And hopefully, someday, hopefully, the same thing will happen to relativity when they unite relativity with quantum mechanics.
For some reason, people always seem to think that when uniting general relativity and quantum mechanics, only general relativity will change. I don't see why quantum mechanics shouldn't change, too. Especially the way time is treated in quantum mechanics.
Note that when unifying special relativity and quantum mechanics, it was quantum mechanics which changed, and special relativity which remained unchanged.
In thermodynamics, probabilities were absent. It was only statistical mechanics which connected thermodynamics and classical mechanics using probabilities. But then, those probabilities were still just lack-of-information type probabilities (due to the coarse-graining when going from the microstate to the macrostate). Only quantum mechanics added fundamental probabilities.
Nevertheless relativity was just as big a paradigm shift: It changed space and time from a "stage" which doesn't actually participate in the physical processes into a true physical entity which interacts with other physical entities. OTOH In quantum mechanics, time being not a physical entity is quite ingrained. Time is not a quantum observable, as there's no such thing as a time operator.
Actually, social sciences are concerned with two questions, only one of which is scientific. The scientific question is: How do societies work. The non-scientific question is: How should societies work.
On the other hand, it is hard to dispute measurements of the murder rate
Not at all. While there are indeed cases where it is quite obvious that someone has been murdered, there are also enough cases where it is not obvious. It is likely that a certain number of such cases are not recognized as murder. Raising murder numbers might therefore e. g. be correlated to better techniques to detect such murders. Indeed, that could even have the effect of the found murder cases first raising and then going down again: After a while, the murderers learn how to defeat the better detection techniques, which decreases the detection rate again.
Those who are naturally evil but also very smart don't commit crimes; they get jobs in high finance or governance.
Committing crimes and getting a job in high finance are not mutually exclusive. Although you've got much better chances if you first get a job in high finance, and only then commit crimes.
It's not even about profit being the highest value, but about getting anything in return. You are asking for a favor - to hand you results of someone's hard work, and your reasoning is because it's the right thing? Pretty selfish.
That's what the initial non-open-source period is for. Anyway, accusing me of selfishness for explaining how I think one could make a living from writing an open source product is quite strange.
Basically you are asking software companies to reinvent themselves periodically for no apparent reason.
No. Just starting a new software, or even a new version of an existing software you previously didn't focus on, doesn't mean reinventing yourself. If your whole company's success rests on a single product, you're doomed anyway.
Do you create software for a living?
Not software, no.
Or is it not "the right thing" for you?
I believe I'm better at what I'm doing than at writing software.
That directly refutes your point. Adding a prefix doesn't change the unit, and you claimed it does.
I'm not sure if your reading comprehension is really that terrible, or if you are simply trolling. I haven't claimed that it changes the unit. I have claimed the exact opposite.
Of course, the opponent could just replace the data in the silence packages himself, thus closing that communication path for you. Normal people would not notice (otherwise that data transmission would not work to begin with).
It is obvious that Skype uses voice activity detection, or else the silence packets would be as large as the voice packeage. The whole point is why they are still quite large (large enough to send a substantial amount of data).
The second link is totally irrelevant because it doesn't concern the sender, but the receiver. The noise the receiver generates certainly does not depend on the size of the silence packages the sender sends.
Sending two bytes is not the same as sending nothing. The point is not that Skype sends packets for silence, but that it sends such big packets, despite obviously detecting the silence as such (otherwise the silence packages would be the same size as non-silence packages).
I wonder why Skype needs 70 bytes to transmit essentially nothing. Maybe they already do use it for secret data transmission, just to their own servers?
Because it's the right thing. You know, not everyone sees profit as the highest value.
At least the most important thing: how to keep your programmers' jobs after it has gone open source (which is supposedly majority of its planned lifetime) is not covered.
Simple: Have them write new code, which you then can sell again. This may, but need not be a improved version of the same program. If there's not enough improvement possible to compete against the previous version after open-sourcing it, then you should focus on another project instead.
I have no idea what you think my point is, but I'm pretty sure it is not the same as what my point actually is, because in that case what you write makes no sense.
So here again my point:
The poster I answered to said that adding a prefix to an unit does not make a new unit, but that this is not entirely clear from the Wikipedia article. My point was that it is entirely clear from the NIST sentence I quoted.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because nature forgot to patent her inventions.
Well, I'll just wait for the 640K TV. That should be enough for anybody.
And hopefully, someday, hopefully, the same thing will happen to relativity when they unite relativity with quantum mechanics.
