No, because the uncertainty principle still applies. Entangled particles are in an identical state, but that state is still probabilistic. To get any information out of it you have to measure it, and measurements on the two particles can come out different.
Nuclear refinement is not inherently an evil thing, as long as it doesn't go beyond a certain point. The problem is with nations that cross that line, and they aren't going to sign up for this anyway.
If the odds of becoming pregnant through rape are 5%, that actually puts them at somewhat higher than through ordinary means (which are thought to be about 1 in 30). How does one account for that?
Honest question; I don't know how that would work.
This. If you want to see fewer people flying in flip-flops, then lobby to make other forms of footwear practical again. This requires a degree of courage to which our culture has sadly become accustomed, but there comes a time when one has to make tradeoffs like these.
If all you expect to do with this thing is to read books, the eBook reader is far better, especially if you can get one based on e-ink. The batteries typically last longer, and the screen won't strain your eyes to nearly the same degree.
If you need something more general-purpose, though, then go with a tablet. E-ink is awesome for reading books, but is very specialized toward that purpose: the low refresh rate makes it unsuitable for many other tasks.
He's not in the military: he wouldn't be elegible for that particular award even if he deserved it. Might you perhaps be thinking of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
Until we figure out the means to update DNA remotely, this wouldn't be as awesome as it sounds. Your knowledge of history could be outdated as soon as day two. Science and languages would fall out of date only slightly less quickly. Crafts and trades would take longer, but would almost certainly be at least a little outdated by the time you were mature enough to enter the workforce. And all of this would be hard-coded into a person's knowledge, so overcoming that hurdle would likely be very difficult.
Trees can produce seeds almost anyplace they could produce leaves, so I don't think this really sounds all that far-fetched: something like that could happen. For organisms that have more centralized reproductive systems, it would be a lot more difficult.
I'd argue that sexual harassment is not so much an inherent problem with geek/hacker cultures per se, but one particularly egregious manifestation of a wider problem: namely, bullying. It's ironic that geeks and hackers, so frequently the target of bullying from outside groups, would have a bullying problem within its own ranks, but the evidence is too strong to ignore. The same people who harass women in online games also spend a great deal of time pwning the n00bs and seemingly engaging in contests of who can hurl the vilest slurs. We see this not only in gaming, but in online discussions as well, and while most of the slurs are somewhat toned down in the convention scene, the Readercon fiasco shows that harassment remains alive and well even when real-life interaction enters into the equation.
I wouldn't have expected this in a community composed so strongly of people who know what it means to be bullied, but there we have it. And as long as we continue to let that sort get away with this behavior, it's only going to get worse.
Old hardware may be less power-efficient, but the process of making new hardware consumes enough power that even inefficient hardware would have to be kept running for quite a long time indeed before getting new hardware would actually save power overall.
It's like buildings in that regard. New buildings can be greener than older ones, even with upgrades. But the environmental cost of demolition and rebuilding is so high that upgrading an existing building usually turns out to be greener than building a new one.
Any detail that your average person wouldn't notice while actually playing the game is too much: wasted effort when people not only won't care, but won't know there's anything there to care about. Putting more in "for the trailers and screenshots" is pure marketing, incapable of improving the actual game.
The problem is figuring out how to craft a law demanding that. What does it mean to be "relevant" to a bill's stated purpose? For that matter, how does one define the "stated purpose" of a bill?
Common-sense legislation is a nice idea, but it turns out that common sense is actually quite difficult to describe in a manner suitable for law. That goes double in common-law systems, where precedent becomes a law unto itself and so interpretation becomes extremely important.
Whoever manages to enable people to program in their native language has a Nobel prize waiting for them. It certainly hasn't happened yet, even for English speakers: if I were to type a few lines of English describing a program, there is no tool out there that would know what I was talking about.
Programming languages are just that: distinct languages of their own, usually characterized by a small vocabulary and highly expressive grammar. It is true that most of the common vocabulary we see between languages -things like if, else, function, while, class; perhaps some 100 words in total- are pulled from English, but although these words share some meaning with their English counterparts, those meanings -both in terms of semantics and in terms of grammatical significance- are also far more narrow and rigidly fixed: more comparable to mathematical symbols than words. Learning to program will not teach a person to speak English, nor the reverse.
I suspect that this is why complaints from non-native English speakers are rare to nonexistent: the advantage gained by speaking the language from which these words derive is trivial. Redefining the symbols to have synonyms pulled from other languages doesn't really solve the problem; indeed, it only makes matters worse by multiplying the number of symbols without adding any new meanings. That sort of obfuscation serves no one.
