The bigger problem is because of the ideological dead-end-to-dead-end design, when every one's toaster and light bulb have an IPv6 address, and the anti-NAT zealots have one, is that upgrading to the next generation of networks will be impossible. The inertia caused by having to have everyone upgrade every light bulb and toaster to a new standard will block any advancement in networking technology.
I guess I suffer from a lack of imagination. Will humanity ever need more address than IPv6 provides? When the answer is yes will your question still even be relevent? Wouldn't I just ask my nano bots to upgrade all light bulbs for me?
The only reason IPv4 is being replaced is because there was not enough phone numbers for everyone in the world wishing to have their own phone number. The format of the IPv6 packet is evolvable. The only core issue requiring global coordination to change is the question of addressing and allocation of address space.
The topology of the Internet is not stopping you from doing dbus for all of your lightbulbs to a central server within your dwelling. There is nothing forcing you to use an end-end design. If people see value in other designs that option is available to them.
Just Internet Infrastructure is 40,000 man-years of work to complete. Internetal business networks could run into the trillions of man-years to complete. Even if we did all of this, end-users still don't have a clue what we're talking about, and don't want to change their internal networks that they worked so hard to make work in the first place. Until you can get the end-users changed over, the infrastructure and business network changes will never happen.
I must say I'm very impressed by the evolution of v6 clue on slashdot esp in the Area of NAT vs SPI.
A few comments on this perspective. CPEs don't last forever. Eventually the power brick will fizzle out or get toasted in a lightning strike.. and you will buy a new better one. The new CPE will come standard with IPv6.
In terms of the end user they currently don't know/care what IPv4 is. IPv6 won't be any different. They will simply plug in the ethernet plug or connect up wireless - IPv6 will be auto-configured and just work like IPv4 does today.
In terms of businesses switching their complex internal networks to IPv6... Why is that *EVER* necessary? All they actually need to do is IPv6 enable their external presence. Large content companies have been there done that. They are telling us it is not a big deal.
Was just looking at my NTP queue today and wouldn't you know it I'm synched with some IPv6 time servers. I didn't ask for or configure that... It just happened.
Carbon loading of the oceans is literally dissolving the shells off of the backs of poor little sea creatures, melting the snorks coral cities and pissing off sharks who now have less food to eat due to nth order effects on the food chain.
Funny. A belt is child abuse these days. In my day, that was considered 'punishment' for fucking up
The beating didn't even seem all that impressive either.
Dads first belt 14 whacks total (Most happening within 15 sec clip circulated in the media) Belt only...no buckle contacts. Butt seems to be the target although some did seem to contact her legs.
Mom then uses dads first belt for 1 whack says "thank you" and leaves the room.
Finally dad comes back with second belt adding 3 more whacks.
There is other brief contact grabing her head? that happens off camera.
Big fricking deal - I've had worse and seen worse.
The language and additude from both parents was much more upsetting to me than the beatings. Both parents act like huge jackasses.
Until several years ago corporal punishment in public schools was handed down by teachers on at least a million occassions per year and was commonly done by many of the parents of kids I associated with growing up.
Most SSL sites require an account to buy stuff, move your money around, post rediculous comments..etc.
My advice use mutual knowledge of those credentials to establish trust between yourself and the ssl site using a technology along the lines of TLS-SRP.
Obviously this is not a replacement for SSL as it does little good if you have not already established an account. It would allow sites were you establish relationships in person or offline (Banks) to no longer have to depend on SSL certificates at all in any shape or form.
Most federated authentication systems MS passports, openid...etc will also need to be fixed to suck a lot less than they do now.
Browsers will need to be updated to support SRP there is native support or at least patches for all major TLS toolkits to make this happen and the RFCs have already been written. It is just a matter of browser vendors getting off their asses and committing the patches that have already been submitted.
It is a pet peeve of mine to install a new operating system only to find several utilities included with linux since the beginning of time are no longer installed (or included with installation media) by default. Yea I know you can just run apt whatever and install it if you can remember what the name of the package it was in.
The problem is telling people to run commands over the phone that don't exist and then having to segway into installing crap that consumes no resources and should just be there in the first place.
Or being logged into a client system without access and or permission to install software.
Linux distros are essentially commodities. Little things like this make me not want to recommend ubuntu. The badge for the smallest linux distribution might as well be a medal for the smartest retard.
