If there's an effective form of protest that doesn't interfere with me, and an ineffective form of protest that massively interferes with me, then yes, I'm against the latter. It's not as if you had no alternative.
Now if it should turn out that Slashdot's mail is hosted at the same server as my own, and protest mails to Slashdot happen to slow down that server noticeably, I'd accept that (well, if this happens a lot, I'd expect the mail provider to upgrade the server, and possibly change the mail provider if they don't, but I'd not complain about those writing protest mails).
If you build something graphical, you will have only a toy. you can define your building blocks (think of yahoo pipes or something like this), but they do not have the power of raw code.
Nonsense. Graphical programming can be as powerful as non-graphical programming.
Proof:
Everything you can program can be written as a Turing machine. Therefore anything that allows to define a Turing machine also allows to write any algorithm you can imagine. Now it is easy to encode a Turing machine with graphical programming. The main part of a Turing machine is a state machine. A state machine can be easily drawn as a set of boxes representing the states, and arrows representing the changes. A box with no arrows leaving would represent a halting state. If you do a Turing machine with only two symbols, you just need to types of arrows: One to follow if you read a 0, and one to follow if you read an 1. This could for example be dome using different colours (e.g. red for 0, black for 1), or different line styles (like dashed for 0, solid for 1). And finally, you need to encode whether the read/write head should move left or right. This could be done e.g. by the convention that a left move of the head is signified by the arrow leaving the box on the left side, and a right move is signified by the the arrow leaving on the right side. Or you could also encode it in the arrow line (e.g. if you encode the bit in the colour, you could encode the head movement in the line style).
So you see, you can easily encode a complete Turing machine in a graphical diagram. Which means that there's no algorithm which cannot be represented graphically.
Now whether you would want to do it is a completely different issue. I can type a few lines of text faster than I can draw a few boxes plus connections on the computer. And thus graphical programming sucks for input (indeed, even for creating certain types of graphics, I consider it more efficient to type commands that create it than to create it using a GUI).
It is certainly useful if you can create certain images (like class diagrams) from the code you've written, but that's not graphical programming, that's visualization. And visualization is powerful exactly because it doesn't display all the information of the code. Which would be a no-go if the graphics were to be the program source.
I forgot another good reason to label lines in circuit diagrams: If a wire goes halfway through the diagram, it is hard to follow with your eye (especially if it goes in parallel with many other lines for a while). If you want to make sure you correctly followed the line, it is immensely helpful if you have the same name on the other side. Indeed, if you already know to which component the line goes, this may actually save you the work of actually following the line.
The whole point of why it makes coding easier/faster is that you *DONT* have to name these wires, they're the equivalent of variables - how they are connected within the diagram gives their purpose, much like how components in a electronics schematic are connected talks of their purpose (once you can "read" the language). To label them, you right click them and make the label visible, then type into it.
As soon as your electronics schematics gets more complicated, you will want to label wires, for the same reason you also don't want to name your variables simply a,b,c,d,e in programming. Yes, you could in principle follow all the gates to ultimately figure out that this wire is indeed the address line holding the fifth-least significant bit of the memory address, but you're surely better off if you can read it directly. Just as you could ultimately follow the program flow to figure out that the specific variable holds the file handle of the log file, but again you are much better off if the variable name just says directly.
A domain registrar is not an independent telephone directory service. They don't just provide DNS so you can access domain names, they provide the domain name itself.
Also, you clearly didn't read what I wrote: It's not about a failure to detect illegal activity, it's about a failure to act after you became aware of illegal activity.
So you'd also protest against actions of your local supermarket by going there and punching the customers in their face? Because that's the analogue of the "fuck beta" campaign: You're not actually harming Slashdot much, you harm Slashdot users, who have to seek the content they come for in between the masses of anti-beta posts.
