It's more complicated than you understand. A qubit can be |0> or |1>, or a superposition over |0> or |1>, OR a probability distribution over |0> or |1> (called mixture). Mixture is directly akin to the probability of a bit being in 0 or 1 state, whereas superposition (which is independent of mixture) can appear similar in certain conditions, but in general is a very different thing.
According to the first paragraph of the paper (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature08121.html), the algorithms tested are Grover's search and the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm.
You ought to also point out that the filter is currently being trialled voluntarily (but several no-name ISPs, and one name one). In that sense it is exists, in a currently very limited state.
Now Conroy has bleated on that "Only things that are Refused classification will be filtered" but there is always "Scope Creep"
Every time Conroy bleats something about this retarded filter it's different and contradictory to what he bleated last time. Now I don't believe anything that man says.
The filter is being proposed and actively pushed by the current government as an election promise. Even if it is in the strictest sense a minority of politicians, it is a significant one. I've been waiting for this proposal to quietly die in a corner since *before the election* nearly two years ago, but the arsehats are *still* pushing it.
last time I checked, WoW wasn't Refused Classification.
It doesn't need to be. All that needs to happen is this:
Random user plants some "objectionable" material in the game,
Faceless bureaucrat somehow finds it (or is alerted to it), and guesses that said material might be rated higher than MA15+ if it was actually rated by the proper board,
Filterbanned.
I don't know about WoW, but I'm pretty convinced Second Life would be susceptible.
The lack of oversight, disregard for proper procedures, and complete ignorance to the nature of the technology is exasperating.
If Noah's sons all looked alike and went to different corners of the earth, it's still possible for black populations, white populations, and east asian populations to arise.
In however many generations over a few thousand years? I don't find even that plausible.
I'm going by my impression that ssh and sftp are pretty intimately tied, so this may or may not be useful to you, but I'd suggest sshfs is unnecessary as svn works just fine over sftp URLs. In other words, if you can sftp into your web host, svn will be able to as well.
I think the amount awarded is as ridiculous as the next slashdotter, but you and I both know that logic is specious. A deterrent (which this presumably is supposed to be) is always going to be higher than any actual value---it would be silly if it wasn't. We have better reasons to be up in arms than that.
Being somewhat a math geek I've always considered Haskell, or functional languages more generally to be much more "mathematical" than any imperative languages. Admittedly Haskell has much less history than Fortran.
Hehe, the impotent vitriol of your reply is cute. I'm guessing, but I suspect that most people would think referring to a person as "it" is awkward and/or derogatory, whereas referring to a person as "they" (while maybe suboptimal in preference of "he" or "she") is acceptable and relatively common for gender-unknown/unknowable contexts. So this makes me curious: At what point does the use of any particular construct within an evolving language, such as English, become "correct" usage? When you say so?
"Its" referring to a person is almost certainly not correct. "His" is arguably correct, as it is both the male-specific and, historically, gender neutral pronoun. In recent time it has been assumed almost exclusively to be male-specific and its gender-neutral use has fallen out of favour. "Their" as a singular gender-neutral pronoun has since become popular. Welcome to evolving English. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#Historical_solutions
The way Mac apps hold your hand all the time in a "Trust us, you didn't really want to have that option" kind of way is why I always get frustrated using it. Sure, it's nice if an app says "That's a really stupid idea" and does it anyway, but "I can't let you do that, Dave" gets really annoying. Of course, that's very likely not representative of the general consumer. It's just to say, Linux apps suit me, and I'm sure a number of other people, precisely *because* they aren't taylored to suit the general consumer.
That may be true, but your suggestion that the Green's Labor preference somehow implies the Greens specifically supported Labor's filter proposal is reaching, at best. You could apply the same logic to any one of Labor's policies. There's a big difference between the Greens saying "In general, Labor is better than the other guy" and "We agree with this specific policy".
Labor. As in Australian Labor Party. No "u" in Labor. With the stories about the Australian government recently, this is beginning to become a pet peeve of mine.
Wikipedia has interesting words on it: Etymology The ALP adopted the formal name "Australian Labour Party" in 1908, but changed the spelling to "Labor" in 1912. While it is standard practice in Australian English both today and at the time to spell the word labour with a "u", the party was influenced by the United States labor movement and a prominent figure in the early history of the party, the North American-born King O'Malley, was successful in having the spelling "modernised".[19] The change also made it easier to distinguish references to the party from the labour movement in general.[20] Furthermore, the spelling "labor" had been acceptable in both British and Australian English in earlier periods. (See also: Spelling in Australian English)
Slashdot Mirror
It's more complicated than you understand. A qubit can be |0> or |1>, or a superposition over |0> or |1>, OR a probability distribution over |0> or |1> (called mixture). Mixture is directly akin to the probability of a bit being in 0 or 1 state, whereas superposition (which is independent of mixture) can appear similar in certain conditions, but in general is a very different thing.
