Quite correct. It is one of the many aspects of the uncertainty principle.
The one we're most familiar with is: uncertainly in position / uncertainty in momentum = Plank's constant (i.e the more we know about the velocity of a particle the less we know about the position, and vice versa)
Another aspect is: uncertainty in energy / uncertainty in time = Plank's constant.
So, if we observe over a shorter and shorter time period we are more and more uncertain about the amount of energy. As the old e = mc2 equate matter with energy it means that over short time periods we are uncertain about the amount of energy.
Surely the police thought the phone was in play they should have been getting all the relevant info about who was accessing it from the network provider - e.g. cell tower, phone numbers, SIM numbers, IMEI numbers. They should have been able to catch this immediately.
I apologise for my ignorance in advance - I'm English and yet I don't know UK law as I should.
I've found this too. I've been tracking spam via unique sign-up addresses like this for a while and I get next to nothing coming in.
I assume that most of it is because I, like most people, have my address somewhere on a public website (either intentionally or not, maybe some crappy forum software is displaying it as part of a profile) and something has run a crawler on that site.
Seems like a very simple example of something that can be encouraged through the tax system.
1) Define a company as an ISP using a set of criteria that work for this purpose (something like, supplies network bandwidth and IP address/es to paying customers)
2) Increase their corporation tax by some amount proportional to the number if IP4 addresses they assign
3) Decrease their corporation tax by some amount proportional to the number of IP6 addresses they assign
They'll figure out a way to sell it to the consumer.
As stated above, we don't have to force them to make every IP a v6. Just to make them assign enough IP6 addresses that the chicken/egg problem is overcome.
Most Linux advocates would suggest that one of benefits of Linux is that you, the user, can change and customise anything you want, whereas in Windows you have to accept what's given or pay someone to do it for you.
I'm not saying that you have said this, just that your comment seems to be a contradiction with a lot of other comments from Linux fans.
Arguably, if you're generating docs from XML or.NET files, then you are into the world or programming or at least scripting, and outside of most users' (whatever level) experience.
My experience on Windows is that the only time I really need to go to CMD.exe is to use PING or TRACERT. I would imagine there are probably GUI equivalents, but they're so simple that it is quicker to just type them in.
I'd agree completely that on Linux I find it better in many circumstances to use the terminal. My debian server is CLI only, no X server running, and on my Ubuntu laptop I find it easier to do many thing from the CLI than dicking about with the various menus.
Also, the above example is pretty obscure. Could you suggest a few more examples of Windows requiring a CLI that are more familiar to most people?
So, assuming the person above was in fact 'astroturfing', your objection is not that they were bending the truth, exaggerating, mis-representing facts, etc. but merely that they are financially benefiting from it.
If they astroturfed for MS for free would it be OK?
You were also at School, in part, to be socialised and familiarised in the general cultural norms, one of which is arriving to appointments on time.
Schools should penalise a failure to do so.
Those who don't attend at all are much less likely to be affect by reward/punishment incentives than those who turn up late, so it makes sense to focus the efforts on those who it might have some effect.
" the banks were given all sorts of cash, but they didn't "buy" anything with it (no increase in loans offered)." Of course they didn't. It was better investment to buy up small banks that didn't get TARP money.
Well, that and the fact that most western govs simultaneously insisted that banks increase their capitol reserves to a much higher level. So the banks are supposed to simultaneously lend more and spend more?
"Hell, even an Eastern European EU citizen can't migrate to Western-Europe*. Even though goods and services can go through borders."
Absolute, utter rubbish. Inter-EU migration is lower in most western EU countries than in the UK, but that is not because it is restricted in any way.
Modern western economies have such a high GDP because, on avergae, each worker is more productive than those in developing countries.
Yes, the US (or my native UK) workers can't compete with Mexico, India and China when it comes to unskilled work. Basic factory work, low tech manufacturing and industrial work, etc. is most efficiently done by unskilled cheap labour and we should take advantage of this by hiring the most efficient labour we can.
US/UK/French/German workers are best placed doing skilled work. The average western worker is more skilled than the average developing world worker. So they can earn more, and create/produce more, than others.
It is the simple theory of comparative advantage.