If your goal is to make Slashdot/dice listen, why don't you just spam their mail address with tons of protest mails? As soon as their inbox is permanently clogged with protest mails, they must notice. And more importantly: For the mail address, it's Slashdot employees who have to seek the other content in between the protest messages, not ordinary Slashdot users who have no more influence on the Slashdot design than you do.
Since the album was still shared through h33t after several requests sent to the website's operator by Key-Systems to stop the infringing activity, the registrar had to act to stop the infringement, the court found.
In other words, the registrar did check what the customer does on the domain, did notice that they do something illegal, and did ask them to stop it, without success. Therefore they have done more than just a technical service (providing the domain name). They had evidence, through their own investigations, that the domain was used for illegal activity.
I believe (and hope!) that if the provider really just had provided the domain without looking at what the customer does with it that they would indeed be in the clear. But that's not what happened. They actively sought to know what was happening on that domain, and therefore they are responsible on not acting on that knowledge.
Imagine you're selling someone fertilizer. Now if that person is using that fertilizer to build a bomb, you should of course not be responsible. Also it's unreasonable that you should have to check what they do with this fertilizer. But if you check, find out they build bombs with it, and continue to sell them the fertilizer knowing that they use it for building bombs you are of course also responsible for the deaths those bombs cause.
I'm sure there are some semiconductor elements inside. Semiconductors use quantum effects (not in the way quantum computers use them, but without quantum mechanics, semiconductor physics would be impossible). So yes, their computers are based on quantum effects. As are the vast majority of computers (and those that aren't are probably only found in the museum or other display rooms).
Indeed, they had features I still miss. For example the session folders (which were useful despite only partially working in Warp 3). Unlike virtually every other desktop environment, there was not just a global session, but you could associate a session with any folder (the desktop was just another folder with this property, and special only in that it was displayed in the root window). Or the fact that you couldn't just associate extensions with programs, but also associate individual files with programs (useful if the same extension is used by different programs).
Because everyone is going crazy on the idea of using the exact same interface for desktops and mobile phones. Even though it simply doesn't make sense. They are different devices, with different physical interfaces and different usage styles.
I mean, it makes very much sense to use the same underlying technology. But one user interface to rule them all does not work well.
Except that in GR, the density goes to infinity at the singularity. However it is indeed expected that in nature those singularities don't actually form — however the reason is not as mundane as a certain quantity going to zero; rather the reason being that in that region quantum gravitation should kick in, and thus the classical equations of General Relativity are simply no longer applicable. Somewhat similar to how quantum electrodynamics solves the problem of the field singularity of classical point charges (but not too similar, because the exact same procedure does not work for gravitation, which is the main reason why we don't yet have a generally accepted theory of quantum gravitation).
However, this is an untested theory. That is, up to now we have no experiment confirming it. Indeed, there's not even experimental confirmation of Hawking radiation (the black holes we can observe are too large to emit any non-negligible Hawking radiation).
Indeed, even without quantum gravity, both are not the same, because GR allows singularities which are not "protected" by horizons (so-called naked singularities). Since they have no horizon, they would not be black holes. AFAIK it is however conjectured that naked singularities cannot actually form (what is AFAIR definitely proved is that you cannot turn a black hole into a naked singularity).
I've once tried to calculate if an electron were a black hole, how large that black hole would be, and unless I've miscalculated, it would actually be a naked singularity (it violates the conditions for mass, charge and angular momentum for a black hole).
Even without tunnelling, you've got the finite size of the wave packet, which means that part of your photon will be inside and part will be outside that sphere. The part inside will fall into the black hole, the part outside will escape. Which means that the probability to find the photon on the sphere will quickly vanish, with the photon going into a superposition of "fallen into the black hole" and "escaped to infinity".
Observation might prove problematic, given that the next black hole is not exactly close to us... we can't simply send a space probe there to measure what it experiences when falling into it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, according to that definition, iron also isn't destroyed if it rusts (and yes, there are ways to get the iron back from the rust).
If there's an effective form of protest that doesn't interfere with me, and an ineffective form of protest that massively interferes with me, then yes, I'm against the latter. It's not as if you had no alternative.
