You're getting confused between the distinction between bits/transistors, and qubits/quantum gates. The difference between tubes and transistors is nothing like the difference between transistors and quantum gates. Bits and qubits are just as dissimilar.
Like transistors, tubes are just amplifiers. Contrary to popular belief, both are analogue components, but they have quite different responses to changes in current (the graphs are a different shape). Many people consider tube amplifiers to produce better sound quality than transistor amplifiers, and tubes will almost always handle clipping better than transistors. There's actually not much a transistor can do that a vacuum tube can't.
Either tubes or transistors can be used to implement logic gates. These gates can be built up to store and process bits of information. In the digital world, they are functionally similar. The advantages of tubes from the analogue world go out the window, and the advantages of transistors (size, speed and cost) come into their own.
Quantum computers are another thing entirely. The computers you and I are using at the moment are deterministic Turing machines. Quantum computers are non-deterministic. Quantum gates deal not in bits, but in qubits. They don't think in terms of binary data, they work with quantum states.
There are many things that these quantum components can do that conventional transistors cannot, but I don't think we'll be seeing quantum gates implementing binary logic in computers any time soon (if ever). The article unfortunately confuses the issue by making it sound like they've implemented a binary operation. CNOT is not a binary operation - it is a quantum operation.
I hate analogies as much as the next guy, but if tubes are the horse and cart, and transistors are our cars, then quantum computing is going to be our interstellar space craft - they suck for doing the weekly shopping.
you allow semantically invalid words: as, ars & arss.
No they don't. The only matches are ass, ase, arss and arse, but your point still stands. When being a pedant, it's also polite to provide a correction. The regex they were after is: a(rse|ss).
...it's like I know I should be ticking 'Post Anonymously' but I just can't stop myself
I don't know that the Offtopic mod was all that fair on this post. Sure, it lacked a little detail, but what's with this "almost instantaneously" bullshit that keeps coming up every time we talk about teleportation?
Maybe it's plausible in a Star Trek universe, but in our universe, we appear to be constrained by the speed of light, even for transmitting information through entanglement. Sure, one might argue that speed of light is instantaneous, but we all know that this kind of language gets a bunch of readers' hopes up every time.
By that logic, VoIP would be illegal too. I don't know what the US wiretap laws are like, but I doubt it's illegal to record into temporary buffers.
If they were suggesting recording conversations for later identification, then I imagine there'd be an issue. This is doing the identification on the fly, so is unlikely to be an issue.
Why? Creationists thrive on their ability to make politicians think there is a controversy, and an active debate. Why give them any more attention than the guy on a street corner wearing a sandwich board proclaiming that the end is nigh? If they want to spend 27 million on their sandwich board, then fine.
Showing that lots of people accept idea A and reject idea B is their tactic. Let's focus our attention on showing why appeals to authority and popularity are flawed, rather than trying to convince the public through the use of that same flawed logic.
Are you serious? Heavy: The densist LiIon batteries produce 60Wh/lb. At about 400Wh/mi, that's over 5 pounds of battery per mile of range. Sure, this aluminium thing needs water too, but you're calling the Aluminium heavy? Complex: Are you a battery expert by any chance? Wasteful: Oh, well that answers my last question.
The first two might stop a $1000 bill from coming in, but I think we're missing the point. The third won't prevent the $1000. You might think a 17 year old girl has the maturity to control her mobile phone use, wouldn't you? Consider this then:
This girl sent nearly 7000 messages in a month. That's over 200 per day. She was sending an average of about one message every 5 minutes, every waking hour... 7 days a week... for a month.
That's not healthy. Do you still think this girl would have the maturity to cover her own bill? Surely her parents must've noticed something was wrong.
Doesn't that consume more energy than just electrolysing the water to get the hydrogen?
Of course it does - but that's not the point. The point is to do away with the pressurised tank full of inflammable gas. It's basically a way of acheiving the same result as in-car electrolysis without needing to generate electricity to do it - the aluminium is just acting like a really dense, single-purpose battery.
No. Most encryption is done with ordinary private (random) keys. The keys are often securely exchanged with public key cryptography (the one with the prime keys), but you gain little from using prime numbers to do your bulk encryption, at a considerable computational cost.
DMCA prevents circumventing copy-protection techniques. It covers the private keys, which are usually just really long random integers.
Not meaning to nitpick here, but is there any chance you could leave the insertion of line breaks to our browsers? I feel like I'm meant to be reading a poem every time I read one of your posts, which distracts from your otherwise interesting and insightful posts.
IANAL either, but I don't think the RIAA actually enforces any copyright. They just collect evidence, and pass it on to the record companies. That's why all the law suits have recording company names in them ("Lava", "Capitol", etc.), rather than "RIAA".
But if you paste their own introductory text into their tool, they score 49, 11, and 18. All of these scores are worse than "ideal".
I had no problems with the sentence you had troubles with. I also fail to see why making it hard for all the 12 year olds (and adults with similar language skills) is such a bad thing for Slashdot.
