You are a bit off i'm afraid: technology can only be a solution if applied correctly. Which means first thinking about what problem you are going to solve. Yes is know it sounds pretty basic, but be amazed (be very amazed) at how often this simply isn't done. Of course you should apply technology to achieve some measure of security. The schneierism appropriate is then that technology doesn't magically make your computer more secure: you also have to think about how the security itself is protected: a root password is not secure if tattoed on forehead (or just written down somewhere).
Yes i completely agree.
This is just as America was at the height of its righteous campaign to clear all them commies from its civilians, and then started a space program....
Erm
Decisions made in one part of decision space are not necasserily of influence on those made in others.....
is probably not legal. Like somebody else pointed out, fishing information out of trashbins is legal.
Actually, try it once with the trash of your neigbours and be surprised at what you can find out about them...
Hey there even was a paper a few days ago by Renate that they can even perform the sum over topologies in three lorentzian dimensions if i'm not mistaken.
hands down:
I even read a science fiction story with a theme about attaining nuclear fusion in a controlled reactor. There was a subscriptum stating that although the story was fiction, the fusion bit was only a mere 10 years away. This story was written in the 60's .
As another replier also mentioned, loop quantum gravity is nota theory of everything. It is an attempt to do quantum gravity, that is the quantum version of the generally accepted of general relativity. Now at this point I should warn you that i am a string theorist, so loop quantum gravity is not my thing, but:
Loop quantum gravity has never been proven to predict the same things as ordinary general relativity to my knowledge. That is, the limit in which loop quantum gravity should reduce to general relativity is (in four dimensions) calculationally not under (analytic) control (read: some handwaiving is involved). That said, there is no fundamental reason loop quantum gravity shouldn't work....
While we are on the subject, there is one other way of doing 'quantum gravity' apart from loop quantum gravity and string theory: that is canonical quantum gravity. Here the philosophy is that the reason we cannot make sense of quantum gravity up to now is that we simply haven't found the right way to calculate (read 'regularize' for those in the know).One way of dealing with this problem is to brute force the problem: put it on a computer. This seems to work just fine (in three dimensions).
Just as with any other post on/. on groundbreaking physics there should be a reference to John Baez' index for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics. I wonder how much points this guy is going to score.
in order to be really cutting edge:
A friend in the DESY collaboration just told me they had run into a problem in understanding some of the background in the signal they used to (also) claim they had seen the pentaquark.....
As for the other bit of news: dark matter is just one of many different modles which could explain the Gran Sasso data, alas no mediagenic scientific breakthrough there.
Slashdot Mirror
I am simply looking at my trusty 'ol ultra sparc 5 with renewed confidence: my university is not the only one who still uses 'm!
deconstruct deconstructing this might be taken as a constructive step :)
You are a bit off i'm afraid: technology can only be a solution if applied correctly. Which means first thinking about what problem you are going to solve. Yes is know it sounds pretty basic, but be amazed (be very amazed) at how often this simply isn't done. Of course you should apply technology to achieve some measure of security. The schneierism appropriate is then that technology doesn't magically make your computer more secure: you also have to think about how the security itself is protected: a root password is not secure if tattoed on forehead (or just written down somewhere).
Think of terms of problems, not solutions
Yes i completely agree.
This is just as America was at the height of its righteous campaign to clear all them commies from its civilians, and then started a space program....
Erm
Decisions made in one part of decision space are not necasserily of influence on those made in others.....
is probably not legal. Like somebody else pointed out, fishing information out of trashbins is legal. Actually, try it once with the trash of your neigbours and be surprised at what you can find out about them...
Hey there even was a paper a few days ago by Renate that they can even perform the sum over topologies in three lorentzian dimensions if i'm not mistaken.
hands down: I even read a science fiction story with a theme about attaining nuclear fusion in a controlled reactor. There was a subscriptum stating that although the story was fiction, the fusion bit was only a mere 10 years away. This story was written in the 60's .
Nuclear fusion: always ten years away...
As another replier also mentioned, loop quantum gravity is nota theory of everything. It is an attempt to do quantum gravity, that is the quantum version of the generally accepted of general relativity. Now at this point I should warn you that i am a string theorist, so loop quantum gravity is not my thing, but:
Loop quantum gravity has never been proven to predict the same things as ordinary general relativity to my knowledge. That is, the limit in which loop quantum gravity should reduce to general relativity is (in four dimensions) calculationally not under (analytic) control (read: some handwaiving is involved). That said, there is no fundamental reason loop quantum gravity shouldn't work....
While we are on the subject, there is one other way of doing 'quantum gravity' apart from loop quantum gravity and string theory: that is canonical quantum gravity. Here the philosophy is that the reason we cannot make sense of quantum gravity up to now is that we simply haven't found the right way to calculate (read 'regularize' for those in the know).One way of dealing with this problem is to brute force the problem: put it on a computer. This seems to work just fine (in three dimensions).
String theory: To Infinity And Beyond!
since his/her comments generally reflect mine which is by most people taken as a sign a comment is valid :)
and I wouldn't go as far as to say 'five years'
wow. this will really put a dent in sco's operations.
give these guys a chance
oh wait
as anything which slows down spam can only be a good thing.
e.g. total annihilation of the world population would also slow down spam.
neutron bombs. you know you want one.
hey this is easy! October price: the leviathan number!
that read 'Writing with Elvis fonts?' This font starts out small, but will grow during use :)
Just as with any other post on /. on groundbreaking physics there should be a reference to John Baez' index for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics. I wonder how much points this guy is going to score.
in order to be really cutting edge: A friend in the DESY collaboration just told me they had run into a problem in understanding some of the background in the signal they used to (also) claim they had seen the pentaquark..... As for the other bit of news: dark matter is just one of many different modles which could explain the Gran Sasso data, alas no mediagenic scientific breakthrough there.
ye olde 1 tesla magnet