The rabid tone of the summary is completely unsupported by the article itself. Does the submitter have any evidence that advancements are held back by unions, bureaucracy and privacy concerns? The article does not claim anything like that.
They are just proposing a replacement technology with a catchy name. The submitter is a massive troll.
Actually, it was just Hays code all over again. Funny how these things happen at decades of distance for different mediums. Let's see if the plot repeats with videogames...
And with that requirement, why won't you just pass the key the good old fashioned way? Strictly more secure, and much cheaper.
Because it is not strictly more secure? Any hack that works on quantum crypto will also work on classical cryptography. All they showed here is that it is hard to get a system working properly with all safeguards (or, simply, that commercially available implementations are not that good).
You are seeing it the wrong way. It is Ron Paul's likes that see he constitution as changeable. In this way it can be updated to reflect the new needs. On the other hand if you see it as immovable then you just disregard, with the final result that you have devalued the entire document, including the pieces that are still necessary. If the law is wrong you change the law. Especially for the most important one of the country. If you can disrespect a minor part of it and go unopposed it is possible that you can just disregard everything that is written there, including basic rights.
But ironically if you don't prefix your criticism with "I own an i$DEVICE" people here will tell you to shut up and you cannot say anything because if you had it you qould realize and it is very very prejudicial to make criticism if you don't give your money to Apple first because they are so good and fluffy and their stuff always works perfectly and is good for humanity.
As an unrelated thought, I guess if I had bought a 700€ phone (price in Italy) I would never admit there may be a design flaw, not with other people nor with myself.
well, he also treats replica symmetry breaking in relation to the kSAT problem (in the hamiltonian fomulation is really just Ising on a random graph) so I would say he knows his shit... If there is a mistake surely is not a trivial one.
Well, it is exactly what they did, and they were found anti-competitive for it. The point being that X should be the same for all the customers, as it is logical for a price governed by the manifacturing process. If it is not it only means that they are making you pay Intel because you sell many AMDs.
Agreed, but it is also the one for which shareholders would do anything... He goes down and everyone will ask himself "is Apple going to be ok?". Out of suspect of the new CEO the investments may decrease a little and with a little bad luck the company will be failing. The faith that the market has in Jobs is religious, it will be hard for anyone to replace him, no matter how smart he/she is.
I think he was attacking the FBI copyright warning at the start of movies. Although I suspect that it is at the consent of the FBI. I wonder what started the FBI to go after Wikipedia though?
I don't know, but the solution is simple enough. If Congress represented us and VShael had a pony, they'd say: "Oh, I see what you're saying. You can afford to worry about this because you don't have enough real criminals to catch. Gotcha. This is good news! It means we will cut your budget by 1/3 and after one year we'll re-evaluate how this affects your choice of priorities. Who said federal bureaus can't learn to be more efficient?"
I think doing that one time would be enough to end this kind of BS.
I also would like to see the math. Too bad there is none in the paper... They just write inequalities and say "it can be violated" but the counterexample is missing. I wonder how that got out of peer review.
Yes, it was. The point being that after you do any measure your state is no more correlated and the second measure does not project the state of the first.
I read the arxiv version of the paper (later I will have to go down to the library to get the journal one) and it seems that they simply reframe a lot of common knowledge in a different terminology. It is not like they show incompatible observables measured at the same time. Measuring position and momentum of different particles is not a problem since they do commute.
P.S. The article defines Paul Dirac as "another physicist". Just look at his page on Wikipedia for Landau's sake.
Then it would be easier to simply give it to Jason Bourne from the beginning, don't you think? On the other hand Stallman would crack it open and distribute a GLv3 clone of the content so he may not be a wise choice.
One example here. At 2009 joint meeting of Gnome and KDE developers one speaker told audience to cover the Qt logo on the badges because it is associated with KDE. Of course the logo was there because Nokia had *payed* for the event and everyone had benefits from them, but he just could not see it.
Slashdot Mirror
The rabid tone of the summary is completely unsupported by the article itself. Does the submitter have any evidence that advancements are held back by unions, bureaucracy and privacy concerns? The article does not claim anything like that.
They are just proposing a replacement technology with a catchy name. The submitter is a massive troll.
Block those and the vendors will find another solution.
Like a standard-mandated local storage that is conveniently entering the HTML5 spec while everyone is concerned about video?
Actually, it was just Hays code all over again. Funny how these things happen at decades of distance for different mediums. Let's see if the plot repeats with videogames...
