Except you still need to handle double the current. Running two sets of power lines to the charging points may fix that (and provide redundancy;)), but rapidly charging batteries is not as simple as you might think.
Only to the current military regime. While it [i]is[/i] technically respected by the UN, Burma's democratically elected parliament never approved the name change. Many countries, including the US and UK refuse to respect the name change.
It is rather amusing when people worry about how much info companies like Google collect, when it's so easy to get personal information with a quick search.
Keep in mind, they weren't just flying them as cargo: They were flying with them attached to the wing. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not something the US has done anywhere in the world for decades.
In trains, you've got multiple axles that all need to be driven (so the wheels get enough traction). They're pushing absolutely insane masses, so would need too many gears to be practical. By running with diesel-electric, they remove the need for lots of complicated mechanical systems - the diesel runs at a reasonably constant speed, and the electric motors drive the wheels directly.
Most other vehicles just don't have the same complexity as a locomotive. Big trucks have lots of gears, but apparently the really big trucks sometimes do use diesel-electric (especially the mining variety). There's a good WP article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel-electric
They don't put diesel-electric systems in a cars, because it would be like putting a nuclear drive in your dinghy - it's expensive, and inefficient on a small scale.
The biggest difference here, is that they are using not just diesel-electric drive, but also batteries (much like a submarine does). That allows them to operate relatively silently if they need to. They're not going for the reduced complexity of a diesel-electric system, rather an extra set of features they want.
Concern is growing in online chat rooms and news groups devoted to poker that sophisticated card-playing robots - known as "bots" in the nomenclature of the Web - are being used on commercial gambling sites to fleece newcomers, the strategy-impaired and maybe even above-average players.
"It is pretty much a certainty that bots are playing online," said Gautam Rao, a 43-year-old Canadian poker pro who regularly plays three high-stakes Internet games simultaneously. "... What we don't know is how strong they are."
Trust me: he did. Before he took it out, this article was so inaccurate that kittens were being ritually slaughtered by all who read it. It was so bad that most believed that the world was about to end.
Why is it that every time someone says, "It's nice when a company does X, rather than doing Y like everyone else," some bozo comes along and feels the need to list everyone else? It's not insightful - it's stating the bleeding obvious subtext of the comment you're responding to.
It's a simple misprint. Some incredible number of CS text books get qsort, and even binary search wrong. We all get over it, because we know our domain.
We know our domain so well in fact, that we don't really need to be told that trig functions obviously work in radians.
People converting between cups and mL? Is anyone going to care if different tools use different definitions of a cup? Oh no! Our recipe's are going to be out by a little bit! If it matters that it be accurate, why is it being specified in cups anyway?
Not necessarily. Petroleum companies have a bunch of costs in delivering petrol to you. There's the cost of the oil, the cost of refining it and the cost of transporting it. Then there's spillage along the way, theft, and contraction of the petrol at the pump.
If the sole reason for installing the sensors was to compensate for contraction losses, then why would they bother installing the equipment when they could just do what they do to cover all their other costs? That is, they could just change their prices.
I don't know why they install them in Canada, but I'm guessing it's not only a cost recovery exercise.
And with any of those options you suggest, we could save millions of lives. By your logic, we should be firing every teacher immediately, kill the entire science budget, and prevent everyone from spending money on anything but the bare essentials.
We have gained plenty of knowledge from space exploration. In many people's books, that's enough to make it worthwhile, but we also get to apply that knowledge on the ground.
Given the level of secrecy that Intel and Microsoft are giving to the nature of the bug, I still think that DRM is the true culprit.
And given that I have no evidence either way, it must be the fairies. What kind of an argument is that? If they were being so secretive to hide the nature of the patches, why would they go and label them in the fricking file names?
Isn't it more plausible that the file names have the word "genuine" in them because like many patches, they're only available to activated windows boxes, and that it's just some random bug in the microcode being fixed?
I think you've had the tinfoil hat on a little bit too long.
Of course some of them certainly were fake, but at least some of them were really him. The post I linked to was actually me being a shitcock. The posts that led to the interview we are discussing here involved an anonymous editor who signed his name like that, and didn't use his shift key once. If those posts were not him, then this interview would never have happened.