The Web site of a cosmetic surgery patient critical of her Sacramento surgeon's work is protected free speech, an appeals court said in an opinion that could have statewide implications.
The Web site, www.mysurgerynightmare.com, contains before and after photographs of 33-year-old Georgette Gilbert who said the surgery left her with one eyebrow higher than the other and a surprised look permanently affixed to her face.
The Web site was challenged in a defamation suit filed by surgeon Jonathan Sykes, a prominent professor and television commentator on the subject of cosmetic surgery.
Although the Sacramento-based 3rd District Court of Appeal only mentions Sykes, the opinion suggests that others who use "hot topics" of public interest in their advertisements and promotions may shed protections against defamation afforded to ordinary citizens.
"The decision makes it easier for professionals to get defamed and unable to defend themselves," said Daniel L. Baxter, Sykes's lawyer.
First Amendment attorney Charity Kenyon agrees that the decision's reasoning could be applied to lawyers, optometrists, Realtors and other professionals.
"The opinion is good protection for consumers who want to express opinions about services they receive, but professionals who promote themselves may have this burden if they think they have been defamed," Kenyon said.
The court decision, which was released Jan. 26, may be binding on all California counties if it's not overturned by the state Supreme Court. According to the 32-page opinion, which can be viewed here, Sykes immersed himself so much in the public debate over the merits of cosmetic surgery that he became a public figure in the subject.
Sykes, a UC Davis Medical Center professor, is also an author and has written numerous articles that have appeared in medical journals and beauty magazines. He has appeared on local television shows "touting the virtues" of cosmetic and reconstructive surgery, the decision said.
"In our youth and celebrity worshipping culture, the benefits and risks of plastic surgery are a hot topic. The number of people, especially women, who have had minimally invasive cosmetic surgery has grown exponentially in the past several years," said the opinion, written by Justice M. Kathleen Butz.
"Sykes asserts that statements on the Web site do not contribute to the public debate because they only concern Gilbert's interactions with him. He is wrong," said Butz, who was joined in the opinion with justices Ronald B. Robie and Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye.
Baxter said that several statements and representations Gilbert made on her Web site were not true or were misleading.
Baxter cited, for example, the statement Gilbert makes with her before and after photos: "I was told by my doctor that this was a good result - that I looked better after his surgery - what do you think?" Baxter said that when Sykes saw Gilbert, about 2 1/2 months after the surgery, he indicated that she was improving but "never made any indication relative to that picture, or how she was doing five months out."
Gilbert's online comments also make it sound as if she was an unwitting patient who was pushed into plastic surgery, Baxter said. In fact, he said, she "directed (Sykes) to be very aggressive in carrying out the procedures."
Gilbert's lawyer, William L. Brelsford, said true statements and personal opinions are not libelous under the Constitution's First Amendment. The decision, he said, is applying an old law to a new mode of communication.
"Protected public debate is being extended to the Internet," Brelsford said.
Gilbert posted her Web site early in 2005, a year after she filed a medical malpractice suit against Sykes. On the site, she offers advice about finding the "right" surgeon so that others can benefit from her "misfortune."
She has a contact page where readers can share their experiences.
Sykes counter-sued Gilbert claiming he was defamed, suffered emot
Anti-MS zealot: "The increase in spam is caused by Vista". MS Fanboy: "Don't be silly - it was obviously the 2.6.18 kernel release that did it". IT Professional: STFU, both of you.
Since they're probably paying for this with the west's propensity to guzzle oil, I don't think it's for us to tell them how to use or where to get their energy.
If we were all driving around in solar powered cars, I doubt the concept would even be considered.
That's the point. It is meant to rotate on the energy it captures. It's not meant to be a particularly "green" solution - they're just trying not to be completely anti-green.
FTFA:
Project engineers say the Dh400 million Time Residences tower in the City of Arabia master development will turn through 360 degrees, its rotation mechanism driven by stored solar energy.
Slashdot Mirror
You're getting confused between the distinction between bits/transistors, and qubits/quantum gates. The difference between tubes and transistors is nothing like the difference between transistors and quantum gates. Bits and qubits are just as dissimilar.
Like transistors, tubes are just amplifiers. Contrary to popular belief, both are analogue components, but they have quite different responses to changes in current (the graphs are a different shape). Many people consider tube amplifiers to produce better sound quality than transistor amplifiers, and tubes will almost always handle clipping better than transistors. There's actually not much a transistor can do that a vacuum tube can't.
Either tubes or transistors can be used to implement logic gates. These gates can be built up to store and process bits of information. In the digital world, they are functionally similar. The advantages of tubes from the analogue world go out the window, and the advantages of transistors (size, speed and cost) come into their own.
Quantum computers are another thing entirely. The computers you and I are using at the moment are deterministic Turing machines. Quantum computers are non-deterministic. Quantum gates deal not in bits, but in qubits. They don't think in terms of binary data, they work with quantum states.
There are many things that these quantum components can do that conventional transistors cannot, but I don't think we'll be seeing quantum gates implementing binary logic in computers any time soon (if ever). The article unfortunately confuses the issue by making it sound like they've implemented a binary operation. CNOT is not a binary operation - it is a quantum operation.
