The difference is that when you break the Cognac glasses, you don't automatically loose the Cognac...
And when you break the Cognac glasses, you are probably already drunk anyway, so it seems nearly irrelevant as compared to breaking your glasses when you are in the cinema and you try to watch-- OK, I lost the analogy...
Make up your mind. That is surviving college with gear or sanity intact. You cannot have both. You cannot have a cake and eat it. This is very important to understand. Not only because in order to save your equipment and data you have to develop a certain level of paranoia, but--even more importantly--because the more insane you seem to be, the lower the probability that people who know you will steal your property is. (Remember that most of theft in colleges is done by people who know their victims.) If you act and look insane enough, those who know you will be scared to steal anything from you. I have personally observed this phenomenon and it appears that some people are rarely victims of theft (or any other crime, like murder or rape) even when they don't lock their door, mostly because people are afraid of them. For example, you might try to look not only very aggressive, but also act like someone who cannot control your anger, even against your own will, while talking about guns all of the time, showing your interest and fascination thereabouts, having guns in your room and showing them to everyone, which might have the positive effect of scaring all of the people you know, including potential thieves. You have to keep in mind that people are scared by things they don't understand, so a certain kind of psychotic look and sociopathic behaviour is usually more scary to most than the violent attitude alone. Please try to keep all that in mind. I hope you the best luck in surviving college with your precious gear.
The big problem with this article is its repeated use of phrases such as "instantly change" and "instantaneously influence" to describe correlations in the results of space-like separated measurements. Simultaneity among separate events is not well-defined under the basic assumptions of relativity, and the use of terms like "instant" is suggestive of an absolute frame of reference.
It is a problem indeed, but isn't that a problem of describing nonlocal behaviour in general, not this article in particular? How would you suggest solving this problem without introducing hidden variable theory?
I agree with Bruce when he says "This is troubling."
OK, Bruce knows that I usually agree with him, but not this time. I don't think this is troubling. I think this is fucking insane! Please forgive me my vulgar language, but we are talking about the very fundament of democracy, for God's sake! What the hell is so hard with writing an "X" on a damn paper?! I just can't believe it, this is completely insane and utterly stupid.
"Windows Not Expected Secure Until 2011, Says Microsoft."
Wow, what an optimism! Personally, I wouldn't expect Windows secure until the the next ice age in Hell--but Microsoft? Those people have got vision, genius and determination! Meanwhile, any sane admin will continue using Debian and EROS for at least 7 more years, thank you very much.
Please, let us not be so unfair to Microsoft. No system is 100% secure. I am sure that by 2011 OpenBSD might have another two or maybe even three local exploits in some services not installed by default. Security is very hard and nothing is totally secure, be it Windows, OpenBSD, KeyKOS or EROS--no difference.
The headline is highly misleading.
You cannot violate the GPL. By not following its terms you violate the copyright law.
It might be subtle but it is actually extremely important, because:
it means that it is irrelevant whether the GPL is
valid or
legally binding
it makes the violation equally serious as illegal distribution of proprietary software
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify
the above text
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License."
[...] But the six scientists found a way to make an end run around this logic, using a celebrated and paradoxical feature of quantum mechanics known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect.
Read just how this effect works, here.
Very good article, but some people might find
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox article on Wikipedia somewhat better for an introductory text, and at the same time richer in details:
The EPR paradox arises in a thought experiment which shows that quantum mechanics leads to very counter-intuitive
and paradoxical consequences. It is named after Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, who published the idea in 1935. It
is also referred to as the EPRB paradox after Bohm, who converted the idea into something that was nearer to being
experimentally testable.
The EPR paradox draws attention to a phenomenon predicted by quantum mechanics known as quantum entanglement, in
which measurements on spatially separated quantum systems can instantaneously influence one another. As a result,
quantum mechanics violates a principle formulated by Einstein, known as the principle of locality or local realism,
which states that changes performed on one physical system should have no immediate effect on another spatially
separated system.
The principle of locality is persuasive, both in intuitive grounds and because it seems at first sight to be a
natural outgrowth of the theory of special relativity. According to relativity, information can never be
transmitted faster than the speed of light, or causality would be violated. Any theory which violates causality
would be deeply unsatisfying, and probably internally inconsistent. However, a detailed analysis of the EPR
scenario shows that quantum mechanics violates locality without violating causality, because no information can be
transmitted using quantum entanglement.
