or was inspected by your staff to verify it was pristine before shrinkwrapping
Problem is, that involves trusting your staff to do the right thing... which seems to be part of the problem.
Although I guess one could require staff to process the return on the inventory computer system, creating an audit trail, but without a UUID on each box you can't take a box that has been fraudulently returned and figure out which staff member(s) have been involved in the return. And of course that does nothing about staff that could take a box off the shelf and steal the contents and then re-wrap the box themselves....
I'd no sooner wander down to the mechanic's to listen to his boom box than I'd want to eavesdrop off most strangers' ipods. Hell, I thought that was the greatest part of ipods: boomboxes became anachronistic jokes.
Not sure where you travel, but on public transport here in Melbourne, the music coming out of some people's iPods could easily be called a public performance.
but I don't think it means what you think it means.
To me the word downgrade implies a loss of utility, a loss of functionality, a backwards step. In my mind swapping XP for Vista is nothing short of an upgrade.
Surely, eventually, people will have to realise what the **AA are up to and call shenanigans on the whole show. And towards that end a story like this is nothing but good news.
Hard to think about how an 80-core chip will change the world when the second core on my desktop spends most of its time idle.
But I'm sure as we move from 2, 4, 8 an upwards core chips the software will evolve to make use of it, but I would suggest that whatever it is you'll be doing on your 64-core chip in 10 years time hasn't even been invented yet.
I personally think it'll be the interplay and interactions between the big (64-core multi-GHz) and the small (phone, pda, ipod, dvd, tv etc) that'll make things interesting.
My last job I had the option of choosing my own (windows) development environment. After a day trying to get Eclipse to work, I came to the conclusion that, based on the tutorials and documentation easily available on the web, most people use Eclipse for the purpose of writing Eclipse plugins. All very well and good, unless of course you want to write some code that actually _does_something_.
Maybe if an 'Eclipse for VS users' tutorial was available back then I would have given Eclipse more of a chance, but for something that works straight out of the box, VS had Eclipse beat hands down.
(Disclaimer: I'd spent the previous 2.5 years working with VS)
What a bitch. Just take the punishment - no matter how sober you think you are, those things are damn near never wrong. If it's above.08, just pony up for the fines already...
You betcha QANTAS get preferential treatment. The AU-US leg is their cash cow, not to mention their near strangle-hold on the Australian domestic market. Of course, one wonders how long this "we're the Australian carrier, so look after us please" scam will last as QANTAS continue to outsource things like maintenance to other Asian countries.
My last flight to the US (business class, work trip) it was cheaper for work to fly me home from LA via Hong Kong (using Cathay Pacific) than via direct flight from LA to AU on QANTAS. Justified of course by a visit to the HK office. Now I'll admit that overall Cathay wasn't as good as QANTAS, but there is no way I'd put the price differential at the cost of an extra 9 hour flight, that's for sure.
You just made me think of an interesting point. There is a very real chance that, were these devices released into western markets, they would actually increase the amount of wasted/discarded computer equipment.
Think about it. Today I buy a $100 laptop. In 12 months time they release a new $100 laptop, but the new one has a slightly bigger/sharper/higher resolution display, maybe more RAM, faster CPU, whatever it is, it'll be undeniably more powerful. How great would the temptation be to dump the old one a buy a new one? Especially if the current one starts to malfunction - why bother with a repair that'll probably cost more than a replacement unit?
I mean, when you're talking about, say, $1000 you spent on your latest/greatest desktop setup, you're only going to spend that kind of money every few years. But for only $100, after 12 months you've already "gotten your money's worth" out of the device, so dump it and buy a better one!
So instead of hurting the environment with greater demands for power, we'll start hurting the environment with millions of discarded OLPC laptops. I'm starting to think that the 'green' claims made by the OLPC crowd aren't all they are cracked up to be.
Think of it this way. If you walk up to an ATM and withdraw $100, and it says on your receipt that your account has been reduced by $100, but the machine actually spit out $1,000, what do you do?
