Below Teddington Lock it's the PLA who are the responsible Navigation Authority and they say: No speed limit.
Damn, that was stupid putting the PLA in charge. What, do they blow you up for speeding? Maybe have Arafat look at you all twitchy if you turn without signalling out there? Small wonder Britain has no amphibious cars.
Don't think DMCA applies here, does it?
on
Cracking GSM
·
· Score: 1
GSM is a published algorithm, is it not? As such, he wouldn't have to reverse-engineer anything. I don't believe the DMCA covers criticizing something that has an open spec. It's not his fault he's the only one who had the insight.
If I'm just hitting ebay, slashdot, and a few other news sites, then really, what's the point of broadband?
I don't have broadband at home because I'm a grad student and I have it free at work (ie, right now). However, when I do get on the old modem at home,it's excruciatingly and increasingly slow (and I have a solid 40+ kbps from the university "ISP"). Why? Because web pages these days are more and more bloated. It seems that the only people who still know how to design a web page are Google.
I don't want to sound like a curmudgeony old fart, but I recall when web page design etiquette meant that pages were kept under 25KB. These days, average pages bloat well into the hundreds of KB. What do you get for the extra? Occasionally excess graphics at higher resolutions than are required, and more likely a bunch of junk code in the html because someone coded in frontpage. Needless scripts too.
So that's what I think will ultimately drive broadband - when people get sick to death of 30 second load times at 56k.
Why don't you tell me how the hell I can use an Apple to get faster FP, smartguy. Does it optimize slashcode? Can it help me beat the subscribers? How does it get FP faster that the trollbot kiddies?
All I'm saying is that if I lay out 3 large for an Apple and I *still* fail it, I'm going to be pissed. On the other hand, if I start beating out those GNAA turds for frost pist, it'd be worth it.
This act is hardly going to help though. If you buy a CD that is labeled, and then it doesn't work, you're not going to be able to return it, because you were warned before you purchased!!!
Are you trolling, or on crack? If it's labeled, and you're literate, you wouldn't have bought it at all!
I really can't see anything positive coming out of this, people are going to be screwed (pay up because they can't afford the lawyer), the pblic won't care, and the RIAA will just gain more momentum.
I think they're trying for too much with $50k. DirecTV is doing it the smart and sleazy way - get $3000 out of each person and they don't fight it. Ask for $50k, and they'll pool resources and fight back. I dunno how it will shake, but if they try this they might have a group of defendents tangle with them.
Ah yes, pardon me. I momentarily forgot that slashdot is a bad place to mention anything religious
Well, aside from the "News for nerds...news that matters" bit that doesn't generally include religion, religion and science don't typically belong together because they are diametrically opposed, typically. Science deals with building theories from evidence, religion, for good or bad, deals with faith, not evidence. This was a discussion about science, to which you bring up a comment like "the universe should be understood intuitively." The onus is on you. If I brought up string theory in a discussion of religion, the burden would be mine.
That said, it doesn't even make sense from a religious standpoint, but actually does sound more like the kind of vacuous new-age enlightment teaching that suggested that one might get energy from crystals. Similarly, feel free to actually explain to me what "understanding the universe intuitively" means. Give me details, including how I might be able do do it. Are you talking about enlightment? Nirvana? Salvation? What? You claim this was a religious comment, yet you don't mention how. And which religion, by the way? You don't even mention that. Not to mention which, from your comment it doesn't sound like I'm the first to accuse you of bringing up unfounded, nebulous new-age-isms. Seems to me, where there's smoke, there's probably fire.
But no, slashdot isn't necessarily the wrong place to mention religion. Slashdot's the wrong place to bring up anything pro-microsoft or anti-linux or anti-mac, as I've learned the hard way. That said, there's not really a good place for making vague, nebulous feel-good statements, about religion or anything else, and a discussion of string theory is certainly not the place for it. Remember, it was your response to a discussion of quantum theory, so you have to expect someone to question you for making such a statement rather than accepting your position as gospel. If you can't back up what you say, don't blame the general community for questioning you. As I'm fairly tolerant, I'll indulge anyone's discussion, including yours, so long as it mentions something reasonably funny, insightful or informative...no offense (really!) but "understanding the universe intuitively" fails all three standards.
