sure they can expand into new markets, but then why haven't they done so already? they have the cash, they aren't doing this IPO to get cash to grow.
so then tell me how they are worth anywhere near $100 billion? maybe in a few years, but wallstreet only cares about the next quarter, not a few years from now.
a $100 billion company should be making a truckload more than that.
google (current market cap $200billion) pulls in about $10billion in quarterly revenue...
judging by that facebook is at best a $20 billion company. about 1/10th the size of google.
yeah, it is a bit more complicated than that, but still facebook is worth nowhere near $100 billion. and really they don't have a whole lot of growth left, they have saturated their market pretty well.
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars —they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.
To be technical our entire knowledge of physics (and all sciences for that matter) are just assumptions, and they have changed over time as we have made better observations of the universe around us. for example we no longer believe that fire is an element, or that the earth/planets are suspended in an aether.
...since they could have gotten the same results as they would have in the case of entanglement through chance alone. Only when Victor told them which particles were entangled could they sort their data sets into entangled and non- and see that in fact the entangled set showed the expected correlation.
i believe you are missing something. if Alice and Bob's measurements correlated than it could be either 1) pure chance or 2) victor entangled them. they then need to wait for victor to find out if he did indeed entangle them...however if Alice and Bob's measurements don't correlate then they know for sure victor didn't entangle them, and they don't need to wait for victor to tell them as such. so victor can send information back in time some of the time...only when he doesn't entangle.
so alice and bob can't for sure say that 2 particles were entangled without victor telling them...but if they detect that 2 particles weren't entangled, then they know 100% for sure that victor won't entangle them before victor himself decides. that very much sounds like it could be used to push information back in time, even if it is only useful part of the time.
from reading the article, Bob and Alice can compare their results, if they correlate...then we find out either it is by pure random chance or victor, 14billionths of a second later, decided to entangle the photons....so what i gather from this, if they Alice and Bob's results don't correlate, you know for sure victor isn't entangling...
14 billionths of a second is 28 clock cycles on a 2ghz computer.
so now lets build a circuit...we have at least 28 clock cycles to make a calculation and decide whether to entangle the photons. and maybe we have even more time than that, this is just from the way they had their expirement setup.
we will put alice and bob really close together so they can compare results before the photons even get to victor. we will define the results of alice and bob's measurements correlating as "maybe" (meaning we would need to wait for victor's answer before knowing for sure it is "true") and the results not correlating as a definite "false"...
so if we get a "false" reading, we know for sure that the photons will not be entangled. in the next 28 clock cycles. so then can't we then continue on with our circuit from bob and alice's spot without actually having completed the calculation at victor? on the other hand if the values do correlate we would have to wait for victor before we know the value for sure and are able to proceed with our circuit. but doesn't that mean some of the time we can still get the result of the circuit before it finished calculating?
i thought the main reason you invite them into your office to tell them they are fired because you already stripped all their network/computer access, so they would be unable to read the email...and so they can't do anything malicious on the network after finding out they were fired.
But i am pretty sure that is what the law says...the law was written because for example it wasn't easy to tell how many people had downloaded the MP3 you were sharing. So that is why we get the RIAA suing for outrages sums of money in the thousands of dollars per song, and the DMCA allows this, but it is still considered only 1 infringement per song.
the $200 here is the MINIMUM fine per infringement, so indeed the fine could be larger than $200, and maybe it should. However UMaple only made 1 infringement not 17k, and the judges award is based on 17k infringements at the minimum $200 fine. The Judge thinks his own judgement was too high, but that is because he calculated it incorrectly, there was not 17k infringements.
that is still arguably only 2 infringements, one for the server, and one for the modified client...so we are up to $400, and probably a cease and desist order.
it doesn't really matter how many people downloaded it, they are the ones infringing, not UMaple, if they want the rest of the 3.6 million they should have to go after the people running the clients.
of course i am not a lawyer...but i think a good lawyer could get the amount reduced. They would argue that there was only 1 infringement, not 17k. they only made 1 copy on their server and so should only owe $200, they did not make a copy for each user that connected, which the fine amounts to.
