Wow, you wrote all that and yet managed to miss the fact that for the last thirty years solar activity levels have been going down, while temperature has been going up?
Well you know what - if policy makers are making decisions based on this data, maybe that's why our telecom infrastructure is so fucked up? I mean, if they think you have four ISPs available but you really don't, then clearly they would think that there is healthy service in your area when there really isn't.
Maybe we should start up a crowdsourced version of this, with an eye towards providing more accurate data?
This makes sense - after all, we've had culture for far* longer than we've had writing, and it stands to reason that effective transmission of information across generational boundaries would be an evolutionarily beneficial trait.
People seem to forget that millions of years of evolution must have left a mark on us; the entirety of recorded history so far is nothing but a strange coda to an evolutionary record that spans an unimaginable depth of time, and for almost all of that deep time the only way to maintain knowledge (a gigantic evolutionary advantage!) was for someone to memorize it.
*by "far" I mean on the order of a hundred thousand years
If what you said were true, it would be a non-story.
Let's see what happens when we RTFA, shall we?
University of Wisconsin-Madison Teacher Assistants created the website to share information with protesters and let them know where volunteers were needed. Democratic party officials claimed that it was available at the Capitol until at least last Friday.
So if they auto-block and then unblock websites, that's a bit restrictive but I guess it's okay. However, this website was not auto-blocked! It was available until last Friday, at which point it was blocked. For your claim to be true, their auto-blocking software would have had to magically decide that this website should be blocked on Friday, when it had previously been cleared. That doesn't seem very likely to me, especially since the stuff that was going on in Wisconsin started getting more national attention near the end of last week.
Officials say that something's wrong if writing drivers costs more than refitting the entire bureau with new Win/Office licenses.
Not really - Microsoft will offer Win/Office licenses for free if that's what it takes to move you away from an OSS deployment, as well as technical assistance in making the move.
After all, it's totally profitable for them to spend money locking you in now, in order to make money later when you pay to upgrade everything to Windows Cloud Edition (Free with a $20/month subscription per license!)
Back in 2007, the Foreign Office's IT department regarded the use of open source software on servers and desktop systems as a success story. IT costs per workspace were reported to be lower than in any other government department, despite the demands imposed by running a high security, globally distributed IT infrastructure. The use of Linux desktop systems in the Foreign Office also acted as a beacon for the use of open source software in other government departments.
Translation: Open Source Software has worked really well for us for the last ten years on servers, five years on desktops and three years on office suites.
The Foreign Office launched a modernisation process in 2010, one component of which was the pursuit of a new IT strategy moving away from open source software and towards "standardised proprietary client solutions" as used in other ministries. Specifically, this means a return to Windows XP, to be upgraded at some point to Windows 7, Office 2010 and Outlook. According to the government, this will not give rise to any immediate costs, indeed, they expect introduction of these "standardised software products" to produce "efficiency gains". Open source software will continue to be used on servers.
Translation: Microsoft wined and dined whoever is in charge of setting organization-wide policies (it's not bribery if nothing shows up in your bank account!), and then offered to price-match the Open Source stuff if we would switch back - especially since we were telling other organizations how awesome our Open Source rollout was.
I mean, why else would they take a system that has, apparently, been working pretty well for the last three years and replace it with the system they just left, miraculously at no extra cost?
Your children are vastly more likely to run into them in real life than online and it's almost trivial to stay safe.
As a matter of fact, if your children are sexually abused, 30% of the time they will meet their abuser at family gatherings, and 60% of the time they will meet their abuser through you - and intra-family child molestation is almost certainly vastly underreported, as nobody wants to bring that shame upon the family.
So basically, if you want to make sure your kid is never sexually abused, never leave them alone with your family, never leave them alone with your friends, and give them free reign of the Internet - it's the safest thing to do.
What if your enemy snuck a civilian boat full of explosives in next to your ship and detonated it?
Symmetrical warfare, where you are up against an enemy who can afford to throw more than one missile at you, is the past. Asymetrical warfare is the future.
Right now we're preparing for another 30 Years' War, when World War I is around the corner.
The grandparent post is, however, a perfect example of Star Trek "logic" which most of the time is, in fact, illogical.
I mean, come on. Half the time they interpret "logical" as meaning "only do things that have a 100% chance of success, do nothing otherwise" (if there's a 50% chance we'll blow up after reticulating the deflector array, that's still the logical course of action if the only other option is a 100% chance of explosion from not dispersing the negative space wedgie!), and the other half of the time it means "emotions don't exist, despite the measurable effect of crew morale on ship efficiency".
