Well, I HAVE read it, and man did you REALLY take away the wrong lesson. His central thesis wasn't that government is bad, so be an anarchist. The dangers he lays out, very clearly, are ignorance, apathy, and cowardice in the face of growing injustice. GP interprets it far more accurately than you do. Ingsoc used doublespeak and paranoia to turn ITS PEOPLE against each other. Buying into this blind "government is bad" and "protecting innovation" is the very definition of being an Orwellian character.
I really curious what appliance you were using way back in 1998, when most of the RFCs for traffic shaping were just coming out? I myself worked for 2 isps, one Dial-up based from 98 to 2000, with about 30,000 subscribers, and then another from 2000 to 2005 (250,000 adsl subscribers at the end of my stint) and while it is possible we were just some backwoods ISP, I don't remember shaping appliances being a real option until at LEAST 2003. Sure, you could throttle the connection, but there was nothing nearly as sophisticated as variable port protocol recognition on our networks before then. For the record, however, I was in development, and was not an engineer.
However, my point was, saying "It has been fine for decades" has no real bearing on the conversation for a technology that can fundamentally change in months. The only real pattern that we can extrapolate so far is that bandwidth usage will continue to rise. Whatever the next netflix is might consume whole gigs of bandwidth. And historically, ISPs don't like that, and would much rather filter it out before it becomes a thing. If you want to encourage innovation, throwing away the provisions that let them choose winners and losers isn't going to get you far.
Now, specifically the rest of title II, one has to legislate performance metrics to ensure the "rules" you set down are actually being followed. Otherwise, the fcc gets a complaint, and the ISP says "Nope, they are wrong." Where do you go from there? In my capacity as a BI developer for 10 years at a major phone company, I actually had to produce such reports, quarterly for the various state commission (florida, nevada, etc) and the fcc. We had to provide evidence that service we were forced by law to sell to small operations (CLECs) were of the same or higher quality than those we provided to our own customers (ILEC). Should we fail at one of those measures, we would be fined. The calculations were VERY complex, as were the penalties for failure. But, not one lick of that prevented us from doing business, or put even a mild strain on our resources. IANAL, but is there a specific provision in the doc you listed that leads you to your conclusion?
Bad nerd! You telling me that 2 years isn't long enough for the internet to change? Remember when bit torrent wasn't a thing? So do I. Heck I even remember when ISPs began having fits because quake was taking up huge chunks of their local bandwidth. Had traffic shaping tech been available back then, I am pretty sure they would have been turning off apps left and right. It's only fairly recently that networks have started seriously shaping and limiting their bandwidth.
The biggest problem I see with this is bird shit. "Look, that laser tower will make a convenient roost after my big meal of worms and pitted berries. Heck, it's so nice I might build a nest here."
Not to mention rain/snow basically ensuring that large chunks of the network will be down all the time (assuming it is nation wide).
There is a library you can download for free that will simulate a number of qubits. But yes, you can use Not and And operations on them. In fact, that is the whole challenge of building an algorithm that takes advantage of them. Because once you apply those rules, and measure the outcome, you collapse the quantum state and they all become a single value, not a superposition. So, think of it this way, it's not that it exists in all states, it is that you don't have to calculate it in all states, you merely need to know some kind of algorithm that tells you which set of states to read. Like I say, it melts my brain, but better people than me are working on the problem.
It's very weird. Much like everything in the quantum world. Imagine you had 2 classical bits. They could be in the configuration of : 1,1 1,0 0,1 0,0 but only one of those 4 states. With qubits, they are all of those at the same time. As such, where we would just read the bits in a classical computer, referencing the bits is not enough, we have to provide a coefficient as well, to tell which quantum state we are checking. That means essentially we can derive 4 bits (2 coefficients + 2 bits) worth of information. What is more, for every qbit you add, you have to use a new coefficient, such that for N qubits, you get as much information as 2 to the power of N classical bits worth of storage.
Put in perspective, a 50 qubit computer would be like having a 1,125,899,906,842,624 bit classical computer.
But there are some catches. Firstly, they aren't universally faster. They would work really well for algorithms that can take advantage of these states by applying logical operations to the the cubits before reading them and collapsing them into plain old classical bits. I would love to explain one of them, but they melt my brain, so you are on your own. The take away here is that 50 qubits will not give you a killer graphics card, but would make it super fast to guess big numbers.
Also, you have to entangle the particles, and those entanglements don't last long. So whatever you do, you better do it fast. Since you aren't using quantum transistors to do it, there is a practical challenge.
And finally, unlike classical computers, there is a known quantity of instability, so you had better run the same solution set a few times to make sure quantum fluctuation didn't garble your data.
Anyway, I hope that helps. Caveat emptor, I have never written any q programs, and had as much trouble getting my head around this as anyone. So part or all of what I posted here might be apocryphal. If so, I apologize.