The problem is that Richard Muller was never a global warming skeptic. He was talking about the "need to address man-made global warming" back in the 1980s. In 2008, he wrote a book,"Physics for Future Presidents", advising either John McCain or Barack Obama to prepare to address man-made global warming. This whole story is a fraud. The guy is claiming that he used to be a global warming skeptic, yet, he has been preaching Anthropogenic Global Warming pretty much as long as anyone.
When the most popular item(s) is about legalizing drugs my guess this system does not accuratly reflect the issues facing most people. My assumption most people don't even know this exists.
Wake me up when there is more than secret ingredients, secret buyers, secret third party consultants and media blackouts. Wake me up when any independantly verifiable information of any kind is released.
All you need to do is write a speech to text front end for wolfram alpha as Apple has done and your done for all but the non trivial use cases that matter.
Do I really care if the voice interface to my calendar has dictionaries and natural language parser bolted in? No not really.
I never understood why people care about what causes changes to the environment? If you got skin cancer would you really give a flying rats ass if it came from a naturally occuring ozone hole vs one produced by CFCs?
I guess it would be helpful to correlate atmospheric carbon with an observed effect on climate as input to judge the benefit of removing carbon from the air.
However in the grand scheme of things it does not matter. 1/3rd of the carbon in the atmosphere is unquestionably man made. The extra carbon is unquestionably the direct cause of carbon loading of the oceans increasing acidity. It is simply not necessary to go on with an expidition to prove human cause for global warming when we already know too much carbon is doing bad things to the world even if global warming did not exist.
If you decide global warming is bad and want to drop the global temperatures it is as geoengineering projects go cakewalk. You just dump sulfates into the atmosphere reflecting more energy from the sun into space and your little planet gets cooler. MUCH easier than getting everyone to stop spewing their carbon into the atmosphere.
If you are more concerned about the direct effects of carbon screwing with the ph of our oceans then enumerate the potential problems this causes when mainge that the political case for change. Global Warming from a practical perspective is a red herring where it really matters.
But I'm amazed that Abu Dhabi and Dubai have such a high penetration of Blackberries in their country that the outage could actually make a difference in road safety statistics. That's just amazing to me.
The few ME countries I've been to have virtually no signals or lane markers, insanly narrow roads and cars merging from more directions than can be counted on a single hand.
People beep their horns constantly in traffic not out of anger but to alert others of their presence so they don't get hit.
If the UAE is anything like this craziness it wouldn't surprise me one bit if this is all true.
Ok, but even if Alice and Bob found a way to transmit new information instantly, I'm still not seeing how a paradox could exist. Alice could send Bob a message, and Bob could calculate a response and send it back. Alice would receive the calculated response before light-speed would allow, but that wouldn't seem to violate causality by creating a paradox... from what I can tell, it would only violate the principle that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. But instantaneous information transfer (FTL) is the supposition, therefore nothing has been proven.
Your 100% correct there is no contradiction with regards to FTL communication as an abstract idea. The devils in the details (How you actually accomplish it)
This can be done by sending your message through a region of space with negative density it will get there faster than if sent through a region of normal space... (Wormholes)
Or along the same lines you can use a warp drive to beat light.
The problem with going faster than light without playing games with space, coherence loopholes, extra dimensions..etc is if you look at the situation from different reference frames cause and effect are reversed.
From POV of photons moving at c the universe most likely appears as a point..space and time don't really exist as we see it in their frame.
There is no reason at all neutrinos can't be screwing with space in a way that would make them faster than light without opening causality worm cans.
The distance from GPS to earth is different than the distance seen from earth to GPS. This is certainly correct.
The address this GPS satellites slow their clocks to emulate the passage of time on the ground to correct for existing in an accelerated frame and difference in gravity.
The author seems to be making some bizzare conclusion since the observed distances are different in each frame the flight time of photons needs further adjustment to account for the difference of observation between GPS and ground with regards to actual flight time... ah no thats what the slowing down of the GPS clocks to sync with ground are for.
Anyway even if I'm the one confused and the clocks really are off by some 64ns there are two GPS receivers at each end and they are both off by the same 64ns. They could be off by a century for all they care it would still have no effect on measurements as long as both clocks remain synchronized.
