Given Opera's business model, shouldn't he have tied this stunt to sales rather than downloads?
In a word, no. That would make a horrible salespitch. I'm not going to fork over money for a product I would not otherwise buy just to vote yes to the swim!
On the other hand, a download is not big deal. And once I download the product, I might be like "Hey! Cool!" and decide to buy it. Even if not, at least the product is getting some good exposure.
Deriving sales from stunts like this is rarely straight forward.
Yeah, as they saying goes, "first the government provides limited free internet access at truck stops, then they are herding you into concentration camps." Cambodian friends tell me that this is exactly how Polpot got his start.
The government does not have a right to limit your internet service; it 100% within its rights to limit its own internet service.
If you think being government owned means they have to give you whatever kind of informational access you like, why don't you go see the Pentagon about getting ahold of some of our nuclear research documents? After all, you as a tax payer funded it, so you obviously have a constitutional right to access whatever the frick you want.
Well, you can imagine why people in the sciences might be a little snarky on this subject.
Woah! Woah! Hold up!
Since when are comment posters intrinsically "people in the sciences"? You might note that the actual scientists quoted in the article didn't find it necessary at all to take any potshots, and most of the comments I've read here from people who claim to be in the field recognize Christian artifacts as a great archeological find, not an opportunity to slip in a few snide comments.
A lot of the history of Christianity revolves around bashing people who try to point out the actual reality of the universe.
No, Christianity revolves solely around the figure of Christ (hence the name) who was persecuted for violating the orthodoxy. If you want to assosciate ideology with the historical acts of those who submit to it, then I call atheists to account for the nigh-hundred million deaths assosciated with atheist governments over the past century.
Those people (scientists) do get a little tired of the unrelenting "seek to tear down" (to use your phrase) attitude from the religious side of the spectrum.
A lot of these people are Christian/Jewish/Muslim/religious in some way and would describe what you say as a load of bullock.
So, must of the comments in that tone about this article are made in the context of a more-secular-than-usual audience, and presume a certain world-weariness on this subject.
This is the last line of the article: "Colliding two beams of gold nuclei at Brookhaven's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in New York, physicists have been striving to make the quark-gluon plasma, a primordial soup of matter in which quarks and gluons circulate freely."
A puzzling signal in RHIC experiments has now been explained by two researchers as evidence for a primordial state of nuclear matteA puzzling signal in RHIC experiments has now been explained by two researchers as evidence for a primordial state of nuclear matter believed to have accompanied a quark-gluon plasma or similarly exotic matter in the early universe. Colliding two beams of gold nuclei at Brookhaven's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in New York, physicists have been striving to make the quark-gluon plasma, a primordial soup of matter in which quarks and gluons circulate freely.
However, the collision fireball has been smaller and shorter-lived than expected, according to two RHIC collaborations (STAR and PHENIX) of pions (the lightest form of quark-antiquark pairs) coming out of the fireball. The collaborations employ the Hanbury-Brown-Twiss method, originally used in astronomy to measure the size of stars. In the subatomic equivalent, spatially separated detectors record pairs of pions emerging from the collision to estimate the size of the fireball.
Now an experimentalist and a theorist, both from the University of Washington, John G. Cramer (206-543-9194, cramer@phys.washington.edu) and Gerald A. Miller (206-543-2995, miller@phys.washington.edu), have teamed up for the first time to propose a solution to this puzzle. Reporting independently of the RHIC collaborations, they take into account the fact that the low-energy pions produced inside the fireball act more like waves than classical, billiard-ball-like particles; the pions' relatively long wavelengths tend to overlap with other particles in the crowded fireball environment.
This new quantum-mechanical analysis leads the researchers to conclude that a primordial phenomenon has taken place inside the hot, dense RHIC fireballs. According to Miller and Cramer, the strong force is so powerful that the pions are overcome by the attractive forces exerted by neighboring quarks and anti-quarks. As a result, the pions act as nearly massless particles inside the medium.
Such a situation is believed to have existed shortly after the big bang, when the universe was extremely hot and dense. As the pions work against the attraction to escape RHIC's primordial fireball, they must convert some of their kinetic energy into mass, restoring their lost weight. But the pions' experience in the hot, dense environment leaves its mark: the strong attractive force (and the absorption of some of the pions in the collision) would make the fireball appear reduced in size to the detectors that record the pions. According to Miller, looking at the fireball using pions is like looking through a distorted lens: the pions see the radius as about 7 fermi (fm), about the radius of an ordinary gold nucleus, while the researchers deduce the true radius of the fireball to be about 11.5 fm (Cramer, Miller, Wu and Yoon, Phys Rev Lett, tent. 18 March 2005).r believed to have accompanied a quark-gluon plasma or similarly exotic matter in the early universe. Colliding two beams of gold nuclei at Brookhaven's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in New York, physicists have been striving to make the quark-gluon plasma, a primordial soup of matter in which quarks and gluons circulate freely.