Now if it should turn out that Slashdot's mail is hosted at the same server as my own, and protest mails to Slashdot happen to slow down that server noticeably, I'd accept that (well, if this happens a lot, I'd expect the mail provider to upgrade the server, and possibly change the mail provider if they don't, but I'd not complain about those writing protest mails).
No, a domain is not like a telephone book. A DNS server is more like a telephone book.
Note also that there's a difference between a registrar and a DNS provider.
Nonsense. Graphical programming can be as powerful as non-graphical programming.
Proof:
Everything you can program can be written as a Turing machine. Therefore anything that allows to define a Turing machine also allows to write any algorithm you can imagine. Now it is easy to encode a Turing machine with graphical programming. The main part of a Turing machine is a state machine. A state machine can be easily drawn as a set of boxes representing the states, and arrows representing the changes. A box with no arrows leaving would represent a halting state. If you do a Turing machine with only two symbols, you just need to types of arrows: One to follow if you read a 0, and one to follow if you read an 1. This could for example be dome using different colours (e.g. red for 0, black for 1), or different line styles (like dashed for 0, solid for 1). And finally, you need to encode whether the read/write head should move left or right. This could be done e.g. by the convention that a left move of the head is signified by the arrow leaving the box on the left side, and a right move is signified by the the arrow leaving on the right side. Or you could also encode it in the arrow line (e.g. if you encode the bit in the colour, you could encode the head movement in the line style).
So you see, you can easily encode a complete Turing machine in a graphical diagram. Which means that there's no algorithm which cannot be represented graphically.
Now whether you would want to do it is a completely different issue. I can type a few lines of text faster than I can draw a few boxes plus connections on the computer. And thus graphical programming sucks for input (indeed, even for creating certain types of graphics, I consider it more efficient to type commands that create it than to create it using a GUI).
It is certainly useful if you can create certain images (like class diagrams) from the code you've written, but that's not graphical programming, that's visualization. And visualization is powerful exactly because it doesn't display all the information of the code. Which would be a no-go if the graphics were to be the program source.
I forgot another good reason to label lines in circuit diagrams: If a wire goes halfway through the diagram, it is hard to follow with your eye (especially if it goes in parallel with many other lines for a while). If you want to make sure you correctly followed the line, it is immensely helpful if you have the same name on the other side. Indeed, if you already know to which component the line goes, this may actually save you the work of actually following the line.
As soon as your electronics schematics gets more complicated, you will want to label wires, for the same reason you also don't want to name your variables simply a,b,c,d,e in programming. Yes, you could in principle follow all the gates to ultimately figure out that this wire is indeed the address line holding the fifth-least significant bit of the memory address, but you're surely better off if you can read it directly. Just as you could ultimately follow the program flow to figure out that the specific variable holds the file handle of the log file, but again you are much better off if the variable name just says directly.
As long as you pay for it, I'll have no problems doing it.
A domain registrar is not an independent telephone directory service. They don't just provide DNS so you can access domain names, they provide the domain name itself.
Also, you clearly didn't read what I wrote: It's not about a failure to detect illegal activity, it's about a failure to act after you became aware of illegal activity.
If it is an entry in the yellow pages, then yes.
So you'd also protest against actions of your local supermarket by going there and punching the customers in their face? Because that's the analogue of the "fuck beta" campaign: You're not actually harming Slashdot much, you harm Slashdot users, who have to seek the content they come for in between the masses of anti-beta posts.
If your goal is to make Slashdot/dice listen, why don't you just spam their mail address with tons of protest mails? As soon as their inbox is permanently clogged with protest mails, they must notice. And more importantly: For the mail address, it's Slashdot employees who have to seek the other content in between the protest messages, not ordinary Slashdot users who have no more influence on the Slashdot design than you do.
From the article:
Since the album was still shared through h33t after several requests sent to the website's operator by Key-Systems to stop the infringing activity, the registrar had to act to stop the infringement, the court found.