And with that requirement, why won't you just pass the key the good old fashioned way? Strictly more secure, and much cheaper.
Because it is not strictly more secure? Any hack that works on quantum crypto will also work on classical cryptography. All they showed here is that it is hard to get a system working properly with all safeguards (or, simply, that commercially available implementations are not that good).
If those machines are dedicated to people that require windows-only software why are they dual-booting?
You are seeing it the wrong way. It is Ron Paul's likes that see he constitution as changeable. In this way it can be updated to reflect the new needs. On the other hand if you see it as immovable then you just disregard, with the final result that you have devalued the entire document, including the pieces that are still necessary. If the law is wrong you change the law. Especially for the most important one of the country. If you can disrespect a minor part of it and go unopposed it is possible that you can just disregard everything that is written there, including basic rights.
And uses Nokia.
But ironically if you don't prefix your criticism with "I own an i$DEVICE" people here will tell you to shut up and you cannot say anything because if you had it you qould realize and it is very very prejudicial to make criticism if you don't give your money to Apple first because they are so good and fluffy and their stuff always works perfectly and is good for humanity.
As an unrelated thought, I guess if I had bought a 700€ phone (price in Italy) I would never admit there may be a design flaw, not with other people nor with myself.
KDE 4 is alive and kicking. Actually it has also grown up very nicely. Exactly in what way did it fail?
I find your lack of original quotation disturbing
well, he also treats replica symmetry breaking in relation to the kSAT problem (in the hamiltonian fomulation is really just Ising on a random graph) so I would say he knows his shit... If there is a mistake surely is not a trivial one.
Yeah, goto is bad and Linux users are usually expert enough to avoid it.
Well, it is exactly what they did, and they were found anti-competitive for it. The point being that X should be the same for all the customers, as it is logical for a price governed by the manifacturing process. If it is not it only means that they are making you pay Intel because you sell many AMDs.
Agreed, but it is also the one for which shareholders would do anything... He goes down and everyone will ask himself "is Apple going to be ok?". Out of suspect of the new CEO the investments may decrease a little and with a little bad luck the company will be failing. The faith that the market has in Jobs is religious, it will be hard for anyone to replace him, no matter how smart he/she is.
It is ok I guess...
I think he was attacking the FBI copyright warning at the start of movies. Although I suspect that it is at the consent of the FBI. I wonder what started the FBI to go after Wikipedia though?
I don't know, but the solution is simple enough. If Congress represented us and VShael had a pony, they'd say: "Oh, I see what you're saying. You can afford to worry about this because you don't have enough real criminals to catch. Gotcha. This is good news! It means we will cut your budget by 1/3 and after one year we'll re-evaluate how this affects your choice of priorities. Who said federal bureaus can't learn to be more efficient?"
I think doing that one time would be enough to end this kind of BS.
No doubt who won the battle of the CEOs.
Jobs? If I have to name a CEO that would never be replaced it is him.
As observables they can be entangled. It does not mean they must have the same value, just that there is an anomalus correlation between the values.
Moreover some particles can be in the same position. It can be bosons or fermions with different spin/momentum.
I also would like to see the math. Too bad there is none in the paper... They just write inequalities and say "it can be violated" but the counterexample is missing. I wonder how that got out of peer review.
Yes, it was. The point being that after you do any measure your state is no more correlated and the second measure does not project the state of the first.
I read the arxiv version of the paper (later I will have to go down to the library to get the journal one) and it seems that they simply reframe a lot of common knowledge in a different terminology. It is not like they show incompatible observables measured at the same time. Measuring position and momentum of different particles is not a problem since they do commute.
P.S. The article defines Paul Dirac as "another physicist". Just look at his page on Wikipedia for Landau's sake.
Actually I was commenting that the GP seemed unable to make another distro look like Ubuntu, which is incredibly easy. So, yes, I agree with you.
Then it would be easier to simply give it to Jason Bourne from the beginning, don't you think? On the other hand Stallman would crack it open and distribute a GLv3 clone of the content so he may not be a wise choice.
There are several followups on PlanetKDE too. Aaron Seigo (former president of the KDE e.V. board) has made some remarks here.
One example here. At 2009 joint meeting of Gnome and KDE developers one speaker told audience to cover the Qt logo on the badges because it is associated with KDE. Of course the logo was there because Nokia had *payed* for the event and everyone had benefits from them, but he just could not see it.
And I will not complain about fvwm as long as distros still package KDE. Interesting how things work when software is open, don't you think?
I am astonished also by the inability to install Ubuntu's branded themes on another distro.