The "gateway" methodology splits the world into inside and outside, not a usefull split, since there are *always* bad guys on the inside.
Yes, and that's why you put IDSs and firewalls out the wazoo on the inside of the network. You are a little naive if you think the government (actually a contractor) will simply redesign a network by inserting a single gateway and then be done with it.
However, it nicely ensures that spendings on hosting and applications is filtered through a limited number of suppliers, reducing competition and stifling innovation -- the american way;)
The government already has favored suppliers and vendors. Simplifying gateways only minimizes the number of devices from those suppliers and vendors, it does not limit the suppliers or vendors themselves. In fact, with what I'm working on now, additional suppliers and vendors have been added to the mix, not subtracted. In essence, you are way off base and don't know what you are talking about.
Finally, the Govt itself will feel the pain of their own stupidity. Whats the difference if they have 50 firewalls or 500? This is what the terrorists want: to make working at Govt. agencies less enjoyable by cramping their internet access while making them waste millions implementing it!. Now for the reality: There are no terrorists. The goal is to make more money for contractors. We Americans foot the bill all the way. Its all a big lie, either you believe it or you go along with it to reap the benefits. Yes, 911, the pretext for all this, was an inside job!
Why does reducing infrastructure equipment have to imply reducing functionality? You obviously don't understand the concept of consolidation. Reducing the # of devices reduces the amount of time managing and monitoring the devices. It makes managing the network easier because firewall rules can be consolidated and made simpler, along with other types of rules used throughout a network. Reducing the # of gateways to the outside world for a gov't agency or network also makes it more secure. People using those networks and the resources outside those networks can still get to those resources but those who maintain that infrastructure can better make sure it is done efficiently and more securely since they have less equipment to worry about.
This is a massive undertaking. I'm working on a consolidation right now for just one of these networks and it is just horrendous what we are up against. The government doesn't always have the same standards of documentation as contractors do which makes it even more unfair for the contractor who comes in to fix what isn't actually broken but it makes you wonder how it works in the first place given the spiderweb that exists. Now for the reality: It isn't about terrorists at all. It is about reducing cost for the taxpayers, THAT'S YOU, if you are a U.S. tax payer. Yes there are costs upfront but why would you be against spending money upfront for much greater savings down the road?
LTO-4 tape:
A drive is $5000, and an 800 GB tape is $120. Magnetic tape has a very long, provable, verified and *good* track record at being able to retain data. I've read 30 year old 9-track reels, and have cassettes from the 70's that'll still play.
This is decades old technology.
Their drive is 3x the price, and their media is 50% more expensive for half the space. Their only benefit is the holographic media is random access. Bah. If it's for archiving, who cares about random access?
This is, as yet, unreleased technology and therefore brand spanking new. Why are you comparing apples to oranges? Give the new technology a few years to come down in price and then bring out your comparison charts. CD burners were $20k when they were first released and now more than 10 years later they cost about $20 and are combined wtih DVD burning technology.
The question is, since AT&T is huge, how much of their profits are they using to invest in R&D and infrastructure expansion for their other market segments such as their wireless cell phone service and their countless other markets? Maybe they need to invest more into the Internet infrastructure however maybe they are spread too thin already? It's hard to say. It's hard to imagine, for me at least, that $19billion won't be enough to support what they are anticipating for network usage.
Your HDD (if its a sata-2) will support 3 gbps (3 gigabits per second) transfer, though that's burst rate so you'll only get half that on average - 150MB/s, but you could put your drives in a RAID0 array to increase that.
Not to mention that the transfer rate of a HDD is never from the drive to a useful part of the system, it is just how fast the cache operates at which is rather meaningless. Maybe this has changed in recent years but I highly doubt it.
Still need to report a laptop bug (with mouse pads not working right) but other than that this release should be good to go on my box by release date.
Um, what kind of mouse pad do you have that makes it so complicated?? 1. Open mouse pad package 2. Place pad on desk 3. Place mouse on pad 4. Move mouse. You have a bug with that somewhere?
First up: You betray your lack of understanding by assuming that anything that isn't parallel is perpendicular - 'parallel' universes diverge from one another, that's the whole point, ergo they aren't parallel. They aren't universes because it would break the very definition of the word universe to have more than one of them.
I never was specifically stating the exact opposite of or the only alternative to what you were stating. I was simply suggesting something other than what you stated. Since cosmologists have created the word "multi-verse" it must mean there can be multiple universes, despite the definition of universe.
