As I commented the last time this daft idea came up the simple solution is to have a secure delivery box. The one time key opens the box only and this way you are only risking the contents of the box - which unless you have multiple deliveries will be nothing - and not the entire contents of your house.
Nobody in their right mind is going to let some random stranger they have never met before into their house while they are away and it will cause huge problems for Amazon because if anyone notices something missing after a delivery Amazon's delivery person will get the blame even if the missing item was accidentally lost.
No, what I am saying is that a title saying "Half the Universe's Missing Matter Has Just Been Finally Found" is wrong. Half the Universe's missing BARYONIC matter has been found, which is ~7% of the Universe's matter or ~2% of the Universe's mass-energy. There is no reading of that title which is correct regardless of what the summary, the article or anything else says.
Why is this anti-trust when Apple raising the prices for its machines is not? Raising the price of Windows seems far more honest and upfront than many of the schemes MS have pulled in the past with bundling and the more they raise prices the more people will start to look at alternatives like Linux. If they keep up with the price rises perhaps someday we may eventually see the mythical year of the Linux desktop.
If we don't use Windows 10, what other OS can we use instead?
What's wrong with Win10 + linux subsystem? I've tended to find Windows 10 a pretty decent OS - which I'll readily admit was a huge surprise. It boots fast, is stable and with WSL I can run a bash shell while at the same time having Adobe, MS and OpenSource software all accessible. Admittedly it is not as good as macOS but I can run it on a desktop which is ~40% cheaper, takes expansion cards and 3-4 years more up to date than a Mac Pro. The same holds for laptops although the CPU+GPU age difference is only ~1 year there.
The title says "matter" and whatever Dark Matter is it is most definitely matter so either the reference to "matter" is wrong or the 50% number is wrong because what is described is not the discovery of 50% of the missing matter in the universe, only 50% of the missing baryonic matter.
This is the first detection of the roughly half of the normal matter in our universe -- protons, neutrons and electrons
Well technically since ~4% of the universe is made of protons, neutrons and electrons (baryonic matter) and ~25% is made of Dark Matter arguably "normal matter" is, in fact, Dark Matter since it is about 6 times more abundant by mass. Plus the headline is wrong since Dark Matter is matter too so really only ~7% of the missing matter has been found which is a lot less than 50%.
It's also not half the missing matter. Dark Matter is matter just not made of atomic constituents (protons, neturons and electrons) generally called baryonic matter. Only 4% of the universe is made of baryonic matter which, if the summary is correct and the half of this which was missing has been found this means that only 2% of the missing mass-energy of the universe has been discovered. There is a remaining 25% of the mass-energy of the universe in Dark Matter (which is still matter, just not baryonic) and ~71% which is Dark Energy which is the vacuum energy.
So, I suppose if you just refer to matter alone then ~ 7% of the missing matter of the universe has been found but that is still nowhere near 50%, to claim that much you have to specify "50% of baryonic matter" or find Dark Matter (but in that case it would probably be a lot more than 50% found).
What makes you think they used a computer simulation for this proof.
I don't think that and at no point in my argument did I assume that they did. They assumed an algorithm and then, based on that algorithm made calculations about how hard it would be for the algorithm to simulate the required behaviour. However, the issue still remains: where is the proof that this is the most efficient algorithm possible?
It's damn difficult to prove that, since you didn't find it, it doesn't exist.
Actually, conceptually it would be easy to prove that gravitational waves did not exist: just build a detector sensitive enough to detect gravitational waves from a source which is well known and understood and if you don't detect them Einstein would be wrong since GR makes clear predictions.
Practically that is extremely hard because any source you are certain of will be so weak that it is almost guaranteed to be impossible to detect the waves it produces with current technology. This is why LIGO had to look for extremely exotic, poorly understood sources like colliding Black Holes. Had LIGO not seen a signal it would not be clear whether that was because gravitational waves did not exist or because the rate of Black Holes colliding in the Universe was incredibly low.
It rules out simulations that anything within this universe, no matter how advanced, could come up with.
No, it does not. It rules out using the algorithm they tested for simulating it. I'm not aware of any proof that this has to be the most efficient simulation method for this problem.
Even if there were such a proof the next question is would a Quantum Computer be capable of a more efficient simulation? If not then for the claim they made there then needs to be a proof that no possible future computing technology could ever run this simulation more efficiently.
