Well, there could be an object counterrotating. Same rotation period, opposite direction. Two encounters per period. However, I somehow doubt that it could maintain that counterrotation for too long.
The Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia result in Apathy, Lack of Motivation, and General Disorganized Thinking. Those patients I know who have this illness DON'T remember many things. In fact, they require regular "reminders" of the things that they ought to remember. I think this Notion that people who have this Illness "never forget" is not founded in fact. There is no evidence to support this hypothesis or notion.
That needn't be a contradiction. It could be just the same as in the physical world: The more stuff you keep, the harder it gets to find the stuff you want. If there's nothing else on your table, the paper saying "don't forget to buy a birthday present for $SOMEONE" will stand out, and every time you look at the table, you'll be reminded of this. OTOH, if the table is full of different papers, you'll likely not notice that one with the important reminder on it. It's almost as if it weren't there.
Of course you can see the space outside. Light can fall in quite fine, it only can't come out. And if you don't believe me, please look at the spacetime diagram in coordinates appropriate for a falling observer.
We're as close to fusion power as we are zero point energy.
Fusion is a process we know happens in nature (the sun!), and which we have even produced on earth. The "only" problem is to produce a sustainable controlled fusion that returns more energy than we put in. That's a technical problem which we may or may not be able to solve, but it doesn't violate any known law of physics.
Using zero point energy is beyond the known laws of physics. While that doesn't prove that it's impossible, it means that there are not only technical problems to solve, but fundamental questions about physics, and there's a good chance that it is not physically possible at all to use it.
Saying we are as close to fusion power as we are to zero point energy is like saying we are as close to going to Mars as we are to going beyond the cosmological horizon.
No. A black hole is a singularity surrounded by an horizon, with space outside. The Big Crunch is a singularity, but where's the horizon and the outside space?
Reminds me of what my boss said, "I will not take the blame for the failure of this board. YOU will." Normally I would agree, but I told you that we should do additional testing to verify it works, but you said 'we don't have time'.
Of course when he told you that you should not do additional testing, you asked for a written confirmation, right?
But what about middle-aged scientists with some experience? Will they start being right when saying things are possible before or after they start being wrong when saying things are impossible?
The key is definitely not patented, and I'm not sure if it is copyrighted. I think it is, however, a trade secret (well, the actual trade secret is the fact that this number is the key). And as such, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't matter which form you put it in, but only whether the original binary form can be recovered from whatever you provide. Putting it in different forms would probably make it harder for them to find it, but I strongly doubt it would change the legal implications.
Let's make an analogy here: Say the admin password in some company is "god". The admin password is most certainly secret, that is, you may not reveal it to anyone else. This doesn't mean you are not allowed to say the word "god" at all, however you are not allowed to tell anyone the fact that this is the admin password of that company. And it doesn't matter if you say "the company's admin password is 'god'" or "you get the admin password from 'fnb' the same way as you get 'IBM' from 'HAL'". All what matters is that a person who didn't know the password before now knows it.
You can't talk to Slashdotters about patents. Save your fingers. They all start from the wholly unproven principle that the only thing stopping them from being masters of innovation is that the law prevents them from copying the works of others, and they brook no interference with that viewpoint.
The problem with patents is that they also apply if you don't copy.
If I implement something you implemented before, but I provably never saw your implementation, I'm safe even if my implementation happens to be very similar to yours. If however my implementation happens to match a patent of yours, it's game over, even if I can prove I didn't know that patent.
So given two sets A and B, it makes no sense to say "There exists an equivalence relation between A and B."
Actually it makes sense to say that. Saying that is equivalent to saying "A and B have the same cardinality" because that's exactly how cardinality is defined.
Of course what the poster meant was that there's an isomorphism between them.
Well, for example Edison's patent on the light bulb (which was not about the idea to use a glowing wire for making light, but about how to get that wire last for an extended time; the idea of using a glowing wire would IMHO not have been patent worthy, and additionally wasn't exactly new back then anyway). It was far from obvious how to make that damned wire last long enough to make the light bulb worthwhile for actual usage.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there could be an object counterrotating. Same rotation period, opposite direction. Two encounters per period.
However, I somehow doubt that it could maintain that counterrotation for too long.
They still mine, yes. But today most of it is data mining.
The Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia result in Apathy, Lack of Motivation, and General Disorganized Thinking. Those patients I know who have this illness DON'T remember many things. In fact, they require regular "reminders" of the things that they ought to remember. I think this Notion that people who have this Illness "never forget" is not founded in fact. There is no evidence to support this hypothesis or notion.
