The difference is they traded the speed for range. It's 1000-fold slower than zigbee (0.1 kb/s) but with a bigger range. They say they can cover whole France or California (including unhabited areas) with only 1000 antennas, thus cheaply creating a global network. With zigbee, you can really do only a local network and still need a local relay to internet. So, Zigbee allows you to make a fast, fee-less, local sensor network. While this is a global network with yearly fee designed for low-bandwidth sensors.
fyi, 123456 was the wrong code. Problem was entering the wrong code triggered an alert in the system and noone knew where it originated from or what it meant. The contractors in charge of this thus shut the system down for 48h, while they were investigating on it, in fear of a hacker having broke in.
What is amazingly hilarious is the time it took them to understand what happened and who did it, and the disproportionated importance given to a rather innocuous alert.
Hydrogen can be stored in many ways. Oil being one of it actually : from the fuel point of view, oil molecule is a bunch of carbon atoms storing many hydrogen atoms safely and ready to be used. You can either replicate a similar storage, using chemical bonds to trap hydrogen inside a molecule (it takes energy but you can reach very high density), or trap the H2 molecule itself inside nano-structures (with a density of the same order than compressed H2). It can be used for both fuel cell and combustion engine.
I know some teams in french league B are using this kind of software (but not that sophisticated I think).
So I guess a lot, if not all, of the world cup teams are using these softwares. In 1998 already, scientists from CNRS (a public lab) had programmed some for the french team and they were not the only team to have such a computer help.
Now, the way players on the field are able to dynamically adapt their tactics collectively is much more important imho. This thing is just a little plus.
Redundancy code is something perfectly mastered today. In fact, interplanetary communication drove the technology to where it is now (and is one of the factor leading to the last increases of hard disk bit density).
The modern algorithms are able to automatically update the Signal+RedundancyCode output depending of the signal/noise ratio to obtain an optimal transmission rate. Thus "increasing the bandwith" means "increasing the S/N ratio", since this is today the only limitation. So the whole point of this new technology is about increasing the S/N.
You cannot send as information the fact you observed or not the particle. At the moment you observe one of the linked particle, you get the exact value, randomly chosen from an undeterminate superposition of all possible values. But the other particle of the pair still is in the undeterminate superposition state. Except when you will observe this second particle the value won't be randomly chosen : it will be the same value than the first one.
The fact to chose the value is an information and thus travel at the speed of light. The random selection of the value is not. Since it is random, you cannot sneak any information within.
To sum it up : this is the fact that properties values are selected with a TRUE and perfect randomness that explains such experiments (and found the quantum theory). There is no secret knowledge (that is unknown properties) that could predict the future (at the particle level that is).
In fact, the spin stay the same from any perspective. I.e. the particle is "spinning" exactly the same way whatever the angle you look at it : you watch it from the top, from the left, from behind, you always see it spinning clockwise, a bit like if it turns to face you. It's call the "spin" because its property _looks_ like it was spinning, but the particle doesn't really move or turn. Actually, a particle doesn't have a form, it isn't a sphere. Form is like temperature : temperature being the average speed of individual atoms inside a set of atoms, temperature only exist at a macro level, that is for a large set of atom. For a single atom, temperature doesn't exist. It's the same for form, thus for "spinning". Those are called _emergent_ properties (i.e. properties of a whole that cannot be predicted from properties of the parts), and they are meaningless for particles.
In the case of this weird instant remote "action", the two linked particles are in fact a _single_ entity. There is no sending of information since the two are only one "thing" : the two don't have the same property, the particle pair have a property. Indeed, for the same reason particles doesn't have a form, their _identity_ is not what you may think. If two particles have exactly the same property, they, err, _it_, is the same particle.
And, since it is a property of the pair, you cannot choose it, thus sending information, the particle pair just has it. Of course you can select particle pairs with the property you want before sending them apart, but then they have to travel at the speed of light, no instant communication is possible. And whatever you do by acting on one won't do anything to the other, they just share the same property.
