Actually, the only point to a signature is to offer a degree of nonrepudiation. It doesn't matter what it is, really, or how it came to be as long as it provides some assurance of an agreement. (In this case, the assurance that the President did intend to approve the law.) If it's reasonably difficult to forge, that's great, that makes it a better signature. But most real signatures are easy to forge as an autopen signature. Lots of signatures these days are digital -- and not the cryptographic kind, but the "you signed on a digital input device" kind. Back in the day, lots of signatures were just an "X". As long as it can successfully be used to argue that the person showed intent, it's a reasonable signature.
Well, it wasn't a jump. They've built quantum computers of different types in progressively larger sizes. Just, none of the intervening numbers rated as terribly interesting, apparently. (The four-qbit case was interesting because it was the first quantum device that could in any sense be considered a "computer".)
Adiabatic quantum computing is somewhat different from "regular" quantum computing. Also, places like Slashdot don't get every minor update to the state of the art. Might have something to do with all the people who say, "wake me up when there's a commercially-available version of this." Well, here's your commercially-available version of this.
Well, you see, when it comes to patents, people are offended that adding but it's online or but with a computer or but in the cloud makes something qualify as a new idea.
When it comes to things that could involve gathering data, adding but now Google is doing it makes it new and outrageous.
The uncertainty principle places no limits on how precisely you can measure a single quantity. It only places a limit on how precisely you can measure a pair of quantities (with some additional restrictions).
No, they don't mean the wavefunction for an electron. What they undoubtedly mean is its "shape" as measured by scattering (e.g., colliding electrons with one another).
It doesn't. Unfortunately, once you add lots of zeros (or, with the converse, a lot of 9's), people lose any sense of how big the number is. Granted, people also don't have a sense of what 10^29 is like, but if they're going to be lost either way, might as well use a standard that's helpful for people good with numbers.
Look at any Slashdot post, for example, where people talk about low probabilities. It'll be 0.00...01%, even if the actual number they use is dramatically, horribly wrong. (Something that's happened once in a hundred years, that's a 0.00000001% probability, right?)
Oh my yes, there's a huge range of how directly something is measured. Dark matter and energy are highly indirect, although with this result, there's more strength behind dark energy.
But then, physicists don't going around thinking that they've proven that there's this "stuff" out there called "dark matter". Only Slashdotters think that. They're not "things", they're words to refer to the gap between two observations. Those gaps happen to both be mass-like if we make the world fit a model that seems quite reasonable and has otherwise held up, so the gaps get the admittedly-confusing names "dark matter" and "dark energy".
Dark energy and dark matter have not yet been observed or measured in any way.
Measuring the expansion of the universe is measuring dark energy. Perhaps you meant that they haven't been directly measured (that is what the "dark" implies, after all), although there are problems with that adjective: most things in physics these day are only ever indirectly measured.
They also don't know it's *your* IP address. For God's sake, all they're doing is acquiring a list of IP addresses that have Windows 7 installed. That's not particularly revealing information.
Your argument is incorrect. In total, the people in the bottom two quintiles may have negative tax, but that doesn't mean that each individual person in the bottom two quintiles also pays negative tax. There's substantial variation within the population.
Both my wife and I (when we were single) made roughly that amount, and we both definitely paid federal income tax -- somewhere around 10%.
For the power company, it's a concern, but not an unknown problem. There are already tons of reactive loads on the electrical system.
Now, when you're managing your own power supplies, like having UPSes, lower power factor is going to wreak havoc on them unless you have ones that can do power factor correction.
This of course only works at all for items from Netflix that are so popular that multiple people on the same segment of an ISP's network (which is generally about the size of a small city or so) are watching the item at more or less the same time -- plus or minus the size of the window where data has already been downloaded and is being retained for sharing.
Now, a service where you have temporary access to movies, but the whole thing is downloaded to your machine would benefit substantially from BitTorrent, although it would piss of the ISPs (just as Netflix probably does now), since you have a very large time window compared to a streaming service. That's harder to get approval for, though, and has a smaller audience given current technology. It also doesn't really help with your ISP throttling Netflix, really -- any of that is fairly easy to detect and throttle if you're legally permitted to and motivated to.
There are probably more people whose ISPs throttle or otherwise disrupt BitTorrent traffic than there are people whose ISPs throttle Netflix traffic.
