Then again, we don't have the harsh winters that necessitate keeping cattle indoors for several months each year, so it's easier just to let em roam free and munch on the grass all year.
American farmers don't keep cattle for beef indoors for months. They spend most of their lives feeding on grass in the summer and baleful hay in the winter. Then they are taken to feed lots where they are fattened up on a grain- rich diet before They are slaughtered.
Milk cows, though, spend most of their adulthood in feed lots eating corn.
There are *lots* of people with no connection to Christianity who think teaching everyone (to read in) a major language is a Bad Idea. This is a very strong meme among linguists, which goes under the name of "endangered languages." There's lots to be said on both sides--I don't want to say you're 100% wrong--but it's not obvious to everyone (Christian or anti-) that your idea is wise.
As for the whole world of ideas, ideas--any ideas--can be hard to understand in another language. How would you like to learn computer programming (or...) if all the books about it were written in Chinese, or even Vietnamese?
And those people are wrong. In what other context is cultural isolation and ignorance of world cultures considered a virtue that ought to be preserved?
I want applications that remember their states and can be saved and restored (gconsole, I'm looking at you in particular) and otherwise the ability to organize my working day properly on desktop and laptop.
Wrong approach. People will walk off your tablets. Instead, have the users bring their own. Set up an open wireless connection that supplies the users with a captive DNS directing everything to your internal service that only serves up your content.
Don't provide any other open connection. Then your crap shows up on everybody's ipad and android phone. Be prepared to fend off angry customers.
But at least you save the cost and headache of managing all those tablets and don't have to.replace.them every week.
The UK has a completely different election system in which minor parties are not completely neutered. In the USA the candidate who finishes first wins, even if he only got 30% of the vote. Small parties only have a chance in such a system if there are no big parties.
Actually Facebook has no means of verifying that the name orange other information you give them is real.
It would in fact be vulnerable to an exploit by bots that randomly ( or purposefully) generate bogus user profiles complete with networks if friend, fake histories, likes, etc. Nobody has any idea how many of Facebook's touted. 800M-odd users are actual persons.
There's also extremely solid evidence that the climate has been much warmer today with ten times the amount of CO2 in the air, and not only was life just grand then. Life flourished, and was even more diverse then, then it is today. . So, we're going to base all of our information on 150-200 years roughly. With 20-30 years of 'goodish' data, with 5-15 years of not bad data, with 5 years of okay data. That the earth is warming. Not forgetting that, it's been so much warmer when humans weren't even involved.
Beh.
But that was millions of years ago and every species alive at that time is now extinct. Sure, life will flourish if the Earth's temperature increases a few degrees and CO2 increases. But the Earth won't look the same and many of the species alive now will go extinct just like they always have when there have been big climate shifts.
And it will be damn inconvenient for humans who have built their cities by the oceans and in the lowlands to take advantage of trade and the best places for agriculture.
So evidence that the Earth is heating more slowly than we thought is good news. It means we have more time to get prepared for or possibly stave off the worst of the change.
Looks like what youd get if a donkey f****ed a lawnmower.
I' d rather have the donkey.
Not if it's going to go around f***ing lawnmowers...
Only happened once and it involved some researchers from Boston. Don't think I won't be ready if those b*****ds show up again. I'll be sure to hear them coming. (So will the donkey.) \
Looks like what youd get if a donkey f****ed a lawnmower.
I' d rather have the donkey. Or you can buy a little ATV that outperforms this walking nightmare every way you can think of. Say a John Deere Gator 825. Comes with a muffler too which the smart boys in Boston never thought of.
All the other potential revenue streams you ticked off are markets where Facebook would be late to the dance.
To value based on the assumption that they're going to grow to a $100 billion company would require that they have a business plan for doing that (not in evidence) or be uniquely positioned to take advantage of some foreseeable emerging market opportunity (also not in evidence).
What they have that's unique is a huge user base that, for the moment, likes to use their service. But there's nothing to say that the trend won't shift wildly -- to Google+ for instance or away from social networking entirely. I don't think the latter is likely, by the way. But if I were Zuckerberg, I'd see my company approaching number of users saturation and revenue per user saturation and be looking to convert all those years of building the company to cash before the valuation tanks.
They would need to change the keys whenever a police radio is lost or stolen anyway and would need to change them periodically to prevent the system from being hacked.