Nevertheless, the principle of locality appeals powerfully to physical intuition, and Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen
were unwilling to abandon it. They suggested that quantum mechanics is not a complete theory, just an (admittedly
successful) statistical approximation to some yet-undiscovered description of nature. Several such descriptions of
quantum mechanics, known as "local hidden variable theories" were proposed. These deterministically assign definite
values to all the physical quantities at all times, and explicitly preserve the principle of locality.
Of the several objections to the prevailing interpretation of the quantum mechanics spearheaded by Einstein, the
EPR paradox was the subtlest. It is at present considered to have been unsuccessful, the existence of hidden
variables having been refuted experimentally and the EPR "paradox" taken to be fully resolved within the current
interpretation of the theory. The belief that entanglement is a real phenomenon has led to a radical shift in
thinking about 'what is reality' and what is a 'state of a physical system'. First, a review of the history:
Before 1936, the generally accepted view was that a particle, such as an electron, has measurable properties such
as a position and a momentum but 'we cannot know both' at the same time. This view is present in some explanations
of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. In such an explanation, the 'more exactly we measure the position', the
'more we disturb the particle' and its momentum becomes that much less certain. The numerical measure of
uncertainty satisfies Heisenberg's principle, but this (local realistic) interpretation is rejected in professional
circles, though it still lives in popular books.
The shift was caused by the EPR thought experiment, which has shown how to measure the property of a particle, such
as a position, without disturbing it. In to
Wow, is it already 35? I feel so old... I remember when back in the early 1970s I said to one of my friends that I don't know when, I don't know how, but I am sure that eventually one day someone will somehow use this new technology for pornography... In my sickest dreams I haven't imagined something on the scale of images.google.com, though. That having been said, happy birthday to Internet, the most important achievment of humanity since the printing press. It all began on "September 2, 1969, as bits of meaningless test data flowed silently between the two computers." Today, after only 35 years, the unbelievably obscene amount of meaningless data silently flowing between billions of computers in every second, makes me wonder: can the net amount of entropy of the universe be decreased? Will the Internet help us find any meaningful answer? In any case, I am sure that the Internet is something which our grandchildren and their grandchildren will learn at school about. September 2 is a very important day. There is even an article on Wikipedia about this very day. I believe every person who has ever published anything on the Internet should be proud, because this is something all of us has created, even if none of use has envisioned. Truly remarkable achievment. Happy birthday!
Big deal... I am constantly bombarded about emails promising 'longer lasting hard drives' something about pills or herbs, this is nothing new.
You may laugh, but I don't know when, I don't know how, but I am sure that eventually one day someone will somehow use this new technology for pornography...
My post was moderated as "-1, Flamebait" but I seriously admire this guy. I remember a recent discussion on Slashdot:
"Does anyone know Jon's doctor?
"I want to know if he really does have testicles made of brass."
"Not only are they made of brass, but he's got five of them."
"I want to meet Jon's tailor. I hear he makes pants that fit like a glove."
This is exactly how I feel. Moderating my post as "-1, Flamebait" was a serious mistake.
Making stuff out of broken computer equipment in nothing. Back in my day, we were making computer equipment out of broken stuff.
Oh, and before you start asking stupid questions--no, it wasn't in Soviet Russia. But those NANDs and NORs--it surely was an impressive cluster of those!
Making stuff out of broken computer equipment in nothing. Back in my day, we were making computer equipment out of broken stuff. And we were grateful! Seriously. Have you ever made hundreds of NAND gates out of broken TVs and radios from the junk yard and used them to build a huge binary calculator? With multiplication? You might laugh, but in my opinion that was something to be proud of.
"opening the door to atomically precise timekeeping in portable, battery-powered devices for secure wireless communications, more precise navigation and..." Video games!
Not only video games. I don't know when, I don't know how, but I am sure that eventually one day someone will somehow use is for pornography...