The policy implication is that western economies should focus on moving as many people as possible into (highly) skilled employment. Complaining about the fact that they can't compete with unskilled labour is just pissing in the wind.
It isn't unreasonable to point out that if one is to compare the selling of guns to the selling of computer software then one should keep in mind that the potential risks are different.
You're trying to claim, by way of analogy, that because we don't allow situation A, and situation A is similar to situation B, we therefore shouldn't allow situation B to occur. Therefore situations A and B should be comparable in magnitude of effect as well as in form.
Now come on old chap. It isn't really on to compare a good CLI with a bad GUI. Either compare the best of each or the worst of each.
Not at GUIs are "nested tree of windows and menus so deep and complex that nobody can ever remember where everything has been hidden, and there are no good tools to help you find something that you know is in there somewhere"...and not all CLIs are "include tools for finding your way around. They also tend to make the defaults for the commands fit the most common cases, so you don't have to use the manuals all that often. And most tools have a -help option (though they can't quite agree on how to spell it), to provide quick reminders. And the CLI includes a current directory, search paths and aliasing, so you don't have to remember full paths to everything".
From what I understand, there is a huge amount of chance. If you feed an amount of energy into a small point in space where that energy corresponds exactly to the mass of a particle (via e=mc2) then you will get that particle.
If you feed more energy into that area of space you may get that particle, or you may get other combinations of lighter particles whose mass/energy fit within the energy you've fed in.
As I understand it, to find the Higgs particle you'd need to use the correct energy level (i.e. fire a proton through the accelerator with just the right energy, not too low and not too high)
This was certainly the story for the J/ particle, only when they tuned their system to the exact energy (lower than the system was designed for) did they find it properly.
There aren't any practical developments that can be made on the assumption that these theories are true.
It takes a £30 billion system like the LHC to even work out that the particles involved in these theories exists. Developing consumer (or otherwise) technology to make use the these particles is not within the reach of any modern organisation.
Its a fair question. Some abstract theoretical physics leads to huge new technologies, some leads to none.
For example, relativity theory (special and general) did not in and of itself lead to any great new machines or devices (although it lead to other developments in physics which did).
Whereas quantum physics lead to loads of stuff, not least lasers and semiconductors and hence modern computers and communications.
The only general rule is that you can't tell if a scientific discovery will have utility until it is discovered.
It all seems irrelevant to me: is there any ISP that can afford to say to Google "we wont allow your traffic on our network unless you pay us extra. Unless you pay us none of our customers will be able to access Google". How many customers will they have after 6 months?
Outside of BitTorrent, there are only a very few really high bandwidth sites that an ISP could afford to lose. BBC iPlayer maybe, but not Google, YouTube, FaceBook, etc. User would just move to a different ISP.
As an Englishman, and therefore part of a different market (ours is dominated fundamentally by the not too long ago privatised British Telecom who own the copper wire infrastructure), does anyone want to play devils advocate and explain the House's argument about acting against broadband investment with impartiality?
Surely, anyone who actually did for example impose a $x per GB cost to YouTube would pretty quickly find their network blocked by YouTube. How many customer's would they retain?
Well, that's a different argument then. You concede that there are venues that will sell a PC to the consumer setup just as they want it, and then claim that however no-one frequents these places as they prefer to go to the big name vendors. So your claim is that the free market is there, but no-one wants to take advantage of it.
I'd agree with this conclusion: most people will just go to the big stores, but that isn't to say that there isn't an alternative.
(Incidentally, for all those talking about the 'free market', this is exactly how it is supposed to work. There is only one thing the market cares about, and it isn't people's intentions, or desires, or what they think is the best thing to do, it is what they spend their money on. If what people spend their money on is different from what they think they ought to spend their money on, then don't blame the 'market', blame the consumer).
Slashdot Mirror
Quite correct. It is one of the many aspects of the uncertainty principle.
The one we're most familiar with is: uncertainly in position / uncertainty in momentum = Plank's constant (i.e the more we know about the velocity of a particle the less we know about the position, and vice versa)
Another aspect is: uncertainty in energy / uncertainty in time = Plank's constant.
So, if we observe over a shorter and shorter time period we are more and more uncertain about the amount of energy. As the old e = mc2 equate matter with energy it means that over short time periods we are uncertain about the amount of energy.
