In the 1970s and 1980s it made a lot of sense to be anti-nuke just as it now makes sense to be anti-GMO. Those people did us a huge favor.
Absolutely wrong. Those people allowed the use of fossil fuels to proliferate and poison the atmosphere for DECADES out of a misguided fear of radioactivity. The blame for global warming can largely be placed on their shoulders. Those people made the world a worse place for everyone.
So you don't think the fossil fuel we have in the ground will be eventually burned? We'll just leave it all there in the ground? riiiiight. Are you also unaware of the difference between transportation fuels and power fuels? Nuclear does not replace oil at all, so you have no point. What it can possibly do is reduce coal use.
Radio activite materials can be safely handled if you plan and pay for it. However Fear of radioactivity is not misguided. We don't need Chernobyls. We don't need high level waste leaking into the columbia river or other aquifers. and we have only fifty years experience in dealing with a 500,000 year waste problem.
The summary paints this picture that it's defective motivations that lead people to go from anti nuke to pro nuke. Au contrair. In the 1970s and 1980s it made a lot of sense to be anti-nuke just as it now makes sense to be anti-GMO. Those people did us a huge favor. They forced these industries to account for the unpaid externality costs that they were free ridiing on. The nuke industry was a headlong rush to market paid for with public bonds going into private investors pockets with very little accounting for the costs of downstream waste disposal, the risks of faclities, and under appreciated environmental costs (such as the tennessee rivers being sterilized by excessive heating).
The protestors forced the nuke industry to face a large regulatory and captical risk hurdle to develop new plants. This forced a better accounting even if the actual costs they were including were only proxies for the real costs. IN the mean time the technology has advanced remarkably.
We also have a better grip on the future costs of peower production and an attentiveness to conservation of power that we did no have then. Fracking has come online, renewables are forming a competitive market.
Nuke power now has a good role to play as a major part of a power mix, especially in china where demand is insatiable and the olny alternative is coal.
It makes complete sense to start developing nuclear power under these safe, sober conditions with the externalities properly built into the costs.
thus this is not "soluionism" as a reasoning defect. It's simply good reasoning in both cases. changing your mind as conditions change actually shows these people were not simply hung up on nuclear = evil but rather the nuclear plants of the time in the market of the time were potentially a bad idea.
I'd say GMO and Fracking are at the same level today. There's a gold rush for these with very little accounting for the true external costs (e.g. water aquifer destruction, fugitive methane, and maybe earthquakes, all being uncosted while wars are driving up the price of oil faster than alternatives can replace it. This means market forces now are out of balance and could cause imprudent envirnmental destruction).
But fracking can be done safely eventually but may have to be done away from aquifers and with better technology.
GMO is going to be the next green revolution. But it's fraught with perils. Even the risk of excessive monocropping leading to a potatoe famine like disaster is not absurd. GMO is oversold right nowand is dangerous because of the unkown risk exposure but will be very important later. We need to let a generation of beta testers pass by at very low levels of introduction of GMO before we allow it to spread. By then we will know how to monitor it's hazzards better.
Under the new naming convention, Apple employees will be known as Stallions, developers shall be know as Geldings, and the consumers shall be known as Mares. The apple education consumers are called Ponies.
Like wise you you put in that magic moment when V_land-V_wind = 0, for another silly result.
V_land-V_wind = 0 is saying V_land=V_wind. If the velocity of the air equals the velocity of the ground, then someone standing on the ground sees zero_velocity_air.
I don't think so. V_land=V_wind. means you are traveling at the same speed as the wind. it's not zero wind speed. Assuming I'm right then everything you wrote after that is incorrect.
You can google it of course. Basically you aren't using the proper frame of reference. One of the mind bending aspects is the prop on this craft isn't driving the wheels. The wheels are driving the prop. Very high torque from the wheels was the main problem in designing the craft. It kept breaking chains from the very high torque.
