You miss my point -- checking the orbit of Mercury is a _falsifiable_ way to check General Relativity in a place where it does diverge from classical gravity, and by an amount that could be measured by the instruments of the day. Another falsifiable prediction which was readily checkable at the time was the deflection of light from distant stars. During a solar eclipse this was most certainly possible at the time. String theory, on the other hand, does not diverge from the Standard Model in places and by amounts that can be currently checked.
GR correctly predicts the precession of the orbit of Mercury, which was known at the time. The lack of aether, which on its own is pretty firm evidence SR, was demonstrated in many experiments before and after SR.
That is misleading. The point is to securely distribute private keys. All that is needed is a public classical channel in addition to the quantum channel. Most algorithms (eg BB84) are only used to share a private key via QC, which can then used to transmit data over a classical channel. Changing your key for every bit, while impractical, makes this a completely secure method.
For a trivial (granted highly inefficient)example of a secure scheme, map half the set of possible keys generated by our BB84 scheme to 0, half to 1 so that they are chosen with equal probability. If we get a 0, from the key, transmit your data bit unchanged, otherwise send the opposite. The data we send over the classical channel is indistinguishable from noise. Since BB84 gives us a secure way to share a random string of bits, it gives us a provably secure scheme for transmitting over a classical channel.
Not to mention the fact there have been many other fusion reactors built in the past which in fact did produce fusion (TFTR and NSCX at Princeton Plasma Physics Lab for example)
Here's one hypothetical scenario:
* Bill Gates never got into the computer industry.
* Microsoft was never formed.
* The computer industry wasn't held back by its monopolistic practices.
* Netscape succeeded in making the web a platform a decade before Google.
* The computer industry as a whole was 300% more productive over the next ten years.
* Commoditisation of the operating system meant that money was not siphoned off every industry that uses computers needlessly.
Doubtful. If Bill Gates were hit by a truck before Microsoft was formed, then its a near certainty that someone else (let's call him Gill Bates) would have stepped in, and we would all be complaining about his monopoly of the OS market. But then, we have no guarantee that Gill Bates would be near as philanthropic (or at all). Just going by the odds, its more than likely that Gill's philanthropic contributions would be far less than Bill's.
Imagine I have a light bulb, with a dimmer switch. I could set this to a dimmer switch to anything in between on and off. Theoritically I could store an infinite amount of information in the dimmer switch.
Not quite. You can only store one classical bit of information per qubit. But you can "cheat" a little with entanglement and get 2.
Samuelson explicitly says that he does not believe that gov't interference in the market is the answer to the downsides of outsourcing.
Mr. Samuelson, who calls himself a "centrist Democrat," said his analysis did not come with a recipe of policy steps, and he emphasized that it was not meant as a justification for protectionist measures.
His point is far more nuanced than your polemic implies.
Perhaps I've missed the point too, because as far as I can tell you agree with the article on the creation of money.
According to the article:
Even if the others wanted to acquire preserved palm leaves, the leaves could not possibly become the most marketable commodity overnight and could therefore not start out as money. If the Professor's leaves become money, it will be through the same barter-based process that made the decorative shells into money.
And according to you:
The Prof would have to offer some kind of service or good that at least one of the other residents of the island wanted. In order to perform that service or hand over that good, the Prof would declare that he would only accept genuine ProfLeaves. In order to get ProfLeaves in the first place, the other resident(s) would have to perform a service or provide a good to him.
It seems to me that what you describe is the barter-based process in the article. The only difference as far as I can tell is that you require that the Prof require ProfLeaves in exchange for his services. But this seems to be clear if the Profs intention is to create a currency. So, how is the article wrong on this point?
There is a related article on Reason http://www.reason.com/rauch/082704.shtmldiscussing Thurston Howell III's supposed senate campaign. This was posted on 8/27, it appears that the Monetary Economics article was inspired by it.
Raid 0 will not help you significantly with game load times according to the benchmarks in the article. It seems to be more CPU intensive than anything.
Our gaming traces show that most games have very little impact on modern hard drives and generate a rather low load. Even the heavyweight champion Battlefield Vietnam was able to burden a Raptor WD360GD for only 17,1 percent average with a short peak of 70 percent. Other games had even lower averages and didn't rise above 80 percent peak usage. Therefore we conclude that loading game levels is mostly cpu intensive and does not rely on storage devices. This conclusion is again illustrated by the insignificant improvents when loading levels in Far Cry and Unreal Tournament.
