If you aren't then all your geek credentials will be revoked.
Some people have recommended a hinged rack that swings out.
I would suggest a rack on wheels. IMO using a rack is not
crucial. The only crucial thing is having easy access to all
the connections and all the equipment.
Right--because it's much better to supply digital media and buy every military
base expensive new digital projectors than it is to send them film that they
can use on existing equipment with no additional expense.
When I worked with the military 15 years ago they had digital projectors out
the wazoo. AFAIK, they did not have or use any 35 millimeter projectors.
You may find this hard to believe but the US military is very advanced
technically. They actually find it useful to use digital presentations to
communicate with the troops.
In order to even detect this effect you need at least two things:
The experiment needs to be repeated many times.
Alice and Bob must communicate with each other.
Suggesting that Victor do something different depending on whether
Alice and Bob detect correlated photons is nonsense because you can
only detect the correlation in the statistics of many trials. It
makes no sense to say a single event was correlated or uncorrelated.
If you could that this would be a form FTL communication which it's
not.
Like it or not, our intuition is based on classical mechanics.
Human brains are very good at sticking new information into
existing pigeon holes. Almost always, when someone is talking
about "understanding" entanglement experiments such as this
they mean creating a microscopic classic model in their heads
that would explain these results. It's been proven mathematical
that these classic models don't work.
One recurring problem is that many people (often, but not always
people have not learned quantum mechanics) intuitively believe
that there must be a classical model behind the results somehow.
This is similar to the belief that there is always a logical
explanation for a magician's trick. For the trick this intuition
is great but for quantum mechanics it is lousy. You have to
leave your classical intuition at the door when you enter the
world of quantum mechanics. Unfortunately some people start
with their erroneous classical intuition and then extrapolate
to all sorts of nonsense. Since they are starting from
a totally incorrect assumption, they are able to prove just
about anything but it is all nonsense.
It's just a correlation. There is no FLT anything here.
It is only FTL when you insist on the existence of an
underlying classical model and we know that all such
classical models are wrong.
Cyclos resonant clock mesh technology employs on-chip inductors to create an
electric pendulum, or "tank circuit", formed by the large capacitance of the
clock mesh in parallel with the Cyclos inductors. The Cyclos inductors and
clock control circuits "recycle" the clock power instead of dissipating it on
every clock cycle like in a clock tree implementation, which results in a
reduction in total IC power consumption of up to 10%.
Inductors save power because unlike most other circuit elements, inductors
are able to store energy in a magnetic field so it can be used later on.
This is part of how switching power supplies get their efficiency.
We can't stop copyright infringement with DRM; it's not theoretically possible;
it is theoretically impossible.
The entire point of DRM is that, eventually, the encoded bits become decoded,
and therefore are available for sniffing, at some point. That is true whether
or not the actual DRM scheme itself is broken, which has happened (so far as I
know) 100% of the times it has been attempted. If nothing else, then you can
simply record the signal produced by your display or your speakers.
Big content knows this. That is why they purchased the DMCA. They
know DRM doesn't work so they bought a law that makes breaking
DRM illegal.
His new product provides in-house cloud services. If you listen you
his talk you will understand why in-house clouds are very different
from virtualization. You can buy co-hosted virtualized servers.
They are different from cloud services. The same distinction exists
when these services are provided in-house.
Other than you, who said anything about a conspiracy?
The person he was responding to had said:
$40 billion a year is chump change compared to the money the Global Warming
industry will get if they manage to push their "tax all carbon/energy" treaties
and regulations.
They are looking at well over one TRILLION dollars annually.
The fictitious conspiracy was already labeled as the Global Warming
industry. The idea is that there is a group of people (the conspiracy)
who will make so much money from slowing down global warming
that they made up this whole global warming scam and have bribed or
duped thousands of scientists to risk their careers to fudge their
research so it supports the idea of AGW.
I guess you are correct after all. It is not a conspiracy, it
is a paranoid delusion. Thanks for the heads up.