Second: Black holes give off EM radiation - they're not black.
As far as the visible spectrum is concerned, they are black. Simple. That's all I said before and that's all I meant. True they aren't black when taking into account the *entire* spectrum but that isn't why they were originally given the name "black" hole. If they weren't visibly black (in the spectrum we see in) then they would be easier to find. They are even difficult to find in other areas of the EM spectrum but still easier than dark matter.
Third: Big bang was a pointlike singularity - can't exactly be big if it's a point now, can it/
The object which existed that turned into the Big Bang occured was a singularity however it expanded rapidly into the universe/multiverse (whichever you believe in) and therefore was a bang in that regard.
Finally: Don't take tongue in cheek statements so literally. You end up looking like an idiot.
My statements weren't all tongue-in-cheek but some were so you are the one who needs to stop taking things so literally and realize that when looking at specific aspects of these various topics (parallel universes, black holes, and the big bang) you begin to see why they have the names they do. You accuse me of taking your statements literally and yet you are the one who was taking tongue-in-cheek names given to scientific phenomena literally and dispelling them. I don't have to ask who the idiot is now because I already know it is you. Chill out. Scientists like having fun sometimes with their nomenclature.
There are two things you need to know about black holes: They're not black, and they're not holes.
They are black as far as the visible spectrum is concerned which is all the public cares about. Those who are questioning how a black hole can be brighter are in the middle between the general public and a physicist otherwise they would either know the answer or they wouldn't even know otherwise to ask "how can a black hole be brighter?" because they wouldn't be reading this story in the first place.
There are two things you need to know about parallel universes: They're not parallel, and they're not universes.
Then what are they? Perpendicular worlds?
There are two things you need to know about the big bang: It wasn't big and it didn't bang.
I don't know about you but I think it was pretty big (i.e. important) if it caused something to come from nothing (unless we are debating that now too to avoid the use of a Creator) and also big (i.e. vast) if it created the entire universe. And if it didn't bang then what did it do? It's all well and good to say all this stuff is wrong but it doesn't do readers any good if you don't say what these things really are if what readers thought they were is all wrong.
Of course that gets widdled down to 1 or 2 people as far as authors are concerned but it still takes more than 1 person to write a book.
For those wondering what the hell I meant by "widdled", I meant "whittled". Forgot to check the spelling of that before I submitted it because I knew it didn't look right. Oh well, seems I made other mistakes too that my preview didn't catch.
Hawking is a genius but mostly in theoretical physics.
So? I didn't relize theoretical physics was less important than other fields such as particle physics.
While I've read books about the nature of space-time by Hawking, I noticed they were often co-written with Roger Penrose. In fact, if I were to ask you the most famous work of Hawking, what would you say? Probably A Brief History of Time.
So? Many people collaborate on projects, especially books. In the making of *any* books, tens if not hundreds of people can be involved. Of course that gets widdled down to 1 or 2 people as far as authors are concerned but it still takes more than 1 person to write a book. Given that Hawking can't write (but can do calculations in his head) I don't think it takes away from the quality of his work that he has a collaborator on his books. Penrose also has written the Forewords/Preface to books as well.
It's a sad fact of our society, your work is commonly overlooked until you're dead.
The problem is that scientists who propose something that goes against the status quo are ignored for some reason and it sometimes takes 2 or 3 people over a period of decades to propose the same thing either independently or by finding documented research by Person A for someone else to take notice of Person A's original work. I guess it is a much slower version of the peer review process. Given that it takes a while and people only survive for ~80 years, there is a good chance that by the time a scientist's work that was originally ignored for being fringe or just ahead of its time is rediscovered the scientist is dead. This has happened many times over the centuries.
With that said, I don't think the issue with Wheeler was that his work was overlooked, as in ignored. I've heard his name in many of the cosmology books I've read but his work was so far above my head that I did overlook it for that reason but I'm a layman. Other physicists I'm sure rely heavily on his work as background information and as a basis for further research into various topics. He was like a grandfather for some people.
Also, Iran is not the threat that is being presented to U.S. citizens. Those who control the U.S. government are trying to demonize Iran the way they demonized Iraq.
You have a point. The threatening Iran is unfortunately not being represented properly in the US media and therefore it seems that Iran is not a threat. The nice, sweet Iran is what is portrayed in the media. However, if you look at the video coming out of Iran (but not replayed in the mainstream US media) you will see that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants war with the US. They want the US destroyed. They propagandize on their side to make their people hate the US. But of course you won't see that in the mainstream media in the US. Everything is hunky dory as far as most people know.
