Are you seriously using a work of fiction where they made a fictional math equation to say that a real equation is wrong? Seriously?
And honestly, it isn't even a math equation that shows that quantum entanglement does not allow for FTL communication. The sender doesn't get to choose a message, only determine a state of a particle. No data is gained by determining the state of the particle, thus no information is beind transferred. The only people claiming that this results in FTL communication are those who don't have a basic understanding of what quantum entanglement is. They fill in the gaps with what they think they know and then claim to have figured something out that physicists working on things like this their whole lives simply overlooked.
Essentially, the "sender" does not get to choose the message. The sender "observes" the state of a particle with a previously undetermined state. Upon observing the particle, the "sender" causes the particle to have a determined state but does not get to determine what state that paticle is in. The "receivers" particle then has the same state as the "sender's" particle.
So the "sender" doesn't get to choose what message he sends. He simply discovers (bad term, but trying to keep it simple) the state of the particle which becomes the same as what the "receiver" gets. This would not be useful for sending any type of communication.
I retract the part about the site not writing the article. Apparently they did. I still find it annoying, however. I may go back and answer their poll as I like to encourage science writing...
It would be one thing if the "innovationwhatever.com" site wrote the article. They didn't. Yet they feel the need to try to profit of it. Utter douchebags.
Can somone explain why this is modded 'funny'? It should be informative. Eliminating attack vectors is the only sure-fire defense. Unless you need Java, you should dump it. If you need it, you should actively find ways to eliminate that dependency.
Hmmmm... you are correct. My argument stands though. It would be much more efficient to use the non-CO2 power source to replace CO2 instead of using it to bury CO2.
It isn't a feasible plan. It isn't meant to be, hence the "Modest Proposal" title. For those who don't get the reference, read here http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html.
Let me ask you a question. If your options were 1) Use a power source that doesn't require emission of CO2 to clean up CO2 or 2) Replace CO2 emitting power plants with power sources that don't require emission of CO2, which do you think would be more efficient? If you said #1, you missed a law of physics or two.
The point of the article was to point out the absurdity of the "clean up CO2" vs "don't emit CO2" idea in the first place.
I am amazed at how many people can't figure out that the dude is joking.
If you are saying that you need to create a power source to convert the CO2 from the atmosphere into a form that can be buried, then the logical choice is why you can't simply use this power source to eliminate CO2 producing power sources in the first place.
His 'modest proposal' should have tipped you off. Apparently, it was far too subtle for Slashdot.
Although, I am not certain, I think that it really wouldn't matter on an Access table. When you write a query against the DB, you'll get all rows returned to you. Filtering and joining occur on the client side... feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Your hypothesis is that brains haven't changed much in 3,000 years. This brain is a good test of your hypothsis. What exactly is your problem with that?
Actually, that isn't entirely true. They are taking a broad representation of AGI groupings. I earned $90,000 one year, had an AGI around $50-60K (don't have 1040 in front of me) and paid negative taxes. Basically all of the ridiculos tax incentives out there pushed my down to zero and then the fact that I had kids allowed me to get a child tax credit anyhow.
Now, I think it is ridiculous that we have a tax system like we do. I'm well off and the gov't should not subsidize my house buying or kid having. But in the context of this discussion, those groups include a lot of people who are not paying tax because of all the goofiness in our tax code.
Finally, in the context of NASA, I'd love to see more money go to that than to bombing foreign countries. I think we all agree on that and should focus on that.
I agree with stopping the wars. I'd love to see military spending down two-thirds, social welfare programs designed to get people off of welfare instead of dependent on it except in the case of those who are truly unable to work, a balanced budget and increase science spending.
However, please be aware that we do spend $18B per year on NASA which is well over 1% of war costs.
I'd donate 20$ a month to NASA easily, without a second thought. And that's probably 1000x bigger than their portion of my taxes too.
Wonderful, but your numbers are a bit off. NASA's 2011 budget was a bit North of $18.4 Billion per year, or roughly $5/mo per person. This also can be translated to $6.50 or so per month per adult or to $11 per month per working American.