However, the collision fireball has been smaller and shorter-lived than expected, according to two RHIC collaborations (STAR and PHENIX) of pions (the lightest form of quark-antiquark pairs) coming out of the fireball. The collaborations employ the Hanbury-Brown-Twiss method, originally used in astronomy to measure the size of stars. In the subatomic equivalent, spatially separated detectors record pairs of pions emerging from the collision to estimate the size of the fireball.
Now an experimentalist and a theorist, both from the University of Washington, John G. Cramer (206-543-9194, cramer@phys.washington.edu) and Gera
The whole idea of a missing link is a sham. It's a straw man put up by creationists. Because of the way evolution works you won't ever find a completely smooth transition from one form to another, you observe a puntuated equilibrium in the fossil record.
First of all, a missing-link is an intermittent species which can breed with both of the bridged species. It's not a "strawman" and is hardly and invention of creationists. A species capable of breeding with both (1) humans and (2) some breed of ape would fully satisfy the definition of a missing-link (between man and ape).
As for punctuated equilibrium, you are going down a whole nother path. First of all, Darwinism, as expressed by Darwin himself, predicts a smooth (ish) transition. Many scientists still maintain that this is how the fossil record would look if it were just more complete. Punctuated equilibrium is an alternate theory invoked to explain gaps (no, they are not a creationist myth) in the evolutionary records, but it is still a contested model for evolution in its various forms because not everyone agrees on how the geologic evidence should be interpreted.
There is plenty of shared ground to be found between creationists and evolutionists in regards to modern critiques of Darwinian evolution. But there are many other theories of evolution besides the straight-Darwinian model. So, inconclusion, don't mindlessly charge into an argument just because you think the otherside is "a sham."
Most scans and penetration efforts are conducted via zombie machines, and shutting down infected users who probably haven't the faintest clue what's going on just isn't worth the headache it causes ISPs.
So any resolution of this issue has to must be implemented on the OS side.
On that note, Windows is largely responsible for attacks on other operating systems--easily hacked Windows machines are what provides the cover for most blackhats, including those who are attacking Linux/BSD servers.
And how do you propose we do that? That's exactly why the article was talking about using x-ray crystallography, but you just can't do that on a 1kg block of iridium-platinum alloy.
Why use its known mass, of course! Then divide by 0.198078 (if it were pure platinum)/6.022E23 and take the nearest integer.
It doesn't really matter that there might plausibly be more or less atoms. Just find a number, suitably truncate it, and declare all subsequent decimal places to be zeros.
Isn't this exactly what happened with regards to the meter? "Hmm... speed of light is about 299,792,458 meters per second... well, instead of measuring this funky rod anymore, let's just say that it's 1 second of light movement long."
I'm proposing we do the same thing with this block that we did with the rod.
Lets say someone disputes the mass of a kilogram at the 10^-8 digit:
I presume you mean decimal place. Well, that's easy. A kilogram weighs 1.00000000kg. There you go, 1kg to the eight decimal place.
Not only is this inconvenient, but if someone has polished it or even 1 pg of dust has fallen on it, the precise weight is no longer repeatable, and is a ludicrous basis for measuring the mass of subatomic particles.
That's just silly. We've never weighed out the block to the precision of picograms. Yet, somehow we still relate measurements on the picogram scale, don't we? The weight of the actual block is only definite to about 2 micrograms.
All that's really important is to have a defined conversion from whatever more useful units you're using.
In the same way, I can give you an accurate description of the length of a cesium nucleus in furlongs. Furlongs, obviously, were not in their origination a very precise unit of length at all. But since there is a standard conversion (1 furlong = 201.168 meters) any measurement I give you in furlongs is as good as a measurement given in meters--as long as we agree on the conversion factor.
Here's the crux of it all: pretty much all measurements of particle mass are computed in energy (electric volts), chemistry is done in atomic mass units, and there are various other specialized units that are always cropping up. When you see a particle mass or some such given in kg, it is infallibly a conversion from these other units. As long as we agree on the conversion factor we are going to use between kg and some mass unit dependent on c, it is as good as defining kg on c in the first place.
I might go so far as to say that, even if we don't agree, it doesn't particularly matter. Honestly, the only reason we ever give the mass of an electron in kilos is because Joe Schmoe wants to know how much an electron weighs compared with how much he weighs.
