Absolutely. Nothing you can do with the internet will break what you can do with sneakernet.
I guess it might stop the stupid from getting access to porn, that's not necessarily a bad thing. It might encourage those with the smarts to get around the blocks to entrepreneurially start exploiting the stupid who can't get pron on their own. That's a good thing, isn't it - encouraging small businesses?
The difference from the water network (lack of copy) is an interesting point. There's no fan-out - no two people can have the same bit at the same time. And if you get fan-out via mixing, you get dilution. I certainly don't want C20 solutions of homeopathic internet.
Given that they've thrown away over 100 of the proposed new testament gospels in the last 1800 years, they've shown they are capable of getting rid of/some/ of the crap. Only 39+27(+14) to go...
You can't copy quantum state. The only way it can carries the quantum state of something is if it also destroys that something's quantum state. (But of course you can't destroy quantum state either, you've effectively just swapping quantum state.)
So information might be passed around, but it's never actually being shared. Which isn't much of a network.
I've seen arguments on a scientific mailing list in the last few days that this paper is based on false assumptions. It has assumed (too high) values for masses based on (too low) values for velocities based on the assuption that the meteorites are aiming at earth under its gravity, rather than aiming for the sun under its gravity and accidentally hitting earth on its way towards the sun.
If you change the masses downwards to what they should be, then the chance of them getting through an atmosphere without breaking/burning up and denaturing all its alleged payload become minuscule.
Like your nail clipper story a friend of mine has a similar story about lighter fuel. He wasn't allowed through security at Helsinki airport with his zippo unless he emptied it first, which he did. On getting through security, and to a shop, he noticed that lighter fuel was on sale. So he bought it, and filled it up. But that wasn't enough. He went back to security, called out to the guy who'd checked him, and lit up a flame. Confusion, but fortunately little more, ensued, apart from the removal of lighter fuel from the shops later that day.
If I'd have been you, I'd have been very tempted to spend the $4.99, and make it obvious that I had nail clippers to the security guys.
Having said that, I didn't do that with the lethal metal cutlery I got in the fancy steak restaurant in Nice airport after I'd gone through security, but that's as I was on a tight schedule, and travelling with several of my bosses.
Why would I want to contribute to this site that clearly has next to no interest in the things I'm interested in? They don't even *acknowledge the existence of* the majority of the CPU architectures that have hit the market in the last 4 decades.
A pound is an SI unit of mass, being as it is an exact multiple of the approved SI unit of mass (the kilogram), according to, amongst others, the NIST. E.g. see http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/appenB9.html#MASSinertia
I conclude that you must be a retard and unfamiliar with SI units.
DWM's a bit more rat friendly than ratpoison. Awesome WM is a DWM-alike on steroids - I don't like it at all in comparison, but I know many who love it.
doesn't exist. A ratio has no dimensions, the above has dimension 'distance'. If you measure it with different units, its value changes. It seems that you were attempting to correct a similar misconception in the parent post, but you've fallen for the same trap as him.
Many thanks for those links. My maths is rusty at best, and my knowledge of stats was always worse than almost any other field, but even I found the Wagenmakers paper a very easy read, and therfore surely accessible to anyone pretending to be in academia.
"In unattended calibrations all of these sophisticated machines produced strictly random data, yet the experimental results display increases in information content that can only be attributed to the consciousness of their human operators."
If it's strictly random, then it's already at maximal information content, a human's influence would be to decrease the randomness and the information content.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. Nothing you can do with the internet will break what you can do with sneakernet.
I guess it might stop the stupid from getting access to porn, that's not necessarily a bad thing. It might encourage those with the smarts to get around the blocks to entrepreneurially start exploiting the stupid who can't get pron on their own. That's a good thing, isn't it - encouraging small businesses?
Thank you for fielding that one! I don't see ACs.
The difference from the water network (lack of copy) is an interesting point. There's no fan-out - no two people can have the same bit at the same time. And if you get fan-out via mixing, you get dilution. I certainly don't want C20 solutions of homeopathic internet.
"Zoom Page"seems to do all that NoSquint does and less!
Damn - I would have modded this up if it wasn't for the fact that I've already posted a highly redundant post saying a fraction of the same thing!
