. The recent HIV studies are very poor, and quite frankly, bad science (the circed men were given condoms and extra counciling the others did not, and the study was cut short thus skewing the data as there was a good period where the circed men had to heal up before engaging in sexual activity).
Sounds like a bad period to me. My bottom line is this: surgery on children only for medical necessity. Surgery on adults only with consent. If consent were a required element, there wouldn't be a lot of circumcision.
... stop watching their content entirely. Stop writing about them and stop discussing what they do. Being ignored is the ultimate punishment for a media company gone bad.
I foresee an period of consolidation in the PC market. There are too many players for all to be profitable. Lets hope victory does to somebody other than Me-Too companies like HP and Dell. If you want to be seen as a vibrant player you have to bring customers something they can't as easily get from your competitors.
That's why Apple is winning. They're not afraid to make big investments and take big risks to open new markets. I'm not saying they've brought a lot of real innovation to the market; they haven't. But they've brought products that worked pretty well to the market as soon as the technology allowed them to make something slick and appealing.
HP, in contrast, has focused on making computers that work just like everybody else's computers and let Microsoft Windows limit their innovation. I trace HP's decline to beginning when they split the company and spun off Agilent. All the creative minds seem to have gone to Agilent and HP has focused on the commoditized markets -- computers and printers.
I foresee an period of consolidation in the PC market. There are too many players for all to be profitable. Lets hope victory does to somebody other than Me-Too companies like HP and Dell. If you want to be seen as a vibrant player you have to bring customers something they can't ax easily try from spur competitors. That's why Apple is winning. They're not afraid to make big investments and take big risks to open new markets.
Just because a supposedly headless stateless group claims to be responsible for something doesn't mean they weren't acting as a cover for a nation state.
But I don't see how we could get people to pay for it. A giant industrial facility with no market directly interested in its product? Also the storage is not permanent. The frozen CO2 needs to be kept colder than ambient forever. Lose refrigeration and you could get a giant bump in atmospheric CO2.
You have to assume that AT BEST any customer data you see has been screened. If customer satisfaction data is published, the only rational reason for doing so is as a form of advertising.
Only a third of online reviews are fake? The idea is laughable because most on-line reviews are positive.
People are much more motivated to post a negative comments than a 100% positive one. This is because when people get screwed, they are angry which is a strong motivator for action. When you get what you expect, you are in contrast mildly pleased and this doesn't normally prompt a response. Also, there is a rational motivation for posting a critical review. The things you specifically point out are more likely to be fixed because of your having complained about them, if the developer is paying attention to reviews at all. 100% positive or maximal-rating reviews give no actionable feedback. So both from a rational and irrational motivation standpoint, a customer is much more likely to give a negaive review when poorly (or even fairly) served than a satisfied customer is to post a positive review when receiving exceptional service.
Additionally, is it really credible that exceptional service is the NORM?
I therefore assume that unless there is some barrier between the reviewing organization and the reviewed one, that the top ratings are ALL shills of some kind or another. The only ones worth paying attention to are the middle-rating and negative ones, and you can rarely trust that the negatives are uncensored.
I'd like to see some research by third parties on what the relationship is between customer satisfaction, likeliness of customers to review products and how those ratings look compared to what customers really think.
As has been pointed out in postings above, if you have a device that returns the correct factorization half the time, then by running it multiple times, you can easily determine the factors of a composite number--because it's easy and fast to _check_ the answers with a classical computer.
Or if you don't know whether the number is composite or prime, then by running it N times and checking the answer each time, you can reduce the uncertainty that a number which happens to be prime is prime to 1/2**N.
In both cases, you can arrive at negligible error rates in reasonable time.
(BTW, I believe factoring has been shown *not* to be NP hard, but it has some similarities: hard to come up with answers, easy to verify them.)
With only four-bit computations, it's useless. It needs to be scaled up by several bits just to show that their hardware approach has the potential to solve problems that aren't trivial.
I guess somewhat close to halfway there. If they had also computed the factorization of 14 with about 48% correct results, I'd be 100% more confident that they were onto something. What they've shown is that they made a quantum device that can produce results of 3 and 5 about half the time. Wouldn't you be happier if you knew that it didn't produce 3 and 5 half the time regardless how they program it?
The original abstract (http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys2385.html) mentions that their device is a 9-qubit device. If it can factor numbers bigger than 15, why didn't they do that? Or did they try that and get null results? If they haven't tried any other number yet, I'd say their publication is premature. If they have, they should be presenting more results.