There are no "beneficial" changes. There are only changes, in the form of mutations. The ones that do not produce viable offspring die. The ones that do continue to survive.
To question whether this change is beneficial is like asking whether water is good or evil.
A thousand times "wrong". In the context of evolutionary theory, a beneficial mutation provides a "benefit"... I know this is a radical logical leap. A beneficial change would be a mutation that allows an organism to better compete and ultimately have more offspring. It is nothing at all like asking about good or evil, it is about being better suited to the environment.
If he only had 7 TB, then I'd suggest he is pruning already or is new to the business. Even a not-so-good photographer like me has over 100 GB of "good" (for me) pictures though I'm sure I could reduce this somewhat. A person who does this for a living can accumulate TBs a year easily. And, if he is doing client work, he is likely to want to store a lot of what he takes just in case the client wants a particular shot.
First, going strictly by your requirements, I would suggest either a fireproof safe or fireproof drive enclosure. I don't have experience with the enclosures, but the safe itself should be able to handle your normal everyday fire and protect your data.
However, I'd suggest that you don't store your safe at your location at all. Surely you have a friend or someone you know that would let you borrow a few square feet of their basement for the safe. This would create a physcial barrier that would enhance your securiy if not always convenient. I'd also recommend a second copy somewhere else if this data is that important to you.
Remember that as with (almost) anything else, there is a cost-benefit tradeoff. I'm not convinced that a "cloud" based solution is your best bet anyway. But a simple, low tech solution seems to be what you need anyhow.
Slashdot Mirror
Just as an aside: When folks like you mark me as a "foe", I take it as a badge of honor.
Are you seriously using a work of fiction where they made a fictional math equation to say that a real equation is wrong? Seriously?
And honestly, it isn't even a math equation that shows that quantum entanglement does not allow for FTL communication. The sender doesn't get to choose a message, only determine a state of a particle. No data is gained by determining the state of the particle, thus no information is beind transferred. The only people claiming that this results in FTL communication are those who don't have a basic understanding of what quantum entanglement is. They fill in the gaps with what they think they know and then claim to have figured something out that physicists working on things like this their whole lives simply overlooked.
Essentially, the "sender" does not get to choose the message. The sender "observes" the state of a particle with a previously undetermined state. Upon observing the particle, the "sender" causes the particle to have a determined state but does not get to determine what state that paticle is in. The "receivers" particle then has the same state as the "sender's" particle.
So the "sender" doesn't get to choose what message he sends. He simply discovers (bad term, but trying to keep it simple) the state of the particle which becomes the same as what the "receiver" gets. This would not be useful for sending any type of communication.
I was the AC who posted the first reply. Please read here for more info on why quantum entanglement does not imply FTL communication. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612
I retract the part about the site not writing the article. Apparently they did. I still find it annoying, however. I may go back and answer their poll as I like to encourage science writing...
Here is one that doesn't make you answer a lame question:
http://www.livescience.com/22828-supersonic-flying-wing-nasa.html
It would be one thing if the "innovationwhatever.com" site wrote the article. They didn't. Yet they feel the need to try to profit of it. Utter douchebags.
Every other month? Seems closer to every other day.
Can somone explain why this is modded 'funny'? It should be informative. Eliminating attack vectors is the only sure-fire defense. Unless you need Java, you should dump it. If you need it, you should actively find ways to eliminate that dependency.
Hmmmm... you are correct. My argument stands though. It would be much more efficient to use the non-CO2 power source to replace CO2 instead of using it to bury CO2.
It isn't a feasible plan. It isn't meant to be, hence the "Modest Proposal" title. For those who don't get the reference, read here http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html.
Let me ask you a question. If your options were 1) Use a power source that doesn't require emission of CO2 to clean up CO2 or 2) Replace CO2 emitting power plants with power sources that don't require emission of CO2, which do you think would be more efficient? If you said #1, you missed a law of physics or two.
The point of the article was to point out the absurdity of the "clean up CO2" vs "don't emit CO2" idea in the first place.