If the US were flush with oil in 1973, as your anecdote seems to suggest, then why is it that people were forced to wait in long lines for oil? Perhaps (and I'm speculating) it was due to a large increase in demand for Alaskan oil due to the embargo. This rush of demand went beyond the usual Alaskan production/delivery capacity (evidenced by the full refinery tanks, as well as the apparent overuse of tankers taking up slack for the pipeline). However the high prices of oil in the US would make this extra and more expensive production worthwhile. As far as worldwide production goes, this is not incredibly surprising. OPEC did not cut production, they imposed an embargo. Their production which usually went to the US was sent to other parts of the world, making up for lack of exports of US oil which was staying in the US.
Interesting that you call my refer to my argument as a "rational axiomatic argument" but later as faith. Rational argument requires axiomatic foundation. Futher the axioms which I base my argument on have been proven time and time again through econometric analysis. You claim that I follow some sort of faith leading me to believe that speculative markets result in efficent pricing, but you offer no evidence to the contrary.
I'll defend Enron the day that you defend Dahmer. The executives of Enron commited a crime plain and simple, this does not mean that capitalist systems are fatally flawed no more than serial killers mean that humanity is.
When did Israel threaten this? I assume it was a long time ago, since google shows that Israel was estimated to have at most 20 nukes until the early 80s. The estimate has since been revised to >100. My search also turned up this gem I seriously doubt Israel would follow through on this threat. Especially given Israel's latest posturing, attempting to completely isolate itself from the rest of the mideast. OTOH the threat of terror attacks on oil production facilities is real and has already been fulfilled.
My point with the tariffs (which admittedly was not well made) was that a marginal scaling of a supposedly optimal system of tariffs would necessarily result in a system no worse than the original because both countries would symmetrically benefit. But when scaled to zero the new system would have to be better due to the d in transaction costs.
"I do not like large public stock corporations" Thats a shocker:). My reference to communism was meant as an analogy not an epithet. Your reference to the IMF impels me to trolling: I think the IMF is a good organization.
The terror premium is well deserved. It is completely rational to try to buy oil today when buyers think there will be a shortage tomorrow, which is certainly possible given recent events in Saudi Arabia. If prices were fixed at $25 pb (which I think you would have a hard time getting OPEC to agree to in the first place) then we would have a shortage of oil. This would become particularly egregious in the event of a major disruption of the oil supply due to a major attack on Saudi production facilities. If speculation were not allowed some how, then you would create the problem of suppliers taking on inventory in anticipation of a rise in prise, which in turn raises the price anyway.
If you can have bilateral agreements on tariffs in some sort of 'fair' way, then why not cut them in half, there would still be same relative effect. And if you could do that, then why have them at all. The transaction costs alone should be reason not have them.
It seems that you are making the same apology for Hawley-Smoot that is made for communism, somehow it was just done 'wrong'. The fact is that is impossible to gather enough information about the market (particularly the world market) in order to intervene without doing more harm than good. Speculative markets are a major part of what transmits this information through out the market. Without them, the economy is crippled.
Speculative markets, such as oil futures, are not parasites on the economy. These markets trade in risk and generally level out pricing fluctuations. For example, if it were determined that the price of oil was going to rise in the near future, the price would rise today, smoothing the transition. Further you claim that flows in the these markets dwarf real output. I find this hard to believe given the size of the US gdp. I'd like to see some numbers on that. And what historical success have we had with protectionist measures? The Hawley-Smoot tariff almost killed us, making the Great Depression far worse than it needed to be. Protectionist measures on one side only beget more protectionist measures on the other, hurting all parties involved in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
In the future we'll have numbers instead of names, and I'll be number 1!
You miss my point -- checking the orbit of Mercury is a _falsifiable_ way to check General Relativity in a place where it does diverge from classical gravity, and by an amount that could be measured by the instruments of the day. Another falsifiable prediction which was readily checkable at the time was the deflection of light from distant stars. During a solar eclipse this was most certainly possible at the time. String theory, on the other hand, does not diverge from the Standard Model in places and by amounts that can be currently checked.
GR correctly predicts the precession of the orbit of Mercury, which was known at the time. The lack of aether, which on its own is pretty firm evidence SR, was demonstrated in many experiments before and after SR.
Is it true that if you cook a turkey covered in aluminum foil, it will be hotter if you cook with shiny side in?
That is misleading. The point is to securely distribute private keys. All that is needed is a public classical channel in addition to the quantum channel. Most algorithms (eg BB84) are only used to share a private key via QC, which can then used to transmit data over a classical channel. Changing your key for every bit, while impractical, makes this a completely secure method. For a trivial (granted highly inefficient)example of a secure scheme, map half the set of possible keys generated by our BB84 scheme to 0, half to 1 so that they are chosen with equal probability. If we get a 0, from the key, transmit your data bit unchanged, otherwise send the opposite. The data we send over the classical channel is indistinguishable from noise. Since BB84 gives us a secure way to share a random string of bits, it gives us a provably secure scheme for transmitting over a classical channel.
