Intuitively, I think there is a difference between the smallest measurable distance vs continuous positioning. If we pick an arbitrary value of, say, 1 Lego to be the minimum size of all things, that doesn't mean that a Lego can't move in units smaller than its length; just that we couldn't measure it (although we could interpolate its position with multiple measurements). I haven't seen anything that precludes the same with regard to Planck lengths.
I've heard the Japanese school system is even more intense (with students even committing suicide over the workload, etc.). Maybe someone would like to provide a short comparison in a reply.
Can do!
Suicide Rate by country (per 100,000) United States: 12.0 Russia: 18.9 Japan: 21.4
Excitement may be a factor, but I suspect fear and stress are the more powerful factors. Most adults don't stay up in anticipation of the excitement of Christmas, but they will lose sleep over upcoming deadlines, during financial difficulty, etc. I suspect it's pretty stressful being in space, between performing mission requirements, being separated from loved ones, and being protected from death by only a few mm of aluminum, not to mention the anticipation of re-entry. Add to that the lack of privacy and alone time, the alien physiological sensation of weightlessness, and restraints and tethers to prevent floating around. I suspect that comfort is in short supply, and that it may well be difficult to truly relax in such an alien environment.
World's most profitable pharma company: Pfizer 2013 Net Sales: $51.6B 2013 Net Income (profit): $22B Profit as a percent of sales: 42.7% R&D as a percent of sales: 13.3%
World's most profitable automaker: Toyota 2013 Net Sales: $168B 2013 Net Income (profit): $16.2B Profit as a percent of sales: 9.6% R&D as a percent of sales: 4.1%
World's most profitable tech company: Apple 2013 Net Sales: $170B 2013 Net Income (profit): $37B Profit as a percent of sales: 22% R&D as a percent of sales: 2.6%
I'm the guy who never uses cruise control unless it's flat and empty for as far as the eye can see
I don't think you're atypical at all, but... why? CC guards against unintended acceleration, as well as unintended deceleration (a phenomenon I call "tidal lock" or "flocking" with the cars next to us, depending how nerdy my conversation partner is.) Unintentional acceleration risks a ticket, while unintentional deceleration causes traffic jams (not to mention adding time to your trip). With CC, I can spend less time monitoring my own speed and more time looking at the road. The fact that I had to acclimate to using the hand controls was a minor inconvenience for the benefits achieved.
FWIW, I live in a large metropolitan area with heavy traffic, and I'm not the guy anyone is waiting to pass -- at least not for more than a few seconds when I get over to let them be my rabbit.
The news isn't about the availability of a JB; it's about the presentation at Black Hat. The JB wasn't "just now" discovered or created. Further, in the presentation, the Georgia Tech (GT) team claimed that Pangu stole their methodology (and added malware, FWIW). It's unclear whether the GT researchers will release an implementation of their methodology at all.
in a place where there are no computer savvy people
Assuming you mean staff, that sounds like your problem right there. Would you advocate a medical treatment for your residents without "medical savvy" people to administer it? Or try to run billing without a "finance savvy" entity?
Like the other two examples, the solution is to hire someone. It could be part-time, fulltime, or outsourced, but someone needs to have the knowledge and bandwidth necessary. Then your question can become a much more reasonable "How do I hire a tech worker?"
Apples to oranges. Level3 and Cogent aren't last-mile providers; they're Tier 1 backbone providers. Tier 1 providers have things like peering agreements -- last mile providers do not. Last mile providers are (and sell) unbalanced connections, so it's impossible for them to ever have "peers."
A better way of thinking of it is that Verizon should be representing the interests of its customers, because Verizon is the gateway between the customers, and the rest of the internet. It's not doing that job -- it's trying to play both sides against each other. This is what middlemen do, of course, and they're entitled to do it, but as long as they have a monopoly (which they do), then there should be limits, oversight, and accountability.