Well, count the number of atoms in the platinum-iridium alloy, and voila! You have your new definition! (without having to fuss with the traditionalists)
Why the motivation for the change? The mass of subatomic particles have been given in kg for over a century. What exactly needs a more precisely reference of measurement? Physicists use their own units when it's convenient anyway. . . .
"This appears to be an intentional design decision on the part of the Arkeia developers."
Does this mean that, possibly, they were anticipating people *not* being able to access TCP port 617? I.e. "we trust you know how to properly configure your firewall."
So far, I can narrow down to either that, them being drunk when they coded this, or this being a case of the improper usage of the word "intentional."
Postulating God to explain complex events inserts an equally complex entity into the explanation.
And from whence, exactly, have you devised the "complexity" of God?
Contemporary science could not even answer what the "complexity" is of the origination of natural laws on their own, or universes on their own, or any such thing, so I would be most interested to know how you are going about making a comparison between these respective complexities?
You might be interested to know, by the way, that when you use Occam's razor in science you are borrowing a theological tool. Occam's razor is not part of science, as you seem to think (". . . the scientific view would favor atheism"). The tool of science is the scientific method. The use of Occam's razor in scientific analysis is based on the completely unwarranted assumption that the universe should behave simply. And, partly, because it is simply more pragmatic to not have to deal with arbitrarily many redundant theories explaining the same thing.
But there is no empirical (i.e., scientific) reason for Occam's razor to be true.
GM crops have tremendous potential in regions such as Africa, where also, unfortunately, the governments are too afraid to use GM strains because they risk their agricultural exports with the hysterically-anti-GM nations (because of the fear of cross-polination).
These developing countries can't even compete fairly with unmodified crops because of the unfair subsidies Western governments give their own farmers. Imagine that--taxing your highly advanced industrial complex and then using the money to artificially lower the prices of your products in one of the only markets that people of impoverished nations can compete in!
How long is the developing world going to suffer because technological nations remain sentimental over their own agriculture?
I'm guessing the Polish ops probably have an interest in compromising various lists and distributing numerous altered copies to do as much as they can to protect their agents.
You seem to have answered my question without providing any of the information I was looking for... I don't suppose by chance you're in marketing, are you?
before sending any sensitive email take a moment to think how it would look at an industrial tribunal.
Now, if you're a sadist like me, that is probably *not* a good question to ask yourself. Or, at least, I can think of all sorts of stuff to write in my emails that would be friggin' hilarious to hear publicly recited by a no-smiles lawyer at an important tribunal.
Slashdot Mirror
In a word, no. That would make a horrible salespitch. I'm not going to fork over money for a product I would not otherwise buy just to vote yes to the swim!
On the other hand, a download is not big deal. And once I download the product, I might be like "Hey! Cool!" and decide to buy it. Even if not, at least the product is getting some good exposure.
Deriving sales from stunts like this is rarely straight forward.
Still valuable research, no doubt.
Yeah, as they saying goes, "first the government provides limited free internet access at truck stops, then they are herding you into concentration camps." Cambodian friends tell me that this is exactly how Polpot got his start.
The government does not have a right to limit your internet service; it 100% within its rights to limit its own internet service.
If you think being government owned means they have to give you whatever kind of informational access you like, why don't you go see the Pentagon about getting ahold of some of our nuclear research documents? After all, you as a tax payer funded it, so you obviously have a constitutional right to access whatever the frick you want.
Woah! Woah! Hold up!
Since when are comment posters intrinsically "people in the sciences"? You might note that the actual scientists quoted in the article didn't find it necessary at all to take any potshots, and most of the comments I've read here from people who claim to be in the field recognize Christian artifacts as a great archeological find, not an opportunity to slip in a few snide comments.
A lot of the history of Christianity revolves around bashing people who try to point out the actual reality of the universe.
No, Christianity revolves solely around the figure of Christ (hence the name) who was persecuted for violating the orthodoxy. If you want to assosciate ideology with the historical acts of those who submit to it, then I call atheists to account for the nigh-hundred million deaths assosciated with atheist governments over the past century.
Those people (scientists) do get a little tired of the unrelenting "seek to tear down" (to use your phrase) attitude from the religious side of the spectrum.
A lot of these people are Christian/Jewish/Muslim/religious in some way and would describe what you say as a load of bullock.
So, must of the comments in that tone about this article are made in the context of a more-secular-than-usual audience, and presume a certain world-weariness on this subject.
Actually, it's called trolling.
I see NASA has decided the best way to succeed is to go with their strengths. :p
Because, if it is, we all know what happens when you cross the streams.