But one of his biggest pieces of advice for students and anyone interested in recording now is not to join the loudness war.
"Record labels want their records to sound louder than everyone else's so they compress the s--t out of them," he says. "It's terribly sad and I hope you will support me in resisting this concept.
"If a song has dynamics and breathes then don't push it. If your record is quieter than someone else's then just turn it up with the volume knob!"
There are two kinds of cryptography in this world: cryptography that
will stop your kid sister reading your files, and cryptography that
will stop major governments from reading your files. This book is
about the latter.
[...] The lesson here is that it is insufficient to protect ourselves
with laws; we need to protect ourselves with mathematics. Encryption
is too important to be left solely to the governments.
This book gives you the tools you need to protect your own privacy;
cryptography products may be declared illegal, but the information
will never be.
I fear that Bruce Schneier was being too optimistic although in
another part of the book he asks in passing what would happen to
civil liberties in the US if there was a major terrorist attack
in New York City. The 2nd edition was copyrighted in 1996. It
is still a great book IMO.
I don't think Pons and Fleischmann were fraudsters. In fact they don't deserve the derision they still suffer today. They saw and reported the results. Part of science is being wrong yet these guys were lynched for it.
I agree they were not knowingly trying to deceive people. OTOH this is not what they were criticised for (link):
On May 1, 1989, the American Physical Society held a session on cold fusion in
Baltimore, including many reports of experiments that failed to produce
evidence of cold fusion. At the end of the session, eight of the nine leading
speakers stated that they considered the initial Fleischmann and Pons claim
dead with the ninth, Johann Rafelski, abstaining. Steven E. Koonin of Caltech
called the Utah report a result of "the incompetence and delusion of Pons and
Fleischmann" which was met with a standing ovation.
When you think about it, science is mainly a set of techniques and methods to
avoid self-delusion about your own results. The human tendency towards
self-dulusion is vast. A beautiful example of this is Albrecht Durer's
attempt to use a
geometrical construction to form an ellipse. His own bias
bled through the mechanical straight-edge and compass construction
so his end result was lopsided and incorrect. This is the type
of mistake science tries to weed out. IMO Pons and Fleischmann
made a similar mistake. It is often dreadfully hard not to.
Hell, if NASA is looking into it, no matter how down low they try to keep it,
unless you feel NASA employees cranks and nuts, then there is evidently enough
there to keep them poking and prodding it.
You have to be very careful with this line of reasoning. The
potential payoff from commercially viable cold fusion is almost
too large to calculate. This huge payoff means it is worthwhile
to investigate claims even if the chance of those claims panning
out is extremely small. There are some measurements that are
hard to explain by any known theory. These measurements are
also extremely hard to reproduce. Even if these measurements
are eventually explained by some sort of nuclear reaction, it
seems unlikely that it can be made into a commercially viable
energy source. Experimentalists are usually very good at
tracking down and enhancing an effect even before the theorists
can explain it. This effect has remained elusive. I'm not
saying this means we should stop all research in this area
but I am saying that it would be smart to keep your expectations
of revolutionary results very low.
Here is the example Robert Love gave in the thread I linked to:
do A if (error) goto out_a; do B if (error) goto out_b; do C if (error) goto out_c; goto out; out_c: undo C out_b: undo B: out_a: undo A out: return ret;
As far as AST's assertion that Linux is "spaghetti" code, no no no, look at the
code for yourself. The components in Linux are very well separated. Linux keeps
them separated by coding discipline rather than by some technical enforcement
(like different address spaces), but this discipline is kept up very well.
Here is a link to a good
example of of such discipline. It contains excerpts from a discussion
on the lkml over the use of "goto" in Linux kernel code. The kernel
devs have found a situation where the judicious use of "goto" makes the
code cleaner, clearer, and easier to maintain. The wisdom of this use
is challenged by someone who dogmatically believes that all goto statements
are evil. It is quite amusing (and a little sad).
