Along with the other comments you've recieved to date, I'd like to ask you something: I believe that when a person criticizes someone for something, they should have a plausible alternative in mind. Otherwise they are just whining.
What is the plausible alternative for C. S. Lewis? Authors write things that are true to themselves, be it Christian, Pagan, Materialist, or what not. Any author who tries to be inauthentic to themselves generally turns out garbage; even if you can't put your finger on why, you'll not like it. A lot of young writers make this mistake, by trying to be someone else, instead of themselves.
Was he supposed to write non-Christian stories? But that's not who he was. And it's hardly like the Chronicles of Narnia are blatent propoganda; instead, it's simply that they are set into a Christian framework. I've read things set into Buddhist frameworks, oodles of things in strict materialist frameworks, things set in a Victorian framework, various philosophies, etc. Do you blame any of those authors for their frameworks?
Was he supposed to not write stories, because they bother you?
When it gets down to it, at the level you're talking about, every story "pushes" some worldview at you. Why is it you're only bothered by this one?
The most likely reason is that you don't realize that you're getting many other ones pushed at you, all the time, and you've only been sensitized to this one. In that case, the problem lies with you, not CS Lewis, and you're probably getting yourself nicely manipulated by other people without even noticing it. Everyone has a worldview that colors everything they do and everything they right. (In fact, Christian writings seem one of the best places to pick that up, regardless of how you feel about the rest of them; see Lewis' non-fiction writing and the works of Francis Schaeffer.)
No matter what links you click on, you can't see another user's page, unless the web application is just horrifically badly designed, well beyond merely not quite conforming to a strict interpretation of certain HTTP standards that actually say "should" instead of "must". It is reasonable to assume many web apps use GET in ways going against the spec's recommendation, but surely if merely clicking a link could log you in as arbitrary other users, it would have been noticed. Not to mention only other users of Google's caching are showing up, indicating the bug isn't coming from random link pseudo-clicking.
If you're getting pages from other users, it is a distinct problem from aggressive precaching.
Actually, that's yet another different problem, one where you get the wrong page from the cache, specifically somebody else's personalized page. It is completely unrelated, in the sense that one could fix either problem independently. (It is possible that they have the same root cause, but I doubt it.)
This bring the current list of reasons not to use the Accelerator up to three, counting the obvious privacy issues.
Again, though, if you're really taking advantage of Orion, and the math says you're almost a fool not to (because of the minimum size of the critical mass for the explosions, you have a certain minimal size below which you're just wasting power), we're talking something way to big to assemble in orbit with chem rockets; I don't have enough info to do the math off-hand, but I would not be surprised that a single Orion could lift in one shot everything we've ever lifted into space, and probably a lot more. I'm pretty sure that a large Orion could lift orders of magnitude more.
In fact, in a hundred years, we're probably going to look like paranoid idiots for not taking advantage of tech that could put us into space in a big way right now, and in fact, for about the past 40 years. I bet if we actually tried, we could have build a self-sustaining space ship by now, using just current tech. (Among other things, we'd have to have done more Biospheres, only for real. I doubt the problems are fundamentally insoluable.)
The more I think about this, the more depressing it gets.
It may be lame, but from all accounts, including people meeting him in person at some presentations he's done (the ones he talks about on his page have really happened, I've never been to one but I've seen photos from the events online from other sources), he's completely, 100% serious in every way. In that sense, it's not a "hoax".
That's why I said this was sad; I meant that not in the "uncool" sense, but in the truly saddening sense, as the opposite of "happy".
You can't. For a given gravity field and fuel energy density, rockets have a maximum size. You need more fuel to move bigger things exponentially, eventually you can't get into orbit no matter how much bigger you make them, as making them bigger just makes things worse.
Without doing the math, and assuming we actually want to take advantage of Orion's ability to literally put a significant size city in space, no rockets could be large enough, because "large enough" rockets wouldn't even be able to lift themselves, let alone the thousands upon thousands of other tons we'd like to lift. I don't have to do the math because it's so far beyond what any chemical can do in Earth's gravity field; we can get more clever with out space vehicles, but we can't make them much bigger without a boost system that has orders of magnitude more energy efficiency per unit mass.