I hate analogies as much as the next guy, but if tubes are the horse and cart, and transistors are our cars, then quantum computing is going to be our interstellar space craft - they suck for doing the weekly shopping.
No they don't. The only matches are ass, ase, arss and arse, but your point still stands. When being a pedant, it's also polite to provide a correction. The regex they were after is: a(rse|ss).
At least tick "No Karma Bonus", please
I don't know that the Offtopic mod was all that fair on this post. Sure, it lacked a little detail, but what's with this "almost instantaneously" bullshit that keeps coming up every time we talk about teleportation?
Maybe it's plausible in a Star Trek universe, but in our universe, we appear to be constrained by the speed of light, even for transmitting information through entanglement. Sure, one might argue that speed of light is instantaneous, but we all know that this kind of language gets a bunch of readers' hopes up every time.
By that logic, VoIP would be illegal too. I don't know what the US wiretap laws are like, but I doubt it's illegal to record into temporary buffers.
If they were suggesting recording conversations for later identification, then I imagine there'd be an issue. This is doing the identification on the fly, so is unlikely to be an issue.
Actually, we've had some fair use since December last year. You're allowed to time-shift and format-shift now if you like.
Why? Creationists thrive on their ability to make politicians think there is a controversy, and an active debate. Why give them any more attention than the guy on a street corner wearing a sandwich board proclaiming that the end is nigh? If they want to spend 27 million on their sandwich board, then fine.
Showing that lots of people accept idea A and reject idea B is their tactic. Let's focus our attention on showing why appeals to authority and popularity are flawed, rather than trying to convince the public through the use of that same flawed logic.
Are you serious?
Heavy: The densist LiIon batteries produce 60Wh/lb. At about 400Wh/mi, that's over 5 pounds of battery per mile of range. Sure, this aluminium thing needs water too, but you're calling the Aluminium heavy?
Complex: Are you a battery expert by any chance?
Wasteful: Oh, well that answers my last question.
The first two might stop a $1000 bill from coming in, but I think we're missing the point. The third won't prevent the $1000. You might think a 17 year old girl has the maturity to control her mobile phone use, wouldn't you? Consider this then:
This girl sent nearly 7000 messages in a month. That's over 200 per day. She was sending an average of about one message every 5 minutes, every waking hour... 7 days a week... for a month.
That's not healthy. Do you still think this girl would have the maturity to cover her own bill? Surely her parents must've noticed something was wrong.
Of course it does - but that's not the point. The point is to do away with the pressurised tank full of inflammable gas. It's basically a way of acheiving the same result as in-car electrolysis without needing to generate electricity to do it - the aluminium is just acting like a really dense, single-purpose battery.
Wouldn't it smudge?
... and somebody failed physics.
If they followed your suggestion, they probably wouldn't find it. The signals in mountainous terrain bounce all over the place.
Even if it were that simple to locate, you've still got to get in there to pick it up.
There's nothing wrong with karma whoring with TFA quotes. It's the only way most of us read half the articles
You rang?
No. Most encryption is done with ordinary private (random) keys. The keys are often securely exchanged with public key cryptography (the one with the prime keys), but you gain little from using prime numbers to do your bulk encryption, at a considerable computational cost.
DMCA prevents circumventing copy-protection techniques. It covers the private keys, which are usually just really long random integers.
Yet strangely, I don't see serious calls to stop postal voting, which is neither anonymous nor secure, but makes voting much more accessible.
Next they're going to tell us that pretty girls don't actually fart.
1. Write boring-as-batshit blog entry on inane, but slightly geeky topic.
2. Sign up to AdSense.
3. ???
4. Profit!
Not meaning to nitpick here, but is there any chance you could leave the insertion of line breaks to our browsers? I feel like I'm meant to be reading a poem every time I read one of your posts, which distracts from your otherwise interesting and insightful posts.
IANAL either, but I don't think the RIAA actually enforces any copyright. They just collect evidence, and pass it on to the record companies. That's why all the law suits have recording company names in them ("Lava", "Capitol", etc.), rather than "RIAA".
Yes, because they have such an extensive history of doing such things.
But if you paste their own introductory text into their tool, they score 49, 11, and 18. All of these scores are worse than "ideal".
I had no problems with the sentence you had troubles with. I also fail to see why making it hard for all the 12 year olds (and adults with similar language skills) is such a bad thing for Slashdot.
Remind me never to take a job as a receptionist at the DoD.
Wow... Yeah, umm, wow.... What more can one say?
Anti-MS zealot: "The increase in spam is caused by Vista".
MS Fanboy: "Don't be silly - it was obviously the 2.6.18 kernel release that did it".
IT Professional: STFU, both of you.
Since they're probably paying for this with the west's propensity to guzzle oil, I don't think it's for us to tell them how to use or where to get their energy.
If we were all driving around in solar powered cars, I doubt the concept would even be considered.
FTFA: