Yes, the title of the paper reads: "Evidence for spatial variation of the fine structure constant" and the abstract contains: "We previously reported observations of quasar spectra from the Keck telescope suggesting a smaller value of the fine structure constant, alpha, at high redshift. A new sample of 153 measurements from the ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT), probing a different direction in the universe, also depends on redshift, but in the opposite sense, that is, alpha appears on average to be larger in the past."
We've considered the different lighting scenes for daytime, night shifts etc. Will probably end up giving the staff control over lighting and let them fight amongst themselves.
Did you include in your cost estimate the reduced productivity due to fighting for the right lighting?
I also noticed this: Always when I enter search terms in Google, I always get Google search results. Not a single time did I get results from Bing or Altavista.:-)
[troll inside. Or not] I wonder... Why are there so many upper case letters ?
Because it's usual in English to put uppercase letters at the beginning of words in titles (this is why this is also known as "title case").
I thought only Germans put upper case letters at the beginning of all words.
No. In German, substantives and names get uppercase initials (and of course the beginning of sentences). Writing every word with uppercase initials would be very wrong in German (even in titles). There are even things which are always uppercase in English, but lowercase in German (like the geographical adjectives).
Maybe you should actually have read that article you linked to. Fanta was invented neither for nor by the Nazis, but by the German part of the Coca Cola Company. The only influence the Nazis had was that they forbid importing Coca Cola, so the German company had to find something else to sell.
BTW, from the article I gather that in America you don't actually get the real Fanta, but something which doesn't even contain orange juice.
In reality you could just label everything "Plonk", have the grapes/location/year(s) in small text for those interested, and people would still buy it.
No, people who know Usenet would avoid it because they'd think it's so bad it got put into a killfile.
Perhaps it's that the US is such a physically large country that it consumes quite a lot of its own produce. I'd be more interested to see the numbers if you took out within-EU exports from Germany and US exports to Canada and Mexico.
While it's not exactly what you've asked, according to CIA factbook, the EU as a whole has exports of $1.952 trillion and about 492 million people. That means about $4000 per person. On contrast, the U.S. has exports of about $3200 per person (calculated from the numbers earlier in the thread).
Without getting into the argument of whether or not targeted advertising works better (IMHO, it does)... the answer is "Because that's the price they are putting on the use of their service"
Your claim was that the only alternative to tracking ads would be that you have to pay directly. Your answer now is, at best, a straw man.
You don't get to dictate the price of a service - the company/person providing it does. If you don't like behavioral tracking, you can avoid it by not using their "free" service. Google isn't forcing anyone to use gmail
If I go to Google, I expect Google to get the data of what I do there. That's not the problem, because, as you say, you can opt out of that easily (and indeed, I go not use gmail). The problem is Google tracking me when I go to other sites which happen to use Google ads (or other things like Google Analytics). When I go to another site, I don't have a way to know beforehand if that other site sends my information to Google, therefore I cannot simply avoid pages doing that.
But as I already said, that's not the point of what I said. The point is that the claim that the only viable options are tracking ads or paying is not true. Other media show convincingly that non-tracking ads can work. So your original claim
As long as people realize that it will also serve as the "I no longer get services such as email, social networking, and search for free" list.
is wrong: There is absolutely no evidence that no tracking means the end of "free" services. Just look at TV for a counterexample.
"LOCC" stands for "local operations and classical communication", that is, locally you may do whatever you want with your part of the quantum system, but communication has to be classical (i.e. phone calls are allowed, sending quantum systems isn't). The "S" in "SLOCC" stands for "stochastic": it means to allow also operations which succeed only sometimes (this allows e.g. to increase - but not create - entanglement; on average entanglement will never increase, however). Now states are called "SLOCC equivalent" if you can reach each one from the other by SLOCC (for example, an entangled state is not SLOCC equivalent to an unentangled state, because while you can easily go from the entangled to the unentangled state, you cannot get back). That means, they obviously have the same sort of entanglement. Therefore an entanglement classification should put all SLOCC equivalent states into the same class, i.e. reversible SLOCC should not change the class. In other words, the classification should be invariant under (reversible) SLOCC. So in short, "SLOCC invariant" means that if you can get, with some non-vanishing probability, from one state to the other and back using only local operations and classical communication, then your states belong in the same class.
Now an obvious idea would be to use just this as criterion, i.e. two states are in the same class iff they are SLOCC equivalent (i.e. your classes are just the SLOCC equivalence classes). This works fine for up to three qubits (two-level systems), but with four or more qubits you get infinitely many classes this way (indeed, even uncountably many), therefore to be useful, a further classification is needed, preferrably with a finite number of classes (or "families", to distinguish them from the SLOCC equivalence classes). And that's basically what the authors of the article in question provided: A classification with a final number of families. What's special at their classification is that they used some equivalence between the math of qubit entanglement problems and certain string theory problems to arrive at it.
However for spin 1/2 (i.e. the case where you get "up" and "down"), you actually can map the states to directions, and that direction is the direction where you get "up" with 100% probability (modulo measurement errors, of course). Moreover, the spin is really an angular momentum (although you're right that there's nothing actually spinning), therefore "spin" is clearly a better name than "color" (not to mention that "color" is already taken for QCD:-))
Slashdot Mirror
On the positive side, people suffering from Parkinson disease will never experience an empty battery.
And I thought from the name it would run on Parrot.