(I kind of wish we'd continue researching the idea; if nothing else, one Orion would make an excellent space elevator spacestation, and it would be completely worth the enviromental impact of one Orion launch to get one of those in play, as it'll pay for itself in the reduction of chemical launches. The dangers have been seriously overstated because 50+ years into the nuclear age, even educated people still have fucking ignorant OMIGOSH RADIATION!!!!!eleven!! attitudes instead of anything resembling a rational understanding of costs and benefits. This is Hollywood's greatest sin.)
No, paranoid schizorphrenia or a related disorder. The smart ones concoct some quite complete explanations of the world, with only the minor flaw that they are completely wrong. Most true kooks come from this basic template, which is also why they are so similar once you dig past the exact manifestation. Time Cube Guy, for instance, seems to me to have built up this massive explanation based on a partial understanding of time zones, and is quite sure it is the path to, well, everything, and everybody who disagrees with him are just "educated stupids", which, if nothing else, I have to concede is a powerful phrase, even if he misapplies it.
Others have these powerful and simple physics which completely disprove Einstein, as it should be obvious to anybody with a brain, but fail on simple points like making predictions, or even being internally self-consistent in algebraic terms, let alone the "higher" maths. Others have simple perpetual motion machines that can solve the energy crises by applying <physics buzzword they don't really understand> ("zero-point energy" being a common one), but they only work when nobody else is looking, or they fail only because some evil conspiracy keeps sabotaging the equipment.
One of the side effects of the disease is to innoculate you from all criticism, including people trying to explain you have a disease, as they are just more people out to get you.
It's really sad and scary to think about how close to this we all are; the right chemical or neurological trauma and any of us'd join the ranks...
It may be illegal. I don't recall a lawsuit on the topic yet.
Remember, for better or worse, laws and contracts are presumed valid until found otherwise in a court of law. But if you're willing to say a provision or law is "illegal" if it would be found illegal in a court of law with proper jurisdiction, then it may be illegal. (That's not the only definition of illegal one can bring to bear on the topic; other definitions will have other results.)
(It may sound horrible, but I for one can't think of another way of doing things.... at least not one that would actually work in the real world with people trying to game the system.)
Here's one that may penetrate your protective filters:
Consider "how the Republicans in particular have been acting for the last 10 years and espeically in the last 4 years"... and the fact that the Democrats are still losing, badly.
Insane, or really, really fucking stupid.
(Personally, I blame them both. The two parties are supposed to hold each other to the center. Generally, for any failure state in one party to be stable, there must be a corresponding failure in the other. And that is right where we find ourselves today, with the Democratic failure being the inability to connect to enough of the American public due to arrogance. Hopefully the Republican arrogance (same word, different problem) will run right over the edge here soon and perhaps we can get back to a balance, but the Democrats share some responsibility in the Republican current dominance. If they put up a better resistance, we wouldn't be here, but, as I said, they are either too insane or too fucking stupid to take advantage of what I'm sure you'd consider the numerous attack vectors on the Republicans, instead repeatedly (and relaibly!) shooting themselves in the foot, over and over again.)
This isn't an English essay. The Universe isn't asking you for your opinion. Momentum is conserved, and snarking about irrelevant details of an example that someone tried to help you with just further underscores your ignorance.
Give up. You were wrong on the first post, you've been wrong on every one after. It's time to notice the pattern.
Everyone who posted before this is encouraged to be a little more careful providing answers in the future. (All four that I can see are not only wrong, in the sense they don't contain the correct explanation, but also in the sense that they contain serious technical errors.)
I'm going to assume the satellite designers knew what they were doing and there is some good reason for this.
That said, given the resolution with which we know the position of a given satellite, and the low resolution of the source image in this case, what advantage does using two cameras give you, vs. taking one camera and snapping two pictures in quick succession?
Maybe they can't be snapped quickly enough? But then, you'd think the larger parallax would be helpful, not harmful.) I know consumer cameras have the basic tech now to take a snapshot of the CCD state and process it later, that tech ought to scale right with the CCD resolution, whatever it is.