A. Report to the bank that their machine is screwed up and give them back the $900.
B. Keep the whole $1,000 and go your merry way.
C. Insert your card again and take $1,000 at a time until either your account or the ATM is empty.
That's a trick question, right?
Because obviously the answer is B, followed by D and E.
D. Call all of your friends and tell them to get to that ATM ASAP and withdraw $100
E. Deny you received $1000 when the bank calls - I only got my $100, Mr Bank Manager. Feel free to try and prove otherwise.
"The trick is that you are breaking the law when you knowingly send notices for videos that you don't hold the copyrights," Reyes said. "It's a good solution."
Problem is, someone has to take them to court. Can you see YouTube standing up for your fair-use rights in the face of a takedown notice? Me either. And unless there are monetary penalties (can anyone point to some DMCA-abuse or takedown-notice-abuse cases that have been successfully fought? And resulted significant monetary penalties?) it's still going to be a case of the guy with the deepest pockets winning.
Magical(i.e over my head) math says that momentum and position probability calculations are inversely related for electrons. Trying to get specific enough to nail one or the other down will increase standard deviation so you can't get a good picture of what is actually happening.
Close enough.
The 'why' is probably too complex for you to understand, and is definitely too complex for me to remember! But I do recall a derivation treatment of the wave equations for an electron (may have been a photon) in free space being used to demonstrate that the two were related and that 'solving' for one caused the other to become infinitely large.
Your mention of cosines and sines and stuff is somewhat relevant. The wave function can be described as a series of sin functions of different frequencies and amplitudes that, when added, give you a 'blob' that is your probability distribution. [I'm guessing you're aware of the ability to build any periodic function out of sins]. Now this is what I recall from over 10 years ago in physics class, but what happens is that to 'pinpoint' the position you end up adding lots and lots of higher and higher frequency sin waves to the probability function to make the probability distribution narrower. But as you add these frequencies to the position wave function, you lose frequencies from the momentum wave function, causing it to stretch out. And the relationship between the two is the uncertainty principle.
Don't worry about being lost. If you just know that the uncertainty principle has nothing to do with 'bouncing a photon off an electron to measure its position thereby altering its momentum' and that the uncertainty is actually a fundamental property of the electron then you'll be correct in your knowledge, if deficient in understanding (as am I judging by how fuzzy my recollection of all this is).
Glad to try. Bear in mind my experience with Quantum Physics only goes to 2nd year University, so as always do your own research.
Let's take an electron, because in classical physics it's pretty much treated as a point particle, and that's close enough for this discussion. In Quantum Physics (QP) the position of an electron in, say, a hydrogen atom, is modelled by a set of equations (wave functions) that describe the probability density of the electron around the atom (ie. the probability of finding the electron in any given spot around the atom). This is the 'position' in the position/momentum uncertainty relationship. The momentum of the electron is also modelled in QP by a set of equations that are also probabalistic in nature. These wave functions are also related to the whole wave-partical duality thing that electrons have got going on - effectively the electron 'wave' is the probability wave.
The two equations for position and momentum are related such that the product of the standard deviations of the two is greater than or equal to Planck's constant/4.pi. What this means is that if you were somehow to determine the exact momentum of an electron, you wouldn't know where it was, and if you were to determine the exact position of an electron, you'd have no idea where it was going. This applies to magical 'perfect' measurements as much as real-world measurements you can make in a lab (and in fact, using entangled particles, you can in fact measure without directly disturbing the particle of interest, by measuring the entangled particle instead). Generally anything that causes a collapse of the wave function (ie. it's no longer described by probabilities) can be described as a 'measurement'.
So, to put it simply (I hope), an electron (usually) isn't a point in space, it's a fuzzy blob of probability in space. An electron doesn't (usually) have a well-defined momentum, its momentum is a fuzzy blob of probability in momentum-space. So while the whole 'bouncing a photon off the electron moves it around so you don't know how fast it's going any more' explanation of the uncertainty principle is technically true, it isn't in itself what the uncertainty principle is all about.
This property of the quantum world is why electrons can jump across barriers in nano-scale objects, for example. Probability waves also explain how you can get an interference pattern by shooting electrons through two slits, one at a time.