Well yes, and of course not only have I "googled it" but I also read the explanations in the two sources provided and they don't actually provide an answer that I can make out. Take the test question answer. they write the following for the power going from the land to the air P_wheel = F * v_land P_air = F * (v_land - v_wind)
then they derate the wheel power for a loss alpha and set these equal:
P_air = (1-alpha) *P_wheel
F * v_land = (1-alpha) * F * (v_land - v_wind)
the force F drops out. and one ends up with:
v_land = v_wind/alpha
So that all seems to say that for for any loss alpha 1 the land speed can exceed the wind. it also says, as you repeated, the wheels are driving the prop.
Okay wonderful but lets go back and break this down a little. first consider the case where V_land V_wind. That is where we have not yet exceeded the wind speed.
then examining this equation:
F * v_land = (1-alpha) * F * (v_land - v_wind)
postive number = negative number
????? Not possible ?????
Like wise you you put in that magic moment when V_land-V_wind = 0, for another silly result.
So evidently this equation only holds in steady state not in development.
But this is utterly unsurprising-- its just the energy argument that I gave, only masked by an unexplained statement that F is the same in both equations. We already know that energetically this is not troubling. The problem is trying to explain the forces not the powers.
So no I have not seen a satisfying explanation of to the question I asked. I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm saying that despite the energy argument, the force argument is subtle and completley hidden in the above steady state energy argument.
So let me throw out the question I just posed in a simple case.
when the vehicle is going downwind faster than the wind, the apparent wind is actually in the reverse direction. to apparently you can extract power from a headwind that will push you into a head wind, and you can do this in a continuous way and maintain a constant speed.
1) how is that possible as a force argument not an energy one? but the more important question is this: 2) if there is no wind at all, and I give the cart a shove, there is now a headwind. If I can extract power from the head wind, I can increase the total impetus to the cart. Why doesn't more impetus lead to faster speed? It can't lead to faster speed, otherwise we'd have a positive feedback loop. thus it must somehow always be less than the net drag that is slowing it down. thus the cart must slow down due to drag, and the effect of the device is to make it slow down less rapidly than when the propeller is not hooked to the wheels.
So the real question is this: given your answer to question 1, what attribute of your answer bounds the headwind derived impetus on a windless day to be less than the drag at any vehicle speed?
I love the DDWFTTW controversy because I initially was convinced it had to be rubbish then revised my opinion as I convinced myself it was possible. As you note from an energy conservation argument it isn't that bothersome. TO see this just imagine the following. Stop the vehicle. Let it suck up some energy. Then let it power itself downwind. It's easily possible that the net downwind speed averaged over the stops could be faster than the wind. Now you just have to extend that to the infinitesimal limit. Thus energetically no problem.
The problem is that it's mind bending to figure out the forces involved. How can wind push anything faster than the wind? Even if you rationalize that with the angle of attack on the proellor or something, you then have to ask, well then doesn't the apparent wind (the wind as seen by the moving cart) lead to a positive feedback loop (faster than the wind --> more power to go faster than the wind --> increased speed faster then wind -->.... ). Like wise how come a cart that is not moving at all, could not be pushed to create some apparent wind, then propel itself using that? Clearly, the gain on that feedback loop has not only to be less than unity, but it has to have a very special curve that leads to net integral such that a cart that is shoved on a windless day cannot go faster (on average) than the shove would provide. Otherwise I think you have a paradox.
It's this latter subtely that I can't connect all thr way through all the complicated force arguments.
Now when the wind is blowing, we know the force arguments have to be valid for a very simple reason. We already know that sailboats not heading directly downwind can go faster than the wind in the net downwind direction. They do this by jibing (i.e tacking down wind) in a zig zag path. If you were to drop a large black box over such a sailboat then you would not be able to see the actual motion of the boat, but you would see a black box going directly downwind faster than the wind. thus we know this happens empirically. It's not some werid stored energy issue. the forces directly allow this. but it's hard to figure. Even the apparent wind effect of increasing the effective windspeed on a sailboat is real.
So it's only truly mindbending at the second order level of how somehow the force argument still has to conserve energy.
This software may not be used directly by any living being. ANY use of this software (even perfectly legitimate and non-commercial uses) until after death is explicitly restricted. Any living being using (or attempting to use) this software will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
For your protection, corpses will not be punished. We respectfully request that you submit your uses (revisions, uses, distributions, uses, etc.) to your children, who may vicariously perform these uses on your behalf. If you use this software and you are found to be not dead, you will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
If you are found to be a ghost or angel, you will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
After your following the terms of this license, the author has vowed to repudiate your claim, meaning that the validity of this contract will no longer be recognized. This license will be unexpectedly revoked (at a time which is designated to be most inconvenient) and involved heirs will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Furthermore, if any parties (related or non-related) escape the punishments outlined herein, they will be severely punished to the fullest extent of a new revised law that (1) expands the statement "fullest extent of the law" to encompass an infinite duration of infinite punishments and (2) exacts said punishments upon all parties (related or non-related).
Xerox Parc turns over in it's grave
on
Ethernet Turns 40
·
· Score: 2
Yet another technology created a xerox that they never profited from. Yeah for xerox!
Ironically the utility of fortran has only grown with time. Modern fortrans embrace parallel computing by having constructs that are inherently parallel; for example loops which announce they are parallel and can be done out of order and matrix operations as language primitives. One great innovation is the combination of python and fortran. You do things with precisely defined memory boundaries that are compiled to maximum efficiency using the simple clean fortran, and you do the messy stuff of memory allocations and references and exotic libraries and user interfaces in the python. No need to extend the fortran language and make is slower-- just put the non-speed critical stuff in the python part. With the rise of GPUs and their rigidly defined memory limits fortran is a nice fit. You actually want a constrained language for that. It's really an ideal combination. Fortran compiles so fast its even possible to have python write the fortran on the fly and then call it.
The DoJ's case alleges that the agency pricing model had a clause where the publisher wouldn't sell their books in other stores for less than they were charging in the iBookstore. If true, this is Collusion, and falls under anti-trust laws. http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/collusion/
No it's not. Almost every major retailer insists on the lowest price. Walmart does, Amazon does.
Such activities involve a pretty large number of people. It's interesting how they collectively can keep it a secret for a pretty long time.
It's even amazing that the "fixed" prices are not essentially different than Amazon or Alibris or BN. Very clever price fixing indeed.
BS they weren't 'different'. They were SIGNIFICANTLY higher. At least $3 to $5 higher under the 'agency' model, which on a book that was $9.99 is a 30 to 50% price hike.
Are you some Apple fanboi or something?
Your pulling monkeys out of your butt. Here's an actual price comparison:
Amazon was operating under a normal wholesale/retail model. They bought from the publisher for some agreed-on price, and sold the books to the public for a price they set (which could be higher or lower than what they paid the publisher). Apple convinced the publishers to stop selling to Amazon and switch to an agency model. Under the agency model, the publisher set the price the public paid, and gave the retailers a cut of that. Apple also managed to write into the contracts that nobody could get less of a cut than Apple. That is price fixing.
No that is not price fixing. Walmart and Amazon and everyone else with clout signs contracts that say they must always be given the lowest price. And nearly all goods makers have contracts with sellers that fix the lowest price a good can be advertised at. (that's why you see those signs on web pages that say "add to cart to see price"-- cause they can't advertise it.
If an ATM starts spitting out double money, I don't think I'm entitled to keep it even though "I was just playing by it's rules". Now in this case it's a bit different I suppose since it is a game where I can win or lose. But the part that they are winning here is not really in the game but an artifact of the the way credits are miscounted. SO it's really analogous to the double-money ATM issue.
In comparison to updating android on your carrier's cell phone, windows updates are a snap! Moreover windows updates even exist whereas once you buy a low-brand tablet or get a carrier locked phone no update may ever even get made for your device.
Am I missing something in Gates comment? is he saying the apple is bad because it lacks a keyboard when you buy it? well there's lots of KBs for ipads. they are cheap.
Funny, you'd think they'd mention something about "preventing us from maintaining a standing army in peacetime," if that's what they meant.
Or maybe you're just making stuff up. We report, you decide.
Uh... because they did mention that??? The bill of rights was passed after the constitution was passed. If you want to understand the terminology used int he bill of rights you need to read the constitution first (as well as the discussion of intents).
Article 1, clearly designates the power to suppress foreign attacks via a federally managed army, and the need to suppress domestic insurrection via a state-managed militia. Thus the militia was there NOT to defend the states against the fed gov, but to actually suppress insurrections by other states--that's article 1 of the constitution. Maybe the fact that it's #1 should give it some weight in the discussion.
The 2nd amendment uses the word Militia in this specific context and it's spelling out the right of states to have armed citizens without federal consent, combined with the explicit regulation of gun control by states--"well regulated militia".
So basically you're proposing a move from just give me a little cash upfront to let me leech off your electricity bill in a ridiculously circuitous way to gamble for BTC (keeping in mind that the more people that adopt your model of "BitCoin-Ware" the more people will be vying for BTC the less your expected value will return)?
An interesting idea and definitely one for the mathematicians but simply unsustainable and risky and... I guess deceptive if you don't point out the small cost to their electrical bill...
Right it's zero sum. pay for it up front or pay for it on the electric bill. It only makes sense when either 1) there's a scam to be had (e.g. the landlord or company is paying your utility bill) 2) you can use the heat the electricy is producing for some purpose you needed anyway. That is to say if your computer is sitting next to a space heater then you might as well turn off the space heater and turn on the bit coin engine. 3) you want to donate your cycles to charity and the charity would be better off with the cycles than a cash donation. (e.g the charity is doing some big calaculation but doesn't want to bother with the hassle of buying and maintaining or admining rented servers.)
I don't understand how you get from encrypted inputs and a mathematical operation that occurs without decrypting the inputs to a distributed search.
There's a lot of gotcha's here but let me give you the gist. When you do a search something like this happens (encrypted or not), your query gets hashed into some feature vector of ones and zero. You can imagine the bits of this feature vectors like 20 questions (first bit: is it alive...) etc. The search company then AND this feature vector against every feature vector of the web pages it has scanned. The ones with a good match are returned to you. That's of course a naive version of searching.
If we could do that encoding operation on the client or by a trusted third party then encrypt the feature vector, you can send this to the data base holder to do all the AND operations for you and return all the scores. You could then decrypt that and pick the records you want to fetch.
Naively that works. But it has a lot of holes in it. For example, you'd have to have the database encrypted differently for every client and not tell the server company the key to do that. But that's a detail that can be fixed in other ways that are not so hard.
The point is you can search your data stored in the cloud without the server knowing what you searched for in the database.
Since the first 5 posts are all "homo" jokes, I'm gonna squat here for my on-topic post (heh... heh... he said squat).
The main problem I see with the whole idea of homomorphic encryption is it's necessary limitations. If I can get the plaintext results of the difference (subtraction) of the plaintext of two encrypted strings, I can trivially decrypt both if they're English text.
Well no. here's just one possible way to deal with that. For each string you form two different strings by XOR the string with a random string and the complement of that random string. Now You encrypt each String in the pair with a different key in a homomorphic way.
A third party can now do whatever albelian operations they want on either of these strings but they have no way to combine the two results since the keys are different.
However you are able to do this by doing the operations on both strings then at the very end decrypting them and Xoring the result.
Voila.
Works for voting systems where one person gets to have the keys, and one person gets to maintain the database of encrypted votes. As long as they don't collude, then the data base holder can sum all the ballots up but not know what any ballot is. The key holder can determine the sum but never get access to the individual ballots.
Slashdot Mirror
In the 1970s and 1980s it made a lot of sense to be anti-nuke just as it now makes sense to be anti-GMO. Those people did us a huge favor.
Absolutely wrong. Those people allowed the use of fossil fuels to proliferate and poison the atmosphere for DECADES out of a misguided fear of radioactivity. The blame for global warming can largely be placed on their shoulders. Those people made the world a worse place for everyone.
So you don't think the fossil fuel we have in the ground will be eventually burned? We'll just leave it all there in the ground? riiiiight. Are you also unaware of the difference between transportation fuels and power fuels? Nuclear does not replace oil at all, so you have no point. What it can possibly do is reduce coal use.
Radio activite materials can be safely handled if you plan and pay for it. However Fear of radioactivity is not misguided. We don't need Chernobyls. We don't need high level waste leaking into the columbia river or other aquifers. and we have only fifty years experience in dealing with a 500,000 year waste problem.
The summary paints this picture that it's defective motivations that lead people to go from anti nuke to pro nuke. Au contrair. In the 1970s and 1980s it made a lot of sense to be anti-nuke just as it now makes sense to be anti-GMO. Those people did us a huge favor. They forced these industries to account for the unpaid externality costs that they were free ridiing on. The nuke industry was a headlong rush to market paid for with public bonds going into private investors pockets with very little accounting for the costs of downstream waste disposal, the risks of faclities, and under appreciated environmental costs (such as the tennessee rivers being sterilized by excessive heating).
The protestors forced the nuke industry to face a large regulatory and captical risk hurdle to develop new plants. This forced a better accounting even if the actual costs they were including were only proxies for the real costs. IN the mean time the technology has advanced remarkably.
We also have a better grip on the future costs of peower production and an attentiveness to conservation of power that we did no have then. Fracking has come online, renewables are forming a competitive market.
Nuke power now has a good role to play as a major part of a power mix, especially in china where demand is insatiable and the olny alternative is coal.
It makes complete sense to start developing nuclear power under these safe, sober conditions with the externalities properly built into the costs.
thus this is not "soluionism" as a reasoning defect. It's simply good reasoning in both cases. changing your mind as conditions change actually shows these people were not simply hung up on nuclear = evil but rather the nuclear plants of the time in the market of the time were potentially a bad idea.
I'd say GMO and Fracking are at the same level today. There's a gold rush for these with very little accounting for the true external costs (e.g. water aquifer destruction, fugitive methane, and maybe earthquakes, all being uncosted while wars are driving up the price of oil faster than alternatives can replace it. This means market forces now are out of balance and could cause imprudent envirnmental destruction).
But fracking can be done safely eventually but may have to be done away from aquifers and with better technology.
GMO is going to be the next green revolution. But it's fraught with perils. Even the risk of excessive monocropping leading to a potatoe famine like disaster is not absurd. GMO is oversold right nowand is dangerous because of the unkown risk exposure but will be very important later. We need to let a generation of beta testers pass by at very low levels of introduction of GMO before we allow it to spread. By then we will know how to monitor it's hazzards better.
Under the new naming convention, Apple employees will be known as Stallions, developers shall be know as Geldings, and the consumers shall be known as Mares. The apple education consumers are called Ponies.
Like wise you you put in that magic moment when V_land-V_wind = 0, for another silly result.
V_land-V_wind = 0 is saying V_land=V_wind. If the velocity of the air equals the velocity of the ground, then someone standing on the ground sees zero_velocity_air.
I don't think so. V_land=V_wind. means you are traveling at the same speed as the wind. it's not zero wind speed. Assuming I'm right then everything you wrote after that is incorrect.
Arggghhh. the slashdot formatter ate my less than sigh. I meant to write "consider the case V_land LESSTHAN V_wind.
You can google it of course. Basically you aren't using the proper frame of reference. One of the mind bending aspects is the prop on this craft isn't driving the wheels. The wheels are driving the prop. Very high torque from the wheels was the main problem in designing the craft. It kept breaking chains from the very high torque.
Well yes, and of course not only have I "googled it" but I also read the explanations in the two sources provided and they don't actually provide an answer that I can make out. Take the test question answer. they write the following for the power going from the land to the air
P_wheel = F * v_land
P_air = F * (v_land - v_wind)
then they derate the wheel power for a loss alpha and set these equal:
P_air = (1-alpha) *P_wheel
F * v_land = (1-alpha) * F * (v_land - v_wind)
the force F drops out. and one ends up with:
v_land = v_wind/alpha
So that all seems to say that for for any loss alpha 1 the land speed can exceed the wind. it also says, as you repeated, the wheels are driving the prop.
Okay wonderful but lets go back and break this down a little. first consider the case where V_land V_wind. That is where we have not yet exceeded the wind speed.
then examining this equation:
F * v_land = (1-alpha) * F * (v_land - v_wind)
postive number = negative number
????? Not possible ?????
Like wise you you put in that magic moment when V_land-V_wind = 0, for another silly result.
So evidently this equation only holds in steady state not in development.
But this is utterly unsurprising-- its just the energy argument that I gave, only masked by an unexplained statement that F is the same in both equations. We already know that energetically this is not troubling. The problem is trying to explain the forces not the powers.
So no I have not seen a satisfying explanation of to the question I asked. I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm saying that despite the energy argument, the force argument is subtle and completley hidden in the above steady state energy argument.
So let me throw out the question I just posed in a simple case.
when the vehicle is going downwind faster than the wind, the apparent wind is actually in the reverse direction. to apparently you can extract power from a headwind that will push you into a head wind, and you can do this in a continuous way and maintain a constant speed.
1) how is that possible as a force argument not an energy one?
but the more important question is this:
2) if there is no wind at all, and I give the cart a shove, there is now a headwind. If I can extract power from the head wind, I can increase the total impetus to the cart. Why doesn't more impetus lead to faster speed? It can't lead to faster speed, otherwise we'd have a positive feedback loop. thus it must somehow always be less than the net drag that is slowing it down. thus the cart must slow down due to drag, and the effect of the device is to make it slow down less rapidly than when the propeller is not hooked to the wheels.
So the real question is this:
given your answer to question 1, what attribute of your answer bounds the headwind derived impetus on a windless day to be less than the drag at any vehicle speed?
I'm baffled.
I love the DDWFTTW controversy because I initially was convinced it had to be rubbish then revised my opinion as I convinced myself it was possible. As you note from an energy conservation argument it isn't that bothersome. TO see this just imagine the following. Stop the vehicle. Let it suck up some energy. Then let it power itself downwind. It's easily possible that the net downwind speed averaged over the stops could be faster than the wind. Now you just have to extend that to the infinitesimal limit. Thus energetically no problem.
The problem is that it's mind bending to figure out the forces involved. How can wind push anything faster than the wind? Even if you rationalize that with the angle of attack on the proellor or something, you then have to ask, well then doesn't the apparent wind (the wind as seen by the moving cart) lead to a positive feedback loop (faster than the wind --> more power to go faster than the wind --> increased speed faster then wind --> .... ). Like wise how come a cart that is not moving at all, could not be pushed to create some apparent wind, then propel itself using that? Clearly, the gain on that feedback loop has not only to be less than unity, but it has to have a very special curve that leads to net integral such that a cart that is shoved on a windless day cannot go faster (on average) than the shove would provide. Otherwise I think you have a paradox.
It's this latter subtely that I can't connect all thr way through all the complicated force arguments.
Now when the wind is blowing, we know the force arguments have to be valid for a very simple reason. We already know that sailboats not heading directly downwind can go faster than the wind in the net downwind direction. They do this by jibing (i.e tacking down wind) in a zig zag path. If you were to drop a large black box over such a sailboat then you would not be able to see the actual motion of the boat, but you would see a black box going directly downwind faster than the wind. thus we know this happens empirically. It's not some werid stored energy issue. the forces directly allow this. but it's hard to figure. Even the apparent wind effect of increasing the effective windspeed on a sailboat is real.
So it's only truly mindbending at the second order level of how somehow the force argument still has to conserve energy.
here's there new Lic terms for all google code:
D&R (Death and Repudiation) License
========
This software may not be used directly by any living being. ANY use of this
software (even perfectly legitimate and non-commercial uses) until after death
is explicitly restricted. Any living being using (or attempting to use) this software
will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
For your protection, corpses will not be punished. We respectfully request
that you submit your uses (revisions, uses, distributions, uses, etc.) to
your children, who may vicariously perform these uses on your behalf. If
you use this software and you are found to be not dead, you will be punished
to the fullest extent of the law.
If you are found to be a ghost or angel, you will be punished to the fullest
extent of the law.
After your following the terms of this license, the author has vowed to repudiate
your claim, meaning that the validity of this contract will no longer be recognized.
This license will be unexpectedly revoked (at a time which is designated to be
most inconvenient) and involved heirs will be punished to the fullest extent
of the law.
Furthermore, if any parties (related or non-related) escape the punishments
outlined herein, they will be severely punished to the fullest extent of a new
revised law that (1) expands the statement "fullest extent of the law" to encompass
an infinite duration of infinite punishments and (2) exacts said punishments
upon all parties (related or non-related).
Yet another technology created a xerox that they never profited from. Yeah for xerox!
Ironically the utility of fortran has only grown with time. Modern fortrans embrace parallel computing by having constructs that are inherently parallel; for example loops which announce they are parallel and can be done out of order and matrix operations as language primitives. One great innovation is the combination of python and fortran. You do things with precisely defined memory boundaries that are compiled to maximum efficiency using the simple clean fortran, and you do the messy stuff of memory allocations and references and exotic libraries and user interfaces in the python. No need to extend the fortran language and make is slower-- just put the non-speed critical stuff in the python part. With the rise of GPUs and their rigidly defined memory limits fortran is a nice fit. You actually want a constrained language for that. It's really an ideal combination. Fortran compiles so fast its even possible to have python write the fortran on the fly and then call it.
The DoJ's case alleges that the agency pricing model had a clause where the publisher wouldn't sell their books in other stores for less than they were charging in the iBookstore. If true, this is Collusion, and falls under anti-trust laws. http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/collusion/
No it's not. Almost every major retailer insists on the lowest price. Walmart does, Amazon does.
Such activities involve a pretty large number of people. It's interesting how they collectively can keep it a secret for a pretty long time.
It's even amazing that the "fixed" prices are not essentially different than Amazon or Alibris or BN. Very clever price fixing indeed.
BS they weren't 'different'. They were SIGNIFICANTLY higher. At least $3 to $5 higher under the 'agency' model, which on a book that was $9.99 is a 30 to 50% price hike.
Are you some Apple fanboi or something?
Your pulling monkeys out of your butt. Here's an actual price comparison:
http://paidcontent.org/2012/09/11/apple-is-already-fighting-amazon-in-the-ebook-price-wars/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/cheapest-ebooks-amazon-ibooks-google-barnes-noble_n_1952736.html
Yes sometimes Amazon is cheaper. But mostly not. Sometimes apple is cheaper.
Amazon was operating under a normal wholesale/retail model. They bought from the publisher for some agreed-on price, and sold the books to the public for a price they set (which could be higher or lower than what they paid the publisher). Apple convinced the publishers to stop selling to Amazon and switch to an agency model. Under the agency model, the publisher set the price the public paid, and gave the retailers a cut of that. Apple also managed to write into the contracts that nobody could get less of a cut than Apple. That is price fixing.
No that is not price fixing. Walmart and Amazon and everyone else with clout signs contracts that say they must always be given the lowest price. And nearly all goods makers have contracts with sellers that fix the lowest price a good can be advertised at. (that's why you see those signs on web pages that say "add to cart to see price"-- cause they can't advertise it.
Such activities involve a pretty large number of people. It's interesting how they collectively can keep it a secret for a pretty long time.
It's even amazing that the "fixed" prices are not essentially different than Amazon or Alibris or BN. Very clever price fixing indeed.
I keep reading a third of the internet is porn, a third is bit torrent, 2/3 is spam, and now 1/3 is Netflix.
Where do you stand to measure this traffic. If it doesn't cross a peer is it traffic? Do I count each leg of a path?
At least perl has punctuation. Hebrew would be hard to read.
If an ATM starts spitting out double money, I don't think I'm entitled to keep it even though "I was just playing by it's rules". Now in this case it's a bit different I suppose since it is a game where I can win or lose. But the part that they are winning here is not really in the game but an artifact of the the way credits are miscounted. SO it's really analogous to the double-money ATM issue.
In comparison to updating android on your carrier's cell phone, windows updates are a snap! Moreover windows updates even exist whereas once you buy a low-brand tablet or get a carrier locked phone no update may ever even get made for your device.
Am I missing something in Gates comment? is he saying the apple is bad because it lacks a keyboard when you buy it? well there's lots of KBs for ipads. they are cheap.
Funny, you'd think they'd mention something about "preventing us from maintaining a standing army in peacetime," if that's what they meant.
Or maybe you're just making stuff up. We report, you decide.
Uh... because they did mention that???
The bill of rights was passed after the constitution was passed. If you want to understand the terminology used int he bill of rights you need to read the constitution first (as well as the discussion of intents).
Article 1, clearly designates the power to suppress foreign attacks via a federally managed army, and the need to suppress domestic insurrection via a state-managed militia. Thus the militia was there NOT to defend the states against the fed gov, but to actually suppress insurrections by other states--that's article 1 of the constitution. Maybe the fact that it's #1 should give it some weight in the discussion.
The 2nd amendment uses the word Militia in this specific context and it's spelling out the right of states to have armed citizens without federal consent, combined with the explicit regulation of gun control by states--"well regulated militia".
So basically you're proposing a move from just give me a little cash upfront to let me leech off your electricity bill in a ridiculously circuitous way to gamble for BTC (keeping in mind that the more people that adopt your model of "BitCoin-Ware" the more people will be vying for BTC the less your expected value will return)?
An interesting idea and definitely one for the mathematicians but simply unsustainable and risky and ... I guess deceptive if you don't point out the small cost to their electrical bill ...
Right it's zero sum. pay for it up front or pay for it on the electric bill. It only makes sense when either
1) there's a scam to be had (e.g. the landlord or company is paying your utility bill)
2) you can use the heat the electricy is producing for some purpose you needed anyway. That is to say if your computer is sitting next to a space heater then you might as well turn off the space heater and turn on the bit coin engine.
3) you want to donate your cycles to charity and the charity would be better off with the cycles than a cash donation. (e.g the charity is doing some big calaculation but doesn't want to bother with the hassle of buying and maintaining or admining rented servers.)
So... multiply by zero. You now know the hidden value is zero
In order to multiply by zero, you would need to already know the encrypted value of zero.
Zero is obtained by homomorhopically subtracting a record form itself.
I don't understand how you get from encrypted inputs and a mathematical operation that occurs without decrypting the inputs to a distributed search.
There's a lot of gotcha's here but let me give you the gist. When you do a search something like this happens (encrypted or not), your query gets hashed into some feature vector of ones and zero. You can imagine the bits of this feature vectors like 20 questions (first bit: is it alive...) etc. The search company then AND this feature vector against every feature vector of the web pages it has scanned. The ones with a good match are returned to you. That's of course a naive version of searching.
If we could do that encoding operation on the client or by a trusted third party then encrypt the feature vector, you can send this to the data base holder to do all the AND operations for you and return all the scores. You could then decrypt that and pick the records you want to fetch.
Naively that works. But it has a lot of holes in it. For example, you'd have to have the database encrypted differently for every client and not tell the server company the key to do that. But that's a detail that can be fixed in other ways that are not so hard.
The point is you can search your data stored in the cloud without the server knowing what you searched for in the database.
Since the first 5 posts are all "homo" jokes, I'm gonna squat here for my on-topic post (heh ... heh ... he said squat).
The main problem I see with the whole idea of homomorphic encryption is it's necessary limitations. If I can get the plaintext results of the difference (subtraction) of the plaintext of two encrypted strings, I can trivially decrypt both if they're English text.
Well no.
here's just one possible way to deal with that. For each string you form two different strings by XOR the string with a random string and the complement of that random string. Now You encrypt each String in the pair with a different key in a homomorphic way.
A third party can now do whatever albelian operations they want on either of these strings but they have no way to combine the two results since the keys are different.
However you are able to do this by doing the operations on both strings then at the very end decrypting them and Xoring the result.
Voila.
Works for voting systems where one person gets to have the keys, and one person gets to maintain the database of encrypted votes. As long as they don't collude, then the data base holder can sum all the ballots up but not know what any ballot is. The key holder can determine the sum but never get access to the individual ballots.