Spare me the groupthink. You're forgetting that roads are for pedestrians, cyclists, animals, farm equipment, and damn near anything that needs to get from point A to point B, at whatever speed it can muster. Arguments that everyone should travel at the same speed for "safety" are a crock. If so, then why don't drivers all go 4 mph?
Oppressive corporatism - foreseen and warned about by great writers from Orwell to Huxley to Sir Arthur Clarke to John Raulston Saul - has grown beyond even their imagination. Corporations have staggering resources and power to shape the modern world, despite the fact that they have no political agenda or ideology apart from dominating markets and maximizing profits.
There has apparently been some drift in the definition, but my experience has been that the word "corporatism" refers to the subjugation of individuals (and any other independent entities) into the body of the state, under the control of a single leader or party. For instance, Pinochet believed the state was almost a living organism, people being little more than cells or worker bees. North Korea is considered a model of corporatism (in Bruce Cumings's history of Korea).
The idea of separate businesses or organizations in society is antithetical to this ideal, and I believe that Orwell or Huxley were referring more to this definition of corporatism than to the problem of multiple large, transnational businesses operating in an anarchical fashion.
Korea, for example, already has an anti-pr0n law in place. When free speech was mentioned, one lawmaker said he couldn't possibly call it speech. This is a country where "Serial Mom" was banned for excess violence (unlike Swiri, a Korean film featuring NK commandos bayonetting prisoners for practice). Most likely this will just be another law to satisfy the busybodies while everyone else looks the other way (and corruption flourishes), but it's still a step in the wrong direction.
It tried to set a "session ID" cookie, I forbade it, and it gave me the "session lost" page. Maybe if I'd accepted the cookie it would work, but I neVer will.
Sure, this is a well-established species with a major market presence, but I see a company adrift with no sense of direction. Look at the negatives:
2.5 billion years without a major product update. At this rate Microsoft may overtake them!
760 trillion employees? Some see productivity, I see developer bloat. Most innovation comes from small, focused teams of fewer than ten entities. Read "The mythical Anabaena-Month" to see what I mean.
Sure, there's no way Microsoft can "cut off their oxygen supply", but one load of FUD in a feeder stream, and we've got a major algae bloom on our hands. How many MBA's out there are trained to deal with that?
Clearly these "codebreakers" are nothing more than pirates violating the poor Nazis' Intellectual Property rights. These delinquents' efforts at defeating the Third Reich's copy protection schemes are illegal, and they are clearly liable for the losses incurred during the war, and for subsequent declines in the sales of Mein Kampf and Eva Braun's Greatest Hits.
Ricochets aren't supported above 4 mph or so. Taxis don't support speeds below 45 mph, or throttle settings below "full", so there's obviously an incompatibility there.
It's probably because of the difficulty of acquiring a new relay every second or two, like cellphones in planes. (As for the taxis, law enforcement would help, but not in Willie Brown's city.)
This article is a bit off on its history - it says that there were no automobiles in use at the turn of the century. The 100th anniversary of the first American killed by a motorist was this year, so automobiles were undoubtedly present in New York in 1899 or earlier.
The guy forgot to do any research before publishing. I checked back today, and there were a bunch of letters to the editor, none of them mentioning the IETF draft covering the same topic and dated June of this year, but at least letting him know that, for instance, ethernet MACs and IPv6 addresses are changeable.
The guy does have one legitimate privacy concern left, though: how to keep his idiocy a secret.
What we perceive as time and history results because different parts of the phase space have higher probabilities than others, and our brains construct our perceptions by stringing together, for lack of a better word, "samples" of congruent areas of this space.
Well, it's good to see someone who's not convinced he can disprove this with remedial-level calculus.
"Congruent" refers to objects which differ by a rotation and translation, i.e. they're the same size and shape. Since there's no notion of size or shape defined in this space, do you mean contiguous, adjacent, connected, or something else?
He then defines the "arrows" of time as a straight "track" traced between different configurations. Each configuration contains data which has records of "the past"-- other configurations on the same track. Essentially he's changed the definition of the Universe. What we consider "the universe" is a single element of the set he names Platonia. But he names Platonia the universe-- the set of all possible particle configurations.
I read the article a few times, and as far as I can gather it's the typical result when someone is asked to write an article on a narrow theoretical area for a wide audience - the basis of the theory can't be explained in a single article with no equations, and the explanation that is included ends up sparking more obfuscation than enlightenment (maybe he did target it for slashdot after all).