I don't know about defending it's validity, but as far as still enjoying the use of BitTorrent is concerned, netcat is your friend. ;)
When you get there, you can stop reading. :p
A puzzling signal in RHIC experiments has now been explained by two researchers as evidence for a primordial state of nuclear matteA puzzling signal in RHIC experiments has now been explained by two researchers as evidence for a primordial state of nuclear matter believed to have accompanied a quark-gluon plasma or similarly exotic matter in the early universe. Colliding two beams of gold nuclei at Brookhaven's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in New York, physicists have been striving to make the quark-gluon plasma, a primordial soup of matter in which quarks and gluons circulate freely.
However, the collision fireball has been smaller and shorter-lived than expected, according to two RHIC collaborations (STAR and PHENIX) of pions (the lightest form of quark-antiquark pairs) coming out of the fireball. The collaborations employ the Hanbury-Brown-Twiss method, originally used in astronomy to measure the size of stars. In the subatomic equivalent, spatially separated detectors record pairs of pions emerging from the collision to estimate the size of the fireball.
Now an experimentalist and a theorist, both from the University of Washington, John G. Cramer (206-543-9194, cramer@phys.washington.edu) and Gerald A. Miller (206-543-2995, miller@phys.washington.edu), have teamed up for the first time to propose a solution to this puzzle. Reporting independently of the RHIC collaborations, they take into account the fact that the low-energy pions produced inside the fireball act more like waves than classical, billiard-ball-like particles; the pions' relatively long wavelengths tend to overlap with other particles in the crowded fireball environment.
This new quantum-mechanical analysis leads the researchers to conclude that a primordial phenomenon has taken place inside the hot, dense RHIC fireballs. According to Miller and Cramer, the strong force is so powerful that the pions are overcome by the attractive forces exerted by neighboring quarks and anti-quarks. As a result, the pions act as nearly massless particles inside the medium.
Such a situation is believed to have existed shortly after the big bang, when the universe was extremely hot and dense. As the pions work against the attraction to escape RHIC's primordial fireball, they must convert some of their kinetic energy into mass, restoring their lost weight. But the pions' experience in the hot, dense environment leaves its mark: the strong attractive force (and the absorption of some of the pions in the collision) would make the fireball appear reduced in size to the detectors that record the pions. According to Miller, looking at the fireball using pions is like looking through a distorted lens: the pions see the radius as about 7 fermi (fm), about the radius of an ordinary gold nucleus, while the researchers deduce the true radius of the fireball to be about 11.5 fm (Cramer, Miller, Wu and Yoon, Phys Rev Lett, tent. 18 March 2005).r believed to have accompanied a quark-gluon plasma or similarly exotic matter in the early universe. Colliding two beams of gold nuclei at Brookhaven's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in New York, physicists have been striving to make the quark-gluon plasma, a primordial soup of matter in which quarks and gluons circulate freely.
However, the collision fireball has been smaller and shorter-lived than expected, according to two RHIC collaborations (STAR and PHENIX) of pions (the lightest form of quark-antiquark pairs) coming out of the fireball. The collaborations employ the Hanbury-Brown-Twiss method, originally used in astronomy to measure the size of stars. In the subatomic equivalent, spatially separated detectors record pairs of pions emerging from the collision to estimate the size of the fireball.
Now an experimentalist and a theorist, both from the University of Washington, John G. Cramer (206-543-9194, cramer@phys.washington.edu) and Gera
First of all, a missing-link is an intermittent species which can breed with both of the bridged species. It's not a "strawman" and is hardly and invention of creationists. A species capable of breeding with both (1) humans and (2) some breed of ape would fully satisfy the definition of a missing-link (between man and ape).
As for punctuated equilibrium, you are going down a whole nother path. First of all, Darwinism, as expressed by Darwin himself, predicts a smooth (ish) transition. Many scientists still maintain that this is how the fossil record would look if it were just more complete. Punctuated equilibrium is an alternate theory invoked to explain gaps (no, they are not a creationist myth) in the evolutionary records, but it is still a contested model for evolution in its various forms because not everyone agrees on how the geologic evidence should be interpreted.
There is plenty of shared ground to be found between creationists and evolutionists in regards to modern critiques of Darwinian evolution. But there are many other theories of evolution besides the straight-Darwinian model. So, inconclusion, don't mindlessly charge into an argument just because you think the otherside is "a sham."
So any resolution of this issue has to must be implemented on the OS side.
On that note, Windows is largely responsible for attacks on other operating systems--easily hacked Windows machines are what provides the cover for most blackhats, including those who are attacking Linux/BSD servers.
Why use its known mass, of course! Then divide by 0.198078 (if it were pure platinum)/6.022E23 and take the nearest integer.
