Do you honestly believe that all technology either should develop "all at once" or should follow your chronology? Besides the point of looking deep into the space is not entirely to find a place for humanity to go. Just understanding the universe is a goal worth pursuing. At least that's how some other people view science and fortunately I should say.
The word "gates" has almost the same meaning in quantum computing as in the classical computing. In classical computing a gate operates on a set of bits and changes them to another set of bits. In quantum computing it is the same with qubits playing the role of bits.
Of course funny things are possible in quantum computing. For example it is possible to make a "square root of not" gate, that when applied *twice* to the qubit |1> produces |0> and vice versa. Applying once creates something else (the square root of not in some sense).
One particularly handy way to think of quantum gates is to think of them as a matrix (operator) that operates on a vector (input qubit) to produce another vector (output qubit) just by multiplication. So if A is some quantum gate (matrix) and u is input qubit (vector) the the output qubit (vector) v = A*u . The matrix A needs to satisfy some technical requirements that gives quantum computing some nice features (like every algorithm is fully reversible and so on), but those details are not needed to get a rough idea.:)
you could just blog since the system is not first to file but first to invent. Moreover it also saves you patent fees that you would have to pay if you actually try getting a patent.
I would reserve the word danger for actual physical danger, but that is a matter of semantics on which we can agree to disagree.
I consider spam to be more of a nuisance. I think that one of the pitfalls of applying "dangerous" to criminals that are at best a nuisance, is that it opens the possibility of labeling almost everyone a dangerous criminal. Someone plays loud music so that neighbors can't sleep. Are they dangerous to the society? In my opinion the society and law are free to (and probably should) make such behavior an offense so that the neighbor can get a remedy but I don't see a point in locking up the guy.
What about religion? If most of the people in a society agreed that religion is a scam, should preachers of any religion be put behind bars or should they rather be just barred from preaching in public?
No. The point in putting the people for violent crimes is (or at least should be) that they are danger to the society and it needs to be ensured that they be kept away.
Punishment is a deterrent only to some extent. So making spammers go to jail for very long time is not going to act as deterrent for everyone else. Like I said, spam is a source of easy money for spammers. You may pretend that punishing them harshly serves any purpose but it does not (other than taking revenge).
Just getting caught and fined would be deterrent enough for the *current spammer*. Besides, you can keep him/her under nominal watch and make them part of some program that actually uses their potential (if they have any). Locking them up is just a feel good thing for everyone else.
Hate liberals as much as you want, and take the freedom of as many guys you want, someone else will start another spamming business. It is easy money. Spamming is here to stay. Live with it and educate yourselves and others about how to minimize its effect. You can go on pretending that locking spammers in jail will rid the society of spam but it won't. The only thing it can do if make you feel better for taking some sort of revenge on that person.
Why do we see more technical solutions for what is essentially a social/legal problem and legal solutions for technical problems?
This is not to say that spamming should not be made an offense, but for heaven's sake keep in mind that after catching spammers putting them in jail serves no purpose other than extracting revenge. Restrict their computer usage to only supervised settings, take from them more than they earned effectively fining them and put them through some program that uses them in some productive way.
I have never seen slashdot acting like a bunch of medieval barbarians screaming blood, except when spammers are discussed.
FTFS:
For instance, given that the disease has manifested itself clinically in an individual, what are the chances of that person dying? I would say that in the long run the probability of that person dying is 1.
and also if you look at the number of blades in a shaving razor, it has been increasing geometrically over the last couple of years. It is equally clear that all those HUGE number of future deaths will be caused by terrorists weilding razors with HUGE number of blades.
I could be wrong so someone knowing better please correct me.
The inverse square law is applicable only for point sources that are radiating in every direction. The inverse square of distance d arises in the formula that you are interested in the surface of a ball centered at the source with radius d. The surface area is proportional to the square of distance so intensity in some part of the surface relates to the inverse.
Now lasers are not omnidirectional so the inverse square law is not applicable.
As far as I could gather, out of 1.2 million visitations (possibly with duplicates), 38% resulted in an average payment of 6 dollars. That makes it 1200000*0.38*6 = 2736000 i.e. roughly 2.74 million dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
that the state of affairs is bad when a news like this doesn't surprise you!
Do you honestly believe that all technology either should develop "all at once" or should follow your chronology? Besides the point of looking deep into the space is not entirely to find a place for humanity to go. Just understanding the universe is a goal worth pursuing. At least that's how some other people view science and fortunately I should say.
It's Google we are talking about. They are expected to know everything anyway.