I have no love of Microsoft, but the primary thing keeping me in windows, at home, are games. wine really isn't a viable solution to this. If i could natively game in Linux i would switch overnight. So for me, Linux is currently useless on the desktop. However, it is by far my favorite server OS.
and as long as you don't do anything stupid, it is easy to keep windows malware/virus free. even without regularly running resource hogging antivirus software. The problem is the average user does stupid things.
Windows isn't really what i would call a "walled garden", and they are quite successful in the home market. in fact i would say linux, as it is now, is more of a walled garden simply because there are more limited choices in applications available and less major publishers that create linux applications, both closed and open source.
These are the users you need to persuade if you ever want linux to become popular. These users are the majority, They just want their computer to work, like a toaster. They don't care about how the innards work nor do they want to learn about it....and these users will NEVER install their own operating system, they will be stuck with whatever was delivered with the computer no matter how much it frustrates them.
A computer language indeed communicates information. it very much is a language. it will likely take someone that understands that language to understand what it is saying. it just happens computers also understand this language.
you typically won't be communicating about what the weather is currently doing, but the computer language has grammar and punctuation just like any other language. the language is more designed to communicate mathematical concepts more than day to day issues such as the weather. but heck if i wanted i could model atmospheric patterns in my program and thus anyone that could understand the language, would then know what the weather is doing, just the same as if i had told them the same thing in english.
now i am not legal expert but afaik the statute of limitations usually is counted from when you stop doing the illegal activity, not from when you started it.
so if the DB is still operating, then it is not outside the statute of limitations.
i hope the canadian post loses this case as i don't think postal codes should be copyrightable, but a defense of this being outside of the statute of limitations would be laughed at by the judge and the prosecution.
That said I don't think that such an argument really applies to functional things such as a programming language.
sure it does. oracle (or rather Sun before them) put in the effort to create oracles keywords and syntax. how is that all that different than Tolkien inventing elvish words and sentence structure? If Tolkien's elvish is indeed copyrighted i see no reason Java can't be.
Oracle just better be careful what they wish for, if they win it could kill off Java.
the advertisers should be throwing a fit that the networks are trying to shut this service down. as presumably the advertisers are getting some new viewers from it that they normally wouldn't be able to reach.
why don't the advertisers ever band together and fight against the networks? they are the real ones being screwed here.
i have heard people say this...what is so great about 16:10 over 16:9? i guess i don't have a preference either way, my work monitors are 16:10...my home monitors are 16:9 i don't see much of a difference.
both work and home are way over 1366x768 that just isn't a high enough resolution.
i run 3 monitors at work, though i often have a difficult time figuring what to put on the 3rd monitor
it would be somewhat amusing if this helped the credit score for some of these people...though it would suck if it disqualifies them for medicaid
government agent: well it appears you are working 11 jobs in 3 states making a total of $123k per year. i am sorry but you don't fall under the minimum wage requirements to remain on medicaid...however we can offer you a heck of a deal on a new mortgage!
how is that any different than Red Hat's contributions to linux? aren't they also self serving? They make their money by providing support for linux, so it is in their own interest to make sure the OS remains relavent so that people want to use it.
it is mozilla's fault! Mozilla doesn't provide an API version that the add-ons can test against to see if they will work in the new browser version. previously when FF had a major/minor versioning scheme that sort of, but not entirely, took the place of the API versioning. now with the fast release schedule the add-ons have no way to tell if they are compatible with the new version or if they will fail horribly because mozilla decided to remove something.
that is all the developers want is a method to know if mozilla is making any changes that could break their add-ons. publishing an API version that the add-ons could check against would solve this.
well even in this case the blind man wasn't really driving and he was accompanied by a police officer. and i wouldn't be surprised if the car had dual controls so the officer could hit the brakes if needed.
all of the special cases you mention could be solved if a human could turn off the autopilot and take over when needed.
i would like it if the autopilot could take over on my normal commute i could have some free time to do something else, or take a nap. that doesn't mean i can't take over if something unusual is going on.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't mind having a self driving car, but i have a feeling your view of the intersections of the future wouldn't be safe for pedestrians.
sure they can expand into new markets, but then why haven't they done so already? they have the cash, they aren't doing this IPO to get cash to grow.
so then tell me how they are worth anywhere near $100 billion? maybe in a few years, but wallstreet only cares about the next quarter, not a few years from now.
a $100 billion company should be making a truckload more than that.
google (current market cap $200billion) pulls in about $10billion in quarterly revenue...
judging by that facebook is at best a $20 billion company. about 1/10th the size of google.
yeah, it is a bit more complicated than that, but still facebook is worth nowhere near $100 billion. and really they don't have a whole lot of growth left, they have saturated their market pretty well.
