And the reason you're still using the antiquated plurality voting system is because the (corporations and billionaires behind the) parties that have bubbled to the top are fully aware Duvergers has kicked in, and that it is in their own best interstests to preserve it, and stifle debate about changing.
Not all encryption is broken. As Bruce Schneier says - trust the math(s). If you can't examine the mathematical analysis that an algorithm has undergone, and you can't examine the source code, then sure, don't trust it, but if both are satisfied, there's no reason not to. Of course, any time you're generating keys you need to be sure that your RNG is well seeded, so you need to have the source to your OS too. And you need to be doing this not on a virtual server. But all these things are easy to satisfy.
This is not vibration, I presume, it actually causes *drag* on your finger. Something to do with coulomb's something, IIRC - saw a demo from a local company a while back, it's not unique to Disney certainly.
OK, it it's generating energy, then that would be electromagnatic radiation, a la x-rays and gamma rays.
And as it's starting with no electrons ("fuse protons and boron-11 nuclei"), the "helium particles" will surely be alpha-radiation.
So is there anything that this reaction emits that *isn't* radiation?
Apart from publish-or-perish papers promising potential future miracles that will be used to extract more funding from the national science budget, that is?
You appear to be quite the adherent of that Less Wrong site. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but while Eliezer Yudkowsky may have been a bright youngster, he might also now be a crank. http://kruel.co/2012/05/13/eliezer-yudkowsky-quotes/
(And looking at a few more of his pages, he is mathematically naive, as I first suspected.)
But were the permies out in the carpark dancing when they heard that Carly *cough*Stupid Fucking Useless Cunt*cough* Fiorina had resigned?
I know that in a German office and an Irish office they were. I heard this from two of the people who were dancing, both are reliable witnesses. Beer was drunk that evening.
Some high pressure ones are way worse. I was at the cinema a few weeks ago, and when I shoved my wet hands into the blade drier I immediately noticed some drops appearing on the mirror in front of my face, only a fraction of a second later did I notice drops of water actually appearing on my face.
I'm a paper towel man. Every advance in technology since then has made things worse.
Same with game consoles, all I see nowadays is the same unrealistically-behaving shit rendered at higher resolutions and higher frame rates. Eye candy, sure, until it moves, and then it becomes clear there are no laws of physics on planet gameconsole.
OK, I'm mostly in the Copenhagen-is-least-wrong camp.
Therefore I shamelessly see amplitudes as things from which probabilities can be calculated. I notice that you haven't addressed that article's use of statements of probability, despite me drawing specific attention to it. And therefore their support of the existence of actual uncertainty that must logically follow from that. Actual uncertainty being the thing you claimed doesn't exist, and which part of the time they claim doesn't exist either, despite implying it unambiguously elsewhere.
The fact that amplitudes can cancel out, but probabilities cannot, in no way contradicts a direct relation between amplitudes and probabilities. I'll often work in a larger field in order to deduce a result in a subfield (quickest example - anything involving a real FFT), there's no mystery surrounding that. Their but-probabilities-can't-cancel-ahah! outburst seems very much like a straw man, and makes them look rather mathematically naive.
I should also point out that there's an *absolutely enormous* unstated assumption in that write-up which has no particular reason to be true at all, and if one takes an equally, if not more, believable assumption, then the conclusion they come to in the 2-half-silvered-mirror evaporates immediately, and starts to agree with other naiver models.
They've hand-waved it away with a "roughly", but that really doesn't buy it in something that's supposed to be explicatory.
Yeah, yeah, I've done the maths already. Maths is a model for reality, nothing more.
'the little two-dimensional arrow for the configuration "Detector 1 gets a photon" has the same squared length as for "Detector 2 gets a photon"'
And the *physical* meaning of that is?
If you do not see "we should find that Detector 1 goes off half the time, and Detector 2 half the time" as a statement of probability, then we're speaking different languages.
Calling a card that stores videos a "storage card" at least makes sense to both someone who doesn't know any better, and to someone who does know better.
Rolling your own nomenclature based on just one possible payload for the storage device shows a healthy dose of ignorance and at least a little bit of illogic. He must have been familiar with the cards, or he'd not have known it was removable storage, in which case he's almost certainly encountered them containing sound files or still images too.
However, it's a minor slip, we (techies) shouldn't expect non-techies to get terminology correct all the time. Many of the naming schemes we come up with ourselves are highly illogical or just plain stupid.
That aside, it certainly should have been corrected by the so-called editors here, this is supposed to be a site for the technically savvy.
There are many sources for both quotes. Pre-communist texts contain your "communist" quote, for example (each part individually goes back millennia). The lines when used by Marx later were not contrasting Socialism with Communism. Marx's use of your "communist" quote was even refered to as "scientific socialism".
""" They do this by splitting the shared secret key used in traditional cryptography into two parts: a public key for identifying oneself and a secret key for proving an identity electronically. """ That's bordering on the "not even wrong" level of fucked-upness. Alas it falls on the side of being woefully incorrect. Possibly dangerounsly misleading too.
