Honestly, what the app *does* is report your position to your friends.
People are morons, but usually they don't intentionally install software that states its purpose without figuring out, at least accidentally, what its purpose is.
Aren't the Knowledge Base articles usually specific to a particular OS anyway? I suppose an end user can stumble across a KB article that describes a similar problem, but on a different operating system version, download the file, and find out that it's the wrong one.
Certainly you wouldn't want to prevent someone from downloading a patch because they're not currently using the OS the patch applies to. It's a little silly to present you with a "Pick the OS" selector when there would only be a single choice.
Frankly, the article is interesting enough without mangling it in the summary.
This is the first ionic crystal to consist of only one element. As a compound, by definition, contains two elements, it's not a compound. A boron ionic crystal is substantially different from, say, the multiple allotropes of carbon, though.
However, this is a solely theoretical crystal -- it hasn't been synthesized.
No, all the single line says is "Big Brother is watching you". Not, "Big Brother is watching everyone at every time".
Had you read 1984, you'd know that the telescreens could not, in fact, track everyone at all times. Telescreens were present only in public spaces and the homes of Party members. The Proles, which made up the majority of the population, generally did not have telescreens and were not monitored in their private spaces. In fact, this was taken advantage of in the novel.
Except on Slashdot, where 1984 has to be referenced regardless of whether or not it's applicable. (For the record, I don't recall it being the case in 1984 that the whereabouts of citizens were tracked at all times.)
I'm not entirely sure what the concern is here? Is grandparent poster thinking that the government will be circumventing the requirement that people enable the "Track Me" service? That Google will allow them access to or retain the data contrary to their policies? (That at least seems more likely.)
You are aware this is already quite possible on the individual level, yes? The technology is not such that it's convenient to track the movements of everyone, unless with this new service, Google gave them that information.
Like the Drake Equation, yes. Both the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox are not serious scientific hypotheses, but just "something to consider when guessing if there's intelligent life or not". (Note that neither item is the subject of a scientific publication, as far as I know.)
Like most scientific paradoxes, the Fermi Paradox really isn't a paradox. That's par for the course, though.
Note the following: 1) Author is an MBA. The "Bouchet-Franklin Institute" is his private lab. 2) The place of publication, arXiv, while very useful in certain fields of physics, is not peer-reviewed. It's basically the same as posting this paper on your blog. 3) The arXivblog, not run by any people actually associated with arXiv (as far as I can tell) regularly posts completely inaccurate summaries. 4) The published paper is laughably simplistic. As others have pointed out, these are obvious considerations, and the paper is mostly argument and simple geometry. While it's nice to see some back-of-the-envelope calculations on a minimum civilization density for a given detection cutoff, that's exactly what this is -- back-of-the-envelope calculations.
Yes, but they're not interested in particularly low temperatures, nor are they interested in the problem of transmitting heat away from the chip's surface, but rather transmitting heat within the chip itself (or to the surface). You can't really do that with most other refrigeration systems, as they cannot be put inside the chip.
In accordance with thermodynamics, there is no such thing as a cooler -- there are only heat transmitters. Any refrigerating device is a fancy way of moving heat from one place to another, generating a little extra heat in the process.
The purpose is to move the heat within the chip. You're thinking of thermal transfer from the surface of the chip to the environment. What Intel is concerned about is thermal transfer from the component inside the chip that is generating heat to the outside surface.
Currently, chips are limited (in part) by heat production within the chip -- the heat gets to the chip surface by simple conduction. It's the components inside, generating the heat, that are going to fail at high temperatures, though.
Fortunately removal of heat at the chip's surface is not a big issue. As you note, a thermoelectric cooler could push the heat to a set of hot fins and a fan. Water coolers have plenty of capacity as well.
They guy is a painter that lives in a world where paint has been banned.
Since when has paint been banned? It's illegal to hack others' systems, yes. Likewise, it's illegal to break into other people's houses, etc.
It's not illegal to break into your own systems, uncover vulnerabilities, etc. While I suspect at least someone will claim you can be sued or go to jail for finding software vulnerabilities, people do it all the time. They're computer security researchers. (Some of them even have their own botnets, but not using others' machines -- that is beyond the hobbyist level of investment.)
There are plenty of productive ways for him to have challenges, even within the same field, without resorting to illegal and unethical acts.
I suppose browser history would work, too. The attack described here actually uses a login test. The attacker's website includes a piece of JavaScript that routinely tries to access a page (or other Web-accessible item) that requires you to be logged in to the particular banking site to access. (Say, for example https://my.bank.com/account_summary.html.) It tests for failure/success and, if successful, pops up a dialog.