Maybe this is so you can choose the parallax direction, instead of the orbit forcing your choice? Does the image processing need the parallax to show up in some particular direction relative to the light source to work?
Honest questions; knowledgeable answers appreciated. (As you can see, I can talk out of my ass too:-), I'm looking for something a little more informed.)
If not, you may be surprised to find you are surprisingly close to the truth. The basic story of music theory up until the 20th century was the increasing acceptance of the idea that dissonance was necessary; going from now-archaic single-melody lines, through melody lines with a second line always a perfect fifth above, and so on in very incremental (and, within the context of music theory, often extremely characterizable) steps. The era of Bach brings us the first music that would sound right to the modern ear, both due to the acceptance of even temprement and harmony, but the permissible harmonies of the time are still relatively simple (it is the permutations that the complexity comes from, not the underlying harmonies); one of the amazing thing of that era of music is what they produced under the brutal consonance constraints (and limited instruments available, though that limitation was more technological) that they composed under.
Without "wrongness", a "low", a "conflict", there is no "rightness", no strong "high", no "resolution". ("Resolution" being the key element of theory pretty much, again, until the 20th century. By then the acceptance of dissonance basically became complete and music went in several other directions. The academic tradition and "popular" music finally split paths, something I've heard rumblings that academicians just now noticed is, ultimately, a problem for them ($$$)...)
It says a lot about Slashdot that my thought was not "Here's at least an attempt at interesting wordplay" but "OMG, it's narrowly a new low for spelling". I had to read most of the summary to be sure it wasn't actually a typo.
Don't you love the "Suppose the impossible is true, then I'd be right" line of thinking? I tend to consider it evidence against, if you have to bring up the impossible to support your claim...:-)
I find myself able to enjoy it a bit more now that he's dead, and the Universe has prevented him from writing more books in the series far more thoroughly than the end of Mostly Harmless does.
As a piece of existentialist horror it is unmatched; even the great French philosophers like Satre on his best day couldn't invoke the true horrors of the Whole Sort of General Mish-Mash, a direct consequence of the Many Worlds hypothesis (though Many Worlds doesn't imply that you can travel on the "probability axes", the horror, ultimately, is the same).
In some sense, it's his greatest work, but since it is "great" because it confronts consequences of certain surprisingly popular beliefs head-on, it is not always a pleasing sort of "great". If you are a believer in the Many Worlds hypothesis, this book really lays out on the line how existentially horrible it is; the Total Perspective Vortex squared. That can be particularly unsettling.
I do not accept the hypothesis, so I can look at the book with a bit more detachment, but even so, it is truly a stark look at the entire Universe. I'm not sure I can think of anything that is more darkly humorous, and given the somewhat light-heartened tone of the rest of the series (sure, the Earth is destroyed, but that's just an excuse to have a bit of fun, right?), it's a shocker, even after So Long and Thanks for All The Fish sort of warmed you up for it.
If I were going to throw anything he's written at a literary type, it'd be Mostly Harmless. For the same reasons I say that, a casual reader is likely to find it their least favorite. And it is my least favorite too... but I no longer hate it, and I even have a grudging respect for it.
Approaching this scientifically, I read the Slashdot summary, and I predicted based on existing theories I have that the article is by Andrew Orlowski.
I click-through, and behold, I am correct.
Andrew Orlowski is either incapable of reading or deliberately inflammatory to boost page views. I have never seen an article from him that was factually accurate, and the subsequent conclusions are exactly what you'd expect.
People, when you see that name, think John Dvorak or Katz, not respectable journalist; at this point his articles should simply be discarded, as he doesn't even seem to get it right by pure chance.
The thing is we should be teaching reasoning skills and critical thinking.... Advanced abstract mathematics -- sorry guys, I and 99% of the people who took trig and calc will never need it in life. Accounting and statistics I could actually use in my life.
If anyone wants a suggestion for a counter-benchmark, I suggest LyX; I used to run Gentoo on a Pentium 133 w/40MB of RAM*. LyX is the only program that I couldn't compile on that; the C++ it uses made GCC consume too much memory. Even Mozilla could compile on that. It's slow even on modern machines out of proportion to the source code size.
