Which is to say, hidden variables that don't violate causality.
It's curious that people desperate to preserve causality in the universe like to raise this particular loophole in Bell's Theorem.
Ummm... no, it isn't. It's especially ironic that supporters of the Constitution would say this sort of thing, because the Constitution has a *very* specific and prescriptive definition of "treason" in it:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
People can and do learn to write code in numerous ways. However, every really *good* programmer I've ever known (and I've known some spectacular ones), has learned to program at the feet of a guru (or in my case, a string of gurus) that taught them to respect the machine.
Anyone can learn to optimize algorithms. It takes wisdom to know when and why to do so. Anyone can learn to write a sort function. It takes experience to know which one to choose, and why... and not only that, why it matters. Anyone who programs will eventually learn how to debug their mistakes. It takes insight to learn the Tao of the Debugger.
It's possible for someone to learn these things on their own (obviously the first hackers did somehow, eventually), but if you learn them early, from someone that you deeply respect, a) the lessons *stick*, and b) you don't have to spend your time and effort learning them on the job later, so you have time to focus on all the other things you need to learn to do whatever you end up doing.
While this is true, it's also true that people who are really suicidal will find *some* way to kill themselves.
1/2 of all suicides are done with guns in the U.S (17,000 out of 34,000). Yet, the U.S. suicide rate is completely typical for Western European counties where there are almost no guns (and where guns are rarely used for suicide).
The only reasonable conclusion is that guns are just the most convenient and certain method that happens to be available to suicidal people in the U.S.
I fully understand why people have a visceral reaction to the idea of patents on human genes, but the fact is that these are not patents on human genes, they are patents on artificially extracted and purified forms of certain gene sequences that do not occur in isolation in nature.
People do own their own genes, as they occur in their bodies.
A patent on a gene covers the isolated and purified gene but does
not cover the gene as it occurs in nature. Thus, the concern that a
person whose body ``includes'' a patented gene could infringe the
patent is misfounded. The body does not contain the patented, isolated
and purified gene because genes in the body are not in the patented,
isolated and purified form. When the patent issued for purified
adrenaline about one hundred years ago, people did not infringe the
patent merely because their bodies naturally included unpurified
adrenaline.
My biggest problem with the way that both audio researchers and audiophiles approach this is that human perception is not scientific or rational.
It doesn't matter whether the difference between sample A and sample B is real or perceived, because when I'm actually listening to music, that is 100% perception, and I *do* know (or think I know) a priori which sample I'm listening to.
The scientific approach is great (mandatory, really) when you're doing science. I will go beyond saying that it doesn't actually help much at all with determining what you will enjoy. I assert that more often than not it actively *decreases* your enjoyment of the experience itself.
Of course, one can certainly enjoy understanding and appreciating the science behind it, leading to more enjoyment overall... I'm speaking purely of the perceptual portion of the experience.
I'm getting the impression from the article that they are proposing to use this technique to build semiconductor *components* such as standalone transistors, diodes, etc., etc.
That seems much more feasible than what is implied by the title of this post.
I *still* haven't seen any explanation of how this will avoid violating causality, in the way that *all* methods of getting from one reference frame to another faster than light does.
Of course, maybe that just means the universe is acausal. Weird, and a bit troublesome for our puny simian brains to wrap themselves around, but I suppose the universe doesn't care.
While it's absurd to think about solar powering an airliner's *flight*, it's not *entirely* crazy to think that solar power could take up some of the slack for non-critical on-board power needs, such as lights, entertainment electronics, etc., at least during the day, and reduce the power load on the APU, and thus cut fuel consumption a tiny bit.
Current solar panels wouldn't work due to weight, but you could imagine the roll-to-roll printed photovoltaics that have been talked about being doable.
This is a really bad misunderstanding of how fractional reserve banking works. Banks *don't* loan money that they don't have, they can only loan out of their reserves.
The reason money gets multiplied is that money moves so fast in the system that the million dollars coming in today can also go out today. The money a bank loans out today is deposited tomorrow (somewhere), and that bank now can reloan out 90% of the $1 million hypothetical loan, and all of this happens so fast that it *looks* from the outside like they just create money
Fractional reserve banking is entirely feasible conducted purely with real gold, though would multiple money slightly more slowly due to the physical transfer times of the gold. Which is why gold-based currencies never actually use the physical gold as a counter any more (technologically advanced counterfeiting making currency validation almost impossible at any reasonable speed, aside).