I never understood why Apple and Google get a pass from the same Microsoft hating people who claim to give a rats ass about freedom and openness. I hope fanboyism for all platforms dies. We are all better off in a world where operating systems are viewed as commodities and companies are judged on actual merit rather than sports teams.
Is developing a closed ecosystem where all applications require central approval (Subject to arbitrary corporate value judgements) before they can execute open or free?
Is explicitly denying competing applications a market share open or free?
What about controlling the hardware? Godsake the battery is not even user replacable.
It is a false choice to have to choose between malware and a closed ecosystem. It is quite possible to create a secure fenced environment for every app.
It is impossible for a central authority to vett every application with 100% degree of certainty. If Apple can't stop all security bugs in their own software how do they intend to be able to do the same for the half million apps in its appstore? Judging by a number of revocations after approval the answer is they obviously they can't.
"let us assume that the TTD was stationary at the LNGS site for 4 days while the appara-tus for clock comparison was set up. Using the value of V/c2 quoted above this would result in a total shift of t 30 ns."
Let us assume a scenario which fits our desired outcome has actually occured without any supporting evidence since our own figures fall far short of a cogent explanation for the discrepancy.
Let us further overlook the fact PTB was mearly used to independantly *VERIFY* the nanosecond level clock synchronization calibrated by METAS of the time links between the two stations.
From the OPERA paper: "The difference between the time base of the CERN and OPERA PolaRx2e receivers was measured to be (2.3 ± 0.9) ns"
Ooops...
"More importantly, we have only considered the path taken by the TTD along a surface trajectory. The path taken by the neutrinos is some 3 kms below the surface at its midpoint along the trajectory connecting CERN and LNGS. At this level of accuracy the surface time mea-sured by all clocks involved will differ from the proper time along the true trajectory and this further compli-cates the interpretation of the OPERA results."
The difference between totally switching off the earths effect on spacetime as the neutrino beam moves 730km results in being able to cover.5mm more distance over the same time. The effect is not worth thinking about yet they deem it necessary to include it anyway. Their own figures come up short.
Go ahead Microsoft ignore us, think you know better. We are all just change adverse loosers.
Go for it... the desktop is "dead" and everyone will be fondling their screens and likeing it in the next two years anyway. I mean it is not like you are depending on *us* to actually spend money to purchase a new version of windows?
P.S. Do you believe the nerve of all those trolls clinging to their 286's during the Vista beta bitching up a storm about system requirements and performance?
Most malware and viruses expliot no flaws of any kind. Most often they expliot gullable users and the execution environment within which they find themselves. Open me to win $1000 instantly!!1!
If I sold a popular mission critical software system and the underlying systems environment were compromised or suffered a failure (cosmic ray strike, disk failure) leading to a disaster how much do I have to spend to defend my product against false claims? How much money does it take to prove in a civil case my product had nothing to do with a breach that effected the operation of my product? Even if a vendor does nothing wrong they get to waste time, money and resources defending themselves against user error, user stupdity and IT failures. From personal experience these cause the majority of downtime issues.
The paper uses a tired old structural engineering false analogy. "In strict mathematical terms, you cannot trust a house you did not totally create yourself" This is nothing but specious dribble.
âoeif you make money selling something, youâ(TM)d better do it properly, or you will be held responsible for the trouble it causes.â
I've lost track of the number of engineering defects I've encountered in various vechicles and products where a quick google search finds thousands of others having the same problems and for which the user is left holding the bag out of warranty.
The only thing vendors are on the hook for are safety issues. Exploding batteries, exploding cars, catastrophic loss of steering control...etc. If a crappily designed $5 gasket causes engine components to fail and a $2k repair bill YOU still get to pay.
"If you deliver software with complete and buildable source code and a license that allows disabling any functionality or code by the licensee, then your liability is limited to a refund"
If your customers do not know what source code is or have no method to benefit from it then what good is that other than a great loophole for vendors to dodge responsibility.
"your longtime vendors visits and delivers new product documentation on a USB key. You plug the USB key into your computer and copy the files onto the computer. This is âoeused normallyâ and should never cause your computer to become part of a botnet"
What if they plug the USB stick into one of your (infected) computers which installs an autorun virus on the USB. Then the stick is withdrawn from your computer and placed in a second computer at your location. Is the salesperson responsible for "infecting" the uninfected computers? How much does it cost to figure that out in court? If the USB stick is then used to infect other customers of the salesperson are YOU liable?