Yes, the title of the paper reads:
"Evidence for spatial variation of the fine structure constant"
and the abstract contains:
"We previously reported observations of quasar spectra from the Keck telescope suggesting a smaller value of the fine structure constant, alpha, at high redshift. A new sample of 153 measurements from the ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT), probing a different direction in the universe, also depends on redshift, but in the opposite sense, that is, alpha appears on average to be larger in the past."
> But a country that elects the likes of Berlousconi has deeply rooted problems.
The deeply rooted problem being Berlusconi himself
How did he get rooted? Did he listen to a Sony CD?
Anyone knows about the current temperature in hell?
Did you include in your cost estimate the reduced productivity due to fighting for the right lighting?
No, that's what the black button is for. You know, the one labelled black on a black background.
I also noticed this: Always when I enter search terms in Google, I always get Google search results. Not a single time did I get results from Bing or Altavista. :-)
Because it's usual in English to put uppercase letters at the beginning of words in titles (this is why this is also known as "title case").
No. In German, substantives and names get uppercase initials (and of course the beginning of sentences). Writing every word with uppercase initials would be very wrong in German (even in titles). There are even things which are always uppercase in English, but lowercase in German (like the geographical adjectives).
Maybe you should actually have read that article you linked to. Fanta was invented neither for nor by the Nazis, but by the German part of the Coca Cola Company. The only influence the Nazis had was that they forbid importing Coca Cola, so the German company had to find something else to sell.
BTW, from the article I gather that in America you don't actually get the real Fanta, but something which doesn't even contain orange juice.
Is that what you get from sham torture? :-)
In reality you could just label everything "Plonk", have the grapes/location/year(s) in small text for those interested, and people would still buy it.
No, people who know Usenet would avoid it because they'd think it's so bad it got put into a killfile.
And for novelty wines there are plenty of other names us Aussies can use like "Alice Springs Leg Opener".
That's actually beer, not wine ... it's called VB
Visual Basic is a beer? :-)
Perhaps it's that the US is such a physically large country that it consumes quite a lot of its own produce. I'd be more interested to see the numbers if you took out within-EU exports from Germany and US exports to Canada and Mexico.
While it's not exactly what you've asked, according to CIA factbook, the EU as a whole has exports of $1.952 trillion and about 492 million people. That means about $4000 per person. On contrast, the U.S. has exports of about $3200 per person (calculated from the numbers earlier in the thread).
You mean they'll integrate it into pine?
So all U.S. users need is a proxy outside the U.S.
Your claim was that the only alternative to tracking ads would be that you have to pay directly. Your answer now is, at best, a straw man.
If I go to Google, I expect Google to get the data of what I do there. That's not the problem, because, as you say, you can opt out of that easily (and indeed, I go not use gmail). The problem is Google tracking me when I go to other sites which happen to use Google ads (or other things like Google Analytics). When I go to another site, I don't have a way to know beforehand if that other site sends my information to Google, therefore I cannot simply avoid pages doing that.
But as I already said, that's not the point of what I said. The point is that the claim that the only viable options are tracking ads or paying is not true. Other media show convincingly that non-tracking ads can work. So your original claim
is wrong: There is absolutely no evidence that no tracking means the end of "free" services. Just look at TV for a counterexample.
And why should ads without tracking not work? They seem to work quite well on about every other medium.
I strongly doubt that advertisers would use zero-day exploits on your browser. Because after all, they want to stay in business.
Oh, and there's a way to block most tracking with a single method: Disable third-party requests.
Did Netcraft comfirm it?
Of course not. BTW, for your security, you should install KnowScript. You surely have heard about it. Get it at www.evilmalware.com :-)
"LOCC" stands for "local operations and classical communication", that is, locally you may do whatever you want with your part of the quantum system, but communication has to be classical (i.e. phone calls are allowed, sending quantum systems isn't). The "S" in "SLOCC" stands for "stochastic": it means to allow also operations which succeed only sometimes (this allows e.g. to increase - but not create - entanglement; on average entanglement will never increase, however). Now states are called "SLOCC equivalent" if you can reach each one from the other by SLOCC (for example, an entangled state is not SLOCC equivalent to an unentangled state, because while you can easily go from the entangled to the unentangled state, you cannot get back). That means, they obviously have the same sort of entanglement. Therefore an entanglement classification should put all SLOCC equivalent states into the same class, i.e. reversible SLOCC should not change the class. In other words, the classification should be invariant under (reversible) SLOCC. So in short, "SLOCC invariant" means that if you can get, with some non-vanishing probability, from one state to the other and back using only local operations and classical communication, then your states belong in the same class.
Now an obvious idea would be to use just this as criterion, i.e. two states are in the same class iff they are SLOCC equivalent (i.e. your classes are just the SLOCC equivalence classes). This works fine for up to three qubits (two-level systems), but with four or more qubits you get infinitely many classes this way (indeed, even uncountably many), therefore to be useful, a further classification is needed, preferrably with a finite number of classes (or "families", to distinguish them from the SLOCC equivalence classes). And that's basically what the authors of the article in question provided: A classification with a final number of families. What's special at their classification is that they used some equivalence between the math of qubit entanglement problems and certain string theory problems to arrive at it.
However for spin 1/2 (i.e. the case where you get "up" and "down"), you actually can map the states to directions, and that direction is the direction where you get "up" with 100% probability (modulo measurement errors, of course). Moreover, the spin is really an angular momentum (although you're right that there's nothing actually spinning), therefore "spin" is clearly a better name than "color" (not to mention that "color" is already taken for QCD :-))
Did they tell you where to get that mandatory virus?
One step closer to real AI?
As opposed to artificial AI?
No, as opposed to rational AI.