He doesn't have to go. I believe this was a request, but parliamentary summons can be legally binding. If he was summoned, he still wouldn't have to go, but could be arrested if he visits the UK. Facebook representatives in the UK can be compelled to attend of course. And since parliament makes the laws, they're free to make laws that are unfavourable to Facebook.
Not quite. Zuckerberg has Facebook shares that are currently valued at billions of dollars. They could be valued at considerably less if public opinion and/or government regulation became overly critical of FB.
The queen doesn't have a direct political role, but she still plays a role. To many citizens, the queen's disapproval of a government action (or inaction) would carry a lot of weight.
Wow. When you're a company like Facebook and the government of a nation where you do business calls you to answer questions about your part in massive privacy violations and interfering with democracy, you hop to. Or you expect to be regulated out of existence.
"Blockchain only represents the chain-of-custody/anti-tamper tech."
That's my favourite claim from blockchain fans. There's nothing about a blockchain that makes it tamper resistant (although the things stored IN a blockchain may or may not be encrypted, and so tamper resistant). It makes it (relatively) easy to verify integrity. That's it. Blockchain gets its anti-tamper capability from having a whole bunch of different people having a copy of the data. That would work the same way with any kind of data structure, including plain text. In fact, every time someone checks the wayback machine to see if any shenanigans are going on, they're basically doing the same thing.
That anti-tamper capability for a distributed dataset comes at a cost: you have to have some way of deciding who's version is true. Everyone uses some kind of weighted voting scheme. Bitcoin weights by computing power.
Yes, but the alloyed carbon is a sink, not a source. The carbon you stick into steel is pretty much there for the long haul. The stuff you use to suck oxygen out during smelting goes up the stack as CO2.
The alloyed carbon is also a pretty minor contribution. High carbon steel is under 1% carbon. Mild steel much less. If you were refining pure magnetite (Fe3O4) you'd expect to get two moles of CO2 for every three of iron.
Most of it comes from the iron production. Iron ore is more or less iron oxide, so you need to convince the oxygen atoms to leave the iron and go somewhere else. For iron, this is usually done by heating up the ore with a source of carbon. The oxygen ditches the iron atoms and joins up with the carbon, producing carbon dioxide.
It sounds like they've come up with a practical method to refine iron ore with electrolysis instead of thermally. They say it produces less carbon... I wonder if that's including the production of the electricity.
A block chain doesn't have anything to do with making it anti-tamper either. You get exactly the same protection if you just publish your count list, as you're counting. It's more secure even, since it's not subject to the whims of the mining pool or whatever.
The hash trees that are what block chains really are provide fast consistency checking. That's it. Not verification.
I like how "blockchain technology" now means everything. Certainly everything related to cryptography. Sure, you could do something like have everyone cryptographically sign their vote and then you could have it anonymously verifiable. What does that have to do with a block chain?
I'm not sure quite what you're trying to say, but it sounds like you contradicted yourself in the first sentence. Weight is a force (due to gravity) yes. So weight is measured in units of force. Yes, we often use measures of mass and call them weight colloquially. Since we're talking about high precision measurements, that colloquialism isn't just technically wrong, it's completely inadequate since acceleration due to gravity varies by over half a percent, just on the surface.
There's very strong theoretical evidence for quantum supremacy, and I believe it's been practically demonstrated for quantum simulation. Analog computing is also very useful in the same way. It's not used much for reading people's mail, but it is used extensively in some areas, particularly simulation.
Do I? I suspect, and there is some evidence for this, that most of what we experience as consciousness is actually just story we tell ourselves. There are several lines of evidence that suggest our subconscious arrives at a conclusion through means that are entirely unknown to us, our conscious becomes aware of that conclusion, and when pressed will retrospectively make up a story justifying it.
Except for little bits around the edges, consciousness is necessarily subjective. And highly subjective observations, particularly where hubris is involved, are strongly suspect.
There's actually a psychologist who's suggested that people weren't properly conscious until relatively modern times. The reason mythical greeks were always talking to gods is that their conscious mind wasn't fully developed and their conscious kept whispering information to them. Some people still do talk to voices in their heads, gods or otherwise. Maybe we all do, but aren't as aware of it.
I have an official Elsevier web page that says submission to preprint servers (it doesn't mention specific ones) is fine, given the restrictions I mentioned. I have a dated hardcopy of that page just in case. I checked before submitting a paper.
I think quantum computing will be incredibly useful for many things. It's a fundamentally new method of computing. Those things are going to be more interesting than reading people's mail. Quantum simulation for materials and drug design, solid state physics discovery, maybe new superconductors. Things like that.
The encryption breaking applications are wildly overstated. I've talked to scientists from both Rigetti, DWave who don't think Shor's algorithm will ever be practically useful. If it is, it's a long way away. An implementation to break 256-bit keys would require thousands of qubits. Google has 72, and it gets harder and harder to add more.
If you're worried about it, SSH will be happy to create a public keypair for you based on elliptic curves that is even more resistant to quantum computers than is RSA.
You are allowed to submit your paper, which is to be published in an Elsevier journal, to a preprint server (axiv being the most famous of these), completely for free.
The only restriction is that you can't submit the Elsevier copyedited and formatted version. The version you formatted yourself is fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe someone already did? I don't see that number (nor that many significant digits) anywhere on that page.
There is. It's called Pacific Daylight Time, or Mountain Standard Time. Or UTC-07.
He doesn't have to go. I believe this was a request, but parliamentary summons can be legally binding. If he was summoned, he still wouldn't have to go, but could be arrested if he visits the UK. Facebook representatives in the UK can be compelled to attend of course. And since parliament makes the laws, they're free to make laws that are unfavourable to Facebook.
Not quite. Zuckerberg has Facebook shares that are currently valued at billions of dollars. They could be valued at considerably less if public opinion and/or government regulation became overly critical of FB.
The queen doesn't have a direct political role, but she still plays a role. To many citizens, the queen's disapproval of a government action (or inaction) would carry a lot of weight.
You don't have to make it illegal. As others have pointed out, that would just piss off your citizens.
Just levy a $10 fine for every time an inaccurate claim is posted on the platform. And a $100 fine for every violation of privacy law.
Wow. When you're a company like Facebook and the government of a nation where you do business calls you to answer questions about your part in massive privacy violations and interfering with democracy, you hop to. Or you expect to be regulated out of existence.
"Blockchain only represents the chain-of-custody/anti-tamper tech."
That's my favourite claim from blockchain fans. There's nothing about a blockchain that makes it tamper resistant (although the things stored IN a blockchain may or may not be encrypted, and so tamper resistant). It makes it (relatively) easy to verify integrity. That's it. Blockchain gets its anti-tamper capability from having a whole bunch of different people having a copy of the data. That would work the same way with any kind of data structure, including plain text. In fact, every time someone checks the wayback machine to see if any shenanigans are going on, they're basically doing the same thing.
That anti-tamper capability for a distributed dataset comes at a cost: you have to have some way of deciding who's version is true. Everyone uses some kind of weighted voting scheme. Bitcoin weights by computing power.
Yes, but the alloyed carbon is a sink, not a source. The carbon you stick into steel is pretty much there for the long haul. The stuff you use to suck oxygen out during smelting goes up the stack as CO2.
The alloyed carbon is also a pretty minor contribution. High carbon steel is under 1% carbon. Mild steel much less. If you were refining pure magnetite (Fe3O4) you'd expect to get two moles of CO2 for every three of iron.
Most of it comes from the iron production. Iron ore is more or less iron oxide, so you need to convince the oxygen atoms to leave the iron and go somewhere else. For iron, this is usually done by heating up the ore with a source of carbon. The oxygen ditches the iron atoms and joins up with the carbon, producing carbon dioxide.