It's the market capitalization that's crazy. Facebook revenue was about 4 billion last year. No company can support a 20:1 price/sales multiple. Multiples that high scream scam.
But it's worse than that. Zuckerberg is keeping control of the voting shares in a way that allows the other investors zero say in how the company is run. He will appoint the directors. He will tell them what to say. He will decide all by himself how much he spends on development and how much on salaries including his own and how much he returns to investors in dividends or stock buybacks.
This is why laws are necessary to bound what corporations (and individuals) are allowed to do in business.
There will always be sleazy, underhanded, crappy ways to do business that are more profitable than fair dealing. If fair dealing is not mandated and enforced by the courts, everybody spends all their time figuring out how to maximally screw the other guy.
The company shouldn't have been paying him $150,000 a year if he wasn't worth it.
The idea that engineering schools produce new engineers with "fresh skills" that are of comparable value to an experienced engineer is laughable. It's clear to me that new engineers are worth less than half the value of an engineer with 10 years experience. What the new engineer brings -- the only thing of particular value -- is a mind that is more open to new things. Mostly, he's wrong to be open to those things because the experience that tells the senior guys that those things are unworkable is valid. But occasionally, he'll be right and ask the right questions and provide the impetus to try something that wasn't previously practical but is now.
To weigh against that is the older engineer who knows how to work the organization, organize his work, cooperate with others on the team, define his inputs and outputs, estimate how much time a project will take, when to say he's done, how and when to tell management that their idea isn't practical or isn't what the customer wants. He has solved 20x more technical problems than the kid. He just knows more stuff and in his particular area of expertise, he has much more detailed knowledge.
That explains part of the difference in value. The other part is due to weeding out of individuals who weren't able to learn new things, work well with others and manage their own work effectively.
If it's typical for an engineer with 20 years experience to earn $90K more than a fresh-out, it's because the company has assessed that's what it takes to retain good employees with that experience or bring new ones on board and that it's typically worth it to have employees with those skills on the staff. If they lay off experienced engineers with the best skills and replace them with fresh-outs that can't do the work, they deserve the consequences. It may be experienced as late or premature product releases, inefficient designs, poor performance or quality problems.
Quantum computing is math. In math it is possible to prove that some things are not possible, given sufficient constraints.
But the problem as stated is not well enough bounded to admit the possibility of a proof. It needs to be restated precisely.
* with constraints on the hardware that define what is and isn't a quantum computer * with a definition of what constitutes "useful work". A handheld calculator can do useful work, if useful work is defined as carrying out a few simple mathematical operations at user direction. It's sort a useful model of what that could be. If it can't do operations more quickly and reliably than a person can do them by himself, then it's not useful. In this era useful work could be defined at a much higher level, based on what can be done with ridiculous ease using a present-day conventional handheld computer, such as a smart phone. Say, 100 million 32-bit operations per second under the control of an arbitrary data stream could be defined as a reasonable threshold for "useful work" when compared to conventional computing devices. * with a constraint on the probability that the computed result will be incorrect. In useful work, there is an expectation that the computer produces either a single answer or one of a set of answers deemed correct with a very low probability of error. This needs to be explicitly stated. * under what conditions the QC needs to operate? Room temperature? In a magnetically shielded container? In space? Immersed in liquid helium in a chamber 1/2 mile underground?
If you define all those things to remove the ambiguity, it may be possible to show that at least N qubits are required to form the computer and that it would have a probability of error in excess of the threshold due to theoretically unavoidable decoherence or some other limitation. If that's the case, the question would be proven.
Obviously, the assassination comment was in jest. The arrest possibility is serious. These operators and the people who pay them are a criminal enterprise. Law enforcement could shut them down if they wanted to. The botnet would still be there if anybody wanted to use it. So you wait for it to go active again and round up the next batch of perps.
You still have to deal with non- cooperating jurisdictions. But users could use fairly simple means to block spam from them because they have identifiable ranges of IPs.
There's no perfect solution. But law enforcement can help.
Slashdot Mirror
Then again, we don't have the harsh winters that necessitate keeping cattle indoors for several months each year, so it's easier just to let em roam free and munch on the grass all year.
American farmers don't keep cattle for beef indoors for months. They spend most of their lives feeding on grass in the summer and baleful hay in the winter. Then they are taken to feed lots where they are fattened up on a grain- rich diet before They are slaughtered.
Milk cows, though, spend most of their adulthood in feed lots eating corn.