Surely the police thought the phone was in play they should have been getting all the relevant info about who was accessing it from the network provider - e.g. cell tower, phone numbers, SIM numbers, IMEI numbers. They should have been able to catch this immediately.
I apologise for my ignorance in advance - I'm English and yet I don't know UK law as I should.
I've found this too. I've been tracking spam via unique sign-up addresses like this for a while and I get next to nothing coming in.
I assume that most of it is because I, like most people, have my address somewhere on a public website (either intentionally or not, maybe some crappy forum software is displaying it as part of a profile) and something has run a crawler on that site.
Surely some of those are chronic users.
It doesn't have to be government mandate.
Seems like a very simple example of something that can be encouraged through the tax system.
1) Define a company as an ISP using a set of criteria that work for this purpose (something like, supplies network bandwidth and IP address/es to paying customers)
2) Increase their corporation tax by some amount proportional to the number if IP4 addresses they assign
3) Decrease their corporation tax by some amount proportional to the number of IP6 addresses they assign
They'll figure out a way to sell it to the consumer.
As stated above, we don't have to force them to make every IP a v6. Just to make them assign enough IP6 addresses that the chicken/egg problem is overcome.
Most Linux advocates would suggest that one of benefits of Linux is that you, the user, can change and customise anything you want, whereas in Windows you have to accept what's given or pay someone to do it for you.
I'm not saying that you have said this, just that your comment seems to be a contradiction with a lot of other comments from Linux fans.
Arguably, if you're generating docs from XML or .NET files, then you are into the world or programming or at least scripting, and outside of most users' (whatever level) experience.
My experience on Windows is that the only time I really need to go to CMD.exe is to use PING or TRACERT. I would imagine there are probably GUI equivalents, but they're so simple that it is quicker to just type them in.
I'd agree completely that on Linux I find it better in many circumstances to use the terminal. My debian server is CLI only, no X server running, and on my Ubuntu laptop I find it easier to do many thing from the CLI than dicking about with the various menus.
Also, the above example is pretty obscure. Could you suggest a few more examples of Windows requiring a CLI that are more familiar to most people?
So, assuming the person above was in fact 'astroturfing', your objection is not that they were bending the truth, exaggerating, mis-representing facts, etc. but merely that they are financially benefiting from it.
If they astroturfed for MS for free would it be OK?
Or, he/she's someone who prefers Microsoft to Google?
It isn't 'astroturfing' if it is simply objectively wrong, and it isn't 'astroturfing' is it is subjectively disagreeable.
To dismiss a post as astroturfing or trolling because one disagrees with it is not a fair way to hold a discussion.
You were also at School, in part, to be socialised and familiarised in the general cultural norms, one of which is arriving to appointments on time.
Schools should penalise a failure to do so.
Those who don't attend at all are much less likely to be affect by reward/punishment incentives than those who turn up late, so it makes sense to focus the efforts on those who it might have some effect.
Then, based on the above, why should anyone hire you for a programming job?
I challenge you to give a definition of science that isn't immediately disputed by about 15 people. I'm pretty sure I can't.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic or argumentative, I'm sincere. It is really hard to define but most people act as if it is obvious what it is.
" the banks were given all sorts of cash, but they didn't "buy" anything with it (no increase in loans offered)."
Of course they didn't. It was better investment to buy up small banks that didn't get TARP money.
Well, that and the fact that most western govs simultaneously insisted that banks increase their capitol reserves to a much higher level. So the banks are supposed to simultaneously lend more and spend more?
"Hell, even an Eastern European EU citizen can't migrate to Western-Europe*. Even though goods and services can go through borders."
Absolute, utter rubbish. Inter-EU migration is lower in most western EU countries than in the UK, but that is not because it is restricted in any way.
This is the problem, not the other things.
Modern western economies have such a high GDP because, on avergae, each worker is more productive than those in developing countries.
Yes, the US (or my native UK) workers can't compete with Mexico, India and China when it comes to unskilled work. Basic factory work, low tech manufacturing and industrial work, etc. is most efficiently done by unskilled cheap labour and we should take advantage of this by hiring the most efficient labour we can.