I think I lost any remaining respect I had for him when I read through his comments in the previous discussion. It might seem like a minor thing, but if the guy can't be bothered with little details like spelling, grammar, and correct capitalisation, then what were his chances of ever getting the SEC filings done correctly?
It made him look like the kind of person who constantly churns. People like that can't focus on anything but developing their latest and greatest idea, and are unable or unwilling to ever do anything because they're already onto the next thing.
Well go print it on a mug or something. The article doesn't suggest anything will be happening instantaneously (nor have any so far) - it's only the Slashdot summaries and comments that get this crucial detail wrong. Until our understanding changes, I'd prefer we just stick to the facts as we understand them.
Really? I know they can get close, and it's possible to prove that power must be consumed to change state, but I'd love to see a device with no leakage. Gates such as those used in NAND flash devices (dual MOSFETs) get pretty close, but I'm pretty sure even they leak, especially on read operations. I've always seen the "power required to change state" as the lower bound on power consumption, and not something that was being acheived (or ever will be, precisely).
Still, I take your point. Obviously transistors have much lower power requirements than tubes (I should have listed that along with size, cost, etc - I'm sure there are other advantages I haven't listed, too), but it really is a minor thing. They're still just amplifiers. You can make big, expensive, power-hungry transistors quite easily.
My point is that quantum computers are not just special transistors with slightly different properties. They really are a completely different thing. You're never going to make an amplifier out of quantum gates, and you're never going to make a quantum computer out of transistors
Quantum digits, however, aren't binary, since they can represent much more than a simple 0 or 1.
Qubits represent a probability of being a 0 or 1. Observing a qubit destroys that probability, and you "read" only a zero or a one. You don't actually know what the probability was of reading that value, only what the value was at the moment you read it (and you can't read it again - by reading it, you've destroyed the state).
Slashdot Mirror
Except you still need to handle double the current. Running two sets of power lines to the charging points may fix that (and provide redundancy ;)), but rapidly charging batteries is not as simple as you might think.
Uhh... Ok?
Gah - stupid BBCode vs Slashcode ;).
There's a BBC article on the Burmah vs Myanmar naming thing here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7013943.stm
Only to the current military regime. While it [i]is[/i] technically respected by the UN, Burma's democratically elected parliament never approved the name change. Many countries, including the US and UK refuse to respect the name change.
It is rather amusing when people worry about how much info companies like Google collect, when it's so easy to get personal information with a quick search.
Keep in mind, they weren't just flying them as cargo: They were flying with them attached to the wing. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not something the US has done anywhere in the world for decades.
But looking at the post itself, you see [i]all[/i] of the mods. GP had 100% insightful mods. That means no other modifiers.
Umm - why do your posts show up as -1, even when they've been modded up?
In trains, you've got multiple axles that all need to be driven (so the wheels get enough traction). They're pushing absolutely insane masses, so would need too many gears to be practical. By running with diesel-electric, they remove the need for lots of complicated mechanical systems - the diesel runs at a reasonably constant speed, and the electric motors drive the wheels directly.
Most other vehicles just don't have the same complexity as a locomotive. Big trucks have lots of gears, but apparently the really big trucks sometimes do use diesel-electric (especially the mining variety). There's a good WP article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel-electric
They don't put diesel-electric systems in a cars, because it would be like putting a nuclear drive in your dinghy - it's expensive, and inefficient on a small scale.
The biggest difference here, is that they are using not just diesel-electric drive, but also batteries (much like a submarine does). That allows them to operate relatively silently if they need to. They're not going for the reduced complexity of a diesel-electric system, rather an extra set of features they want.
Umm.. Where... no... I'm not going to ask...
Trust me: he did. Before he took it out, this article was so inaccurate that kittens were being ritually slaughtered by all who read it. It was so bad that most believed that the world was about to end.
Ok - I'll get back in my hole now.
Afaik_ianal's Law: As the order of posting approaches first, the probability that your post will be moderated one way or the other approaches 1.