According to the first paragraph of the paper (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature08121.html), the algorithms tested are Grover's search and the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm.
You ought to also point out that the filter is currently being trialled voluntarily (but several no-name ISPs, and one name one). In that sense it is exists, in a currently very limited state.
Every time Conroy bleats something about this retarded filter it's different and contradictory to what he bleated last time. Now I don't believe anything that man says.
The filter is being proposed and actively pushed by the current government as an election promise. Even if it is in the strictest sense a minority of politicians, it is a significant one. I've been waiting for this proposal to quietly die in a corner since *before the election* nearly two years ago, but the arsehats are *still* pushing it.
It doesn't need to be. All that needs to happen is this:
I don't know about WoW, but I'm pretty convinced Second Life would be susceptible.
The lack of oversight, disregard for proper procedures, and complete ignorance to the nature of the technology is exasperating.
In however many generations over a few thousand years? I don't find even that plausible.
I'm going by my impression that ssh and sftp are pretty intimately tied, so this may or may not be useful to you, but I'd suggest sshfs is unnecessary as svn works just fine over sftp URLs. In other words, if you can sftp into your web host, svn will be able to as well.
Guarantee? Yeah, right! Have a look at the "Valid From" date at the end of that PDF. You can't fool me!
I think the amount awarded is as ridiculous as the next slashdotter, but you and I both know that logic is specious. A deterrent (which this presumably is supposed to be) is always going to be higher than any actual value---it would be silly if it wasn't. We have better reasons to be up in arms than that.
I still don't understand how that isn't a blatant breach of the first amendment.
Being somewhat a math geek I've always considered Haskell, or functional languages more generally to be much more "mathematical" than any imperative languages. Admittedly Haskell has much less history than Fortran.
I certainly prefer my clothes to be open.
What?
FFFHAAAHAHAHAHA!! /Publishing executive.
One could've said similar things about semiconductors.
Hehe, the impotent vitriol of your reply is cute. I'm guessing, but I suspect that most people would think referring to a person as "it" is awkward and/or derogatory, whereas referring to a person as "they" (while maybe suboptimal in preference of "he" or "she") is acceptable and relatively common for gender-unknown/unknowable contexts. So this makes me curious: At what point does the use of any particular construct within an evolving language, such as English, become "correct" usage? When you say so?
"Its" referring to a person is almost certainly not correct. "His" is arguably correct, as it is both the male-specific and, historically, gender neutral pronoun. In recent time it has been assumed almost exclusively to be male-specific and its gender-neutral use has fallen out of favour. "Their" as a singular gender-neutral pronoun has since become popular. Welcome to evolving English. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#Historical_solutions
It's Channel 9, so I'm going with "Yes".
Bad Konqueror 3.5, too.
The way Mac apps hold your hand all the time in a "Trust us, you didn't really want to have that option" kind of way is why I always get frustrated using it. Sure, it's nice if an app says "That's a really stupid idea" and does it anyway, but "I can't let you do that, Dave" gets really annoying. Of course, that's very likely not representative of the general consumer. It's just to say, Linux apps suit me, and I'm sure a number of other people, precisely *because* they aren't taylored to suit the general consumer.
That may be true, but your suggestion that the Green's Labor preference somehow implies the Greens specifically supported Labor's filter proposal is reaching, at best. You could apply the same logic to any one of Labor's policies. There's a big difference between the Greens saying "In general, Labor is better than the other guy" and "We agree with this specific policy".
For a country that's become so dependent on digging stuff out off the ground and selling it overseas this sounds like the ideal solution!
I'm curious as to how you know the internal stance of a political party that, by your own admission, was never stated publicly.
Labor. As in Australian Labor Party. No "u" in Labor. With the stories about the Australian government recently, this is beginning to become a pet peeve of mine.
Wikipedia has interesting words on it:
Etymology
The ALP adopted the formal name "Australian Labour Party" in 1908, but changed the spelling to "Labor" in 1912. While it is standard practice in Australian English both today and at the time to spell the word labour with a "u", the party was influenced by the United States labor movement and a prominent figure in the early history of the party, the North American-born King O'Malley, was successful in having the spelling "modernised".[19] The change also made it easier to distinguish references to the party from the labour movement in general.[20] Furthermore, the spelling "labor" had been acceptable in both British and Australian English in earlier periods. (See also: Spelling in Australian English)
That's why I only ever drink Brawndo.