The name is "trusted middlemen", and anybody claiming it is an attack is doing yellow journalism.
It is true that the more people you have to trust, the worse off you are. It is also true that trusting a corporation can be quite worse than trusting an individual (but then, it can be quite better in other points of views). It is also true that trusting corporations that already showed that they don't deserve any trust is even worse. But equating it to a man-in-the-middle attack is a lie. Plain and simply, a lie.
Most people with a lack of belif in God don't get out of their way to claim they are atheist, and don't go indoctrinating other people. The people that go in that kind of activities have a clear belif in the inexistence of God, what is a belif system just like any religion.
We name both groups the same way, what makes communication quite of hard...
For some reason lots of those people are needing the help of governments to keep their business...
But anyway, I wasn't implying they don't know how to run their companies. I was saying that they'll adopt the best tool out there. FreeOffice just have to be the best tool (for a time, and consistently), and the important companies will use it (or stop being important).
We know how to use quantum computers to solve several problems in a much better way we know how to solve them on a clasical computer. But nobody has ever proved that there is no algorithm that olves those problems in a way that is as good as we can do with a quantum computer with a classical computer.
So, nobody knows if P = QP (quantum polynomial) or if QP = NP. The solution isn't as easy as you imply. There are plenty of people betting that if we found that QP = NP, that also means that P = NP (but nobody knows that either).
If entanglement breaks by exchanging particles with the suroundings (if you call that an "observation" - notice that this definition does have some problems), then the probability of no particle being emmited* from your assemble increases exponentialy with its size. Thus, entanglement will last for exponentialy less time, or you'll need an exponentialy lower temperature.
Error correction somewhat breaks that, but it also includes other problems that may put that exponential there again.
* The probability of no particle being absorbed by your assemble will increase just linearly with the size, thus you can ignore it here.
The math doesn't show that we can scale them. But it doesn't show we can't scale either.
To be fair, the math for that is so huge, and in comse circunstances becomes such a convoluted mess, that it could be screaming anything, we wouldn't understand.
You can be sure the TC adherents do take that into account.
I couldn't find how much energy a QC must use for calculations (tipicaly factoring) in a given time at the web (I'm lacking on either patience or Google-fu), but it does increaselinearly with the number of bits, and linearly with the clock cycle. Thus there is a n that for n or more bits a QC will beat a classical computer.
The probability of the correct result is not only a daily concern, it is an input on any QC algorithm. You won't find an algorithm published without quantifying the "epsilon".
They are not a scam, except for their marketing personal. They have a computer that doesn't hold classical information, but isn't a (q?)digital quantum computer either. They anounced that "feat" by claimming that they created a quantum computer.
Calling it is a quantum computer isn't completely untrue (not less than calling the one on your desk a quantum computer), and it is able to solve some kinds of problems in a way that is different from what a normal computer does. The machine may be usefull for somebody...
About nobody knowing if it is in fact bettter than a normal computer, well, nobody knows if real quantum computers are either. Also, nobody knows if P != NP, what is a related question.
Those corporations who have money will have quite a poor future if they don't stop using inapropriate software, and deploy something that let their people be productive, and their data be secure.
Maybe they'll even stop being corporations who have money. That is, if the government doesn't interfere.
Outlook is a bad email client, and Exchange is, well, bad lacks enphasis to express it, email server. So, if you are really complaining about the lack of a email client/server go look at an alternative (just one, any one, it will be better than Outlook/Exchange. Tried Pine lately?).
But you may be complaining about the lack of the other functionality that Outlook and Exchange provide, that big companies love with some reason. Well, I don't know anything that provides that and is cross plataform. There are some good stuff for Linux, but Windows software is way behind.
UTF-8 would have a negligible impact on file size, and I really doubt ISO8859 is enough for anybody, since everybody gets texts in foreign languages once in a while. And who is concerned with the size of text files nowadays?
Anyway, ISO8859 weren't the only encodings with widespread use before Unicode.
You know that this is the exact situation that Unicode AVOIDED, doesn't you?
Now we have one standard with 3 different representation. Those replaced literaly thousands of standards. Yep, sometimes doing that new standard works.
Unfortunately, for trees ever work for carbon capture they'd have to be converted into something that is trashed, or at least stored for a huge amount of time. Otherwise, the carbon will just go into the athmosphere again.
So people, remember, next time you have a desire of recycling paper, contain yourself. And next time you go to the market, ask for your plastic bags. Let's help save the planet.
Google has started to agree to censor what people can see overseas
Started to agree by doing what? By putting different pages for US and overseas people so that they can comply with absurd US demands while keeping an ancensored version for everybody also?
Ehh, they are putting those blogs out of the.com TLD... You can guess what region's censorship they are protecting against. Yes, it is sinister, all those laws proposing censorship at the place where TLDs are kept are sinister.
Anyway, that move will PROTECT the readers of the free countries from the censorship of less free countries. There is nothing Google can do about countries censoring their people, but they just don't need to take the content away from everybody. Thus, they create country specific censorship rules.
Nice answer. But if they were doing that because of China, theyd have acted earlier. By the way, they already closed their Chinese subsidiary, thus Google isn't subject to China's law anymore.
The fact that they started doing that just after SOPA and PIPA threatened to become laws just passed over your head...
Slashdot Mirror
The name is "trusted middlemen", and anybody claiming it is an attack is doing yellow journalism.
It is true that the more people you have to trust, the worse off you are. It is also true that trusting a corporation can be quite worse than trusting an individual (but then, it can be quite better in other points of views). It is also true that trusting corporations that already showed that they don't deserve any trust is even worse. But equating it to a man-in-the-middle attack is a lie. Plain and simply, a lie.
