no, I am saying that since the computer would be in the universe, it can never simulate everything in the universe, because it is IN the universe itself. You need more matter, energy or time to simulate something then the matter/energy/time it took to do the thing in the first place.
How can you simulate 5 atoms using only 2 atoms? answer, you can't. You would need AT LEAST 5 atoms. Take this argument to the next level and you would need AT LEAST every atom in the universe, to simulate the universe. And that doesn't take into account overhead, which I am sure would be quite large.
Just look at where we are today, it takes a year for a supercomputer the size of a football stadium to simulate a few hundred atoms for a couple microseconds.
The only way I can see anything simulating the universe is if they find a way to tap into a quantum effect to use multiple universes to simulate our universe (assuming there are multiple universes).
We will never be able to simulate more then a small portion of the universe, because it would take more energy and matter and time then the universe holds to simulate it.
No, 3GB over 30 days works out to 1.2KB/s with a 1.5Mbit/s burst speed. Which is slower then dialup, way slower. I wouldn't pay more then 10 bucks a month for that slow of speed even if it was the only option.
Our way of life? Are you for real? A day in the life of your typical american is EXACTLY the same today as it was 5 years ago. Grow up and stop being spoon fed by Bush and his cronies (the media).
I would think that religeous fanatics would be the types of people that would most likely bring bombs and guns onto the plane, maybe I'm wrong thats just my thought. But religeous fanatics don't strike me as the types of people that lie detector tests would work on, polygraph or heat. Simply because they are wired slightly different in the head if you get my drift. They don't care if they die or if they lie to a nonbeliever. So if this supposition is correct and lie detector tests such as this won't work on such people, then what is the use of hte device in airports? to catch drug smugglers?
Yes America is in a state of fear. Before this attack did the president ever have to get on tv and tell americans its safe to fly in airplanes? I don't think so. I think its pretty safe to say most Americans were given a wake up call and shown that Yes, they are mortal.
Terrorism is not war. It is a single act usually destroying the one who did it, at least those that I can remember did either die or get caught very soon. If you want to call terrorism war then we will be at war forever. The whole idea behind terrorism is that it can strike at any time and any place, just a few lunies plotting away supposedly. So we would be living in a state of war all the time. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to live in a state of war.
This might be a hard concept to grasp, but I think we just haveto live with a certain degree of susceptability. We have to take a couple random bombings every few years. True we shall try to punish those responsible and we must certainly try to prevent this, but not at the cost of our society and way of life. Not to live in a perpetual state of war. Not to have John Ashcroft listenign in on everyone's phone conversations (much like hoover did when he was head of the FBI) or watching which internet sites you go to. No, we should go on with life and enjoy the freedoms that make us America.
I liken it somewhat to the automobile. The automobile causes tens of thousands to lose their life every year, much more then that terrorist attack on sept 11th. Do we ban automobiles? no. they are our way of life and we could not see living wihout them (or most of us can't). We try to minimize the risks (seatbelts, airbags etc) but we still use it. It should be the same way with our freedoms now. Don't throw our freedoms away to try to protect ourselves from a possible terrorist attack. Just take into consideration that terrorist attacks must be something that gets thrown on the everyday risks category, even still the odds of any one american being involved in a terrorist attack and perishing is infintesimally small. Just look at he odds, you probably have a better chance of being hit by a meteor or winning the lotto then having a plane flown into your building. (unless you live in new york:) but even then you have an extremely small chance)
Not on a war footing? what world are you in? The president comes on the tv almost daily exclaiming how we "ARE AT WAR" and we are fighting the "war on terrrorism" and john ashcroft is saying how americans have to give up some liberties in these times of war. And Bush again stating "this may take a few years" We are most definitly on a war footing.
What I and the ACLU and the rest are concerned about is this taking away of civil rights in the name of fighting the war on terrorism and the fact that the war on terrorism will NEVER END. There might always be some quck plotting revenge on america does that mean we should perpetually live in a state of fear and lessened civil rights? NO. John Ascroft seems to think otherwise though therein lies the debate (which should not even be a debate at all)
Take a look at the book 1984 where rights of the people were forever taken away by the wool being pulled over the people's eyes by a fictional war that never ends. Sound anything like what is happening today? It should.
I wish. Right after the sept 11th I sent a letter to every state rep/senator I could in my state about NOT passing the anti-patriot bill. I received a single reply 2 weeks ago from one of them. A form letter apologizing for not being able to read my letter due to the anthrax scare. At the end of the letter it said, but don't worry, we succefully passed the anti-terrorist patriot act. And we're trying to do more.