Verizonâ(TM)s Accidental Mea Culpa Mark Taylor / 18 hours ago David Young, Vice President, Verizon Regulatory Affairs recently published a blog post suggesting that Netflix themselves are responsible for the streaming slowdowns Netflixâ(TM)s customers have been seeing. But his attempt at deception has backfired. He has clearly admitted that Verizon is deliberately constraining capacity from network providers like Level 3 who were chosen by Netflix to deliver video content requested by Verizonâ(TM)s own paying broadband consumers.
His explanation for Netflixâ(TM)s on-screen congestion messages contains a nice little diagram. The diagram shows a lovely uncongested Verizon network, conveniently color-coded in green. It shows a network that has lots of unused capacity at the most busy time of the day. Think about that for a moment: Lots of unused capacity. So point number one is that Verizon has freely admitted that is has the ability to deliver lots of Netflix streams to broadband customers requesting them, at no extra cost. But, for some reason, Verizon has decided that it prefers not to deliver these streams, even though its subscribers have paid it to do so.
The diagram then shows this one little bar, suggestively color-coded in red so you know itâ(TM)s bad. And that is meant to be Level 3 and several other network operators. That bar actually represents a very large global network, and it should be shown in green, since, as we will discuss in a moment, our network has plenty of available capacity as well. In my last blog post, I gave details about how much fiber and how much equipment we deployed to build that network and how many cities around the globe it connects. If the Verizon diagram was to scale, our little red bar is probably bigger than their green network.
But hereâ(TM)s the thing. The utilization of all of those thousands of links across the Level 3 network is much the same as Verizonâ(TM)s depiction of their own network. We engineer it that way. We have to maintain adequate headroom because thatâ(TM)s what we sell to customers. They buy high quality uncongested bandwidth. And in fact, Verizon admits as much because they conveniently show one direction across our network with a peak utilization of 34%; almost exactly what I explained in my last blog post. I can confirm once again that all of those thousands of links on the Level 3 network are managed carefully so that the peak utilizations look very similar to those Verizon show for their own network â" IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.
So why does Verizon show this red bar? And why do they blame Level 3 and the other network operators contracted by Netflix?
Well, as I explained in my last blog post, the bit that is congested is the place where the Level 3 and Verizon networks interconnect. Level 3â(TM)s network interconnects with Verizonâ(TM)s in ten cities; three in Europe and seven in the United States. The aggregate utilization of those interconnections in Europe on July 8, 2014 was 18% (a region where Verizon does NOT sell broadband to its customers). The utilization of those interconnections in the United States (where Verizon sells broadband to its customers and sees Level 3 and online video providers such as Netflix as competitors to its own CDN and pay TV businesses) was about 100%. And to be more specific, as Mr. Young pointed out, that was 100% utilization in the direction of flow from the Level 3 network to the Verizon network.
So letâ(TM)s look at what that means in one of those locations. The one Verizon picked in its diagram: Los Angeles. All of the Verizon FiOS customers in Southern California likely get some of their content through this interconnection location. It is in a single building. And boils down to a router Level 3 owns, a router Verizon owns and four 10Gbps Ethernet ports on each router. A small cable runs between each of those ports to connect them together. This diagram is far simpler than the Verizon diagram and shows exactly where the con
A) Police can't initiate a high speed chase without someone that's already fleeing at high speed. B) The police stopped chasing him. C) He kept fleeing!
"Approaching" 100MPH is what many people do on the way to work every day where the speed limits are 75, and Tesla's should easily be able to handle that speed. Definitely operator error all the way in this case.
To be fair, it's much harder to see the difference on a monochrome o'scope. Once you get a color scope, you can clearly see that one signal is yellow and the other is red.
In a terrible decision that requires a call-to-arms, Google has decided to censor anything bad. Stop everything you are doing and take to the streets while coordinating through social media, and let your voices and/or rioting be heard! Only when Google mentions the protests in their news feed will can claim success!
The more shocking part of this article isn't that the patient wasn't cured of a disease for which we have no cure, but that anyone thought she was in the first place.
I think you're mischaracterizing both philosophy and science. If we accept the definition of philosophy as "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence" then most sciences are a subset of philosophy. And simply because there is a hierarchal structure to their categorization or origins does not give one authority over the other, any more than the first mammal has authority over lions. Neither do we say that lions have "far exceeded" the limits of mammals. Arguments that pit philosophy against science are just as nonsensical.
