Except that any such taps are instantly detectable, at which point communication stops. Thus, at most 1 bit of information leaks out to an eavesdropper.
This paper is a follow-up to the previous work you cited.
Of course, you're conveniently ignoring the microcode translator itself and the memory to store the microcode, which are significantly larger than merely thousands of transistors.
There's nothing inherently "superior" about ARM or PPC instruction sets.
Superior to x86? Sure there is. x86 is a mish mash of instructions many of which hardly anyone uses except for backwards compatibility, but that still cost real estate on the CPU die. That's real estate that could be spent on bigger cache or more registers. ARM is a much better instruction set by comparison.
There is an open question of probable cause for search and seizure for such cases, because like it or not, citizens need to be protected from their governments just as much as they need protection from terrorists. Even if a terrorist could set off a nuke in the middle of New York city, governments would still have caused more death and misery than all terrorist attacks combined. Which is truly the greater threat?
But if you exclude the volume of material and energy, then evolution is more "complicated" than just coincidentally popping into being
No it's not. Natural selection is axiomatically very simple, requiring maybe 3 or 4 axioms (see cellular automota). Spontaneous creation of anything requires far more than that. The difference is quite clearly demonstrated by a system designed by genetic algorithms, and a system designed by a programmer. The former has maybe 10 simple rules, and the solution eventually emerges. The latter has literally tens of thousands of rules.
I don't know what you're taking about. Equation size has nothing to do with this. A formal theory's complexity is defined purely by the number of axioms required to define it. Many Worlds does not require the measurement postulates that Copenhagen and other non-realistic QM interpretations require, because the measurement postulates can be derived from the other axioms. That means Many Worlds is strictly simpler.
The number of assumptions required for Many Worlds is strictly less than all other interpretations of QM. The math is the same, so no, the device is simpler.
That's a hell of a lot of material, energy, computations, and/or real-estate.
This is exactly what I was talking about. Most people think each universe somehow "clones" all the matter and energy for each branch it takes. This is not at all the case. Again, think of the universe as an n-bit quantum computer, where n is very large. "Forking" a parallel computation to represent two possibilities of a quantum observable involves creating a superposed state to represent each outcome/universe, and requires very little energy (just the energy for entangling the states).
My explanation was quite clearly an analogy. You can tell because I quite clearly said, "put simply via analogy [...]". Many Worlds is perfectly well defined, conforms to all of QMs dynamical equations, and involves no mumbo jumbo. It in fact involves far less mumbo jumbo than Copenhagen which denies that reality even exists until you measure it.
Many Worlds isn't really that complicated, just very misunderstood. Put simply via analogy, the whole universe is in superposition in a giant quantum computation. Every possible configuration of observables executes in parallel. A quantum choice just forks a new parallel computation generating a new superposed state.
The decision that victor makes is predetermined, by the act of measurement undergone by alice and bob. (Meaning victor doesn't really have as much free will as he thinks he does.)
I too find it interesting that people immediately jump on time travel as a more plausible explanation than determinism. de Broglie-Bohm and Many Worlds can both explain these sorts of results because they are deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics.
The experiment in the article is... awesome. Though if history is any indication, hoards of raving Slashdoters will try their damnedest to force this into a classical mechanistic world-view.
People aren't obsessed with classical worldviews, they just want a worldview that acknowledges realism, something Copenhagen interpretations deny. Fortunately, there are plenty of interpretations of QM that acknowledge realism (de Broglie-Bohm, Many Worlds).
To summarize the article, scientists confirm (again) that Quantum Mechanics works as designed [...]
QM is really just a bunch of mathematical rules. All the hoopla over QM is about the metaphysical interpretation of those rules, not the validity of these rules that have been experimentally verified to the nth degree. There are still deterministic explanations of QM (de Broglie-Bohm, Many Worlds), so it's primarily Copenhagen-like interpretations that come under fire, ie. primarily the interpretations that deny realism.
AT&T isn't really advertising falsely, the data is unlimited. The speeds are limited.
Which means the data is effectively limited as well. If you sell "unlimited plans" and then throttle speeds to the point where downloading 24/7 for a month will only net you 1GB of data, that's not very unlimited is it?