I don't know, that sounds an awful lot like socialism. You're not one of them dirty socialists, are you boy? We can't go around spending money on socialism, it's a bad thing.
P.S. Please give my kids scholarships to public universities and keep on providing medicare to my old mother, thanks.
So not only is this a dick move, it is 100% ineffective. You just go and buy an HDFury and you are back in business. I'm sure there will be others as this ramps up.
Not any more, actually - after someone got first post with a link to their site, they seem to be down:)
You gotta admit - it's nice to have a phone where, when someone doesn't believe that a left join is really the answer to their problem, you can drop into Debian, start up mysqld (I really need to get around to installing postgres...), create a test table, issue the query, and then copy and paste the results into the comment box.
Also when I'm bored I'll occasionally graph random functions in Octave, or try and figure out R's syntax (I had to rebind my keys to make angle brackets more accessible to make that program useable, who thought that <- was a good way to indicate assignment? As a bonus it makes HTML formatting on Slashdot easier...)
But yeah it's not that great as a phone. Doesn't even let you do custom per-contact ringtones. Good thing I use about thirty minutes per week.
In other words, this is like shining a laser at a piece of non-reflective black material. I can't even begin to imagine all the uses this will have!
Well yes - if that piece of non-reflective black material only absorbed that specific laser, and very little else. So for instance, if you had layers of material, and only wanted to deposit power on one of them, you would tune your laser to the frequency the reverse lasers on the layer you want to single out and fire.
The article is absolute shit, but if you ignore everything the journalist wrote and just read what the physicist said you can get an idea of how this works.
Basically, it's the reverse of a laser; the physicist meant "anti-laser" as in "anti-matter" (because if you reverse the flow of time, anti-matter looks like regular matter).
Normal lasers take power in and emit light at a specific frequency; this thing takes light in at a specific frequency and emits power. In other words, if you take a video of a laser and play it backwards, that's this thing.
All they really needed to say was that it's the time-reversed counterpart of a laser. Calling it an "anti-laser" makes it sound like it shoots out a beam of darkness or something like that (which could be cool, but physically impossible).
Why this is neat is that, because it's the reverse of a laser, it'll absorb some frequencies almost perfectly while ignoring others. The reason why they said this would work for cancer, for instance, is that you could embed some of these dudes in the cancer (there's techniques for that, I have no idea how they work) and then bombard them with a laser frequency that normally passes harmlessly through humans. Areas without these reverse-lasers will be unaffected, but areas with them will get really hot, killing the cancer. We use similar techniques already (with I think gold, I'm not quite sure) in order to localize radiotherapy, but I believe that the radiation used in the current methods still kills a lot of normal cells on its own.
Seriously big movie industry, stop throwing money around and, gasp, for once, act like a business.
They are acting like a business. You can pay some unknown dude $250k and guarantee no sales, or you can pay (say) Bruce Willis $20 million and guarantee that you'll get at least a $21 million return on investment - but to be honest, you're probably not paying Bruce Willis $20 million, nowadays it's probably closer to $1 million and on average he guarantees an income of at least $1.1 million.
I mean seriously, you can see this clearly if you pay attention to advertising. For example: it wasn't Avatar, it was James Cameron's Avatar. Why? Because several million people remember that James Cameron did Titanic (the movie poster even reminds you of it!), and that they liked Titanic, and that therefore they would go see James Cameron's Avatar. But it wasn't James Cameron's Titanic, now was it? Nobody gave a shit who James Cameron was back then. They just cared that Leonardo diCaprio and Kate Winslett were in it; funny how that works, huh?
So to the big movie industry, paying an actor $1 million for a movie makes perfect sense; they are investing more money to get more of a guaranteed return on investment. They are totally willing to take that deal, because your shareholders don't want to hear "we've got this no-name actor for cheap, but we don't know how much he'll bring in", they want to hear "we've got Bruce Willis, and he guarantees at least $1.5 million in revenue". Shareholders don't want to hear about your risks, they want to hear about your (statistically) guaranteed income.
And predictions are that Moore's Law is going to slow down or outright stop, not speed up. Experience shows that software tends to at best stay about the same speed, if not get slower as people take advantage of higher-level (but often slower) constructs both to manage complexity and out of laziness (the power's available, may as well use it). Sometimes it does improve, but it's certainly not the norm.
Well I don't know about the future, but Moore's Law has been holding steady for the last ten years.