*: It was a sane decision at the time. I tried Debian on it and it was significantly slower. This was before all the distros distributed i586 binaries, and the Pentium speedups were significant well beyond perceptual bias (we're talking three or four times faster to start up enlightenment, for instance, and tolerable performance vs. completely unacceptable performance for window painting and such). 133MHz pentiums need all the help they can get. I'd never do that now.
Compute the power costs of what you are proposing.
Knowingly wasting that sort of money is often a firing offense; at the scales you quote, we're easily talking hundreds a month and it may well exceed your personal salary. Not a great way to ensure you have a job tomorrow.
The law doesn't work by bad analogy to a one-sentence summary and wishful thinking. Go look up what a trademark is, officially, and you'll see why it doesn't apply; in particular, the remedies and the ways of losing it, which simply don't apply. (How can you "fail to protect a trademark" by common use when each use by anyone other than you is identity fraud? The system doesn't work... unless you again, try to create a bad analogy based on my one sentence summary.)
This is why I said to dig deeper before posting... I know my one sentence summaries leave open "obvious" attacks, but those are artefacts of the summary and your lack of understanding, not true ways to protect your identity under current existing law. The alternative of me explaining the entirity of IP-related law clearly was unacceptable, and besides Slashdot has a limit on comment sizes.
The moral of the story is "Don't try to use your macroscopic-world intuition to understand quantum phenomena."
It's so wrong, it's not even reliably wrong, like [people who oppose you politically]; you almost don't need to know what's right, just wait for [those idiots] to spout off and do the opposite. Unlike that, your real world intuition is so wrong it's not even on the same playing field, not a matter of "true vs. false" but "true vs. blue speckled porcupines."
In conclusion, the answer is "a bathtub full of brightly colored machine tools"; understanding the question won't get you appreciably closer to understanding QM, but it's a good start and might give you a chuckle.
Slashdot Mirror
Along with the other comments you've recieved to date, I'd like to ask you something: I believe that when a person criticizes someone for something, they should have a plausible alternative in mind. Otherwise they are just whining.
What is the plausible alternative for C. S. Lewis? Authors write things that are true to themselves, be it Christian, Pagan, Materialist, or what not. Any author who tries to be inauthentic to themselves generally turns out garbage; even if you can't put your finger on why, you'll not like it. A lot of young writers make this mistake, by trying to be someone else, instead of themselves.
Was he supposed to write non-Christian stories? But that's not who he was. And it's hardly like the Chronicles of Narnia are blatent propoganda; instead, it's simply that they are set into a Christian framework. I've read things set into Buddhist frameworks, oodles of things in strict materialist frameworks, things set in a Victorian framework, various philosophies, etc. Do you blame any of those authors for their frameworks?
Was he supposed to not write stories, because they bother you?
When it gets down to it, at the level you're talking about, every story "pushes" some worldview at you. Why is it you're only bothered by this one?
The most likely reason is that you don't realize that you're getting many other ones pushed at you, all the time, and you've only been sensitized to this one. In that case, the problem lies with you, not CS Lewis, and you're probably getting yourself nicely manipulated by other people without even noticing it. Everyone has a worldview that colors everything they do and everything they right. (In fact, Christian writings seem one of the best places to pick that up, regardless of how you feel about the rest of them; see Lewis' non-fiction writing and the works of Francis Schaeffer.)
No matter what links you click on, you can't see another user's page, unless the web application is just horrifically badly designed, well beyond merely not quite conforming to a strict interpretation of certain HTTP standards that actually say "should" instead of "must". It is reasonable to assume many web apps use GET in ways going against the spec's recommendation, but surely if merely clicking a link could log you in as arbitrary other users, it would have been noticed. Not to mention only other users of Google's caching are showing up, indicating the bug isn't coming from random link pseudo-clicking.
If you're getting pages from other users, it is a distinct problem from aggressive precaching.
Evidence?
Actually, that's yet another different problem, one where you get the wrong page from the cache, specifically somebody else's personalized page. It is completely unrelated, in the sense that one could fix either problem independently. (It is possible that they have the same root cause, but I doubt it.)
This bring the current list of reasons not to use the Accelerator up to three, counting the obvious privacy issues.
