That's not how destructive interference works in the EM field. The photons at a point of destructive interference are diverted to area of constructive interference. They don't continue on as an unobservable photon pair. A point of destructive interference in a wave means the photons aren't there. In terms of the wave equation it means the probability of finding a photon at that location is 0. That's not because photons masking each other, it's because physically they are never present at that point.
The author of that paper clearly does not understand how constructive and destructive interference work in the EM field. He's correct that the photons do not simply disappear when there is destructive interference, however they are diverted to areas of constructive interference and this would not allow them to leave the cavity of the device if they otherwise couldn't.
What they wrote in the paper may sound good to someone who has a passing knowledge of EM fields and constructive/destructive interference in waves, but to someone who understands this more clearly it makes about as much sense as asking a mechanic to change your blinker fluid.
I'm not aware of this particular executive order, but no governing body is capable of enacting something that it can't itself undo. Congress can create a law that undoes any previous law. A president can issue an executive order or policy that undoes any previous one, and the Supreme Court can issue an opinion that reverses any previous decision. The only way to prevent this would be a constitutional amendment that none of them can override. However, another constitutional amendment can just repeal a previous amendment.
So your premise is flawed from the beginning. Even if such an order exists, any future president could just undo it.
Nope, they've not been compensated. At least according to the court transcripts:
THE COURT: Look, your language doesn't invoke the
All Writs Act, I get that, but in terms of the burden, first,
you haven't challenged it and you still haven't explained why
not. Second, you provided language for reasons I understand
about consistency, but you also did not say anything about
burdens beyond the immediate expense.
If you are saying we want to craft language that is
going to say here's exactly what we have to do, you require,
if I'm not mistaken -- I don't have the language in front of
me. Do you require compensation?
MR. ZWILLINGER: No, we've never required
compensation.
THE COURT: But you can, and you don't do anything
about that.
I mean, the point is well taken that Apple is a
pretty darn big company, maybe they don't care so much about
the costs of these 70 things in the big picture. It just
seems to me that there's a dog that didn't bark here.
MR. ZWILLINGER: I think the way to address this,
Your Honor, is the following.
Right now, Apple is aware that customer data is
under siege from a variety of different directions. Never has
the privacy and security of customer data been as important as
it is now. And, in fact, Apple built an operating system
which is why we're only talking here about IOS 7 systems,
operating systems IOS 8 and IOS 9, that puts Apple in a
position where it cannot do this, that is, going forward with
390 percent of the devices involved, Apple cannot perform
these services. So, Apple has taken itself out of the middle
of being in a position where it can be used as an attack
vector or in any way to compromise the security and privacy of
customer devices.
So, when the court asks Apple today does the All
Writs Act provide authority to force it to do this, Apple says
no, it does not, because what we are being forced to do is
expert forensic services, we're being forced to become an
agent of law enforcement and we cannot be forced to do that
with our old devices or with our new devices.
The 390 percent thing is weird, but that's what's in the transcript.
The bold face lie by the FBI wouldn't be for no reason. The discussion around this case has largely been around privacy, encryption and what the government should have access to. But there's a much bigger issue in play that hasn't gotten a lot of coverage.
There's no law that says Apple must provide decryption of the phone. And since they're not in possession of the data (it's on the phone), they're not required to hand it over based on a warrant as they would be under the Telecommunications act. So what to do?
Enter the All Writs Act of 1789. Basically it says courts can issue writs (judicial orders) for anything necessary within their jurisdiction. This is what was being used to order Apple to develop a version of iOS that would not erase the phone no matter how many PINs were typed in, effectively allowing the bypassing of the encryption.
Now the All Wits Act hasn't been used that way historically. And there's a huge question as to whether you can order a company or a person to do work like that for free. Normally decrypting a phone would be a service the government would pay a contractor to do or have an in house capability for. Here there trying to compel an unwilling party to work for them for free.