Given that they've thrown away over 100 of the proposed new testament gospels in the last 1800 years, they've shown they are capable of getting rid of /some/ of the crap. Only 39+27(+14) to go...
The Cunningham project was running over a decade before that.
http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/oldp/dir30/a01
You can't copy quantum state. The only way it can carries the quantum state of something is if it also destroys that something's quantum state. (But of course you can't destroy quantum state either, you've effectively just swapping quantum state.)
So information might be passed around, but it's never actually being shared.
Which isn't much of a network.
Disclaimer - I'm rusty.
I've seen arguments on a scientific mailing list in the last few days that this paper is based on false assumptions. It has assumed (too high) values for masses based on (too low) values for velocities based on the assuption that the meteorites are aiming at earth under its gravity, rather than aiming for the sun under its gravity and accidentally hitting earth on its way towards the sun.
If you change the masses downwards to what they should be, then the chance of them getting through an atmosphere without breaking/burning up and denaturing all its alleged payload become minuscule.
... affiliation restrictions in the Glass-Steagall Act were repealed through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 by President Bill Clinton ...
Bill Clinton's Republican? Sure, the 3 proponents were all R, but it was a D who enacted it.
Oh, I don't know. There are other ways to get votes than via the ballot box. Or at least via voters putting them into the ballot box.
Like your nail clipper story a friend of mine has a similar story about lighter fuel. He wasn't allowed through security at Helsinki airport with his zippo unless he emptied it first, which he did. On getting through security, and to a shop, he noticed that lighter fuel was on sale. So he bought it, and filled it up. But that wasn't enough. He went back to security, called out to the guy who'd checked him, and lit up a flame. Confusion, but fortunately little more, ensued, apart from the removal of lighter fuel from the shops later that day.
If I'd have been you, I'd have been very tempted to spend the $4.99, and make it obvious that I had nail clippers to the security guys.
Having said that, I didn't do that with the lethal metal cutlery I got in the fancy steak restaurant in Nice airport after I'd gone through security, but that's as I was on a tight schedule, and travelling with several of my bosses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Ilxsu-JlY
Also see the related gallium one. Aluminium doesn't like either of these elements (or likes them too much).
Why would I want to contribute to this site that clearly has next to no interest in the things I'm interested in? They don't even *acknowledge the existence of* the majority of the CPU architectures that have hit the market in the last 4 decades.
I wasn't very impressed with CPU-World's coverage of the POWER architecture. Or Alpha. Or HP-PA. Or Sparc. Or MIPS. Or ...
Just because someone's done a good job with the x86 architecture, doesn't mean they've done much more than scratch the surface.
Clarence Thomas.
Monsanto.
See any connection?
Your use of the definite article implies that the word milliard doesn't exist. Which is news to me.
A pound is an SI unit of mass, being as it is an exact multiple of the approved SI unit of mass (the kilogram), according to, amongst others, the NIST. E.g. see http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/appenB9.html#MASSinertia
I conclude that you must be a retard and unfamiliar with SI units.
DWM's a bit more rat friendly than ratpoison.
Awesome WM is a DWM-alike on steroids - I don't like it at all in comparison, but I know many who love it.
I know my g/f did this a year a so ago, but she's forgotten exactly how she did it - exact that it was just a command-line switch.
A quick search found a something called "unoconv" that seems to make it more user friendly.
But you said "the ratio of cross-section to length". That dimension l^2 : l, always.
"the ratio of cross-section to length "
doesn't exist. A ratio has no dimensions, the above has dimension 'distance'.
If you measure it with different units, its value changes. It seems that you were attempting to correct a similar misconception in the parent post, but you've fallen for the same trap as him.
And this, dear wider audience, is why you should always say thank you - as you get even more!
Many thanks for those links. My maths is rusty at best, and my knowledge of stats was always worse than almost any other field, but even I found the Wagenmakers paper a very easy read, and therfore surely accessible to anyone pretending to be in academia.
That has to be bogus science:
"In unattended calibrations all of these sophisticated machines produced strictly random data, yet the experimental results display increases in information content that can only be attributed to the consciousness of their human operators."
If it's strictly random, then it's already at maximal information content, a human's influence would be to decrease the randomness and the information content.
psychotics?