What people get hung up on is that Moore's Law is about transistor counts, not speed. Up to a certain point, throwing more transistors at a processor can make it go faster (see, for instance, pipelining - you literally trade transistors for speed), but there's limits to how far that's effective; even though a single core Pentium 4 was probably several hundred megahertz faster than a commodity Core 2, the extra transistors we've managed to fit on there recently have allowed us to do more work per clock cycle, and to have two CPUs where you could normally only fit one.
Now, look at Watson's specs in terms of CPU - it's powered by 90 IBM Power 750 servers. Each Power 750 server contains a single IBM Power7 CPU, which is our data point for this discussion. Assuming that Moore's law holds (which I agree is a big assumption, but we're taking it for granted here) in seven iterations we should be able to fit 128 of those Power7 CPUs on a single chip - which means that you could actually have something more powerful than what's currently being used to run Watson on a single chip. Although that one CPU would not run much faster than a single Power7 CPU, it would encapsulate the entire data center in one chip. Similar calculations hold for the RAM and hard drive space (since by then hopefully we'll all be using some sort of solid state transistor-y memory, instead of hard disks). In practice, we're probably not going to do something as stupid as shrink 128 CPUs from 2011 and stick them all in a single 2021 chip, but still!
See, your mistake is that you're shrinking the entire server room and assuming that that's going to be how much space you need; it actually turns out that a lot of the space used is just interconnects, and all of that goes away when you integrate it all onto one chip.
And of course, it's going to cost $20 (a month, naturally) and fit in your pocket because the thing that does all that calculation is just going to be talking to a Google server somewhere whose sole purpose in life is to figure these things out. Most people already have more computational power than they'll ever use, ever - so there's really no point in selling them more.
It sounds like he still believes in God, but perhaps not what man has to say about God.
That's pretty funny, because the main thing man has to say about God is "God exists". Nothing else in science or nature or reality (though I repeat myself) even whispers that phrase.
Just think about it. If you are born a Muslim, 90% of the time you grow up to be a Muslim. If you are born a Christian, 90% of the time you grow up to be a Christian. If you are born a Mormon, 90% of the time you grow up to be a Mormon. Weird, isn't it, that the religion you're born into is almost always the religion you follow as an adult?
And yet - babies are born without the concept of object permanence. Somehow, though, nearly 100% of all babies change their minds eventually, and they all decide the same thing: even if I'm not looking at it, it still exists. Isn't it funny that when it comes to God, nobody can agree on anything? When the existence of God should, a priori, be as fundamentally true and fundamental to our understanding of the Universe as object permanence?
God is not a trinity in the same way wave-particle duality means that matter is both a wave and a particle. Wave-particle duality means that matter has the properties of both waves and particles simultaneously; saying that about God would be committing the heresy that closely resembles Modalism - e.g, saying that there is one God-substrate which has properties of both Jesus and The Father at the same time, when in fact, according to Trinitarian doctrine, they are unique entities who are also the same entity.
The only way to have no problems with the Trinity is to either give in to one heresy or another, or to stop trying to reconcile it with reality altogether (e.g, calling it a Mystery like the Catholic Church does). It is simply not a resolvable problem, like the question about "what happens when an irresistible force encounters an immobile object"*; such a situation simply cannot exist in reality.
Further, on a specific note: in much of Latin Catholic culture, the only reason why saints and angels aren't Gods themselves is due to the Church's definition. What do you call something that people pray to, that people claim answers prayers, that people believe in fervently?
I mean, really. The Romans had a God who found lost things, whom you would pray to, in order to help you find things you have lost; they were polytheistic, because this was one God among many. The Latin Catholics have a saint who finds lost things, whom you pray to in order to help you find things that have been lost; this is only one saint among many. Somehow, despite being the exact same thing, this time it's monotheistic? Yeah, right. Try pulling that on a judge; "No, sir, this isn't marijuana - it's just home-grown hemp with high concentrations of THC, a totally different thing!"
*Answer: you can't have a single universe in which both exist. Duh. By definition, the existence of one precludes the existence of another.
I guess it would help with spectrum conservation or something, but I just don't see how that would help in practice - after all, this method requires three antennas! With that, you could be broadcasting and receiving (though not at the same time) on three different channels all at once!
Actually, now that I think about it, this could work well from a security perspective. Imagine you've got two stations, A and B, transmitting data at the same time using this method. Now someone stucks an antenna somewhere in between them. What does that antenna see? A signal that's some % A and some % B, summed together. Recovering either A or B's signal only is going to be hard, since you can't know which is which without getting much closer to A and B.