"And that is it, really. Software houses will deliver quality and back it up with product liability guarantees, or their customers will endeavor to protect themselves."
As we've seen recently with the RDP worm successfully explioting hundreds of thousands of commonly used totally insecure administrator passwords even if software were magically 100% bug free and reliable you would still be left with a massive heap of catastrophic security issues caused by human failure.
"It is also pretty certain that there will be some short-term nasty surprises when badly written source code gets a wider audience."
The number of long standing security bugs which continue to be found in popular open source operating system stacks is depressing in itself. Sunshine is better than nothing but insufficient to effect outcome.
âoethis law will mean the end of computing as we all know it!â
The idea is batter outcomes and increased value for end users. Have you provided a showing of evidence to establish this is the case or are you simply stating your opinion?
By the lack of any serious effort to concider the possible side effects and downsides of your proposal it makes your work look sloppy.
" To which my considered answer would be: âoeYes, please! That was exactly the idea.â"
There are a million different ways to get a browser to issue a known plaintext request to a server. I understand javascript is needed for this specific implementation however what is to prevent a different implementation from using an image tag, css, redirect headers, media objects..etc to issue the same request? Why is javascript required?
SRAM is used in such small densities that its energy consumption is negligible. SRAM is indeed hugely inefficient and would likely be replaced with this type of memory should it become feasible, but I think GP was and I know I was speaking to DRAM which is what the majority of people speak of when they mention the RAM in their system. When was the last time you updated your SRAM?
I was assuming the reader would understand my point.
If it lives up to the hype: Faster than SRAM. Uses the same area of silicon as flash More power effecient Practically infinite cycle life Non volitile
What on earth prevents it from replacing everything? SRAM, DRAM, disk drives?
This is looking to be more of a replacement for flash and other solid state memory so it would not be the RAM in your PC that's getting replaced, it would be the HDD which does consume a good amount of power.
From TFA: "They might also be much faster than another form of computer memory called SRAM"
Your stance is motivated by nothing other than a myopic view of scientific advance. Most of what we have today would look like a ridiculous 'free lunch' to people living 100 or 150 years ago, particularly in computing. But you are taking it for granted because you don't really internalize that you're already living with countless free lunches.
"Nothing other than a myopic view" is a little harsh considering there are only 10^80 atoms in the universe. A 1000 qbit system would perform vastly more classic operations in one single coherent transaction than there are atoms in the entire observable universe.
There is incremental advancement and then there is absolute lunacy.
I could use your reasoning in response to someone doubting the viability of perpetual motion machines or to poopoo shannon and nyquisy.
Nobody knows everything - at any time anything could happen and long held ideas can evaporate in an instant but we often have to make value judgements to get work done. Flailing about without any constraints is often a waste of time and resources.
I'm not sure what you were expecting quantum computers to be able to do. There's a lot of media hype which is made worse by people who just don't understand stuff. For example, there's no known way to solve any NP complete problem in polynomial time on a quantum computer. Similarly, while quantum computers can break many public key crypto systems (such as those based on the difficulty of factoring large numbers or on the closely connected problem of the discrete log), they can't break every public key cryptosystem. Quantum computers aren't magic and the people working with them haven't said otherwise.
I'm expecting computational power to scale to the exponent of the number of entangled qbits. Further I expect the number of qbits in the system to run well into the thousands.
Without the above you will never see a single code of any consequence broken on a QC.
2^1000 is a number with more than 300 digits and most certainly qualifies as magic to me.
There is simply not enough matter on earth available to build a powerful enough computer based on any other known principal.
In my mind arbitrary scaling of n^qbits is in the same category as denying the conservation of energy. I don't believe in something for nothing. I reject the idea it is possible to extract ungodly amounts of computation from the universe simply because it smacks of something for nothing. I hope someone proves me wrong. I'm confident I will die without this ever having been accomplished.
Slashdot Mirror
The bigger problem is because of the ideological dead-end-to-dead-end design, when every one's toaster and light bulb have an IPv6 address, and the anti-NAT zealots have one, is that upgrading to the next generation of networks will be impossible. The inertia caused by having to have everyone upgrade every light bulb and toaster to a new standard will block any advancement in networking technology.
