Oh, I didn't realise the IEC was a salesman consulting group. Why not quote the rest of that passage while you're at it?
Then data storage for gigabytes, and even terabytes, became practical, and the storage devices were not constructed on binary trees, which meant that, for many practical purposes, binary arithmetic was less convenient than decimal arithmetic. The result is that today "everybody" does not "know" what a megabyte is. When discussing computer memory, most manufacturers use megabyte to mean 2^20 = 1 048 576 bytes, but the manufacturers of computer storage devices usually use the term to mean 1 000 000 bytes. Some designers of local area networks have used megabit per second to mean 1 048 576 bit/s, but all telecommunications engineers use it to mean 10^6 bit/s. And if two definitions of the megabyte are not enough, a third megabyte of 1 024 000 bytes is the megabyte used to format the familiar 90 mm (3 1/2 inch), "1.44 MB" diskette. The confusion is real, as is the potential for incompatibility in standards and in implemented systems.
Faced with this reality, the IEEE Standards Board decided that IEEE standards will use the conventional, internationally adopted, definitions of the SI prefixes. Mega will mean 1 000 000, except that the base-two definition may be used (if such usage is explicitly pointed out on a case-by-case basis) until such time that prefixes for binary multiples are adopted by an appropriate standards body.
So a technical committee came up with a solution for the confusion *already present in the marketplace*. That is not the same as "gibi" being "invented by salesmen".
There is always time taken in loading the supporting libraries, which really only affects the starting time of the first app that uses them. For subsequent apps that also use them, they're already loaded. Have you ever tried to start gedit while running a KDE desktop? It might give a similar result.
It was the first DVD I owned. Interesting thing is, in my area you can actually get two versions of it: the Gaumont (sp) version, with French titling (the director is French), or the Tristar (IIRC) version. I had the Gaumont French version.
Now, the first audio channel on the Gaumont version is a French re-dub, and the way my DVD software (Xine) was set up meant that it always defaulted to the first channel. So each time I watched it, inevitably, it would go through the first few minutes of opening credits and establishing shots, up until the first real line is spoken: "Aziz, LINIERE!"
Though partly true, they are not the only reasons. Personally, I bought it because I liked the sound of Ghosts I, in addition to the reasons you stated. Was well worth a measly 5 bucks, IMO.
Of course, this being a quantum circuit, there is the added complication of the fact that a single qutrit can be in a superposition of any and all three of those levels.
Quantum computing is nigh worthless for Monte-Carlo.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of Monte-Carlo generally to come out with some single answer? Like an average, just as an example. Then why would it matter if it collapses into one wavefunction? With an appropriately constructed QC circuit, that wavefunction would represent your single answer; all you'd have to do is measure it.
Of course, one must be careful about saying that we now have the correct answer. Maybe we don't? Maybe future generations will laugh at us as much as we do at the models of old?
Wasn't there a story about objects in space gathering more velocity than predicted, recently? Just sayin'.
Neither of these two parts have anything to do with gravity however. The fact is that, yes, light does curve as it passes close to the sun. This data has been INTERPRETED to be caused by gravity. However, since light is involved with the electric interaction, it is also possible that the light would be affected by interacting with the electric and magnetic fields of the sun and the large electric currents flowing in/out/around the sun. We know from experiments that light and particle beams strongly interact. The electrical force is at least 36 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational interaction.
You really think that no-one's thought of this, and taken any such effect into account? Or do you think that they must be being suppressed by someone ("the man") for some reason (lord only knows)?
You really think scientists care that much about dogma?
I haven't done a Windows Update on my (legal) XP partition since WGA started insisting it install itself and look over my shoulder. I also won't boot into that partition while any ethernet cable is attached. I'm probably still vulnerable somehow.
I originally kept a Windows partition around just for games, but I've found myself playing only few of them these days. And with Wine ever improving for the Windows games I do play, I'm seriously pondering nuking that partition, and getting that 50GB of my disk back for more important things.
This is a good point. Packet forging is not traffic shaping, it's active degradation of service: Exactly what they say they are trying to prevent by doing this.
