to it's shareholders. Which is the only metric that matters.
Apple isn't evil. It's very good at making money. What other criterion is there with which to judge the actions of a company? I don't like the product they sell so I don't buy their stuff. Apparently, however, some people like the walled, Apple taxed, restrictively licensed, closed products that they sell. The fact is, many people don't care that the platform is closed and Apple can take huge sums of money from them. It doesn't make them less nice, just not a company that I want to deal with.
If you think of companies as nice or not nice, good or evil, you will be constantly disappointed. They are judged on profitability. The products that they produce; however, can be judged as good or not good.
No, but it serves the same purpose.
If the plan was opt-in, it would almost make sense. Either plan on buying through legitimate channels or pay the lawsuit-insurance fee for whichever organisations have the copyright for the material that you plan to pirate. Only pirate TV? Just pay the MPAA monthly fee. That one will be at least $50/month I bet.
Would that $120 a year even protect against lawsuits from artists who aren't members of SOCAN? Undoubtedly the majority of people whose music is being downloaded in Canada aren't members. How much does SOCAN expect the RIAA to charge? Then the MPAA will want in. I don't think an extra $40-$50 a month on my internet bill is a good deal for unlimited, legal, free P2P. (Then again, it would replace cable TV, netflix, last.fm, etc. Maybe it would be worth it.) Also, I have no doubt that at that point the ISPs would start demanding an additional fee for P2P traffic from someone because they would feel left out.
That won't get you any money. You'll have to become a songwriter.
From TFA:
"But, the real problem is that SOCAN only represents songwriters. We are getting into the complicated way that music works."
The trouble lies more in the press releases about the research. I don't think any of the researchers have any illusions about what's needed for a functioning quantum computer or how long it will take the get there.
There are three reasons why people keep working towards building a quantum computer despite the huge effort that it requires:
1) A lot of new and interesting fundamental physics gets uncovered along the way.
2) The fundamentally increased scaling in computing power for a given number of bits is too compelling to ignore.
3) Because it's hard to do.
Quantum computers will happen, just not 5 or 10 or even 20 years from now. Until then, chill out and enjoy your 32 nm classical transistors.
The discrepancy doesn't appear to pertain to any climate data or research. Kind of seems like grasping at straws if you want to refute the academic credibility of the entire field (or for that matter, even that one researcher).
I hope they accept it.
No, it would just make their steering more erratic.
Actually, from the short time that I spent driving in downtown Boston, the drivers seemed pretty much much on par with most big cities.
I'll bet that the results from any given vehicle would be useless, but integrated over thousands of separate trips over the same road space it may build up a decent map of the road surface. I image that a vast oversampling would be required to average out the noise inherent to any one vehicle. I suspect that it will be useless simply because adoption will be too low to provide the necessary data smoothing.
Still, it's worth a try. All it costs is someone else's battery life.
Also, Fox News causes rape.
I curse at my Mac routinely. I'm not using one by choice, the edict to go Mac was handed down from above at my work, and I despise it. The hardware is nice but I curse OS X more and more every day.
A peer-reviewed publication in The Journal of Neuroscience suggests that it is, in fact, science.
Despite that, I have watched too much Star-Trek and know too little about neuroscience to be able to read about "cortical excitability" via "theta-burst stimulation" or about "enhanced spontaneous neuronal firing and EEG gamma band power" and not feel that I'm reading a sci-fi screenplay.
I don't believe that the implant is a prosthetic aorta at all; rather, it is wrapped around the aorta to prevent further dilation. In that light, it seems like a huge advance for people facing this problem because they will no longer need a replacement of any kind. Warfarin may not be as bad as the article makes it out to be, but I'm sure that it would be better to not be taking any thinners if you didn't have to.
The new method may not address the same problem that you have but it's certainly a worthwhile innovation. It seems very likely that other related and unrelated internal prosthetics stand to benefit from improved imaging and prototyping.
will tell you that the company in question falls under different tax law than Google or Apple. Apparently, companies with more than 100 shareholders are subject to an additional level of taxation on profits. I don't know any details, but I think that it would be worth looking into before crying foul. At the very least, one would expect the submitter to have read the article, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Of course a cell phone transmitter can't bring down an airliner. You have to turn off your phone in case it does anyway.
The point isn't that there is a clear danger, just that RF electronics can be finicky and that at take-off, landing or cruising altitude, small problems are big problems. An airliner is built to to far worse EM interference than a cell phone, but why have it flying in a continuously noisy environment when it could fly in a relatively quiet RF environment?
I think that this would be an excellent way to start. I would go on to add that you should demonstrate some of the power of using the CLI and the basic GNU toolchain to do things that would be taxing to do in a GUI environment without dedicated programs. Find a simple task, such as batch renaming, and demonstrate how simple it is to do those things with the simple and powerful tools that already exist. Perhaps you could demonstrate some programs that have similar capability to expensive software on Windows or Mac but are available as free CLI utilities on Linux; mp3 tagging or batch image conversion, for example.
Accessing a private system in a way that is forbidden by it's owner should get you fired. Accessing confidential information for personal reasons might be a breach of contract or, in the case of medical records and other sensitive information, even be illegal in its own right. However, simply misusing a private system shouldn't be a criminal act.
It seems to me that it could be likened to trespassing. A property owner could allow the public onto property providing that they abide by certain conditions. Failure to abide by those conditions would warrant getting kicked off the property. Refusal to leave would then constitute trespassing; however, trespassing would not occur the instant that an individual broke the conditions.
Accessing a system once authorization to use it has been revoked could be considered unauthorized use. Claiming that authorization is defacto revoked once the acceptable use policy is breached has the effect of using authorized use laws as a proxy to put breach of the acceptable use policy into the criminal code. That, I hope, goes against the intent of the law.