It depends how you look at it. If you take the view that a two storey house effectively doubles the amount of land on which it's built; the absolute amount of land on Earth has a lot of room left simply by building upwards. The Taipei 101 is a good example of how you can increase the amount of effective land a hundredfold. Even the limits placed on land use by the amount of sunlight available isn't a problem if you have energy cheap enough to generate artificial sunlight.
The wealth of new language facilities in C++/CLI compared to ISO Standard C++ tempts programmers to write non-portable code that (often invisibly) become intimately tied to Microsoft Windows.
This sounds a lot like Microsoft's usual business. The Garbage Collector in particular means that porting the new code to other platforms will result in memory leaks and poor performance.
It's really hard to judge what is and what is not discrimination.
My general rule is if it mentions exclusive categories (Straight; GLBT; white) and not generalisations (All sexual orientations; all races) it could be discriminatory or allow for discrimination.
GR says the speed of light is invariant and that the light traveled further. Only in the sense that the light took longer than expected (without using GR) can you say that the light was slowed.
The (measured) speed of light is slower in a medium because the medium will absorb and emit the photons. This results in the average speed being slower. The photons will also become dispersed after passing through a medium; but any front edge is limited by the speed of light, c. The true speed of the photons is c regardless of medium.
The grandparent is also correct when he states that the speed of light is constant. It's a basic principle of not just SR (inertial frames), but also GR (accelerating frames). The "pull" of gravity on light results in a red-shift. The speed of light doesn't change.
Of course all this depends on how you measure the speed of light (The group velocity of light, for example, can exceed c.). But in the context of SR and GR the speed of light is always a constant.
What else have these same scientists theorized that may not be true?
All scientific theories may not be true. It's a necessary condition for them to be scientific theories. Knowing the first thing about science no one would be amazed that scientific theories are often proven wrong. Scientific experiments are designed to prove theories wrong. The scientific gold exists in those theories that scientists haven't proven wrong after extensive experimentation.
Provided you're in free-fall you'll experience no weight. So a passenger in an orbital craft won't feel any gravity while in orbit. The only gravitational effects they could detect are tidal forces. The tidal forces (which act to stretch them; not to keep them on the floor) would be negligible.
It's impossible to tell from the article. However if you limit it to just 1992 to 2002 then it's not Ireland; but it is Austria, Denmark, Switzerland, Italy, Sweden, Belgium and Germany. The telling part is that there's no mention of the US or the whole of Europe in the article itself. The statistics are also three years too early to have a bearing on the effectiveness of the Kyoto protocol (this came into force in 2005).
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle places no limit on measuring just the position, or just the momentum; it only limits measuring both with precision. Measuring the states of quantum bits won't violate similar principles provided you're measuring commutating properties, and not non-commutating properties like position and momentum.
C/C++ doesn't prevent you from coding secure, leak-free programs. All it does is shift the responsibility for security and memory management from the language to the programmer. If you're a sloppy programmer then, yes, you need a better language than C/C++.
I can see no reason for making mandatory garbage collection part of the C++ language. It wouldn't make it one bit more useful; C++ doesn't prevent you from using garbage collection in your programs. If C++ needs a garbage collector(s) then it (or they) should go into the standard library (if anywhere) and not the language itself. Restricting the use of a language will never make it more useful.
Even if it wasn't rendered useless you could simply send a one time scratch pad and key (created by XORing the message with random bits). If an eavesdropper gets the scratch pad, you'll know it and don't send the key (or if he gets the key; don't send the scratch pad). Either way, the eavesdropper can only get random (in all ways except by comparison with data he doesn't have) bits.
Using an encryption algorithm that becomes only linearly more difficult to crack based on the time taken to encrypt the message isn't much good. The current systems work because the encrypted messages become exponentially more difficult to crack. For example, the time taken to find two prime factors becomes exponentially larger than the time taken just to multiply them together as the number of digits increases. So even a home computer can encrypt messages that a supercomputer would take years to crack. However no matter how many digits you use, a quantum computer computer will crack it in linear time. So, if you use a 1024 bit key instead of a 512 bit key it'll only take twice as long. And 1024 bit keys only take about a thousand times longer to crack than a 1 bit key (which is trivial to crack even by a human).
Slashdot Mirror
The ones that are left obviously ate the ones in the other 70%.
It depends how you look at it. If you take the view that a two storey house effectively doubles the amount of land on which it's built; the absolute amount of land on Earth has a lot of room left simply by building upwards. The Taipei 101 is a good example of how you can increase the amount of effective land a hundredfold. Even the limits placed on land use by the amount of sunlight available isn't a problem if you have energy cheap enough to generate artificial sunlight.
The wealth of new language facilities in C++/CLI compared to ISO Standard C++ tempts programmers to write non-portable code that (often invisibly) become intimately tied to Microsoft Windows.