Thus, what is troubling is not this but the fact that before you "look" at a particle property, the particle has all the values this property can take at once (e.g. clockwise AND counterclockwise). When you "look" at it, when you try to measure the property, one of this value is then selected. The paradox is while the previous experiment seems to tell us this value is chosen from the beginning (particles seems to share an initial property, revealed once you look at them), the quantum mechanics proves the actual value you observe is randomly selected at the time you observe it and not before. What is tranported by the particles from the time they are emitted is not the value of the property but the very property itself. Another reason why a particle properties define this particle identity : particles doesn't have a "soul", an inner hidden self thing, they only are what they appear to be.
Exactly what I thought. I heard of these prostitutes too. This guy is not the first to resist to HIV and probably have the same kind of resistance. It isn't a matter of "saving the world".
By the way does anyone know if we have even the slightest idea of the maximum lethality a human disease could possibly have ? I mean, we can say for sure that, whatever the disease, the human immunity system is such that there will always be survivors. But does someone ever tried to do some probability calculation about that, and/or is it ever possible ?
actually, as I understand it, the following loop :
for(int i = n-1; i>0; i--){ n = n * i }
is probably internally transformed into the following grid in a 10-instructions TRIPS processor :
read n(transmitted as a & b) => decr a (transmitted as a & d) => comp a,0 => mul a,b (result transmitted as c)
=> decr d (transmitted as d & f) => comp d,0 => mul c,d (result transmitted as e)
=> decr f => comp f,0 => mul e,f
where a,b,c,d,e & f are buses wiring the instructions-grid cells to each other. Each instructions-grid cell can be viewed as a little processor without register that performs the instruction it has been programmed for as soon data is present on its inputs.
You can see in the previous example there is a fair amount of concurrence even with such a simple loop. The "new" thing is the loop unrolling is done by the hardware, not the compiler.
I don't know what country you are talking about, or if you gathered several laws from different states. Anyway, in france (wich is certainly not the less policed state in europe): You have to register with you local town hall
Only if you want to obtain thinks offered to locals (such as the right to vote at local elections) You are required to carry identification with you all the time, stopped without it, instant jail.
You have a delay to prove your identity. I don't think the proof has to be an id card, I guess a testimony from a member of your family can do it. And it cannot be asked without a reason (to be honnest, the police don't seem to care a lot about this part of the law...) When you stay at a hotel your information and picture is send to the police.
You just have to give your ID to the hotel. The police can request the hotel to see it. The police can already request all the information from local businesses and other state entities they want
It's a bit more complicated than this bold statement. Most of the time, a judge is necessary.
Now, I'm sure there are a lot of other things the police can do in europe it can't in USA (and the opposite is probably true as well). The problem as I see it is more about already existing freedoms that are disappearing... It is always a bad trend.
While designing Concorde, some engineers started working on their own project without telling anyone, diverting a small part of the huge ressources needed for concorde to this.
At the end of the concorde project, managers discovered with great surprise they also had almost all the plans of a working regular subsonic jet : Airbus was born. Ironically, the unofficial project actually succeeded far better than the official one.
Not really. There is an overhead in java, indeed, but it's caused mainly by objects management.
To perform pure calculation, about any language will perform the same. The limit here is the CPU.
Try to factor a big number in C, C++, java or fortran, it will take exactly the same time. The few seconds difference you'll get after a day of calculation are the language overhead that occurs between calculation loops, totally irrelevant when what you do is _only_ those calculation loops (a situation that occurs rarely in traditional development, granted).
Of course, the guy wants his program to run on several kinds of platform but probably cannot afford to develop and test on a lot of OS & machines, so Java seems to be the proper solution.
1st rule of protocol/format dev is : always expect outside data to violate the standard, never permit inside data to do so.
Or : be very strict when writing/sending, be very lenient when reading/receiving.
There is such an advice in all the RFCs. Lots of buffer override exploits work because the programmers didn't respect this paradigm.
And this is something you should also do with function parameters, object state, etc...
by the way, note this is in no way a privilege of chess. Such a huge number of positions and games is a characteristics of many games, not only chess.
Its old age and its popularity since a long time ago make it special, not its complexity. In fact, a lot of games are even more complex.
Even if you consider only the elders, and not the modern boardgames. While chess is just enough complex for computers being able to start challenging chess GMs, you won't see anytime soon a computer challenges a regular player of Go for example.
I say, let be REALLY geek, from now on I'll use this : http://www.l9c.org/age.php to get my binary, unix timestamped, age and birthday date !
967 Mis old, approaching the Gis !
mmm I think you are taking it the wrong way. You see, geeks seem to always forget informatic is a TOOL. i.e. it is used for another purpose, at the service of someone else.
So, here, the technicals about DNS are a detail to be discussed at the end. The first, most important, thing to discuss is nothing technical : who should control one of the major tools used to navigate the worlwide network. Once you decided this, you can then ask the experts the easiest/cheapest/safest/whatever-priority-order-wa s-defined way to implement it.
Remember : computers are tools, just like hammers. Carpenters define what kind of tool they need, not hammer manufacturers.
there was successful human flights before Wright Brothers. They weren't the first to fly, they invented the modern wing.
Previous, successful but not efficient, planes used bat-like wings. The first heavier-than-air machine to fly with human onboard was l'Eole, made by clement ader in 1890 : http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/ader.html
Same in france : million, milliard then n-illion is million power n. I always thought it was the standard used for the international metric system (and thus most of scientific numbers). Is it or not ?
by the way, that will make a billionth trillionth second = 1E-6 ^ (2+3) = 1E-30s, not 1E-36.
the point to watermarking code is:
a) locating the code portions related to the watermarking is not trivial. It doesn't mean the source code is unreadable, it means locating this code cannot be done via automatic tools, you need actual humans (i.e. paid programmers who cost you money) to browse through thousands of source lines.
b) removing that code isn't trivial either. Once you located the code, you see it consists of lines dispersed through several thousands lines of code. Since the watermark is deeply embedded in the data structures of the program, to remove it you need to carefully examine and rewrite large portions of code. Again, this cannot be done via automatic tools, you need programmers to do it, then you need to test the code to be sure no bugs were introduced in the process.
Basically, watermarking code means to remove the mark you need to spend a lot of money with humans specialists, who will spend almost the same time and efforts removing the watermarking than it would have cost to program the thing from scratch.
By using signed ternary digits (-1 0 +1), you can keep the classic truth table for boolean needs (-1 is considered as +1) and benefits of the additional storage efficiency for numeric needs.
spin of the electron can only have 2 values. The number of values the spin can take varies with each particle. Thus you can have qutits (quantum ternary digits) or qunits in general (quantum n-ary digits)
The nickel alloys used in jet engines (inconel) are able to sustain 1300K (maybe more, I don't know the exact numbers). I think even superior (but more expensive) alloys can be made.
In fact, the most heated parts of the shuttle are protected by carbon-carbon and nickel alloy. Only the less heated parts are covered with ceramic tiles...
I guess this is a problem of cost and weight, else they would have put carbon-carbon and nickel everywhere, not ceramic. Ceramic may also be more resistant to heat over time (I know nickel alloys parts have to be replaced on a regular basis).
Actually, capsules are much safer than "space planes". Russians recently suffered a generalized computer failure on reentry and landed without any problem, far away from the expected landing spot. Oh, and you don't need to "splashdown" in water, it can be done on the ground too.
Also, you don't need all that dead weight : wings and all the control and surfaces needed for the reentry. That's several additional tons you need to throw on orbit, tons you cannot put in the payload.
So, if you take the shuttle motors and reservoir (you don't even need those expensive refillable boosters any more, but you can take them too), then replace the shuttle body by a (reusable) capsule, you have a much much cheaper (and efficient) reusable vehicle.
And it is also safer.
And it is able to lift an heavier payload on a higher orbit.
And... why the hell did they add those wings already ?
I guess it is an image problem. They want a "spaceship"...
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is they traded the speed for range. It's 1000-fold slower than zigbee (0.1 kb/s) but with a bigger range. They say they can cover whole France or California (including unhabited areas) with only 1000 antennas, thus cheaply creating a global network. With zigbee, you can really do only a local network and still need a local relay to internet.
So, Zigbee allows you to make a fast, fee-less, local sensor network. While this is a global network with yearly fee designed for low-bandwidth sensors.
fyi, 123456 was the wrong code. Problem was entering the wrong code triggered an alert in the system and noone knew where it originated from or what it meant. The contractors in charge of this thus shut the system down for 48h, while they were investigating on it, in fear of a hacker having broke in.
What is amazingly hilarious is the time it took them to understand what happened and who did it, and the disproportionated importance given to a rather innocuous alert.
Hydrogen can be stored in many ways. Oil being one of it actually : from the fuel point of view, oil molecule is a bunch of carbon atoms storing many hydrogen atoms safely and ready to be used. You can either replicate a similar storage, using chemical bonds to trap hydrogen inside a molecule (it takes energy but you can reach very high density), or trap the H2 molecule itself inside nano-structures (with a density of the same order than compressed H2). It can be used for both fuel cell and combustion engine.
Also add the fact very few teams (none ?) have ever win against Ecuador at home (Quito, altitude: 2850m) or bolivia (la paz, 3500m) ...
I know some teams in french league B are using this kind of software (but not that sophisticated I think).
So I guess a lot, if not all, of the world cup teams are using these softwares. In 1998 already, scientists from CNRS (a public lab) had programmed some for the french team and they were not the only team to have such a computer help.
Now, the way players on the field are able to dynamically adapt their tactics collectively is much more important imho. This thing is just a little plus.
Redundancy code is something perfectly mastered today. In fact, interplanetary communication drove the technology to where it is now (and is one of the factor leading to the last increases of hard disk bit density). The modern algorithms are able to automatically update the Signal+RedundancyCode output depending of the signal/noise ratio to obtain an optimal transmission rate. Thus "increasing the bandwith" means "increasing the S/N ratio", since this is today the only limitation. So the whole point of this new technology is about increasing the S/N.
You cannot send as information the fact you observed or not the particle. At the moment you observe one of the linked particle, you get the exact value, randomly chosen from an undeterminate superposition of all possible values. But the other particle of the pair still is in the undeterminate superposition state. Except when you will observe this second particle the value won't be randomly chosen : it will be the same value than the first one.
The fact to chose the value is an information and thus travel at the speed of light. The random selection of the value is not. Since it is random, you cannot sneak any information within.
To sum it up : this is the fact that properties values are selected with a TRUE and perfect randomness that explains such experiments (and found the quantum theory). There is no secret knowledge (that is unknown properties) that could predict the future (at the particle level that is).
In fact, the spin stay the same from any perspective. I.e. the particle is "spinning" exactly the same way whatever the angle you look at it : you watch it from the top, from the left, from behind, you always see it spinning clockwise, a bit like if it turns to face you. It's call the "spin" because its property _looks_ like it was spinning, but the particle doesn't really move or turn. Actually, a particle doesn't have a form, it isn't a sphere. Form is like temperature : temperature being the average speed of individual atoms inside a set of atoms, temperature only exist at a macro level, that is for a large set of atom. For a single atom, temperature doesn't exist. It's the same for form, thus for "spinning". Those are called _emergent_ properties (i.e. properties of a whole that cannot be predicted from properties of the parts), and they are meaningless for particles. In the case of this weird instant remote "action", the two linked particles are in fact a _single_ entity. There is no sending of information since the two are only one "thing" : the two don't have the same property, the particle pair have a property. Indeed, for the same reason particles doesn't have a form, their _identity_ is not what you may think. If two particles have exactly the same property, they, err, _it_, is the same particle. And, since it is a property of the pair, you cannot choose it, thus sending information, the particle pair just has it. Of course you can select particle pairs with the property you want before sending them apart, but then they have to travel at the speed of light, no instant communication is possible. And whatever you do by acting on one won't do anything to the other, they just share the same property. Thus, what is troubling is not this but the fact that before you "look" at a particle property, the particle has all the values this property can take at once (e.g. clockwise AND counterclockwise). When you "look" at it, when you try to measure the property, one of this value is then selected. The paradox is while the previous experiment seems to tell us this value is chosen from the beginning (particles seems to share an initial property, revealed once you look at them), the quantum mechanics proves the actual value you observe is randomly selected at the time you observe it and not before. What is tranported by the particles from the time they are emitted is not the value of the property but the very property itself. Another reason why a particle properties define this particle identity : particles doesn't have a "soul", an inner hidden self thing, they only are what they appear to be.