Nothing like that to piss me off and show me the futility of even trying to do thing according to the law. The normal way doesn't get stuff done. Maybe if some nut climbs the bell tower with a gun or something they might take notice, but I doubt it.
As for cutting commericals out and also able to divide that big file into a couple smaller ones there is a free solution availible. Virtual dub does all that. Fairly easy to use.
For someone not pissed off you certainly write in a tone that would tend to suggest you are highly agitated. Ad hominom attacks instead of attacking the focus of his comment would tend to tell me that you are very angry at his idea and instead of finding things wrong with the idea you simply attack the creator of the idea, almost like a monkey throwing feces at a rival monkey. hmm, food for thought.
I for one found the comment by rogerborg very insightful and seemed to put into words better then I; what I feel like sometimes. You say what he said was snobbish? I think it was simply being a realist.
I consider people at MIT and other leading universities and top IT executives to be some of the best and brightest. As for getting caught, till now almost no one had to worry about getting caught, less then a handful have been arrested on this charge before (at least on an individual basis, not counting corporations).
Think of it like speeding, what if one day they pulled EVERYONE over that is speeding even 1 mph over. Would that make the papers? Would people be pissed off? Would they have a right to be pissed off? Things to ponder.
I am sure those warez busts will help out the recession, put some of America's best and brightest (some MIT students and top IT executives supposedly) in jail. I am sure this will sky rocket the economy considering they supposed lky helped with the 6+ billion of dollars lost due to piracy? Give me a break.
Charging a buisness based in another country with a crime. so what? Even if the US wins what will they do? Send in hit squads to take the companies president hostage or what? Granted its good for us since it still wil hopefully let us challenge the DMCA but the US attornery must be a moron. Its a lose lose situation for him.
Either he loses the case or he wins and it accomplishes nothing.
Anyone know what they could do to a company that is based overseas besides trying (and I stress trying) to stop letting them do buisness in the USA?
I don't think I ever went off line (iowa) I was using it last night till 11pm. left filesharing apps up. and just used it again at 2:30 pm today seems to have been up all the time.
Tracert shows I go through 3 @home hops (cedar rapids, desmoines then chicago)before going to att backbone. I don't remember if its always been those hops or not (at least the first three were the same).
No, there is a limit on the number of hubs you can have, not switches. The 5-4-3 rule is what you are thinking of, 5 network segments, 4 repeaters and only three occupied segments, but that only is in reference to hubs, not switches.
Its got to do with the collision domain and the total time it takes to transmit something and the total time it takes to reach its destination.
Potential abuses DO count. For all i know the FBI could have legally searched my house while I was at work and I wouldn't even KNOW. They don't have to tell me. And we know how law abiding police and FBI guys are, shit, they wouldn't plant any evidence if they thought I was guilty anyways would they? would they...?
In what way did he break the law? And whose law? the USA's law? france's law? russian? I am sick to death of stupid little countries thinking they own the internet and can enforce their laws on it. The internet is not owned by the United States. The US has no right to try to enforce its laws on the internet, and it makes no difference if they do anyways, people will just move their servers, or possibly themselves to someother country that has less strict anti-speech laws.
Now I don't like what this guy is doing, in fact i hate it. But he certainly has the right to do it, and moreover, there is nothing we can do to stop him. It would be ironic that the US is trying to stifle someone's free speech if the US didn't trample people's civil rights everyday already.
Or maybe your company just lists you as expendable?
There are many bridges in the US that are listed as damaged but stable (due to weathering and the like). people use them for years beforethey get around to fixing them, but they are still not as structurally sound as when they were built, or what they were built to withstand.
Whats all this talk about banning encryption? The hijackers used box cutters! Ban all box cutters and scissors and knives! THAT will stop hijackers from taking over a plane again. Course, the American public will have to get used to beards and eating steak with their teeth, but I'm sure everyone will get used to it, eventually.
I don't care about my TOS. I pay for access to the internet, not for "access to the internet that is at&t approved". I have a measly 16KB upload cap. I should be able to do whatever i want with that bandwith, even if it means running a small server. I would like to make an analogy of the water department. Does the water department prohibit you from owning a pool that you fill up with their water? What ifthey started prohibiting just that. I would imagine it would cause quite an uproar. I don't see any difference between the watercompany doing that and @home doing this.