It sounds like they've come up with a practical method to refine iron ore with electrolysis instead of thermally. They say it produces less carbon... I wonder if that's including the production of the electricity.
Taxes, fines, and regulations.
Regulations especially. The UK or Canada could quite easily make it clear that their existing privacy law applies to Facebook.
The job of a multinational CEO when shit publicly (and potentially criminally) hits the fan is pretty much to fly around and explain things.
A block chain doesn't have anything to do with making it anti-tamper either. You get exactly the same protection if you just publish your count list, as you're counting. It's more secure even, since it's not subject to the whims of the mining pool or whatever.
The hash trees that are what block chains really are provide fast consistency checking. That's it. Not verification.
I like how "blockchain technology" now means everything. Certainly everything related to cryptography. Sure, you could do something like have everyone cryptographically sign their vote and then you could have it anonymously verifiable. What does that have to do with a block chain?
I'm not sure quite what you're trying to say, but it sounds like you contradicted yourself in the first sentence. Weight is a force (due to gravity) yes. So weight is measured in units of force. Yes, we often use measures of mass and call them weight colloquially. Since we're talking about high precision measurements, that colloquialism isn't just technically wrong, it's completely inadequate since acceleration due to gravity varies by over half a percent, just on the surface.
The American pound is quite precisely defined. It's exactly 0.45359237 kg.
A kilogram weighs about 9.81 Newtons under normal conditions experienced by people, plus or minus about half a percent.
Since this story is about defining a kilogram in a way that makes it fairly easy to measure billionths of a gram, half a percent is *enormous*.
Google Shannon-Hartley capacity theorem.
There's very strong theoretical evidence for quantum supremacy, and I believe it's been practically demonstrated for quantum simulation. Analog computing is also very useful in the same way. It's not used much for reading people's mail, but it is used extensively in some areas, particularly simulation.
"You know you have a mind."
Do I? I suspect, and there is some evidence for this, that most of what we experience as consciousness is actually just story we tell ourselves. There are several lines of evidence that suggest our subconscious arrives at a conclusion through means that are entirely unknown to us, our conscious becomes aware of that conclusion, and when pressed will retrospectively make up a story justifying it.
Except for little bits around the edges, consciousness is necessarily subjective. And highly subjective observations, particularly where hubris is involved, are strongly suspect.
There's actually a psychologist who's suggested that people weren't properly conscious until relatively modern times. The reason mythical greeks were always talking to gods is that their conscious mind wasn't fully developed and their conscious kept whispering information to them. Some people still do talk to voices in their heads, gods or otherwise. Maybe we all do, but aren't as aware of it.
I have an official Elsevier web page that says submission to preprint servers (it doesn't mention specific ones) is fine, given the restrictions I mentioned. I have a dated hardcopy of that page just in case. I checked before submitting a paper.
I think quantum computing will be incredibly useful for many things. It's a fundamentally new method of computing. Those things are going to be more interesting than reading people's mail. Quantum simulation for materials and drug design, solid state physics discovery, maybe new superconductors. Things like that.
The encryption breaking applications are wildly overstated. I've talked to scientists from both Rigetti, DWave who don't think Shor's algorithm will ever be practically useful. If it is, it's a long way away. An implementation to break 256-bit keys would require thousands of qubits. Google has 72, and it gets harder and harder to add more.
If you're worried about it, SSH will be happy to create a public keypair for you based on elliptic curves that is even more resistant to quantum computers than is RSA.
I was a bit curious about that as well. I think they mean the PubMed archive, PubMed Central, not the PubMed index. Yes, confusing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
That doesn't even make sense.
You are allowed to submit your paper, which is to be published in an Elsevier journal, to a preprint server (axiv being the most famous of these), completely for free.
The only restriction is that you can't submit the Elsevier copyedited and formatted version. The version you formatted yourself is fine.