US/UK/French/German workers are best placed doing skilled work. The average western worker is more skilled than the average developing world worker. So they can earn more, and create/produce more, than others.
It is the simple theory of comparative advantage.
The policy implication is that western economies should focus on moving as many people as possible into (highly) skilled employment. Complaining about the fact that they can't compete with unskilled labour is just pissing in the wind.
I would disagree that the micro/macro distinction exists at all.
Eveolution happens, or it doesn't. Why does the scale matter.
In modern day terms please explain without evolution:
1) Selective breeding of canines.
2) Increasing resistence of bacteria to anti-biotics.
It isn't unreasonable to point out that if one is to compare the selling of guns to the selling of computer software then one should keep in mind that the potential risks are different.
You're trying to claim, by way of analogy, that because we don't allow situation A, and situation A is similar to situation B, we therefore shouldn't allow situation B to occur. Therefore situations A and B should be comparable in magnitude of effect as well as in form.
Now come on old chap. It isn't really on to compare a good CLI with a bad GUI. Either compare the best of each or the worst of each.
Not at GUIs are "nested tree of windows and menus so deep and complex that nobody can ever remember where everything has been hidden, and there are no good tools to help you find something that you know is in there somewhere" ...and not all CLIs are "include tools for finding your way around. They also tend to make the defaults for the commands fit the most common cases, so you don't have to use the manuals all that often. And most tools have a -help option (though they can't quite agree on how to spell it), to provide quick reminders. And the CLI includes a current directory, search paths and aliasing, so you don't have to remember full paths to everything".
From what I understand, there is a huge amount of chance. If you feed an amount of energy into a small point in space where that energy corresponds exactly to the mass of a particle (via e=mc2) then you will get that particle.
If you feed more energy into that area of space you may get that particle, or you may get other combinations of lighter particles whose mass/energy fit within the energy you've fed in.
As I understand it, to find the Higgs particle you'd need to use the correct energy level (i.e. fire a proton through the accelerator with just the right energy, not too low and not too high)
This was certainly the story for the J/ particle, only when they tuned their system to the exact energy (lower than the system was designed for) did they find it properly.
There aren't any practical developments that can be made on the assumption that these theories are true.
It takes a £30 billion system like the LHC to even work out that the particles involved in these theories exists. Developing consumer (or otherwise) technology to make use the these particles is not within the reach of any modern organisation.
Its a fair question. Some abstract theoretical physics leads to huge new technologies, some leads to none.
For example, relativity theory (special and general) did not in and of itself lead to any great new machines or devices (although it lead to other developments in physics which did).
Whereas quantum physics lead to loads of stuff, not least lasers and semiconductors and hence modern computers and communications.
The only general rule is that you can't tell if a scientific discovery will have utility until it is discovered.
It all seems irrelevant to me: is there any ISP that can afford to say to Google "we wont allow your traffic on our network unless you pay us extra. Unless you pay us none of our customers will be able to access Google". How many customers will they have after 6 months?
Outside of BitTorrent, there are only a very few really high bandwidth sites that an ISP could afford to lose. BBC iPlayer maybe, but not Google, YouTube, FaceBook, etc. User would just move to a different ISP.
As an Englishman, and therefore part of a different market (ours is dominated fundamentally by the not too long ago privatised British Telecom who own the copper wire infrastructure), does anyone want to play devils advocate and explain the House's argument about acting against broadband investment with impartiality?
So, we have them trying, but not actually doing.
Surely, anyone who actually did for example impose a $x per GB cost to YouTube would pretty quickly find their network blocked by YouTube. How many customer's would they retain?
Well, that's a different argument then. You concede that there are venues that will sell a PC to the consumer setup just as they want it, and then claim that however no-one frequents these places as they prefer to go to the big name vendors. So your claim is that the free market is there, but no-one wants to take advantage of it.
I'd agree with this conclusion: most people will just go to the big stores, but that isn't to say that there isn't an alternative.
(Incidentally, for all those talking about the 'free market', this is exactly how it is supposed to work. There is only one thing the market cares about, and it isn't people's intentions, or desires, or what they think is the best thing to do, it is what they spend their money on. If what people spend their money on is different from what they think they ought to spend their money on, then don't blame the 'market', blame the consumer).