Really hope this helps rather than confuses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_princip le
Time and length can be measured simultaneously without problem. Position, momentum and time, energy are the pairs that are subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and cannot be measured simultaneously to arbitrary accuracy.
It's not measurement that's the problem. It's existance. A quantum object does not have a well-defined position/momentum. The certainty in the two quantities (remember this is Quantum Physics, everything is probabilities) is related by the Uncertainty Principle, and is a fundamental property of the object and has nothing to do with 'measurement' as it's commonly used when people try (and fail) to explain the uncertainty principle.
I saw it explained this way (can't remember where) and it finally clicked for me:
Tom and Dick agree to have a duel. Tom and Dick have magical FTL instantaneous guns (again, instantaneous just makes it simpler to explain). Tom and Dick agree to move away from each other at high sublight speeds such that the relative time dilation between them is a factor of two. Each agrees to count to 8 and then turn and fire.
Each has a valid frame of reference. Because of time dilation Tom sees Dick's clock moving at half speed, and Dick sees Tom's clock moving at half speed.
So they head off and start counting. Tom counts to 8, turns and shoots before Dick does. When Tom shoots, he sees that Dick's clock reads '4' (time dilation).
Tom's shot hits Dick but doesn't kill him. Dick looks at his clock, which reads '4', and is quite annoyed that Tom cheated (after all, only 4 seconds have passed). With his dying breath, Dick turns and shoots and kill Tom, whose clock reads '2' (time dilated relative to Dick) - ie. a full 6 seconds (in Tom's frame of reference) before Tom shot and wounded Dick.
So what you have here is an demonstration of the grandfather paradox.
Either that, or you can tell your friend to strike out the clause, initial it, and ask the employer to initial it as well. Crossing out clauses, or modifying clauses to make them more reasonable, is another very "standard" practice.
"Standard" practices in contract negotiations are not always as standard as one would expect.
Didn't notice that third one. And take another look at the http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/07/213 7233 article - my guess is it's been changed because what you wrote above "Could children with a $100 laptop end up with a better security infrastructure than executives using $5000 laptops powered by Vista?" is verbatim from the summary. Maybe I misread what you wrote.
Do I think this thread will make a difference? I very much doubt it. Maybe over time if enough people pester those in charge to drop the dumb comments...
Slashdot Mirror
Obey the law? It's a sad commentary on corporate culture that that should have to be specified in a mission statement.
I'd say it's a sad commentary on the state of the law and its enforcement when a company can make a point by making a point of obeying the law...
8==D
Who'd have guessed you could use the same password in both systems?
or was inspected by your staff to verify it was pristine before shrinkwrapping
Problem is, that involves trusting your staff to do the right thing... which seems to be part of the problem.
Although I guess one could require staff to process the return on the inventory computer system, creating an audit trail, but without a UUID on each box you can't take a box that has been fraudulently returned and figure out which staff member(s) have been involved in the return. And of course that does nothing about staff that could take a box off the shelf and steal the contents and then re-wrap the box themselves....
I'd no sooner wander down to the mechanic's to listen to his boom box than I'd want to eavesdrop off most strangers' ipods. Hell, I thought that was the greatest part of ipods: boomboxes became anachronistic jokes.
Not sure where you travel, but on public transport here in Melbourne, the music coming out of some people's iPods could easily be called a public performance.
I'd donate $1 towards a 1/100 share of one strand of her hair. 99 others do that and it'd set the benchmark for pricing.....
I've heard the word before, obviously, but never in relation to Microsoft software, so it must have some other meaning in this context...
To me the word downgrade implies a loss of utility, a loss of functionality, a backwards step. In my mind swapping XP for Vista is nothing short of an upgrade.
Surely, eventually, people will have to realise what the **AA are up to and call shenanigans on the whole show. And towards that end a story like this is nothing but good news.
Hard to think about how an 80-core chip will change the world when the second core on my desktop spends most of its time idle.
But I'm sure as we move from 2, 4, 8 an upwards core chips the software will evolve to make use of it, but I would suggest that whatever it is you'll be doing on your 64-core chip in 10 years time hasn't even been invented yet.
I personally think it'll be the interplay and interactions between the big (64-core multi-GHz) and the small (phone, pda, ipod, dvd, tv etc) that'll make things interesting.
Key word there is "yet"...
Maybe if an 'Eclipse for VS users' tutorial was available back then I would have given Eclipse more of a chance, but for something that works straight out of the box, VS had Eclipse beat hands down.
(Disclaimer: I'd spent the previous 2.5 years working with VS)
Yes, because electronic devices are never http://www.policespeedcameras.info/news_vic.html wrong http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2003/11/13/9880 03.htm, and when they are the authorities are quite happy to http://www.policespeedcameras.info/news_vic.html admit it.
My last flight to the US (business class, work trip) it was cheaper for work to fly me home from LA via Hong Kong (using Cathay Pacific) than via direct flight from LA to AU on QANTAS. Justified of course by a visit to the HK office. Now I'll admit that overall Cathay wasn't as good as QANTAS, but there is no way I'd put the price differential at the cost of an extra 9 hour flight, that's for sure.
Think about it. Today I buy a $100 laptop. In 12 months time they release a new $100 laptop, but the new one has a slightly bigger/sharper/higher resolution display, maybe more RAM, faster CPU, whatever it is, it'll be undeniably more powerful. How great would the temptation be to dump the old one a buy a new one? Especially if the current one starts to malfunction - why bother with a repair that'll probably cost more than a replacement unit?
I mean, when you're talking about, say, $1000 you spent on your latest/greatest desktop setup, you're only going to spend that kind of money every few years. But for only $100, after 12 months you've already "gotten your money's worth" out of the device, so dump it and buy a better one!
So instead of hurting the environment with greater demands for power, we'll start hurting the environment with millions of discarded OLPC laptops. I'm starting to think that the 'green' claims made by the OLPC crowd aren't all they are cracked up to be.
A. Report to the bank that their machine is screwed up and give them back the $900.
B. Keep the whole $1,000 and go your merry way.
C. Insert your card again and take $1,000 at a time until either your account or the ATM is empty.
That's a trick question, right?
Because obviously the answer is B, followed by D and E.
D. Call all of your friends and tell them to get to that ATM ASAP and withdraw $100
E. Deny you received $1000 when the bank calls - I only got my $100, Mr Bank Manager. Feel free to try and prove otherwise.
"The trick is that you are breaking the law when you knowingly send notices for videos that you don't hold the copyrights," Reyes said. "It's a good solution."
Problem is, someone has to take them to court. Can you see YouTube standing up for your fair-use rights in the face of a takedown notice? Me either. And unless there are monetary penalties (can anyone point to some DMCA-abuse or takedown-notice-abuse cases that have been successfully fought? And resulted significant monetary penalties?) it's still going to be a case of the guy with the deepest pockets winning.
Close enough.
The 'why' is probably too complex for you to understand, and is definitely too complex for me to remember! But I do recall a derivation treatment of the wave equations for an electron (may have been a photon) in free space being used to demonstrate that the two were related and that 'solving' for one caused the other to become infinitely large.
Your mention of cosines and sines and stuff is somewhat relevant. The wave function can be described as a series of sin functions of different frequencies and amplitudes that, when added, give you a 'blob' that is your probability distribution. [I'm guessing you're aware of the ability to build any periodic function out of sins]. Now this is what I recall from over 10 years ago in physics class, but what happens is that to 'pinpoint' the position you end up adding lots and lots of higher and higher frequency sin waves to the probability function to make the probability distribution narrower. But as you add these frequencies to the position wave function, you lose frequencies from the momentum wave function, causing it to stretch out. And the relationship between the two is the uncertainty principle.
Don't worry about being lost. If you just know that the uncertainty principle has nothing to do with 'bouncing a photon off an electron to measure its position thereby altering its momentum' and that the uncertainty is actually a fundamental property of the electron then you'll be correct in your knowledge, if deficient in understanding (as am I judging by how fuzzy my recollection of all this is).
