Another problem is that wormholes are expected to be extremely small, so while it may be possible to squeeze a few electrons through one the idea of a wormhole big enough to fly a ship through is another thing all together.
Servers and supercomputers especially are high value targets, very attractive for hackers so there is considerable effort made to find vulnerabilities in linux. A 24/7 server on a high speed (full duplex) connection is far more useful for a hacker than a desktop connected to a typical end user connection with limited upstream bandwidth.
Certainly it's true that a high performance server is more useful then a desktop system, but is it more useful then a botnet of thousands of desktop machines? The desktop eco-system contains so much low-lying fruit it seems unlikely faster, but more secure and better maintained servers would ever be worth the effort.
It could not because that would be an egregious violation of Google's privacy policy. You may not like what Google does with your information, but they have always been upfront about it.
Your examples aren't demonstrating situations with the same actions but different mindsets, they are demonstrating three very different situations with entirely different actions that all happen to have a similar end result.
Why would artificially created neutrinos interact more often then naturally occurring ones? They are still just as small and so just as unlikely to collide with anything else.
This may work well for office paper. What about the spam mail I get in the mailbox every day? If it works for that, AND it becomes expected that we 'unprint' all paper, what do we do with all the excess household paper?
This question is based on an absurd assumption. Why would you need to unprint everything? If you have no use for your junk mail just recycle it. Same as always.
Here's a quick logic refresher for you, if a -> b it does not mean ~a->~b.
So while not being forced or coerced definitely means it's not slavery, being forced or coerced could mean any number of things, including but not limited to slavery.
Your argument fails immensely. Intelligent life works as an explanation for the tractors because we know intelligent life is able to arise by itself while tractors can not. If there was no known mechanism for intelligent life to arrive it would be a useless explanation, introducing additional complexity while not actually answering anything. Just as useless as introducing a creator with unknown origins to try to explain away intelligent life.
Sounds like Aquinas answered the question poorly. Why should complexity only have to do with moving physical parts? Clearly that is a poor measure for things with no physical component. He just came up with a definition of complexity that intentionally excluded God, thus handwaving the problem away.
I don't think I'm missing the point. He's saying that if the local authorities won't cooperate with the TSA then the TSA won't have any power. But that's not true since, as I pointed out, the TSA will still have the ability to keep you from your flight. That is enough of a cudgel to keep people complying with their demands, even without the threat of arrest.
Since when does getting elected as President have anything to do with being smart? Political connections and dumb luck probably account for more then intelligence. Does anyone seriously think GWB would ever have been elected if he wasn't the son of a very well connected ex-President?
The thing is not finding the Higgs wouldn't lend us to any new theories that we aren't already in the position to come up with. Higgs isn't the first explanation people came up with for why particles have mass, it's just the best. Since it is still an unproven theory there are no doubt plenty of people who have been researching alternatives to it all along. Not finding it isn't likely to give anyone a great insight that they couldn't have come up with otherwise. Finding something new and unexpected on the other hand, that is far more likely to lead to interesting advances.
Not finding the Higgs boson wouldn't be terribly interesting, that would just leave us where we started. But yeah, finding some other totally unexpected particle would be interesting for sure.
I wouldn't worry to much about attributing that to anyone. It's so obvious anyone who gives any thought to the matter is bound to come up with a realization along those same lines.
Slashdot Mirror
Another problem is that wormholes are expected to be extremely small, so while it may be possible to squeeze a few electrons through one the idea of a wormhole big enough to fly a ship through is another thing all together.
Servers and supercomputers especially are high value targets, very attractive for hackers so there is considerable effort made to find vulnerabilities in linux. A 24/7 server on a high speed (full duplex) connection is far more useful for a hacker than a desktop connected to a typical end user connection with limited upstream bandwidth.
Certainly it's true that a high performance server is more useful then a desktop system, but is it more useful then a botnet of thousands of desktop machines? The desktop eco-system contains so much low-lying fruit it seems unlikely faster, but more secure and better maintained servers would ever be worth the effort.
It could not because that would be an egregious violation of Google's privacy policy. You may not like what Google does with your information, but they have always been upfront about it.
"At least one US senator agrees."
So put another way, only one US senator agrees.
Those are not at all equivalent statements.
At which point you find out likening your prospective manage to a high schooler is a really dumb interview strategy.
Your examples aren't demonstrating situations with the same actions but different mindsets, they are demonstrating three very different situations with entirely different actions that all happen to have a similar end result.
Why would artificially created neutrinos interact more often then naturally occurring ones? They are still just as small and so just as unlikely to collide with anything else.
This may work well for office paper. What about the spam mail I get in the mailbox every day? If it works for that, AND it becomes expected that we 'unprint' all paper, what do we do with all the excess household paper?
This question is based on an absurd assumption. Why would you need to unprint everything? If you have no use for your junk mail just recycle it. Same as always.
Why would they be more interested in perfecting something that likely doesn't even exist? That would be a case of horribly misplaced priorities.
Here's a quick logic refresher for you, if a -> b it does not mean ~a->~b.
So while not being forced or coerced definitely means it's not slavery, being forced or coerced could mean any number of things, including but not limited to slavery.
Did you finish reading my response? If that assumption is false (as you believe) then it fails as an explanation for the tractors.
I can't say, but I'm fairly confident that assuming him to be substantially less complex then the creation he supposedly made is the wrong way to go.
Your argument fails immensely. Intelligent life works as an explanation for the tractors because we know intelligent life is able to arise by itself while tractors can not. If there was no known mechanism for intelligent life to arrive it would be a useless explanation, introducing additional complexity while not actually answering anything. Just as useless as introducing a creator with unknown origins to try to explain away intelligent life.
Sounds like Aquinas answered the question poorly. Why should complexity only have to do with moving physical parts? Clearly that is a poor measure for things with no physical component. He just came up with a definition of complexity that intentionally excluded God, thus handwaving the problem away.
If you aren't coerced or forced to do something against your will, there's a pretty good chance it's not slavery.
I don't think I'm missing the point. He's saying that if the local authorities won't cooperate with the TSA then the TSA won't have any power. But that's not true since, as I pointed out, the TSA will still have the ability to keep you from your flight. That is enough of a cudgel to keep people complying with their demands, even without the threat of arrest.
You were talking specifically about GWB. How much social skill did it take for him to be born to an ex-President?
Who cares if the TSA can arrest you? As long as they can deny you access to your flight they have alll the power they need.
Even with random angles things could still be hidden on the bottom of your feet or suspended between your legs.
Since when does getting elected as President have anything to do with being smart? Political connections and dumb luck probably account for more then intelligence. Does anyone seriously think GWB would ever have been elected if he wasn't the son of a very well connected ex-President?
The thing is not finding the Higgs wouldn't lend us to any new theories that we aren't already in the position to come up with. Higgs isn't the first explanation people came up with for why particles have mass, it's just the best. Since it is still an unproven theory there are no doubt plenty of people who have been researching alternatives to it all along. Not finding it isn't likely to give anyone a great insight that they couldn't have come up with otherwise. Finding something new and unexpected on the other hand, that is far more likely to lead to interesting advances.
Not finding the Higgs boson wouldn't be terribly interesting, that would just leave us where we started. But yeah, finding some other totally unexpected particle would be interesting for sure.
"Google Play Books", Google Play Apps"... uh wait, that still sounds incredibly stupid.
Not necessarily. In countries with universal health care the government has an incentive to fund such research.
I wouldn't worry to much about attributing that to anyone. It's so obvious anyone who gives any thought to the matter is bound to come up with a realization along those same lines.