Slashdot Mirror
no, I am saying that since the computer would be in the universe, it can never simulate everything in the universe, because it is IN the universe itself. You need more matter, energy or time to simulate something then the matter/energy/time it took to do the thing in the first place.
How can you simulate 5 atoms using only 2 atoms? answer, you can't. You would need AT LEAST 5 atoms. Take this argument to the next level and you would need AT LEAST every atom in the universe, to simulate the universe. And that doesn't take into account overhead, which I am sure would be quite large.
Just look at where we are today, it takes a year for a supercomputer the size of a football stadium to simulate a few hundred atoms for a couple microseconds.
The only way I can see anything simulating the universe is if they find a way to tap into a quantum effect to use multiple universes to simulate our universe (assuming there are multiple universes).
We will never be able to simulate more then a small portion of the universe, because it would take more energy and matter and time then the universe holds to simulate it.
No, 3GB over 30 days works out to 1.2KB/s with a 1.5Mbit/s burst speed. Which is slower then dialup, way slower. I wouldn't pay more then 10 bucks a month for that slow of speed even if it was the only option.
Our way of life? Are you for real? A day in the life of your typical american is EXACTLY the same today as it was 5 years ago. Grow up and stop being spoon fed by Bush and his cronies (the media).
hahhahaha.
Someone got up on the wrong side of the coffin this morning didn't he? You don't even know what moderators ar do you? You amuse me.
I would think that religeous fanatics would be the types of people that would most likely bring bombs and guns onto the plane, maybe I'm wrong thats just my thought. But religeous fanatics don't strike me as the types of people that lie detector tests would work on, polygraph or heat. Simply because they are wired slightly different in the head if you get my drift. They don't care if they die or if they lie to a nonbeliever. So if this supposition is correct and lie detector tests such as this won't work on such people, then what is the use of hte device in airports? to catch drug smugglers?
Yes America is in a state of fear. Before this attack did the president ever have to get on tv and tell americans its safe to fly in airplanes? I don't think so. I think its pretty safe to say most Americans were given a wake up call and shown that Yes, they are mortal.
:) but even then you have an extremely small chance)
Terrorism is not war. It is a single act usually destroying the one who did it, at least those that I can remember did either die or get caught very soon. If you want to call terrorism war then we will be at war forever. The whole idea behind terrorism is that it can strike at any time and any place, just a few lunies plotting away supposedly. So we would be living in a state of war all the time. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to live in a state of war.
This might be a hard concept to grasp, but I think we just haveto live with a certain degree of susceptability. We have to take a couple random bombings every few years. True we shall try to punish those responsible and we must certainly try to prevent this, but not at the cost of our society and way of life. Not to live in a perpetual state of war. Not to have John Ashcroft listenign in on everyone's phone conversations (much like hoover did when he was head of the FBI) or watching which internet sites you go to. No, we should go on with life and enjoy the freedoms that make us America.
I liken it somewhat to the automobile. The automobile causes tens of thousands to lose their life every year, much more then that terrorist attack on sept 11th. Do we ban automobiles? no. they are our way of life and we could not see living wihout them (or most of us can't). We try to minimize the risks (seatbelts, airbags etc) but we still use it. It should be the same way with our freedoms now. Don't throw our freedoms away to try to protect ourselves from a possible terrorist attack. Just take into consideration that terrorist attacks must be something that gets thrown on the everyday risks category, even still the odds of any one american being involved in a terrorist attack and perishing is infintesimally small. Just look at he odds, you probably have a better chance of being hit by a meteor or winning the lotto then having a plane flown into your building. (unless you live in new york
Everyone needs to stop overreacting.
Not on a war footing? what world are you in? The president comes on the tv almost daily exclaiming how we "ARE AT WAR" and we are fighting the "war on terrrorism" and john ashcroft is saying how americans have to give up some liberties in these times of war. And Bush again stating "this may take a few years" We are most definitly on a war footing.
What I and the ACLU and the rest are concerned about is this taking away of civil rights in the name of fighting the war on terrorism and the fact that the war on terrorism will NEVER END. There might always be some quck plotting revenge on america does that mean we should perpetually live in a state of fear and lessened civil rights? NO. John Ascroft seems to think otherwise though therein lies the debate (which should not even be a debate at all)
Take a look at the book 1984 where rights of the people were forever taken away by the wool being pulled over the people's eyes by a fictional war that never ends. Sound anything like what is happening today? It should.