GWB! Palin! Fox news! Global warming! All human caused changes are evil because they were human caused! There is a waiting list for Prius! Whole Foods reports a shortage of goat cheese! All savages are noble and cultural imperialism is eliminating them! Somewhere, someone is not being taxed! There exists at least one social engineering law which we have not enacted!
What does this prove? Well, without much effort I came up with ten real things conservatives have flipped out over for no reason - you came up with maybe four, and six that are just silly.
I think that says something, huh? Just because both sets A and B exist and are not empty doesn't mean that set A must be the same size as set B.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you wrote all that and yet managed to miss the fact that for the last thirty years solar activity levels have been going down, while temperature has been going up?
Seriously, just look at this graph.
Well you know what - if policy makers are making decisions based on this data, maybe that's why our telecom infrastructure is so fucked up? I mean, if they think you have four ISPs available but you really don't, then clearly they would think that there is healthy service in your area when there really isn't.
Maybe we should start up a crowdsourced version of this, with an eye towards providing more accurate data?
This makes sense - after all, we've had culture for far* longer than we've had writing, and it stands to reason that effective transmission of information across generational boundaries would be an evolutionarily beneficial trait.
People seem to forget that millions of years of evolution must have left a mark on us; the entirety of recorded history so far is nothing but a strange coda to an evolutionary record that spans an unimaginable depth of time, and for almost all of that deep time the only way to maintain knowledge (a gigantic evolutionary advantage!) was for someone to memorize it.
*by "far" I mean on the order of a hundred thousand years
Do you wear the same shoes every day?
I've found that even if I only alternate between two pairs of shoes, they last more than twice as long as a single pair worn every day.
If what you said were true, it would be a non-story.
Let's see what happens when we RTFA, shall we?
So if they auto-block and then unblock websites, that's a bit restrictive but I guess it's okay. However, this website was not auto-blocked! It was available until last Friday, at which point it was blocked. For your claim to be true, their auto-blocking software would have had to magically decide that this website should be blocked on Friday, when it had previously been cleared. That doesn't seem very likely to me, especially since the stuff that was going on in Wisconsin started getting more national attention near the end of last week.
Not really - Microsoft will offer Win/Office licenses for free if that's what it takes to move you away from an OSS deployment, as well as technical assistance in making the move.
After all, it's totally profitable for them to spend money locking you in now, in order to make money later when you pay to upgrade everything to Windows Cloud Edition (Free with a $20/month subscription per license!)
From the article:
Translation: Open Source Software has worked really well for us for the last ten years on servers, five years on desktops and three years on office suites.
Translation: Microsoft wined and dined whoever is in charge of setting organization-wide policies (it's not bribery if nothing shows up in your bank account!), and then offered to price-match the Open Source stuff if we would switch back - especially since we were telling other organizations how awesome our Open Source rollout was.
I mean, why else would they take a system that has, apparently, been working pretty well for the last three years and replace it with the system they just left, miraculously at no extra cost?
Your children are vastly more likely to run into them in real life than online and it's almost trivial to stay safe.
As a matter of fact, if your children are sexually abused, 30% of the time they will meet their abuser at family gatherings, and 60% of the time they will meet their abuser through you - and intra-family child molestation is almost certainly vastly underreported, as nobody wants to bring that shame upon the family.
So basically, if you want to make sure your kid is never sexually abused, never leave them alone with your family, never leave them alone with your friends, and give them free reign of the Internet - it's the safest thing to do.
What if your enemy snuck a civilian boat full of explosives in next to your ship and detonated it?
Symmetrical warfare, where you are up against an enemy who can afford to throw more than one missile at you, is the past. Asymetrical warfare is the future.
Right now we're preparing for another 30 Years' War, when World War I is around the corner.
About as well as an anti-hate homeopathic remedy would, I imagine. After all, we've tested both, and both have equivalent effects on the real world.
The grandparent post is, however, a perfect example of Star Trek "logic" which most of the time is, in fact, illogical.
I mean, come on. Half the time they interpret "logical" as meaning "only do things that have a 100% chance of success, do nothing otherwise" (if there's a 50% chance we'll blow up after reticulating the deflector array, that's still the logical course of action if the only other option is a 100% chance of explosion from not dispersing the negative space wedgie!), and the other half of the time it means "emotions don't exist, despite the measurable effect of crew morale on ship efficiency".