Really all we have now is evidence that suggests the universe is not a simulation run on incremental improvements of existing computing technology which is far, far weaker than what they claim.
So you are now alleging that they hid the fact that they were Russians when buying the ads? That's not something I had heard and if correct then you do have a point. However, my understanding was that they bought the ads openly in which case there was no secrecy involved just people not caring who they listened to.
As for Obama, you are right that this is how his involvement started but he followed up that initial comment with a day of campaigning in the UK which really raised some eyebrows on this side of the pond and which spectacularly backfired because nobody likes being told how to think by a foreign leader even if they happen to be right.
Obama did not need to spend money to generate a platform to speak from. Indeed the fact that a foreign government official was getting involved in an election which did not concern them would have generated a big enough platform to get heard by itself. If your only point is that Obama got his platform to shout from for free whilst the Russians had to pay for theirs that's not really much of a difference is it?
Yes, but what they mean is siblings that look like you according to an algorithm which also thinks that all kids under 13 look alike. This doesn't exactly inspire much confidence especially if this is the algorithm protecting your Apple Pay cards on your phone. Mind you at the price they are charging you probably won't have much money left on those cards for your look alike to access.
The Russians did nothing different from what Obama did with getting involved in the Brexit referendum. So if you are going to blame the Russians for the outcome of your last election does that mean the UK can blame the US for the outcome of the Brexit referendum? If you want countries like Russia to stop getting involved in your elections - which I completely agree is wrong - it might be nice for the US government to stop doing it too.
Contributing to a campaign is not the same as expressing an opinion or taking out ads on how a US citizen should vote. Indeed it is hard to see how you can prevent the latter given freedom of speech since ads are really nothing more than a megaphone: they allow your opinion to travel further and reach more people.
It might be unwelcome involvement but then so was Obama's intervention in the Brexit referendum (which backfired spectacularly, unfortunately) so you can hardly blame other countries for the same behaviour as your former president.
No, a quantum is literally the smallest possible amount or change of a quantity e.g the quantum of electric charge is a third the charge on an electron since quarks have electrical charges that are this small.
So when the summary says that "the upcoming version 57 is a quantum leap over predecessors" what it is literally saying is that it is the smallest possible increment over predecessors. So perhaps a little truth in advertizing managed to slip through the hype-laden buzz of scientific words they clearly don't know the meaning of offering, perhaps, a quantum of solace.
project managers that graduated from the school of flagellation
I've encountered one that it even worse: the Golgafrincham B ark school of project management where you have to hire a business consultant to go around and make sure that the project really is what we need and, after that, to ask whether the proposed solution will satisfy everyone, and after that to... etc. although it did not get quite as far as involving telephone sanitizers. The result was that what should have been a simple one or two month project took over two years, much of which was pointless and endless consultation to learn what we already knew and it delivered something less useful than it should have been because everyone just wanted it to be over.
So really bad project management not only kills a good product it can almost kill your will to live!
I'm not crying for the shareholders either. All I am saying is that if we just go after them and let the executives get off scot-free then this sort of thing is going to keep on happening because, ultimately, it is not the shareholders who are responsible for what happened - they are just the ones left carry the can for the financial costs of it.
The share holders are investors who have volunteered to take a risk with their money.
I agree that to some extent the shareholders should suffer. However, if we want to stop this sort of thing happening again those directly responsible for the actions that lead to it must be held accountable and not allowed to hide behind the company and shareholders. In addition, there is very little shareholders can do to stop things like this. They can't stop executives insider trading nor can they easily find out about the appalling lack of security - effectively they are also victims albeit ones who did put their money into it knowing the risks.
This is why suing Equifax into oblivion is not enough because then the company and shareholders, not the executives responsible for the lack of security, suffer. What is needed are criminal charges against those in charge of this fiasco. It sounds like there is already an investigation into insider trading but what is really needed is charges related to data protection but I don't know if US law allows for that like it does in the EU and Canada.
Slashdot Mirror
As I commented the last time this daft idea came up the simple solution is to have a secure delivery box. The one time key opens the box only and this way you are only risking the contents of the box - which unless you have multiple deliveries will be nothing - and not the entire contents of your house.
