I think the authors are in part responsible for the manufacturer's response. Words like "charlatanry" doesn't really belong in a scientific paper.
If the authors simply published their findings, that these machines do not work better compared to random guessing, and let the results stand for themselves, then regardless of how much the manufacturer disliked and disagreed with the researchers' findings, he would have had no grounds for a libel suit (and the journal/publisher would have seen that right away).
Scientists shouldn't let their moral judgment and scientific work mix.
It's far larger. In a C2D E8600 the physical die containing both cores is 107mm squared. Even the whole chip package is way smaller.
So, for the physical die is about 1 cm on a side, and as a rough estimate, each core is about 0.5 cm on a side. And how many times does the "wire" have to go around in that chip to make a complete circuit?
10 cm is, on the order of magnitude (i.e. within a factor of 10, or probably even 5), how long the signal path is in a single core.
I don't know if you've actually used credit cards or not, but your description makes these SUICA cards actually more dangerous than carrying credit cards.
At least in U.S., and especially with companies like AmericanExpress, which have records of siding with the customer in case of disputes, carrying and using a credit card is safer by orders of magnitude compared to a debit card.
If the debit card has $20 in it and you lose it, you do lose $20. If you lose your credit card, you just report it and under most terms of service, you are not responsible for a single dime charged while the card was not in your possession (presumably it's up to the merchants to ensure that the person using the card is the authorized user).
As far as personal information goes, the same deal with credit cards. They have your information on the card, such as the card number and your real name, but that's as far as it goes. They actually have to contact the credit card company to get any more information, and any company willing to release your information without further verification is a company not worth your business.
The bad thing about RFID chip is that I won't know when the information (which can be used for fraudulent transactions, much like information off any cash cards) is stolen off of the card, so I can't report it to the credit card company---so it takes longer to clear up any incidents.
OP is probably right - 3GHz is probably about the practical limit of what CPUs can run at for everyday use. Speeds higher than that so far seem to increase heat too much to be useful for most applications.
Even if heating were not a factor (i.e. if you could build most efficient cooling system suitable for every day use), those pesky laws of physics, such as speed of light limit comes into play. Even at 3 GHz, light travels only 10 cm in one cycle, and that's not too much larger than physical size of a single core. One could probably shrink those by some factor, but not much more than factor of 10; then you have to start worrying about the size of atoms (which is one of the reasons why they are building multi-core CPUs in the first place, I think.)
Some of them (i.e. AmEx) come with an RFID chip which lets you just wave the card, rather than swiping it through a reader.
I personally put a nail through the chip on my AmEx card and wouldn't carry a cell phone that doubled as a payment methods, unless somehow it could be assured that no one but the intended reader could get the info off of these devices (through encryption and challenge-response, maybe, but that seems unlikely to happen...).
But KDE4 was an alpha release. 4.1 was a beta release. Surrounding projects have done no better -- Amarok currently will not transcode automatically from flac to aac for ipods; it insists on mp3. This is a bug; it used to work.
As annoying as the regression may be, if it's that important to you, why not switch to an earlier version, at least while Amarok 2 gets settled in?
For all the bad things free software projects may do, they have yet to commit the cardinal sin of Microsoft and other proprietary vendors: making previous versions of their products unavailable regardless of how crappy their current versions are and how many customers want the old version.
"Taking" is a legal term that describes the government taking *material* property from some people. Read the Fifth amendment. Spying on people has nothing to do with "takings" (although once the civil suits by EFF and such were filed, one could make argument that the FISA bill constituted a taking).
Income taxes are definitely in the gray area or borderline---a lot of people felt that the federal government had no such power when they started doing that, but, well, taxes in U.S. are definitely lower than that of any of the "liberal" countries in Europe.
I won't deny that US government has done a lot of bad things (at least to my libertarian sensibilities), but among the thieves that are governments of the world, US is the most "moral" of them all, and US is the single country most committed to individual liberties (at least of its own citizens).