Beyond the fact that user should be able to tell, visually, what page the dialog is associated with, random-attacker's page shouldn't be able to access content on your bank as if you were logged in. It should have no way of knowing what the rest of your browser is doing. Noticing the bank in your history would be one way of seeing that you are or recently were logged in. In this case, the login test described works because session cookies, used to track a login session, are global in the browser. While the attacker can't easily access the cookie itself, it can (as described) test to see if it exists and is valid. With an ideal design, random-attacker's page would not only not have access to the cookie, but not have access to the *side effects* of having the cookie.
It's only odd because superposed states don't naturally make sense to people -- understandable, as no macroscopic objects undergo superposition. Entangled particles are not really any different than any other superposition -- it's just that they seem so different because in our real-world experiences, that sort of behavior would require communication.
I suppose depending on what part you view as the "teleportation", it is either instantaneous or limited to communication speed, yes. Typically, people have referred to the state swap between entangled particles as the real "teleportation", which is an instantaneous process. To perform the whole teleportation procedure, one side has to communicate data to the other during the procedure, yes.
I think you've skipped what the key part of your communication system is.
The problem is that you can obtain zero information about the particle without measuring it. You can measure it exactly once. When you measure it, you have a 50% chance each of seeing + or -. It's impossible to measure "has the state collapsed". It's just that with entangled particles, whatever Abe measures must happen to be the opposite of what Bob measures. The only way to use this property to convey information is if Abe tells Bob, "hey, I've measured my particle now, and the result was X". (However, that costs one bit of communication, and the particle can only convey one bit of data.)
Incorrect. You can never measure a particle as being in an entangled state or a superposition of states. When Abe measures the state of his particle, it's either 0 or 1, regardless of whether Bob has already measured his particle. He cannot make any observations of its state without measuring it.
This is one of the first things asked and answered about entangled states. Despite involving a seemingly-nonlocal connection between two particles, it's impossible to use entanglement to violate locality (move information faster than light).
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, what the app *does* is report your position to your friends.
People are morons, but usually they don't intentionally install software that states its purpose without figuring out, at least accidentally, what its purpose is.
Actually, it shows that the cell phone companies can track individuals, and that the government is able to order them to do so on an individual basis.
8.04 is LTS, wheras 8.10 is not.
What you really have to watch out for is those -4 ms screens.
Aren't the Knowledge Base articles usually specific to a particular OS anyway? I suppose an end user can stumble across a KB article that describes a similar problem, but on a different operating system version, download the file, and find out that it's the wrong one.
Certainly you wouldn't want to prevent someone from downloading a patch because they're not currently using the OS the patch applies to. It's a little silly to present you with a "Pick the OS" selector when there would only be a single choice.
The Prole he's been renting a room from is actually a Thought Police spy?
Yes, that has everything to do with universal monitoring.
Frankly, the article is interesting enough without mangling it in the summary.
This is the first ionic crystal to consist of only one element. As a compound, by definition, contains two elements, it's not a compound. A boron ionic crystal is substantially different from, say, the multiple allotropes of carbon, though.
However, this is a solely theoretical crystal -- it hasn't been synthesized.
No, all the single line says is "Big Brother is watching you". Not, "Big Brother is watching everyone at every time".
Had you read 1984, you'd know that the telescreens could not, in fact, track everyone at all times. Telescreens were present only in public spaces and the homes of Party members. The Proles, which made up the majority of the population, generally did not have telescreens and were not monitored in their private spaces. In fact, this was taken advantage of in the novel.
I didn't say it wasn't true. Whether or not the final conclusion is correct or not is independent of the quality of statistics from a comedy duo.
See, I would recommend actually reading 1984, rather than quoting a single line from it and saying, "Seems to me...".
Penn and Teller: a reliable source of statistical information!
Except on Slashdot, where 1984 has to be referenced regardless of whether or not it's applicable. (For the record, I don't recall it being the case in 1984 that the whereabouts of citizens were tracked at all times.)
I'm not entirely sure what the concern is here? Is grandparent poster thinking that the government will be circumventing the requirement that people enable the "Track Me" service? That Google will allow them access to or retain the data contrary to their policies? (That at least seems more likely.)
You are aware this is already quite possible on the individual level, yes? The technology is not such that it's convenient to track the movements of everyone, unless with this new service, Google gave them that information.
Like the Drake Equation, yes. Both the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox are not serious scientific hypotheses, but just "something to consider when guessing if there's intelligent life or not". (Note that neither item is the subject of a scientific publication, as far as I know.)
Like most scientific paradoxes, the Fermi Paradox really isn't a paradox. That's par for the course, though.