By the way does anyone know if we have even the slightest idea of the maximum lethality a human disease could possibly have ? I mean, we can say for sure that, whatever the disease, the human immunity system is such that there will always be survivors. But does someone ever tried to do some probability calculation about that, and/or is it ever possible ?
for(int i = n-1; i>0; i--){ n = n * i }
is probably internally transformed into the following grid in a 10-instructions TRIPS processor :read n(transmitted as a & b) => decr a (transmitted as a & d) => comp a,0 => mul a,b (result transmitted as c)
where a,b,c,d,e & f are buses wiring the instructions-grid cells to each other. Each instructions-grid cell can be viewed as a little processor without register that performs the instruction it has been programmed for as soon data is present on its inputs.=> decr d (transmitted as d & f) => comp d,0 => mul c,d (result transmitted as e)
=> decr f => comp f,0 => mul e,f
You can see in the previous example there is a fair amount of concurrence even with such a simple loop. The "new" thing is the loop unrolling is done by the hardware, not the compiler.
I don't know what country you are talking about, or if you gathered several laws from different states. Anyway, in france (wich is certainly not the less policed state in europe) : ...) ... It is always a bad trend.
You have to register with you local town hall
Only if you want to obtain thinks offered to locals (such as the right to vote at local elections)
You are required to carry identification with you all the time, stopped without it, instant jail.
You have a delay to prove your identity. I don't think the proof has to be an id card, I guess a testimony from a member of your family can do it. And it cannot be asked without a reason (to be honnest, the police don't seem to care a lot about this part of the law
When you stay at a hotel your information and picture is send to the police.
You just have to give your ID to the hotel. The police can request the hotel to see it.
The police can already request all the information from local businesses and other state entities they want
It's a bit more complicated than this bold statement. Most of the time, a judge is necessary.
Now, I'm sure there are a lot of other things the police can do in europe it can't in USA (and the opposite is probably true as well). The problem as I see it is more about already existing freedoms that are disappearing
While designing Concorde, some engineers started working on their own project without telling anyone, diverting a small part of the huge ressources needed for concorde to this.
;)
At the end of the concorde project, managers discovered with great surprise they also had almost all the plans of a working regular subsonic jet : Airbus was born.
Ironically, the unofficial project actually succeeded far better than the official one.
It doesn't happen only with software companies
Hb is harpibyte, hb is hectobyte, 100 bytes indeed.
Not really. There is an overhead in java, indeed, but it's caused mainly by objects management. To perform pure calculation, about any language will perform the same. The limit here is the CPU.
Try to factor a big number in C, C++, java or fortran, it will take exactly the same time. The few seconds difference you'll get after a day of calculation are the language overhead that occurs between calculation loops, totally irrelevant when what you do is _only_ those calculation loops (a situation that occurs rarely in traditional development, granted).
Of course, the guy wants his program to run on several kinds of platform but probably cannot afford to develop and test on a lot of OS & machines, so Java seems to be the proper solution.
Or : be very strict when writing/sending, be very lenient when reading/receiving.
There is such an advice in all the RFCs. Lots of buffer override exploits work because the programmers didn't respect this paradigm.
And this is something you should also do with function parameters, object state, etc...
by the way, note this is in no way a privilege of chess. Such a huge number of positions and games is a characteristics of many games, not only chess.