But, I am not a "believer." Now that the opposing party is in charge (just like the GOP was for all those years) it's going to be hard for them to put away all those neat new toys that Bush & Co. left behind. This is because it's hard for the party on top to admit that a power or capability is too dangerous to use (dangerous as in potentially or outright abusive of Constitutional rights.)
If you really believed that the government should have less power, you would have split your ticket: i.e. vote for Democratic representative and Republican president, or vice versa.
And given that the congress and the senate was going to end up strongly Democratic given the mood of the country, a Republican president would have been a nice counter-balance---and really, who has more power to screw you up, a charismatic president with the backing of his party, or someone who barely won (McCain victory was never going to be huge) and has to battle the Congress for everything?
If you were not a believer you were a chump for voting for Obama. You couldn't follow simple logic and see which candidate would have been the best choice for ensuring our freedom from government encroachment, regardless of the candidates' stated or hidden intentions.
IIRC, the only case involving copyrights where sovereign immunity was invoked was the specific sections of DMCA forbidding by-passing technological measures (and really, this case was where an *employee* of the government put those measures in place in the first place).
UK government is decidedly more authoritarian and I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to steal from their people, but as far as U.S. is concerned, we have such things as the Fifth Amendment that prohibits the government from taking private properties unjustly.
In germany we do have some experience with taxing energy. The problem is that you need to create lot of exceptions for the energy hungry industries (at least the lobbiests make you to do so).
Why not just tax/price industrial power differently from residential power?
To some degree, they are being priced differently as it is anyway.
The algorithm does not care one bit about which link is more elite, classy, or respected, only about it's relation to other pages on the web. The fact that Wikipedia comes up as the number one result simply illustrates just how popular it is. Ironically, if Jorge read Wikipedia, he might know that.
However, at least the very first version of PageRank would have placed Wikipedia, and all other wikis, at a higher ranking than it *really* deserved, because wikis tend to link back to themselves more often than other websites do. Just count how many links there are in a typical Wikipedia page.
I do hope Google has somehow optimized their algorithm to reduce the effect of self-referential links (and sometimes they will have to know whether two websites with completely different domains are still related to somehow), but if not, there is some sense in which Wikipedia does get higher ranking in cases when it's not entirely deserved.
There are some cases where you will need a third body (for example, if the two photons were not colliding head-on, then I'm pretty sure you can't balance energy conservation and momentum conservation equations simultaneously without a third body), but this isn't one of them.
I spoke too soon again. As long as you have two photons that will collide in some inertial frame, you can have pair production reaction, since it is possible to go to an inertial frame where they are colliding head-on with the same momentum (it's just a matter of whether they have enough energy, and head-on collision requires the least photon energy in the original frame). It's only the cases where you start out with one photon you will need another body to dump extra momentum into when producing electron-positron pair.
It's known where the attack originated from. No one wants to reveal *how* they know that, so it's left ambiguous.
I would think it's fairly obvious how they find where attack originated. You find the attacking IP (or the IP to which information is being sent), since as long as there is traffic it is not possible to hide it, and any given IP belongs in a geographical region (which happened to be China).
What wouldn't be obvious is whether this is, e.g. work of Russian hackers who had access to compromised machines in China. If they knew that, then there would be no doubt as to the perpetrators (I suppose we could go back to your supposition, but I think you are giving our government too much credit).
Pair production is a process where two or more photons come together, annihilate each other and produce an electron and a positron. In this case you start with two photons and end up with one lepton (electron) and one anti-lepton (positron).
As for needing a third body, I think I said it wrong. If you start out with two photons colliding head-on, you should be able to arrange it so that the initial total momentum is zero and when you produce electron-positron pair, they will fly out in opposite directions so that they have zero total momentum.
There are some cases where you will need a third body (for example, if the two photons were not colliding head-on, then I'm pretty sure you can't balance energy conservation and momentum conservation equations simultaneously without a third body), but this isn't one of them.
