If the universe is known to be expanding farther and farther away from each individual star from the Big Bang, would the universe one day begin to 'collapse' on itself when stars begin to attract each other towards the center of the universe caused by their own gravities?
In short, the fate of the universe depends on the true nature of Einstein's cosmological constant, also known as "that damn nuisance of a lambda" in more jocular astrophysics circles. I
quote:
"In this model, called the inflationary Big Bang, the universe should contain a critical density of matter, just enough to slow expansion to a halt, given infinite time. Scientists express this condition of critical density as omega equals one. Too little mass -- if omega equals less than one -- and the universe would expand forever, growing ever more tenuous. If omega equals more than one, then the universe would collapse of its own weight, contracting in what is called the Big Crunch."
Read the link for more. There was also an excellent article on this in last month's (?) American Scientist, IIRC.
One would assume the actual hardware would be under lock and key and behind a pair of burly Marines, to discourage any stray installers of WiFi cards etc. One would also assume there are software safety measures that would prevent the stray installer from importing dangerous data or viruses via sneakernet. And finally, one would assume that deviating from the strict rules of conduct will result in reprimands/jail time/caning (delete as applicable) depending on how dangerous or stupid the said stray installer acted.
As for patching, that's fine for security levels up to a certain degree, but there are unpatched and undiscovered bugs around any given time, as the submissions history on/. will tell you.
I think they cannot implement a truly secure solution over the public net as the protocols were never designed with security in mind - ie. anything that happens is a hack or a bodge on top of those insecure protocols. Whilst these may be good enough for you or me in practical terms, the government would want a quantifiably secure system, and the only way you get that is to disconnect yourself from the rest of the world.
Amen. Or, as someone said, the best firewall in the world is two feet of air.
Distributed systems that do not rely on a centralised authority, be it for synchronising or resource distribution, are by far not a new thing. To name a random example (and you can find a dozen others with five minutes of Googling), the
Prospero Resource Manager was a USC project started in the early 90s that relied on distributed authorities with no centralised command centre.
Furthermore, if the computers are self-controlling and not guarded by anything besides their internal mechanisms that rely on the checks on other computers, the potential danger lies in a computer in the grid having a seriously fscked-up internal state. In other words, can a malfunctioning computer be trusted to monitor itself correctly? I think not.
Wait a minute, someone wrote the code and filters that Google News uses. So there's still an inherent bias, although it may be at one remove. There's certainly "people behind it", just in a different way.
I would assume that for starters, whatever algorithm Google News uses is a collaborative effort, so there is no monopoly on the bias -- opinions tend to even out in crowds. Also, the algorithm and its authoring represents a conscious exploration of one's motives and the question on what is important. After such an act, whatever bias remains cannot be really called "unconscious", no?
So anyway, yes, Google News is not completely objective and equal (for example, there is a focus on US stories). Few things are. But it's as close as I've seen a news source come to impartiality.
This is one of the things that bugs me about Google News... yes, it does a great job of aggregating links to news stories. But there's no people behind it, and it feels that way when when I look through it.
Of course, this can be seen as a benefit, too. No person's views and unconscious bias are inflicted on you; instead, you get all available sources and opinions presented as equals in their worthiness. Then it's the reader's task to make an educated judgement of the issue, as free of editorial bias as possible. It requires critical reading skills, but I personally prefer to chew my own news, as opposed to digesting ready-chewed stuff.
UMTS is already dead and buried - and everybody in the industry understood that shortly after last UMTS licenses were sold for crazy piles of money.
Very true indeed. UMTS is a comittee standard which effectively means it is not only overtly expensive but also too cautious on what people will demand of it -- half the performance of Wi-Fi with twice the price.
If your business is SO important that you have to be available every fucking minute of the day, then stay at your office for chrissake and use a landline (that way you don't have to shout, you know)!
Well, there are those of us whose companies don't have landline phones any more. My former employer had none, merely company-paid cell phones for everyone plus a mobile call centre.
Also, I gave up my own landline phone away around 1998 when I got a cable modem and the last excuse to support the local monopoly telco went away... my phone line used to cost me EUR20/month before any call costs, while my cell phone bill hovers around EUR40/month with copious calls and SMSs. So choosing a cell phone is a sound financial decision, and when I want to be unreachable, I do know how to use the off button.
What I find most interesting about the Google News service is its equalising factor when it comes to news sources. NY Times is right alongside Kansas City Star, Slashdot, and Arutz Sheva as an equal news source. No longer does one viewpoint dominate a news item, but instead, there exists a one-stop shop for all takes and opinions on an issue. How fabulous is that?!
