Sure it makes sense. Most people have an over-inflated idea of how intelligent they are - the majority claim they're more intelligent than the average person - which simply can't be true.
Of course it can be true. Let's assume that almost all people have an IQ of 100 (and let's for the moment assume that the IQ is an accurate measure of intelligence, and that averaging over it makes sense). The only exception is one person whose IQ is 90. Then all but one have an intelligence above average.
(And if you now complain that the IQ has to be normalized to an average of 100, make the "normal" IQ equal to (100*n-90)/(n-1), where n is the total number of people.)
Well, that could easily be solved: Encryption is only allowed with certificates generated and signed by a government agency; ISPs then can get the private keys of their customers from the government and thus read the data streams, while the evil guys can't (because of course the key would never leak from the ISP).
I've been using something like this for awhile, its called "dd" (run as root for extra goodness). I've tried to use it to copy a CD to my mouse, but it didn't work, even when run as root.
Imagine a spin-1/2-particle (e.g. an electron). Such a particle has the peculiar property that if you measure its spin along any chosen axis, you'll always get either 1/2 ("spin up") or -1/2 ("spin down").
OK, let's assume we have just measures the spin in z direction and got +1/2. Let me first note that this is stable: If we measure the z-spin of the same particle again (assuming it didn't interact in between), we will again get +1/2 each time. That is, once we measures +1/2 in z direction, every subsequent measurement will confirm that result (this may seem trivial, but it will be important further down).
Now we want to know: What is the spin in x direction? Well, it can neither be 1/2 nor -1/2, because we've "used up" all of the spin for the z direction. OTOH +1/2 and -1/2 are the only allowed values; 0 is not a possible value.
But then, if we want to know the spin in x direction, after all we can just measure it. If we do so, we indeed find either +1/2 or -1/2, and never anything else. Moreover, we find that in half of the cases we get +1/2, and in the other half we get 1/2, so on average the x spin indeed is zero, but for each single measurement we get either +1/2 or -1/2. And that value also turns out to be stable: If we repeat the x-spin measurement, we get the same value again.
Well, now we could say, maybe we just got all wrong about spin, and in truth electrons have separately an x spin of +1/2 and -1/2 and a z spin of +1/2 or -1/2 (and the same for any other direction), and what we've found is just that half of our electrons are electrons with "+" spin in one direction, and "-" spin in the other. Now, let us test that hypothesis.
We now only look at electrons which were found to have spin +1/2 in z-direction, and subsequently found spin +1/2 in x direction. OK, if the above hypothesis holds, if we now again measure in z-direction, we should again confirm the value +1/2, because after all, that value is stable, right? Well, what we find is that only in half of the cases we find z-spin +1/2, but in the other half we find z-spin -1/2! So somehow by measuring the x-spin, we destroyed the value for the z-spin.
Indeed, by measuring the spin value in one direction, we destroy the spin value for any other direction. The latest measurement destroys all information gained through previous measurements, so that if we know what we measured last (i.e. both the direction we measured in, and the measurement result), we know everything we can know about the spin. The results of previous measurements don't add any knowledge about future measurements. If we measured +1/2 on one measurement, the probability to get +1/2 on another measurement depends only on the angle of our new measurement direction to the previous measurement (and the same of course for -1/2). The smaller the angle, the more probable is it top get the same result for the new direction (measuring again in exactly the same direction reliably gives the same result again, as noted above). If we measure in a direction perpendicular, the results are completely uncorrelated to the previous measurement result; we get just +1/2 or -1/2 with 50% probability each.
So measurement obviously destroys whatever state the electron spin had before, and establishes a new state according to the result we got.
In the mode in which the brace is only activated while the knee is braking, the subjects required less than one watt of extra metabolic power for each watt of electricity they generated.
First you give the password for the "normal" encrypted volume.