Again, though, if you're really taking advantage of Orion, and the math says you're almost a fool not to (because of the minimum size of the critical mass for the explosions, you have a certain minimal size below which you're just wasting power), we're talking something way to big to assemble in orbit with chem rockets; I don't have enough info to do the math off-hand, but I would not be surprised that a single Orion could lift in one shot everything we've ever lifted into space, and probably a lot more. I'm pretty sure that a large Orion could lift orders of magnitude more.
In fact, in a hundred years, we're probably going to look like paranoid idiots for not taking advantage of tech that could put us into space in a big way right now, and in fact, for about the past 40 years. I bet if we actually tried, we could have build a self-sustaining space ship by now, using just current tech. (Among other things, we'd have to have done more Biospheres, only for real. I doubt the problems are fundamentally insoluable.)
The more I think about this, the more depressing it gets.
It may be lame, but from all accounts, including people meeting him in person at some presentations he's done (the ones he talks about on his page have really happened, I've never been to one but I've seen photos from the events online from other sources), he's completely, 100% serious in every way. In that sense, it's not a "hoax".
That's why I said this was sad; I meant that not in the "uncool" sense, but in the truly saddening sense, as the opposite of "happy".
You can't. For a given gravity field and fuel energy density, rockets have a maximum size. You need more fuel to move bigger things exponentially, eventually you can't get into orbit no matter how much bigger you make them, as making them bigger just makes things worse.
Without doing the math, and assuming we actually want to take advantage of Orion's ability to literally put a significant size city in space, no rockets could be large enough, because "large enough" rockets wouldn't even be able to lift themselves, let alone the thousands upon thousands of other tons we'd like to lift. I don't have to do the math because it's so far beyond what any chemical can do in Earth's gravity field; we can get more clever with out space vehicles, but we can't make them much bigger without a boost system that has orders of magnitude more energy efficiency per unit mass.
(I kind of wish we'd continue researching the idea; if nothing else, one Orion would make an excellent space elevator spacestation, and it would be completely worth the enviromental impact of one Orion launch to get one of those in play, as it'll pay for itself in the reduction of chemical launches. The dangers have been seriously overstated because 50+ years into the nuclear age, even educated people still have fucking ignorant OMIGOSH RADIATION!!!!!eleven!! attitudes instead of anything resembling a rational understanding of costs and benefits. This is Hollywood's greatest sin.)
No, paranoid schizorphrenia or a related disorder. The smart ones concoct some quite complete explanations of the world, with only the minor flaw that they are completely wrong. Most true kooks come from this basic template, which is also why they are so similar once you dig past the exact manifestation. Time Cube Guy, for instance, seems to me to have built up this massive explanation based on a partial understanding of time zones, and is quite sure it is the path to, well, everything, and everybody who disagrees with him are just "educated stupids", which, if nothing else, I have to concede is a powerful phrase, even if he misapplies it.
Others have these powerful and simple physics which completely disprove Einstein, as it should be obvious to anybody with a brain, but fail on simple points like making predictions, or even being internally self-consistent in algebraic terms, let alone the "higher" maths. Others have simple perpetual motion machines that can solve the energy crises by applying <physics buzzword they don't really understand> ("zero-point energy" being a common one), but they only work when nobody else is looking, or they fail only because some evil conspiracy keeps sabotaging the equipment.
One of the side effects of the disease is to innoculate you from all criticism, including people trying to explain you have a disease, as they are just more people out to get you.
It's really sad and scary to think about how close to this we all are; the right chemical or neurological trauma and any of us'd join the ranks...
It may be illegal. I don't recall a lawsuit on the topic yet.
Remember, for better or worse, laws and contracts are presumed valid until found otherwise in a court of law. But if you're willing to say a provision or law is "illegal" if it would be found illegal in a court of law with proper jurisdiction, then it may be illegal. (That's not the only definition of illegal one can bring to bear on the topic; other definitions will have other results.)
(It may sound horrible, but I for one can't think of another way of doing things.... at least not one that would actually work in the real world with people trying to game the system.)
Here's one that may penetrate your protective filters:
Consider "how the Republicans in particular have been acting for the last 10 years and espeically in the last 4 years"... and the fact that the Democrats are still losing, badly.