If you want people to be able to program in their native langauges, you need a completely different approach: natural-language processing that compiles down to object code of some kind.
That Significant Others tend to have a strong calming effect on a person and his or her lifestyle is well-known, and this proposal is really just another application of that. But the effect comes from having a strong, stable, intimate social connection and the resulting feelings of responsibility. People don't generally use prostitutes for social connection, and so legalization wouldn't have that effect.
You mean to tell me there are people who publish their studies before even processing the data? Even under a public-funding=public-access system, you can get as much of a head start as you want by delaying publication. Is that not a suitable arrangement?
If I'm reading the article correctly, this isn't so much about file size as about the number of bugs fixed. Or rather, how many bugs still needed fixing in what was supposed to be the seventh release candidate of the kernel: something one would not expect to find so many bugs in very quickly.
Despite the rather inflammatory name, NoSQL is a complement to SQL, not a replacement for it. They do good jobs at very different things, and should be used for the appropriate tasks.
The problem comes when someone from either side attempts to do something with his or her chosen side that the other side really is better suited for. Currently the NoSQL folks seem to have a stronger tendency to do this, but that's a problem with the culture, not the tools.
Rich people like to go fast, but employing a person to drive your car for your is a status symbol that very few of them can resist. That will probably have more of an effect on adoption than speed will.
This is all true as far as it goes, but a large part of the point of a browser is to run code (in this case HTML, CSS, and JavaScript). Any environment that runs code is, at some point, going to have code written for it: this is, after all, the point of the exercise.
The people writing that code need tools to debug it, and so including said tools does not constitute bloat: there's a bona fide need here.
What the article seems to call for is a system that does not expect anything from regular users.
The people who reject the FBI's approach would also reject the one you propose, because ultimately it still expects something of users (namely, to notice something is going on and to take steps to fix it). Yes, it's a trivial expectation, but the core assumption behind the article is that expectations are bad.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because the uncertainty principle still applies. Entangled particles are in an identical state, but that state is still probabilistic. To get any information out of it you have to measure it, and measurements on the two particles can come out different.
Nuclear refinement is not inherently an evil thing, as long as it doesn't go beyond a certain point. The problem is with nations that cross that line, and they aren't going to sign up for this anyway.
Besides: where do you put the bank?
If the odds of becoming pregnant through rape are 5%, that actually puts them at somewhat higher than through ordinary means (which are thought to be about 1 in 30). How does one account for that?
Honest question; I don't know how that would work.
And to think: you could reskin this game with new characters, change nothing else, and would have gotten a much more positive review.
This is everything wrong with the game review industry in a nutshell.
...err, make that UNaccustomed.
This. If you want to see fewer people flying in flip-flops, then lobby to make other forms of footwear practical again. This requires a degree of courage to which our culture has sadly become accustomed, but there comes a time when one has to make tradeoffs like these.
If all you expect to do with this thing is to read books, the eBook reader is far better, especially if you can get one based on e-ink. The batteries typically last longer, and the screen won't strain your eyes to nearly the same degree.
If you need something more general-purpose, though, then go with a tablet. E-ink is awesome for reading books, but is very specialized toward that purpose: the low refresh rate makes it unsuitable for many other tasks.
He's not in the military: he wouldn't be elegible for that particular award even if he deserved it. Might you perhaps be thinking of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
Until we figure out the means to update DNA remotely, this wouldn't be as awesome as it sounds. Your knowledge of history could be outdated as soon as day two. Science and languages would fall out of date only slightly less quickly. Crafts and trades would take longer, but would almost certainly be at least a little outdated by the time you were mature enough to enter the workforce. And all of this would be hard-coded into a person's knowledge, so overcoming that hurdle would likely be very difficult.
Trees can produce seeds almost anyplace they could produce leaves, so I don't think this really sounds all that far-fetched: something like that could happen. For organisms that have more centralized reproductive systems, it would be a lot more difficult.
I'd argue that sexual harassment is not so much an inherent problem with geek/hacker cultures per se, but one particularly egregious manifestation of a wider problem: namely, bullying. It's ironic that geeks and hackers, so frequently the target of bullying from outside groups, would have a bullying problem within its own ranks, but the evidence is too strong to ignore. The same people who harass women in online games also spend a great deal of time pwning the n00bs and seemingly engaging in contests of who can hurl the vilest slurs. We see this not only in gaming, but in online discussions as well, and while most of the slurs are somewhat toned down in the convention scene, the Readercon fiasco shows that harassment remains alive and well even when real-life interaction enters into the equation.
I wouldn't have expected this in a community composed so strongly of people who know what it means to be bullied, but there we have it. And as long as we continue to let that sort get away with this behavior, it's only going to get worse.
I don't know if I'd call it depressing. I found it outrageous, myself. Truly outrageous.
Old hardware may be less power-efficient, but the process of making new hardware consumes enough power that even inefficient hardware would have to be kept running for quite a long time indeed before getting new hardware would actually save power overall.
It's like buildings in that regard. New buildings can be greener than older ones, even with upgrades. But the environmental cost of demolition and rebuilding is so high that upgrading an existing building usually turns out to be greener than building a new one.
All low-end hardware was high-end once. Extending its useful life is a Good Thing.
Any detail that your average person wouldn't notice while actually playing the game is too much: wasted effort when people not only won't care, but won't know there's anything there to care about. Putting more in "for the trailers and screenshots" is pure marketing, incapable of improving the actual game.
The problem is figuring out how to craft a law demanding that. What does it mean to be "relevant" to a bill's stated purpose? For that matter, how does one define the "stated purpose" of a bill?
Common-sense legislation is a nice idea, but it turns out that common sense is actually quite difficult to describe in a manner suitable for law. That goes double in common-law systems, where precedent becomes a law unto itself and so interpretation becomes extremely important.
Whoever manages to enable people to program in their native language has a Nobel prize waiting for them. It certainly hasn't happened yet, even for English speakers: if I were to type a few lines of English describing a program, there is no tool out there that would know what I was talking about.
Programming languages are just that: distinct languages of their own, usually characterized by a small vocabulary and highly expressive grammar. It is true that most of the common vocabulary we see between languages -things like if, else, function, while, class; perhaps some 100 words in total- are pulled from English, but although these words share some meaning with their English counterparts, those meanings -both in terms of semantics and in terms of grammatical significance- are also far more narrow and rigidly fixed: more comparable to mathematical symbols than words. Learning to program will not teach a person to speak English, nor the reverse.
I suspect that this is why complaints from non-native English speakers are rare to nonexistent: the advantage gained by speaking the language from which these words derive is trivial. Redefining the symbols to have synonyms pulled from other languages doesn't really solve the problem; indeed, it only makes matters worse by multiplying the number of symbols without adding any new meanings. That sort of obfuscation serves no one.
If you want people to be able to program in their native langauges, you need a completely different approach: natural-language processing that compiles down to object code of some kind.
I don't think that would work.
That Significant Others tend to have a strong calming effect on a person and his or her lifestyle is well-known, and this proposal is really just another application of that. But the effect comes from having a strong, stable, intimate social connection and the resulting feelings of responsibility. People don't generally use prostitutes for social connection, and so legalization wouldn't have that effect.
You mean to tell me there are people who publish their studies before even processing the data? Even under a public-funding=public-access system, you can get as much of a head start as you want by delaying publication. Is that not a suitable arrangement?
If I'm reading the article correctly, this isn't so much about file size as about the number of bugs fixed. Or rather, how many bugs still needed fixing in what was supposed to be the seventh release candidate of the kernel: something one would not expect to find so many bugs in very quickly.
Is this the case?
Despite the rather inflammatory name, NoSQL is a complement to SQL, not a replacement for it. They do good jobs at very different things, and should be used for the appropriate tasks.
The problem comes when someone from either side attempts to do something with his or her chosen side that the other side really is better suited for. Currently the NoSQL folks seem to have a stronger tendency to do this, but that's a problem with the culture, not the tools.
Rich people like to go fast, but employing a person to drive your car for your is a status symbol that very few of them can resist. That will probably have more of an effect on adoption than speed will.
This is all true as far as it goes, but a large part of the point of a browser is to run code (in this case HTML, CSS, and JavaScript). Any environment that runs code is, at some point, going to have code written for it: this is, after all, the point of the exercise.
The people writing that code need tools to debug it, and so including said tools does not constitute bloat: there's a bona fide need here.
What the article seems to call for is a system that does not expect anything from regular users.
The people who reject the FBI's approach would also reject the one you propose, because ultimately it still expects something of users (namely, to notice something is going on and to take steps to fix it). Yes, it's a trivial expectation, but the core assumption behind the article is that expectations are bad.
Of course the publisher wouldn't allow "the goddamn particle." You wouldn't want Batman suing you for infringement.