Since the FP was more-or-less on topic and not an obvious troll, the inevitable moderation just happened to be in the positive direction.
Why is it that every time someone says, "It's nice when a company does X, rather than doing Y like everyone else," some bozo comes along and feels the need to list everyone else? It's not insightful - it's stating the bleeding obvious subtext of the comment you're responding to.
And don't forget to troll with, "There is nothing to see here, move along."
The sad thing is, I actually think I'm funny.
It's a simple misprint. Some incredible number of CS text books get qsort, and even binary search wrong. We all get over it, because we know our domain.
We know our domain so well in fact, that we don't really need to be told that trig functions obviously work in radians.
People converting between cups and mL? Is anyone going to care if different tools use different definitions of a cup? Oh no! Our recipe's are going to be out by a little bit! If it matters that it be accurate, why is it being specified in cups anyway?
Not necessarily. Petroleum companies have a bunch of costs in delivering petrol to you. There's the cost of the oil, the cost of refining it and the cost of transporting it. Then there's spillage along the way, theft, and contraction of the petrol at the pump.
If the sole reason for installing the sensors was to compensate for contraction losses, then why would they bother installing the equipment when they could just do what they do to cover all their other costs? That is, they could just change their prices.
I don't know why they install them in Canada, but I'm guessing it's not only a cost recovery exercise.
And with any of those options you suggest, we could save millions of lives. By your logic, we should be firing every teacher immediately, kill the entire science budget, and prevent everyone from spending money on anything but the bare essentials.
We have gained plenty of knowledge from space exploration. In many people's books, that's enough to make it worthwhile, but we also get to apply that knowledge on the ground.
And given that I have no evidence either way, it must be the fairies. What kind of an argument is that? If they were being so secretive to hide the nature of the patches, why would they go and label them in the fricking file names?
Isn't it more plausible that the file names have the word "genuine" in them because like many patches, they're only available to activated windows boxes, and that it's just some random bug in the microcode being fixed?
I think you've had the tinfoil hat on a little bit too long.
Of course some of them certainly were fake, but at least some of them were really him. The post I linked to was actually me being a shitcock. The posts that led to the interview we are discussing here involved an anonymous editor who signed his name like that, and didn't use his shift key once. If those posts were not him, then this interview would never have happened.
In other news, the founder of LiftPort has found his shift key.
I think I lost any remaining respect I had for him when I read through his comments in the previous discussion. It might seem like a minor thing, but if the guy can't be bothered with little details like spelling, grammar, and correct capitalisation, then what were his chances of ever getting the SEC filings done correctly?
It made him look like the kind of person who constantly churns. People like that can't focus on anything but developing their latest and greatest idea, and are unable or unwilling to ever do anything because they're already onto the next thing.
Well go print it on a mug or something. The article doesn't suggest anything will be happening instantaneously (nor have any so far) - it's only the Slashdot summaries and comments that get this crucial detail wrong. Until our understanding changes, I'd prefer we just stick to the facts as we understand them.
Uh - wouldn't they need to find them to be able to scan them? Do you know what RFID is?
Really? I know they can get close, and it's possible to prove that power must be consumed to change state, but I'd love to see a device with no leakage. Gates such as those used in NAND flash devices (dual MOSFETs) get pretty close, but I'm pretty sure even they leak, especially on read operations. I've always seen the "power required to change state" as the lower bound on power consumption, and not something that was being acheived (or ever will be, precisely).
Still, I take your point. Obviously transistors have much lower power requirements than tubes (I should have listed that along with size, cost, etc - I'm sure there are other advantages I haven't listed, too), but it really is a minor thing. They're still just amplifiers. You can make big, expensive, power-hungry transistors quite easily.
My point is that quantum computers are not just special transistors with slightly different properties. They really are a completely different thing. You're never going to make an amplifier out of quantum gates, and you're never going to make a quantum computer out of transistors
Qubits represent a probability of being a 0 or 1. Observing a qubit destroys that probability, and you "read" only a zero or a one. You don't actually know what the probability was of reading that value, only what the value was at the moment you read it (and you can't read it again - by reading it, you've destroyed the state).