[citation needed]
revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars —they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.
hmm...better not post this as AC...
To be technical our entire knowledge of physics (and all sciences for that matter) are just assumptions, and they have changed over time as we have made better observations of the universe around us. for example we no longer believe that fire is an element, or that the earth/planets are suspended in an aether.
...since they could have gotten the same results as they would have in the case of entanglement through chance alone. Only when Victor told them which particles were entangled could they sort their data sets into entangled and non- and see that in fact the entangled set showed the expected correlation.
i believe you are missing something. if Alice and Bob's measurements correlated than it could be either 1) pure chance or 2) victor entangled them. they then need to wait for victor to find out if he did indeed entangle them...however if Alice and Bob's measurements don't correlate then they know for sure victor didn't entangle them, and they don't need to wait for victor to tell them as such. so victor can send information back in time some of the time...only when he doesn't entangle.
so alice and bob can't for sure say that 2 particles were entangled without victor telling them...but if they detect that 2 particles weren't entangled, then they know 100% for sure that victor won't entangle them before victor himself decides. that very much sounds like it could be used to push information back in time, even if it is only useful part of the time.
why do they care? they aren't paying the electric bill.
from reading the article, Bob and Alice can compare their results, if they correlate...then we find out either it is by pure random chance or victor, 14billionths of a second later, decided to entangle the photons....so what i gather from this, if they Alice and Bob's results don't correlate, you know for sure victor isn't entangling...
14 billionths of a second is 28 clock cycles on a 2ghz computer.
so now lets build a circuit...we have at least 28 clock cycles to make a calculation and decide whether to entangle the photons. and maybe we have even more time than that, this is just from the way they had their expirement setup.
we will put alice and bob really close together so they can compare results before the photons even get to victor. we will define the results of alice and bob's measurements correlating as "maybe" (meaning we would need to wait for victor's answer before knowing for sure it is "true") and the results not correlating as a definite "false"...
so if we get a "false" reading, we know for sure that the photons will not be entangled. in the next 28 clock cycles. so then can't we then continue on with our circuit from bob and alice's spot without actually having completed the calculation at victor? on the other hand if the values do correlate we would have to wait for victor before we know the value for sure and are able to proceed with our circuit. but doesn't that mean some of the time we can still get the result of the circuit before it finished calculating?
i thought the main reason you invite them into your office to tell them they are fired because you already stripped all their network/computer access, so they would be unable to read the email...and so they can't do anything malicious on the network after finding out they were fired.
But i am pretty sure that is what the law says...the law was written because for example it wasn't easy to tell how many people had downloaded the MP3 you were sharing. So that is why we get the RIAA suing for outrages sums of money in the thousands of dollars per song, and the DMCA allows this, but it is still considered only 1 infringement per song.
the $200 here is the MINIMUM fine per infringement, so indeed the fine could be larger than $200, and maybe it should. However UMaple only made 1 infringement not 17k, and the judges award is based on 17k infringements at the minimum $200 fine. The Judge thinks his own judgement was too high, but that is because he calculated it incorrectly, there was not 17k infringements.
that is still arguably only 2 infringements, one for the server, and one for the modified client...so we are up to $400, and probably a cease and desist order.
it doesn't really matter how many people downloaded it, they are the ones infringing, not UMaple, if they want the rest of the 3.6 million they should have to go after the people running the clients.
of course i am not a lawyer...but i think a good lawyer could get the amount reduced. They would argue that there was only 1 infringement, not 17k. they only made 1 copy on their server and so should only owe $200, they did not make a copy for each user that connected, which the fine amounts to.