I guess I suffer from a lack of imagination. Will humanity ever need more address than IPv6 provides? When the answer is yes will your question still even be relevent? Wouldn't I just ask my nano bots to upgrade all light bulbs for me?
The only reason IPv4 is being replaced is because there was not enough phone numbers for everyone in the world wishing to have their own phone number. The format of the IPv6 packet is evolvable. The only core issue requiring global coordination to change is the question of addressing and allocation of address space.
The topology of the Internet is not stopping you from doing dbus for all of your lightbulbs to a central server within your dwelling. There is nothing forcing you to use an end-end design. If people see value in other designs that option is available to them.
Just Internet Infrastructure is 40,000 man-years of work to complete.
Internetal business networks could run into the trillions of man-years to complete.
Even if we did all of this, end-users still don't have a clue what we're talking about, and don't want to change their internal networks that they worked so hard to make work in the first place. Until you can get the end-users changed over, the infrastructure and business network changes will never happen.
I must say I'm very impressed by the evolution of v6 clue on slashdot esp in the Area of NAT vs SPI.
A few comments on this perspective. CPEs don't last forever. Eventually the power brick will fizzle out or get toasted in a lightning strike.. and you will buy a new better one. The new CPE will come standard with IPv6.
In terms of the end user they currently don't know/care what IPv4 is. IPv6 won't be any different. They will simply plug in the ethernet plug or connect up wireless - IPv6 will be auto-configured and just work like IPv4 does today.
In terms of businesses switching their complex internal networks to IPv6... Why is that *EVER* necessary? All they actually need to do is IPv6 enable their external presence. Large content companies have been there done that. They are telling us it is not a big deal.
Was just looking at my NTP queue today and wouldn't you know it I'm synched with some IPv6 time servers. I didn't ask for or configure that... It just happened.
Carbon loading of the oceans is literally dissolving the shells off of the backs of poor little sea creatures, melting the snorks coral cities and pissing off sharks who now have less food to eat due to nth order effects on the food chain.
Screwing with the oceans is serious business.
Funny. A belt is child abuse these days. In my day, that was considered 'punishment' for fucking up
The beating didn't even seem all that impressive either.
Dads first belt 14 whacks total (Most happening within 15 sec clip circulated in the media)
Belt only...no buckle contacts.
Butt seems to be the target although some did seem to contact her legs.
Mom then uses dads first belt for 1 whack says "thank you" and leaves the room.
Finally dad comes back with second belt adding 3 more whacks.
There is other brief contact grabing her head? that happens off camera.
Big fricking deal - I've had worse and seen worse.
The language and additude from both parents was much more upsetting to me than the beatings. Both parents act like huge jackasses.
Until several years ago corporal punishment in public schools was handed down by teachers on at least a million occassions per year and was commonly done by many of the parents of kids I associated with growing up.
Most SSL sites require an account to buy stuff, move your money around, post rediculous comments..etc.
My advice use mutual knowledge of those credentials to establish trust between yourself and the ssl site using a technology along the lines of TLS-SRP.
Obviously this is not a replacement for SSL as it does little good if you have not already established an account. It would allow sites were you establish relationships in person or offline (Banks) to no longer have to depend on SSL certificates at all in any shape or form.
Most federated authentication systems MS passports, openid...etc will also need to be fixed to suck a lot less than they do now.
Browsers will need to be updated to support SRP there is native support or at least patches for all major TLS toolkits to make this happen and the RFCs have already been written. It is just a matter of browser vendors getting off their asses and committing the patches that have already been submitted.
It is a pet peeve of mine to install a new operating system only to find several utilities included with linux since the beginning of time are no longer installed (or included with installation media) by default. Yea I know you can just run apt whatever and install it if you can remember what the name of the package it was in.
The problem is telling people to run commands over the phone that don't exist and then having to segway into installing crap that consumes no resources and should just be there in the first place.
Or being logged into a client system without access and or permission to install software.
Linux distros are essentially commodities. Little things like this make me not want to recommend ubuntu. The badge for the smallest linux distribution might as well be a medal for the smartest retard.