Re:I like gvim, except...
on
Vim Turns 20
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps the difference in our views is due to the fact that I've
actually worked in experimental physics so I know how easy it is
to make a mistake despite the best efforts of dozens of people.
You seem to feel that the authors have placed too much confidence
in the theory. From my perspective, the problem is that you've
placed too much confidence in the experimental result. You
compound the error by claiming that all the people who disagrees
with you are biased, even the authors of the paper and 99% of the
physics community.
Despite the authors' caution and caveats, the media still went
into an uproar over this. It would have been much worse if they
had followed the extremely unwise path you propose to meet your
criterion of being "unbiased".
So even though they literally, by scientific standard, discovered FTL
particles, they explicitly state that they don't actually think they
did because it disagrees with existing theories. This is *biased*
experimental physics.
Bullshit.
If there is a bias here it is a bias towards reality and away from
hubris and blind self-importance. Read the paper. There's over
100 authors. This was a very big and very complicated experiment,
measuring things right on the edge of what is measurable. It is
possible the results of the experiment are correct but the
odds are overwhelmingly in favor of there being some subtle
systematic mistake in the experiment. The experimentalists know
this. Very few (if any) physicists believe there was no mistake in
the experiment yet even with the caveat the GP quoted, the media went
nuts over this.
Dark matter always seemed like a convenient hand wave, [...]
It might well seem that way, but I don't think it really
is. In fact, it would be kind of strange if there was no dark
matter because that would mean everything in the Universe glows.
When you think about it a bit, you realize there's got to be a
least some dark matter so the only question is: how much
is there?
ISTM the dark matter hypothesis is completely reasonable. If
anything, it is more humble than arrogant because it's not
assuming that the only things that exist are the things we can
directly see. Sure, there would have to be a lot of it in order
for it to be the primary cause of the effects it explains, but
that too is totally reasonable. It is far less reasonable to
assume that almost everything in the Universe emits substantial
amounts of electromagnetic radiation.
Given the evidence we have so far, I think the dark matter
hypothesis is by far the most reasonable explanation. That
doesn't mean it is right, but it is certainly not a convenient
hand wave or a cop out.
I guess this means it was a shrewd move on Google's part.
S&P helped cause the financial crash by rating sub-prime
mortgages as AAA. After S&P downgraded US treasury bills
people flocked to them as the safest investment in troubled
times.
You're tanking in the polls. The Republicans hate you because you are
not a Republican. The Tea Party hates you because you are not white
enough. The progressives hate you because you've betrayed all of your
campaign promises to them. The whole country hates you because
the economy is tanking due to your collusion with the Republicans
to transfer even more wealth to the corporate elite.
If you want any hope of re-election we have to throw the progressives
a bone. You have got to make it look like you are fighting
against your corporate sponsors without actually causing them any damage.
I've got it! ISP rates have barely dropped in 15 years yet
the bandwidth they provide hasn't increased at all. Surely
Moore's Law has dropped some of their costs substantially.
Let's pretend to stand up for consumer rights by forcing our
telco sponsors to make small increases in the bandwidth they
provide. That won't cost the telcos a dime, yet it should
make us look like we're anti-corporate.
Meanwhile, the Courts are continuing to defer to the expertise of the patent
office, and are EXTREMELY "reluctant" to void patents.
The problem isn't reluctance but rather the current legal standard for
invalidating a patent. Once a patent is granted it requires "clear and
convincing" evidence to invalidate it.
The courts create the current legal standard. The US Supreme Court has
dealt with several high profile patent cases in the past year. They
have had ample opportunity to rectify this abominable situation if
they were so inclined. In fact, this exact issue was before the
court in i4i v. Microsoft. They chose to pass the buck to
Congress, saying it was the responsibility of Congress to fix the mess
that was created by the court system. IMO the Supreme Court is just
as bad and corrupt as the other four** branches of government.
Slashdot Mirror
If you aren't then all your geek credentials will be revoked.
