There are few issues relevant for a President or Senator that have fundamentally changed since the PC boom, and a PC has virtually no relevance for his day-to-day activities. Of course things like net neutrality are the exception, but in the grand scheme of things, an issue like that is quite small.
The Bakken Formation alone has well over 100 billion barrels of oil (with only a fraction of that recoverable with current technology). The US uses about 7.5 billion barrels a year.
The point being we are not anywhere near running out of oil, especially if you include the hard to get stuff.
No, that's what's supposed to happen in mob rule. Some of us believe in fundamental limitations on government power and regulations in order to protect our freedom. And yes, I would consider the ability to sell a phone with certain additional requirements part of freedom, just as I would consider the ability to sell a phone without those strings attached part of freedom also.
Double-slit-type interference has been observed with buckyball, and some biological molecule that is larger or on the same scale as buckyball, but the name of this molecule escapes me at the moment...
And then John Bell showed such a test was possible, and then the experiments were done. If this experiment is done, no (serious, mainstream) scientist will be surprised by the results. These sorts of experiments are just done to verify what we essentially already know to be true. However this experiment is really cool (has some global quantum key distribution stuff in it if you read the proposal), and of course the question isn't always what the results will be if it's done, but if it can be done at all.
What sane OS vendor would lock out 90% of its potential customers by not running their primary application ? One that would have such market domination that it could get away with it.
Nonsense. Quantum encryption, when properly implemented, cannot be cracked. Period. If you have a perfectly good and fast quantum computer, you still could not crack quantum encryption. RSA can be broken using Shor's algorithm, but that is O(log(n)^3), not O(n). And if you don't have a quantum computer lying around, then it's a lot worse than that.
Parent shouldn't be modded informative, just about everything he said was wrong.
How do you send a photon from one computer to another a long distance away without using repeaters or branches? You don't. You just use branches and repeaters! It sounds counter-intuitive, but you can do something called entanglement swapping to send the quantum state from Alice to Bob through Charlie, without Charlie changing (or even being able to detect) the state Alice sent.
Also you can control/change the path of the photon using electro-optical controls without changing it's state (or at least without changing the part of the state that carries the information), though this would likely be more difficult/expensive to implement on a wide scale.
This statement appears to imply that you are getting a free phone without any contract or obligation to the company that gave you the phone. I don't believe that. It sounds more likely that these contracts exist in at least some parts of Europe. Is this the case? Or is there a company that gives away free technology worth hundreds of dollars?
Fight the bastards when they try to impinge on your privacy and your liberty. Question authority. Do so politely. Then let the judges kick them in the tender parts. That's their job. Do it again, repeat until you're free, because today, you're not. Is that how you have had us respond to Pearl Harbor? Arrest the people who bombed us? Treating terrorists as criminals has been tried, and has failed miserably.
It's not the same situation as holding your breath. When holding your breath, the air in your lungs starts out with a lot of oxygen, which continues to be absorbed by the lungs. In a vacuum, their is no oxygen in your lungs, so your blood loses oxygen to the vacuum as it approaches equilibrium.
The super-rich folk created the wealth for themselves that didn't exist before, they aren't "hogging" anything. And do you really see it as "poverty being pushed elsewhere"? How extraordinarily blind you are to progress when it is clearly evident. Millions of people are climbing out of desperate poverty, and you see it as them pushing their own poverty off on some other sucker.
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.
His point is that there is little difference between white people (of any party) refusing the vote for a black man and black people blindly voting for a black man. They are both making judgments solely on race.
You are completely and intentionally misrepresenting that case. Schmeiser "knowingly went on to collect the crossbred seed, then replant and harvest it the next year". It wasn't that he had a little Monsanto IP from accidental contamination, he was INTENTIONALLY cultivating crossbreed seed that he knew was crossbreed.
There's plenty of people smarter than me who have written large amounts on this question. I recently read a nice discussion of this in "Atlas Shrugged". Although it's a lot of pages to read in between the interesting parts, if you aren't interested in the larger story.
The reasoning that leads to the conclusion of certain absolutes (such as "there exists a right to life") is quite complicated, and I am likely unable to explain this reasoning in a/. post (if I am capable of a satisfactory explanation at all). However I do hold that these absolutes unequivocally exist, it is not "a societal thing".
Those rights (life and liberty) have always existed, and always will. Just because they were not always granted does not mean they didn't exist. They exist outside of a system set up by people (unlike health care).
How is someone able to take advantage of being more likely to carry a genetic disease? Let's say someone gets a genetic test saying there is a 99% chance they will get some disease in the next five years. Lets say the cost of top notch health care for this disease will cost $10 million over the life of the patient. The patient can then go and get coverage for this disease for some absurdly small amount compared to the cost of treatment. The insurance company is able to sell this coverage so cheaply because most people don't get the disease. If the only people that purchase coverage are now the same people that get it, the cost will skyrocket (or, more likely, coverage for this disease will not exist).