Regarding the scalability, a lot more experiements are needed to find out if their hardware is at all scalable. Four qubits working is almost nothing. If that gives you a 48% correct result, that's 96% of the 50% expected. If the scaling of errors is 1% additional probability of error per bit, then the probabilty of a correct result would be 1/2 (the Schor 50%) x 99%^N. At 128 bits, that's about 14% correct, which would make cracking 128 bit encryption trivial. You'd only need on average 7 trials to verify a correct factoring, which would be awesome, and at 1024 bits you'd only need about 59,000 trials. So all present day encryption would be pretty much useless.
But that's ONLY if the error scales linearly with number of bits like that. If the errors creep in inside the computation somehow, it could be a lot worse than Pb^N. If they have a 9-bit machine they ought to try factoring the biggest numbers it can handle. That would give us a clue to how the errors scale.
I figure I know what you do with the PC. What's the Christian for?
To help her with her grammar (I know, right?!).
Then she doesn't seem to have been able to find him in time to check her posting. It might be that the War on Christianity has been more successful than we thought; she better check to see if he's OK.
Maybe he's a funny Christian. I found her post humorous.
In fact, most programmers have an iPhone or an Android and accept the fact that they don't and don't need to completely control that device. It doesn't limit what they can do on OTHER devices that they own.
People without the technical savvy to manage a general purpose computer without support and restrictions don't NEED a general purpose computer without support and restrictions. They'll always be the bulk of the market.
Slashdot Mirror
What am I missing? Sixty four bits sounds too long Seventeen sounds right
Aha, so ignorance breeds just conclusions. I guess creationism must be true after all.
No ignorance just breeds conclusions. It's more important to be sure than right is what he's saying.
This is misuse of the word. A right word is "discover." But hair color is often not the same as the genes might suggest.
They said Space elevator. Space elevator "orbiting the moon" are your words. This link shows exactly what they are attempting to do: http://www.gizmag.com/lunar-elevator/23884/pictures#2
By definition a space elevator orbits whatever you attach it to. Otherwise, it falls.
Screw that. Just build a mass driver. Wont help you land though.
Yeah well, mandatory ablation of the testicles and prostate at birth would prevent a LOT of cancers. Now is that really a good idea, though?
It would also prevent abortions. Think of the babies that would be saved?
. The recent HIV studies are very poor, and quite frankly, bad science (the circed men were given condoms and extra counciling the others did not, and the study was cut short thus skewing the data as there was a good period where the circed men had to heal up before engaging in sexual activity).
Sounds like a bad period to me. My bottom line is this: surgery on children only for medical necessity. Surgery on adults only with consent. If consent were a required element, there wouldn't be a lot of circumcision.
Clearly the scientists behind this investigation are a trifle flighty.
It's always been that way in the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtors'_prison
... stop watching their content entirely. Stop writing about them and stop discussing what they do. Being ignored is the ultimate punishment for a media company gone bad.
Also true.
I foresee an period of consolidation in the PC market. There are too many players for all to be profitable. Lets hope victory does to somebody other than Me-Too companies like HP and Dell. If you want to be seen as a vibrant player you have to bring customers something they can't as easily get from your competitors.
That's why Apple is winning. They're not afraid to make big investments and take big risks to open new markets. I'm not saying they've brought a lot of real innovation to the market; they haven't. But they've brought products that worked pretty well to the market as soon as the technology allowed them to make something slick and appealing.
HP, in contrast, has focused on making computers that work just like everybody else's computers and let Microsoft Windows limit their innovation. I trace HP's decline to beginning when they split the company and spun off Agilent. All the creative minds seem to have gone to Agilent and HP has focused on the commoditized markets -- computers and printers.
I foresee an period of consolidation in the PC market. There are too many players for all to be profitable. Lets hope victory does to somebody other than Me-Too companies like HP and Dell. If you want to be seen as a vibrant player you have to bring customers something they can't ax easily try from spur competitors. That's why Apple is winning. They're not afraid to make big investments and take big risks to open new markets.
It might be possible to make a broader wavelength lens by stacking layers tuned to different frequencies. I'm bet money on it.
In theory...
In Theory, Communism is good too!
In theory...
In fact. Linux is plenty vulnerable to a targeted attack.
Just because a supposedly headless stateless group claims to be responsible for something doesn't mean they weren't acting as a cover for a nation state.
