"Growing" is an assumption, not fact. Where is that sea ice coming from? Freezing new ice, or existing ice slipping off the continent, lubricated by melt waters? Which is more likely?
Initial Internet drafts for a Session Invitation Protocol and a Simple Conference Invitation Protocol were prepared in 1996, and merged to a single first draft of SIP by December 1996 (slide 10), with further drafts (2-12) leading up to the publication of RFC 2543 in March of 1999 (slides 11-13, ibid.).
I don't see anything that says BT had a hand in anything to do with SIP up to 1996. More than half the patents BT claims (Exhibit C) were filed after RFC 2543 was published.
I hope this information is a useful starting point for some SIP vendor.
By coincidence I went to Stephen Hawking's lecture at Caltech last night, and one of the concepts he discussed was Feynman's "sum over histories" idea.
If the evolution of a stable universe requires the Higgs field to start out at a metastable point, and if variations in those initial conditions lead to universes which collapse rather than inflating, then "the amplitude" (i.e. the probability that they are the outcome that we turn up in) for those other states is zero. Why? Because those universes all collapse long before we could show up.
On the other hand, if Steinhardt is correct, then his result shows there is a path to here-and-now through the metastable point, and if that's what it takes to get here, then that's enough: that's what it takes. The amplitude of the entire wave function for the Steinhardt path is non-zero, unlike the functions for the ones that collapsed.
"Once you go Neanderthalensis, you'll never go back-a-lensis!"
(Fine. You find a rhyme for 'Neanderthalensis')
Next time you rhyme 'Neanderthalensis'
Leave that task to an amanuensis,
Or someone who doesn't sit on fences:
They'd just still need to know what your sense is.
"Brutal" is perhaps a little extreme: "Authoritarian" may be more appropriate.
I also have an anecdote. I moved to the US in 1994, and at one time, maybe I overstayed my visa-waiver, or maybe the I-94 was lost, either by me or the airline or US Immigration. In 1995 I got an H1-B and I've had a Green Card now for over 10 years. Every time since 9/11 it's a toss-up when I go through Immigration to enter the US whether the the DHS will Select me for Secondary Screening, even though I am a legal, documented immigrant, my papers are in order, and the only flag raised has to be a tiny one, at least 16 years old. And yes, it takes the goons an hour.
Using poorly thought out laws to limit what corporations can do is destroying freedom.
Do you think that corporations should be free to aggregate as much power over individuals as they possibly can, as they will if unregulated? Because that's an excellent way to maximise shareholder return on investment. Or is it possible that the problems of corporate tyranny would be just as bad as the problems of tyranny by the state?
This would have never gone down with a liberatarian administration.
You may be right: for example, the extremely wealthy backers of the MPAA and RIAA would simply pay top dollar to a platoon of mercenaries, who would level the data centers and murder everyone that provided the services. If there were still a DoJ and Court system, they would already have bought off all the prosecutors and judges. Case closed.
Or do you think this wouldn't happen under a Libertarian administration either? If so, what do you understand to be the Libertarian proposal for a system of justice?
Statistically, there is a good chance -- 99 to 1, in fact - that you are part of the 99%, like me. If we had gone to the General Assemblies, we could have set the direction: for decisions were arrived at by consensus, which means it takes no more than one "no" to stop the group from moving in a particular direction.
So if you object to the outcomes of the Occupy movement's meetings, then next time, show up. We're all invited.
You are very short sighted. Governments shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers. That is how you end up with zombie banks sucking the life force out of the economy dragging us down into an unending depression.
Thank you so much for pointing out that it's the tail that wags the dog. Seriously, I thought it was the other way round, that the banks first lobbied for deregulation and then, when their irresponsible betting threatened to collapse the entire system, they effectively held the fate of the financial system to ransom until the government agreed to bail them out. And no, you can't nationalize the banks: that would interfere with the sacred operation of the Free Market!
Now I know I got it completely wrong. How naive of me. How short sighted. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
One of the things a fully developed police state needs to be able to do is control the flow of all information. You need a mechanism that can be used to identify who has been producing physical copies of banned works - say, a play by Vaclav Havel, or a copy of The Master and Margarita - so that you can lock them up.
What these printer companies have done, by collaborating with the US in this way, is to make it easier for police states to monitor and control the physical flow of information.
The invisible wizard of Islam is, historically, the invisible wizard of Abraham: the invisible wizards of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are, as a matter of fact, one and the same.
Obamacare - Government run health care because the Government knows better than you or your Doctor.