What if i kill your tree? Or your cow? Or burn poison ivy 24/7 five feet from your door. There list is near infinite, and no matter how many times you trot out "no true Scotsman", such a broad statement will never ring true. Sometimes you owe things out of obligation for your actions, regardless of your consent.
To help them stop polluting. This isn't a jobs Accord, it's an environmental one. If you are so concerned about jobs, you should, firstly, contact your senators and convince them to stop playing politics with every jobs bill that comes up, and secondly, set some damn environmental targets so we can get a crap load of clean energy jobs.
You don't owe anyone anything you haven't agreed to owe.
Really? So, if I hit your car I don't owe you anything just because I don't agree I owe you anything? Wow, what an interesting little black and white universe you have created for yourself.
Ah, but that is the whole issue, for something that didn't happen, there seems to be a lot of evidence that it might have. Hence the investigation. Hence the reporting about the hacks. You are confusing us following information coming out of an ongoing investigation with some kind of conclusion. Originally you pissed the question of why people were so much more interested in one, rather than the other. Well, here we are. Once had vastly different consequences if it turns out to be true. I wish i could look at all of this and confidently say it didn't happen, but to my mind at least, there is enough here to keep weighing the evidence.
Firstly, when you put the word hack in quotes, you are giving a big pass to a foreign power that had an agenda to control our election, and thought the best was of executing that was to choose one side to target. It's as good as an admission that they want that side to loose. That is not something to be minimized. It is a very very big deal. Should we be doing it to other countries, no. It's a bad thing, a very bad thing.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be outraged when it is done to us. That attitude is just the same as saying "Meh, I am ok with it." I for one am not. Any rational person shouldn't be.
Now, as to what the hillary campaign did, it was not right, but you are talking about a party, not a whole political system. There is a serious difference between a primary and a popular vote. Because I am registered independent in my state, I am not even ALLOWED to vote in the primaries for either party. Why? Because parties (the organization) are not part of your government. They are very much private entities.
Someone influencing the superdelegates from inside financially is VERY DIFFERENT from someone potentially going to another country and saying, "Hey, help me fix this election, and I will drop your sanctions." Is it more clear now? One is corruption, the other is treason. Are they both bad? Yes. Are they equal? No friggin way. By suggesting otherwise, you are loosing sight of the bigger issue.
That being that one of the 3 co-equal branches of government might be beholden to a hostile foreign power. That is why we are freaking out and at least want some answers. Now that doesn't seem so irrational, does it?
There is no evidence to support this. Clinton supporters circulated the rumor in the last days of the 2008 Democratic primary and after Clinton had conceded to Obama.
That is tantamount to Trump campaign starting the whole "Aliens are sending girls to rape colonies on the moon" thing just because Alex Jones is throwing it out there.
This is actually not that big of a deal because the carbon that was used to form it was atmospheric, and not sequestered in the earth. Also, these types of materials are very hard to burn.
In TFA it mentions that they come prefab in panels. A panel goes bad somehow, pop a new one on. Also, I wouldn't lay money on the laminate rotting easily.
Let me help you reconnect with reality here. If the UK HACKED a major political party and then tried to influence the people of america with a massive ad campaign around election time, they would damn sure be on our shitlist. Any country would. Sanctions would surely be on the table. And if the winning candidate then pushed to remove those sanctions, only a moron wouldn't at least investigate the possibility of the two conspiring together.
You know how we look at whatever little dictatorship in other countries and wonder, "why do those people stand for that?" We feed ourselves a narrative that they are afraid of the regime, and I am sure that is part of it. But there are a large number of them who are self deluded too. This post, right here, this is how it starts. With people who are so anxious to be on the winning side that they will justify even the most egregious display of corruption as "just politics" and "false narratives".
Also, the 'birther' thing originated from Hillary Clinton's primary campaign against Obama. Yes, it's boring arcana and nothing new with regard to the Clinton Crime Family, but it's the deal.
Or, you know, that is just more fake news from the mouth of the president.
Jeez the discourse on this site has reached a new low. People spouting half assed conspiracy theories used to be modded down, not modded up.
Throwing out paper towels to victims of a hurricane like they were t-shirts at a basketball game, saying he met with the president of the virgin islands when he IS the president of the virgin islands, PAINTING HIS FACE ORANGE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE.
In all fairness, he portrays HIMSELF as a wacky clown.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I HAVE read it, and man did you REALLY take away the wrong lesson. His central thesis wasn't that government is bad, so be an anarchist. The dangers he lays out, very clearly, are ignorance, apathy, and cowardice in the face of growing injustice. GP interprets it far more accurately than you do. Ingsoc used doublespeak and paranoia to turn ITS PEOPLE against each other. Buying into this blind "government is bad" and "protecting innovation" is the very definition of being an Orwellian character.
We could, but they are 10,000 times less efficient than cats and cost way more.
I really curious what appliance you were using way back in 1998, when most of the RFCs for traffic shaping were just coming out? I myself worked for 2 isps, one Dial-up based from 98 to 2000, with about 30,000 subscribers, and then another from 2000 to 2005 (250,000 adsl subscribers at the end of my stint) and while it is possible we were just some backwoods ISP, I don't remember shaping appliances being a real option until at LEAST 2003. Sure, you could throttle the connection, but there was nothing nearly as sophisticated as variable port protocol recognition on our networks before then. For the record, however, I was in development, and was not an engineer.
However, my point was, saying "It has been fine for decades" has no real bearing on the conversation for a technology that can fundamentally change in months. The only real pattern that we can extrapolate so far is that bandwidth usage will continue to rise. Whatever the next netflix is might consume whole gigs of bandwidth. And historically, ISPs don't like that, and would much rather filter it out before it becomes a thing. If you want to encourage innovation, throwing away the provisions that let them choose winners and losers isn't going to get you far.
Now, specifically the rest of title II, one has to legislate performance metrics to ensure the "rules" you set down are actually being followed. Otherwise, the fcc gets a complaint, and the ISP says "Nope, they are wrong." Where do you go from there? In my capacity as a BI developer for 10 years at a major phone company, I actually had to produce such reports, quarterly for the various state commission (florida, nevada, etc) and the fcc. We had to provide evidence that service we were forced by law to sell to small operations (CLECs) were of the same or higher quality than those we provided to our own customers (ILEC). Should we fail at one of those measures, we would be fined. The calculations were VERY complex, as were the penalties for failure. But, not one lick of that prevented us from doing business, or put even a mild strain on our resources. IANAL, but is there a specific provision in the doc you listed that leads you to your conclusion?
Bad nerd! You telling me that 2 years isn't long enough for the internet to change? Remember when bit torrent wasn't a thing? So do I. Heck I even remember when ISPs began having fits because quake was taking up huge chunks of their local bandwidth. Had traffic shaping tech been available back then, I am pretty sure they would have been turning off apps left and right. It's only fairly recently that networks have started seriously shaping and limiting their bandwidth.
The biggest problem I see with this is bird shit. "Look, that laser tower will make a convenient roost after my big meal of worms and pitted berries. Heck, it's so nice I might build a nest here."
Not to mention rain/snow basically ensuring that large chunks of the network will be down all the time (assuming it is nation wide).
There is a library you can download for free that will simulate a number of qubits. But yes, you can use Not and And operations on them. In fact, that is the whole challenge of building an algorithm that takes advantage of them. Because once you apply those rules, and measure the outcome, you collapse the quantum state and they all become a single value, not a superposition. So, think of it this way, it's not that it exists in all states, it is that you don't have to calculate it in all states, you merely need to know some kind of algorithm that tells you which set of states to read. Like I say, it melts my brain, but better people than me are working on the problem.
It's very weird. Much like everything in the quantum world. Imagine you had 2 classical bits. They could be in the configuration of :
1,1
1,0
0,1
0,0
but only one of those 4 states. With qubits, they are all of those at the same time. As such, where we would just read the bits in a classical computer, referencing the bits is not enough, we have to provide a coefficient as well, to tell which quantum state we are checking. That means essentially we can derive 4 bits (2 coefficients + 2 bits) worth of information. What is more, for every qbit you add, you have to use a new coefficient, such that for N qubits, you get as much information as 2 to the power of N classical bits worth of storage.
Put in perspective, a 50 qubit computer would be like having a 1,125,899,906,842,624 bit classical computer.
But there are some catches. Firstly, they aren't universally faster. They would work really well for algorithms that can take advantage of these states by applying logical operations to the the cubits before reading them and collapsing them into plain old classical bits. I would love to explain one of them, but they melt my brain, so you are on your own. The take away here is that 50 qubits will not give you a killer graphics card, but would make it super fast to guess big numbers.
Also, you have to entangle the particles, and those entanglements don't last long. So whatever you do, you better do it fast. Since you aren't using quantum transistors to do it, there is a practical challenge.
And finally, unlike classical computers, there is a known quantity of instability, so you had better run the same solution set a few times to make sure quantum fluctuation didn't garble your data.
Anyway, I hope that helps. Caveat emptor, I have never written any q programs, and had as much trouble getting my head around this as anyone. So part or all of what I posted here might be apocryphal. If so, I apologize.
Really? How big a surplus do they have? I look forward to your in depth analysis.
What if i kill your tree? Or your cow? Or burn poison ivy 24/7 five feet from your door. There list is near infinite, and no matter how many times you trot out "no true Scotsman", such a broad statement will never ring true. Sometimes you owe things out of obligation for your actions, regardless of your consent.
To help them stop polluting. This isn't a jobs Accord, it's an environmental one. If you are so concerned about jobs, you should, firstly, contact your senators and convince them to stop playing politics with every jobs bill that comes up, and secondly, set some damn environmental targets so we can get a crap load of clean energy jobs.
You don't owe anyone anything you haven't agreed to owe.
Really? So, if I hit your car I don't owe you anything just because I don't agree I owe you anything? Wow, what an interesting little black and white universe you have created for yourself.
The lion's share? Don't tell that to Sweden!
Someone needs to check his own citations.
So let me get this strait. Trump tweets some obnoxious crap almost continuously, and therefor I should be mad at CNN.
Talk about misplaced aggression....
And misplaced mod points.
Ah, but that is the whole issue, for something that didn't happen, there seems to be a lot of evidence that it might have. Hence the investigation. Hence the reporting about the hacks. You are confusing us following information coming out of an ongoing investigation with some kind of conclusion. Originally you pissed the question of why people were so much more interested in one, rather than the other. Well, here we are. Once had vastly different consequences if it turns out to be true. I wish i could look at all of this and confidently say it didn't happen, but to my mind at least, there is enough here to keep weighing the evidence.
Firstly, when you put the word hack in quotes, you are giving a big pass to a foreign power that had an agenda to control our election, and thought the best was of executing that was to choose one side to target. It's as good as an admission that they want that side to loose. That is not something to be minimized. It is a very very big deal. Should we be doing it to other countries, no. It's a bad thing, a very bad thing.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be outraged when it is done to us. That attitude is just the same as saying "Meh, I am ok with it." I for one am not. Any rational person shouldn't be.
Now, as to what the hillary campaign did, it was not right, but you are talking about a party, not a whole political system. There is a serious difference between a primary and a popular vote. Because I am registered independent in my state, I am not even ALLOWED to vote in the primaries for either party. Why? Because parties (the organization) are not part of your government. They are very much private entities.
Someone influencing the superdelegates from inside financially is VERY DIFFERENT from someone potentially going to another country and saying, "Hey, help me fix this election, and I will drop your sanctions." Is it more clear now? One is corruption, the other is treason. Are they both bad? Yes. Are they equal? No friggin way. By suggesting otherwise, you are loosing sight of the bigger issue.
That being that one of the 3 co-equal branches of government might be beholden to a hostile foreign power. That is why we are freaking out and at least want some answers. Now that doesn't seem so irrational, does it?
There is no evidence to support this. Clinton supporters circulated the rumor in the last days of the 2008 Democratic primary and after Clinton had conceded to Obama.
That is tantamount to Trump campaign starting the whole "Aliens are sending girls to rape colonies on the moon" thing just because Alex Jones is throwing it out there.
This is actually not that big of a deal because the carbon that was used to form it was atmospheric, and not sequestered in the earth. Also, these types of materials are very hard to burn.
In TFA it mentions that they come prefab in panels. A panel goes bad somehow, pop a new one on. Also, I wouldn't lay money on the laminate rotting easily.
Let me help you reconnect with reality here. If the UK HACKED a major political party and then tried to influence the people of america with a massive ad campaign around election time, they would damn sure be on our shitlist. Any country would. Sanctions would surely be on the table. And if the winning candidate then pushed to remove those sanctions, only a moron wouldn't at least investigate the possibility of the two conspiring together.
You know how we look at whatever little dictatorship in other countries and wonder, "why do those people stand for that?" We feed ourselves a narrative that they are afraid of the regime, and I am sure that is part of it. But there are a large number of them who are self deluded too. This post, right here, this is how it starts. With people who are so anxious to be on the winning side that they will justify even the most egregious display of corruption as "just politics" and "false narratives".
Also, the 'birther' thing originated from Hillary Clinton's primary campaign against Obama. Yes, it's boring arcana and nothing new with regard to the Clinton Crime Family, but it's the deal.
Or, you know, that is just more fake news from the mouth of the president.
Jeez the discourse on this site has reached a new low. People spouting half assed conspiracy theories used to be modded down, not modded up.
People with money and power really do.
I think you are confusing the pursuit of short term gains with long term value. They are not the same.
Yeah, now if the world will just embrace the idea of inland ports.....
And how well did interfering with an FBI investigation work for the CURRENT president?
How exactly would a Democratic administration without control of the house or senate prevent it?
Throwing out paper towels to victims of a hurricane like they were t-shirts at a basketball game, saying he met with the president of the virgin islands when he IS the president of the virgin islands, PAINTING HIS FACE ORANGE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE.
In all fairness, he portrays HIMSELF as a wacky clown.