Not really. Dark fiber uses anti-photons to work....
Actually, photons are their own antiparticles (which is why photon number isn't conserved and you can have reactions like pair production, given that there is a third body to carry away extra momentum)
Wait, what? That's a wide net to throw. For instance, look at the transition from Washington to Adams. It was smooth as silk.
How does Washington to Adams even qualify as a "transition"? That's as much a transition as the "transition" from Reagan to Bush Sr. was, in every sense (Adams was Washington's vice president, for one).
The first transition of power ever in the U.S. was in 1800, also known as "Revolution of 1800".
Maybe casting this as the "smoothest transition ever" is a somewhat large claim to make, but compared to the liberal media claiming Cheney was the worst VP in history (never mind that there were a few before Cheney with actual criminal convictions) or Bush was the worst president in history, this is nothing but a fishing pole, not even a net.
You are describing the garden-variety LASER interferometry.
Ever since we have been able to cool atoms to nano-kelvin temperatures, allowing them to remain coherent long enough for atomic inteferometry to be performed, ATOM interferometry has been possible and that's what the paper is describing. (Actually, to be fair, atom or neutron interferometry has been possible long before that, but not as popular or versatile.)
All "interferometry" means is measuring something by combining two waves together and seeing whether they interfere constructively or destructively. Nothing says that the wave has to be light wave. It can be sound waves, earthquake waves, and, for those of us who aren't stuck in the 19th century (and early 20th century), matter waves.
Sarah Palin would have fixed that. I bet all her moose hunting videos are available as streaming ASCII art. Plus she can see ASCII-Russia (or RSCII-Russia, really) from her house. Ron Paul would have been better too, he'd have just given us all free Gold Bullion.
BTW, Sarah Palin's speeches at the Republican national convention *was* available as embedded YouTube video. From that, you should be able to use free software tools to extract the video and convert it to whichever format you prefer.
Obama is just doing what the Democrats have been doing since, oh, at least the Democratic national convention, where video was streamed with Silverlight, which means there was no way you could watch it using free software only. I guess this just proves that Obama is just another Democrat in bed with Microsoft.
This could, of course, go on forever, since we both seem to have our minds set on one side of the issue (and two libertarians are allowed to disagree on many specific topics).
I just want to note that allowing interracial marriage (I doubt this was a problem in even all of the U.S. as gay marriage is and was at one point) was far less change, if any, to marriage than specifically defining marriage to include same-sex couples.
Interracial marriage has existed ALL THE TIME, even in the Bible. A lot of notable marriages in the Bible are marriage between people of two different ethnicity. Racism is a rather absurd phenomenon that arose in the modern times with the rise of western empires—and as fads come, fads go as well.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, is unheard of in all recorded history. Joining two men (or two women) in a state-recognized union is a change significant enough that people who feel that such extension of the word "marriage" makes the word itself meaningless have, at least, a justifiable reason. It's like if Canadians and Mexicans or Brazilians went around calling themselves "American". Some citizens of United States will feel that's not right, and as much as one could argue that Brazilians have as much title to word "American", common sense says the word "American" should be reserved for people whom that word has traditionally referred to.
In any case, this will be my last response on this thread. You can have the final word on Slashdot if you wish, but if you want to make a point to which you expect a reply, please send me an email instead.
Every country has McDonald's, a biological warfare arm of the U.S. military. No marines needed—we can get them with high cholesterol, wherever they are.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the authors are in part responsible for the manufacturer's response. Words like "charlatanry" doesn't really belong in a scientific paper.
If the authors simply published their findings, that these machines do not work better compared to random guessing, and let the results stand for themselves, then regardless of how much the manufacturer disliked and disagreed with the researchers' findings, he would have had no grounds for a libel suit (and the journal/publisher would have seen that right away).
Scientists shouldn't let their moral judgment and scientific work mix.