This is not true. The Affordable Healthcare Act did not produce "Government run health care". It mandates that everyone must have health insurance, without expanding any of the state-run programs at all. This means the private insuance companies which lobbied for it make more money. No hospitals, other than those already run by the VA, have or will be taken over.
Bailouts of GM. et al, i.e. government ownership.
This is not socialist. Socialist would be full-on nationalization, like British Leyland, British Steel, British Telecom, British Coal, and British Rail prior to their privatization. There are no government-appointed board members on any corporate board that took bailout money.
Support of Unions over the best interests of the country - Specifically SEIU.
What on earth are you talking about? First, what support of Unions, "specifically SEIU", that favors any union over the best interests of the country, and whose view of best interests?
Second, do you have a problem with Unions - associations of people, of citizens, of wealth producers, organizing to protect their interests? Do you really think it's wrong for people to unite to protect their common interests? Do you have a problem with "We the people, in order to create a more perfect Union..."? In fact, to quote Lynne Cheney, why do you hate America?;)
The tl;dr on the Pacific Institute paper "Hummer vs Prius" is:
1. Someone else wrote a paper called "Dust to dust" that claimed the lifetime energy cost of a Hummer was less than that of a Prius.
2. The "Hummer vs Prius" author disputes the "Dust to dust" paper's conclusions because they used arbitrary figures for lifetime mileage, energy used in manufacture, and so on.
3. The "Hummer vs Prius" author claims a quick recalculation shows the lifetime energy cost of a Prius is, indeed, lower than the Hummer.
The Hoover dam does more than just make electricity: it is part of the system of dams that control the Colorado's propensity to flood uncontrollably, and this control allows a stable agricultural system to flourish, which feeds tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people. You know, rather than the fields being wiped out every ten years, or permanently flooded like the Salton Sea.
Lake Mead is named for the genius from the Bureau of Land Management who made this happen. He was from the government, and he was there to help.
There used to be much enthusiasm for neural nets, but it turns out that modern machine learning techniques do better on the few problems neural nets can do. The modern approaches are all matrix algebra, and you usually work in Matlab. Much of that stuff is parallelizable, and what you want is more like a GPU than neurons.
Since the stated objective is to simulate a brain, I doubt that marix algebra is going to cut it.
And I disagree with you, because of the signature you are using, and because it is not true that to know that there is no god requires omniscience. I am not omniscient, but I know there is no God and I know there is no God because God is unknowable. The postulate that there is a God has been thoroughly investigated over the centuries, and (as your signature implies) every phenomenon that could be attributed to a God - any God: Thor, Athena, Ba'al, Shiva, Jehovah, Caligula, Jesus, and so on - can more readily be attributed to other causes, including being products of human imagination and fantasy, because they do not stand the test of falsifiability.
But let's suppose you're right, that your post and signature are correct.
First, to restate your signature, it is "probably impossible" to unambiguously ascribe any natural phenomenon as being caused by a God: this includes answering prayer, being the creator of the universe, or the "divine spark" behind all life. In other words, it is not necessary to postulate an omniscient being, a quality you yourself claim is only for Gods, to explain anything that actually does exist, or anything that happens, for that matter.
If such a universe were created by an omnipotent, omniscient God, where does God appear? You say: "probably nowhere" (probably). But at least, by your ouw admission, God is an improbable hypothesis, and useless for making predictions about outcomes, or else there would be evidence one way or the other, and it would no longer be "probably impossible" to know. At this point, I can state unequivocally that God is not a falsifiable hypothesis, and therefore not part of any reality that we participate in: and that is our test for existence. Therefore God does not exist.
So, you see, no omniscience is required. I don't know your eye color, and didn't need to.
The centers of mass do not have to be aligned, if by aligned you mean that they lie on a straight line. They just all have to lie on a plane, which is always true of any three points - unless they all lie on a straight line or coincide, and in either of these cases there is an infinite number of planes that bisect.
The Stone–Tukey version of this theorem is a generalization of a simple case.
Consider a ham sandwich, with two slices of bread around a slice of ham. Each of these components has a center of gravity, and if you slice any one of these with a plane that passes through the center of gravity, then the two halves will be equal in mass.
Three points in 3-space define a plane, so the unique plane that passes through the three centers of gravity divides both slices of bread and the ham in half.
The general case states that you can divide n finitely measurable objects in n-space with an n-1 dimensional hyperplane.
Choose between the idiot on the left or the idiot on the right of the ballot.
