Well, it could be simple math. You know, 100Ks of gun owners and 100Ks of gamers and a rare few school shootings? But, judging by the logic, no, you can't do simple math.
BWAHAHAHAHA! You link to The Guardian for your info? I have a right to laugh at that, by the way. If you accept a proven lying publication by saying "don't discount the truth by where you find it", you have to accept the truth from CATO, Heritage Foundation and Junk Science too.
"Reality is that many MANY people self educate or get education from the "school of life" that is far more comprehensive and rounded than anything you get in a institution for around $100K or more plus a few years of your life."
And the reality is, that many MANY people who self educate don't fucking LIE about it. I've worked for years in telecom without a degree and never lied about it. Hmmm? Wasn't necessary.
Actually, no on two counts. Integrity is simply the thing touted as most important in academia and you can bet your ass that she would have been escorted out the door if a boss in corp america found she'd lied to his face for decades. I've seen it happen.
Yes, kids who do bad things should be "understood", not treated like any adults who do bad things. When you mess with adults, it's an adult game with adult rules. Don't like the rules? Don't enter the game.
Somewhat of a non sequitor on your part, ain't it? I mean, the software is the type to do cracking of other machines. It's the type to fake out security assessments. When you sign a contract, then purposefully break it, that's not malicious?
"The biggest offense that you can sight in his actions is that he gave the software to a few friends and a professor."
Au contrair. The biggest offense was signing the policy and then using his software on a system that was not his to bypass security assessments.
Who the hell thinks that this guy wouldn't do the same damn thing, were he hired by a securities brokerage?
It's a cannard that he was only testing it. It worked. There was no reason to continue the subtrefuge. He should have expunged the objects, then informed Cisco immediately. Not "sometime this summer".
"...that the nutty Gia concept (of the earth as a living entity) was actually a hypothesis with more than a little proof to back it up."
It's the 'acting like a single organism' thing that people don't grab. Me either. I just don't find that more than a little proof. Or any, for that matter. Kindly cite.
steal, v., stole, stolen, stealing, n. -v.t.
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
"Consider the cat in a double box with a door between the two boxes. I'm in the box with the cat and I observe whether it's dead or alive. I now go into the other box and close the door. As far as you are concerned the cat is still in a superposition of dead and alive and I'm in a superposition of happy/sad. You now open the box with the cat in it but there is only one possible result - therefore the wavefunction must already have collapsed."
Consider the cat in a double box with a door... close the door.
As far as you know the cat is still either dead or alive, but I know which.
You now open the box and find the cat in the same state I did.
Therefore, the wave function represents our state of knowledge before discovery.
What does that have to do with the death of the cat?
In other words:
A known is provided by each observation. Each observation will yield information about the past as well, but until it takes place, that past is uncalculable, so from the viewpoint of the latest observer, they don't know anything about the past until the last observation.
The "waveform" is what actually? I mean, other than a statement about our state of knowledge and other than the worst concept QM has? Not a friggin' thing.
The cat is alive or dead. The waveform is your knowledge of said. The "collapse" is no more than an "Oh, my!" moment.
This happens for each observer (without the Oh, my for the inanimate ones, who really don't "observe" at all, only react physically in some way, but are said to "observe" so that it appears that the macro world indeed is anthropomorphic).
If the observer can be anything (a concept that is after the fact), then the inside of the box can be the observer and the cat was never in an unknown state -- only our knowledge of its state was.
Seems to me, they have gone overboard describing that "things that touch somehow, create a change". Wow. Deep. Starlight touching your retina morphs a pigment. Heavy.
No Virginia, you didn't make the star twinkle, it exploded last year. And, no Virginia, you are not powerful enough to have projected backward in time and made it twinkle just for you.
Math is a descriptor, both of the real and the unreal. Nothing more; it defines nothing, only lends voice to the description.
Does pi infinitely repeat? No, it has a value of 1. I'm just using base pi for convenience with circles. Makes balancing my checkbook a nightmare, though.
Sorry about the ramble. I just read a couple of QM books.
Yeah. Like flat screens, disc density, chip density, new chip design, photovoltaics, automobile improvements, new jets designs and so on. The military is so many light years ahead of civilian living they look like super beings, with technology barely hinting that it had evolved from ours or vise versa.
You're being disingenuous. Three explicitly states "since then". The US hasn't detonated nukes elsewhere since then.
"It could..."
Perhaps you're unaware that even after the two bombs, Japan refused to surrender? They were at that point controlled by their military, not their civilian branches. True, the civilian branch of government wanted to surrender, as our interception of messengers showed, but the military was in control and did not want it.
Slashdot Mirror
"without attempted ACTUAL illegal action"
The perp believed the victim was a child. The perp was trying to commit an actual crime. Just got caught in a sting.
You might wanna provide any kind of reference so people can see what you're talking about.
That isn't the case here. Another two cents.
Well, it could be simple math. You know, 100Ks of gun owners and 100Ks of gamers and a rare few school shootings? But, judging by the logic, no, you can't do simple math.
I have to agree with you, 2% is a ridiculous percentage.
"Here is the dirty little secret of capitalism --- it thrives on a huge class of impoverished workers."