It's a fair bet that's unconstitutional. (4th amendment). The government has used the All Writs Act a couple times this way in the past few years in relation to mobile devices. It's pretty clear they don't want that shaky legal ground tested in the Supreme Court with public opinion against them.
Public opinion and some big players were lined up against them. The FBI was expecting everyone to turn on Apple as being unpatriotic when the case came to light. That didn't happen. I think they realized that this would likely end up in the Supreme Court and not go the way they want, barring them from future action. If they weren't able to break into the phone, this at least let's them back out cleanly while neither appearing to back off and not going down the road to the Supreme Court.
It's also possible they found a way into the phone that doesn't generalize, but provides the same way to back out without changing their position.
Generally, the electorate isn't informed enough on issues to make good decisions. One of the reasons we have elected representatives in office for 2, 4, 6, etc. years is to provide some stability. People's views change on a whim. Watching one news special about a particular issue can swing views wildly.
This kind of direct voting would result in utter chaos. Nothing's more fickle than public opinion, and it's impossible to get anything done when changing direction at the speed of the news cycle.
Apple already has a replacement connector and it's not a lightning dongle. They patented it a couple months ago. Pretty sure that's for the next iPhone.
Ah yes, I've heard of this referred to as worm theory. It's one possible solution to the Theseus Paradox. (Essential the same as the axe story Iu see above). Good video on possible ways of resolving the paradox, including wom theory here.
The result is the same whether the brain is replaced a little at a time or all at once in a copy.
There's an old story about an axe that has it's handle replaced a few times. Eventually over the years it's used so much the head is replaced. And a few more handles after that. There was always a piece of the axe included when something was replaced. Is the current axe the same axe we started with? If not, at what point did it become a different axe?
As to whether an exact copy of you is actually you, I would say yes, unless you're going to argue something supernatural like a soul. It would be just the same as cloning a computer hard drive and placing it in identical hardware. From their perspective each computer is the original...or the copy, there's no way for them to tell
You're probably thinking of a continuous point of view being the original, but human consciousness generally only exists in 16 hour spurts. When you sleep, is the 'you' that wakes up the same 'you' that went to sleep? There's certainly a gap in your consciousness which would be the same as being dead and coming back. Or the same as a copy waking up.
I mean, can you imagine a bunch of little micro-acomplishments like self-assigned gold stars on someone's resume? "In October Larry watched 8 videos on how to do something, representing a year-over-year increase of 100% for that period." I just don't see this happening.
Unfortunately I can. A generation is coming up that's been raised with XBox trophies and Steam achievements. Micro-rewards work in terms of getting people to do tasks. It originated in gaming and is pervasive in modern games, but it's quickly leaking into general usage.
One example - Fitbit awards badges for walking a number of steps each day, or climbing flights of stairs. You can compete with your friends for top score each week.
It's not too far a stretch to see something like Khan Academy awarding a badge for each video you watch and a bigger badge for completing a course. I don't personally like the the gamification of everything, but it's definitely coming. People will do things they otherwise wouldn't for a little bit of recognition.
I've never seen a modern TV not have Composite input. Most current TVs have a couple HDMI, Composite and Component inputs at the very least. Some will have optical audio, and rarely DVI or VGA now. There's tons of devices in use that only output composite.
I'm sure you can find TVs without composite input, but it's still on the majority of them.
Just for fun - I was around in 1980 - very very few TVs had Composite inputs on them. They were mostly high end video equipment (studio use), security monitors or computer monitors. You were lucky if a TV had a 75 Ohm Coax connector (what cable uses). Most TVs of that era still used 300 Ohm twin-lead connectors (the ones you needed a screwdriver to connect).
I would suggest looking at CHIP. It's a single board computer with built in Wi-Fi and a 1GHz ARM chip for $9. You'll need to add a keyboard. It supports composite video out on the board, so depending on what they need to do that should be enough.
The Internet resources are going to be the killer though. Not everyone has access at home. Does the school provide free wifi access? If so, I'd recommend getting references / videos in a form that are easy to download and let students use them offline.
Indeed. I have Amazon Prime too and Amazon's great. I ship pretty much everything I can these days. I'm just saying Amazon's devices aren't something people get excited about like some other brands.
If you take Nintendo or Apple or Atari as an example, there is a fan base around them that enjoys collecting items from 30-40 years ago up to the present. Heck, there are sizable retro movements building new hardware / software for those old systems. I just don't see that happening for Amazon 20 years out, that's all.
In 20 years we will come full circle -- a reality TV show about finding the lost Amazon Phone stock buried in a landfill -- available on Amazon Prime Video.
Seems unlikely. The Atari 2600 was one of the best and longest selling consoles ever created and the video game crash of '83 was a major event.
The Fire Phone on the other hand... was a crappy phone that could charitably called an "also ran" with a couple gimmicky features. If anything, it would be lumped in as a weird curiosity like the Virtual Boy, but even then, Amazon doesn't have any fans around it like Nintendo or Apple that make it a collectible. Who's waiting in line for the next Kindle Fire? No one.
Damn... 20 years has gone by fast
on
Windows 95 Turns 20
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
20 years ago I was a teenager. My family wasn't rich growing up. By that point I'd owned a second hand Commodore 64 I bought for $75 through the classified ads, an IBM PC XT I bought from a consignment shop, and a 386 I built from pieces I bought second hand from a friend who was upgrading to a Pentium system. Around this time 20 years ago I was finishing up an internship I had in between my junior and senior years of high school that I had because I spent some time on BBSes and the guy thought I would enjoy learning to develop software with them. During the summer I used a 486 DX2 system with Windows 3.1. That was my fist real exposure to Windows.
There was a local trade mag for computers that they gave away free every month at news stands. I always enjoyed reading them and there were a lot of articles on Win 95. No one I knew had it or got it over the next year.
The following year when I was getting ready for college, one of the thing we had to buy was a modern computer to meet the requirements for my engineering program. It was built by a local shop and they offered DOS 6.22 / Win 3.1 or Windows 95. I remember being hesitant about 95, but decided to go for it since it was newer and I knew newer aoftware was designed for it.
That design really opened up computing to a lot of people. Having a single place to go to Start any program was a great idea. Before you had to know what directory to look in or where in Program Manager an icon was. All my non technical friends in college had no problem with it. With Windows 3.1 they would struggle and if they had to drop to DOS they were mostly lost. If you want to know what's running, it's right there on the task bar.
I've used various versions of Windows and Linux over the years, but I think the biggest legacy is the start button and task bar. They pretty much define how most people interact with the desktop. The Windows 8 UI debacle and the shift back to a start menu / having Modern apps on the task bar shows that it's how users have come to expect to interact with a desktop system.
Jessie installs systemd by default on new installs. Should one desire to install without systemd, i.e use sysvinit-core instead (old sysV5 init), it is possible to use preseed to replace systemd with sysvinit at the end of the install (This probably won't work if selecting one of the desktop environments that require systemd specific features however).
It's good information, but the last line from the link is the real problem.
I myself agree, I read L. Ron Hubbard book years ago, and came away with no hint of a religious kind on organization
That's like saying you've read the Bible and now understand any given Christian denomination or the Quran and now understand Islam. The actual religions are often quite different from the book that sprang from. In the case of Scientology, if you happen to catch the recent HBO documentary, they mention that Scientology is a repackaging of Dianetics as a religion that came about after sales of the book died down. So to say Scientology is not a religion because you once read Dianetics....that's a big leap.
“If you open a file, we may collect information about the file, the application used to open the file, and how long it takes any use [of] it for purposes such as improving performance, or [if you] enter text, we may collect typed characters, we may collect typed characters and use them for purposes such as improving autocomplete and spell check features,”
because they licensed it in a way that would allow them to continue using it in Xcode.
As the copyright holder, Apple isn't bound by the license agreement. They own it and can do whatever. The license is what gives others the right to use it. I'm not saying they should go one way or another, but they could certainly license it as GPL and not impact their own usage of it in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not how destructive interference works in the EM field. The photons at a point of destructive interference are diverted to area of constructive interference. They don't continue on as an unobservable photon pair. A point of destructive interference in a wave means the photons aren't there. In terms of the wave equation it means the probability of finding a photon at that location is 0. That's not because photons masking each other, it's because physically they are never present at that point.
The author of that paper clearly does not understand how constructive and destructive interference work in the EM field. He's correct that the photons do not simply disappear when there is destructive interference, however they are diverted to areas of constructive interference and this would not allow them to leave the cavity of the device if they otherwise couldn't.
What they wrote in the paper may sound good to someone who has a passing knowledge of EM fields and constructive/destructive interference in waves, but to someone who understands this more clearly it makes about as much sense as asking a mechanic to change your blinker fluid.
I'm not aware of this particular executive order, but no governing body is capable of enacting something that it can't itself undo. Congress can create a law that undoes any previous law. A president can issue an executive order or policy that undoes any previous one, and the Supreme Court can issue an opinion that reverses any previous decision. The only way to prevent this would be a constitutional amendment that none of them can override. However, another constitutional amendment can just repeal a previous amendment.
So your premise is flawed from the beginning. Even if such an order exists, any future president could just undo it.
Nope, they've not been compensated. At least according to the court transcripts:
THE COURT: Look, your language doesn't invoke the All Writs Act, I get that, but in terms of the burden, first, you haven't challenged it and you still haven't explained why not. Second, you provided language for reasons I understand about consistency, but you also did not say anything about burdens beyond the immediate expense.
If you are saying we want to craft language that is going to say here's exactly what we have to do, you require, if I'm not mistaken -- I don't have the language in front of me. Do you require compensation?
MR. ZWILLINGER: No, we've never required compensation.
THE COURT: But you can, and you don't do anything about that.
I mean, the point is well taken that Apple is a pretty darn big company, maybe they don't care so much about the costs of these 70 things in the big picture. It just seems to me that there's a dog that didn't bark here.
MR. ZWILLINGER: I think the way to address this, Your Honor, is the following.
Right now, Apple is aware that customer data is under siege from a variety of different directions. Never has the privacy and security of customer data been as important as it is now. And, in fact, Apple built an operating system which is why we're only talking here about IOS 7 systems, operating systems IOS 8 and IOS 9, that puts Apple in a position where it cannot do this, that is, going forward with 390 percent of the devices involved, Apple cannot perform these services. So, Apple has taken itself out of the middle of being in a position where it can be used as an attack vector or in any way to compromise the security and privacy of customer devices.
So, when the court asks Apple today does the All Writs Act provide authority to force it to do this, Apple says no, it does not, because what we are being forced to do is expert forensic services, we're being forced to become an agent of law enforcement and we cannot be forced to do that with our old devices or with our new devices.
The 390 percent thing is weird, but that's what's in the transcript.
Full Transcript: http://www.scribd.com/doc/296323783/102615-Apple
That should say 5th amendment; not 4th. "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The bold face lie by the FBI wouldn't be for no reason. The discussion around this case has largely been around privacy, encryption and what the government should have access to. But there's a much bigger issue in play that hasn't gotten a lot of coverage.
There's no law that says Apple must provide decryption of the phone. And since they're not in possession of the data (it's on the phone), they're not required to hand it over based on a warrant as they would be under the Telecommunications act. So what to do?
Enter the All Writs Act of 1789. Basically it says courts can issue writs (judicial orders) for anything necessary within their jurisdiction. This is what was being used to order Apple to develop a version of iOS that would not erase the phone no matter how many PINs were typed in, effectively allowing the bypassing of the encryption.
Now the All Wits Act hasn't been used that way historically. And there's a huge question as to whether you can order a company or a person to do work like that for free. Normally decrypting a phone would be a service the government would pay a contractor to do or have an in house capability for. Here there trying to compel an unwilling party to work for them for free.