Nobody in their right mind is going to let some random stranger they have never met before into their house while they are away and it will cause huge problems for Amazon because if anyone notices something missing after a delivery Amazon's delivery person will get the blame even if the missing item was accidentally lost.
No, what I am saying is that a title saying "Half the Universe's Missing Matter Has Just Been Finally Found" is wrong. Half the Universe's missing BARYONIC matter has been found, which is ~7% of the Universe's matter or ~2% of the Universe's mass-energy. There is no reading of that title which is correct regardless of what the summary, the article or anything else says.
Why is this anti-trust when Apple raising the prices for its machines is not? Raising the price of Windows seems far more honest and upfront than many of the schemes MS have pulled in the past with bundling and the more they raise prices the more people will start to look at alternatives like Linux. If they keep up with the price rises perhaps someday we may eventually see the mythical year of the Linux desktop.
If we don't use Windows 10, what other OS can we use instead?
What's wrong with Win10 + linux subsystem? I've tended to find Windows 10 a pretty decent OS - which I'll readily admit was a huge surprise. It boots fast, is stable and with WSL I can run a bash shell while at the same time having Adobe, MS and OpenSource software all accessible. Admittedly it is not as good as macOS but I can run it on a desktop which is ~40% cheaper, takes expansion cards and 3-4 years more up to date than a Mac Pro. The same holds for laptops although the CPU+GPU age difference is only ~1 year there.
The title says "matter" and whatever Dark Matter is it is most definitely matter so either the reference to "matter" is wrong or the 50% number is wrong because what is described is not the discovery of 50% of the missing matter in the universe, only 50% of the missing baryonic matter.
This is the first detection of the roughly half of the normal matter in our universe -- protons, neutrons and electrons
Well technically since ~4% of the universe is made of protons, neutrons and electrons (baryonic matter) and ~25% is made of Dark Matter arguably "normal matter" is, in fact, Dark Matter since it is about 6 times more abundant by mass. Plus the headline is wrong since Dark Matter is matter too so really only ~7% of the missing matter has been found which is a lot less than 50%.
It's also not half the missing matter. Dark Matter is matter just not made of atomic constituents (protons, neturons and electrons) generally called baryonic matter. Only 4% of the universe is made of baryonic matter which, if the summary is correct and the half of this which was missing has been found this means that only 2% of the missing mass-energy of the universe has been discovered. There is a remaining 25% of the mass-energy of the universe in Dark Matter (which is still matter, just not baryonic) and ~71% which is Dark Energy which is the vacuum energy.
So, I suppose if you just refer to matter alone then ~ 7% of the missing matter of the universe has been found but that is still nowhere near 50%, to claim that much you have to specify "50% of baryonic matter" or find Dark Matter (but in that case it would probably be a lot more than 50% found).
Except for that one day.
What makes you think they used a computer simulation for this proof.
I don't think that and at no point in my argument did I assume that they did. They assumed an algorithm and then, based on that algorithm made calculations about how hard it would be for the algorithm to simulate the required behaviour. However, the issue still remains: where is the proof that this is the most efficient algorithm possible?
It's damn difficult to prove that, since you didn't find it, it doesn't exist.
Actually, conceptually it would be easy to prove that gravitational waves did not exist: just build a detector sensitive enough to detect gravitational waves from a source which is well known and understood and if you don't detect them Einstein would be wrong since GR makes clear predictions.
Practically that is extremely hard because any source you are certain of will be so weak that it is almost guaranteed to be impossible to detect the waves it produces with current technology. This is why LIGO had to look for extremely exotic, poorly understood sources like colliding Black Holes. Had LIGO not seen a signal it would not be clear whether that was because gravitational waves did not exist or because the rate of Black Holes colliding in the Universe was incredibly low.
It rules out simulations that anything within this universe, no matter how advanced, could come up with.
No, it does not. It rules out using the algorithm they tested for simulating it. I'm not aware of any proof that this has to be the most efficient simulation method for this problem.
Even if there were such a proof the next question is would a Quantum Computer be capable of a more efficient simulation? If not then for the claim they made there then needs to be a proof that no possible future computing technology could ever run this simulation more efficiently.
Really all we have now is evidence that suggests the universe is not a simulation run on incremental improvements of existing computing technology which is far, far weaker than what they claim.
