I guess it's not only the domain name, it was just the concrete trigger. The first time I've heard "WWF wrestling" I wondered "What does the World Wildlife Fund have to do with wrestling?"
Historically, the most effective methods of reducing population have been illnesses and wars. Therefore we should start a world war with biological weapons. That will certainly reduce the population.:-)
I confess I don't like the term 'collapse' much when referring to state vectors. It has a certain negative sound to it. It seems to imply the quantum realm is somehow superior to the classical one. Like the quantum level is heavenly and things fall into our mundane world like Lucifer leaving the divine presence.
Well, in some sense it is so. It's just not Lucifer who destroys the quantum heaven, but decoherence.
Quantum computers are good for problems where the reverse problem is easy. Take factorization: It is hard to factorize a large number, but if someone gives you two numbers and claims those are the factors, it's easy to check if they multiply to your number.
I consider that a very bad explanation of quantum computers (and yes, I work in the field of quantum information, so I know quite well about it). Nothing against many-worlds, but using it to explain a quantum computer is IMHO misplaced. The working of quantum computers is "interpretation-invariant" and adding many-worlds here only muddles the waters.
Even the usual statement that a qubit is "at the same time 0 and 1", while in some sense true, isn't really helpful. Indeed, a single qubit can be modeled by direction in three-dimensional space (for most implementations it's an abstract space, but if you use the spin of spin-1/2-particles to represent the qubit, then those directions are literally the directions of real space). Operations on a single qubit (other than measurement, which is special) are just rotations in that space. Where the power of quantum computing comes from is entanglement: If you have several quantum systems, the states they can assume are more than just "the first qubit is in state X, the second qubit is in state Y". There are "entangled" states where the single qubits are in no single state, but the whole system is still in a well defined space.
The whole point is that for classical systems (even classical analog systems), the state for the whole system is the direct sum of the states of the separate systems, while for quantum system, it's the direct product. That is, if a classical system has an n-dimensional state space, then k copies of it have an n*k-dimensional state space. That is, the size of the state space grows linearly (of course the number of states grows exponentially because every dimension gives a new factor). OTOH, for quantum systems, k copies of a system with an n-dimensional state space have an n^k-dimensional state space. That is, the dimension of the state space grows exponentially rather than linearly. Therefore it's not surprising that for some problems, you get an exponential speedup: By adding a linear amount of physical resources (qubits) you add an exponential amount of computational resources (states space dimensions).
Now those extra dimensions can only be used in very limited ways, therefore not every problem gets an exponential speedup. At that point it should be stressed that those are state space dimensions, not real space dimensions; e.g. two classical particles in three-dimensional space have together 12 state space dimensions (for each particle 3 dimensions for position and 3 dimensions for momentum; note that the classical physics state space is usually called phase space).
Everyone who has ever looked at the sky know that clouds move, and change their movement if the wind changes. And if the cloud gets too big, it starts to lose water by dropping it on the ground, while small clouds tend to evaporate away completely. It's only natural that computing clouds behave the same. Just wait for the first digital thunderstorm in the cloud. And don't be too upset about the data losses.
satellite wifi, just think if there was a satellite over iran that beamed wifi and radio & television on open channels & frequencies, that will sure get the ayatollah's panties in a bunch
Sure, because it's so damn hard for the Iran's authorities to spot satellite dishes. After all, they are only large, and have to be visible from the satellite (and therefore from air), so how would they ever be found?
On an SSD, just writing a sector with zeros doesn't work the same as blanking the memory.
I think you mean a sector with all ones. Is there a reason why the firmware couldn't detect a write of an all-ones, and treat it as command to clear the sector instead of remapping it? Note that semantically, it would still do the same thing (i.e. the next read of that sector will indeed give an all-1), and since writes of all-1 blocks are otherwise rare, it wouldn't hurt performance of normal operation.
Sure. And for groups who could not use OOP C++ certainly wasn't a big deal either. And for people writing single-threaded programs, removal of multithreading wouldn't be a big deal either. And I guess people programming toasters don't have any use for the standard I/O facilities of either C or C++, so why not get rid of them?
Simple: Add to your specification: "The program is not intended to be run." If anyone runs it, then he's operating it outside of its specifications. Anything unforeseen therefore isn't a bug:-)
Option A: Bad move. It will not only forcibly end your applications, but also disable the operating system itself to cleanly shutdown. Also, it will not even give your applications a chance to shut down cleanly.
Option B: A command? To type in the command line? I thought Windows would not need a command line!:-) But then, it's probably the right solution to the problem. I say "probably" because I don't knnow how the f option is implemented. If reasonable, it gives the application first a chance to terminate cleanly, and only forcibly terminates it if it didn't cleanly terminate in some reasonable time frame (say, 10 seconds).
Slashdot Mirror
What about "steve.jobs" without "www"?
Proposal for new TLDs:
I guess it's not only the domain name, it was just the concrete trigger. The first time I've heard "WWF wrestling" I wondered "What does the World Wildlife Fund have to do with wrestling?"
Ideally, the goal of any organization should be to make itself superfluous.