Some people have recommended a hinged rack that swings out. I would suggest a rack on wheels. IMO using a rack is not crucial. The only crucial thing is having easy access to all the connections and all the equipment.
Right--because it's much better to supply digital media and buy every military base expensive new digital projectors than it is to send them film that they can use on existing equipment with no additional expense.
When I worked with the military 15 years ago they had digital projectors out the wazoo. AFAIK, they did not have or use any 35 millimeter projectors. You may find this hard to believe but the US military is very advanced technically. They actually find it useful to use digital presentations to communicate with the troops.
In order to even detect this effect you need at least two things:
Suggesting that Victor do something different depending on whether Alice and Bob detect correlated photons is nonsense because you can only detect the correlation in the statistics of many trials. It makes no sense to say a single event was correlated or uncorrelated. If you could that this would be a form FTL communication which it's not.
Like it or not, our intuition is based on classical mechanics. Human brains are very good at sticking new information into existing pigeon holes. Almost always, when someone is talking about "understanding" entanglement experiments such as this they mean creating a microscopic classic model in their heads that would explain these results. It's been proven mathematical that these classic models don't work.
One recurring problem is that many people (often, but not always people have not learned quantum mechanics) intuitively believe that there must be a classical model behind the results somehow. This is similar to the belief that there is always a logical explanation for a magician's trick. For the trick this intuition is great but for quantum mechanics it is lousy. You have to leave your classical intuition at the door when you enter the world of quantum mechanics. Unfortunately some people start with their erroneous classical intuition and then extrapolate to all sorts of nonsense. Since they are starting from a totally incorrect assumption, they are able to prove just about anything but it is all nonsense.
It's just a correlation. There is no FLT anything here. It is only FTL when you insist on the existence of an underlying classical model and we know that all such classical models are wrong.
Why, down and not across, of course.
link
Cyclos resonant clock mesh technology employs on-chip inductors to create an electric pendulum, or "tank circuit", formed by the large capacitance of the clock mesh in parallel with the Cyclos inductors. The Cyclos inductors and clock control circuits "recycle" the clock power instead of dissipating it on every clock cycle like in a clock tree implementation, which results in a reduction in total IC power consumption of up to 10%.
Inductors save power because unlike most other circuit elements, inductors are able to store energy in a magnetic field so it can be used later on. This is part of how switching power supplies get their efficiency.
We can't stop copyright infringement with DRM; it's not theoretically possible; it is theoretically impossible.
The entire point of DRM is that, eventually, the encoded bits become decoded, and therefore are available for sniffing, at some point. That is true whether or not the actual DRM scheme itself is broken, which has happened (so far as I know) 100% of the times it has been attempted. If nothing else, then you can simply record the signal produced by your display or your speakers.
Big content knows this. That is why they purchased the DMCA. They know DRM doesn't work so they bought a law that makes breaking DRM illegal.
[...] what makes a cloud and virtualization different is the provider, cloud is 3rd party: amazon, etc...
Marten Mickos (CEO of MySQL for 7 years) disagrees with you: Keynote at Cloud Expo Europe - Clouds Are All About APIs..
His new product provides in-house cloud services. If you listen you his talk you will understand why in-house clouds are very different from virtualization. You can buy co-hosted virtualized servers. They are different from cloud services. The same distinction exists when these services are provided in-house.
Other than you, who said anything about a conspiracy?
The person he was responding to had said:
$40 billion a year is chump change compared to the money the Global Warming industry will get if they manage to push their "tax all carbon/energy" treaties and regulations. They are looking at well over one TRILLION dollars annually.
The fictitious conspiracy was already labeled as the Global Warming industry. The idea is that there is a group of people (the conspiracy) who will make so much money from slowing down global warming that they made up this whole global warming scam and have bribed or duped thousands of scientists to risk their careers to fudge their research so it supports the idea of AGW.
I guess you are correct after all. It is not a conspiracy, it is a paranoid delusion. Thanks for the heads up.