So you are now alleging that they hid the fact that they were Russians when buying the ads? That's not something I had heard and if correct then you do have a point. However, my understanding was that they bought the ads openly in which case there was no secrecy involved just people not caring who they listened to.
As for Obama, you are right that this is how his involvement started but he followed up that initial comment with a day of campaigning in the UK which really raised some eyebrows on this side of the pond and which spectacularly backfired because nobody likes being told how to think by a foreign leader even if they happen to be right.
Obama did not need to spend money to generate a platform to speak from. Indeed the fact that a foreign government official was getting involved in an election which did not concern them would have generated a big enough platform to get heard by itself. If your only point is that Obama got his platform to shout from for free whilst the Russians had to pay for theirs that's not really much of a difference is it?
The chances of it being lost or stolen are quite high!
Even more so now that apparently any other kid under 13 can unlock it!
Apple did specify "siblings that look like you",
Yes, but what they mean is siblings that look like you according to an algorithm which also thinks that all kids under 13 look alike. This doesn't exactly inspire much confidence especially if this is the algorithm protecting your Apple Pay cards on your phone. Mind you at the price they are charging you probably won't have much money left on those cards for your look alike to access.
The Russians did nothing different from what Obama did with getting involved in the Brexit referendum. So if you are going to blame the Russians for the outcome of your last election does that mean the UK can blame the US for the outcome of the Brexit referendum? If you want countries like Russia to stop getting involved in your elections - which I completely agree is wrong - it might be nice for the US government to stop doing it too.
Contributing to a campaign is not the same as expressing an opinion or taking out ads on how a US citizen should vote. Indeed it is hard to see how you can prevent the latter given freedom of speech since ads are really nothing more than a megaphone: they allow your opinion to travel further and reach more people.
It might be unwelcome involvement but then so was Obama's intervention in the Brexit referendum (which backfired spectacularly, unfortunately) so you can hardly blame other countries for the same behaviour as your former president.
No, a quantum is literally the smallest possible amount or change of a quantity e.g the quantum of electric charge is a third the charge on an electron since quarks have electrical charges that are this small.
So when the summary says that "the upcoming version 57 is a quantum leap over predecessors" what it is literally saying is that it is the smallest possible increment over predecessors. So perhaps a little truth in advertizing managed to slip through the hype-laden buzz of scientific words they clearly don't know the meaning of offering, perhaps, a quantum of solace.
project managers that graduated from the school of flagellation
I've encountered one that it even worse: the Golgafrincham B ark school of project management where you have to hire a business consultant to go around and make sure that the project really is what we need and, after that, to ask whether the proposed solution will satisfy everyone, and after that to... etc. although it did not get quite as far as involving telephone sanitizers. The result was that what should have been a simple one or two month project took over two years, much of which was pointless and endless consultation to learn what we already knew and it delivered something less useful than it should have been because everyone just wanted it to be over.
So really bad project management not only kills a good product it can almost kill your will to live!
Just wait - no doubt soon we'll be hearing that he has Equifax providing the computer security training.
The Scots restarted their talk of secession immediately after the Brexit referendum, and haven't noticeably shut up about it since.
Au contraire, they shut up almost entirely after the SNP lost a lot of seats in the last election.
Are you trying to say that Spain is more like Kosovo or Sudan than it is like Canada or the UK?
I'm not crying for the shareholders either. All I am saying is that if we just go after them and let the executives get off scot-free then this sort of thing is going to keep on happening because, ultimately, it is not the shareholders who are responsible for what happened - they are just the ones left carry the can for the financial costs of it.
The share holders are investors who have volunteered to take a risk with their money.
I agree that to some extent the shareholders should suffer. However, if we want to stop this sort of thing happening again those directly responsible for the actions that lead to it must be held accountable and not allowed to hide behind the company and shareholders. In addition, there is very little shareholders can do to stop things like this. They can't stop executives insider trading nor can they easily find out about the appalling lack of security - effectively they are also victims albeit ones who did put their money into it knowing the risks.
This is why suing Equifax into oblivion is not enough because then the company and shareholders, not the executives responsible for the lack of security, suffer. What is needed are criminal charges against those in charge of this fiasco. It sounds like there is already an investigation into insider trading but what is really needed is charges related to data protection but I don't know if US law allows for that like it does in the EU and Canada.