But I don't see how we could get people to pay for it. A giant industrial facility with no market directly interested in its product? Also the storage is not permanent. The frozen CO2 needs to be kept colder than ambient forever. Lose refrigeration and you could get a giant bump in atmospheric CO2.
You have to assume that AT BEST any customer data you see has been screened. If customer satisfaction data is published, the only rational reason for doing so is as a form of advertising.
Only a third of online reviews are fake? The idea is laughable because most on-line reviews are positive.
People are much more motivated to post a negative comments than a 100% positive one. This is because when people get screwed, they are angry which is a strong motivator for action. When you get what you expect, you are in contrast mildly pleased and this doesn't normally prompt a response. Also, there is a rational motivation for posting a critical review. The things you specifically point out are more likely to be fixed because of your having complained about them, if the developer is paying attention to reviews at all. 100% positive or maximal-rating reviews give no actionable feedback. So both from a rational and irrational motivation standpoint, a customer is much more likely to give a negaive review when poorly (or even fairly) served than a satisfied customer is to post a positive review when receiving exceptional service.
Additionally, is it really credible that exceptional service is the NORM?
I therefore assume that unless there is some barrier between the reviewing organization and the reviewed one, that the top ratings are ALL shills of some kind or another. The only ones worth paying attention to are the middle-rating and negative ones, and you can rarely trust that the negatives are uncensored.
I'd like to see some research by third parties on what the relationship is between customer satisfaction, likeliness of customers to review products and how those ratings look compared to what customers really think.
As has been pointed out in postings above, if you have a device that returns the correct factorization half the time, then by running it multiple times, you can easily determine the factors of a composite number--because it's easy and fast to _check_ the answers with a classical computer.
Or if you don't know whether the number is composite or prime, then by running it N times and checking the answer each time, you can reduce the uncertainty that a number which happens to be prime is prime to 1/2**N.
In both cases, you can arrive at negligible error rates in reasonable time.
(BTW, I believe factoring has been shown *not* to be NP hard, but it has some similarities: hard to come up with answers, easy to verify them.)
With only four-bit computations, it's useless. It needs to be scaled up by several bits just to show that their hardware approach has the potential to solve problems that aren't trivial.
I guess somewhat close to halfway there. If they had also computed the factorization of 14 with about 48% correct results, I'd be 100% more confident that they were onto something. What they've shown is that they made a quantum device that can produce results of 3 and 5 about half the time. Wouldn't you be happier if you knew that it didn't produce 3 and 5 half the time regardless how they program it?
The original abstract (http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys2385.html) mentions that their device is a 9-qubit device. If it can factor numbers bigger than 15, why didn't they do that? Or did they try that and get null results? If they haven't tried any other number yet, I'd say their publication is premature. If they have, they should be presenting more results.
Regarding the scalability, a lot more experiements are needed to find out if their hardware is at all scalable. Four qubits working is almost nothing. If that gives you a 48% correct result, that's 96% of the 50% expected. If the scaling of errors is 1% additional probability of error per bit, then the probabilty of a correct result would be 1/2 (the Schor 50%) x 99%^N. At 128 bits, that's about 14% correct, which would make cracking 128 bit encryption trivial. You'd only need on average 7 trials to verify a correct factoring, which would be awesome, and at 1024 bits you'd only need about 59,000 trials. So all present day encryption would be pretty much useless.
But that's ONLY if the error scales linearly with number of bits like that. If the errors creep in inside the computation somehow, it could be a lot worse than Pb^N. If they have a 9-bit machine they ought to try factoring the biggest numbers it can handle. That would give us a clue to how the errors scale.
I'm a woman who uses a PC and a Christian.
I figure I know what you do with the PC. What's the Christian for?
To help her with her grammar (I know, right?!).
Then she doesn't seem to have been able to find him in time to check her posting. It might be that the War on Christianity has been more successful than we thought; she better check to see if he's OK.
Maybe he's a funny Christian. I found her post humorous.
And did you FUCKING READ AT ALL my comments on the scalability of their hardware?
Never mind. I know you didn't.
in other words: thank god we have people with actual imagination in this world. what do dull minds like yours contribute exactly?
Machines that work with negligible error rates.
In fact, most programmers have an iPhone or an Android and accept the fact that they don't and don't need to completely control that device. It doesn't limit what they can do on OTHER devices that they own.
People without the technical savvy to manage a general purpose computer without support and restrictions don't NEED a general purpose computer without support and restrictions. They'll always be the bulk of the market.
I'm a woman who uses a PC and a Christian.
I figure I know what you do with the PC. What's the Christian for?