The loudnesswar has killed virtually anything on a digital medium, [...] give us back the -12dB, then complain about our rooms.
Alan Parsons Shares Lessons Learned During Legendary Career (from 4 years ago):
But one of his biggest pieces of advice for students and anyone interested in recording now is not to join the loudness war.
"Record labels want their records to sound louder than everyone else's so they compress the s--t out of them," he says. "It's terribly sad and I hope you will support me in resisting this concept.
"If a song has dynamics and breathes then don't push it. If your record is quieter than someone else's then just turn it up with the volume knob!"
Preface
There are two kinds of cryptography in this world: cryptography that will stop your kid sister reading your files, and cryptography that will stop major governments from reading your files. This book is about the latter.
[...] The lesson here is that it is insufficient to protect ourselves with laws; we need to protect ourselves with mathematics. Encryption is too important to be left solely to the governments.
This book gives you the tools you need to protect your own privacy; cryptography products may be declared illegal, but the information will never be.
I fear that Bruce Schneier was being too optimistic although in another part of the book he asks in passing what would happen to civil liberties in the US if there was a major terrorist attack in New York City. The 2nd edition was copyrighted in 1996. It is still a great book IMO.
I don't think Pons and Fleischmann were fraudsters. In fact they don't deserve the derision they still suffer today. They saw and reported the results. Part of science is being wrong yet these guys were lynched for it.
I agree they were not knowingly trying to deceive people. OTOH this is not what they were criticised for (link):
On May 1, 1989, the American Physical Society held a session on cold fusion in Baltimore, including many reports of experiments that failed to produce evidence of cold fusion. At the end of the session, eight of the nine leading speakers stated that they considered the initial Fleischmann and Pons claim dead with the ninth, Johann Rafelski, abstaining. Steven E. Koonin of Caltech called the Utah report a result of "the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann" which was met with a standing ovation.
When you think about it, science is mainly a set of techniques and methods to avoid self-delusion about your own results. The human tendency towards self-dulusion is vast. A beautiful example of this is Albrecht Durer's attempt to use a geometrical construction to form an ellipse. His own bias bled through the mechanical straight-edge and compass construction so his end result was lopsided and incorrect. This is the type of mistake science tries to weed out. IMO Pons and Fleischmann made a similar mistake. It is often dreadfully hard not to.
Hell, if NASA is looking into it, no matter how down low they try to keep it, unless you feel NASA employees cranks and nuts, then there is evidently enough there to keep them poking and prodding it.
You have to be very careful with this line of reasoning. The potential payoff from commercially viable cold fusion is almost too large to calculate. This huge payoff means it is worthwhile to investigate claims even if the chance of those claims panning out is extremely small. There are some measurements that are hard to explain by any known theory. These measurements are also extremely hard to reproduce. Even if these measurements are eventually explained by some sort of nuclear reaction, it seems unlikely that it can be made into a commercially viable energy source. Experimentalists are usually very good at tracking down and enhancing an effect even before the theorists can explain it. This effect has remained elusive. I'm not saying this means we should stop all research in this area but I am saying that it would be smart to keep your expectations of revolutionary results very low.
Virgin moderator apparently.
Those virgins can be so unruly. They need moderation.
Here is the example Robert Love gave in the thread I linked to:
do A
if (error)
goto out_a;
do B
if (error)
goto out_b;
do C
if (error)
goto out_c;
goto out;
out_c:
undo C
out_b:
undo B:
out_a:
undo A
out:
return ret;
As with the passive voice, the rule on GOTO is "avoid," not "never use."
Yes, exactly. Which is why that thread is both amusing and sad.
As far as AST's assertion that Linux is "spaghetti" code, no no no, look at the code for yourself. The components in Linux are very well separated. Linux keeps them separated by coding discipline rather than by some technical enforcement (like different address spaces), but this discipline is kept up very well.