That hasn't been the choice for a long time, not, perhaps, since 1988, when the candidates were George Bush Sr and Michael Dukakis, who Bush successfully tarred as "liberal". Since then, because of that use of "liberal", the options have been Right and Center-Right, with the Right-wing candidates becoming more extreme with each election.
On the left, Progressives view Obama as being to the right of Reagan.
Slashdot Mirror
As the Ice is growing. Antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/
"Growing" is an assumption, not fact. Where is that sea ice coming from? Freezing new ice, or existing ice slipping off the continent, lubricated by melt waters? Which is more likely?
The IETF MMUSIC (Multiparty Multimedia Session Control) Working Group started working on Session Protocols in 1993.
Initial Internet drafts for a Session Invitation Protocol and a Simple Conference Invitation Protocol were prepared in 1996, and merged to a single first draft of SIP by December 1996 (slide 10), with further drafts (2-12) leading up to the publication of RFC 2543 in March of 1999 (slides 11-13, ibid.).
I don't see anything that says BT had a hand in anything to do with SIP up to 1996. More than half the patents BT claims (Exhibit C) were filed after RFC 2543 was published.
I hope this information is a useful starting point for some SIP vendor.
If the evolution of a stable universe requires the Higgs field to start out at a metastable point, and if variations in those initial conditions lead to universes which collapse rather than inflating, then "the amplitude" (i.e. the probability that they are the outcome that we turn up in) for those other states is zero. Why? Because those universes all collapse long before we could show up.
On the other hand, if Steinhardt is correct, then his result shows there is a path to here-and-now through the metastable point, and if that's what it takes to get here, then that's enough: that's what it takes. The amplitude of the entire wave function for the Steinhardt path is non-zero, unlike the functions for the ones that collapsed.
Thanks.
MBE stands for Member of the British Empire. It's the lowest of 5 ranks in the Order of the British Empire.
You know what they say:
"Once you go Neanderthalensis, you'll never go back-a-lensis!"
(Fine. You find a rhyme for 'Neanderthalensis')
Next time you rhyme 'Neanderthalensis'
Leave that task to an amanuensis,
Or someone who doesn't sit on fences:
They'd just still need to know what your sense is.
"Brutal" is perhaps a little extreme: "Authoritarian" may be more appropriate.
I also have an anecdote. I moved to the US in 1994, and at one time, maybe I overstayed my visa-waiver, or maybe the I-94 was lost, either by me or the airline or US Immigration. In 1995 I got an H1-B and I've had a Green Card now for over 10 years. Every time since 9/11 it's a toss-up when I go through Immigration to enter the US whether the the DHS will Select me for Secondary Screening, even though I am a legal, documented immigrant, my papers are in order, and the only flag raised has to be a tiny one, at least 16 years old. And yes, it takes the goons an hour.
Using poorly thought out laws to limit what corporations can do is destroying freedom.
Do you think that corporations should be free to aggregate as much power over individuals as they possibly can, as they will if unregulated? Because that's an excellent way to maximise shareholder return on investment. Or is it possible that the problems of corporate tyranny would be just as bad as the problems of tyranny by the state?
This would have never gone down with a liberatarian administration.
You may be right: for example, the extremely wealthy backers of the MPAA and RIAA would simply pay top dollar to a platoon of mercenaries, who would level the data centers and murder everyone that provided the services. If there were still a DoJ and Court system, they would already have bought off all the prosecutors and judges. Case closed.
Or do you think this wouldn't happen under a Libertarian administration either? If so, what do you understand to be the Libertarian proposal for a system of justice?
Statistically, there is a good chance -- 99 to 1, in fact - that you are part of the 99%, like me. If we had gone to the General Assemblies, we could have set the direction: for decisions were arrived at by consensus, which means it takes no more than one "no" to stop the group from moving in a particular direction.
So if you object to the outcomes of the Occupy movement's meetings, then next time, show up. We're all invited.
plugh.
You are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike.
There is Microsoft here.
You are very short sighted. Governments shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers. That is how you end up with zombie banks sucking the life force out of the economy dragging us down into an unending depression.
Thank you so much for pointing out that it's the tail that wags the dog. Seriously, I thought it was the other way round, that the banks first lobbied for deregulation and then, when their irresponsible betting threatened to collapse the entire system, they effectively held the fate of the financial system to ransom until the government agreed to bail them out. And no, you can't nationalize the banks: that would interfere with the sacred operation of the Free Market!
