Nah, I just bought one from Dyson. Works great!

The energy of the vacuum HERE would be decreasing over time,

You can't assume that everything everywhere behaves the same. You can't assume that energy drawn from one location will show up as a deficit in another (you find running water in the street's gutter... you learn Joe's pool is draining. Assuming Mark's pool is also draining doesn't follow.) You can't measure anywhere but (very) locally, which also means you can only measure data very near temporally -- and so you really have no bloody idea what is going on without resting your conclusion on assumptions made entirely free of supporting data.

What you're claiming is equivalent to saying you know exactly what's going on on a planet orbiting some star in Andromeda because you've done some observations as to what is going on here. Evidence is utterly insufficient to your claim.

It might be simulated turtles all the way down.

It's virtual turtles, you insensitive clod!

Because empty space is full of particles

No, see, by definition, that's non-empty space. Empty space is... empty.

I am pretty certain that calculations of the vacuum energy do not depend on the size of the universe.

I am pretty certain the idea's never been tested. And may not even be testable. So you might want to adjust your confidence level a bit. At least until we can go everywhere and measure everything. Breath-holding doesn't seem to be called for.

How can we definitively tell if the vacuum over there has the same energy density as the vacuum over here?

Further, how can we tell if the energy we think we find in vacuum here isn't energy that arises from particulate contamination? Or, for that matter (ha) is coming from somewhere else? Has someone managed to (a) create a perfect vacuum and (b) measure its energy and (c) determine that whatever was measured as appearing at X, definitely hadn't disappeared from all the possible Ys? Somehow, I doubt it. If for no other reason than our access to some of the other Y (say, around Andromeda) is... limited. As well as non-contemporaneous -- if something disappeared from that region, to appear here, we wouldn't have any indication it had happened for about 2.5 million years. And even then, our ability to measure vacuum precisely at that distance... not so good.

My (admittedly not very deep) understanding of vacuum is that it is defined by a lack of content, and that a perfect vacuum would be defined by a perfect lack of content -- and were that simplistic idea correct, then I don't see why how much perfect vacuum there is has any bearing at all upon the total amount of energy.

And, if vacuum is indeed empty when perfect, but we think there is energy detected in what we consider a perfect vacuum, then perhaps we're simply misinterpreting the goings-on within an imperfect vacuum. Perhaps there is more to get rid of than the molecules and particles we know of at present.

Or, perhaps space is infinite and at least somewhat plastic to start with, and our situation (going with the idea that the space we can observe seems to be expanding) is more like adding a thimble of water to a planetary ocean (let the ocean conceptually be infinite for the sake of an example.) Perhaps space over there is contracting, while space over here is expanding.

My own position is that any cosmological proposal that includes the phrase "arose from nothing" or similar is probably better filed under astrology until actual evidence is found of the idea -- not possible precursors or echos, but an actual example of what is being described. We seem to be pretty clear on the idea that matter and energy are essentially interchangeable, and we have no experimental data that proves stuff arises from non-stuff, so at least at this point, I see no reason to take an assertion of "arose from nothing" seriously.

Regardless of specifics of the actual objective results, anthropogenic climate change is a scientific question -- whether certain consequences of our actions are leading to a fairly specific set of changes to climate.

That politicians want to vote on it strikes me as a significant indicator as to their incompetence. As if we needed any more...

I post. Doesn't seem to suck to me. My family is there, my friends are there.

It could be better. Faster, mostly, and a little better at blocking other users, but all in all, I find it adequate to my needs.

Also, I wonder about the analysis. Perhaps all the active users are in the AI and other groups where I hang out; but somehow, I doubt it. Maybe I don't understand what he means by "post public content"; wouldn't that be a post to a group or a post to one's own profile? Because there's a great deal of that going on.

Anyway. As long as it's there, I plan to use it. Meets my needs.

I think that's a wise position. Well put, too.

Is that a fox I see hanging off your left ass cheek by his teeth?

Computer security is not a naturally intuitive domain for most human beings, absent some properly directed training and experience.

It doesn't make them idiots. But it does make them vulnerable.

They're not. The Supreme Court ruled in the early 2000's that the police require a warrant for FLIR and wall-pentrating[sic] radar.

The thing is, they regularly act like they don't need a warrant, and they will act on that basis. Just as they are... casual... about other restrictions, and manipulative in escalating confrontations. These things illuminate a severe problem with our present police culture. You may rest assured that these technologies will be misused, and not to the citizen's benefit.

I suppose that doesn't make for a good headline: Police acquire new tech for performing searches; searches still require warrant!

Skipping over the critical issue at hand never makes for a good headline, insofar as "good" incorporates the meaning of "responsible."

IMHO, starting with assembly is by far the best choice, but it takes about a year to cover it well enough to provide a solid foundation. Most autodidacts tend to skip it, and most college courses only brush by it quickly.

From asm to c, and from c to Python, add in markup concepts (HTML/CSS), database concepts and SQL, and from there, you can go pretty much anywhere you want to go, language-wise.

That's a lot of ground to be covered in just a few words, though. :)

The problem isn't the ability of the device. The problem is the lack of due process.

For instance, if we know we've got a hostage situation, this kind of thing is entirely appropriate, and no judge should hesitate to enable it via a proper warrant. That doesn't mean the police should be free to use it at any time, at their own discretion.

Same thing goes for any other search tech that enables normal privacy boundaries to be crossed on a whim.

Search is like any other weapon in this way: a critical issue is how it is to be used, both in what the rules are, and in how well the rules are obeyed.

Perhaps.

But we rock and rollers burned so very, very bright!