There are *lots* of people with no connection to Christianity who think teaching everyone (to read in) a major language is a Bad Idea. This is a very strong meme among linguists, which goes under the name of "endangered languages." There's lots to be said on both sides--I don't want to say you're 100% wrong--but it's not obvious to everyone (Christian or anti-) that your idea is wise.
As for the whole world of ideas, ideas--any ideas--can be hard to understand in another language. How would you like to learn computer programming (or...) if all the books about it were written in Chinese, or even Vietnamese?
And those people are wrong. In what other context is cultural isolation and ignorance of world cultures considered a virtue that ought to be preserved?
You must be American.
I want applications that remember their states and can be saved and restored (gconsole, I'm looking at you in particular) and otherwise the ability to organize my working day properly on desktop and laptop.
WINDOWS doesn't run on Linux.
Wrong approach. People will walk off your tablets. Instead, have the users bring their own. Set up an open wireless connection that supplies the users with a captive DNS directing everything to your internal service that only serves up your content.
Don't provide any other open connection. Then your crap shows up on everybody's ipad and android phone. Be prepared to fend off angry customers.
But at least you save the cost and headache of managing all those tablets and don't have to.replace.them every week.
The UK has a completely different election system in which minor parties are not completely neutered. In the USA the candidate who finishes first wins, even if he only got 30% of the vote. Small parties only have a chance in such a system if there are no big parties.
When all is done, they'll have made one book accessible to the tiny number of people who are literate only in these minority languages.
If instead they taught people to read a major language they'd be opened to a whole world of ideas.
Actually Facebook has no means of verifying that the name orange other information you give them is real.
It would in fact be vulnerable to an exploit by bots that randomly ( or purposefully) generate bogus user profiles complete with networks if friend, fake histories, likes, etc. Nobody has any idea how many of Facebook's touted. 800M-odd users are actual persons.
There's also extremely solid evidence that the climate has been much warmer today with ten times the amount of CO2 in the air, and not only was life just grand then. Life flourished, and was even more diverse then, then it is today. . So, we're going to base all of our information on 150-200 years roughly. With 20-30 years of 'goodish' data, with 5-15 years of not bad data, with 5 years of okay data. That the earth is warming. Not forgetting that, it's been so much warmer when humans weren't even involved.
Beh.
But that was millions of years ago and every species alive at that time is now extinct. Sure, life will flourish if the Earth's temperature increases a few degrees and CO2 increases. But the Earth won't look the same and many of the species alive now will go extinct just like they always have when there have been big climate shifts.
And it will be damn inconvenient for humans who have built their cities by the oceans and in the lowlands to take advantage of trade and the best places for agriculture.
So evidence that the Earth is heating more slowly than we thought is good news. It means we have more time to get prepared for or possibly stave off the worst of the change.
Looks like what youd get if a donkey f****ed a lawnmower.
I' d rather have the donkey.
Not if it's going to go around f***ing lawnmowers...
Only happened once and it involved some researchers from Boston. Don't think I won't be ready if those b*****ds show up again. I'll be sure to hear them coming. (So will the donkey.)
\
How can they be going out of business with profits that have remained steady in the just-over-$1B for the last 3 years and sales steady at $50B/year.
The profit margin is low, but what do you expect? They're a retailer.
Looks like what youd get if a donkey f****ed a lawnmower.
I' d rather have the donkey. Or you can buy a little ATV that outperforms this walking nightmare every way you can think of. Say a John Deere Gator 825. Comes with a muffler too which the smart boys in Boston never thought of.
All the other potential revenue streams you ticked off are markets where Facebook would be late to the dance.
To value based on the assumption that they're going to grow to a $100 billion company would require that they have a business plan for doing that (not in evidence) or be uniquely positioned to take advantage of some foreseeable emerging market opportunity (also not in evidence).
What they have that's unique is a huge user base that, for the moment, likes to use their service. But there's nothing to say that the trend won't shift wildly -- to Google+ for instance or away from social networking entirely. I don't think the latter is likely, by the way. But if I were Zuckerberg, I'd see my company approaching number of users saturation and revenue per user saturation and be looking to convert all those years of building the company to cash before the valuation tanks.
No, the alternative is not no work.
There is a spectrum of options including better pay and better working conditions.
Gilgamesh is fantasy. Zero science content.
They would need to change the keys whenever a police radio is lost or stolen anyway and would need to change them periodically to prevent the system from being hacked.