As much as I am usually against frivolous lawsuits, this time I hope Google will sue and win. Why? Because this so called "file system" is a classical example of parasite which can only hurt Google giving absolutely nothing in exchange whatsoever. And for what? So its "developers" could have their project posted on Slashdot frontpage? So they could say "look, mom, how 'leet' I am"? I ask you, people, what if one day someone writes a "file system" stealing storage from Slashdot, saving its files in the form of gigabyte first posts filled with goat.se links and literally tons of uuencoded pornography? This is exactly the same, only much worse, because Google has much less intrusive advertisements and no corporate agenda. From every greedy US corporation, Google is unquestionably the closest to being absolutely perfect. And how do we say "thank you"? By stealing their property? By advertising this pathetic thief "file system" on the front page of the most popular website on the north hemisphere? I just wanted to protest and clearly state that I am strongly against it. I hope someone will start a paypal fund to help Google in court. We cannot tolerate such a behaviour. Please keep in mind that Google is not another Microsoft or Caldera. Google is trying to do what is best for us. They deserve our gratefulness and, what is even more important, respect. The existence of script kiddies shamefully exploiting Google's superior services for their own miserable advantage is a precedence not only insulting to our intelligence but a one actually harmful for us in the long run, because that could possibly mean the end of fantastic projects from Google, when they eventually stop to think and inevitably say: "Hey, why give them so much if they just want to steal from us? Maybe that popup pornography ads and paid search results placement weren't such a bad idea, after all?" I know I certainly would.
"It's fair to say that most people love PNG images (or at least hate GIFs). However, the one advantage GIFs have over PNGs is that they can be animated."
And this is an advantage?
So by ex tension my setting "Settings: Animate images: Never" in Galeon was, what, counter-productive? Seriously, what are animated GIFs used for other that distracting my attention from the text I am desperately trying to read? Is there any other use I am not aware of? I, for one, consider animated GIFs just as useful as Shockwave Flesh or Java, for that matter.
Is it only good for illiterate people who don't use Internet to read? I'm curious, because I think those little light flashing hallucinations on the border of my vision area after staring in my CRT all day are enough of a distraction, I don't think I need a real animations to make my "reading experience" even worse. I would seriously like to know what am I missing by disabling it. Is there some new kind of pornography or something which makes animated pictures so popular? I am just curious.
Slashdot Mirror
And when you break the Cognac glasses, you are probably already drunk anyway, so it seems nearly irrelevant as compared to breaking your glasses when you are in the cinema and you try to watch-- OK, I lost the analogy...
Is it a fix? Or is it a fux? No! It's a fox! Firefox!!!
Make up your mind. That is surviving college with gear or sanity intact. You cannot have both. You cannot have a cake and eat it. This is very important to understand. Not only because in order to save your equipment and data you have to develop a certain level of paranoia, but--even more importantly--because the more insane you seem to be, the lower the probability that people who know you will steal your property is. (Remember that most of theft in colleges is done by people who know their victims.) If you act and look insane enough, those who know you will be scared to steal anything from you. I have personally observed this phenomenon and it appears that some people are rarely victims of theft (or any other crime, like murder or rape) even when they don't lock their door, mostly because people are afraid of them. For example, you might try to look not only very aggressive, but also act like someone who cannot control your anger, even against your own will, while talking about guns all of the time, showing your interest and fascination thereabouts, having guns in your room and showing them to everyone, which might have the positive effect of scaring all of the people you know, including potential thieves. You have to keep in mind that people are scared by things they don't understand, so a certain kind of psychotic look and sociopathic behaviour is usually more scary to most than the violent attitude alone. Please try to keep all that in mind. I hope you the best luck in surviving college with your precious gear.
It is a problem indeed, but isn't that a problem of describing nonlocal behaviour in general, not this article in particular? How would you suggest solving this problem without introducing hidden variable theory?
I other news, the novel innovation of marking "X" on a piece of paper found invulnerable against this exploit. Film at 11!
OK, Bruce knows that I usually agree with him, but not this time. I don't think this is troubling. I think this is fucking insane! Please forgive me my vulgar language, but we are talking about the very fundament of democracy, for God's sake! What the hell is so hard with writing an "X" on a damn paper?! I just can't believe it, this is completely insane and utterly stupid.