So again, if you'd like to explain what you meant, it might provoke an interesting discussion. On its own, however, your original comment neither answered any questions nor really provoked any, hence my response. I'm not dismissing anyone's views - you just need to bring more than that to the table.
As I said, I fully invite you to clarify. Your views aren't being dismissed, simply your previous comment, and there's a world of difference in the two.
Perhaps rather than knowing through science, God knows both position and momentum intuitively. I think that perhaps the only way to truly understand the universe is through intuition, and this intuition cannot be taught.
No offense, but that sounds like Tony Robbins. Understanding the universe through intuition? I might point out that intuition is based on prior experiences - no one lives in a vacuum. Bring's Plato's cave allegory to mind. The Greeks tried that "intuition" angle and determined that all matter is made of some combination of water, fire, earth, air. Didn't work so well.
I think what you said would go over really well in a new-age philosophy book, but when it comes to determining the position and momentum for an electron, simultaneously, it doesn't quite cut it.
Have you seen the article in the august Scientific American about black hole entropy?
Nah, I cancelled my subscription since it became next to a tabloid.
That said, at a singularity pretty much all known theories of anything break down. What's the uncertainty of momentum of a black hole? Zero. Uncertainty of position? Zero. So I think most people would agree that trying to rationalize any theory based upon it's actions at a black hole is an exercise in futility - *near* a black hole is a different story.
Well, to put it succinctly, someone mused that a burst of radiation on the surface of a universe is equivalent to the entropy of a black hole through a holographic transformation. So if we truly live in a 3D universe, then there is some 4 dimensional hypersurface out there that maps the entire 3D domain contained within it!
Bearing that in mind, one could say that this particular thing wouldn't violate uncertainty, as I can't get any more information with any greater certainty from that surface.
This isn't funky science. It's derived from Stephen Hawking's work on the entropy of black holes. I don't know whether it's right or not. But I'm saying that it kind of makes you think.
Well, Hawking's changed his mind on some very important positions a few times, like whether a black hole is a certainty. I don't find that to be a weakness, but it certainly makes this stuff less that certain.
You forget that this God idea is not based on science, and has a notion that God is omniscient. If the information exists, the omniscient beings have it.
I assumed the previous response was arguing from a scientific standpoint. The possibility of a real God in QM, as opposed to a metaphorical one, isn't worth discussing.
You can't win this God argument, it's like vi vs. emacs.
I come from Kentucky. You can't even not lose the God argument.
An all-knowing and all-powerful God would have no problem predicting the outcome of dice. They are physical objects governed by all the physical relationships that govern things like gravity, collisions and such.
And the point of QM is that such "relationships" fail miserably when subjected to small distances, energies, single particles, etc.
Random outcome of dice is just a concept to help us deal with extremely complicated situations.
Not necessarily. I'll assume you're not really familiar with all the implications of the uncertainty principle, but the problem is that it's actually impossible to gather the information required to make the predictions even if you had the correct parametric forms for all the phenomena. Case in point: what happens if I precisely determine the position and momentum of a particle (your die, if you will)? Well, for a very small particle, I have to use light with a very small wavelength to get sufficient accuracy with regard to position. Unfortunately, short wavelengt == very energetic, so that photon just knocked the crap out of our particle. I knew where it was before I disturbed the system, but I know knothing of it's momentum.
The concept here is that of conjugate (ie, non-simultaneously-knowable) variables. Position and momentum are a pair. Energy and time are another. Basically, the way to check is if the QM operators for two measurements are commutative. If they're not, you can't know the two properties to arbitrart precision.
So it's not just about computational power or inferior instruments. It's actually impossible to gain this information, no matter what.
He can't be versatile as long as the innovation is only feasible in the States. It won't be long but at least it's something.
Our universirty system allows us to pillage the intellectual capital of all these third-world nations. This is why they'll always be doing yesterday's technology - we stole all their best minds.
The other thing is that new, innovative companies won't start up overseas. R&D jobs don't go overseas. Hell, they don't even leave the US east and west coast, for the most part. Let's talk about tech jobs going overseas after they even hit the US midwest. If you're truly working on something high-tech, today's high-tech, you'll never have to worry about your job moving.
Ultimately, what xenophobes need to realize is that writing shitty code doesn't make anyone "high-tech." You're no more entitled to an inflater salary than the auto workers who saw their work moved overseas - if someone with no education can do your job cheaper, you don't deserve your job.