To be fair to the GP, the output of any human is predictable and explainable if we accept determinism. The only way the Lovelace Test can be valid is if we accept that people have souls (or some other attribute not subject to physical law) that in some way affect natural brain function, and find a way to reproduce that artificially.
Indeed, the whole idea of "unpredictable, unexplainable output" seems contradictory. When people do not behave somewhat predictably, when we cannot explain their actions, we typically label them as crazy. Intelligent actions are not inexplicable after analysis, even if they appear to be in the moment. The only way to satisfy that condition is to generate random output, which is the opposite of intelligence.
Fortunately we have laws that define those pieces of paper as legal tender, which differentiates them from little bits of hash solutions and things that people define in internet forums.
Except the IRS has declared that bitcoin is property, not currency.
Q-1: How is virtual currency treated for federal tax purposes? A-1: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency.
The money laundering statute applies to the below:
(4) the term âoefinancial transactionâ means (A) a transaction which in any way or degree affects interstate or foreign commerce involving (i) the movement of funds by wire or other means or (ii) one or more monetary instruments, or (iii) the transfer of title to any real property, vehicle, vessel, or aircraft, or (B) a transaction involving the use of a financial institution... http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...
Note that "real property," is real estate, not any personal property whatsoever, and the term "monetary instrument" is likewise defined by the FDIC:
Monetary instruments. (1) Monetary instruments include: (i) Currency; (ii) Traveler's checks in any form; (iii) All negotiable instruments (including personal checks, business checks, official bank checks, cashier's checks, third-party checks, promissory notes (as that term is defined in the Uniform Commercial Code), and money orders) that are either in bearer form, endorsed without restriction, made out to a fictitious payee (for the purposes of Sec. 1010.340), or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery; (iv) Incomplete instruments (including personal checks, business checks, official bank checks, cashier's checks, third-party checks, promissory notes (as that term is defined in the Uniform Commercial Code), and money orders) signed but with the payee's name omitted; and (v) Securities or stock in bearer form or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery. http://www.fdic.gov/regulation...
So yes, there are very different regulations depending on whether bitcoin is or is not currency. Absent legislation specifically addressing "virtual currency," the courts will have to hash out this disagreement, which is what will happen here, I'm sure, but I think it's regrettable that someone can be punished for law that isn't yet decided. If I drive 55, should I be punished for skirting speeding laws? Are racetracks circumventing legislation against street racing? The problem with calling this money laundering isn't that this guy is punished (if he's guilty of running the Silk Road); it's that it opens up a whole other class of individuals for prosecution just because they were using bitcoin to conduct transactions -- namely everyone who conducts transactions in bitcoin.
Because a) most US cities have ordinances prohibiting arial fireworks (and some prohibit all fireworks) without a permit/license, and b) Many states prohibit the sale of arial fireworks, or limit the size to a few grams, or less than N feet (meters) off the ground, or all of those things.
The better question would be to ask why these regulations exist, and the answer is to prevent this:
If Snowdenâ(TM)s sample is representative, the population under scrutiny in the PRISM and Upstream programs is far larger than the government has suggested. In a June 26 âoetransparency report,â the Office of the Director of National Intelligence disclosed that 89,138 people were targets of last yearâ(TM)s collection under FISA Section 702. At the 9-to-1 ratio of incidental collection in Snowdenâ(TM)s sample, the officeâ(TM)s figure would correspond to nearly 900,000 accounts, targeted or not, under surveillance.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw that. Get back to work or I'll put your internet in the recycle bin again. And this time I'll make sure it's emptied!!!
Intuitively, I think there is a difference between the smallest measurable distance vs continuous positioning. If we pick an arbitrary value of, say, 1 Lego to be the minimum size of all things, that doesn't mean that a Lego can't move in units smaller than its length; just that we couldn't measure it (although we could interpolate its position with multiple measurements). I haven't seen anything that precludes the same with regard to Planck lengths.