"Windows Not Expected Secure Until 2011, Says Microsoft."
Wow, what an optimism! Personally, I wouldn't expect Windows secure until the the next ice age in Hell--but Microsoft? Those people have got vision, genius and determination! Meanwhile, any sane admin will continue using Debian and EROS for at least 7 more years, thank you very much.
My God! Not only did he used a symbol of forbidden fruit as his trademark, but also this?! He is soooo damned...
Please, let us not be so unfair to Microsoft. No system is 100% secure. I am sure that by 2011 OpenBSD might have another two or maybe even three local exploits in some services not installed by default. Security is very hard and nothing is totally secure, be it Windows, OpenBSD, KeyKOS or EROS--no difference.
The headline is highly misleading. You cannot violate the GPL. By not following its terms you violate the copyright law. It might be subtle but it is actually extremely important, because:
I hope it makes things a little bit more clear.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify the above text under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License."
Very good article, but some people might find Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox article on Wikipedia somewhat better for an introductory text, and at the same time richer in details:
The EPR paradox arises in a thought experiment which shows that quantum mechanics leads to very counter-intuitive and paradoxical consequences. It is named after Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, who published the idea in 1935. It is also referred to as the EPRB paradox after Bohm, who converted the idea into something that was nearer to being experimentally testable. The EPR paradox draws attention to a phenomenon predicted by quantum mechanics known as quantum entanglement, in which measurements on spatially separated quantum systems can instantaneously influence one another. As a result, quantum mechanics violates a principle formulated by Einstein, known as the principle of locality or local realism, which states that changes performed on one physical system should have no immediate effect on another spatially separated system. The principle of locality is persuasive, both in intuitive grounds and because it seems at first sight to be a natural outgrowth of the theory of special relativity. According to relativity, information can never be transmitted faster than the speed of light, or causality would be violated. Any theory which violates causality would be deeply unsatisfying, and probably internally inconsistent. However, a detailed analysis of the EPR scenario shows that quantum mechanics violates locality without violating causality, because no information can be transmitted using quantum entanglement. Nevertheless, the principle of locality appeals powerfully to physical intuition, and Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen were unwilling to abandon it. They suggested that quantum mechanics is not a complete theory, just an (admittedly successful) statistical approximation to some yet-undiscovered description of nature. Several such descriptions of quantum mechanics, known as "local hidden variable theories" were proposed. These deterministically assign definite values to all the physical quantities at all times, and explicitly preserve the principle of locality. Of the several objections to the prevailing interpretation of the quantum mechanics spearheaded by Einstein, the EPR paradox was the subtlest. It is at present considered to have been unsuccessful, the existence of hidden variables having been refuted experimentally and the EPR "paradox" taken to be fully resolved within the current interpretation of the theory. The belief that entanglement is a real phenomenon has led to a radical shift in thinking about 'what is reality' and what is a 'state of a physical system'. First, a review of the history: Before 1936, the generally accepted view was that a particle, such as an electron, has measurable properties such as a position and a momentum but 'we cannot know both' at the same time. This view is present in some explanations of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. In such an explanation, the 'more exactly we measure the position', the 'more we disturb the particle' and its momentum becomes that much less certain. The numerical measure of uncertainty satisfies Heisenberg's principle, but this (local realistic) interpretation is rejected in professional circles, though it still lives in popular books. The shift was caused by the EPR thought experiment, which has shown how to measure the property of a particle, such as a position, without disturbing it. In to
So which is it? 25? or 35? Come on... :p
It's only a 10 years old dupe. You must be new here...
Wow, is it already 35? I feel so old... I remember when back in the early 1970s I said to one of my friends that I don't know when, I don't know how, but I am sure that eventually one day someone will somehow use this new technology for pornography... In my sickest dreams I haven't imagined something on the scale of images.google.com, though. That having been said, happy birthday to Internet, the most important achievment of humanity since the printing press. It all began on "September 2, 1969, as bits of meaningless test data flowed silently between the two computers." Today, after only 35 years, the unbelievably obscene amount of meaningless data silently flowing between billions of computers in every second, makes me wonder: can the net amount of entropy of the universe be decreased? Will the Internet help us find any meaningful answer? In any case, I am sure that the Internet is something which our grandchildren and their grandchildren will learn at school about. September 2 is a very important day. There is even an article on Wikipedia about this very day. I believe every person who has ever published anything on the Internet should be proud, because this is something all of us has created, even if none of use has envisioned. Truly remarkable achievment. Happy birthday!