Note the following:
1) Author is an MBA. The "Bouchet-Franklin Institute" is his private lab.
2) The place of publication, arXiv, while very useful in certain fields of physics, is not peer-reviewed. It's basically the same as posting this paper on your blog.
3) The arXivblog, not run by any people actually associated with arXiv (as far as I can tell) regularly posts completely inaccurate summaries.
4) The published paper is laughably simplistic. As others have pointed out, these are obvious considerations, and the paper is mostly argument and simple geometry. While it's nice to see some back-of-the-envelope calculations on a minimum civilization density for a given detection cutoff, that's exactly what this is -- back-of-the-envelope calculations.
Yes, but they're not interested in particularly low temperatures, nor are they interested in the problem of transmitting heat away from the chip's surface, but rather transmitting heat within the chip itself (or to the surface). You can't really do that with most other refrigeration systems, as they cannot be put inside the chip.
In accordance with thermodynamics, there is no such thing as a cooler -- there are only heat transmitters. Any refrigerating device is a fancy way of moving heat from one place to another, generating a little extra heat in the process.
The purpose is to move the heat within the chip. You're thinking of thermal transfer from the surface of the chip to the environment. What Intel is concerned about is thermal transfer from the component inside the chip that is generating heat to the outside surface.
Currently, chips are limited (in part) by heat production within the chip -- the heat gets to the chip surface by simple conduction. It's the components inside, generating the heat, that are going to fail at high temperatures, though.
Fortunately removal of heat at the chip's surface is not a big issue. As you note, a thermoelectric cooler could push the heat to a set of hot fins and a fan. Water coolers have plenty of capacity as well.
They guy is a painter that lives in a world where paint has been banned.
Since when has paint been banned? It's illegal to hack others' systems, yes. Likewise, it's illegal to break into other people's houses, etc.
It's not illegal to break into your own systems, uncover vulnerabilities, etc. While I suspect at least someone will claim you can be sued or go to jail for finding software vulnerabilities, people do it all the time. They're computer security researchers. (Some of them even have their own botnets, but not using others' machines -- that is beyond the hobbyist level of investment.)
There are plenty of productive ways for him to have challenges, even within the same field, without resorting to illegal and unethical acts.
I suppose browser history would work, too. The attack described here actually uses a login test. The attacker's website includes a piece of JavaScript that routinely tries to access a page (or other Web-accessible item) that requires you to be logged in to the particular banking site to access. (Say, for example https://my.bank.com/account_summary.html.) It tests for failure/success and, if successful, pops up a dialog.
Beyond the fact that user should be able to tell, visually, what page the dialog is associated with, random-attacker's page shouldn't be able to access content on your bank as if you were logged in. It should have no way of knowing what the rest of your browser is doing. Noticing the bank in your history would be one way of seeing that you are or recently were logged in. In this case, the login test described works because session cookies, used to track a login session, are global in the browser. While the attacker can't easily access the cookie itself, it can (as described) test to see if it exists and is valid. With an ideal design, random-attacker's page would not only not have access to the cookie, but not have access to the *side effects* of having the cookie.
It's only odd because superposed states don't naturally make sense to people -- understandable, as no macroscopic objects undergo superposition. Entangled particles are not really any different than any other superposition -- it's just that they seem so different because in our real-world experiences, that sort of behavior would require communication.
Liking something isn't actually a choice, it's an opinion. Whether or not you use something is a choice.
I suppose depending on what part you view as the "teleportation", it is either instantaneous or limited to communication speed, yes. Typically, people have referred to the state swap between entangled particles as the real "teleportation", which is an instantaneous process. To perform the whole teleportation procedure, one side has to communicate data to the other during the procedure, yes.
I think you've skipped what the key part of your communication system is.
The problem is that you can obtain zero information about the particle without measuring it. You can measure it exactly once. When you measure it, you have a 50% chance each of seeing + or -. It's impossible to measure "has the state collapsed". It's just that with entangled particles, whatever Abe measures must happen to be the opposite of what Bob measures. The only way to use this property to convey information is if Abe tells Bob, "hey, I've measured my particle now, and the result was X". (However, that costs one bit of communication, and the particle can only convey one bit of data.)
Incorrect. You can never measure a particle as being in an entangled state or a superposition of states. When Abe measures the state of his particle, it's either 0 or 1, regardless of whether Bob has already measured his particle. He cannot make any observations of its state without measuring it.
This is one of the first things asked and answered about entangled states. Despite involving a seemingly-nonlocal connection between two particles, it's impossible to use entanglement to violate locality (move information faster than light).
Hmm. I think your interpretation of what a Hilbert space is differs quite significantly from what I've learned.