And people buy Windows when it doesn't come with a new PC?
It's far larger. In a C2D E8600 the physical die containing both cores is 107mm squared. Even the whole chip package is way smaller.
So, for the physical die is about 1 cm on a side, and as a rough estimate, each core is about 0.5 cm on a side. And how many times does the "wire" have to go around in that chip to make a complete circuit?
10 cm is, on the order of magnitude (i.e. within a factor of 10, or probably even 5), how long the signal path is in a single core.
I don't know if you've actually used credit cards or not, but your description makes these SUICA cards actually more dangerous than carrying credit cards.
At least in U.S., and especially with companies like AmericanExpress, which have records of siding with the customer in case of disputes, carrying and using a credit card is safer by orders of magnitude compared to a debit card.
If the debit card has $20 in it and you lose it, you do lose $20. If you lose your credit card, you just report it and under most terms of service, you are not responsible for a single dime charged while the card was not in your possession (presumably it's up to the merchants to ensure that the person using the card is the authorized user).
As far as personal information goes, the same deal with credit cards. They have your information on the card, such as the card number and your real name, but that's as far as it goes. They actually have to contact the credit card company to get any more information, and any company willing to release your information without further verification is a company not worth your business.
The bad thing about RFID chip is that I won't know when the information (which can be used for fraudulent transactions, much like information off any cash cards) is stolen off of the card, so I can't report it to the credit card company---so it takes longer to clear up any incidents.
What makes you think I carry a cell phone? At least one that's powered on with a battery in it when it's on "standby"?
OP is probably right - 3GHz is probably about the practical limit of what CPUs can run at for everyday use. Speeds higher than that so far seem to increase heat too much to be useful for most applications.
Even if heating were not a factor (i.e. if you could build most efficient cooling system suitable for every day use), those pesky laws of physics, such as speed of light limit comes into play. Even at 3 GHz, light travels only 10 cm in one cycle, and that's not too much larger than physical size of a single core. One could probably shrink those by some factor, but not much more than factor of 10; then you have to start worrying about the size of atoms (which is one of the reasons why they are building multi-core CPUs in the first place, I think.)
Some of them (i.e. AmEx) come with an RFID chip which lets you just wave the card, rather than swiping it through a reader.
I personally put a nail through the chip on my AmEx card and wouldn't carry a cell phone that doubled as a payment methods, unless somehow it could be assured that no one but the intended reader could get the info off of these devices (through encryption and challenge-response, maybe, but that seems unlikely to happen ...).
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Why, the guardians themselves!
Or, if we can't trust them enough, we can always tell them a noble lie.
But KDE4 was an alpha release. 4.1 was a beta release. Surrounding projects have done no better -- Amarok currently will not transcode automatically from flac to aac for ipods; it insists on mp3. This is a bug; it used to work.
As annoying as the regression may be, if it's that important to you, why not switch to an earlier version, at least while Amarok 2 gets settled in?
For all the bad things free software projects may do, they have yet to commit the cardinal sin of Microsoft and other proprietary vendors: making previous versions of their products unavailable regardless of how crappy their current versions are and how many customers want the old version.
To be honest, I did vote for a Republican representative...mostly because the Democratic incumbent had voted for telecom immunity.
The same bill that Obama voted for (and actually rallied Democrat support for)? Boy, are you consistent in your logic.
FYI, McCain did not vote for that bill (of course, it's not like that mattered).
"Taking" is a legal term that describes the government taking *material* property from some people. Read the Fifth amendment. Spying on people has nothing to do with "takings" (although once the civil suits by EFF and such were filed, one could make argument that the FISA bill constituted a taking).
Income taxes are definitely in the gray area or borderline---a lot of people felt that the federal government had no such power when they started doing that, but, well, taxes in U.S. are definitely lower than that of any of the "liberal" countries in Europe.