Discrete logarithms are spelt "division" in elliptic curves. They're just as mathematically pure and well studied as finite fields and prime product rings.
The funny thing is that for some kernels, it's perfectly true. I know the kernel I run on this workstation here gives about 99.5% of the cycles to the userspace programs that I launch. Yet playing very briefly with a windows 8 system a few months back (it survived about 20 minutes between arrival at the office and having linux put on it), the kernel and hundreds of intimately-bound-I-don't-know-what-the-fuck-they-do-or-why-I-would-ever-want-them daemons were taking up between 5% and 10% of the CPU constantly. The former I would happily accept a 50% increase in overhead to, I'm perfectly happy only having 99.25% to myself. But the latter would have ground to a halt if there were any more impediments to interprocess communication.
And if an actor is talking to a ghostly spirit generated by CGI, but isn't looking quite at the right angle, do you reshoot the scene, or do you just tweak some parameters in the CGI so that the spirit's face is actually where the actor's looking.
One requires getting an enormous number of people to duplicate effort within a fixed time budget and live, the other requires very few people to do only a small amount of effort, off-line.
"It's close enough, we can fix that in post-production" - people say it, because it's true, and it's because post-production is relatively cheap.
You're right about frame rates. That's one part of the technology that I do not understand the reluctance to improve. I'm one of the apparent few who liked Jackson's 48 frames a second, for instance, and finds other 3D almost painful.
However, What you're calling "sharp", I'm calling "jaggies". And jaggies are the most evil thing in field of computer graphics. http://gon.cdn.on.net/uploads/2013/02/crysis3review-3-lg.jpg Ugh - my eyes are bleeding! It's particularly obvious where jaggies are side by side with smoothly interpolated textures.
Well, UK politicians are all retards who can't wipe their arse without being told to by America, so I see no reason why those in metagovernmental roles should be any less spineless.
Slashdot Mirror
There goes my morning...
Would you claim that Chomsky was ignorant? In a debating chamber facing him?
And the reason you're still using the antiquated plurality voting system is because the (corporations and billionaires behind the) parties that have bubbled to the top are fully aware Duvergers has kicked in, and that it is in their own best interstests to preserve it, and stifle debate about changing.
Not all encryption is broken. As Bruce Schneier says - trust the math(s). If you can't examine the mathematical analysis that an algorithm has undergone, and you can't examine the source code, then sure, don't trust it, but if both are satisfied, there's no reason not to. Of course, any time you're generating keys you need to be sure that your RNG is well seeded, so you need to have the source to your OS too. And you need to be doing this not on a virtual server. But all these things are easy to satisfy.
This is not vibration, I presume, it actually causes *drag* on your finger. Something to do with coulomb's something, IIRC - saw a demo from a local company a while back, it's not unique to Disney certainly.
OK, it it's generating energy, then that would be electromagnatic radiation, a la x-rays and gamma rays.
And as it's starting with no electrons ("fuse protons and boron-11 nuclei"), the "helium particles" will surely be alpha-radiation.
So is there anything that this reaction emits that *isn't* radiation?
Apart from publish-or-perish papers promising potential future miracles that will be used to extract more funding from the national science budget, that is?
You appear to be quite the adherent of that Less Wrong site. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but while Eliezer Yudkowsky may have been a bright youngster, he might also now be a crank.
http://kruel.co/2012/05/13/eliezer-yudkowsky-quotes/
(And looking at a few more of his pages, he is mathematically naive, as I first suspected.)
But were the permies out in the carpark dancing when they heard that Carly *cough*Stupid Fucking Useless Cunt*cough* Fiorina had resigned?
I know that in a German office and an Irish office they were. I heard this from two of the people who were dancing, both are reliable witnesses. Beer was drunk that evening.
Some high pressure ones are way worse. I was at the cinema a few weeks ago, and when I shoved my wet hands into the blade drier I immediately noticed some drops appearing on the mirror in front of my face, only a fraction of a second later did I notice drops of water actually appearing on my face.
I'm a paper towel man. Every advance in technology since then has made things worse.
Same with game consoles, all I see nowadays is the same unrealistically-behaving shit rendered at higher resolutions and higher frame rates. Eye candy, sure, until it moves, and then it becomes clear there are no laws of physics on planet gameconsole.
Yay, back on topic!
Nah git orf moi lawn!
OK, I'm mostly in the Copenhagen-is-least-wrong camp.
Therefore I shamelessly see amplitudes as things from which probabilities can be calculated. I notice that you haven't addressed that article's use of statements of probability, despite me drawing specific attention to it. And therefore their support of the existence of actual uncertainty that must logically follow from that. Actual uncertainty being the thing you claimed doesn't exist, and which part of the time they claim doesn't exist either, despite implying it unambiguously elsewhere.