Insane, or really, really fucking stupid.
(Personally, I blame them both. The two parties are supposed to hold each other to the center. Generally, for any failure state in one party to be stable, there must be a corresponding failure in the other. And that is right where we find ourselves today, with the Democratic failure being the inability to connect to enough of the American public due to arrogance. Hopefully the Republican arrogance (same word, different problem) will run right over the edge here soon and perhaps we can get back to a balance, but the Democrats share some responsibility in the Republican current dominance. If they put up a better resistance, we wouldn't be here, but, as I said, they are either too insane or too fucking stupid to take advantage of what I'm sure you'd consider the numerous attack vectors on the Republicans, instead repeatedly (and relaibly!) shooting themselves in the foot, over and over again.)
This isn't an English essay. The Universe isn't asking you for your opinion. Momentum is conserved, and snarking about irrelevant details of an example that someone tried to help you with just further underscores your ignorance.
Give up. You were wrong on the first post, you've been wrong on every one after. It's time to notice the pattern.
Langolier posted the correct answer with info not available in the FA.
Everyone who posted before this is encouraged to be a little more careful providing answers in the future. (All four that I can see are not only wrong, in the sense they don't contain the correct explanation, but also in the sense that they contain serious technical errors.)
I'm going to assume the satellite designers knew what they were doing and there is some good reason for this.
:-), I'm looking for something a little more informed.)
That said, given the resolution with which we know the position of a given satellite, and the low resolution of the source image in this case, what advantage does using two cameras give you, vs. taking one camera and snapping two pictures in quick succession?
Maybe they can't be snapped quickly enough? But then, you'd think the larger parallax would be helpful, not harmful.) I know consumer cameras have the basic tech now to take a snapshot of the CCD state and process it later, that tech ought to scale right with the CCD resolution, whatever it is.
Maybe this is so you can choose the parallax direction, instead of the orbit forcing your choice? Does the image processing need the parallax to show up in some particular direction relative to the light source to work?
Honest questions; knowledgeable answers appreciated. (As you can see, I can talk out of my ass too
Have you taken music theory?
If not, you may be surprised to find you are surprisingly close to the truth. The basic story of music theory up until the 20th century was the increasing acceptance of the idea that dissonance was necessary; going from now-archaic single-melody lines, through melody lines with a second line always a perfect fifth above, and so on in very incremental (and, within the context of music theory, often extremely characterizable) steps. The era of Bach brings us the first music that would sound right to the modern ear, both due to the acceptance of even temprement and harmony, but the permissible harmonies of the time are still relatively simple (it is the permutations that the complexity comes from, not the underlying harmonies); one of the amazing thing of that era of music is what they produced under the brutal consonance constraints (and limited instruments available, though that limitation was more technological) that they composed under.
Without "wrongness", a "low", a "conflict", there is no "rightness", no strong "high", no "resolution". ("Resolution" being the key element of theory pretty much, again, until the 20th century. By then the acceptance of dissonance basically became complete and music went in several other directions. The academic tradition and "popular" music finally split paths, something I've heard rumblings that academicians just now noticed is, ultimately, a problem for them ($$$)...)
It says a lot about Slashdot that my thought was not "Here's at least an attempt at interesting wordplay" but "OMG, it's narrowly a new low for spelling". I had to read most of the summary to be sure it wasn't actually a typo.
(Remember, Slashdot, thou art mortal.)
Don't you love the "Suppose the impossible is true, then I'd be right" line of thinking? I tend to consider it evidence against, if you have to bring up the impossible to support your claim... :-)
I find myself able to enjoy it a bit more now that he's dead, and the Universe has prevented him from writing more books in the series far more thoroughly than the end of Mostly Harmless does.
As a piece of existentialist horror it is unmatched; even the great French philosophers like Satre on his best day couldn't invoke the true horrors of the Whole Sort of General Mish-Mash, a direct consequence of the Many Worlds hypothesis (though Many Worlds doesn't imply that you can travel on the "probability axes", the horror, ultimately, is the same).