It's a fair bet that's unconstitutional. (4th amendment). The government has used the All Writs Act a couple times this way in the past few years in relation to mobile devices. It's pretty clear they don't want that shaky legal ground tested in the Supreme Court with public opinion against them.
Public opinion and some big players were lined up against them. The FBI was expecting everyone to turn on Apple as being unpatriotic when the case came to light. That didn't happen. I think they realized that this would likely end up in the Supreme Court and not go the way they want, barring them from future action. If they weren't able to break into the phone, this at least let's them back out cleanly while neither appearing to back off and not going down the road to the Supreme Court.
It's also possible they found a way into the phone that doesn't generalize, but provides the same way to back out without changing their position.
Yes, the new release includes online multiplayer.
It's not the same. What was just released includes online network multiplayer for the games.
Generally, the electorate isn't informed enough on issues to make good decisions. One of the reasons we have elected representatives in office for 2, 4, 6, etc. years is to provide some stability. People's views change on a whim. Watching one news special about a particular issue can swing views wildly.
This kind of direct voting would result in utter chaos. Nothing's more fickle than public opinion, and it's impossible to get anything done when changing direction at the speed of the news cycle.
Apple already has a replacement connector and it's not a lightning dongle. They patented it a couple months ago. Pretty sure that's for the next iPhone.
Ah yes, I've heard of this referred to as worm theory. It's one possible solution to the Theseus Paradox. (Essential the same as the axe story Iu see above). Good video on possible ways of resolving the paradox, including wom theory here.
The result is the same whether the brain is replaced a little at a time or all at once in a copy.
...or the copy, there's no way for them to tell
There's an old story about an axe that has it's handle replaced a few times. Eventually over the years it's used so much the head is replaced. And a few more handles after that. There was always a piece of the axe included when something was replaced. Is the current axe the same axe we started with? If not, at what point did it become a different axe?
As to whether an exact copy of you is actually you, I would say yes, unless you're going to argue something supernatural like a soul. It would be just the same as cloning a computer hard drive and placing it in identical hardware. From their perspective each computer is the original
You're probably thinking of a continuous point of view being the original, but human consciousness generally only exists in 16 hour spurts. When you sleep, is the 'you' that wakes up the same 'you' that went to sleep? There's certainly a gap in your consciousness which would be the same as being dead and coming back. Or the same as a copy waking up.
Unfortunately I can. A generation is coming up that's been raised with XBox trophies and Steam achievements. Micro-rewards work in terms of getting people to do tasks. It originated in gaming and is pervasive in modern games, but it's quickly leaking into general usage. One example - Fitbit awards badges for walking a number of steps each day, or climbing flights of stairs. You can compete with your friends for top score each week. It's not too far a stretch to see something like Khan Academy awarding a badge for each video you watch and a bigger badge for completing a course. I don't personally like the the gamification of everything, but it's definitely coming. People will do things they otherwise wouldn't for a little bit of recognition.
I've never seen a modern TV not have Composite input. Most current TVs have a couple HDMI, Composite and Component inputs at the very least. Some will have optical audio, and rarely DVI or VGA now. There's tons of devices in use that only output composite.
Example 1: http://www.amazon.com/Sharp-LC-65LE654U-65-Inch-1080p-120Hz/dp/B00TTVMEKA/ref=sr_1_4?s=tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1442117676&sr=1-4&keywords=65+inch+tv
Example 2: http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN65H6350-65-Inch-1080p-120Hz/dp/B00I94IPXS/ref=sr_1_2?s=tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1442117781&sr=1-2&keywords=65+inch+tv
I'm sure you can find TVs without composite input, but it's still on the majority of them.
Just for fun - I was around in 1980 - very very few TVs had Composite inputs on them. They were mostly high end video equipment (studio use), security monitors or computer monitors. You were lucky if a TV had a 75 Ohm Coax connector (what cable uses). Most TVs of that era still used 300 Ohm twin-lead connectors (the ones you needed a screwdriver to connect).