[Me, last post]"I've said it twelve times - I don't care who 'wins.'
I've admitted that Apple hasn't held the speed record. But yet you seem unwilling to believe/accept that they may hold it now.
Are you a troll or do you actually possess the world's worst reading comprehension? I've granted that Apple might win since my first freaking post. Do you have selective reading issues or something?
...to all the mods who gave me a "-1, Paranoid" every time I said that M$ would figure out a way to use the DMCA as a way to keep other companies from opening their files. I was riiiiiight!;)
(Related one-time-no-financial-interest-rant: How many hours of quality reading do you get in a week on Slashdot? Toss your five bucks into the hat already...)
Are negative values valid? Taco, I'll send you my paypal link later.
At least it sets some precident in this "case". The fine is measely interms of the FUD they are spreading, hopefully others will follow suit in the legal realm and take SCO to task.
Unfortunately, wrong country. You might get the PR angle in the US, but not the legal.
Is not it the whole point to benefit yourself?
If this is you call hypocrisy, then everone
should be a hypocrite.
If he had just said, "I oppose moving coding jobs to India because I'm a coder, but I favor moving textile jobs because I buy clothes," he would not be hypocritical, but simply self-serving. No problem there. But then he shouldn't whine about how unfair it is that coding jobs move overseas, and how domestic jobs should be inherently saved.
Every argument against shipping jobs overseas boils down to being racist, self-serving, hypocritical, or a combination of any of the three.
IMHO this is yet another example of how academic projects are judged by the amount of attention they attract, rather than on whether they advance the state of the art. This is the reason why people like Kevin Warrick [sundayherald.com] can stick a dog tag in their arm and go around claiming they are the world's first cyborg - all while being lavished with attention by the mainstream media.
Step 1: Invent retarted station based on an alphabet's soup of statistical techniques that have no relevance to anything
Step 2: Publish this crap wherever will accept the junk
Step 3: Pay Taco for a link on slashdot
Step 4: Put out press release of your shitty project
Step 5: Hope this helps your tenure outlook
Step 6: Cut workload down to 10 hours/week. This is pretty close to profit.
do a fine job looking out for other wealthy Republicans and millionaires (as is evidenced by the current state of the national economy, with an increasing concentration of wealth amongst those making over $300,000 a year and a vastly expanding sea of unemployed), they tend not to be overly concerned about the status of the other 98% of the population.
As far as this election goes, yes, white republicans bought the recall. But remember, Davis bought the election in the first place. He funded tons of anti-Riordan attack ads during the *primary,* and the semi-open republican primary was hit by independent-registered democrats. So that was not a real election in the first place, regardless of who won.
I don't think two wrongs necessarily make a right, but I don't see this recall as damaging a fair democratic process, as I don't consider that to have happened in the first place. Personally, I think Davis is such an ass I'd like to see him replaced by anyone at random. I'm looking at Dean myself.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn, that was stupid putting the PLA in charge. What, do they blow you up for speeding? Maybe have Arafat look at you all twitchy if you turn without signalling out there? Small wonder Britain has no amphibious cars.
GSM is a published algorithm, is it not? As such, he wouldn't have to reverse-engineer anything. I don't believe the DMCA covers criticizing something that has an open spec. It's not his fault he's the only one who had the insight.
;) Yeah, that's why he picked something from the "Master of Disguise" soundtrack, right?
I don't have broadband at home because I'm a grad student and I have it free at work (ie, right now). However, when I do get on the old modem at home,it's excruciatingly and increasingly slow (and I have a solid 40+ kbps from the university "ISP"). Why? Because web pages these days are more and more bloated. It seems that the only people who still know how to design a web page are Google.
I don't want to sound like a curmudgeony old fart, but I recall when web page design etiquette meant that pages were kept under 25KB. These days, average pages bloat well into the hundreds of KB. What do you get for the extra? Occasionally excess graphics at higher resolutions than are required, and more likely a bunch of junk code in the html because someone coded in frontpage. Needless scripts too.
So that's what I think will ultimately drive broadband - when people get sick to death of 30 second load times at 56k.
Suck on this, Hetfield.