I won't deny that US government has done a lot of bad things (at least to my libertarian sensibilities), but among the thieves that are governments of the world, US is the most "moral" of them all, and US is the single country most committed to individual liberties (at least of its own citizens).
But, I am not a "believer." Now that the opposing party is in charge (just like the GOP was for all those years) it's going to be hard for them to put away all those neat new toys that Bush & Co. left behind. This is because it's hard for the party on top to admit that a power or capability is too dangerous to use (dangerous as in potentially or outright abusive of Constitutional rights.)
If you really believed that the government should have less power, you would have split your ticket: i.e. vote for Democratic representative and Republican president, or vice versa.
And given that the congress and the senate was going to end up strongly Democratic given the mood of the country, a Republican president would have been a nice counter-balance---and really, who has more power to screw you up, a charismatic president with the backing of his party, or someone who barely won (McCain victory was never going to be huge) and has to battle the Congress for everything?
If you were not a believer you were a chump for voting for Obama. You couldn't follow simple logic and see which candidate would have been the best choice for ensuring our freedom from government encroachment, regardless of the candidates' stated or hidden intentions.
Our govt is immune from copyright and patent infringement
I believe that the government has agreed to be sued for copyright and patent infringement.
IIRC, the only case involving copyrights where sovereign immunity was invoked was the specific sections of DMCA forbidding by-passing technological measures (and really, this case was where an *employee* of the government put those measures in place in the first place).
UK government is decidedly more authoritarian and I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to steal from their people, but as far as U.S. is concerned, we have such things as the Fifth Amendment that prohibits the government from taking private properties unjustly.
In germany we do have some experience with taxing energy.
The problem is that you need to create lot of exceptions for the energy hungry industries (at least the lobbiests make you to do so).
Why not just tax/price industrial power differently from residential power?
To some degree, they are being priced differently as it is anyway.
The algorithm does not care one bit about which link is more elite, classy, or respected, only about it's relation to other pages on the web. The fact that Wikipedia comes up as the number one result simply illustrates just how popular it is. Ironically, if Jorge read Wikipedia, he might know that.
However, at least the very first version of PageRank would have placed Wikipedia, and all other wikis, at a higher ranking than it *really* deserved, because wikis tend to link back to themselves more often than other websites do. Just count how many links there are in a typical Wikipedia page.
I do hope Google has somehow optimized their algorithm to reduce the effect of self-referential links (and sometimes they will have to know whether two websites with completely different domains are still related to somehow), but if not, there is some sense in which Wikipedia does get higher ranking in cases when it's not entirely deserved.
... that UNIX systems were the first to learn how to protect against worms as a result.
Interesting.
Do you know when they became self-aware and launched biological viruses after (or was it before) learning to protect against man-made worms?
There are some cases where you will need a third body (for example, if the two photons were not colliding head-on, then I'm pretty sure you can't balance energy conservation and momentum conservation equations simultaneously without a third body), but this isn't one of them.
I spoke too soon again. As long as you have two photons that will collide in some inertial frame, you can have pair production reaction, since it is possible to go to an inertial frame where they are colliding head-on with the same momentum (it's just a matter of whether they have enough energy, and head-on collision requires the least photon energy in the original frame). It's only the cases where you start out with one photon you will need another body to dump extra momentum into when producing electron-positron pair.
It's known where the attack originated from. No one wants to reveal *how* they know that, so it's left ambiguous.
I would think it's fairly obvious how they find where attack originated. You find the attacking IP (or the IP to which information is being sent), since as long as there is traffic it is not possible to hide it, and any given IP belongs in a geographical region (which happened to be China).
What wouldn't be obvious is whether this is, e.g. work of Russian hackers who had access to compromised machines in China. If they knew that, then there would be no doubt as to the perpetrators (I suppose we could go back to your supposition, but I think you are giving our government too much credit).
Pair production is a process where two or more photons come together, annihilate each other and produce an electron and a positron. In this case you start with two photons and end up with one lepton (electron) and one anti-lepton (positron).