Add to that: It would result in more total data going across the ISP's network. It would make it more complicated to alter the stream quality based on your network performance. BitTorrent isn't really very-well suited to streaming, particularly when people are accessing the movies at different times. Since people are accessing movies at different times, it would more or less require that large parts of the movie be stored, at least for a while, on the end user's computer. That means their Web client, game console client, and other embedded-device clients (smartphone, TV) wouldn't participate in the BitTorrent streaming. It also means that they'd need stronger DRM and probably still would run afoul with the movie industry. The only real benefit, besides potentially saving Netflix some bandwidth, is that it would be slightly harder to attribute the traffic to "Netflix streaming movie" and would instead attribute it as "BitTorrent". (Bothering to do DPI would make it relatively easy to determine that the traffic was, in fact, Netflix.)
Not at all. You only have to produce real power; reactive power is transient and returned to the system. Reactive power causes higher currents (and thus higher losses) on the wire, so it can result in some lost power. Power companies use capacitor and inductor banks to alter the system so that it's close to all real power with no reactive power so that they *don't* have to produce the transient power.
NAT is also a finite resource, unless you use NAT within an already-private network to create two-tier NAT. If every public IP address had a NAT network behind it, there'd only be (less than) 2^56 addresses, which is less than the number of IPv6 addresses. Practically, though, you want every connection out of a NAT gateway to have a different port number, so in practice you want much less than 2^16 machines behind a single public IP. (So, less than 2^48 machines.) In practice, the number of machines with arbitrarily deep NAT is still finite, because we have a finite quantity of stuff to make computer memory out of, and running NAT takes computer memory.
Fortunately, the number of addressable entities is also finite, if you require they be real objects.
Not only that, a number of places print their own local paper currency. Stores are free to accept it, but of course you can't pay debts or taxes in it.
Only if the entire headline is simply a noun phrase: an atomic clock (on a chip) that is government-funded.
If, on the other hand, the headline is saying that the government funded the development of an atomic clock (on a chip), then the lack of hyphen is acceptable.
Both are acceptable, since in order to produce a government-funded clock, at some point, the government must have funded the clock.
Slashdot Mirror
In much the same way that putting a one-pound weight in your car reduces its fuel economy.
Actually, the only point to a signature is to offer a degree of nonrepudiation. It doesn't matter what it is, really, or how it came to be as long as it provides some assurance of an agreement. (In this case, the assurance that the President did intend to approve the law.) If it's reasonably difficult to forge, that's great, that makes it a better signature. But most real signatures are easy to forge as an autopen signature. Lots of signatures these days are digital -- and not the cryptographic kind, but the "you signed on a digital input device" kind. Back in the day, lots of signatures were just an "X". As long as it can successfully be used to argue that the person showed intent, it's a reasonable signature.
This is America. I can call him what I damn well please.
You think being tacky is a deterrent to Americans? You ever been to a theme park?
Well, it wasn't a jump. They've built quantum computers of different types in progressively larger sizes. Just, none of the intervening numbers rated as terribly interesting, apparently. (The four-qbit case was interesting because it was the first quantum device that could in any sense be considered a "computer".)
Adiabatic quantum computing is somewhat different from "regular" quantum computing. Also, places like Slashdot don't get every minor update to the state of the art. Might have something to do with all the people who say, "wake me up when there's a commercially-available version of this." Well, here's your commercially-available version of this.
Well, you see, when it comes to patents, people are offended that adding but it's online or but with a computer or but in the cloud makes something qualify as a new idea.
When it comes to things that could involve gathering data, adding but now Google is doing it makes it new and outrageous.
The uncertainty principle places no limits on how precisely you can measure a single quantity. It only places a limit on how precisely you can measure a pair of quantities (with some additional restrictions).
No, they don't mean the wavefunction for an electron. What they undoubtedly mean is its "shape" as measured by scattering (e.g., colliding electrons with one another).
There should be more antimatter. There's not, as far as we can see. We don't know what happened to it. Hence, mysterious.
"Fate" is a bit unfair, though, since it properly refers to the future.
It doesn't. Unfortunately, once you add lots of zeros (or, with the converse, a lot of 9's), people lose any sense of how big the number is. Granted, people also don't have a sense of what 10^29 is like, but if they're going to be lost either way, might as well use a standard that's helpful for people good with numbers.
Look at any Slashdot post, for example, where people talk about low probabilities. It'll be 0.00...01%, even if the actual number they use is dramatically, horribly wrong. (Something that's happened once in a hundred years, that's a 0.00000001% probability, right?)
Oh my yes, there's a huge range of how directly something is measured. Dark matter and energy are highly indirect, although with this result, there's more strength behind dark energy.