In some sense, it's his greatest work, but since it is "great" because it confronts consequences of certain surprisingly popular beliefs head-on, it is not always a pleasing sort of "great". If you are a believer in the Many Worlds hypothesis, this book really lays out on the line how existentially horrible it is; the Total Perspective Vortex squared. That can be particularly unsettling.
I do not accept the hypothesis, so I can look at the book with a bit more detachment, but even so, it is truly a stark look at the entire Universe. I'm not sure I can think of anything that is more darkly humorous, and given the somewhat light-heartened tone of the rest of the series (sure, the Earth is destroyed, but that's just an excuse to have a bit of fun, right?), it's a shocker, even after So Long and Thanks for All The Fish sort of warmed you up for it.
If I were going to throw anything he's written at a literary type, it'd be Mostly Harmless. For the same reasons I say that, a casual reader is likely to find it their least favorite. And it is my least favorite too... but I no longer hate it, and I even have a grudging respect for it.
Approaching this scientifically, I read the Slashdot summary, and I predicted based on existing theories I have that the article is by Andrew Orlowski.
I click-through, and behold, I am correct.
Andrew Orlowski is either incapable of reading or deliberately inflammatory to boost page views. I have never seen an article from him that was factually accurate, and the subsequent conclusions are exactly what you'd expect.
People, when you see that name, think John Dvorak or Katz, not respectable journalist; at this point his articles should simply be discarded, as he doesn't even seem to get it right by pure chance.
The thing is we should be teaching reasoning skills and critical thinking.... Advanced abstract mathematics -- sorry guys, I and 99% of the people who took trig and calc will never need it in life. Accounting and statistics I could actually use in my life.
"Advanced abstract meathematics" is the best place to learn abstract reasoning skills and critical thinking; that is the best reason to learn it. (Link goes to elaboration and explanation, but the one-sentence summary is fairly accurate.)
If anyone wants a suggestion for a counter-benchmark, I suggest LyX; I used to run Gentoo on a Pentium 133 w/40MB of RAM*. LyX is the only program that I couldn't compile on that; the C++ it uses made GCC consume too much memory. Even Mozilla could compile on that. It's slow even on modern machines out of proportion to the source code size.
*: It was a sane decision at the time. I tried Debian on it and it was significantly slower. This was before all the distros distributed i586 binaries, and the Pentium speedups were significant well beyond perceptual bias (we're talking three or four times faster to start up enlightenment, for instance, and tolerable performance vs. completely unacceptable performance for window painting and such). 133MHz pentiums need all the help they can get. I'd never do that now.
Distributed computing is not free.
Compute the power costs of what you are proposing.
Knowingly wasting that sort of money is often a firing offense; at the scales you quote, we're easily talking hundreds a month and it may well exceed your personal salary. Not a great way to ensure you have a job tomorrow.
But beware:Good times, good times.
The law doesn't work by bad analogy to a one-sentence summary and wishful thinking. Go look up what a trademark is, officially, and you'll see why it doesn't apply; in particular, the remedies and the ways of losing it, which simply don't apply. (How can you "fail to protect a trademark" by common use when each use by anyone other than you is identity fraud? The system doesn't work... unless you again, try to create a bad analogy based on my one sentence summary.)
This is why I said to dig deeper before posting... I know my one sentence summaries leave open "obvious" attacks, but those are artefacts of the summary and your lack of understanding, not true ways to protect your identity under current existing law. The alternative of me explaining the entirity of IP-related law clearly was unacceptable, and besides Slashdot has a limit on comment sizes.
The moral of the story is "Don't try to use your macroscopic-world intuition to understand quantum phenomena."
It's so wrong, it's not even reliably wrong, like [people who oppose you politically]; you almost don't need to know what's right, just wait for [those idiots] to spout off and do the opposite. Unlike that, your real world intuition is so wrong it's not even on the same playing field, not a matter of "true vs. false" but "true vs. blue speckled porcupines."
In conclusion, the answer is "a bathtub full of brightly colored machine tools"; understanding the question won't get you appreciably closer to understanding QM, but it's a good start and might give you a chuckle.
I made an ambiguous statement; by "collection" I mean the noun, not the verb. Collection as in "library collection".