This sounds a lot like Microsoft's usual business. The Garbage Collector in particular means that porting the new code to other platforms will result in memory leaks and poor performance.
The equation dt/dt can also be undefined. x/x is undefined for x = 0 as I expect you already know.
I like the many-worlds interpretation: Any time-travellers will be unable to change their own histories, or otherwise cause a paradox.
Is that discriminatory?
I think that depends on how accurate your statement was.
It's really hard to judge what is and what is not discrimination.
My general rule is if it mentions exclusive categories (Straight; GLBT; white) and not generalisations (All sexual orientations; all races) it could be discriminatory or allow for discrimination.
GR says the speed of light is invariant and that the light traveled further. Only in the sense that the light took longer than expected (without using GR) can you say that the light was slowed.
The (measured) speed of light is slower in a medium because the medium will absorb and emit the photons. This results in the average speed being slower. The photons will also become dispersed after passing through a medium; but any front edge is limited by the speed of light, c. The true speed of the photons is c regardless of medium.
The grandparent is also correct when he states that the speed of light is constant. It's a basic principle of not just SR (inertial frames), but also GR (accelerating frames). The "pull" of gravity on light results in a red-shift. The speed of light doesn't change.
Of course all this depends on how you measure the speed of light (The group velocity of light, for example, can exceed c.). But in the context of SR and GR the speed of light is always a constant.
His Noodly Appendage gets everywhere.
What else have these same scientists theorized that may not be true?
All scientific theories may not be true. It's a necessary condition for them to be scientific theories. Knowing the first thing about science no one would be amazed that scientific theories are often proven wrong. Scientific experiments are designed to prove theories wrong. The scientific gold exists in those theories that scientists haven't proven wrong after extensive experimentation.
The universe is, by definition, the whole deal. There is nothing else. The universe therefore can have no cause.
No way am I giving up my current keyboard for that thing.
Provided you're in free-fall you'll experience no weight. So a passenger in an orbital craft won't feel any gravity while in orbit. The only gravitational effects they could detect are tidal forces. The tidal forces (which act to stretch them; not to keep them on the floor) would be negligible.
I don't think I want to see what /. would do to that experiment anyway.
Me either. Seeing goatse once is more than enough.
who's running more and more Diesel engines?
It's impossible to tell from the article. However if you limit it to just 1992 to 2002 then it's not Ireland; but it is Austria, Denmark, Switzerland, Italy, Sweden, Belgium and Germany. The telling part is that there's no mention of the US or the whole of Europe in the article itself. The statistics are also three years too early to have a bearing on the effectiveness of the Kyoto protocol (this came into force in 2005).
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle places no limit on measuring just the position, or just the momentum; it only limits measuring both with precision. Measuring the states of quantum bits won't violate similar principles provided you're measuring commutating properties, and not non-commutating properties like position and momentum.
But it is a worthy question: why would you have color receptors in your eyes if your brain couldn't make sense of the information?
Consider the alternative: Why would you have photoreceptors perfectly tuned to a single wavelength of light?
C/C++ doesn't prevent you from coding secure, leak-free programs.
That is exactly what I said.
C/C++ doesn't prevent you from coding secure, leak-free programs. All it does is shift the responsibility for security and memory management from the language to the programmer. If you're a sloppy programmer then, yes, you need a better language than C/C++.
I can see no reason for making mandatory garbage collection part of the C++ language. It wouldn't make it one bit more useful; C++ doesn't prevent you from using garbage collection in your programs. If C++ needs a garbage collector(s) then it (or they) should go into the standard library (if anywhere) and not the language itself. Restricting the use of a language will never make it more useful.
And he just stood there while bill stood right in the crosshairs!
I guess he was waiting until he got the chaingun just outside; so he could shoot him with that.
Even if it wasn't rendered useless you could simply send a one time scratch pad and key (created by XORing the message with random bits). If an eavesdropper gets the scratch pad, you'll know it and don't send the key (or if he gets the key; don't send the scratch pad). Either way, the eavesdropper can only get random (in all ways except by comparison with data he doesn't have) bits.
Using an encryption algorithm that becomes only linearly more difficult to crack based on the time taken to encrypt the message isn't much good. The current systems work because the encrypted messages become exponentially more difficult to crack. For example, the time taken to find two prime factors becomes exponentially larger than the time taken just to multiply them together as the number of digits increases. So even a home computer can encrypt messages that a supercomputer would take years to crack. However no matter how many digits you use, a quantum computer computer will crack it in linear time. So, if you use a 1024 bit key instead of a 512 bit key it'll only take twice as long. And 1024 bit keys only take about a thousand times longer to crack than a 1 bit key (which is trivial to crack even by a human).
brethren n.pl. see BROTHER n.