I can see the use for options to specify heap sizes, and to tweak latency vs. throughput of the GC. These are critical for memory-constrained and timing-constrained applications, respectively. I presume the other options are performance related, but how effective are they really?
Point is, how the hell do you come up with ideal state and goals that narrows down to the morality answers he's after? Math?
Ethics is entirely dependent on discrete math, aka logic, so why the skepticism? In any case, the 'working definition' defines ethical principles simply as those principles that allows entities to thrive. What allows them to thrive is entirely contextual and subjective, in recognition of the fact that value is subjective, and value often reflects need. Where this is not the case, we simply document the exceptions in the hopes of devising a more general model, just like we do in other hard sciences. You start with a working definition, and refine it over time.
The point is, modelling a system absent empirical evidence tends to reduce to semantic circlejerking.
He may say he does not take stock in any major philosophical work from the last century or so, but that only make him a stupid philosopher.
He's not trying to be a philosopher, he's being a scientist addressing the problem of ethical relativity.
I think you should be more skeptical of your understanding of the science of morality. Neuroscience is merely one tool that can inform our ethical decisions, as you say, but you then imply that it cannot answer moral questions, as if any other arbitrary basis for ethics possibly could answer such questions in a way that is more satisfactory.
The problem with ethics, and indeed many studies of philosophy, is that they are too obsessed with semantics and deduction, and insufficiently interested in knowledge, which is the domain of science. It is sheer hubris to consider a subject beyond epistemic inquiry. Consequentialism as a whole predicates ethical choices on their effects, and so inherently depends on science.
The scientific method falls flat on its face on several subjects - a good one would be "I have terminal cancer - do I have a right to die at a time, place, and method of my choosing?"
I disagree, science can and indeed has been applied to the study of ethical questions. Google the Science of Morality.
Fuck you for thinking you know better than The People.
The People don't have the time to properly inform themselves on every issue. That's why being our elected representatives is a full time job. Direct democracy isn't effective for this reason alone.
I think a lot of people are jumping the gun here. Did it occur to anyone that this sort of move might be an Apple-inspired move to simplicity? HDMI can carry digital audio stream, so motherboards could consolidate around a single HDMI for both audio and video instead of providing SPDIF + DVI + 5-7 1/4 inch analog connectors. It's just more cost effective and simpler for consumers.
Yes, taking down sharing sites is bad. But vigilante attacks at a time when the government is already itching to censor the internet are fucking silly. It's like protesting the TSA by putting bombs in your luggage.
These attacks really aren't so different from public protests that disrupt traffic and businesses in cities. Except the penalties for such "protests" online are as bad and sometimes worse than major felonies. There's a bit of a disconnect there.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that any such taps are instantly detectable, at which point communication stops. Thus, at most 1 bit of information leaks out to an eavesdropper.
This paper is a follow-up to the previous work you cited.
Of course, you're conveniently ignoring the microcode translator itself and the memory to store the microcode, which are significantly larger than merely thousands of transistors.
Superior to x86? Sure there is. x86 is a mish mash of instructions many of which hardly anyone uses except for backwards compatibility, but that still cost real estate on the CPU die. That's real estate that could be spent on bigger cache or more registers. ARM is a much better instruction set by comparison.
Agreed, but you wouldn't have 15 charges levelled against you for a vicious comment. The "little worse" got him his jail sentence.
There is an open question of probable cause for search and seizure for such cases, because like it or not, citizens need to be protected from their governments just as much as they need protection from terrorists. Even if a terrorist could set off a nuke in the middle of New York city, governments would still have caused more death and misery than all terrorist attacks combined. Which is truly the greater threat?
No it's not. Natural selection is axiomatically very simple, requiring maybe 3 or 4 axioms (see cellular automota). Spontaneous creation of anything requires far more than that. The difference is quite clearly demonstrated by a system designed by genetic algorithms, and a system designed by a programmer. The former has maybe 10 simple rules, and the solution eventually emerges. The latter has literally tens of thousands of rules.
I don't know what you're taking about. Equation size has nothing to do with this. A formal theory's complexity is defined purely by the number of axioms required to define it. Many Worlds does not require the measurement postulates that Copenhagen and other non-realistic QM interpretations require, because the measurement postulates can be derived from the other axioms. That means Many Worlds is strictly simpler.