I've heard the Japanese school system is even more intense (with students even committing suicide over the workload, etc.). Maybe someone would like to provide a short comparison in a reply.
Can do!
Suicide Rate by country (per 100,000)
United States: 12.0
Russia: 18.9
Japan: 21.4
Excitement may be a factor, but I suspect fear and stress are the more powerful factors. Most adults don't stay up in anticipation of the excitement of Christmas, but they will lose sleep over upcoming deadlines, during financial difficulty, etc. I suspect it's pretty stressful being in space, between performing mission requirements, being separated from loved ones, and being protected from death by only a few mm of aluminum, not to mention the anticipation of re-entry. Add to that the lack of privacy and alone time, the alien physiological sensation of weightlessness, and restraints and tethers to prevent floating around. I suspect that comfort is in short supply, and that it may well be difficult to truly relax in such an alien environment.
World's most profitable pharma company: Pfizer
2013 Net Sales: $51.6B
2013 Net Income (profit): $22B
Profit as a percent of sales: 42.7%
R&D as a percent of sales: 13.3%
World's most profitable automaker: Toyota
2013 Net Sales: $168B
2013 Net Income (profit): $16.2B
Profit as a percent of sales: 9.6%
R&D as a percent of sales: 4.1%
World's most profitable tech company: Apple
2013 Net Sales: $170B
2013 Net Income (profit): $37B
Profit as a percent of sales: 22%
R&D as a percent of sales: 2.6%
I'm the guy who never uses cruise control unless it's flat and empty for as far as the eye can see
I don't think you're atypical at all, but... why? CC guards against unintended acceleration, as well as unintended deceleration (a phenomenon I call "tidal lock" or "flocking" with the cars next to us, depending how nerdy my conversation partner is.) Unintentional acceleration risks a ticket, while unintentional deceleration causes traffic jams (not to mention adding time to your trip). With CC, I can spend less time monitoring my own speed and more time looking at the road. The fact that I had to acclimate to using the hand controls was a minor inconvenience for the benefits achieved.
FWIW, I live in a large metropolitan area with heavy traffic, and I'm not the guy anyone is waiting to pass -- at least not for more than a few seconds when I get over to let them be my rabbit.
The news isn't about the availability of a JB; it's about the presentation at Black Hat. The JB wasn't "just now" discovered or created. Further, in the presentation, the Georgia Tech (GT) team claimed that Pangu stole their methodology (and added malware, FWIW). It's unclear whether the GT researchers will release an implementation of their methodology at all.
Leaking copyrighted material before commercial release is a criminal act under 17 USC 506(a)(1)(c).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...
in a place where there are no computer savvy people
Assuming you mean staff, that sounds like your problem right there. Would you advocate a medical treatment for your residents without "medical savvy" people to administer it? Or try to run billing without a "finance savvy" entity?
Like the other two examples, the solution is to hire someone. It could be part-time, fulltime, or outsourced, but someone needs to have the knowledge and bandwidth necessary. Then your question can become a much more reasonable "How do I hire a tech worker?"
It's not a sentiment; it's a responsibility as monopoly holders, as I mentioned .
In a couple of years, guess what,...?
What?????
Apples to oranges. Level3 and Cogent aren't last-mile providers; they're Tier 1 backbone providers. Tier 1 providers have things like peering agreements -- last mile providers do not. Last mile providers are (and sell) unbalanced connections, so it's impossible for them to ever have "peers."
A better way of thinking of it is that Verizon should be representing the interests of its customers, because Verizon is the gateway between the customers, and the rest of the internet. It's not doing that job -- it's trying to play both sides against each other. This is what middlemen do, of course, and they're entitled to do it, but as long as they have a monopoly (which they do), then there should be limits, oversight, and accountability.
Verizonâ(TM)s Accidental Mea Culpa
Mark Taylor / 18 hours ago
David Young, Vice President, Verizon Regulatory Affairs recently published a blog post suggesting that Netflix themselves are responsible for the streaming slowdowns Netflixâ(TM)s customers have been seeing. But his attempt at deception has backfired. He has clearly admitted that Verizon is deliberately constraining capacity from network providers like Level 3 who were chosen by Netflix to deliver video content requested by Verizonâ(TM)s own paying broadband consumers.
