+insightful ... really? Lets be clear, these places were on the brink of bankruptcy, which means that those contractual promises would have gone away, legally. What Obama did was straight theft, from my family to the democrat-voting UAW.

Well in that case, since the court knows who should have won, why are they bothering asking the subjects^H voters, just ennoble the candidate directly!

Absolutely. And it also shows how out-of-step with the current net these people are. Given the way people rejoice in their liberty on the net, there would be whole theater groups getting set up just to troll DHS.

This, people, this right here is the natural result of electing a pile of leftist socialists, the smug 'we understand the social models, so we can make things better if we control everything' mindset. A aristocracy of arrogance. No understanding of the noise in the system, or the importance of having noise there.

Yawn, yea, its all a conspiracy ...

Or perhaps, this kind of system is fscking *hard*, and getting it working would be a huge thing. Or is duck-and-cover good enough for you and your kids?

This, right here. Scientists, real scientists, can support their findings even when others have access to the same inputs and methods as the scientist uses. If you hide data, you are no longer a scientist. If you 'correct' data with a certain result in mind, you are no longer a scientist.

A real scientist is *happy* to let everyone look at their data, because a real scientist feels that pointing out an error to a colleague is one of the best favors you can perform. Having your peers look at your work in detail, and say "hey, that's some pretty good work" is the best.

Hiding your data and still quoting the results removes you from the practice of science. Allowing, or encouraging people to make fundamental policy decisions on outcomes you are not willing to document and support is sinful.

A core tenet of scientific study is that results should be independently reproduced. Real scientists hunt for people to reproduce their results.

  (IIAS, PhD in EE)

Ya know, alot of these 'summaries' are not really helpful, so I'll take a shot :).

QC for the most part can be thought of in the same fashion as convenetion computer
science, qbits == bits, 'transistors', memory ... etc.

The really cool part, and the part that makes it very interesting to many, is a certain property
of the qbits. Normal bits are independent, each being calculated and contributing to further
calculations on its own. In a QC, then qbits are 'entangled', which can result in one qbit
being effected by the calculations being performed on another. Knowing this, you can
design algorithms to perform certain types of math much much faster than a normal
computer could. Notice that the speed up isn't in clock rate, or individual calculation rate,
but rather in 'bang for the buck' in each calculation. This can change the calculation time for
a big factorization, for example, from 'next millennia' to 'next week', and more inportantly,
if you add a bit to the number you are factoring, the calculation time for a QC would raise
to '1 week+1 minute', whereas a convention computer's calculation time would go from
'1 millennia' to 'life of the universe'.

For an example of such a QC algorithm, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor's_algorithm

that sucks ...

Could this guy be any stupider?

That's an achievement?

Start them off with network protocols, in particular, The Story of Ping

http://www.amazon.com/Story-About-Ping-Marjorie-Flack/dp/0140502416