Right, and isn't this what most civil liberties advocates (who I count myself among) want? That is, the more that government agencies can cooperate with each other, the easier it is to arrest any one person.
I'm not trying to blame anyone, just predict that future news will cycle between:
"OMG! They missed the 9/11 attack because of stupid rules about info-sharing between agencies?"
and
"OMG! A totalitarian bill going through the Senate is going to let government agencies share their files on us, giving them unlimited power to raid your privacy."
This one doesn't seem to have fundamental physical limits, so long as we eventually transition to reversible computing, in which the computer does not use up useful energy because every process it uses is fully reversible (i.e. the original state could be inferred).
All the limits on computation (except regarding storage) that you hear about (e.g. Landauer limit) are on irreversible computing, which is how current architecture works. It is the irreversibility of an operation that causes it to increase entropy.
Hah! I had something smilar happen, but in real life. I was being introduced to a new employee (who had a northeast US kind of accent). I asked him for his name. The conversation went like this:
Bingo. This is quite possibly the stupidest way to run a stock index and the stupidest reason for leaving a business off the top 30.
Anyone in software or engineering who heard that excuse would smack the manager who said it, and say, "Um... so change the weighting of Apple? So that the value of Apple's component is continuous with that of whatever company it replaced at the time? You do realize that the share price is just a meaningless number determined by the arbitrary choice of how many shares are in existence, right?"
Jesus fuck. To think that the big financial sector players are still tripped up by what is effectively a choice of labels. Everyone in finance seems to be either really evil or really stupid.
Well, sure, at a fine-grained enough level, any weapon can be regarded as doing "automatic killing". After all, a fired bullet doesn't wait for target confirmation before tearing through skin, does it?
It's just that with landmines, the "firing" is done a lot sooner from the kill and with less knowledge about who it will hit.
Wha...? If someone is making money by doing something harmful/fraudulent, then that thing should be illegal. In this case, it already is. And so any money made this way (or goods purchased therewith) will be seized to the extent possible.
How on earth you do you go from "Some successful businesses don't deserve their profits and are actively harmful" to "Let's punitively tax all of 'the rich' in the hope we snare the bad ones"?
You're missing the bigger picture: the fact that repealing Prohibition didn't eliminate *all* gangs, is no argument against it, and neither is it an argument that the cartels won't be completely eliminated by repealing drugs/regulating them. In both cases, it limits the power of the gangs/cartels, and the fact that it doesn't do so perfectly is irrelevant.
Um, no, not if the people being provided the data don't have the training to properly analyze it and would just end up using it to spread misinformation about what the state of climate science is.
Just because there isn't alcohol to traffic doesn't mean the problem will be solved. Chicago and New York gangs will not vanish, but merely shift their business to some other form of social exploitation. There's a lot more than just money involved in this trade, and gang members aren't just going to go get normal jobs if the demand for alcohol diminishes....
Yeah, I don't understand how it couldn't be entrapment. What, do they have undercover agents sitting in places where peddlers of secrets will mistake you for a foreign intelligence operative or something? Yeah fucking right: you don't get approached by someone wanting to sell you secrets on accident.
I remember a while ago I saw a woman who's an MLK descendent appear on O'Reilly (IIRC) to talk about that. (Or maybe some other case of MLK's estate extorting from people doing the same thing.
O'Reilly kept pushing her on how they can possibly be suing someone for keeping MLK's dream alive like that, and she kept replying with some variant of "It's just a management issue" as her non-answer.
It then occurred to me: holy crap, that works! I can just reply to any tough questioning with, "It's a management issue"!
Slashdot Mirror
Right, and isn't this what most civil liberties advocates (who I count myself among) want? That is, the more that government agencies can cooperate with each other, the easier it is to arrest any one person.
I'm not trying to blame anyone, just predict that future news will cycle between:
"OMG! They missed the 9/11 attack because of stupid rules about info-sharing between agencies?"
and
"OMG! A totalitarian bill going through the Senate is going to let government agencies share their files on us, giving them unlimited power to raid your privacy."
Folks, there are tradeoffs.
Neat, thanks for the explanation!
Some quote (approximate) from Knuth or some other guru:
"Be careful: I've only proven the code to work; I haven't actually run it or anything."
I thought the "inert version of the virus" was the vaccine?
Can I be the one who injects people with HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) to test out their immune response?
By the same token, telepresence doesn't let you turn a wrench or otherwise get your hands onto equipment.