Historically, the most effective methods of reducing population have been illnesses and wars. Therefore we should start a world war with biological weapons. That will certainly reduce the population. :-)
I didn't know that Slashdot now counts as a green group.
Well, in some sense it is so. It's just not Lucifer who destroys the quantum heaven, but decoherence.
42?
I just tried to run Shor's algorithm on that number. The factors turned out to be 6 and 9.
Quantum computers are good for problems where the reverse problem is easy. Take factorization: It is hard to factorize a large number, but if someone gives you two numbers and claims those are the factors, it's easy to check if they multiply to your number.
I consider that a very bad explanation of quantum computers (and yes, I work in the field of quantum information, so I know quite well about it). Nothing against many-worlds, but using it to explain a quantum computer is IMHO misplaced. The working of quantum computers is "interpretation-invariant" and adding many-worlds here only muddles the waters.
Even the usual statement that a qubit is "at the same time 0 and 1", while in some sense true, isn't really helpful. Indeed, a single qubit can be modeled by direction in three-dimensional space (for most implementations it's an abstract space, but if you use the spin of spin-1/2-particles to represent the qubit, then those directions are literally the directions of real space). Operations on a single qubit (other than measurement, which is special) are just rotations in that space. Where the power of quantum computing comes from is entanglement: If you have several quantum systems, the states they can assume are more than just "the first qubit is in state X, the second qubit is in state Y". There are "entangled" states where the single qubits are in no single state, but the whole system is still in a well defined space.
The whole point is that for classical systems (even classical analog systems), the state for the whole system is the direct sum of the states of the separate systems, while for quantum system, it's the direct product. That is, if a classical system has an n-dimensional state space, then k copies of it have an n*k-dimensional state space. That is, the size of the state space grows linearly (of course the number of states grows exponentially because every dimension gives a new factor). OTOH, for quantum systems, k copies of a system with an n-dimensional state space have an n^k-dimensional state space. That is, the dimension of the state space grows exponentially rather than linearly. Therefore it's not surprising that for some problems, you get an exponential speedup: By adding a linear amount of physical resources (qubits) you add an exponential amount of computational resources (states space dimensions).
Now those extra dimensions can only be used in very limited ways, therefore not every problem gets an exponential speedup. At that point it should be stressed that those are state space dimensions, not real space dimensions; e.g. two classical particles in three-dimensional space have together 12 state space dimensions (for each particle 3 dimensions for position and 3 dimensions for momentum; note that the classical physics state space is usually called phase space).
Everyone who has ever looked at the sky know that clouds move, and change their movement if the wind changes. And if the cloud gets too big, it starts to lose water by dropping it on the ground, while small clouds tend to evaporate away completely. It's only natural that computing clouds behave the same. Just wait for the first digital thunderstorm in the cloud. And don't be too upset about the data losses.
Indeed, I completely agree with the comment about security risks of the bb tag, and indeed consider the suggested alternative better.
And the next customer is Ursula von der Leyen?
satellite wifi, just think if there was a satellite over iran that beamed wifi and radio & television on open channels & frequencies, that will sure get the ayatollah's panties in a bunch
Sure, because it's so damn hard for the Iran's authorities to spot satellite dishes. After all, they are only large, and have to be visible from the satellite (and therefore from air), so how would they ever be found?
Yes. When God created us, we were all black. Then the devil came along and caused some of us to degenerate and loose colour.
And of course, most white people try to re-gain as much color as possible. Or the sunbed wouldn't have been invented.
I think you mean a sector with all ones.
Is there a reason why the firmware couldn't detect a write of an all-ones, and treat it as command to clear the sector instead of remapping it? Note that semantically, it would still do the same thing (i.e. the next read of that sector will indeed give an all-1), and since writes of all-1 blocks are otherwise rare, it wouldn't hurt performance of normal operation.
Couldn't the C++ library for DOS simply indicate failure whenever the creation of a second thread is attempted?
Sure. And for groups who could not use OOP C++ certainly wasn't a big deal either. And for people writing single-threaded programs, removal of multithreading wouldn't be a big deal either. And I guess people programming toasters don't have any use for the standard I/O facilities of either C or C++, so why not get rid of them?
What about 0xC++?
Simple: Add to your specification: "The program is not intended to be run." If anyone runs it, then he's operating it outside of its specifications. Anything unforeseen therefore isn't a bug :-)
Have you ever read an EULA of proprietary software? Typically all they guarantee is that the CD you got is readable for about a month.
You open your document in two word processors at once if you consider the word processor to be too slow?
reboot = shutdown + boot
So every time you reboot, you shut down.
Option A: Bad move. It will not only forcibly end your applications, but also disable the operating system itself to cleanly shutdown. Also, it will not even give your applications a chance to shut down cleanly.
Option B: A command? To type in the command line? I thought Windows would not need a command line! :-)
But then, it's probably the right solution to the problem. I say "probably" because I don't knnow how the f option is implemented. If reasonable, it gives the application first a chance to terminate cleanly, and only forcibly terminates it if it didn't cleanly terminate in some reasonable time frame (say, 10 seconds).
Looking at the poster's user name, I guess you just have been whooshed.