Indeed, we know this, because FRB was *originally* invented by goldsmiths accepting deposits of physical gold as currency and loaning it out (though, for the above reasons, usually as receipts for delivery of gold rather than physical gold).
It's not really the math itself that you use in programming. It's the mental processes that you learn learning math that are *also* useful in learning (and doing) programming.
I won't go so far as to say that anyone who hasn't done advanced math *can't* be a good programmer, but I will say unequivocally that it's highly unlikely.
But more importantly, being a really good programmer absolutely requires that you be *curious* about algorithms. It's mind-boggling to me that anyone sufficiently curious about algorithms to be a good programmer would even *ask* the question "do I need all this math?". Who cares? Why don't you *want* to learn it?!?!? Hint: "Just for the joy of learning it" is the right answer.
The rubber hose cryptanalysis won't be able to get you to *tell* them the password, but I see no reason why they couldn't get you to *reveal* it by playing the game.
Since it's subconscious, you won't even know that you're revealing it.
The basic problem with this is that cops' job is to collect evidence of crimes and arrest those they think are responsible. It's not the public's job to do this.
When they release their evidence, they taint it for any future court proceeding. Even if it were allowed, it probably shouldn't be in general because the public (including the jury) can be presumed to have seen it.
Of course, if they aren't planning to use it for evidence, it's technically ok for them to release it (though there are the same concerns about everyone's privacy as when the public releases it), but it doesn't seem like a good idea...
Because it sends the message that there is no chance that they will be prosecuted for any misconduct regardless (otherwise this would be tainted evidence for *their* trials).
So, in this day of actuators and microcontrollers, how would you actually do this without getting rid of *all* patents?
It's become trivially easy to implement *any* part of any mechanism in software.
It's easy to make platitudes about this stuff... actually coming up with a rigorous legal definition that would rule out the things you like while still allowing the "good" patents is really hard, if not impossible.
Of course, perhaps all patents have outlived their usefulness... but that's a different discussion.
The intuition of a person that has taken (and paid attention to) college-level courses is *of course* more efficient at comprehending things that are the topics of the courses.
Perhaps you were thinking of common sense?
The vast majority of people have *crappy* intuitions.
Yes, that's cute, but the differences are *far* more than just the hybrid system. The $16k Civic has a manual transmission, a different body style, no Bluetooth, no auto-up windows, no power locks, no cruise control, a much less sophisticated information cluster, and it doesn't even come with a *radio* or *air conditioning* standard.
In order to get anywhere close to the same car minus the hybrid system, you have to go up to the EX level, which starts at $20,655.
The hybrid system itself, therefore, is about a $3500 premium.
Now, of course, you may not *want* all those extra features (though most people want most of them)... and if so, then the Civic Hybrid model isn't for you... but it's not because a hybrid costs 50% more for 13% extra mileage. It's because of marketing.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is to say, hidden variables that don't violate causality. It's curious that people desperate to preserve causality in the universe like to raise this particular loophole in Bell's Theorem.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
(Article 3 Section 3)
Well, that, and because our airplane network is spectacular and (relatively) low cost.
Anyone can learn to optimize algorithms. It takes wisdom to know when and why to do so. Anyone can learn to write a sort function. It takes experience to know which one to choose, and why... and not only that, why it matters. Anyone who programs will eventually learn how to debug their mistakes. It takes insight to learn the Tao of the Debugger.
It's possible for someone to learn these things on their own (obviously the first hackers did somehow, eventually), but if you learn them early, from someone that you deeply respect, a) the lessons *stick*, and b) you don't have to spend your time and effort learning them on the job later, so you have time to focus on all the other things you need to learn to do whatever you end up doing.
Most people seem to have a pretty bad attachment to actual historical fact, preferring shiny objects.
So the answer is: your eye compensates via a number of mechanisms not available to cameras.
So "[getting] to be half as near as good as peoples [sic] eyes" will require an improvement in cameras of about 500,000 times.
1/2 of all suicides are done with guns in the U.S (17,000 out of 34,000). Yet, the U.S. suicide rate is completely typical for Western European counties where there are almost no guns (and where guns are rarely used for suicide).
The only reasonable conclusion is that guns are just the most convenient and certain method that happens to be available to suicidal people in the U.S.
People do own their own genes, as they occur in their bodies.