As for needing a third body, I think I said it wrong. If you start out with two photons colliding head-on, you should be able to arrange it so that the initial total momentum is zero and when you produce electron-positron pair, they will fly out in opposite directions so that they have zero total momentum.
There are some cases where you will need a third body (for example, if the two photons were not colliding head-on, then I'm pretty sure you can't balance energy conservation and momentum conservation equations simultaneously without a third body), but this isn't one of them.
Not really. Dark fiber uses anti-photons to work. ...
Actually, photons are their own antiparticles (which is why photon number isn't conserved and you can have reactions like pair production, given that there is a third body to carry away extra momentum)
Wait, what? That's a wide net to throw. For instance, look at the transition from Washington to Adams. It was smooth as silk.
How does Washington to Adams even qualify as a "transition"? That's as much a transition as the "transition" from Reagan to Bush Sr. was, in every sense (Adams was Washington's vice president, for one).
The first transition of power ever in the U.S. was in 1800, also known as "Revolution of 1800".
Maybe casting this as the "smoothest transition ever" is a somewhat large claim to make, but compared to the liberal media claiming Cheney was the worst VP in history (never mind that there were a few before Cheney with actual criminal convictions) or Bush was the worst president in history, this is nothing but a fishing pole, not even a net.
You are describing the garden-variety LASER interferometry.
Ever since we have been able to cool atoms to nano-kelvin temperatures, allowing them to remain coherent long enough for atomic inteferometry to be performed, ATOM interferometry has been possible and that's what the paper is describing. (Actually, to be fair, atom or neutron interferometry has been possible long before that, but not as popular or versatile.)
All "interferometry" means is measuring something by combining two waves together and seeing whether they interfere constructively or destructively. Nothing says that the wave has to be light wave. It can be sound waves, earthquake waves, and, for those of us who aren't stuck in the 19th century (and early 20th century), matter waves.
Sarah Palin would have fixed that. I bet all her moose hunting videos are available as streaming ASCII art. Plus she can see ASCII-Russia (or RSCII-Russia, really) from her house. Ron Paul would have been better too, he'd have just given us all free Gold Bullion.
BTW, Sarah Palin's speeches at the Republican national convention *was* available as embedded YouTube video. From that, you should be able to use free software tools to extract the video and convert it to whichever format you prefer.
Obama is just doing what the Democrats have been doing since, oh, at least the Democratic national convention, where video was streamed with Silverlight, which means there was no way you could watch it using free software only. I guess this just proves that Obama is just another Democrat in bed with Microsoft.
This could, of course, go on forever, since we both seem to have our minds set on one side of the issue (and two libertarians are allowed to disagree on many specific topics).
I just want to note that allowing interracial marriage (I doubt this was a problem in even all of the U.S. as gay marriage is and was at one point) was far less change, if any, to marriage than specifically defining marriage to include same-sex couples.
Interracial marriage has existed ALL THE TIME, even in the Bible. A lot of notable marriages in the Bible are marriage between people of two different ethnicity. Racism is a rather absurd phenomenon that arose in the modern times with the rise of western empires—and as fads come, fads go as well.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, is unheard of in all recorded history. Joining two men (or two women) in a state-recognized union is a change significant enough that people who feel that such extension of the word "marriage" makes the word itself meaningless have, at least, a justifiable reason. It's like if Canadians and Mexicans or Brazilians went around calling themselves "American". Some citizens of United States will feel that's not right, and as much as one could argue that Brazilians have as much title to word "American", common sense says the word "American" should be reserved for people whom that word has traditionally referred to.
In any case, this will be my last response on this thread. You can have the final word on Slashdot if you wish, but if you want to make a point to which you expect a reply, please send me an email instead.
Every country has McDonald's, a biological warfare arm of the U.S. military. No marines needed—we can get them with high cholesterol, wherever they are.