All I'm saying is that if I lay out 3 large for an Apple and I *still* fail it, I'm going to be pissed. On the other hand, if I start beating out those GNAA turds for frost pist, it'd be worth it.
Are you trolling, or on crack? If it's labeled, and you're literate, you wouldn't have bought it at all!
I think they're trying for too much with $50k. DirecTV is doing it the smart and sleazy way - get $3000 out of each person and they don't fight it. Ask for $50k, and they'll pool resources and fight back. I dunno how it will shake, but if they try this they might have a group of defendents tangle with them.
...If any h4x0rz are watching, I certainly hope there is no DENIAL OF this website's SERVICE. ATTACK any bastards who try.
Kind of like your giflfriend? Oh, right, slashdot. Like your mom then.
The ones I put together look better than the one in the picture.
Ahhh, the joy of the plastic snatch.
What's the point of shelling out the big bucks for something that doesn't even look good?
Because the ugly ones give better head, Danielsan. And your mom gives the best.
Somehow I get the feeling I should have read the article...
Well, aside from the "News for nerds...news that matters" bit that doesn't generally include religion, religion and science don't typically belong together because they are diametrically opposed, typically. Science deals with building theories from evidence, religion, for good or bad, deals with faith, not evidence. This was a discussion about science, to which you bring up a comment like "the universe should be understood intuitively." The onus is on you. If I brought up string theory in a discussion of religion, the burden would be mine.
That said, it doesn't even make sense from a religious standpoint, but actually does sound more like the kind of vacuous new-age enlightment teaching that suggested that one might get energy from crystals. Similarly, feel free to actually explain to me what "understanding the universe intuitively" means. Give me details, including how I might be able do do it. Are you talking about enlightment? Nirvana? Salvation? What? You claim this was a religious comment, yet you don't mention how. And which religion, by the way? You don't even mention that. Not to mention which, from your comment it doesn't sound like I'm the first to accuse you of bringing up unfounded, nebulous new-age-isms. Seems to me, where there's smoke, there's probably fire.
But no, slashdot isn't necessarily the wrong place to mention religion. Slashdot's the wrong place to bring up anything pro-microsoft or anti-linux or anti-mac, as I've learned the hard way. That said, there's not really a good place for making vague, nebulous feel-good statements, about religion or anything else, and a discussion of string theory is certainly not the place for it. Remember, it was your response to a discussion of quantum theory, so you have to expect someone to question you for making such a statement rather than accepting your position as gospel. If you can't back up what you say, don't blame the general community for questioning you. As I'm fairly tolerant, I'll indulge anyone's discussion, including yours, so long as it mentions something reasonably funny, insightful or informative...no offense (really!) but "understanding the universe intuitively" fails all three standards.
So again, if you'd like to explain what you meant, it might provoke an interesting discussion. On its own, however, your original comment neither answered any questions nor really provoked any, hence my response. I'm not dismissing anyone's views - you just need to bring more than that to the table.
As I said, I fully invite you to clarify. Your views aren't being dismissed, simply your previous comment, and there's a world of difference in the two.
No offense, but that sounds like Tony Robbins. Understanding the universe through intuition? I might point out that intuition is based on prior experiences - no one lives in a vacuum. Bring's Plato's cave allegory to mind. The Greeks tried that "intuition" angle and determined that all matter is made of some combination of water, fire, earth, air. Didn't work so well.
I think what you said would go over really well in a new-age philosophy book, but when it comes to determining the position and momentum for an electron, simultaneously, it doesn't quite cut it.
Nah, I cancelled my subscription since it became next to a tabloid.
That said, at a singularity pretty much all known theories of anything break down. What's the uncertainty of momentum of a black hole? Zero. Uncertainty of position? Zero. So I think most people would agree that trying to rationalize any theory based upon it's actions at a black hole is an exercise in futility - *near* a black hole is a different story.
Well, to put it succinctly, someone mused that a burst of radiation on the surface of a universe is equivalent to the entropy of a black hole through a holographic transformation. So if we truly live in a 3D universe, then there is some 4 dimensional hypersurface out there that maps the entire 3D domain contained within it!
Bearing that in mind, one could say that this particular thing wouldn't violate uncertainty, as I can't get any more information with any greater certainty from that surface.