You can't communicate faster than the speed of light. None of the Bell test experiments you've linked to can be used to communicate faster than the speed of light. In fact, in order to perform the Bell tests, classical information must be transferred *at the speed of light* from where one particle is measured to the other. The experiment is incomplete without that step.
Sure, the effect of collapsing the state of one of the pair of entangled particles instantaneously affects the state of the other. You might say this is information transfer. But it turns out that you can't actually use that change in any sort of communication. You can only do *that* at the speed of light.
Jesus, imagine what would happen to their natural habitats if the energy companies start chasing down pixies harvesting their magic dust. Leave the pixies alone!
Slashdot Mirror
H isn't a nucleobase. Your choices are C, G, A, T (in DNA), and U (in RNA).
Yeah, yeah, "Whooosh!" I know.
What is with idiots moderating up factually incorrect nonsense about gibi being "invented" by salesmen or wikipedia? It's an International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Technical Committee proposal. At best these posts are funny, trolls at worst.
There is always time taken in loading the supporting libraries, which really only affects the starting time of the first app that uses them. For subsequent apps that also use them, they're already loaded. Have you ever tried to start gedit while running a KDE desktop? It might give a similar result.
It was the first DVD I owned. Interesting thing is, in my area you can actually get two versions of it: the Gaumont (sp) version, with French titling (the director is French), or the Tristar (IIRC) version. I had the Gaumont French version.
Now, the first audio channel on the Gaumont version is a French re-dub, and the way my DVD software (Xine) was set up meant that it always defaulted to the first channel. So each time I watched it, inevitably, it would go through the first few minutes of opening credits and establishing shots, up until the first real line is spoken: "Aziz, LINIERE!"
"DAMMIT I don't speak French!"
Though partly true, they are not the only reasons. Personally, I bought it because I liked the sound of Ghosts I, in addition to the reasons you stated. Was well worth a measly 5 bucks, IMO.
A legitimately informative post should be modded as such, regardless of the poster.
It's not too difficult, really, you just have to recognize that the imaginary numbers are orthogonal to real numbers.
The tricky part is making a clean break, and stopping any bleeding...
The only effect that has in kwin (3.5) is to remove the minimize button and make the titlebar font smaller.
Of course, this being a quantum circuit, there is the added complication of the fact that a single qutrit can be in a superposition of any and all three of those levels.
(No need to point out technicalities. I'm joking.)
22?
Of course, one must be careful about saying that we now have the correct answer. Maybe we don't? Maybe future generations will laugh at us as much as we do at the models of old?
Wasn't there a story about objects in space gathering more velocity than predicted, recently? Just sayin'.
You really think scientists care that much about dogma?
-1 Nutbag.
There aren't any trees on Titan to hug. As far as we know...
I haven't done a Windows Update on my (legal) XP partition since WGA started insisting it install itself and look over my shoulder. I also won't boot into that partition while any ethernet cable is attached. I'm probably still vulnerable somehow.
I originally kept a Windows partition around just for games, but I've found myself playing only few of them these days. And with Wine ever improving for the Windows games I do play, I'm seriously pondering nuking that partition, and getting that 50GB of my disk back for more important things.
Are people really worried about 5 extra minutes? Or are people pissed off about packet forgery and actively breaking protocols?
This is a good point. Packet forging is not traffic shaping, it's active degradation of service: Exactly what they say they are trying to prevent by doing this.
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Brain Appreciation Party?"
You can't communicate faster than the speed of light. None of the Bell test experiments you've linked to can be used to communicate faster than the speed of light. In fact, in order to perform the Bell tests, classical information must be transferred *at the speed of light* from where one particle is measured to the other. The experiment is incomplete without that step.
Sure, the effect of collapsing the state of one of the pair of entangled particles instantaneously affects the state of the other. You might say this is information transfer. But it turns out that you can't actually use that change in any sort of communication. You can only do *that* at the speed of light.
Read about the no-communication theorem.
Jesus, imagine what would happen to their natural habitats if the energy companies start chasing down pixies harvesting their magic dust. Leave the pixies alone!
But Saudi Arabia sells us oil, and that makes it okay. :(
Like saying America's Institute of Technology in Massachusetts. Not even close to correct.