That needn't be a contradiction. It could be just the same as in the physical world: The more stuff you keep, the harder it gets to find the stuff you want. If there's nothing else on your table, the paper saying "don't forget to buy a birthday present for $SOMEONE" will stand out, and every time you look at the table, you'll be reminded of this. OTOH, if the table is full of different papers, you'll likely not notice that one with the important reminder on it. It's almost as if it weren't there.
One more reason to be wary of any organization excessively collecting data. One day they will become schizophrenic, if they aren't already.
Of course you can see the space outside. Light can fall in quite fine, it only can't come out.
And if you don't believe me, please look at the spacetime diagram in coordinates appropriate for a falling observer.
Fusion is a process we know happens in nature (the sun!), and which we have even produced on earth. The "only" problem is to produce a sustainable controlled fusion that returns more energy than we put in. That's a technical problem which we may or may not be able to solve, but it doesn't violate any known law of physics.
Using zero point energy is beyond the known laws of physics. While that doesn't prove that it's impossible, it means that there are not only technical problems to solve, but fundamental questions about physics, and there's a good chance that it is not physically possible at all to use it.
Saying we are as close to fusion power as we are to zero point energy is like saying we are as close to going to Mars as we are to going beyond the cosmological horizon.
The question is, of course, how long will he stay married if he spends that little time with his family.
No. A black hole is a singularity surrounded by an horizon, with space outside. The Big Crunch is a singularity, but where's the horizon and the outside space?
For pixels the rule is: The smaller, the better. Ideally, you shouldn't see individual pixels at all.
Of course when he told you that you should not do additional testing, you asked for a written confirmation, right?
But what about middle-aged scientists with some experience? Will they start being right when saying things are possible before or after they start being wrong when saying things are impossible?
Well, he was right: The voyage to the Moon was as successful as employing steam navigation against the stormy North Atlantic Ocean. :-)
And of course the iPod: No high-speed wireless. Less space than a Zune. Lame.
Despite all the problems, using an ATM machine beats standing in that long ass line trying to cash a check.
Only if it's an automatic ATM machine. :-)
Well, that's actually the story of the Egg of Columbus.
They can obviously see Uranus with it.
Which changed it's name to Urectum because they we're tired of the jokes.
Actually they got tired of that joke too, so they changed the name again. Something with goats, I think.
In this sentence "company's" clearly means "company is". So maybe the first company went bankrupt, so they tried another business model. :-)
Ehh... if you have any reason to hide than you can hide. FB is 100% voluntary so I see no reason to complain.
Wiretapping on the other hand...
Using wires is completely voluntary.
Think before running random untrustworthy shit.
Then how do you recommend that a developer of "random shit" make it trustworthy?
Provide the source. Then anyone can check for himself (or, if he lacks the necessary knowledge, let a person he trusts do it).
That's a common characteristic of scareware. It is in no way specific to the Mac.
The key is definitely not patented, and I'm not sure if it is copyrighted. I think it is, however, a trade secret (well, the actual trade secret is the fact that this number is the key). And as such, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't matter which form you put it in, but only whether the original binary form can be recovered from whatever you provide. Putting it in different forms would probably make it harder for them to find it, but I strongly doubt it would change the legal implications.
Let's make an analogy here: Say the admin password in some company is "god". The admin password is most certainly secret, that is, you may not reveal it to anyone else. This doesn't mean you are not allowed to say the word "god" at all, however you are not allowed to tell anyone the fact that this is the admin password of that company. And it doesn't matter if you say "the company's admin password is 'god'" or "you get the admin password from 'fnb' the same way as you get 'IBM' from 'HAL'". All what matters is that a person who didn't know the password before now knows it.
The problem with patents is that they also apply if you don't copy.
If I implement something you implemented before, but I provably never saw your implementation, I'm safe even if my implementation happens to be very similar to yours. If however my implementation happens to match a patent of yours, it's game over, even if I can prove I didn't know that patent.
Actually it makes sense to say that. Saying that is equivalent to saying "A and B have the same cardinality" because that's exactly how cardinality is defined.
Of course what the poster meant was that there's an isomorphism between them.
Well, for example Edison's patent on the light bulb (which was not about the idea to use a glowing wire for making light, but about how to get that wire last for an extended time; the idea of using a glowing wire would IMHO not have been patent worthy, and additionally wasn't exactly new back then anyway). It was far from obvious how to make that damned wire last long enough to make the light bulb worthwhile for actual usage.
Damn, I should have read the preview (I had unencoded less-than signs). I'm now too lazy to retype all that's missing, but the final formula is:
S(p,q) <=> Em\in M:Es\in S:(K(p)(s)<1 && K(p)(s|m)=1 && K(q)(s)<1 && K(q)(s|m)=1 && Er\in P: K(r)(s|m)<1)
Where S(p,q) means p and q share a secret (I just now also noticed I used the S twice).