For some reason, people always seem to think that when uniting general relativity and quantum mechanics, only general relativity will change. I don't see why quantum mechanics shouldn't change, too. Especially the way time is treated in quantum mechanics.
Note that when unifying special relativity and quantum mechanics, it was quantum mechanics which changed, and special relativity which remained unchanged.
In thermodynamics, probabilities were absent. It was only statistical mechanics which connected thermodynamics and classical mechanics using probabilities. But then, those probabilities were still just lack-of-information type probabilities (due to the coarse-graining when going from the microstate to the macrostate). Only quantum mechanics added fundamental probabilities.
Nevertheless relativity was just as big a paradigm shift: It changed space and time from a "stage" which doesn't actually participate in the physical processes into a true physical entity which interacts with other physical entities. OTOH In quantum mechanics, time being not a physical entity is quite ingrained. Time is not a quantum observable, as there's no such thing as a time operator.
Actually, social sciences are concerned with two questions, only one of which is scientific. The scientific question is: How do societies work. The non-scientific question is: How should societies work.
And "Anonymous Coward" is an anagram of "Roy on mad cow anus". Just saying.
Lead in aviation fuel? Does that explain 9/11? :-)
Of course if the rate went up from 1 of 100 to 10 of 100, it really didn't go up 1000%.
It went up 900%.
Not at all. While there are indeed cases where it is quite obvious that someone has been murdered, there are also enough cases where it is not obvious. It is likely that a certain number of such cases are not recognized as murder. Raising murder numbers might therefore e. g. be correlated to better techniques to detect such murders. Indeed, that could even have the effect of the found murder cases first raising and then going down again: After a while, the murderers learn how to defeat the better detection techniques, which decreases the detection rate again.
Committing crimes and getting a job in high finance are not mutually exclusive. Although you've got much better chances if you first get a job in high finance, and only then commit crimes.
That's what the initial non-open-source period is for. Anyway, accusing me of selfishness for explaining how I think one could make a living from writing an open source product is quite strange.
No. Just starting a new software, or even a new version of an existing software you previously didn't focus on, doesn't mean reinventing yourself. If your whole company's success rests on a single product, you're doomed anyway.
Not software, no.
I believe I'm better at what I'm doing than at writing software.
You don't need 70 bytes for a simple keepalive. That's the point. Nobody argues that no packets should be sent. But why such large packets?
Taking your analogy, it would be like holding a short monologue just to tell "I'm still here."
I'm not sure if your reading comprehension is really that terrible, or if you are simply trolling. I haven't claimed that it changes the unit. I have claimed the exact opposite.
You seem to have posted to the wrong story.
But never mind, worse things happen at C.
70 bytes to transmit what could be transmitted in one byte (the status "no activity") seems very inefficient.
Of course, the opponent could just replace the data in the silence packages himself, thus closing that communication path for you. Normal people would not notice (otherwise that data transmission would not work to begin with).
It is obvious that Skype uses voice activity detection, or else the silence packets would be as large as the voice packeage. The whole point is why they are still quite large (large enough to send a substantial amount of data).
The second link is totally irrelevant because it doesn't concern the sender, but the receiver. The noise the receiver generates certainly does not depend on the size of the silence packages the sender sends.
Sending two bytes is not the same as sending nothing.
The point is not that Skype sends packets for silence, but that it sends such big packets, despite obviously detecting the silence as such (otherwise the silence packages would be the same size as non-silence packages).
Since it doesn't contain any information, and it is identifiable as silence packet anyway, then why encrypt it?
If it's a programming language compiling to native code, it's not unlikely that the compiler is written in the very programming language it compiles.
But it must be very demotivating, because it's generally the last thing they do.
I wonder why Skype needs 70 bytes to transmit essentially nothing. Maybe they already do use it for secret data transmission, just to their own servers?
Because it's the right thing. You know, not everyone sees profit as the highest value.
Simple: Have them write new code, which you then can sell again. This may, but need not be a improved version of the same program. If there's not enough improvement possible to compete against the previous version after open-sourcing it, then you should focus on another project instead.
I have no idea what you think my point is, but I'm pretty sure it is not the same as what my point actually is, because in that case what you write makes no sense.
So here again my point:
The poster I answered to said that adding a prefix to an unit does not make a new unit, but that this is not entirely clear from the Wikipedia article.
My point was that it is entirely clear from the NIST sentence I quoted.
OK, so now how does your post refute that point?
Variables in CSS? Really?
Constants I can understand. But variables? It's not as if CSS was code to be executed (not should it be).