Here is a link to a good example of of such discipline. It contains excerpts from a discussion on the lkml over the use of "goto" in Linux kernel code. The kernel devs have found a situation where the judicious use of "goto" makes the code cleaner, clearer, and easier to maintain. The wisdom of this use is challenged by someone who dogmatically believes that all goto statements are evil. It is quite amusing (and a little sad).
alias vi="vim -v -c 'syntax off'"
Perhaps the difference in our views is due to the fact that I've actually worked in experimental physics so I know how easy it is to make a mistake despite the best efforts of dozens of people.
You seem to feel that the authors have placed too much confidence in the theory. From my perspective, the problem is that you've placed too much confidence in the experimental result. You compound the error by claiming that all the people who disagrees with you are biased, even the authors of the paper and 99% of the physics community.
Despite the authors' caution and caveats, the media still went into an uproar over this. It would have been much worse if they had followed the extremely unwise path you propose to meet your criterion of being "unbiased".
So even though they literally, by scientific standard, discovered FTL particles, they explicitly state that they don't actually think they did because it disagrees with existing theories. This is *biased* experimental physics.
Bullshit.
If there is a bias here it is a bias towards reality and away from hubris and blind self-importance. Read the paper. There's over 100 authors. This was a very big and very complicated experiment, measuring things right on the edge of what is measurable. It is possible the results of the experiment are correct but the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of there being some subtle systematic mistake in the experiment. The experimentalists know this. Very few (if any) physicists believe there was no mistake in the experiment yet even with the caveat the GP quoted, the media went nuts over this.
Perhaps xkcd said it best.
Dark matter always seemed like a convenient hand wave, [...]
It might well seem that way, but I don't think it really is. In fact, it would be kind of strange if there was no dark matter because that would mean everything in the Universe glows. When you think about it a bit, you realize there's got to be a least some dark matter so the only question is: how much is there?
ISTM the dark matter hypothesis is completely reasonable. If anything, it is more humble than arrogant because it's not assuming that the only things that exist are the things we can directly see. Sure, there would have to be a lot of it in order for it to be the primary cause of the effects it explains, but that too is totally reasonable. It is far less reasonable to assume that almost everything in the Universe emits substantial amounts of electromagnetic radiation.
Given the evidence we have so far, I think the dark matter hypothesis is by far the most reasonable explanation. That doesn't mean it is right, but it is certainly not a convenient hand wave or a cop out.
I guess this means it was a shrewd move on Google's part. S&P helped cause the financial crash by rating sub-prime mortgages as AAA. After S&P downgraded US treasury bills people flocked to them as the safest investment in troubled times.
You're tanking in the polls. The Republicans hate you because you are not a Republican. The Tea Party hates you because you are not white enough. The progressives hate you because you've betrayed all of your campaign promises to them. The whole country hates you because the economy is tanking due to your collusion with the Republicans to transfer even more wealth to the corporate elite.
If you want any hope of re-election we have to throw the progressives a bone. You have got to make it look like you are fighting against your corporate sponsors without actually causing them any damage.
I've got it! ISP rates have barely dropped in 15 years yet the bandwidth they provide hasn't increased at all. Surely Moore's Law has dropped some of their costs substantially. Let's pretend to stand up for consumer rights by forcing our telco sponsors to make small increases in the bandwidth they provide. That won't cost the telcos a dime, yet it should make us look like we're anti-corporate.
Make it so.
Meanwhile, the Courts are continuing to defer to the expertise of the patent office, and are EXTREMELY "reluctant" to void patents.
The problem isn't reluctance but rather the current legal standard for invalidating a patent. Once a patent is granted it requires "clear and convincing" evidence to invalidate it.
The courts create the current legal standard. The US Supreme Court has dealt with several high profile patent cases in the past year. They have had ample opportunity to rectify this abominable situation if they were so inclined. In fact, this exact issue was before the court in i4i v. Microsoft. They chose to pass the buck to Congress, saying it was the responsibility of Congress to fix the mess that was created by the court system. IMO the Supreme Court is just as bad and corrupt as the other four** branches of government.
**See Fourth Estate.