Thank you. Sometimes the truth just have to be said, notwithstanding the consequences. Thank you very much for your support.
You may laugh, but I don't know when, I don't know how, but I am sure that eventually one day someone will somehow use this new technology for pornography...
My post was moderated as "-1, Flamebait" but I seriously admire this guy. I remember a recent discussion on Slashdot:
This is exactly how I feel. Moderating my post as "-1, Flamebait" was a serious mistake.
Oh, and before you start asking stupid questions--no, it wasn't in Soviet Russia. But those NANDs and NORs--it surely was an impressive cluster of those!
Making stuff out of broken computer equipment in nothing. Back in my day, we were making computer equipment out of broken stuff. And we were grateful! Seriously. Have you ever made hundreds of NAND gates out of broken TVs and radios from the junk yard and used them to build a huge binary calculator? With multiplication? You might laugh, but in my opinion that was something to be proud of.
Not only video games. I don't know when, I don't know how, but I am sure that eventually one day someone will somehow use is for pornography...
This is already possible. You just have to ping them every second and you should be fine. Run this as root:
# watch -n1 ntpdate ntp-server
And your time should be 99.99999% correct in most circumstances. For better results add more ntp servers. See ntpdate(1):
ntpdate [-bBdoqsuv] [-a key] [-e authdelay] [-k keyfile] [-o version] [-p samples] [-t timeout] server [...]
I hope it helps.
As much as I am usually against frivolous lawsuits, this time I hope Google will sue and win. Why? Because this so called "file system" is a classical example of parasite which can only hurt Google giving absolutely nothing in exchange whatsoever. And for what? So its "developers" could have their project posted on Slashdot frontpage? So they could say "look, mom, how 'leet' I am"? I ask you, people, what if one day someone writes a "file system" stealing storage from Slashdot, saving its files in the form of gigabyte first posts filled with goat.se links and literally tons of uuencoded pornography? This is exactly the same, only much worse, because Google has much less intrusive advertisements and no corporate agenda. From every greedy US corporation, Google is unquestionably the closest to being absolutely perfect. And how do we say "thank you"? By stealing their property? By advertising this pathetic thief "file system" on the front page of the most popular website on the north hemisphere? I just wanted to protest and clearly state that I am strongly against it. I hope someone will start a paypal fund to help Google in court. We cannot tolerate such a behaviour. Please keep in mind that Google is not another Microsoft or Caldera. Google is trying to do what is best for us. They deserve our gratefulness and, what is even more important, respect. The existence of script kiddies shamefully exploiting Google's superior services for their own miserable advantage is a precedence not only insulting to our intelligence but a one actually harmful for us in the long run, because that could possibly mean the end of fantastic projects from Google, when they eventually stop to think and inevitably say: "Hey, why give them so much if they just want to steal from us? Maybe that popup pornography ads and paid search results placement weren't such a bad idea, after all?" I know I certainly would.
"It's fair to say that most people love PNG images (or at least hate GIFs). However, the one advantage GIFs have over PNGs is that they can be animated."
And this is an advantage? So by ex tension my setting "Settings: Animate images: Never" in Galeon was, what, counter-productive? Seriously, what are animated GIFs used for other that distracting my attention from the text I am desperately trying to read? Is there any other use I am not aware of? I, for one, consider animated GIFs just as useful as Shockwave Flesh or Java, for that matter. Is it only good for illiterate people who don't use Internet to read? I'm curious, because I think those little light flashing hallucinations on the border of my vision area after staring in my CRT all day are enough of a distraction, I don't think I need a real animations to make my "reading experience" even worse. I would seriously like to know what am I missing by disabling it. Is there some new kind of pornography or something which makes animated pictures so popular? I am just curious.
And even then, the support will be hardly transparent. (Get it? Transparent!)
...since it already has. Wasn't Mortal Combat the first game to hit the big screen, back in the 80s?