I have no love of Microsoft, but the primary thing keeping me in windows, at home, are games. wine really isn't a viable solution to this. If i could natively game in Linux i would switch overnight. So for me, Linux is currently useless on the desktop. However, it is by far my favorite server OS.
and as long as you don't do anything stupid, it is easy to keep windows malware/virus free. even without regularly running resource hogging antivirus software. The problem is the average user does stupid things.
Windows isn't really what i would call a "walled garden", and they are quite successful in the home market. in fact i would say linux, as it is now, is more of a walled garden simply because there are more limited choices in applications available and less major publishers that create linux applications, both closed and open source.
These are the users you need to persuade if you ever want linux to become popular. These users are the majority, They just want their computer to work, like a toaster. They don't care about how the innards work nor do they want to learn about it. ...and these users will NEVER install their own operating system, they will be stuck with whatever was delivered with the computer no matter how much it frustrates them.
and yet the normal Windows user will still have never heard of Gnome, nor will they care when you tell them about it.
A computer language indeed communicates information. it very much is a language. it will likely take someone that understands that language to understand what it is saying. it just happens computers also understand this language.
you typically won't be communicating about what the weather is currently doing, but the computer language has grammar and punctuation just like any other language. the language is more designed to communicate mathematical concepts more than day to day issues such as the weather. but heck if i wanted i could model atmospheric patterns in my program and thus anyone that could understand the language, would then know what the weather is doing, just the same as if i had told them the same thing in english.
now i am not legal expert but afaik the statute of limitations usually is counted from when you stop doing the illegal activity, not from when you started it.
so if the DB is still operating, then it is not outside the statute of limitations.
i hope the canadian post loses this case as i don't think postal codes should be copyrightable, but a defense of this being outside of the statute of limitations would be laughed at by the judge and the prosecution.
That said I don't think that such an argument really applies to functional things such as a programming language.
sure it does. oracle (or rather Sun before them) put in the effort to create oracles keywords and syntax. how is that all that different than Tolkien inventing elvish words and sentence structure? If Tolkien's elvish is indeed copyrighted i see no reason Java can't be.
Oracle just better be careful what they wish for, if they win it could kill off Java.
the advertisers should be throwing a fit that the networks are trying to shut this service down. as presumably the advertisers are getting some new viewers from it that they normally wouldn't be able to reach.
why don't the advertisers ever band together and fight against the networks? they are the real ones being screwed here.
who wants to watch a video with the taskbar and titlebar on the screen? they distract from the video and are unneeded for nearly all of it.
i have heard people say this...what is so great about 16:10 over 16:9? i guess i don't have a preference either way, my work monitors are 16:10...my home monitors are 16:9 i don't see much of a difference.
both work and home are way over 1366x768 that just isn't a high enough resolution.
i run 3 monitors at work, though i often have a difficult time figuring what to put on the 3rd monitor
Illegal aliens for one. Allows them to get a job.
it would be somewhat amusing if this helped the credit score for some of these people...though it would suck if it disqualifies them for medicaid
government agent: well it appears you are working 11 jobs in 3 states making a total of $123k per year. i am sorry but you don't fall under the minimum wage requirements to remain on medicaid...however we can offer you a heck of a deal on a new mortgage!
how is that any different than Red Hat's contributions to linux? aren't they also self serving? They make their money by providing support for linux, so it is in their own interest to make sure the OS remains relavent so that people want to use it.
it is mozilla's fault! Mozilla doesn't provide an API version that the add-ons can test against to see if they will work in the new browser version. previously when FF had a major/minor versioning scheme that sort of, but not entirely, took the place of the API versioning. now with the fast release schedule the add-ons have no way to tell if they are compatible with the new version or if they will fail horribly because mozilla decided to remove something.
that is all the developers want is a method to know if mozilla is making any changes that could break their add-ons. publishing an API version that the add-ons could check against would solve this.
well even in this case the blind man wasn't really driving and he was accompanied by a police officer. and i wouldn't be surprised if the car had dual controls so the officer could hit the brakes if needed.
all of the special cases you mention could be solved if a human could turn off the autopilot and take over when needed.
i would like it if the autopilot could take over on my normal commute i could have some free time to do something else, or take a nap. that doesn't mean i can't take over if something unusual is going on.