The problem is that Richard Muller was never a global warming skeptic. He was talking about the "need to address man-made global warming" back in the 1980s. In 2008, he wrote a book,"Physics for Future Presidents", advising either John McCain or Barack Obama to prepare to address man-made global warming. This whole story is a fraud. The guy is claiming that he used to be a global warming skeptic, yet, he has been preaching Anthropogenic Global Warming pretty much as long as anyone.
+6, Informative.
When the most popular item(s) is about legalizing drugs my guess this system does not accuratly reflect the issues facing most people. My assumption most people don't even know this exists.
Wake me up when there is more than secret ingredients, secret buyers, secret third party consultants and media blackouts. Wake me up when any independantly verifiable information of any kind is released.
This tool excels in finding bugs and session cache synchronization deadlocks in the latest daily snapshots of openssl.. I found two within 2 minutes..
All you need to do is write a speech to text front end for wolfram alpha as Apple has done and your done for all but the non trivial use cases that matter.
Do I really care if the voice interface to my calendar has dictionaries and natural language parser bolted in? No not really.
I never understood why people care about what causes changes to the environment? If you got skin cancer would you really give a flying rats ass if it came from a naturally occuring ozone hole vs one produced by CFCs?
I guess it would be helpful to correlate atmospheric carbon with an observed effect on climate as input to judge the benefit of removing carbon from the air.
However in the grand scheme of things it does not matter. 1/3rd of the carbon in the atmosphere is unquestionably man made. The extra carbon is unquestionably the direct cause of carbon loading of the oceans increasing acidity. It is simply not necessary to go on with an expidition to prove human cause for global warming when we already know too much carbon is doing bad things to the world even if global warming did not exist.
If you decide global warming is bad and want to drop the global temperatures it is as geoengineering projects go cakewalk. You just dump sulfates into the atmosphere reflecting more energy from the sun into space and your little planet gets cooler. MUCH easier than getting everyone to stop spewing their carbon into the atmosphere.
If you are more concerned about the direct effects of carbon screwing with the ph of our oceans then enumerate the potential problems this causes when mainge that the political case for change. Global Warming from a practical perspective is a red herring where it really matters.
I somewhat like his liberterian view but all pure forms of government taken to their idelogical conclusion yield total shit.
He is too ideologically driven... too quick to invoke abstract ideas when the situation calls for more careful consideration of competing interests.
But I'm amazed that Abu Dhabi and Dubai have such a high penetration of Blackberries in their country that the outage could actually make a difference in road safety statistics. That's just amazing to me.
The few ME countries I've been to have virtually no signals or lane markers, insanly narrow roads and cars merging from more directions than can be counted on a single hand.
People beep their horns constantly in traffic not out of anger but to alert others of their presence so they don't get hit.
If the UAE is anything like this craziness it wouldn't surprise me one bit if this is all true.
Ok, but even if Alice and Bob found a way to transmit new information instantly, I'm still not seeing how a paradox could exist. Alice could send Bob a message, and Bob could calculate a response and send it back. Alice would receive the calculated response before light-speed would allow, but that wouldn't seem to violate causality by creating a paradox... from what I can tell, it would only violate the principle that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. But instantaneous information transfer (FTL) is the supposition, therefore nothing has been proven.
Your 100% correct there is no contradiction with regards to FTL communication as an abstract idea. The devils in the details (How you actually accomplish it)
This can be done by sending your message through a region of space with negative density it will get there faster than if sent through a region of normal space... (Wormholes)
Or along the same lines you can use a warp drive to beat light.
The problem with going faster than light without playing games with space, coherence loopholes, extra dimensions..etc is if you look at the situation from different reference frames cause and effect are reversed.
From POV of photons moving at c the universe most likely appears as a point..space and time don't really exist as we see it in their frame.
There is no reason at all neutrinos can't be screwing with space in a way that would make them faster than light without opening causality worm cans.
I don't understand what they are getting at.
The distance from GPS to earth is different than the distance seen from earth to GPS. This is certainly correct.
The address this GPS satellites slow their clocks to emulate the passage of time on the ground to correct for existing in an accelerated frame and difference in gravity.
The author seems to be making some bizzare conclusion since the observed distances are different in each frame the flight time of photons needs further adjustment to account for the difference of observation between GPS and ground with regards to actual flight time... ah no thats what the slowing down of the GPS clocks to sync with ground are for.