The fact that amplitudes can cancel out, but probabilities cannot, in no way contradicts a direct relation between amplitudes and probabilities. I'll often work in a larger field in order to deduce a result in a subfield (quickest example - anything involving a real FFT), there's no mystery surrounding that. Their but-probabilities-can't-cancel-ahah! outburst seems very much like a straw man, and makes them look rather mathematically naive.
I should also point out that there's an *absolutely enormous* unstated assumption in that write-up which has no particular reason to be true at all, and if one takes an equally, if not more, believable assumption, then the conclusion they come to in the 2-half-silvered-mirror evaporates immediately, and starts to agree with other naiver models.
They've hand-waved it away with a "roughly", but that really doesn't buy it in something that's supposed to be explicatory.
Yeah, yeah, I've done the maths already. Maths is a model for reality, nothing more.
'the little two-dimensional arrow for the configuration "Detector 1 gets a photon" has the same squared length as for "Detector 2 gets a photon"'
And the *physical* meaning of that is?
If you do not see "we should find that Detector 1 goes off half the time, and Detector 2 half the time" as a statement of probability, then we're speaking different languages.
"There's no actual uncertainty"
What to you is the physical meaning of the "amplitudes"?
Calling a card that stores videos a "storage card" at least makes sense to both someone who doesn't know any better, and to someone who does know better.
Rolling your own nomenclature based on just one possible payload for the storage device shows a healthy dose of ignorance and at least a little bit of illogic. He must have been familiar with the cards, or he'd not have known it was removable storage, in which case he's almost certainly encountered them containing sound files or still images too.
However, it's a minor slip, we (techies) shouldn't expect non-techies to get terminology correct all the time. Many of the naming schemes we come up with ourselves are highly illogical or just plain stupid.
That aside, it certainly should have been corrected by the so-called editors here, this is supposed to be a site for the technically savvy.
There are many sources for both quotes. Pre-communist texts contain your "communist" quote, for example (each part individually goes back millennia). The lines when used by Marx later were not contrasting Socialism with Communism. Marx's use of your "communist" quote was even refered to as "scientific socialism".
Citation needed for those quotes.
The fact that workers owning the means of production wasn't mentioned implies to me they're probably pulled out of your arse.
> Alas, the contributions of super-capitalists like Gates, Buffett, and Zuckerberg to try to benefit society get overlooked.
Yes it's a shame that Bill Gates investing in Monsanto isn't more well known.
> http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/elliptic-curve-cryptography
"""
They do this by splitting the shared secret key used in traditional cryptography into two parts: a public key for identifying oneself and a secret key for proving an identity electronically.
"""
That's bordering on the "not even wrong" level of fucked-upness. Alas it falls on the side of being woefully incorrect. Possibly dangerounsly misleading too.
Discrete logarithms are spelt "division" in elliptic curves. They're just as mathematically pure and well studied as finite fields and prime product rings.
The funny thing is that for some kernels, it's perfectly true. I know the kernel I run on this workstation here gives about 99.5% of the cycles to the userspace programs that I launch. Yet playing very briefly with a windows 8 system a few months back (it survived about 20 minutes between arrival at the office and having linux put on it), the kernel and hundreds of intimately-bound-I-don't-know-what-the-fuck-they-do-or-why-I-would-ever-want-them daemons were taking up between 5% and 10% of the CPU constantly. The former I would happily accept a 50% increase in overhead to, I'm perfectly happy only having 99.25% to myself. But the latter would have ground to a halt if there were any more impediments to interprocess communication.
Or they could instagram a hilarious photo of a guy with blood running out of his eyes, and tweet "#YOLO - only briefly in this case" for the lulz.
And if an actor is talking to a ghostly spirit generated by CGI, but isn't looking quite at the right angle, do you reshoot the scene, or do you just tweak some parameters in the CGI so that the spirit's face is actually where the actor's looking.
One requires getting an enormous number of people to duplicate effort within a fixed time budget and live, the other requires very few people to do only a small amount of effort, off-line.
"It's close enough, we can fix that in post-production" - people say it, because it's true, and it's because post-production is relatively cheap.
You're right about frame rates. That's one part of the technology that I do not understand the reluctance to improve. I'm one of the apparent few who liked Jackson's 48 frames a second, for instance, and finds other 3D almost painful.
However, What you're calling "sharp", I'm calling "jaggies". And jaggies are the most evil thing in field of computer graphics.
http://gon.cdn.on.net/uploads/2013/02/crysis3review-3-lg.jpg
Ugh - my eyes are bleeding! It's particularly obvious where jaggies are side by side with smoothly interpolated textures.
Well, UK politicians are all retards who can't wipe their arse without being told to by America, so I see no reason why those in metagovernmental roles should be any less spineless.
Nokia N900 with more grunt? That would be the Neo900. The only thing that's lacking is its state of existence.
Yes, I mostly hate it, but I'll still be a lifelong n900 fanboi, as I hate everything else more.