But then, physicists don't going around thinking that they've proven that there's this "stuff" out there called "dark matter". Only Slashdotters think that. They're not "things", they're words to refer to the gap between two observations. Those gaps happen to both be mass-like if we make the world fit a model that seems quite reasonable and has otherwise held up, so the gaps get the admittedly-confusing names "dark matter" and "dark energy".
Dark energy and dark matter have not yet been observed or measured in any way.
Measuring the expansion of the universe is measuring dark energy. Perhaps you meant that they haven't been directly measured (that is what the "dark" implies, after all), although there are problems with that adjective: most things in physics these day are only ever indirectly measured.
They also don't know it's *your* IP address. For God's sake, all they're doing is acquiring a list of IP addresses that have Windows 7 installed. That's not particularly revealing information.
Your argument is incorrect. In total, the people in the bottom two quintiles may have negative tax, but that doesn't mean that each individual person in the bottom two quintiles also pays negative tax. There's substantial variation within the population.
Both my wife and I (when we were single) made roughly that amount, and we both definitely paid federal income tax -- somewhere around 10%.
Not really; you just put a bridge rectifier in the LED lamp.
For the power company, it's a concern, but not an unknown problem. There are already tons of reactive loads on the electrical system.
Now, when you're managing your own power supplies, like having UPSes, lower power factor is going to wreak havoc on them unless you have ones that can do power factor correction.
This of course only works at all for items from Netflix that are so popular that multiple people on the same segment of an ISP's network (which is generally about the size of a small city or so) are watching the item at more or less the same time -- plus or minus the size of the window where data has already been downloaded and is being retained for sharing.
Now, a service where you have temporary access to movies, but the whole thing is downloaded to your machine would benefit substantially from BitTorrent, although it would piss of the ISPs (just as Netflix probably does now), since you have a very large time window compared to a streaming service. That's harder to get approval for, though, and has a smaller audience given current technology. It also doesn't really help with your ISP throttling Netflix, really -- any of that is fairly easy to detect and throttle if you're legally permitted to and motivated to.
There are probably more people whose ISPs throttle or otherwise disrupt BitTorrent traffic than there are people whose ISPs throttle Netflix traffic.
Add to that: It would result in more total data going across the ISP's network. It would make it more complicated to alter the stream quality based on your network performance. BitTorrent isn't really very-well suited to streaming, particularly when people are accessing the movies at different times. Since people are accessing movies at different times, it would more or less require that large parts of the movie be stored, at least for a while, on the end user's computer. That means their Web client, game console client, and other embedded-device clients (smartphone, TV) wouldn't participate in the BitTorrent streaming. It also means that they'd need stronger DRM and probably still would run afoul with the movie industry. The only real benefit, besides potentially saving Netflix some bandwidth, is that it would be slightly harder to attribute the traffic to "Netflix streaming movie" and would instead attribute it as "BitTorrent". (Bothering to do DPI would make it relatively easy to determine that the traffic was, in fact, Netflix.)
Not at all. You only have to produce real power; reactive power is transient and returned to the system. Reactive power causes higher currents (and thus higher losses) on the wire, so it can result in some lost power. Power companies use capacitor and inductor banks to alter the system so that it's close to all real power with no reactive power so that they *don't* have to produce the transient power.
NAT is also a finite resource, unless you use NAT within an already-private network to create two-tier NAT. If every public IP address had a NAT network behind it, there'd only be (less than) 2^56 addresses, which is less than the number of IPv6 addresses. Practically, though, you want every connection out of a NAT gateway to have a different port number, so in practice you want much less than 2^16 machines behind a single public IP. (So, less than 2^48 machines.) In practice, the number of machines with arbitrarily deep NAT is still finite, because we have a finite quantity of stuff to make computer memory out of, and running NAT takes computer memory.
Fortunately, the number of addressable entities is also finite, if you require they be real objects.
I'm not sure you understand what power factor is.
Not only that, a number of places print their own local paper currency. Stores are free to accept it, but of course you can't pay debts or taxes in it.
A TrueCrypt volume is secure and reasonably portable.
Only if the entire headline is simply a noun phrase: an atomic clock (on a chip) that is government-funded.
If, on the other hand, the headline is saying that the government funded the development of an atomic clock (on a chip), then the lack of hyphen is acceptable.
Both are acceptable, since in order to produce a government-funded clock, at some point, the government must have funded the clock.
You can't, but there are perfectly normal and flexible tools for doing that, too.
MD5 and SHA1 are solely for detecting corrupted data (and also serve well as an index). You don't need to have a single tool do everything.