The U.S. government is the biggest promoter of violence in the world. Don't say "we" when talking about war. There is no "we", unless you are part of the group that makes the profits, while stealing from U.S. taxpayers.
I think you need to study the behavior of Islamic extremists, specifically those in Iran, before you state that the US government is the biggest promoter of violence in the world.
Then you've never argued with a creationist. EVERY argument about God eventually breaks down to the idea that a complex system such as a human being cannot be created by chance or natural selection, therefore "God".
Okay, but that doesn't say anything about requiring God to be more complex than the creation and thus breaking some known or unknown rule.
A higher power does not imply greater complexity.
Yes, it does. If it's not more complex, then it's not a higher power. If you fail to understand simple symantics like that, I don't see how we can discuss more complex topics.
If you fail to be able to properly spell the words you use then I don't see how we can discsuss more complex topics. But anyway, based on what you already stated I'll respond with this: the human brain is very complex but speaking in terms of mathematical computations we can build less complex (compared to the brain) digital computers which can calculate much faster using more complex data. In that case, more computational power in the creation does not require even more computational power (i.e. complexity) in the creator. Raw power has never required great complexity and, if anything, more complexity with the raw power usually entails a sacrifice in efficiency (e.g. heat loss due to more friction with moving parts, mechanically speaking). You failed to provide evidence or examples of why a higher power requires more complexity. Do not try to prove false what you do not understand or do not believe in. Simple bias will prevent you from thinking it is true or possible.
Also, I believe the punishment for attempted suicide should be death. If you can't do it right, we'll do it for you.
Not everyone who actually attempts it does it to die. Some just want others to see they need help but don't know any other way of asking for it so they do something that probably won't make them die or they do it the wrong way such as slitting the wrists cross-wise instead of lengthwise up the arm. Killing them is not the answer except for idiots like yourself.
Look, I'll be the first to decry Vista as a piece of shit, but despite all of Vista's flaws, trying to restrict access of programs is a good thing.
I don't think you'll find anyone to disagree with you. The problem is the implementation. I think this should have been dealt with as an issue between MS and 3rd party developers not between MS and customers. MS does everything else (e.g. bundling deals, etc.) behind the end user's back. I guess when it comes to the actual design/implementation of their products they push it out to the customer to deal with prior to being completely flushed out instead of dealing with it at the source and then presenting it to customers once 3rd parties are on the same page with MS. I mean, when Windows 3.x uses.ini files and we had to switch to the registry in Windows 95 (is that when it was?) the customer never had a choice in the matter and I'm guessing MS communicated their plans to 3rd party developers so they could be prepared for the massive sea change to come.
Your logic is faulty because there is no rule which states that extremely complex systems have to be created by even more complex systems. This is the same logical fallacy which creationists often advance in order to "prove" the existence of God: the idea that because humans are complex, there must be an even more complex being which created us. In reality, it is quite possible for complex systems to be created as a product of random chance, or natural selection.
I've never heard anyone believe in your claim that God had to be more complex just because we are complex. A higher power does not imply greater complexity. You personally can define all you want a higher power to be more complex in order to satisfy your claim of a logical fallacy that you attribute to creationists but you are mischaracterizing them for the sake of trying to prove them wrong. Given what you first stated though, there may be no rule that states extremely complex systems have to be created by even more complex systems but is there a rule that says it can't happen. For that matter, evolution itself is based on something simple becoming more complex so something as simple as the concept of God could easily create Man if the concept of evolution did the same in your mind.
As for humans being equipped with "the highest resolution video, audio, CPU/logic, etc", that's just plain silly. Computers can detect and display video at resolutions (and in light spectrums) which are undetectable by the human eye. They can detect and produce sounds which would be inaudible to us. And when it comes to raw number-crunching ability....well, don't be silly. I'd like to see you sit down and brute-force an NT LM hash in your head. Hell, I'll be generous and let you use a pen and paper!
The guy you responded to lost the point somewhere and you didn't get him back on track either. This isn't about the fastest or most powerful computer. It is about the weirdest computer. What computer do you know can detect human emotion and make moral decisions (yes, even some humans have trouble but they have the capability)? The human brain can perform calculations so it is a computer, an analog computer. How many of those are there? Not many. The wikipedia entry on 'computer' states the following:
A computer is a machine that manipulates data according to a list of instructions. We move our body parts without thinking about it or knowing how it is done but internally our brain is sending a signal to the muscle. We have no clue what instruction that is but the muscle is being manipulated in an analog fashion. The human brain is so weird that we don't even understand how it works in many ways but on the other hand we can build digital computers using components at the atomic level. Weird.