It's the market capitalization that's crazy. Facebook revenue was about 4 billion last year. No company can support a 20:1 price/sales multiple. Multiples that high scream scam.
But it's worse than that. Zuckerberg is keeping control of the voting shares in a way that allows the other investors zero say in how the company is run. He will appoint the directors. He will tell them what to say. He will decide all by himself how much he spends on development and how much on salaries including his own and how much he returns to investors in dividends or stock buybacks.
This is why laws are necessary to bound what corporations (and individuals) are allowed to do in business.
There will always be sleazy, underhanded, crappy ways to do business that are more profitable than fair dealing. If fair dealing is not mandated and enforced by the courts, everybody spends all their time figuring out how to maximally screw the other guy.
She works for UCAR (University Center for Atmospheric Research), which works jointly with NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research).
There's no legal way to patent public research.
It's only in one person's body and is nothing and nobody has a right to be in her body if she doesn't want it there.
Google and Facebook are small business? Discover? American Express?
The company shouldn't have been paying him $150,000 a year if he wasn't worth it.
The idea that engineering schools produce new engineers with "fresh skills" that are of comparable value to an experienced engineer is laughable. It's clear to me that new engineers are worth less than half the value of an engineer with 10 years experience. What the new engineer brings -- the only thing of particular value -- is a mind that is more open to new things. Mostly, he's wrong to be open to those things because the experience that tells the senior guys that those things are unworkable is valid. But occasionally, he'll be right and ask the right questions and provide the impetus to try something that wasn't previously practical but is now.
To weigh against that is the older engineer who knows how to work the organization, organize his work, cooperate with others on the team, define his inputs and outputs, estimate how much time a project will take, when to say he's done, how and when to tell management that their idea isn't practical or isn't what the customer wants. He has solved 20x more technical problems than the kid. He just knows more stuff and in his particular area of expertise, he has much more detailed knowledge.
That explains part of the difference in value. The other part is due to weeding out of individuals who weren't able to learn new things, work well with others and manage their own work effectively.
If it's typical for an engineer with 20 years experience to earn $90K more than a fresh-out, it's because the company has assessed that's what it takes to retain good employees with that experience or bring new ones on board and that it's typically worth it to have employees with those skills on the staff. If they lay off experienced engineers with the best skills and replace them with fresh-outs that can't do the work, they deserve the consequences. It may be experienced as late or premature product releases, inefficient designs, poor performance or quality problems.
Or they may get lucky.
Quantum computing is math. In math it is possible to prove that some things are not possible, given sufficient constraints.
But the problem as stated is not well enough bounded to admit the possibility of a proof. It needs to be restated precisely.
* with constraints on the hardware that define what is and isn't a quantum computer
* with a definition of what constitutes "useful work". A handheld calculator can do useful work, if useful work is defined as carrying out a few simple mathematical operations at user direction. It's sort a useful model of what that could be. If it can't do operations more quickly and reliably than a person can do them by himself, then it's not useful. In this era useful work could be defined at a much higher level, based on what can be done with ridiculous ease using a present-day conventional handheld computer, such as a smart phone. Say, 100 million 32-bit operations per second under the control of an arbitrary data stream could be defined as a reasonable threshold for "useful work" when compared to conventional computing devices.
* with a constraint on the probability that the computed result will be incorrect. In useful work, there is an expectation that the computer produces either a single answer or one of a set of answers deemed correct with a very low probability of error. This needs to be explicitly stated.
* under what conditions the QC needs to operate? Room temperature? In a magnetically shielded container? In space? Immersed in liquid helium in a chamber 1/2 mile underground?
If you define all those things to remove the ambiguity, it may be possible to show that at least N qubits are required to form the computer and that it would have a probability of error in excess of the threshold due to theoretically unavoidable decoherence or some other limitation. If that's the case, the question would be proven.
Obviously, the assassination comment was in jest. The arrest possibility is serious. These operators and the people who pay them are a criminal enterprise. Law enforcement could shut them down if they wanted to. The botnet would still be there if anybody wanted to use it. So you wait for it to go active again and round up the next batch of perps.
You still have to deal with non- cooperating jurisdictions. But users could use fairly simple means to block spam from them because they have identifiable ranges of IPs.
There's no perfect solution. But law enforcement can help.
You fail to account for the fact that the bypass switch would soon be set in the wide-open mode.