Now I know I got it completely wrong. How naive of me. How short sighted. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
One of the things a fully developed police state needs to be able to do is control the flow of all information. You need a mechanism that can be used to identify who has been producing physical copies of banned works - say, a play by Vaclav Havel, or a copy of The Master and Margarita - so that you can lock them up.
What these printer companies have done, by collaborating with the US in this way, is to make it easier for police states to monitor and control the physical flow of information.
The invisible wizard of Islam is, historically, the invisible wizard of Abraham: the invisible wizards of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are, as a matter of fact, one and the same.
This is not true. The Affordable Healthcare Act did not produce "Government run health care". It mandates that everyone must have health insurance, without expanding any of the state-run programs at all. This means the private insuance companies which lobbied for it make more money. No hospitals, other than those already run by the VA, have or will be taken over.
This is not socialist. Socialist would be full-on nationalization, like British Leyland, British Steel, British Telecom, British Coal, and British Rail prior to their privatization. There are no government-appointed board members on any corporate board that took bailout money.
What on earth are you talking about? First, what support of Unions, "specifically SEIU", that favors any union over the best interests of the country, and whose view of best interests?
;)
Second, do you have a problem with Unions - associations of people, of citizens, of wealth producers, organizing to protect their interests? Do you really think it's wrong for people to unite to protect their common interests? Do you have a problem with "We the people, in order to create a more perfect Union..."? In fact, to quote Lynne Cheney, why do you hate America?
The tl;dr on the Pacific Institute paper "Hummer vs Prius" is:
1. Someone else wrote a paper called "Dust to dust" that claimed the lifetime energy cost of a Hummer was less than that of a Prius.
2. The "Hummer vs Prius" author disputes the "Dust to dust" paper's conclusions because they used arbitrary figures for lifetime mileage, energy used in manufacture, and so on.
3. The "Hummer vs Prius" author claims a quick recalculation shows the lifetime energy cost of a Prius is, indeed, lower than the Hummer.
The landing strategy is quite spectacular, though unfortunately no-one's going to be there to observe it.
The Hoover dam does more than just make electricity: it is part of the system of dams that control the Colorado's propensity to flood uncontrollably, and this control allows a stable agricultural system to flourish, which feeds tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people. You know, rather than the fields being wiped out every ten years, or permanently flooded like the Salton Sea.
Lake Mead is named for the genius from the Bureau of Land Management who made this happen. He was from the government, and he was there to help.
The GP was both unnecessarily rude and wrong, and the parent addressed both issues nicely.
Since the stated objective is to simulate a brain, I doubt that marix algebra is going to cut it.
First, to restate your signature, it is "probably impossible" to unambiguously ascribe any natural phenomenon as being caused by a God: this includes answering prayer, being the creator of the universe, or the "divine spark" behind all life. In other words, it is not necessary to postulate an omniscient being, a quality you yourself claim is only for Gods, to explain anything that actually does exist, or anything that happens, for that matter.
If such a universe were created by an omnipotent, omniscient God, where does God appear? You say: "probably nowhere" (probably). But at least, by your ouw admission, God is an improbable hypothesis, and useless for making predictions about outcomes, or else there would be evidence one way or the other, and it would no longer be "probably impossible" to know. At this point, I can state unequivocally that God is not a falsifiable hypothesis, and therefore not part of any reality that we participate in: and that is our test for existence. Therefore God does not exist.
So, you see, no omniscience is required. I don't know your eye color, and didn't need to.
The centers of mass do not have to be aligned, if by aligned you mean that they lie on a straight line. They just all have to lie on a plane, which is always true of any three points - unless they all lie on a straight line or coincide, and in either of these cases there is an infinite number of planes that bisect.
A volume of uniform (non-zero) density has a center of volume at the same place as the center of mass.
The Stone–Tukey version of this theorem is a generalization of a simple case.
Consider a ham sandwich, with two slices of bread around a slice of ham. Each of these components has a center of gravity, and if you slice any one of these with a plane that passes through the center of gravity, then the two halves will be equal in mass.
Three points in 3-space define a plane, so the unique plane that passes through the three centers of gravity divides both slices of bread and the ham in half.
The general case states that you can divide n finitely measurable objects in n-space with an n-1 dimensional hyperplane.
Choose between the idiot on the left or the idiot on the right of the ballot.
That hasn't been the choice for a long time, not, perhaps, since 1988, when the candidates were George Bush Sr and Michael Dukakis, who Bush successfully tarred as "liberal". Since then, because of that use of "liberal", the options have been Right and Center-Right, with the Right-wing candidates becoming more extreme with each election.
On the left, Progressives view Obama as being to the right of Reagan.