Public utilities are public! They're not armed fortresses. They were originally created to be open institutions where people could see what is going on. They're supposed to share data and cooperate with each other.
The government is public too but some information is sensitive. The government sets up WAN connections to sites to share data. Why can't companies who run the utilities do the same? Other companies not running utilities use extranets and intranets (some encrypted, some not) for communication between departments or with suppliers. Sounds like some CIOs (or CEOs) needs a refresher in network security. There may not have been security issues when these utility buildings were first erected but there are now and other companies have learned to protect their assets. Utilities should too if they know what's good for them.
A) Realize that no matter how much you warn them of the "dangers" of the Internet, kids will still get on it.
And the very reason that some kids will still get on it is for the dangers themselves. Some kids like living like that. They are usually the troublemakers of the class. As you say, the rebellers, will still get on but now they know what to look for. The Internet is just another medium for their already freaky hobbies. And in fact, it's teenagers who are proving to be some of the problem online with both college and non-college kids acting as online bullies and using various websites for their own personal bathroom stall messages.
I think parents should be taking these classes with the children.
Part of it is that the teacher of my AP class, a female cheerleading coach (no kidding), was a decent teacher and could get you to learn a concept like new data structures or pointers in 20 minutes.
I'd really like to know what her teaching method was given the combination of cheerleading and CS usually don't go together despite our daily wishes.
I think that a lot of people are mis-understanding MTBF. A HD might have a MTBF of 100 years. This doesn't mean that the company expects the vast majority of consumers to have that HD running for 100 years without problems.
Maybe this is implied but it seems to me that the misunderstanding comes from the fact that they aren't using the correct unit of measurement for MTBF. These "hours" should be documented as "drive-hours" not just "hours" which to me means regular hours.
MTBF numbers are generated by running say thousands of hard-drives of the same model and batch/lot, and seeing how long it takes before 1 fails. This may be a day or so. You then figure out how many total HD running hours it took before failure. If you have 1,000 HD's running, and it takes 40 hours before one fails, that's a 40,000 hr MTBF. But this number isn't generated by running say 10 hard-drives, waiting for all of them to fail, and averaging that number.
Given this example, they are measuring drive-hours. A similar type of measurement, man-hours, is used for project lengths.
Homosexuality: not even mentioned in the Gospels, and the Old Testament has more to say about the evil of pork.
This is offtopic but if people weren't supposed to start offtopic conversations we wouldn't have sigs or put statements in sigs to instigate conversations. Anyway....your point? Just because homosexuality isn't mentioned in the Gospels does not mean it isn't anywhere in the Bible nor does it change the Bible's view on the issue. In fact, homosexuality is mentioned in various places (here are a few):
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9 KJV
You shall not lie with man as one lies with a women; this is an abomination.
Leviticus 18:22
If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:13
Funny comment time:
Not to mention being able to do it for hundreds of thousands of people, some of whom might be spaced out all over the world, with no appreciable lag... Oh, and having many separate strong AIs all running on the same hardware...
I'm sure you are guaranteed some lag in input if they are actually spaced out as you state. A small minority probably won't even be conscious given enough time to drink beforehand (or during) game play.
They can't figure out the "critical threshold" because there isn't one. It all depends on too many variables to set a universal limit (hehehe get it...universal:-P) It depends on how much nuclear activity there is still going on when it start collapsing and what the amount of heavier atoms is and the amount of other things orbiting the star and any other forces affecting the star at that time and how fast it's moving and spinning. Mass is a smaller part of the calculation than they're making it sound like. If they're going to factor everything in just to find some minimum mass, well duh, two particles and a hell of a lot of force. Haven't they suggested that in that big particle accelerator aka donut of doom. So yeah, a critical mass threshold doesn't exist.
Are you saying that the text on this page is wrong? Both Chandrasekhar and Oppenheimer have calculated limits on white dward and neutron star formation, respectively, and they did that 70 years ago. Stars with the same properties (such as mass) act the same. Gravity is going to take over at a certain point when the pressure isn't great enough to counteract it. It doesn't matter what else is going on, if the pressure isn't there to counteract gravity and the mass of the star is great enough to produce enough gravity to be a problem (1.4 or 3.2 x solar mass as is listed on that page) then 1 of 2 things happen.