A qubit with three tits .. err.. i mean bits (I should have said states but bits rhymes better)
Yes. :)
The word "gates" has almost the same meaning in quantum computing as in the classical computing. In classical computing a gate operates on a set of bits and changes them to another set of bits. In quantum computing it is the same with qubits playing the role of bits.
:)
Of course funny things are possible in quantum computing. For example it is possible to make a "square root of not" gate, that when applied *twice* to the qubit |1> produces |0> and vice versa. Applying once creates something else (the square root of not in some sense).
One particularly handy way to think of quantum gates is to think of them as a matrix (operator) that operates on a vector (input qubit) to produce another vector (output qubit) just by multiplication. So if A is some quantum gate (matrix) and u is input qubit (vector) the the output qubit (vector) v = A*u . The matrix A needs to satisfy some technical requirements that gives quantum computing some nice features (like every algorithm is fully reversible and so on), but those details are not needed to get a rough idea.
Yes and No.
*metawhoosh*?
I did click the link and it is just a troll. Not work safe.
you could just blog since the system is not first to file but first to invent. Moreover it also saves you patent fees that you would have to pay if you actually try getting a patent.
You don't happen to be using pigeons to carry your ip packets. Do you?
You couldn't, since you already posted.
Sorry, it's just not your day. Is it?
The song is not about some bot passing the Turing test. It is about a human failing it. :/
I would reserve the word danger for actual physical danger, but that is a matter of semantics on which we can agree to disagree.
I consider spam to be more of a nuisance. I think that one of the pitfalls of applying "dangerous" to criminals that are at best a nuisance, is that it opens the possibility of labeling almost everyone a dangerous criminal. Someone plays loud music so that neighbors can't sleep. Are they dangerous to the society? In my opinion the society and law are free to (and probably should) make such behavior an offense so that the neighbor can get a remedy but I don't see a point in locking up the guy.
What about religion? If most of the people in a society agreed that religion is a scam, should preachers of any religion be put behind bars or should they rather be just barred from preaching in public?
No. The point in putting the people for violent crimes is (or at least should be) that they are danger to the society and it needs to be ensured that they be kept away.
Punishment is a deterrent only to some extent. So making spammers go to jail for very long time is not going to act as deterrent for everyone else. Like I said, spam is a source of easy money for spammers. You may pretend that punishing them harshly serves any purpose but it does not (other than taking revenge).
Just getting caught and fined would be deterrent enough for the *current spammer*. Besides, you can keep him/her under nominal watch and make them part of some program that actually uses their potential (if they have any). Locking them up is just a feel good thing for everyone else.
Hate liberals as much as you want, and take the freedom of as many guys you want, someone else will start another spamming business. It is easy money. Spamming is here to stay. Live with it and educate yourselves and others about how to minimize its effect. You can go on pretending that locking spammers in jail will rid the society of spam but it won't. The only thing it can do if make you feel better for taking some sort of revenge on that person.
Why do we see more technical solutions for what is essentially a social/legal problem and legal solutions for technical problems?
This is not to say that spamming should not be made an offense, but for heaven's sake keep in mind that after catching spammers putting them in jail serves no purpose other than extracting revenge. Restrict their computer usage to only supervised settings, take from them more than they earned effectively fining them and put them through some program that uses them in some productive way.
I have never seen slashdot acting like a bunch of medieval barbarians screaming blood, except when spammers are discussed.
And they will conclude that at least the females were made up of non-metallic silicone.
and also if you look at the number of blades in a shaving razor, it has been increasing geometrically over the last couple of years. It is equally clear that all those HUGE number of future deaths will be caused by terrorists weilding razors with HUGE number of blades.
What's the point of publishing stories about "the deal" over and over again?
Does anyone really expect some discussion to this story that hasn't already be repeated gazillion times before?
Does this story have anything significant that other stories about "the deal" don't have?
Chuck Noris movies? Or is that meme dead already?
I could be wrong so someone knowing better please correct me.
The inverse square law is applicable only for point sources that are radiating in every direction. The inverse square of distance d arises in the formula that you are interested in the surface of a ball centered at the source with radius d. The surface area is proportional to the square of distance so intensity in some part of the surface relates to the inverse.
Now lasers are not omnidirectional so the inverse square law is not applicable.
6-10 million bucks?
As far as I could gather, out of 1.2 million visitations (possibly with duplicates), 38% resulted in an average payment of 6 dollars. That makes it 1200000*0.38*6 = 2736000 i.e. roughly 2.74 million dollars.
But do the other nine kind get the joke or not?
.. with lots of free time and a sense of humor. :|