Well, ridiculing people is fair game. Indoctrination is the one that is wrong :)
Is it a lack of belif, or a belif in the lack?
Most people with a lack of belif in God don't get out of their way to claim they are atheist, and don't go indoctrinating other people. The people that go in that kind of activities have a clear belif in the inexistence of God, what is a belif system just like any religion.
We name both groups the same way, what makes communication quite of hard...
They travel very far. But bandwidth sucks.
Sorry s/FreeOffice/LibreOffice/
For some reason lots of those people are needing the help of governments to keep their business...
But anyway, I wasn't implying they don't know how to run their companies. I was saying that they'll adopt the best tool out there. FreeOffice just have to be the best tool (for a time, and consistently), and the important companies will use it (or stop being important).
We know how to use quantum computers to solve several problems in a much better way we know how to solve them on a clasical computer. But nobody has ever proved that there is no algorithm that olves those problems in a way that is as good as we can do with a quantum computer with a classical computer.
So, nobody knows if P = QP (quantum polynomial) or if QP = NP. The solution isn't as easy as you imply. There are plenty of people betting that if we found that QP = NP, that also means that P = NP (but nobody knows that either).
If entanglement breaks by exchanging particles with the suroundings (if you call that an "observation" - notice that this definition does have some problems), then the probability of no particle being emmited* from your assemble increases exponentialy with its size. Thus, entanglement will last for exponentialy less time, or you'll need an exponentialy lower temperature.
Error correction somewhat breaks that, but it also includes other problems that may put that exponential there again.
* The probability of no particle being absorbed by your assemble will increase just linearly with the size, thus you can ignore it here.
You get $50.000 on average.
In only one try you can get either $100.000 or $0, but you'll only know wich after you send him a proof.
Not that we know about.
The math doesn't show that we can scale them. But it doesn't show we can't scale either.
To be fair, the math for that is so huge, and in comse circunstances becomes such a convoluted mess, that it could be screaming anything, we wouldn't understand.
You can be sure the TC adherents do take that into account.
I couldn't find how much energy a QC must use for calculations (tipicaly factoring) in a given time at the web (I'm lacking on either patience or Google-fu), but it does increaselinearly with the number of bits, and linearly with the clock cycle. Thus there is a n that for n or more bits a QC will beat a classical computer.
The probability of the correct result is not only a daily concern, it is an input on any QC algorithm. You won't find an algorithm published without quantifying the "epsilon".
They are not a scam, except for their marketing personal. They have a computer that doesn't hold classical information, but isn't a (q?)digital quantum computer either. They anounced that "feat" by claimming that they created a quantum computer.
Calling it is a quantum computer isn't completely untrue (not less than calling the one on your desk a quantum computer), and it is able to solve some kinds of problems in a way that is different from what a normal computer does. The machine may be usefull for somebody...
About nobody knowing if it is in fact bettter than a normal computer, well, nobody knows if real quantum computers are either. Also, nobody knows if P != NP, what is a related question.
Thanks, I wouldn't have even downloaded the paper without that information.
Those corporations who have money will have quite a poor future if they don't stop using inapropriate software, and deploy something that let their people be productive, and their data be secure.
Maybe they'll even stop being corporations who have money. That is, if the government doesn't interfere.
Outlook is a bad email client, and Exchange is, well, bad lacks enphasis to express it, email server. So, if you are really complaining about the lack of a email client/server go look at an alternative (just one, any one, it will be better than Outlook/Exchange. Tried Pine lately?).
But you may be complaining about the lack of the other functionality that Outlook and Exchange provide, that big companies love with some reason. Well, I don't know anything that provides that and is cross plataform. There are some good stuff for Linux, but Windows software is way behind.
UTF-8 would have a negligible impact on file size, and I really doubt ISO8859 is enough for anybody, since everybody gets texts in foreign languages once in a while. And who is concerned with the size of text files nowadays?
Anyway, ISO8859 weren't the only encodings with widespread use before Unicode.
You know that this is the exact situation that Unicode AVOIDED, doesn't you?
Now we have one standard with 3 different representation. Those replaced literaly thousands of standards. Yep, sometimes doing that new standard works.
Hey, so it is the /.'s web server that doesn't do encoding right? I always tought it was the GCI code.
WTF are they using to serve those pages?
Then remember that until just a few years ago all you had was the last link. You couldn't by then know enough to feel depressed.
Unfortunately, for trees ever work for carbon capture they'd have to be converted into something that is trashed, or at least stored for a huge amount of time. Otherwise, the carbon will just go into the athmosphere again.
So people, remember, next time you have a desire of recycling paper, contain yourself. And next time you go to the market, ask for your plastic bags. Let's help save the planet.
Started to agree by doing what? By putting different pages for US and overseas people so that they can comply with absurd US demands while keeping an ancensored version for everybody also?
Ehh, they are putting those blogs out of the .com TLD... You can guess what region's censorship they are protecting against. Yes, it is sinister, all those laws proposing censorship at the place where TLDs are kept are sinister.
Anyway, that move will PROTECT the readers of the free countries from the censorship of less free countries. There is nothing Google can do about countries censoring their people, but they just don't need to take the content away from everybody. Thus, they create country specific censorship rules.
Is it so hard to discover? They are doing it to follow the local laws of the local where the TLDs are kept.
What other reason would they have to stop using .com?
Nice answer. But if they were doing that because of China, theyd have acted earlier. By the way, they already closed their Chinese subsidiary, thus Google isn't subject to China's law anymore.
The fact that they started doing that just after SOPA and PIPA threatened to become laws just passed over your head...