It doesn't really matter that there might plausibly be more or less atoms. Just find a number, suitably truncate it, and declare all subsequent decimal places to be zeros.
Isn't this exactly what happened with regards to the meter? "Hmm... speed of light is about 299,792,458 meters per second... well, instead of measuring this funky rod anymore, let's just say that it's 1 second of light movement long."
I'm proposing we do the same thing with this block that we did with the rod.
Lets say someone disputes the mass of a kilogram at the 10^-8 digit:
I presume you mean decimal place. Well, that's easy. A kilogram weighs 1.00000000kg. There you go, 1kg to the eight decimal place.
Not only is this inconvenient, but if someone has polished it or even 1 pg of dust has fallen on it, the precise weight is no longer repeatable, and is a ludicrous basis for measuring the mass of subatomic particles.
That's just silly. We've never weighed out the block to the precision of picograms. Yet, somehow we still relate measurements on the picogram scale, don't we? The weight of the actual block is only definite to about 2 micrograms.
All that's really important is to have a defined conversion from whatever more useful units you're using.
In the same way, I can give you an accurate description of the length of a cesium nucleus in furlongs. Furlongs, obviously, were not in their origination a very precise unit of length at all. But since there is a standard conversion (1 furlong = 201.168 meters) any measurement I give you in furlongs is as good as a measurement given in meters--as long as we agree on the conversion factor.
Here's the crux of it all: pretty much all measurements of particle mass are computed in energy (electric volts), chemistry is done in atomic mass units, and there are various other specialized units that are always cropping up. When you see a particle mass or some such given in kg, it is infallibly a conversion from these other units. As long as we agree on the conversion factor we are going to use between kg and some mass unit dependent on c, it is as good as defining kg on c in the first place.
I might go so far as to say that, even if we don't agree, it doesn't particularly matter. Honestly, the only reason we ever give the mass of an electron in kilos is because Joe Schmoe wants to know how much an electron weighs compared with how much he weighs.
Why the motivation for the change? The mass of subatomic particles have been given in kg for over a century. What exactly needs a more precisely reference of measurement? Physicists use their own units when it's convenient anyway. . . .
Not only was Koffi largely responsible, his son, Kojo Annan, confessed to being involved in the negotiation of the deals.
Does this mean that, possibly, they were anticipating people *not* being able to access TCP port 617? I.e. "we trust you know how to properly configure your firewall."
So far, I can narrow down to either that, them being drunk when they coded this, or this being a case of the improper usage of the word "intentional."
And from whence, exactly, have you devised the "complexity" of God?
Contemporary science could not even answer what the "complexity" is of the origination of natural laws on their own, or universes on their own, or any such thing, so I would be most interested to know how you are going about making a comparison between these respective complexities?
You might be interested to know, by the way, that when you use Occam's razor in science you are borrowing a theological tool. Occam's razor is not part of science, as you seem to think (". . . the scientific view would favor atheism"). The tool of science is the scientific method. The use of Occam's razor in scientific analysis is based on the completely unwarranted assumption that the universe should behave simply. And, partly, because it is simply more pragmatic to not have to deal with arbitrarily many redundant theories explaining the same thing.
But there is no empirical (i.e., scientific) reason for Occam's razor to be true.
Probably and even bigger boon for encryption and key-generation.
And I quote, "Open Sesame!"
GM crops have tremendous potential in regions such as Africa, where also, unfortunately, the governments are too afraid to use GM strains because they risk their agricultural exports with the hysterically-anti-GM nations (because of the fear of cross-polination).
These developing countries can't even compete fairly with unmodified crops because of the unfair subsidies Western governments give their own farmers. Imagine that--taxing your highly advanced industrial complex and then using the money to artificially lower the prices of your products in one of the only markets that people of impoverished nations can compete in!
How long is the developing world going to suffer because technological nations remain sentimental over their own agriculture?
I'm guessing the Polish ops probably have an interest in compromising various lists and distributing numerous altered copies to do as much as they can to protect their agents.
This is either 1. ironic 2. a Polish strategy for making the list inaccesible
You seem to have answered my question without providing any of the information I was looking for... I don't suppose by chance you're in marketing, are you?
I'll need to know this information before I can top one, much less ten of them!
Yes, that's quite evident from its being posted on Slashdot, of all places.
Don't worry guys, I'm sure nobody will read it! Probably not even the second or third time they post it!
Now, if you're a sadist like me, that is probably *not* a good question to ask yourself. Or, at least, I can think of all sorts of stuff to write in my emails that would be friggin' hilarious to hear publicly recited by a no-smiles lawyer at an important tribunal.