Glad to try. Bear in mind my experience with Quantum Physics only goes to 2nd year University, so as always do your own research.
Let's take an electron, because in classical physics it's pretty much treated as a point particle, and that's close enough for this discussion. In Quantum Physics (QP) the position of an electron in, say, a hydrogen atom, is modelled by a set of equations (wave functions) that describe the probability density of the electron around the atom (ie. the probability of finding the electron in any given spot around the atom). This is the 'position' in the position/momentum uncertainty relationship. The momentum of the electron is also modelled in QP by a set of equations that are also probabalistic in nature. These wave functions are also related to the whole wave-partical duality thing that electrons have got going on - effectively the electron 'wave' is the probability wave.
The two equations for position and momentum are related such that the product of the standard deviations of the two is greater than or equal to Planck's constant/4.pi. What this means is that if you were somehow to determine the exact momentum of an electron, you wouldn't know where it was, and if you were to determine the exact position of an electron, you'd have no idea where it was going. This applies to magical 'perfect' measurements as much as real-world measurements you can make in a lab (and in fact, using entangled particles, you can in fact measure without directly disturbing the particle of interest, by measuring the entangled particle instead). Generally anything that causes a collapse of the wave function (ie. it's no longer described by probabilities) can be described as a 'measurement'.
So, to put it simply (I hope), an electron (usually) isn't a point in space, it's a fuzzy blob of probability in space. An electron doesn't (usually) have a well-defined momentum, its momentum is a fuzzy blob of probability in momentum-space. So while the whole 'bouncing a photon off the electron moves it around so you don't know how fast it's going any more' explanation of the uncertainty principle is technically true, it isn't in itself what the uncertainty principle is all about.
This property of the quantum world is why electrons can jump across barriers in nano-scale objects, for example. Probability waves also explain how you can get an interference pattern by shooting electrons through two slits, one at a time.
Really hope this helps rather than confuses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_princip le
It's not measurement that's the problem. It's existance. A quantum object does not have a well-defined position/momentum. The certainty in the two quantities (remember this is Quantum Physics, everything is probabilities) is related by the Uncertainty Principle, and is a fundamental property of the object and has nothing to do with 'measurement' as it's commonly used when people try (and fail) to explain the uncertainty principle.
I saw it explained this way (can't remember where) and it finally clicked for me:
Tom and Dick agree to have a duel. Tom and Dick have magical FTL instantaneous guns (again, instantaneous just makes it simpler to explain). Tom and Dick agree to move away from each other at high sublight speeds such that the relative time dilation between them is a factor of two. Each agrees to count to 8 and then turn and fire.
Each has a valid frame of reference. Because of time dilation Tom sees Dick's clock moving at half speed, and Dick sees Tom's clock moving at half speed.
So they head off and start counting. Tom counts to 8, turns and shoots before Dick does. When Tom shoots, he sees that Dick's clock reads '4' (time dilation).
Tom's shot hits Dick but doesn't kill him. Dick looks at his clock, which reads '4', and is quite annoyed that Tom cheated (after all, only 4 seconds have passed). With his dying breath, Dick turns and shoots and kill Tom, whose clock reads '2' (time dilated relative to Dick) - ie. a full 6 seconds (in Tom's frame of reference) before Tom shot and wounded Dick.
So what you have here is an demonstration of the grandfather paradox.
(Man, I hope I got that right!)
Thing I can't understand is, who on earth voted for Star Wars?!
Either that, or you can tell your friend to strike out the clause, initial it, and ask the employer to initial it as well. Crossing out clauses, or modifying clauses to make them more reasonable, is another very "standard" practice.
"Standard" practices in contract negotiations are not always as standard as one would expect.
http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles/Security_by_I nsanity.aspx
I thought I heard something.... the sound of the irony flying over my head. Do you think I'll get the joke next time? :)
Interesting take. And also useless as far as tagging articles goes, I think you'll agree.
Do I think this thread will make a difference? I very much doubt it. Maybe over time if enough people pester those in charge to drop the dumb comments...