Then when they ask you for the hidden volume, you first hesitate, and then give them the password for the safe hidden partition. That partition should contain stuff which doesn't get you in trouble, but for which it's plausible that you wouldn't want anyone to see it. I guess they won't assume you have a second hidden volume.
Stephen Hawking Telescope? he is the most recognizable figure in astrophysics for a long time From TFA: "Any suggestions for naming the telescope after a scientist may only include names of deceased scientists whose names are not already used for other NASA missions."
Maybe to get more funding they'd better name it IBCOGRAT: Imagine a Beowulf Cluster Of Gamma RAy Telescopes!
It clearly fulfills their requirements:
"We're looking for name suggestions that will capture the excitement of GLAST's mission..." What could be more exciting than a Beowulf cluster?
"... and call attention to gamma-ray and high-energy astronomy." The highly recognizable phrase will surely capture attention.
"We are looking for something memorable to commemorate this spectacular new astronomy mission," Slashdot proves that it's easy to remember.
"We hope someone will come up with a name that is catchy," Catchy enough to be a Slashdot meme
"easy to say" Obviously.
"easy to say and will help make the satellite and its mission a topic of dinner table and classroom discussion." It certainly will make it at least a topic of Slashdot discussion.
How exactly is an in-depth knowledge about the inner workings of a gun going to help me if someone points one on me? If I myself have a gun, the only necessary gun knowledge is how to use it. Otherwise, I don't see how gun knowledge will help me. Or did you maybe think about talking with him about his gun, a la "Oh, nice gun you have, did you know that...", hoping that he finds that conversation interesting and therefore decides not to shoot you?
However for Google it works because they don't care much for a single failed PC (that's what the redundancy is for). If someone is sitting in front of the PC, this is very different. It doesn't help him that there are many other PCs still working.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, no shit.
That's probably joust British spelling.Of course it can be true. Let's assume that almost all people have an IQ of 100 (and let's for the moment assume that the IQ is an accurate measure of intelligence, and that averaging over it makes sense). The only exception is one person whose IQ is 90. Then all but one have an intelligence above average.
(And if you now complain that the IQ has to be normalized to an average of 100, make the "normal" IQ equal to (100*n-90)/(n-1), where n is the total number of people.)
He said "back room". So it's clearly his cdr, not his car.
Well, that could easily be solved: Encryption is only allowed with certificates generated and signed by a government agency; ISPs then can get the private keys of their customers from the government and thus read the data streams, while the evil guys can't (because of course the key would never leak from the ISP).
I didn't know that the goal of having ID cards was to keep the terrorists safe
... to boldly correct what no man had corrected before ... :-)
Well, let me try to explain.
Imagine a spin-1/2-particle (e.g. an electron). Such a particle has the peculiar property that if you measure its spin along any chosen axis, you'll always get either 1/2 ("spin up") or -1/2 ("spin down").
OK, let's assume we have just measures the spin in z direction and got +1/2. Let me first note that this is stable: If we measure the z-spin of the same particle again (assuming it didn't interact in between), we will again get +1/2 each time. That is, once we measures +1/2 in z direction, every subsequent measurement will confirm that result (this may seem trivial, but it will be important further down).
Now we want to know: What is the spin in x direction? Well, it can neither be 1/2 nor -1/2, because we've "used up" all of the spin for the z direction. OTOH +1/2 and -1/2 are the only allowed values; 0 is not a possible value.
But then, if we want to know the spin in x direction, after all we can just measure it. If we do so, we indeed find either +1/2 or -1/2, and never anything else. Moreover, we find that in half of the cases we get +1/2, and in the other half we get 1/2, so on average the x spin indeed is zero, but for each single measurement we get either +1/2 or -1/2. And that value also turns out to be stable: If we repeat the x-spin measurement, we get the same value again.
Well, now we could say, maybe we just got all wrong about spin, and in truth electrons have separately an x spin of +1/2 and -1/2 and a z spin of +1/2 or -1/2 (and the same for any other direction), and what we've found is just that half of our electrons are electrons with "+" spin in one direction, and "-" spin in the other. Now, let us test that hypothesis.