Anyway even if I'm the one confused and the clocks really are off by some 64ns there are two GPS receivers at each end and they are both off by the same 64ns. They could be off by a century for all they care it would still have no effect on measurements as long as both clocks remain synchronized.
I never understood why Apple and Google get a pass from the same Microsoft hating people who claim to give a rats ass about freedom and openness. I hope fanboyism for all platforms dies. We are all better off in a world where operating systems are viewed as commodities and companies are judged on actual merit rather than sports teams.
Is developing a closed ecosystem where all applications require central approval (Subject to arbitrary corporate value judgements) before they can execute open or free?
Is explicitly denying competing applications a market share open or free?
What about controlling the hardware? Godsake the battery is not even user replacable.
It is a false choice to have to choose between malware and a closed ecosystem. It is quite possible to create a secure fenced environment for every app.
It is impossible for a central authority to vett every application with 100% degree of certainty. If Apple can't stop all security bugs in their own software how do they intend to be able to do the same for the half million apps in its appstore? Judging by a number of revocations after approval the answer is they obviously they can't.
"let us assume that the TTD was stationary at the LNGS site for 4 days while the appara-tus for clock comparison was set up. Using the value of V/c2 quoted above this would result in a total shift of t 30 ns."
Let us assume a scenario which fits our desired outcome has actually occured without any supporting evidence since our own figures fall far short of a cogent explanation for the discrepancy.
Let us further overlook the fact PTB was mearly used to independantly *VERIFY* the nanosecond level clock synchronization calibrated by METAS of the time links between the two stations.
From the OPERA paper:
"The difference between the time base of the CERN and OPERA PolaRx2e receivers was
measured to be (2.3 ± 0.9) ns"
Ooops...
"More importantly, we have only considered the path taken by the TTD along a surface trajectory. The path taken by the neutrinos is some 3 kms below the surface at its midpoint along the trajectory connecting CERN and LNGS. At this level of accuracy the surface time mea-sured by all clocks involved will differ from the proper time along the true trajectory and this further compli-cates the interpretation of the OPERA results."
The difference between totally switching off the earths effect on spacetime as the neutrino beam moves 730km results in being able to cover .5mm more distance over the same time. The effect is not worth thinking about yet they deem it necessary to include it anyway. Their own figures come up short.
Go ahead Microsoft ignore us, think you know better. We are all just change adverse loosers.
Go for it... the desktop is "dead" and everyone will be fondling their screens and likeing it in the next two years anyway. I mean it is not like you are depending on *us* to actually spend money to purchase a new version of windows?
P.S. Do you believe the nerve of all those trolls clinging to their 286's during the Vista beta bitching up a storm about system requirements and performance?
Most malware and viruses expliot no flaws of any kind. Most often they expliot gullable users and the execution environment within which they find themselves. Open me to win $1000 instantly!!1!
If I sold a popular mission critical software system and the underlying systems environment were compromised or suffered a failure (cosmic ray strike, disk failure) leading to a disaster how much do I have to spend to defend my product against false claims? How much money does it take to prove in a civil case my product had nothing to do with a breach that effected the operation of my product? Even if a vendor does nothing wrong they get to waste time, money and resources defending themselves against user error, user stupdity and IT failures. From personal experience these cause the majority of downtime issues.
The paper uses a tired old structural engineering false analogy. "In strict mathematical
terms, you cannot trust a house you did not totally create yourself" This is nothing but specious dribble.
âoeif you make money selling something, youâ(TM)d better do it properly, or you will be held responsible for the trouble it causes.â
I've lost track of the number of engineering defects I've encountered in various vechicles and products where a quick google search finds thousands of others having the same problems and for which the user is left holding the bag out of warranty.
The only thing vendors are on the hook for are safety issues. Exploding batteries, exploding cars, catastrophic loss of steering control...etc. If a crappily designed $5 gasket causes engine components to fail and a $2k repair bill YOU still get to pay.
"If you deliver software with complete and buildable source code and a license that allows
disabling any functionality or code by the licensee, then your liability is limited to a refund"
If your customers do not know what source code is or have no method to benefit from it then what good is that other than a great loophole for vendors to dodge responsibility.