I am amazed at how many people can't figure out that the dude is joking.
If you are saying that you need to create a power source to convert the CO2 from the atmosphere into a form that can be buried, then the logical choice is why you can't simply use this power source to eliminate CO2 producing power sources in the first place.
His 'modest proposal' should have tipped you off. Apparently, it was far too subtle for Slashdot.
Although, I am not certain, I think that it really wouldn't matter on an Access table. When you write a query against the DB, you'll get all rows returned to you. Filtering and joining occur on the client side... feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
I have had the results of SQL queries nearly max out my Ethernet connection (96Mbps)
I told you it wasn't good to use a CROSS JOIN across all of your Access tables.
So, this means the US almost hit the targets of the Kyoto Protocol. Interesting.
Your hypothesis is that brains haven't changed much in 3,000 years. This brain is a good test of your hypothsis. What exactly is your problem with that?
Actually, that isn't entirely true. They are taking a broad representation of AGI groupings. I earned $90,000 one year, had an AGI around $50-60K (don't have 1040 in front of me) and paid negative taxes. Basically all of the ridiculos tax incentives out there pushed my down to zero and then the fact that I had kids allowed me to get a child tax credit anyhow.
Now, I think it is ridiculous that we have a tax system like we do. I'm well off and the gov't should not subsidize my house buying or kid having. But in the context of this discussion, those groups include a lot of people who are not paying tax because of all the goofiness in our tax code.
Finally, in the context of NASA, I'd love to see more money go to that than to bombing foreign countries. I think we all agree on that and should focus on that.
You and I agree 100%. Too bad we are in the minority in caring about the country our kids will inherit.
I agree with stopping the wars. I'd love to see military spending down two-thirds, social welfare programs designed to get people off of welfare instead of dependent on it except in the case of those who are truly unable to work, a balanced budget and increase science spending.
However, please be aware that we do spend $18B per year on NASA which is well over 1% of war costs.
I'd donate 20$ a month to NASA easily, without a second thought.
And that's probably 1000x bigger than their portion of my taxes too.
Wonderful, but your numbers are a bit off. NASA's 2011 budget was a bit North of $18.4 Billion per year, or roughly $5/mo per person. This also can be translated to $6.50 or so per month per adult or to $11 per month per working American.
There are no "beneficial" changes. There are only changes, in the form of mutations. The ones that do not produce viable offspring die. The ones that do continue to survive.
To question whether this change is beneficial is like asking whether water is good or evil.
A thousand times "wrong". In the context of evolutionary theory, a beneficial mutation provides a "benefit"... I know this is a radical logical leap. A beneficial change would be a mutation that allows an organism to better compete and ultimately have more offspring. It is nothing at all like asking about good or evil, it is about being better suited to the environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Beneficial_mutations
I came here to post the same thing and provide a link for the younger Slashdotters
http://dreager1.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/mothrabattleforear1622.jpg
Side question, does it work on Robert Plant?
Only if you grab him by the root.
Combine this with a sensitive plant and you can have a lot of fun!
If he only had 7 TB, then I'd suggest he is pruning already or is new to the business. Even a not-so-good photographer like me has over 100 GB of "good" (for me) pictures though I'm sure I could reduce this somewhat. A person who does this for a living can accumulate TBs a year easily. And, if he is doing client work, he is likely to want to store a lot of what he takes just in case the client wants a particular shot.
First, going strictly by your requirements, I would suggest either a fireproof safe or fireproof drive enclosure. I don't have experience with the enclosures, but the safe itself should be able to handle your normal everyday fire and protect your data.
However, I'd suggest that you don't store your safe at your location at all. Surely you have a friend or someone you know that would let you borrow a few square feet of their basement for the safe. This would create a physcial barrier that would enhance your securiy if not always convenient. I'd also recommend a second copy somewhere else if this data is that important to you.
Remember that as with (almost) anything else, there is a cost-benefit tradeoff. I'm not convinced that a "cloud" based solution is your best bet anyway. But a simple, low tech solution seems to be what you need anyhow.