Either the star shrinks to a white dwarf and keeps burning hotter because it is more dense (which is why it is white hot) and thus is capable of fighting off further gravitational collapse until it burns up its last remaining fuel (which occurs faster now because it is hotter) or it will collapse even further into a neutron star (and a supernova) if its mass was great enough to start out with (3.2 x solar mass). How fast the star is moving and spinning doesn't affect the mass enough to make a difference with regard to the gravity exerted on the star's material (E=mc^2 isn't going to matter because it won't be moving or spinning nearly at all close to the speed of light). Did I use enough ()?
"According to a Space.com article, NASA scientists have discovered the smallest known black hole to date. The object is known as 'XTE J1650-500'. Weighing in at a scant 3.8 solar masses and measuring only 15 miles across, this finding sheds new light on the lower limit of black hole sizes and the critical threshold at which a star will become a black hole upon it's death, rather than a neutron star. XTE J1650-500 beats out the previous record holder, GRO 1655-40, by about 2.5 solar masses."
Given the data here it seems that Oppenheimer came up with a value of 3.2 solar masses as the upper limit for a star forming a neutron star. Beyond 3.2 solar masses the star would have a great enough mass to go beyond the stage of the Pauli exclusion principle which applies to neutron stars and go to a black hole instead. Oppenheimer calculated that back in 1939 so I'm not sure why this "sheds new light on the lower limit of a black hole size and the critical threshold at which a star will become a black hole".
Am I missing something? I very well could be but it seems pretty cut and dry.
Actually, the rules explicitly allow supplementing the data set and Netflix points out that they explore external data sets as well.
However for purposes of NetFlix verifying a contestant's algorithm to see how much better or worse it is compared to NetFlix's current algorithm they use a separate, internal data set whose contents are not known to contestants.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and that's why you put IDSs and firewalls out the wazoo on the inside of the network. You are a little naive if you think the government (actually a contractor) will simply redesign a network by inserting a single gateway and then be done with it.
However, it nicely ensures that spendings on hosting and applications is filtered through a limited number of suppliers, reducing competition and stifling innovation -- the american wayThe government already has favored suppliers and vendors. Simplifying gateways only minimizes the number of devices from those suppliers and vendors, it does not limit the suppliers or vendors themselves. In fact, with what I'm working on now, additional suppliers and vendors have been added to the mix, not subtracted. In essence, you are way off base and don't know what you are talking about.
Why does reducing infrastructure equipment have to imply reducing functionality? You obviously don't understand the concept of consolidation. Reducing the # of devices reduces the amount of time managing and monitoring the devices. It makes managing the network easier because firewall rules can be consolidated and made simpler, along with other types of rules used throughout a network. Reducing the # of gateways to the outside world for a gov't agency or network also makes it more secure. People using those networks and the resources outside those networks can still get to those resources but those who maintain that infrastructure can better make sure it is done efficiently and more securely since they have less equipment to worry about.
This is a massive undertaking. I'm working on a consolidation right now for just one of these networks and it is just horrendous what we are up against. The government doesn't always have the same standards of documentation as contractors do which makes it even more unfair for the contractor who comes in to fix what isn't actually broken but it makes you wonder how it works in the first place given the spiderweb that exists. Now for the reality: It isn't about terrorists at all. It is about reducing cost for the taxpayers, THAT'S YOU, if you are a U.S. tax payer. Yes there are costs upfront but why would you be against spending money upfront for much greater savings down the road?
You got the point of TFA wrong. This is for the U.S. government only, not for the public at large.
LTO-4 tape:
A drive is $5000, and an 800 GB tape is $120. Magnetic tape has a very long, provable, verified and *good* track record at being able to retain data. I've read 30 year old 9-track reels, and have cassettes from the 70's that'll still play.
This is decades old technology.
Their drive is 3x the price, and their media is 50% more expensive for half the space. Their only benefit is the holographic media is random access. Bah. If it's for archiving, who cares about random access?This is, as yet, unreleased technology and therefore brand spanking new. Why are you comparing apples to oranges? Give the new technology a few years to come down in price and then bring out your comparison charts. CD burners were $20k when they were first released and now more than 10 years later they cost about $20 and are combined wtih DVD burning technology.