"your longtime vendors visits and delivers new product documentation on a USB key. You plug the USB key into your computer and copy the files onto the computer. This is âoeused normallyâ and should never cause your computer to become part of a botnet"
What if they plug the USB stick into one of your (infected) computers which installs an autorun virus on the USB. Then the stick is withdrawn from your computer and placed in a second computer at your location. Is the salesperson responsible for "infecting" the uninfected computers? How much does it cost to figure that out in court? If the USB stick is then used to infect other customers of the salesperson are YOU liable?
"And that is it, really. Software houses will deliver quality and back it up with product liability
guarantees, or their customers will endeavor to protect themselves."
As we've seen recently with the RDP worm successfully explioting hundreds of thousands of commonly used totally insecure administrator passwords even if software were magically 100% bug free and reliable you would still be left with a massive heap of catastrophic security issues caused by human failure.
"It is also pretty certain that there will be some short-term nasty surprises when badly written
source code gets a wider audience."
The number of long standing security bugs which continue to be found in popular open source operating system stacks is depressing in itself. Sunshine is better than nothing but insufficient to effect outcome.
âoethis law will mean the end of computing as we all know it!â
The idea is batter outcomes and increased value for end users. Have you provided a showing of evidence to establish this is the case or are you simply stating your opinion?
By the lack of any serious effort to concider the possible side effects and downsides of your proposal it makes your work look sloppy.
" To which my considered answer would be:
âoeYes, please! That was exactly the idea.â"
Hollow sound bites only waste the readers time.
There are a million different ways to get a browser to issue a known plaintext request to a server. I understand javascript is needed for this specific implementation however what is to prevent a different implementation from using an image tag, css, redirect headers, media objects..etc to issue the same request? Why is javascript required?
SRAM is used in such small densities that its energy consumption is negligible. SRAM is indeed hugely inefficient and would likely be replaced with this type of memory should it become feasible, but I think GP was and I know I was speaking to DRAM which is what the majority of people speak of when they mention the RAM in their system. When was the last time you updated your SRAM?
I was assuming the reader would understand my point.
If it lives up to the hype:
Faster than SRAM.
Uses the same area of silicon as flash
More power effecient
Practically infinite cycle life
Non volitile
What on earth prevents it from replacing everything? SRAM, DRAM, disk drives?
This is looking to be more of a replacement for flash and other solid state memory so it would not be the RAM in your PC that's getting replaced, it would be the HDD which does consume a good amount of power.
From TFA:
"They might also be much faster than another form of computer memory called SRAM"
SRAM is the same stuff used in CPU memory caches.
Your stance is motivated by nothing other than a myopic view of scientific advance. Most of what we have today would look like a ridiculous 'free lunch' to people living 100 or 150 years ago, particularly in computing. But you are taking it for granted because you don't really internalize that you're already living with countless free lunches.
"Nothing other than a myopic view" is a little harsh considering there are only 10^80 atoms in the universe. A 1000 qbit system would perform vastly more classic operations in one single coherent transaction than there are atoms in the entire observable universe.
There is incremental advancement and then there is absolute lunacy.
I could use your reasoning in response to someone doubting the viability of perpetual motion machines or to poopoo shannon and nyquisy.
Nobody knows everything - at any time anything could happen and long held ideas can evaporate in an instant but we often have to make value judgements to get work done. Flailing about without any constraints is often a waste of time and resources.
I'm not sure what you were expecting quantum computers to be able to do. There's a lot of media hype which is made worse by people who just don't understand stuff. For example, there's no known way to solve any NP complete problem in polynomial time on a quantum computer. Similarly, while quantum computers can break many public key crypto systems (such as those based on the difficulty of factoring large numbers or on the closely connected problem of the discrete log), they can't break every public key cryptosystem. Quantum computers aren't magic and the people working with them haven't said otherwise.
I'm expecting computational power to scale to the exponent of the number of entangled qbits. Further I expect the number of qbits in the system to run well into the thousands.
Without the above you will never see a single code of any consequence broken on a QC.
2^1000 is a number with more than 300 digits and most certainly qualifies as magic to me.
There is simply not enough matter on earth available to build a powerful enough computer based on any other known principal.
In my mind arbitrary scaling of n^qbits is in the same category as denying the conservation of energy. I don't believe in something for nothing. I reject the idea it is possible to extract ungodly amounts of computation from the universe simply because it smacks of something for nothing. I hope someone proves me wrong. I'm confident I will die without this ever having been accomplished.