God, that always pissed me off so much.
I don't know, that sounds an awful lot like socialism. You're not one of them dirty socialists, are you boy? We can't go around spending money on socialism, it's a bad thing.
P.S. Please give my kids scholarships to public universities and keep on providing medicare to my old mother, thanks.
Not any more, actually - after someone got first post with a link to their site, they seem to be down :)
Clearly that was a tricky plot by the MPAA!
You gotta admit - it's nice to have a phone where, when someone doesn't believe that a left join is really the answer to their problem, you can drop into Debian, start up mysqld (I really need to get around to installing postgres...), create a test table, issue the query, and then copy and paste the results into the comment box.
Also when I'm bored I'll occasionally graph random functions in Octave, or try and figure out R's syntax (I had to rebind my keys to make angle brackets more accessible to make that program useable, who thought that <- was a good way to indicate assignment? As a bonus it makes HTML formatting on Slashdot easier...)
But yeah it's not that great as a phone. Doesn't even let you do custom per-contact ringtones. Good thing I use about thirty minutes per week.
Well yes - if that piece of non-reflective black material only absorbed that specific laser, and very little else. So for instance, if you had layers of material, and only wanted to deposit power on one of them, you would tune your laser to the frequency the reverse lasers on the layer you want to single out and fire.
The article is absolute shit, but if you ignore everything the journalist wrote and just read what the physicist said you can get an idea of how this works.
Basically, it's the reverse of a laser; the physicist meant "anti-laser" as in "anti-matter" (because if you reverse the flow of time, anti-matter looks like regular matter).
Normal lasers take power in and emit light at a specific frequency; this thing takes light in at a specific frequency and emits power. In other words, if you take a video of a laser and play it backwards, that's this thing.
All they really needed to say was that it's the time-reversed counterpart of a laser. Calling it an "anti-laser" makes it sound like it shoots out a beam of darkness or something like that (which could be cool, but physically impossible).
Why this is neat is that, because it's the reverse of a laser, it'll absorb some frequencies almost perfectly while ignoring others. The reason why they said this would work for cancer, for instance, is that you could embed some of these dudes in the cancer (there's techniques for that, I have no idea how they work) and then bombard them with a laser frequency that normally passes harmlessly through humans. Areas without these reverse-lasers will be unaffected, but areas with them will get really hot, killing the cancer. We use similar techniques already (with I think gold, I'm not quite sure) in order to localize radiotherapy, but I believe that the radiation used in the current methods still kills a lot of normal cells on its own.
They are acting like a business. You can pay some unknown dude $250k and guarantee no sales, or you can pay (say) Bruce Willis $20 million and guarantee that you'll get at least a $21 million return on investment - but to be honest, you're probably not paying Bruce Willis $20 million, nowadays it's probably closer to $1 million and on average he guarantees an income of at least $1.1 million.
I mean seriously, you can see this clearly if you pay attention to advertising. For example: it wasn't Avatar, it was James Cameron's Avatar. Why? Because several million people remember that James Cameron did Titanic (the movie poster even reminds you of it!), and that they liked Titanic, and that therefore they would go see James Cameron's Avatar. But it wasn't James Cameron's Titanic, now was it? Nobody gave a shit who James Cameron was back then. They just cared that Leonardo diCaprio and Kate Winslett were in it; funny how that works, huh?
So to the big movie industry, paying an actor $1 million for a movie makes perfect sense; they are investing more money to get more of a guaranteed return on investment. They are totally willing to take that deal, because your shareholders don't want to hear "we've got this no-name actor for cheap, but we don't know how much he'll bring in", they want to hear "we've got Bruce Willis, and he guarantees at least $1.5 million in revenue". Shareholders don't want to hear about your risks, they want to hear about your (statistically) guaranteed income.
Well I don't know about the future, but Moore's Law has been holding steady for the last ten years.
What people get hung up on is that Moore's Law is about transistor counts, not speed. Up to a certain point, throwing more transistors at a processor can make it go faster (see, for instance, pipelining - you literally trade transistors for speed), but there's limits to how far that's effective; even though a single core Pentium 4 was probably several hundred megahertz faster than a commodity Core 2, the extra transistors we've managed to fit on there recently have allowed us to do more work per clock cycle, and to have two CPUs where you could normally only fit one.