The number of assumptions required for Many Worlds is strictly less than all other interpretations of QM. The math is the same, so no, the device is simpler.
This is exactly what I was talking about. Most people think each universe somehow "clones" all the matter and energy for each branch it takes. This is not at all the case. Again, think of the universe as an n-bit quantum computer, where n is very large. "Forking" a parallel computation to represent two possibilities of a quantum observable involves creating a superposed state to represent each outcome/universe, and requires very little energy (just the energy for entangling the states).
My explanation was quite clearly an analogy. You can tell because I quite clearly said, "put simply via analogy [...]". Many Worlds is perfectly well defined, conforms to all of QMs dynamical equations, and involves no mumbo jumbo. It in fact involves far less mumbo jumbo than Copenhagen which denies that reality even exists until you measure it.
Many Worlds isn't really that complicated, just very misunderstood. Put simply via analogy, the whole universe is in superposition in a giant quantum computation. Every possible configuration of observables executes in parallel. A quantum choice just forks a new parallel computation generating a new superposed state.
I too find it interesting that people immediately jump on time travel as a more plausible explanation than determinism. de Broglie-Bohm and Many Worlds can both explain these sorts of results because they are deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Also for everyone's information, the paper is available on arxiv.
People aren't obsessed with classical worldviews, they just want a worldview that acknowledges realism, something Copenhagen interpretations deny. Fortunately, there are plenty of interpretations of QM that acknowledge realism (de Broglie-Bohm, Many Worlds).
QM is really just a bunch of mathematical rules. All the hoopla over QM is about the metaphysical interpretation of those rules, not the validity of these rules that have been experimentally verified to the nth degree. There are still deterministic explanations of QM (de Broglie-Bohm, Many Worlds), so it's primarily Copenhagen-like interpretations that come under fire, ie. primarily the interpretations that deny realism.
You can buy their screens for yourself.
Which means the data is effectively limited as well. If you sell "unlimited plans" and then throttle speeds to the point where downloading 24/7 for a month will only net you 1GB of data, that's not very unlimited is it?
And does the numeric value of that option dictate the degree of JIT-time optimization performed?
I can see the use for options to specify heap sizes, and to tweak latency vs. throughput of the GC. These are critical for memory-constrained and timing-constrained applications, respectively. I presume the other options are performance related, but how effective are they really?
Ethics is entirely dependent on discrete math, aka logic, so why the skepticism? In any case, the 'working definition' defines ethical principles simply as those principles that allows entities to thrive. What allows them to thrive is entirely contextual and subjective, in recognition of the fact that value is subjective, and value often reflects need. Where this is not the case, we simply document the exceptions in the hopes of devising a more general model, just like we do in other hard sciences. You start with a working definition, and refine it over time.
The point is, modelling a system absent empirical evidence tends to reduce to semantic circlejerking.
He's not trying to be a philosopher, he's being a scientist addressing the problem of ethical relativity.
I think you should be more skeptical of your understanding of the science of morality. Neuroscience is merely one tool that can inform our ethical decisions, as you say, but you then imply that it cannot answer moral questions, as if any other arbitrary basis for ethics possibly could answer such questions in a way that is more satisfactory.
The problem with ethics, and indeed many studies of philosophy, is that they are too obsessed with semantics and deduction, and insufficiently interested in knowledge, which is the domain of science. It is sheer hubris to consider a subject beyond epistemic inquiry. Consequentialism as a whole predicates ethical choices on their effects, and so inherently depends on science.
I disagree, science can and indeed has been applied to the study of ethical questions. Google the Science of Morality.
HTTP pipelining just magnifies the DoS vulnerability that all HTTP servers inherently have.
The People don't have the time to properly inform themselves on every issue. That's why being our elected representatives is a full time job. Direct democracy isn't effective for this reason alone.
I think a lot of people are jumping the gun here. Did it occur to anyone that this sort of move might be an Apple-inspired move to simplicity? HDMI can carry digital audio stream, so motherboards could consolidate around a single HDMI for both audio and video instead of providing SPDIF + DVI + 5-7 1/4 inch analog connectors. It's just more cost effective and simpler for consumers.
These attacks really aren't so different from public protests that disrupt traffic and businesses in cities. Except the penalties for such "protests" online are as bad and sometimes worse than major felonies. There's a bit of a disconnect there.