His explanation for Netflixâ(TM)s on-screen congestion messages contains a nice little diagram. The diagram shows a lovely uncongested Verizon network, conveniently color-coded in green. It shows a network that has lots of unused capacity at the most busy time of the day. Think about that for a moment: Lots of unused capacity. So point number one is that Verizon has freely admitted that is has the ability to deliver lots of Netflix streams to broadband customers requesting them, at no extra cost. But, for some reason, Verizon has decided that it prefers not to deliver these streams, even though its subscribers have paid it to do so.
The diagram then shows this one little bar, suggestively color-coded in red so you know itâ(TM)s bad. And that is meant to be Level 3 and several other network operators. That bar actually represents a very large global network, and it should be shown in green, since, as we will discuss in a moment, our network has plenty of available capacity as well. In my last blog post, I gave details about how much fiber and how much equipment we deployed to build that network and how many cities around the globe it connects. If the Verizon diagram was to scale, our little red bar is probably bigger than their green network.
But hereâ(TM)s the thing. The utilization of all of those thousands of links across the Level 3 network is much the same as Verizonâ(TM)s depiction of their own network. We engineer it that way. We have to maintain adequate headroom because thatâ(TM)s what we sell to customers. They buy high quality uncongested bandwidth. And in fact, Verizon admits as much because they conveniently show one direction across our network with a peak utilization of 34%; almost exactly what I explained in my last blog post. I can confirm once again that all of those thousands of links on the Level 3 network are managed carefully so that the peak utilizations look very similar to those Verizon show for their own network â" IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.
So why does Verizon show this red bar? And why do they blame Level 3 and the other network operators contracted by Netflix?
Well, as I explained in my last blog post, the bit that is congested is the place where the Level 3 and Verizon networks interconnect. Level 3â(TM)s network interconnects with Verizonâ(TM)s in ten cities; three in Europe and seven in the United States. The aggregate utilization of those interconnections in Europe on July 8, 2014 was 18% (a region where Verizon does NOT sell broadband to its customers). The utilization of those interconnections in the United States (where Verizon sells broadband to its customers and sees Level 3 and online video providers such as Netflix as competitors to its own CDN and pay TV businesses) was about 100%. And to be more specific, as Mr. Young pointed out, that was 100% utilization in the direction of flow from the Level 3 network to the Verizon network.
So letâ(TM)s look at what that means in one of those locations. The one Verizon picked in its diagram: Los Angeles. All of the Verizon FiOS customers in Southern California likely get some of their content through this interconnection location. It is in a single building. And boils down to a router Level 3 owns, a router Verizon owns and four 10Gbps Ethernet ports on each router. A small cable runs between each of those ports to connect them together. This diagram is far simpler than the Verizon diagram and shows exactly where the con
If people don't think bandwidth is a scarce commodity, how will we get them to pay through the nose for it?!?
A) Police can't initiate a high speed chase without someone that's already fleeing at high speed.
B) The police stopped chasing him.
C) He kept fleeing!
"Approaching" 100MPH is what many people do on the way to work every day where the speed limits are 75, and Tesla's should easily be able to handle that speed. Definitely operator error all the way in this case.
To be fair, it's much harder to see the difference on a monochrome o'scope. Once you get a color scope, you can clearly see that one signal is yellow and the other is red.
http://i00.i.aliimg.com/photo/...
In that case:
Bad News! Google to stop showing bad news!
In a terrible decision that requires a call-to-arms, Google has decided to censor anything bad. Stop everything you are doing and take to the streets while coordinating through social media, and let your voices and/or rioting be heard! Only when Google mentions the protests in their news feed will can claim success!
The more shocking part of this article isn't that the patient wasn't cured of a disease for which we have no cure, but that anyone thought she was in the first place.