We now only look at electrons which were found to have spin +1/2 in z-direction, and subsequently found spin +1/2 in x direction. OK, if the above hypothesis holds, if we now again measure in z-direction, we should again confirm the value +1/2, because after all, that value is stable, right? Well, what we find is that only in half of the cases we find z-spin +1/2, but in the other half we find z-spin -1/2! So somehow by measuring the x-spin, we destroyed the value for the z-spin.
Indeed, by measuring the spin value in one direction, we destroy the spin value for any other direction. The latest measurement destroys all information gained through previous measurements, so that if we know what we measured last (i.e. both the direction we measured in, and the measurement result), we know everything we can know about the spin. The results of previous measurements don't add any knowledge about future measurements. If we measured +1/2 on one measurement, the probability to get +1/2 on another measurement depends only on the angle of our new measurement direction to the previous measurement (and the same of course for -1/2). The smaller the angle, the more probable is it top get the same result for the new direction (measuring again in exactly the same direction reliably gives the same result again, as noted above). If we measure in a direction perpendicular, the results are completely uncorrelated to the previous measurement result; we get just +1/2 or -1/2 with 50% probability each.
So measurement obviously destroys whatever state the electron spin had before, and establishes a new state according to the result we got.
This will
SCNR
Maybe you'll have to get your drive implanted, with bluetooth connection to your laptop. OTOH if they find that, seizure will literally hurt.
That's simple: They violate the first law of thermodynamics, not the second one.
Sounds like a violation of energy conservation.
You traveled naked?
Well, what if you have have two hidden volumes?
First you give the password for the "normal" encrypted volume.
Then when they ask you for the hidden volume, you first hesitate, and then give them the password for the safe hidden partition. That partition should contain stuff which doesn't get you in trouble, but for which it's plausible that you wouldn't want anyone to see it. I guess they won't assume you have a second hidden volume.
Well, they free you from your laptop. Isn't that a way to increase your freedom?
Well, given that the other free BSDs already fixed it, non-availability of the source obviously isn't the problem here.
Quantum mechanics delivers true randomness, at least according to the standard interpretation.
What about simply calling it "W"?
Gamma RAY Great Orbital Observatory. Or short: GRAY GOO.
Wrong. They say acronyms are not required. They don't say they are not allowed.
"Any suggestions for naming the telescope after a scientist may only include names of deceased scientists whose names are not already used for other NASA missions."
Maybe to get more funding they'd better name it IBCOGRAT: Imagine a Beowulf Cluster Of Gamma RAy Telescopes!
..."
It clearly fulfills their requirements:
"We're looking for name suggestions that will capture the excitement of GLAST's mission
What could be more exciting than a Beowulf cluster?
"... and call attention to gamma-ray and high-energy astronomy."
The highly recognizable phrase will surely capture attention.
"We are looking for something memorable to commemorate this spectacular new astronomy mission,"
Slashdot proves that it's easy to remember.
"We hope someone will come up with a name that is catchy,"
Catchy enough to be a Slashdot meme
"easy to say"
Obviously.
"easy to say and will help make the satellite and its mission a topic of dinner table and classroom discussion."
It certainly will make it at least a topic of Slashdot discussion.
How exactly is an in-depth knowledge about the inner workings of a gun going to help me if someone points one on me? If I myself have a gun, the only necessary gun knowledge is how to use it. Otherwise, I don't see how gun knowledge will help me. Or did you maybe think about talking with him about his gun, a la "Oh, nice gun you have, did you know that ...", hoping that he finds that conversation interesting and therefore decides not to shoot you?
However for Google it works because they don't care much for a single failed PC (that's what the redundancy is for). If someone is sitting in front of the PC, this is very different. It doesn't help him that there are many other PCs still working.
Not believing it would indeed be hard, given that it can be easily seen (and you obviously did see it, or you wouldn't have replied to it).