From the Federal Register:
A patent on a gene covers the isolated and purified gene but does not cover the gene as it occurs in nature. Thus, the concern that a person whose body ``includes'' a patented gene could infringe the patent is misfounded. The body does not contain the patented, isolated and purified gene because genes in the body are not in the patented, isolated and purified form. When the patent issued for purified adrenaline about one hundred years ago, people did not infringe the patent merely because their bodies naturally included unpurified adrenaline.
It doesn't matter whether the difference between sample A and sample B is real or perceived, because when I'm actually listening to music, that is 100% perception, and I *do* know (or think I know) a priori which sample I'm listening to.
The scientific approach is great (mandatory, really) when you're doing science. I will go beyond saying that it doesn't actually help much at all with determining what you will enjoy. I assert that more often than not it actively *decreases* your enjoyment of the experience itself.
Of course, one can certainly enjoy understanding and appreciating the science behind it, leading to more enjoyment overall... I'm speaking purely of the perceptual portion of the experience.
FWIW, it was really called the "God-damned particle"... science journalists and fussy professors just shortened that name.
That seems much more feasible than what is implied by the title of this post.
Of course, maybe that just means the universe is acausal. Weird, and a bit troublesome for our puny simian brains to wrap themselves around, but I suppose the universe doesn't care.
Why not just say they have to show their work by submitting a file saved periodically during the process?
Huh... irony. Moore's Law is about gates, and Gates' Law is about moors (in software performance).
Current solar panels wouldn't work due to weight, but you could imagine the roll-to-roll printed photovoltaics that have been talked about being doable.
Unfortunately, it's impossible to say *anything* about this story without spoiling it, so I'll just leave it as a bare recommendation.
The reason money gets multiplied is that money moves so fast in the system that the million dollars coming in today can also go out today. The money a bank loans out today is deposited tomorrow (somewhere), and that bank now can reloan out 90% of the $1 million hypothetical loan, and all of this happens so fast that it *looks* from the outside like they just create money
Fractional reserve banking is entirely feasible conducted purely with real gold, though would multiple money slightly more slowly due to the physical transfer times of the gold. Which is why gold-based currencies never actually use the physical gold as a counter any more (technologically advanced counterfeiting making currency validation almost impossible at any reasonable speed, aside).
Indeed, we know this, because FRB was *originally* invented by goldsmiths accepting deposits of physical gold as currency and loaning it out (though, for the above reasons, usually as receipts for delivery of gold rather than physical gold).
I won't go so far as to say that anyone who hasn't done advanced math *can't* be a good programmer, but I will say unequivocally that it's highly unlikely.
But more importantly, being a really good programmer absolutely requires that you be *curious* about algorithms. It's mind-boggling to me that anyone sufficiently curious about algorithms to be a good programmer would even *ask* the question "do I need all this math?". Who cares? Why don't you *want* to learn it?!?!? Hint: "Just for the joy of learning it" is the right answer.
Since it's subconscious, you won't even know that you're revealing it.
When they release their evidence, they taint it for any future court proceeding. Even if it were allowed, it probably shouldn't be in general because the public (including the jury) can be presumed to have seen it.
Of course, if they aren't planning to use it for evidence, it's technically ok for them to release it (though there are the same concerns about everyone's privacy as when the public releases it), but it doesn't seem like a good idea...
Because it sends the message that there is no chance that they will be prosecuted for any misconduct regardless (otherwise this would be tainted evidence for *their* trials).
You know, the one in which publishing a communist newsletter was deemed equivalent to shouting fire in a crowded theater.
It's very dangerous to create slippery slopes, and pointless when there are adequate ways to deal with the problem already.
It's become trivially easy to implement *any* part of any mechanism in software.
It's easy to make platitudes about this stuff... actually coming up with a rigorous legal definition that would rule out the things you like while still allowing the "good" patents is really hard, if not impossible.
Of course, perhaps all patents have outlived their usefulness... but that's a different discussion.
The intuition of a person that has taken (and paid attention to) college-level courses is *of course* more efficient at comprehending things that are the topics of the courses.
Perhaps you were thinking of common sense?
The vast majority of people have *crappy* intuitions.
I still say it should be "Santorum squeezed out after he repeatedly comes in number two".
In order to get anywhere close to the same car minus the hybrid system, you have to go up to the EX level, which starts at $20,655.
The hybrid system itself, therefore, is about a $3500 premium.
Now, of course, you may not *want* all those extra features (though most people want most of them)... and if so, then the Civic Hybrid model isn't for you... but it's not because a hybrid costs 50% more for 13% extra mileage. It's because of marketing.