The question is, since AT&T is huge, how much of their profits are they using to invest in R&D and infrastructure expansion for their other market segments such as their wireless cell phone service and their countless other markets? Maybe they need to invest more into the Internet infrastructure however maybe they are spread too thin already? It's hard to say. It's hard to imagine, for me at least, that $19billion won't be enough to support what they are anticipating for network usage.
Not to mention that the transfer rate of a HDD is never from the drive to a useful part of the system, it is just how fast the cache operates at which is rather meaningless. Maybe this has changed in recent years but I highly doubt it.
Um, what kind of mouse pad do you have that makes it so complicated?? 1. Open mouse pad package 2. Place pad on desk 3. Place mouse on pad 4. Move mouse. You have a bug with that somewhere?
And yes, I know you meant touchpad....I hope.
I never was specifically stating the exact opposite of or the only alternative to what you were stating. I was simply suggesting something other than what you stated. Since cosmologists have created the word "multi-verse" it must mean there can be multiple universes, despite the definition of universe.
Second: Black holes give off EM radiation - they're not black.As far as the visible spectrum is concerned, they are black. Simple. That's all I said before and that's all I meant. True they aren't black when taking into account the *entire* spectrum but that isn't why they were originally given the name "black" hole. If they weren't visibly black (in the spectrum we see in) then they would be easier to find. They are even difficult to find in other areas of the EM spectrum but still easier than dark matter.
Third: Big bang was a pointlike singularity - can't exactly be big if it's a point now, can it/The object which existed that turned into the Big Bang occured was a singularity however it expanded rapidly into the universe/multiverse (whichever you believe in) and therefore was a bang in that regard.
Finally: Don't take tongue in cheek statements so literally. You end up looking like an idiot.My statements weren't all tongue-in-cheek but some were so you are the one who needs to stop taking things so literally and realize that when looking at specific aspects of these various topics (parallel universes, black holes, and the big bang) you begin to see why they have the names they do. You accuse me of taking your statements literally and yet you are the one who was taking tongue-in-cheek names given to scientific phenomena literally and dispelling them. I don't have to ask who the idiot is now because I already know it is you. Chill out. Scientists like having fun sometimes with their nomenclature.
They are black as far as the visible spectrum is concerned which is all the public cares about. Those who are questioning how a black hole can be brighter are in the middle between the general public and a physicist otherwise they would either know the answer or they wouldn't even know otherwise to ask "how can a black hole be brighter?" because they wouldn't be reading this story in the first place.
There are two things you need to know about parallel universes: They're not parallel, and they're not universes.Then what are they? Perpendicular worlds?
There are two things you need to know about the big bang: It wasn't big and it didn't bang.I don't know about you but I think it was pretty big (i.e. important) if it caused something to come from nothing (unless we are debating that now too to avoid the use of a Creator) and also big (i.e. vast) if it created the entire universe. And if it didn't bang then what did it do? It's all well and good to say all this stuff is wrong but it doesn't do readers any good if you don't say what these things really are if what readers thought they were is all wrong.
For those wondering what the hell I meant by "widdled", I meant "whittled". Forgot to check the spelling of that before I submitted it because I knew it didn't look right. Oh well, seems I made other mistakes too that my preview didn't catch.
So? I didn't relize theoretical physics was less important than other fields such as particle physics.
While I've read books about the nature of space-time by Hawking, I noticed they were often co-written with Roger Penrose. In fact, if I were to ask you the most famous work of Hawking, what would you say? Probably A Brief History of Time.So? Many people collaborate on projects, especially books. In the making of *any* books, tens if not hundreds of people can be involved. Of course that gets widdled down to 1 or 2 people as far as authors are concerned but it still takes more than 1 person to write a book. Given that Hawking can't write (but can do calculations in his head) I don't think it takes away from the quality of his work that he has a collaborator on his books. Penrose also has written the Forewords/Preface to books as well.
It's a sad fact of our society, your work is commonly overlooked until you're dead.The problem is that scientists who propose something that goes against the status quo are ignored for some reason and it sometimes takes 2 or 3 people over a period of decades to propose the same thing either independently or by finding documented research by Person A for someone else to take notice of Person A's original work. I guess it is a much slower version of the peer review process. Given that it takes a while and people only survive for ~80 years, there is a good chance that by the time a scientist's work that was originally ignored for being fringe or just ahead of its time is rediscovered the scientist is dead. This has happened many times over the centuries.