In other words, the registrar did check what the customer does on the domain, did notice that they do something illegal, and did ask them to stop it, without success. Therefore they have done more than just a technical service (providing the domain name). They had evidence, through their own investigations, that the domain was used for illegal activity.
I believe (and hope!) that if the provider really just had provided the domain without looking at what the customer does with it that they would indeed be in the clear. But that's not what happened. They actively sought to know what was happening on that domain, and therefore they are responsible on not acting on that knowledge.
Imagine you're selling someone fertilizer. Now if that person is using that fertilizer to build a bomb, you should of course not be responsible. Also it's unreasonable that you should have to check what they do with this fertilizer. But if you check, find out they build bombs with it, and continue to sell them the fertilizer knowing that they use it for building bombs you are of course also responsible for the deaths those bombs cause.
I can't tell if you're telling the truth because I can't see the YouTube comments any more ...
Yes.
I'm sure there are some semiconductor elements inside. Semiconductors use quantum effects (not in the way quantum computers use them, but without quantum mechanics, semiconductor physics would be impossible). So yes, their computers are based on quantum effects. As are the vast majority of computers (and those that aren't are probably only found in the museum or other display rooms).
So is it A True Scotsman? Or is it No False Scotsman? Or is it No True Englishman? Or maybe it's even A False Englishman?
.bike is that the new American euphemism for .xxx. Its weird how Americans are rabid for the free market until it comes to sex.
As far as I can tell, the Americans are all for sex-free markets. ;-)
What about a top level domain .corn? Of course only to be used for things related to agrarian products. ;-)
Indeed, they had features I still miss. For example the session folders (which were useful despite only partially working in Warp 3). Unlike virtually every other desktop environment, there was not just a global session, but you could associate a session with any folder (the desktop was just another folder with this property, and special only in that it was displayed in the root window). Or the fact that you couldn't just associate extensions with programs, but also associate individual files with programs (useful if the same extension is used by different programs).
Because they employ "usability experts".
Because everyone is going crazy on the idea of using the exact same interface for desktops and mobile phones. Even though it simply doesn't make sense. They are different devices, with different physical interfaces and different usage styles.
I mean, it makes very much sense to use the same underlying technology. But one user interface to rule them all does not work well.
Except that in GR, the density goes to infinity at the singularity. However it is indeed expected that in nature those singularities don't actually form — however the reason is not as mundane as a certain quantity going to zero; rather the reason being that in that region quantum gravitation should kick in, and thus the classical equations of General Relativity are simply no longer applicable. Somewhat similar to how quantum electrodynamics solves the problem of the field singularity of classical point charges (but not too similar, because the exact same procedure does not work for gravitation, which is the main reason why we don't yet have a generally accepted theory of quantum gravitation).
However, this is an untested theory. That is, up to now we have no experiment confirming it. Indeed, there's not even experimental confirmation of Hawking radiation (the black holes we can observe are too large to emit any non-negligible Hawking radiation).
Indeed, even without quantum gravity, both are not the same, because GR allows singularities which are not "protected" by horizons (so-called naked singularities). Since they have no horizon, they would not be black holes. AFAIK it is however conjectured that naked singularities cannot actually form (what is AFAIR definitely proved is that you cannot turn a black hole into a naked singularity).
I've once tried to calculate if an electron were a black hole, how large that black hole would be, and unless I've miscalculated, it would actually be a naked singularity (it violates the conditions for mass, charge and angular momentum for a black hole).
Even without tunnelling, you've got the finite size of the wave packet, which means that part of your photon will be inside and part will be outside that sphere. The part inside will fall into the black hole, the part outside will escape. Which means that the probability to find the photon on the sphere will quickly vanish, with the photon going into a superposition of "fallen into the black hole" and "escaped to infinity".
Observation might prove problematic, given that the next black hole is not exactly close to us ... we can't simply send a space probe there to measure what it experiences when falling into it.