I would suggest looking at CHIP. It's a single board computer with built in Wi-Fi and a 1GHz ARM chip for $9. You'll need to add a keyboard. It supports composite video out on the board, so depending on what they need to do that should be enough. The Internet resources are going to be the killer though. Not everyone has access at home. Does the school provide free wifi access? If so, I'd recommend getting references / videos in a form that are easy to download and let students use them offline.
Indeed. I have Amazon Prime too and Amazon's great. I ship pretty much everything I can these days. I'm just saying Amazon's devices aren't something people get excited about like some other brands.
If you take Nintendo or Apple or Atari as an example, there is a fan base around them that enjoys collecting items from 30-40 years ago up to the present. Heck, there are sizable retro movements building new hardware / software for those old systems. I just don't see that happening for Amazon 20 years out, that's all.
In 20 years we will come full circle -- a reality TV show about finding the lost Amazon Phone stock buried in a landfill -- available on Amazon Prime Video.
Seems unlikely. The Atari 2600 was one of the best and longest selling consoles ever created and the video game crash of '83 was a major event.
The Fire Phone on the other hand... was a crappy phone that could charitably called an "also ran" with a couple gimmicky features. If anything, it would be lumped in as a weird curiosity like the Virtual Boy, but even then, Amazon doesn't have any fans around it like Nintendo or Apple that make it a collectible. Who's waiting in line for the next Kindle Fire? No one.
20 years ago I was a teenager. My family wasn't rich growing up. By that point I'd owned a second hand Commodore 64 I bought for $75 through the classified ads, an IBM PC XT I bought from a consignment shop, and a 386 I built from pieces I bought second hand from a friend who was upgrading to a Pentium system. Around this time 20 years ago I was finishing up an internship I had in between my junior and senior years of high school that I had because I spent some time on BBSes and the guy thought I would enjoy learning to develop software with them. During the summer I used a 486 DX2 system with Windows 3.1. That was my fist real exposure to Windows.
There was a local trade mag for computers that they gave away free every month at news stands. I always enjoyed reading them and there were a lot of articles on Win 95. No one I knew had it or got it over the next year.
The following year when I was getting ready for college, one of the thing we had to buy was a modern computer to meet the requirements for my engineering program. It was built by a local shop and they offered DOS 6.22 / Win 3.1 or Windows 95. I remember being hesitant about 95, but decided to go for it since it was newer and I knew newer aoftware was designed for it.
That design really opened up computing to a lot of people. Having a single place to go to Start any program was a great idea. Before you had to know what directory to look in or where in Program Manager an icon was. All my non technical friends in college had no problem with it. With Windows 3.1 they would struggle and if they had to drop to DOS they were mostly lost. If you want to know what's running, it's right there on the task bar.
I've used various versions of Windows and Linux over the years, but I think the biggest legacy is the start button and task bar. They pretty much define how most people interact with the desktop. The Windows 8 UI debacle and the shift back to a start menu / having Modern apps on the task bar shows that it's how users have come to expect to interact with a desktop system.
It's good information, but the last line from the link is the real problem.
That's like saying you've read the Bible and now understand any given Christian denomination or the Quran and now understand Islam. The actual religions are often quite different from the book that sprang from. In the case of Scientology, if you happen to catch the recent HBO documentary, they mention that Scientology is a repackaging of Dianetics as a religion that came about after sales of the book died down. So to say Scientology is not a religion because you once read Dianetics....that's a big leap.
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/preview-privacy-statement
I'm not sure if you're kidding/being sarcastic or unaware of key logger in Windows 10.
Because it contains their art assets.
As the copyright holder, Apple isn't bound by the license agreement. They own it and can do whatever. The license is what gives others the right to use it. I'm not saying they should go one way or another, but they could certainly license it as GPL and not impact their own usage of it in any way.