With that said, I don't think the issue with Wheeler was that his work was overlooked, as in ignored. I've heard his name in many of the cosmology books I've read but his work was so far above my head that I did overlook it for that reason but I'm a layman. Other physicists I'm sure rely heavily on his work as background information and as a basis for further research into various topics. He was like a grandfather for some people.
You have a point. The threatening Iran is unfortunately not being represented properly in the US media and therefore it seems that Iran is not a threat. The nice, sweet Iran is what is portrayed in the media. However, if you look at the video coming out of Iran (but not replayed in the mainstream US media) you will see that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants war with the US. They want the US destroyed. They propagandize on their side to make their people hate the US. But of course you won't see that in the mainstream media in the US. Everything is hunky dory as far as most people know.
The U.S. government is the biggest promoter of violence in the world. Don't say "we" when talking about war. There is no "we", unless you are part of the group that makes the profits, while stealing from U.S. taxpayers.I think you need to study the behavior of Islamic extremists, specifically those in Iran, before you state that the US government is the biggest promoter of violence in the world.
Rubber?
Okay, but that doesn't say anything about requiring God to be more complex than the creation and thus breaking some known or unknown rule.
A higher power does not imply greater complexity. Yes, it does. If it's not more complex, then it's not a higher power. If you fail to understand simple symantics like that, I don't see how we can discuss more complex topics.If you fail to be able to properly spell the words you use then I don't see how we can discsuss more complex topics. But anyway, based on what you already stated I'll respond with this: the human brain is very complex but speaking in terms of mathematical computations we can build less complex (compared to the brain) digital computers which can calculate much faster using more complex data. In that case, more computational power in the creation does not require even more computational power (i.e. complexity) in the creator. Raw power has never required great complexity and, if anything, more complexity with the raw power usually entails a sacrifice in efficiency (e.g. heat loss due to more friction with moving parts, mechanically speaking). You failed to provide evidence or examples of why a higher power requires more complexity. Do not try to prove false what you do not understand or do not believe in. Simple bias will prevent you from thinking it is true or possible.
Not everyone who actually attempts it does it to die. Some just want others to see they need help but don't know any other way of asking for it so they do something that probably won't make them die or they do it the wrong way such as slitting the wrists cross-wise instead of lengthwise up the arm. Killing them is not the answer except for idiots like yourself.
I don't think you'll find anyone to disagree with you. The problem is the implementation. I think this should have been dealt with as an issue between MS and 3rd party developers not between MS and customers. MS does everything else (e.g. bundling deals, etc.) behind the end user's back. I guess when it comes to the actual design/implementation of their products they push it out to the customer to deal with prior to being completely flushed out instead of dealing with it at the source and then presenting it to customers once 3rd parties are on the same page with MS. I mean, when Windows 3.x uses .ini files and we had to switch to the registry in Windows 95 (is that when it was?) the customer never had a choice in the matter and I'm guessing MS communicated their plans to 3rd party developers so they could be prepared for the massive sea change to come.
I've never heard anyone believe in your claim that God had to be more complex just because we are complex. A higher power does not imply greater complexity. You personally can define all you want a higher power to be more complex in order to satisfy your claim of a logical fallacy that you attribute to creationists but you are mischaracterizing them for the sake of trying to prove them wrong. Given what you first stated though, there may be no rule that states extremely complex systems have to be created by even more complex systems but is there a rule that says it can't happen. For that matter, evolution itself is based on something simple becoming more complex so something as simple as the concept of God could easily create Man if the concept of evolution did the same in your mind.
As for humans being equipped with "the highest resolution video, audio, CPU/logic, etc", that's just plain silly. Computers can detect and display video at resolutions (and in light spectrums) which are undetectable by the human eye. They can detect and produce sounds which would be inaudible to us. And when it comes to raw number-crunching ability....well, don't be silly. I'd like to see you sit down and brute-force an NT LM hash in your head. Hell, I'll be generous and let you use a pen and paper!The guy you responded to lost the point somewhere and you didn't get him back on track either. This isn't about the fastest or most powerful computer. It is about the weirdest computer. What computer do you know can detect human emotion and make moral decisions (yes, even some humans have trouble but they have the capability)? The human brain can perform calculations so it is a computer, an analog computer. How many of those are there? Not many. The wikipedia entry on 'computer' states the following:
A computer is a machine that manipulates data according to a list of instructions. We move our body parts without thinking about it or knowing how it is done but internally our brain is sending a signal to the muscle. We have no clue what instruction that is but the muscle is being manipulated in an analog fashion. The human brain is so weird that we don't even understand how it works in many ways but on the other hand we can build digital computers using components at the atomic level. Weird.The government is public too but some information is sensitive. The government sets up WAN connections to sites to share data. Why can't companies who run the utilities do the same? Other companies not running utilities use extranets and intranets (some encrypted, some not) for communication between departments or with suppliers. Sounds like some CIOs (or CEOs) needs a refresher in network security. There may not have been security issues when these utility buildings were first erected but there are now and other companies have learned to protect their assets. Utilities should too if they know what's good for them.