The basics I get are that 1) the first section is "configuration space for dummies", a quick definition by example which unfortunately neglects to mention that this is a fairly standard construct for anyone doing QM with more than one particle. 2) He's mainly pointing out that QM has a lot of dirty underwear, in that it runs everything as a function of time and classical space, even when relativity made these parameters look pretty subjective a long, er, time ago.
The common interpretation of QM is that the future is fuzzy, but the "collapse" of the wave function makes the past totally fixed! So, time is not merely a coordinate, but a magical quantity that does what no physicist has ever done: make the $%^% randomness go away. That, from the standpoint of symmetry, is suspicious. It means that QM isn't time-reversible, the way our old Newtonian equations were.
I believe he focuses on configuration space in order to point out that a single state of the universe could have arisen from multiple past "timelines" through the space, so in fact the oft-quoted and difficult-to-refute "many worlds" interpretation, which is really the "many futures" interpretation, could be turned around to include a "many pasts" interpretation as well. The result is not that time is removed from the theory, but that it's less of a unique absolute, i.e. it's not the magic quantity that makes indeterminacy collapse into definite, immutable history the way Ye Olde Copenhagen interpretation does.
Re:not just the photon, but the electron
on
Time Doesn't Exist
·
· Score: 1
Your last paragraph is pretty much correct. There are some quite plausible and insightful ways of looking at the wave-particle duality, which many physicists reject simply because the math is even tougher. People like Barbour fall into the "post-physicist" category of people who got into physics, decided they were more interested in cosmology than, say, improving the yield of atomic weapons, and watched their grants dry up (that's my guess, anyway). In any case, the opinions are different, but the equations are the same.
De Broglie (that's right, the original wave-particle guy) interpreted the interference pattern in a fairly straightforward way: each particle has a wavy sort of "force field" around it which interacts with itself and other particles' "force fields" and produces a number of weird effects, notably that particles tend to fall into wavy interference patterns all by themselves. More interestingly, particles seem to undergo chaotic, seemingly random "quantum jumps" when their wave functions get into a tangle, and one doesn't need a lot of random functions from nowhere to explain the behavior (it's deterministic, just like old-time physics).
Unfortunately, the upshot of the mathematics turned out to include non-local effects (eg the quantum FTL "communication" everybody here likes so much), and the theory was ignored. In the years since then there have been quite a body of results showing that the Bohm-de Broglie interpretation makes sense, but the math is too complex to be useful - so the main interest is to philosophers and cosmologists, and a lot of physicists just sort of shake their heads when questioned about the details of QM, and rail on about crackpots whenever someone throws an equation they can't solve.
Agreed, collapse is a namby-pamby way of explaining things - I'm more convinced by the Bohm-de Broglie interpretation. Probably the point I was alluding to is that entanglement (whether from "collapse" or just plain non-local Hamiltonians) brings down the dimensionality of the state space, i.e. it reduces the number of dice that God gets to play with.
His references to "phase space" are completely standard - each particle has a wave equation which is more-or-less independent of the other particles, until a "collapse" occurs and some particles become bound together. The result is a configuration space which is the base space raised to the power of the number of particles.
If you're trying to do graph traversals (tracing routes, or walking a tree) in SQL, get something that understands SQL3. Recursion was added specifically for problems like this. PL/SQL is an antiquated solution for this problem. Perhaps if you give more information about the queries you intend to run, we could come up with more useful suggestions.
"Bresenhams"? I thought they were called "K-Mans". Darn, if I'd only patented it...(not).
I did look at higher-degree polynomials at the time I wrote my version, and really all you can get with this idea is a polynomial calculation one degree lower than what you started out with, ie:
One way to avoid some of the problems discussed above would be to use DHCP for obtaining addresses. With DHCP, the DHCP server could arrange to hand out addresses that change over time.
Another approach, one compatible with the stateless address autoconfiguration architecture would be to change the interface id portion of an address over time. For example, upon each system restart, select a new interface identifier different from the ones used previously. Changing the interface identifier makes it more difficult to look at the IP addresses in independent transactions and identify which ones actually correspond to the same node.
In order to make it difficult to make educated guesses as to whether two different interface identifiers belong to the same node, the algorithm for generating alternate identifiers must include input that has an unpredictable component from the perspective of the outside entity's collecting information. Picking identifiers from a pseudorandom sequence suffices, so long as the specific sequence cannot be determined by an outsider examining just the identifiers that appear in addresses. This document proposes the use of an MD5 hash, using a per-interface "key" that varies from one interface to another. Specifically, we use the interface identifier generated using the normal procedure [ADDRARCH] as the key.
Try doing a domain name search on "gwbush" or "bush", etc. There are just too many variations on "xxx-sucks", "xxxblows.com", etc. to make much of a dent by registering anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Spare me the groupthink. You're forgetting that roads are for pedestrians, cyclists, animals, farm equipment, and damn near anything that needs to get from point A to point B, at whatever speed it can muster. Arguments that everyone should travel at the same speed for "safety" are a crock. If so, then why don't drivers all go 4 mph?
There has apparently been some drift in the definition, but my experience has been that the word "corporatism" refers to the subjugation of individuals (and any other independent entities) into the body of the state, under the control of a single leader or party. For instance, Pinochet believed the state was almost a living organism, people being little more than cells or worker bees. North Korea is considered a model of corporatism (in Bruce Cumings's history of Korea).
The idea of separate businesses or organizations in society is antithetical to this ideal, and I believe that Orwell or Huxley were referring more to this definition of corporatism than to the problem of multiple large, transnational businesses operating in an anarchical fashion.
Korea, for example, already has an anti-pr0n law in place. When free speech was mentioned, one lawmaker said he couldn't possibly call it speech. This is a country where "Serial Mom" was banned for excess violence (unlike Swiri, a Korean film featuring NK commandos bayonetting prisoners for practice).
Most likely this will just be another law to satisfy the busybodies while everyone else looks the other way (and corruption flourishes), but it's still a step in the wrong direction.
It tried to set a "session ID" cookie, I forbade it, and it gave me the "session lost" page. Maybe if I'd accepted the cookie it would work, but I neVer will.
How about bluegreenalgae.com.
2.5 billion years without a major product update. At this rate Microsoft may overtake them!
760 trillion employees? Some see productivity, I see developer bloat. Most innovation comes from small, focused teams of fewer than ten entities. Read "The mythical Anabaena-Month" to see what I mean.
Sure, there's no way Microsoft can "cut off their oxygen supply", but one load of FUD in a feeder stream, and we've got a major algae bloom on our hands. How many MBA's out there are trained to deal with that?
Where is the RIAA when we really need them?
They were probably counting on protection from the digital millenium copyright act. ;-)
It's probably because of the difficulty of acquiring a new relay every second or two, like cellphones in planes. (As for the taxis, law enforcement would help, but not in Willie Brown's city.)
Check your map. SV is ugly enough to be in SoCal, but it's not. It also gets a lot of its water from local reservoirs.
What kind of farming/arable land do they have?
Very good land. Most of it went directly from orchards to subdivisions and parking lots (with no planning in between).
Still, I doubt if SV could ever sustain its unique culture without help - unless Matt Groenig could be persuaded to defect.
It may not be good enough for cloning, but it should allow the police to close the books on a number of unsolved 23,000-year old crime cases.
This article is a bit off on its history - it says that there were no automobiles in use at the turn of the century. The 100th anniversary of the first American killed by a motorist was this year, so automobiles were undoubtedly present in New York in 1899 or earlier.
The guy forgot to do any research before publishing. I checked back today, and there were a bunch of letters to the editor, none of them mentioning the IETF draft covering the same topic and dated June of this year, but at least letting him know that, for instance, ethernet MACs and IPv6 addresses are changeable.
The guy does have one legitimate privacy concern left, though: how to keep his idiocy a secret.
Well, it's good to see someone who's not convinced he can disprove this with remedial-level calculus.
"Congruent" refers to objects which differ by a rotation and translation, i.e. they're the same size and shape. Since there's no notion of size or shape defined in this space, do you mean contiguous, adjacent, connected, or something else?
I read the article a few times, and as far as I can gather it's the typical result when someone is asked to write an article on a narrow theoretical area for a wide audience - the basis of the theory can't be explained in a single article with no equations, and the explanation that is included ends up sparking more obfuscation than enlightenment (maybe he did target it for slashdot after all).
The basics I get are that 1) the first section is "configuration space for dummies", a quick definition by example which unfortunately neglects to mention that this is a fairly standard construct for anyone doing QM with more than one particle. 2) He's mainly pointing out that QM has a lot of dirty underwear, in that it runs everything as a function of time and classical space, even when relativity made these parameters look pretty subjective a long, er, time ago.
The common interpretation of QM is that the future is fuzzy, but the "collapse" of the wave function makes the past totally fixed! So, time is not merely a coordinate, but a magical quantity that does what no physicist has ever done: make the $%^% randomness go away. That, from the standpoint of symmetry, is suspicious. It means that QM isn't time-reversible, the way our old Newtonian equations were.
I believe he focuses on configuration space in order to point out that a single state of the universe could have arisen from multiple past "timelines" through the space, so in fact the oft-quoted and difficult-to-refute "many worlds" interpretation, which is really the "many futures" interpretation, could be turned around to include a "many pasts" interpretation as well. The result is not that time is removed from the theory, but that it's less of a unique absolute, i.e. it's not the magic quantity that makes indeterminacy collapse into definite, immutable history the way Ye Olde Copenhagen interpretation does.
Your last paragraph is pretty much correct. There are some quite plausible and insightful ways of looking at the wave-particle duality, which many physicists reject simply because the math is even tougher. People like Barbour fall into the "post-physicist" category of people who got into physics, decided they were more interested in cosmology than, say, improving the yield of atomic weapons, and watched their grants dry up (that's my guess, anyway). In any case, the opinions are different, but the equations are the same.
De Broglie (that's right, the original wave-particle guy) interpreted the interference pattern in a fairly straightforward way: each particle has a wavy sort of "force field" around it which interacts with itself and other particles' "force fields" and produces a number of weird effects, notably that particles tend to fall into wavy interference patterns all by themselves. More interestingly, particles seem to undergo chaotic, seemingly random "quantum jumps" when their wave functions get into a tangle, and one doesn't need a lot of random functions from nowhere to explain the behavior (it's deterministic, just like old-time physics).
Unfortunately, the upshot of the mathematics turned out to include non-local effects (eg the quantum FTL "communication" everybody here likes so much), and the theory was ignored. In the years since then there have been quite a body of results showing that the Bohm-de Broglie interpretation makes sense, but the math is too complex to be useful - so the main interest is to philosophers and cosmologists, and a lot of physicists just sort of shake their heads when questioned about the details of QM, and rail on about crackpots whenever someone throws an equation they can't solve.
Agreed, collapse is a namby-pamby way of explaining things - I'm more convinced by the Bohm-de Broglie interpretation. Probably the point I was alluding to is that entanglement (whether from "collapse" or just plain non-local Hamiltonians) brings down the dimensionality of the state space, i.e. it reduces the number of dice that God gets to play with.
(short on time - sorry)
His references to "phase space" are completely standard - each particle has a wave equation which is more-or-less independent of the other particles, until a "collapse" occurs and some particles become bound together. The result is a configuration space which is the base space raised to the power of the number of particles.
You bet, but the power they produce is measured in "kilovolt-amps" rather than kilowatts.
If you're trying to do graph traversals (tracing routes, or walking a tree) in SQL, get something that understands SQL3. Recursion was added specifically for problems like this. PL/SQL is an antiquated solution for this problem. Perhaps if you give more information about the queries you intend to run, we could come up with more useful suggestions.
I did look at higher-degree polynomials at the time I wrote my version, and really all you can get with this idea is a polynomial calculation one degree lower than what you started out with, ie:
line (degree 1) --> degree 0 (constant)
conic section (2) ---> degree 1 (eg 2x+1)
degree n polynomial ---> degree n-1 (big deal)
2.3. Possible Approaches
One way to avoid some of the problems discussed above would be to use DHCP for obtaining addresses. With DHCP, the DHCP server could arrange to hand out addresses that change over time.
Another approach, one compatible with the stateless address autoconfiguration architecture would be to change the interface id portion of an address over time. For example, upon each system restart, select a new interface identifier different from the ones used previously. Changing the interface identifier makes it more difficult to look at the IP addresses in independent transactions and identify which ones actually correspond to the same node.
In order to make it difficult to make educated guesses as to whether two different interface identifiers belong to the same node, the algorithm for generating alternate identifiers must include input that has an unpredictable component from the perspective of the outside entity's collecting information. Picking identifiers from a pseudorandom sequence suffices, so long as the specific sequence cannot be determined by an outsider examining just the identifiers that appear in addresses. This document proposes the use of an MD5 hash, using a per-interface "key" that varies from one interface to another. Specifically, we use the interface identifier generated using the normal procedure [ADDRARCH] as the key.
Nope, it's Oneon!
Try doing a domain name search on "gwbush" or "bush", etc. There are just too many variations on "xxx-sucks", "xxxblows.com", etc. to make much of a dent by registering anything.
You're all missing the point. The story was posted in 3-D Stereo, but you need an Itanium chip and special glasses to view it correctly.