Its old age and its popularity since a long time ago make it special, not its complexity. In fact, a lot of games are even more complex.
Even if you consider only the elders, and not the modern boardgames. While chess is just enough complex for computers being able to start challenging chess GMs, you won't see anytime soon a computer challenges a regular player of Go for example.
I say, let be REALLY geek, from now on I'll use this : http://www.l9c.org/age.php to get my binary, unix timestamped, age and birthday date ! 967 Mis old, approaching the Gis !
mmm I think you are taking it the wrong way. You see, geeks seem to always forget informatic is a TOOL. i.e. it is used for another purpose, at the service of someone else.a s-defined way to implement it.
So, here, the technicals about DNS are a detail to be discussed at the end. The first, most important, thing to discuss is nothing technical : who should control one of the major tools used to navigate the worlwide network. Once you decided this, you can then ask the experts the easiest/cheapest/safest/whatever-priority-order-w
Remember : computers are tools, just like hammers. Carpenters define what kind of tool they need, not hammer manufacturers.
there was successful human flights before Wright Brothers. They weren't the first to fly, they invented the modern wing. Previous, successful but not efficient, planes used bat-like wings. The first heavier-than-air machine to fly with human onboard was l'Eole, made by clement ader in 1890 : http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/ader.html
Same in france : million, milliard then n-illion is million power n. I always thought it was the standard used for the international metric system (and thus most of scientific numbers). Is it or not ?
by the way, that will make a billionth trillionth second = 1E-6 ^ (2+3) = 1E-30s, not 1E-36.
the point to watermarking code is :
a) locating the code portions related to the watermarking is not trivial. It doesn't mean the source code is unreadable, it means locating this code cannot be done via automatic tools, you need actual humans (i.e. paid programmers who cost you money) to browse through thousands of source lines.
b) removing that code isn't trivial either. Once you located the code, you see it consists of lines dispersed through several thousands lines of code. Since the watermark is deeply embedded in the data structures of the program, to remove it you need to carefully examine and rewrite large portions of code. Again, this cannot be done via automatic tools, you need programmers to do it, then you need to test the code to be sure no bugs were introduced in the process.
Basically, watermarking code means to remove the mark you need to spend a lot of money with humans specialists, who will spend almost the same time and efforts removing the watermarking than it would have cost to program the thing from scratch.
By using signed ternary digits (-1 0 +1), you can keep the classic truth table for boolean needs (-1 is considered as +1) and benefits of the additional storage efficiency for numeric needs.
spin of the electron can only have 2 values. The number of values the spin can take varies with each particle. Thus you can have qutits (quantum ternary digits) or qunits in general (quantum n-ary digits)
The nickel alloys used in jet engines (inconel) are able to sustain 1300K (maybe more, I don't know the exact numbers). I think even superior (but more expensive) alloys can be made. In fact, the most heated parts of the shuttle are protected by carbon-carbon and nickel alloy. Only the less heated parts are covered with ceramic tiles ...
I guess this is a problem of cost and weight, else they would have put carbon-carbon and nickel everywhere, not ceramic. Ceramic may also be more resistant to heat over time (I know nickel alloys parts have to be replaced on a regular basis).
Actually, capsules are much safer than "space planes". Russians recently suffered a generalized computer failure on reentry and landed without any problem, far away from the expected landing spot. Oh, and you don't need to "splashdown" in water, it can be done on the ground too. Also, you don't need all that dead weight : wings and all the control and surfaces needed for the reentry. That's several additional tons you need to throw on orbit, tons you cannot put in the payload. So, if you take the shuttle motors and reservoir (you don't even need those expensive refillable boosters any more, but you can take them too), then replace the shuttle body by a (reusable) capsule, you have a much much cheaper (and efficient) reusable vehicle. And it is also safer. And it is able to lift an heavier payload on a higher orbit. And ... why the hell did they add those wings already ?
I guess it is an image problem. They want a "spaceship" ...