The US has a huge impoverished class? Point please. If you own a TV, car, or GameBoy, you're not impoverished.
BWAHAHAHAHA! You link to The Guardian for your info? I have a right to laugh at that, by the way. If you accept a proven lying publication by saying "don't discount the truth by where you find it", you have to accept the truth from CATO, Heritage Foundation and Junk Science too.
"Reality is that many MANY people self educate or get education from the "school of life" that is far more comprehensive and rounded than anything you get in a institution for around $100K or more plus a few years of your life."
And the reality is, that many MANY people who self educate don't fucking LIE about it. I've worked for years in telecom without a degree and never lied about it. Hmmm? Wasn't necessary.
The best admissions office in the world would not headed by a fraud, you know.
Actually, no on two counts. Integrity is simply the thing touted as most important in academia and you can bet your ass that she would have been escorted out the door if a boss in corp america found she'd lied to his face for decades. I've seen it happen.
So, a liar in control of admissions demanding honesty from someone trying to be admitted isn't wrong?
Yes, kids who do bad things should be "understood", not treated like any adults who do bad things. When you mess with adults, it's an adult game with adult rules. Don't like the rules? Don't enter the game.
Somewhat of a non sequitor on your part, ain't it? I mean, the software is the type to do cracking of other machines. It's the type to fake out security assessments. When you sign a contract, then purposefully break it, that's not malicious?
"The biggest offense that you can sight in his actions is that he gave the software to a few friends and a professor."
Au contrair. The biggest offense was signing the policy and then using his software on a system that was not his to bypass security assessments.
Who the hell thinks that this guy wouldn't do the same damn thing, were he hired by a securities brokerage?
It's a cannard that he was only testing it. It worked. There was no reason to continue the subtrefuge. He should have expunged the objects, then informed Cisco immediately. Not "sometime this summer".
"The U.S. is not once the place it was..."
That is true. Women can vote, there's no more slavery, indentured servitude was abolished.
Get a friggin' grip. "too bad too few people are sentient enough" That after a slogan for a thought.
Got any idea just how much carbon is in a tree? It ain't all locked up in the sugar produced by photosynthisis, bub.
DVORAK isn't even a good example. The Navy found it to be a push after familiarization.
"...that the nutty Gia concept (of the earth as a living entity) was actually a hypothesis with more than a little proof to back it up."
It's the 'acting like a single organism' thing that people don't grab. Me either. I just don't find that more than a little proof. Or any, for that matter. Kindly cite.
steal, v., stole, stolen, stealing, n. -v.t.
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
Note definition number two.
I'd be more impressed if they could describe it other than they "teleported the unknown quantum state". How? For instance.
"Consider the cat in a double box with a door between the two boxes. I'm in the box with the cat and I observe whether it's dead or alive. I now go into the other box and close the door. As far as you are concerned the cat is still in a superposition of dead and alive and I'm in a superposition of happy/sad. You now open the box with the cat in it but there is only one possible result - therefore the wavefunction must already have collapsed."
... close the door.
Consider the cat in a double box with a door
As far as you know the cat is still either dead or alive, but I know which.
You now open the box and find the cat in the same state I did.
Therefore, the wave function represents our state of knowledge before discovery.
What does that have to do with the death of the cat?
In other words:
A known is provided by each observation. Each observation will yield information about the past as well, but until it takes place, that past is uncalculable, so from the viewpoint of the latest observer, they don't know anything about the past until the last observation.
The "waveform" is what actually? I mean, other than a statement about our state of knowledge and other than the worst concept QM has? Not a friggin' thing.
The cat is alive or dead. The waveform is your knowledge of said. The "collapse" is no more than an "Oh, my!" moment.
This happens for each observer (without the Oh, my for the inanimate ones, who really don't "observe" at all, only react physically in some way, but are said to "observe" so that it appears that the macro world indeed is anthropomorphic).
If the observer can be anything (a concept that is after the fact), then the inside of the box can be the observer and the cat was never in an unknown state -- only our knowledge of its state was.
Seems to me, they have gone overboard describing that "things that touch somehow, create a change". Wow. Deep. Starlight touching your retina morphs a pigment. Heavy.
No Virginia, you didn't make the star twinkle, it exploded last year. And, no Virginia, you are not powerful enough to have projected backward in time and made it twinkle just for you.
Math is a descriptor, both of the real and the unreal. Nothing more; it defines nothing, only lends voice to the description.
Does pi infinitely repeat? No, it has a value of 1. I'm just using base pi for convenience with circles. Makes balancing my checkbook a nightmare, though.
Sorry about the ramble. I just read a couple of QM books.
Yeah. Like flat screens, disc density, chip density, new chip design, photovoltaics, automobile improvements, new jets designs and so on. The military is so many light years ahead of civilian living they look like super beings, with technology barely hinting that it had evolved from ours or vise versa.
That was sarcasm.
You are not wrong, except when you say what the UN does.
You're being disingenuous. Three explicitly states "since then". The US hasn't detonated nukes elsewhere since then.
"It could..."
Perhaps you're unaware that even after the two bombs, Japan refused to surrender? They were at that point controlled by their military, not their civilian branches. True, the civilian branch of government wanted to surrender, as our interception of messengers showed, but the military was in control and did not want it.