I wish. Right after the sept 11th I sent a letter to every state rep/senator I could in my state about NOT passing the anti-patriot bill. I received a single reply 2 weeks ago from one of them. A form letter apologizing for not being able to read my letter due to the anthrax scare. At the end of the letter it said, but don't worry, we succefully passed the anti-terrorist patriot act. And we're trying to do more.
Nothing like that to piss me off and show me the futility of even trying to do thing according to the law. The normal way doesn't get stuff done. Maybe if some nut climbs the bell tower with a gun or something they might take notice, but I doubt it.
Virtual Dub
For someone not pissed off you certainly write in a tone that would tend to suggest you are highly agitated. Ad hominom attacks instead of attacking the focus of his comment would tend to tell me that you are very angry at his idea and instead of finding things wrong with the idea you simply attack the creator of the idea, almost like a monkey throwing feces at a rival monkey. hmm, food for thought.
I for one found the comment by rogerborg very insightful and seemed to put into words better then I; what I feel like sometimes. You say what he said was snobbish? I think it was simply being a realist.
I consider people at MIT and other leading universities and top IT executives to be some of the best and brightest. As for getting caught, till now almost no one had to worry about getting caught, less then a handful have been arrested on this charge before (at least on an individual basis, not counting corporations).
Think of it like speeding, what if one day they pulled EVERYONE over that is speeding even 1 mph over. Would that make the papers? Would people be pissed off? Would they have a right to be pissed off? Things to ponder.
I am sure those warez busts will help out the recession, put some of America's best and brightest (some MIT students and top IT executives supposedly) in jail. I am sure this will sky rocket the economy considering they supposed lky helped with the 6+ billion of dollars lost due to piracy? Give me a break.
Charging a buisness based in another country with a crime. so what? Even if the US wins what will they do? Send in hit squads to take the companies president hostage or what? Granted its good for us since it still wil hopefully let us challenge the DMCA but the US attornery must be a moron. Its a lose lose situation for him.
Either he loses the case or he wins and it accomplishes nothing.
Anyone know what they could do to a company that is based overseas besides trying (and I stress trying) to stop letting them do buisness in the USA?
I don't think I ever went off line (iowa) I was using it last night till 11pm. left filesharing apps up. and just used it again at 2:30 pm today seems to have been up all the time.
Tracert shows I go through 3 @home hops (cedar rapids, desmoines then chicago)before going to att backbone. I don't remember if its always been those hops or not (at least the first three were the same).
No, there is a limit on the number of hubs you can have, not switches. The 5-4-3 rule is what you are thinking of, 5 network segments, 4 repeaters and only three occupied segments, but that only is in reference to hubs, not switches.
Its got to do with the collision domain and the total time it takes to transmit something and the total time it takes to reach its destination.
Potential abuses DO count. For all i know the FBI could have legally searched my house while I was at work and I wouldn't even KNOW. They don't have to tell me. And we know how law abiding police and FBI guys are, shit, they wouldn't plant any evidence if they thought I was guilty anyways would they? would they...?
In what way did he break the law? And whose law? the USA's law? france's law? russian? I am sick to death of stupid little countries thinking they own the internet and can enforce their laws on it. The internet is not owned by the United States. The US has no right to try to enforce its laws on the internet, and it makes no difference if they do anyways, people will just move their servers, or possibly themselves to someother country that has less strict anti-speech laws.
Now I don't like what this guy is doing, in fact i hate it. But he certainly has the right to do it, and moreover, there is nothing we can do to stop him. It would be ironic that the US is trying to stifle someone's free speech if the US didn't trample people's civil rights everyday already.
Or maybe your company just lists you as expendable?
There are many bridges in the US that are listed as damaged but stable (due to weathering and the like). people use them for years beforethey get around to fixing them, but they are still not as structurally sound as when they were built, or what they were built to withstand.
Whats all this talk about banning encryption? The hijackers used box cutters! Ban all box cutters and scissors and knives! THAT will stop hijackers from taking over a plane again. Course, the American public will have to get used to beards and eating steak with their teeth, but I'm sure everyone will get used to it, eventually.
I don't care about my TOS. I pay for access to the internet, not for "access to the internet that is at&t approved". I have a measly 16KB upload cap. I should be able to do whatever i want with that bandwith, even if it means running a small server. I would like to make an analogy of the water department. Does the water department prohibit you from owning a pool that you fill up with their water? What ifthey started prohibiting just that. I would imagine it would cause quite an uproar. I don't see any difference between the watercompany doing that and @home doing this.