... yet.
Yet it will probably still have the outdated "No Smoking Signs".
Yeah, man, I hate when people tell me I can't put up smoking signs!
Power is lost (and thermal entropy increased) because of the electrical resistivity of the materials from which our CPUs are made.
Right, like I said: it produces entropy because you are using a reversible process to do it -- in this case, a wire that heats up.
Yes, it's *difficult* right now to get the computation speeds we want using only reversible processes. I didn't intend to suggest otherwise.
Sorry, the question there wasn't clear. How about "Could the whole process be bypassed by the near-infinite efficiency of reversible computers?"
This one doesn't seem to have fundamental physical limits, so long as we eventually transition to reversible computing, in which the computer does not use up useful energy because every process it uses is fully reversible (i.e. the original state could be inferred).
All the limits on computation (except regarding storage) that you hear about (e.g. Landauer limit) are on irreversible computing, which is how current architecture works. It is the irreversibility of an operation that causes it to increase entropy.
Hah! I had something smilar happen, but in real life. I was being introduced to a new employee (who had a northeast US kind of accent). I asked him for his name. The conversation went like this:
"So, what's your name?"
Cawwww!
"I'm sorry, what?"
Caw!
"Huh?"
Caaaw! Caaaw!
Finally, my officemate relented and said, "Clyde ... his name is Carl."
To me, he sounded like an f'in eagle! I have no problem with Hindi accents though ... go fig.
Bingo. This is quite possibly the stupidest way to run a stock index and the stupidest reason for leaving a business off the top 30.
Anyone in software or engineering who heard that excuse would smack the manager who said it, and say, "Um ... so change the weighting of Apple? So that the value of Apple's component is continuous with that of whatever company it replaced at the time? You do realize that the share price is just a meaningless number determined by the arbitrary choice of how many shares are in existence, right?"
Jesus fuck. To think that the big financial sector players are still tripped up by what is effectively a choice of labels. Everyone in finance seems to be either really evil or really stupid.
Well, sure, at a fine-grained enough level, any weapon can be regarded as doing "automatic killing". After all, a fired bullet doesn't wait for target confirmation before tearing through skin, does it?
It's just that with landmines, the "firing" is done a lot sooner from the kill and with less knowledge about who it will hit.
What's a party?
Wha...? If someone is making money by doing something harmful/fraudulent, then that thing should be illegal. In this case, it already is. And so any money made this way (or goods purchased therewith) will be seized to the extent possible.
How on earth you do you go from "Some successful businesses don't deserve their profits and are actively harmful" to "Let's punitively tax all of 'the rich' in the hope we snare the bad ones"?
You're missing the bigger picture: the fact that repealing Prohibition didn't eliminate *all* gangs, is no argument against it, and neither is it an argument that the cartels won't be completely eliminated by repealing drugs/regulating them. In both cases, it limits the power of the gangs/cartels, and the fact that it doesn't do so perfectly is irrelevant.
Um, no, not if the people being provided the data don't have the training to properly analyze it and would just end up using it to spread misinformation about what the state of climate science is.
Just because there isn't alcohol to traffic doesn't mean the problem will be solved. Chicago and New York gangs will not vanish, but merely shift their business to some other form of social exploitation. There's a lot more than just money involved in this trade, and gang members aren't just going to go get normal jobs if the demand for alcohol diminishes. ...
Therefore, we should not repeal Prohibition.
Holy fucking shit, dude! A whole 0.2 deg C/decade! We're doomed!
Everybody knows "enemy" is not a verb.
Butt enema is.
Natural gas.
Yeah, I don't understand how it couldn't be entrapment. What, do they have undercover agents sitting in places where peddlers of secrets will mistake you for a foreign intelligence operative or something? Yeah fucking right: you don't get approached by someone wanting to sell you secrets on accident.
I think they're taking care of most of the spam problem by not having a "private message" option on G+ ... at least not one I can find.
I remember a while ago I saw a woman who's an MLK descendent appear on O'Reilly (IIRC) to talk about that. (Or maybe some other case of MLK's estate extorting from people doing the same thing.
O'Reilly kept pushing her on how they can possibly be suing someone for keeping MLK's dream alive like that, and she kept replying with some variant of "It's just a management issue" as her non-answer.
It then occurred to me: holy crap, that works! I can just reply to any tough questioning with, "It's a management issue"!
Wow, that sounds awesome! I guess the only drawback would be the whole non-existence thing.