And the very reason that some kids will still get on it is for the dangers themselves. Some kids like living like that. They are usually the troublemakers of the class. As you say, the rebellers, will still get on but now they know what to look for. The Internet is just another medium for their already freaky hobbies. And in fact, it's teenagers who are proving to be some of the problem online with both college and non-college kids acting as online bullies and using various websites for their own personal bathroom stall messages.
I think parents should be taking these classes with the children.
I'd really like to know what her teaching method was given the combination of cheerleading and CS usually don't go together despite our daily wishes.
Maybe this is implied but it seems to me that the misunderstanding comes from the fact that they aren't using the correct unit of measurement for MTBF. These "hours" should be documented as "drive-hours" not just "hours" which to me means regular hours.
MTBF numbers are generated by running say thousands of hard-drives of the same model and batch/lot, and seeing how long it takes before 1 fails. This may be a day or so. You then figure out how many total HD running hours it took before failure. If you have 1,000 HD's running, and it takes 40 hours before one fails, that's a 40,000 hr MTBF. But this number isn't generated by running say 10 hard-drives, waiting for all of them to fail, and averaging that number.Given this example, they are measuring drive-hours. A similar type of measurement, man-hours, is used for project lengths.
This is offtopic but if people weren't supposed to start offtopic conversations we wouldn't have sigs or put statements in sigs to instigate conversations. Anyway....your point? Just because homosexuality isn't mentioned in the Gospels does not mean it isn't anywhere in the Bible nor does it change the Bible's view on the issue. In fact, homosexuality is mentioned in various places (here are a few):
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9 KJVYou shall not lie with man as one lies with a women; this is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22
If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death. Leviticus 20:13
Funny comment time:
Not to mention being able to do it for hundreds of thousands of people, some of whom might be spaced out all over the world, with no appreciable lag... Oh, and having many separate strong AIs all running on the same hardware...I'm sure you are guaranteed some lag in input if they are actually spaced out as you state. A small minority probably won't even be conscious given enough time to drink beforehand (or during) game play.
Are you saying that the text on this page is wrong? Both Chandrasekhar and Oppenheimer have calculated limits on white dward and neutron star formation, respectively, and they did that 70 years ago. Stars with the same properties (such as mass) act the same. Gravity is going to take over at a certain point when the pressure isn't great enough to counteract it. It doesn't matter what else is going on, if the pressure isn't there to counteract gravity and the mass of the star is great enough to produce enough gravity to be a problem (1.4 or 3.2 x solar mass as is listed on that page) then 1 of 2 things happen.
Either the star shrinks to a white dwarf and keeps burning hotter because it is more dense (which is why it is white hot) and thus is capable of fighting off further gravitational collapse until it burns up its last remaining fuel (which occurs faster now because it is hotter) or it will collapse even further into a neutron star (and a supernova) if its mass was great enough to start out with (3.2 x solar mass). How fast the star is moving and spinning doesn't affect the mass enough to make a difference with regard to the gravity exerted on the star's material (E=mc^2 isn't going to matter because it won't be moving or spinning nearly at all close to the speed of light). Did I use enough ()?
Given the data here it seems that Oppenheimer came up with a value of 3.2 solar masses as the upper limit for a star forming a neutron star. Beyond 3.2 solar masses the star would have a great enough mass to go beyond the stage of the Pauli exclusion principle which applies to neutron stars and go to a black hole instead. Oppenheimer calculated that back in 1939 so I'm not sure why this "sheds new light on the lower limit of a black hole size and the critical threshold at which a star will become a black hole".
Am I missing something? I very well could be but it seems pretty cut and dry.
However for purposes of NetFlix verifying a contestant's algorithm to see how much better or worse it is compared to NetFlix's current algorithm they use a separate, internal data set whose contents are not known to contestants.