Being able to aquire medical care when in need is a basic human right. No it's not. How could something that's only been around for a few centuries be called a "basic human right"? Is Internet access also a "basic human right"?
Slashdot Mirror
There are few issues relevant for a President or Senator that have fundamentally changed since the PC boom, and a PC has virtually no relevance for his day-to-day activities. Of course things like net neutrality are the exception, but in the grand scheme of things, an issue like that is quite small.
Cool video, although it sounded like someone told him to say "not bubble sort" as a response to that question.
The Bakken Formation alone has well over 100 billion barrels of oil (with only a fraction of that recoverable with current technology). The US uses about 7.5 billion barrels a year.
The point being we are not anywhere near running out of oil, especially if you include the hard to get stuff.
How does a research area that is largely based on using cells from aborted babies not conflict with religion in any way, shape, or form?
No, that's what's supposed to happen in mob rule. Some of us believe in fundamental limitations on government power and regulations in order to protect our freedom. And yes, I would consider the ability to sell a phone with certain additional requirements part of freedom, just as I would consider the ability to sell a phone without those strings attached part of freedom also.
Double-slit-type interference has been observed with buckyball, and some biological molecule that is larger or on the same scale as buckyball, but the name of this molecule escapes me at the moment...
And then John Bell showed such a test was possible, and then the experiments were done. If this experiment is done, no (serious, mainstream) scientist will be surprised by the results. These sorts of experiments are just done to verify what we essentially already know to be true. However this experiment is really cool (has some global quantum key distribution stuff in it if you read the proposal), and of course the question isn't always what the results will be if it's done, but if it can be done at all.
That interaction with the electrons is still a weak interaction, not electromagnetic as you initially asserted.
Nonsense. Quantum encryption, when properly implemented, cannot be cracked. Period. If you have a perfectly good and fast quantum computer, you still could not crack quantum encryption. RSA can be broken using Shor's algorithm, but that is O(log(n)^3), not O(n). And if you don't have a quantum computer lying around, then it's a lot worse than that.
Parent shouldn't be modded informative, just about everything he said was wrong.
Also you can control/change the path of the photon using electro-optical controls without changing it's state (or at least without changing the part of the state that carries the information), though this would likely be more difficult/expensive to implement on a wide scale.
This statement appears to imply that you are getting a free phone without any contract or obligation to the company that gave you the phone. I don't believe that. It sounds more likely that these contracts exist in at least some parts of Europe. Is this the case? Or is there a company that gives away free technology worth hundreds of dollars?
That's a problem I actually have with optical quantum bits :)
It's not the same situation as holding your breath. When holding your breath, the air in your lungs starts out with a lot of oxygen, which continues to be absorbed by the lungs. In a vacuum, their is no oxygen in your lungs, so your blood loses oxygen to the vacuum as it approaches equilibrium.
I'm not talking about money. I'm talking about wealth.
If the "creation" of wealth is a concept borne out of ignorance, where did all of this wealth we have come from?
Pull your communist head out of your ass and take a look at history, you ignorant fool.
The super-rich folk created the wealth for themselves that didn't exist before, they aren't "hogging" anything. And do you really see it as "poverty being pushed elsewhere"? How extraordinarily blind you are to progress when it is clearly evident. Millions of people are climbing out of desperate poverty, and you see it as them pushing their own poverty off on some other sucker.
It is not a zero sum game.
...but is it the worse scenario among the two I've presented? As far as your average Marxist is concerned, yes it is."We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.
Link
His point is that there is little difference between white people (of any party) refusing the vote for a black man and black people blindly voting for a black man. They are both making judgments solely on race.
You are completely and intentionally misrepresenting that case. Schmeiser "knowingly went on to collect the crossbred seed, then replant and harvest it the next year". It wasn't that he had a little Monsanto IP from accidental contamination, he was INTENTIONALLY cultivating crossbreed seed that he knew was crossbreed.
There's plenty of people smarter than me who have written large amounts on this question. I recently read a nice discussion of this in "Atlas Shrugged". Although it's a lot of pages to read in between the interesting parts, if you aren't interested in the larger story.
The reasoning that leads to the conclusion of certain absolutes (such as "there exists a right to life") is quite complicated, and I am likely unable to explain this reasoning in a /. post (if I am capable of a satisfactory explanation at all). However I do hold that these absolutes unequivocally exist, it is not "a societal thing".
Those rights (life and liberty) have always existed, and always will. Just because they were not always granted does not mean they didn't exist. They exist outside of a system set up by people (unlike health care).