This brings a whole new twist to what is a respectable news source and more importantly, maybe also teaches something about how important it is to read also "reputable" news sources (Reuters, BBC, etc.) with healthy scepticism and criticism. How post-modern, this breaking down of establishment as the only reliable source of information.
And again, there are parts of the world where TiVo does not exist as a market entity. Say, most of Europe. (Not saying this thing is worth the dough they ask for it, only reminding that some of us live in countries where the number of options is severely limited.)
Slashdot Mirror
In short, the fate of the universe depends on the true nature of Einstein's cosmological constant, also known as "that damn nuisance of a lambda" in more jocular astrophysics circles. I quote:
"In this model, called the inflationary Big Bang, the universe should contain a critical density of matter, just enough to slow expansion to a halt, given infinite time. Scientists express this condition of critical density as omega equals one. Too little mass -- if omega equals less than one -- and the universe would expand forever, growing ever more tenuous. If omega equals more than one, then the universe would collapse of its own weight, contracting in what is called the Big Crunch."
Read the link for more. There was also an excellent article on this in last month's (?) American Scientist, IIRC.
One would assume the actual hardware would be under lock and key and behind a pair of burly Marines, to discourage any stray installers of WiFi cards etc. One would also assume there are software safety measures that would prevent the stray installer from importing dangerous data or viruses via sneakernet. And finally, one would assume that deviating from the strict rules of conduct will result in reprimands/jail time/caning (delete as applicable) depending on how dangerous or stupid the said stray installer acted.
As for patching, that's fine for security levels up to a certain degree, but there are unpatched and undiscovered bugs around any given time, as the submissions history on /. will tell you.
Amen. Or, as someone said, the best firewall in the world is two feet of air.
Why is this news?
Distributed systems that do not rely on a centralised authority, be it for synchronising or resource distribution, are by far not a new thing. To name a random example (and you can find a dozen others with five minutes of Googling), the Prospero Resource Manager was a USC project started in the early 90s that relied on distributed authorities with no centralised command centre.
Furthermore, if the computers are self-controlling and not guarded by anything besides their internal mechanisms that rely on the checks on other computers, the potential danger lies in a computer in the grid having a seriously fscked-up internal state. In other words, can a malfunctioning computer be trusted to monitor itself correctly? I think not.
I would assume that for starters, whatever algorithm Google News uses is a collaborative effort, so there is no monopoly on the bias -- opinions tend to even out in crowds. Also, the algorithm and its authoring represents a conscious exploration of one's motives and the question on what is important. After such an act, whatever bias remains cannot be really called "unconscious", no?
So anyway, yes, Google News is not completely objective and equal (for example, there is a focus on US stories). Few things are. But it's as close as I've seen a news source come to impartiality.
Of course, this can be seen as a benefit, too. No person's views and unconscious bias are inflicted on you; instead, you get all available sources and opinions presented as equals in their worthiness. Then it's the reader's task to make an educated judgement of the issue, as free of editorial bias as possible. It requires critical reading skills, but I personally prefer to chew my own news, as opposed to digesting ready-chewed stuff.
Very true indeed. UMTS is a comittee standard which effectively means it is not only overtly expensive but also too cautious on what people will demand of it -- half the performance of Wi-Fi with twice the price.
Of course, as some experts see it, UMTS will become reality regardless of its shortcomings, merely because so many governments and institutions have put so much money and effort into it. Feh.
Well, there are those of us whose companies don't have landline phones any more. My former employer had none, merely company-paid cell phones for everyone plus a mobile call centre.
Also, I gave up my own landline phone away around 1998 when I got a cable modem and the last excuse to support the local monopoly telco went away... my phone line used to cost me EUR20/month before any call costs, while my cell phone bill hovers around EUR40/month with copious calls and SMSs. So choosing a cell phone is a sound financial decision, and when I want to be unreachable, I do know how to use the off button.
What I find most interesting about the Google News service is its equalising factor when it comes to news sources. NY Times is right alongside Kansas City Star, Slashdot, and Arutz Sheva as an equal news source. No longer does one viewpoint dominate a news item, but instead, there exists a one-stop shop for all takes and opinions on an issue. How fabulous is that?!
This brings a whole new twist to what is a respectable news source and more importantly, maybe also teaches something about how important it is to read also "reputable" news sources (Reuters, BBC, etc.) with healthy scepticism and criticism. How post-modern, this breaking down of establishment as the only reliable source of information.
And again, there are parts of the world where TiVo does not exist as a market entity. Say, most of Europe. (Not saying this thing is worth the dough they ask for it, only reminding that some of us live in countries where the number of options is severely limited.)
A more accurate second-level domain for these fellas would be peoplewithtoomuchtimeontheirhands.nz, no?