I think you're mischaracterizing both philosophy and science. If we accept the definition of philosophy as "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence" then most sciences are a subset of philosophy. And simply because there is a hierarchal structure to their categorization or origins does not give one authority over the other, any more than the first mammal has authority over lions. Neither do we say that lions have "far exceeded" the limits of mammals. Arguments that pit philosophy against science are just as nonsensical.
To be fair to the GP, the output of any human is predictable and explainable if we accept determinism. The only way the Lovelace Test can be valid is if we accept that people have souls (or some other attribute not subject to physical law) that in some way affect natural brain function, and find a way to reproduce that artificially.
Indeed, the whole idea of "unpredictable, unexplainable output" seems contradictory. When people do not behave somewhat predictably, when we cannot explain their actions, we typically label them as crazy. Intelligent actions are not inexplicable after analysis, even if they appear to be in the moment. The only way to satisfy that condition is to generate random output, which is the opposite of intelligence.
Fortunately we have laws that define those pieces of paper as legal tender, which differentiates them from little bits of hash solutions and things that people define in internet forums.
Except the IRS has declared that bitcoin is property, not currency.
Q-1: How is virtual currency treated for federal tax purposes?
A-1: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax
principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual
currency.
and
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroo...
The money laundering statute applies to the below:
(4) the term âoefinancial transactionâ means
(A) a transaction which in any way or degree affects interstate or foreign commerce involving
(i) the movement of funds by wire or other means or
(ii) one or more monetary instruments, or
(iii) the transfer of title to any real property, vehicle, vessel, or aircraft, or
(B) a transaction involving the use of a financial institution...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...
Note that "real property," is real estate, not any personal property whatsoever, and the term "monetary instrument" is likewise defined by the FDIC:
Monetary instruments.
(1) Monetary instruments include:
(i) Currency;
(ii) Traveler's checks in any form;
(iii) All negotiable instruments (including personal checks, business checks, official bank checks, cashier's checks, third-party checks, promissory notes (as that term is defined in the Uniform Commercial Code), and money orders) that are either in bearer form, endorsed without restriction, made out to a fictitious payee (for the purposes of Sec. 1010.340), or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery;
(iv) Incomplete instruments (including personal checks, business checks, official bank checks, cashier's checks, third-party checks, promissory notes (as that term is defined in the Uniform Commercial Code), and money orders) signed but with the payee's name omitted; and
(v) Securities or stock in bearer form or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery.
http://www.fdic.gov/regulation...
So yes, there are very different regulations depending on whether bitcoin is or is not currency. Absent legislation specifically addressing "virtual currency," the courts will have to hash out this disagreement, which is what will happen here, I'm sure, but I think it's regrettable that someone can be punished for law that isn't yet decided. If I drive 55, should I be punished for skirting speeding laws? Are racetracks circumventing legislation against street racing? The problem with calling this money laundering isn't that this guy is punished (if he's guilty of running the Silk Road); it's that it opens up a whole other class of individuals for prosecution just because they were using bitcoin to conduct transactions -- namely everyone who conducts transactions in bitcoin.
Because a) most US cities have ordinances prohibiting arial fireworks (and some prohibit all fireworks) without a permit/license, and b) Many states prohibit the sale of arial fireworks, or limit the size to a few grams, or less than N feet (meters) off the ground, or all of those things.
The better question would be to ask why these regulations exist, and the answer is to prevent this:
http://icelandreview.com/news/...
http://icelandreview.com/news/...
Also Iceland in mid-winter carries a much lower fire risk than much of the US in mid-summer.
I like setting off my own, but there are upsides to municipal displays as well:
* They're usually choreographed.
* They're cheaper (free).
* Less running away from lit fuses and more sitting back and enjoying.
900k, not 10k.
Do you think a salmon is 1,000,000 times smarter than an ant? Because that's the consequence of applying a linear timeline to exponential growth.
How smart is an ant anyway? Or a salmon? Or a dog? How do you quantify it? Are they 3 smart? Maybe 11?
But to indulge your arbitrary metrics for "smartness," we can simulate entire colonies of ants already: http://www.not-equal.eu/myrmed...
So maybe the future is closer than you think. Six or seven closer.