No problem, just use cygwin ;)
Not to mention the fact there have been many other fusion reactors built in the past which in fact did produce fusion (TFTR and NSCX at Princeton Plasma Physics Lab for example)
umm... no. Hitler was involved in WWII. The leader of Germany in WWI was Kaiser Wilhelm II. Hitler was only a soldier in WWI.
Newsflash: Your 16 yr old son could probably already get booze without you knowing it.
There's not going to be an MTV special since The Revolution won't be televised. (rimshot)
The SI unit of mass is the kg, not the gram. So in fact a gram is defined in terms of a kg not vice versa.
Pi is exactly equal to 3!
Not quite. You can only store one classical bit of information per qubit. But you can "cheat" a little with entanglement and get 2.
According to the article:
And according to you:
It seems to me that what you describe is the barter-based process in the article. The only difference as far as I can tell is that you require that the Prof require ProfLeaves in exchange for his services. But this seems to be clear if the Profs intention is to create a currency. So, how is the article wrong on this point?
There is a related article on Reason http://www.reason.com/rauch/082704.shtmldiscussing Thurston Howell III's supposed senate campaign. This was posted on 8/27, it appears that the Monetary Economics article was inspired by it.
Ummm... maybe someone should tell them that light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields. :)
I was really hoping to buy enron.com, no such luck.
Interesting that you call my refer to my argument as a "rational axiomatic argument" but later as faith. Rational argument requires axiomatic foundation. Futher the axioms which I base my argument on have been proven time and time again through econometric analysis. You claim that I follow some sort of faith leading me to believe that speculative markets result in efficent pricing, but you offer no evidence to the contrary.
I'll defend Enron the day that you defend Dahmer. The executives of Enron commited a crime plain and simple, this does not mean that capitalist systems are fatally flawed no more than serial killers mean that humanity is.
When did Israel threaten this? I assume it was a long time ago, since google shows that Israel was estimated to have at most 20 nukes until the early 80s. The estimate has since been revised to >100. My search also turned up this gem I seriously doubt Israel would follow through on this threat. Especially given Israel's latest posturing, attempting to completely isolate itself from the rest of the mideast. OTOH the threat of terror attacks on oil production facilities is real and has already been fulfilled.
My point with the tariffs (which admittedly was not well made) was that a marginal scaling of a supposedly optimal system of tariffs would necessarily result in a system no worse than the original because both countries would symmetrically benefit. But when scaled to zero the new system would have to be better due to the d in transaction costs.
"I do not like large public stock corporations" Thats a shocker :). My reference to communism was meant as an analogy not an epithet. Your reference to the IMF impels me to trolling: I think the IMF is a good organization.
The terror premium is well deserved. It is completely rational to try to buy oil today when buyers think there will be a shortage tomorrow, which is certainly possible given recent events in Saudi Arabia. If prices were fixed at $25 pb (which I think you would have a hard time getting OPEC to agree to in the first place) then we would have a shortage of oil. This would become particularly egregious in the event of a major disruption of the oil supply due to a major attack on Saudi production facilities. If speculation were not allowed some how, then you would create the problem of suppliers taking on inventory in anticipation of a rise in prise, which in turn raises the price anyway. If you can have bilateral agreements on tariffs in some sort of 'fair' way, then why not cut them in half, there would still be same relative effect. And if you could do that, then why have them at all. The transaction costs alone should be reason not have them. It seems that you are making the same apology for Hawley-Smoot that is made for communism, somehow it was just done 'wrong'. The fact is that is impossible to gather enough information about the market (particularly the world market) in order to intervene without doing more harm than good. Speculative markets are a major part of what transmits this information through out the market. Without them, the economy is crippled.
Speculative markets, such as oil futures, are not parasites on the economy. These markets trade in risk and generally level out pricing fluctuations. For example, if it were determined that the price of oil was going to rise in the near future, the price would rise today, smoothing the transition. Further you claim that flows in the these markets dwarf real output. I find this hard to believe given the size of the US gdp. I'd like to see some numbers on that. And what historical success have we had with protectionist measures? The Hawley-Smoot tariff almost killed us, making the Great Depression far worse than it needed to be. Protectionist measures on one side only beget more protectionist measures on the other, hurting all parties involved in the long run.
Please allow Ice Station Zebra to check out a copy of the dictionary so that he may learn how to spell the word 'libertarians'.
Sounds like somebody's got a case of the mondays