Now, look at Watson's specs in terms of CPU - it's powered by 90 IBM Power 750 servers. Each Power 750 server contains a single IBM Power7 CPU, which is our data point for this discussion. Assuming that Moore's law holds (which I agree is a big assumption, but we're taking it for granted here) in seven iterations we should be able to fit 128 of those Power7 CPUs on a single chip - which means that you could actually have something more powerful than what's currently being used to run Watson on a single chip. Although that one CPU would not run much faster than a single Power7 CPU, it would encapsulate the entire data center in one chip. Similar calculations hold for the RAM and hard drive space (since by then hopefully we'll all be using some sort of solid state transistor-y memory, instead of hard disks). In practice, we're probably not going to do something as stupid as shrink 128 CPUs from 2011 and stick them all in a single 2021 chip, but still!
See, your mistake is that you're shrinking the entire server room and assuming that that's going to be how much space you need; it actually turns out that a lot of the space used is just interconnects, and all of that goes away when you integrate it all onto one chip.
And of course, it's going to cost $20 (a month, naturally) and fit in your pocket because the thing that does all that calculation is just going to be talking to a Google server somewhere whose sole purpose in life is to figure these things out. Most people already have more computational power than they'll ever use, ever - so there's really no point in selling them more.
I'm Anonymous, and so's my wife!
That's pretty funny, because the main thing man has to say about God is "God exists". Nothing else in science or nature or reality (though I repeat myself) even whispers that phrase.
Just think about it. If you are born a Muslim, 90% of the time you grow up to be a Muslim. If you are born a Christian, 90% of the time you grow up to be a Christian. If you are born a Mormon, 90% of the time you grow up to be a Mormon. Weird, isn't it, that the religion you're born into is almost always the religion you follow as an adult?
And yet - babies are born without the concept of object permanence. Somehow, though, nearly 100% of all babies change their minds eventually, and they all decide the same thing: even if I'm not looking at it, it still exists. Isn't it funny that when it comes to God, nobody can agree on anything? When the existence of God should, a priori, be as fundamentally true and fundamental to our understanding of the Universe as object permanence?
Weird, isn't it?
God is not a trinity in the same way wave-particle duality means that matter is both a wave and a particle. Wave-particle duality means that matter has the properties of both waves and particles simultaneously; saying that about God would be committing the heresy that closely resembles Modalism - e.g, saying that there is one God-substrate which has properties of both Jesus and The Father at the same time, when in fact, according to Trinitarian doctrine, they are unique entities who are also the same entity.
The only way to have no problems with the Trinity is to either give in to one heresy or another, or to stop trying to reconcile it with reality altogether (e.g, calling it a Mystery like the Catholic Church does). It is simply not a resolvable problem, like the question about "what happens when an irresistible force encounters an immobile object"*; such a situation simply cannot exist in reality.
Further, on a specific note: in much of Latin Catholic culture, the only reason why saints and angels aren't Gods themselves is due to the Church's definition. What do you call something that people pray to, that people claim answers prayers, that people believe in fervently?
I mean, really. The Romans had a God who found lost things, whom you would pray to, in order to help you find things you have lost; they were polytheistic, because this was one God among many. The Latin Catholics have a saint who finds lost things, whom you pray to in order to help you find things that have been lost; this is only one saint among many. Somehow, despite being the exact same thing, this time it's monotheistic? Yeah, right. Try pulling that on a judge; "No, sir, this isn't marijuana - it's just home-grown hemp with high concentrations of THC, a totally different thing!"
*Answer: you can't have a single universe in which both exist. Duh. By definition, the existence of one precludes the existence of another.
I guess it would help with spectrum conservation or something, but I just don't see how that would help in practice - after all, this method requires three antennas! With that, you could be broadcasting and receiving (though not at the same time) on three different channels all at once!
Actually, now that I think about it, this could work well from a security perspective. Imagine you've got two stations, A and B, transmitting data at the same time using this method. Now someone stucks an antenna somewhere in between them. What does that antenna see? A signal that's some % A and some % B, summed together. Recovering either A or B's signal only is going to be hard, since you can't know which is which without getting much closer to A and B.
I'm so sorry your party's abandoned you.
Death panels! Muslims! Mexicans! Communists! Nazis! Liberals! They're gonna take away our right to ! They're gonna make sex ed mandatory, and take away abstinence only education (which totally works by the way)! They're gonna take away our guns! They're gonna ban religions!
What does this prove? Well, without much effort I came up with ten real things conservatives have flipped out over for no reason - you came up with maybe four, and six that are just silly.
I think that says something, huh? Just because both sets A and B exist and are not empty doesn't mean that set A must be the same size as set B.