This isn't funky science. It's derived from Stephen Hawking's work on the entropy of black holes. I don't know whether it's right or not. But I'm saying that it kind of makes you think.
Well, Hawking's changed his mind on some very important positions a few times, like whether a black hole is a certainty. I don't find that to be a weakness, but it certainly makes this stuff less that certain.
I assumed the previous response was arguing from a scientific standpoint. The possibility of a real God in QM, as opposed to a metaphorical one, isn't worth discussing.
You can't win this God argument, it's like vi vs. emacs.
I come from Kentucky. You can't even not lose the God argument.
And the point of QM is that such "relationships" fail miserably when subjected to small distances, energies, single particles, etc.
Random outcome of dice is just a concept to help us deal with extremely complicated situations.
Not necessarily. I'll assume you're not really familiar with all the implications of the uncertainty principle, but the problem is that it's actually impossible to gather the information required to make the predictions even if you had the correct parametric forms for all the phenomena. Case in point: what happens if I precisely determine the position and momentum of a particle (your die, if you will)? Well, for a very small particle, I have to use light with a very small wavelength to get sufficient accuracy with regard to position. Unfortunately, short wavelengt == very energetic, so that photon just knocked the crap out of our particle. I knew where it was before I disturbed the system, but I know knothing of it's momentum.
The concept here is that of conjugate (ie, non-simultaneously-knowable) variables. Position and momentum are a pair. Energy and time are another. Basically, the way to check is if the QM operators for two measurements are commutative. If they're not, you can't know the two properties to arbitrart precision.
So it's not just about computational power or inferior instruments. It's actually impossible to gain this information, no matter what.
Come on, the odds are just better for perfect play, sometimes over 100%. And we all know the Lord is a perfect player.
Our universirty system allows us to pillage the intellectual capital of all these third-world nations. This is why they'll always be doing yesterday's technology - we stole all their best minds.
The other thing is that new, innovative companies won't start up overseas. R&D jobs don't go overseas. Hell, they don't even leave the US east and west coast, for the most part. Let's talk about tech jobs going overseas after they even hit the US midwest. If you're truly working on something high-tech, today's high-tech, you'll never have to worry about your job moving.
Ultimately, what xenophobes need to realize is that writing shitty code doesn't make anyone "high-tech." You're no more entitled to an inflater salary than the auto workers who saw their work moved overseas - if someone with no education can do your job cheaper, you don't deserve your job.
I've admitted that Apple hasn't held the speed record. But yet you seem unwilling to believe/accept that they may hold it now.
Are you a troll or do you actually possess the world's worst reading comprehension? I've granted that Apple might win since my first freaking post. Do you have selective reading issues or something?
You like granny-pr0n too, huh? Like taggin' the experienced shit?
...to all the mods who gave me a "-1, Paranoid" every time I said that M$ would figure out a way to use the DMCA as a way to keep other companies from opening their files. I was riiiiiight! ;)
Are negative values valid? Taco, I'll send you my paypal link later.
Unfortunately, wrong country. You might get the PR angle in the US, but not the legal.
If he had just said, "I oppose moving coding jobs to India because I'm a coder, but I favor moving textile jobs because I buy clothes," he would not be hypocritical, but simply self-serving. No problem there. But then he shouldn't whine about how unfair it is that coding jobs move overseas, and how domestic jobs should be inherently saved.
Every argument against shipping jobs overseas boils down to being racist, self-serving, hypocritical, or a combination of any of the three.
Step 1: Invent retarted station based on an alphabet's soup of statistical techniques that have no relevance to anything
Step 2: Publish this crap wherever will accept the junk
Step 3: Pay Taco for a link on slashdot
Step 4: Put out press release of your shitty project
Step 5: Hope this helps your tenure outlook
Step 6: Cut workload down to 10 hours/week. This is pretty close to profit.
As far as this election goes, yes, white republicans bought the recall. But remember, Davis bought the election in the first place. He funded tons of anti-Riordan attack ads during the *primary,* and the semi-open republican primary was hit by independent-registered democrats. So that was not a real election in the first place, regardless of who won.
I don't think two wrongs necessarily make a right, but I don't see this recall as damaging a fair democratic process, as I don't consider that to have happened in the first place. Personally, I think Davis is such an ass I'd like to see him replaced by anyone at random. I'm looking at Dean myself.