You seem upset. You should eat some pie.
No, "assault rifles" are not perfectly legal...
Bzzzzzt. Wrong.... The only rifles that are restricted to own are automatic rifles. ie: machine guns.
Bzzzzzt. Wrong. An actual "assault rifle" is a select-file (i.e., can be set for auto or semi-automatic operation) rifle of intermediate power. They are automatic weapons, and as such heavily restricted.
"Assault rifle" is not to be confused with "assault weapon", which is the sort of "ugly gun" you're speaking of. The term "assault weapon" seems to have been a deliberate coinage by a prohibitionist to confuse scary-looking semi-automatic rifles with actual military select-file assault rifles.
"Assault rifle" is a meaningful term. "Assault weapon" is not.
This "article" reads more like an ad. $120/year for 1 TB is more than 9 times what I'd pay for 5 years of a 1 TB internal SATA.
You internal SATA is not an off-site backup. This seems like a decent option for a backup that will still exist if (fates forfend) your house burns down.
Unless we have the name of the person who owns that first telephone number it's still just a number.
"Hey, Sprint? Yeah, this is Agent Smith at the NSA. I see that the phone number 443-555-5555 is on your network. What's the billing address for that account? Uh-huh. Any other accounts at that address? I see. And is there a credit card on file? Can I get the name and card number? Ok. And what's the PIN on their voicemail? Right. And the MEID on the phone? Thanks."
Granted, matching a name to a phone number is trivially easy,
Especially when you're the frickin' NSA.
As well it should, compared to designing, building, testing, and launching a new probe manning the ground station has to be downright cheap so as long as they are getting useful scientific information out of it it seems shortsighted to cut the funding.
Have you ever tried to raise capital in a socialist system? Capitalism makes capital common and available.
Capitalism keeps capital in the hands of the capitalist class, that's it's whole reason for being. The idea behind socialism is to make capital -- not to be confused with money, but the actual "means of production", and so not something that has to be "raised" -- available to workers without having to get some parasitic aristocrats involved. Unfortunately, Marx was not an empiricist and his version of socialism lends itself to abuse by authoritarians; but even his fscked-up version took an agrarian nation barely out of feudalism (Russia still had legal serfdom until 1861!) and turned it into a space-faring nuclear superpower -- and that in spite of bearing the brunt of the cost of stopping the Nazis. Stalin sucked and Marxism has serious flaws, but the whole "OMG socialism failed!!1!" meme doesn't hold up to serious examination.
Yeah, not so much a "hope" for me though. When I read the title I just really doubted they meant to say what it sounded like they were saying. And sure enough, they didn't.
There very likely isn't any computational model that can solve any problems that some TM equivalent method can't. It's just a matter of doing them faster.
ReFS on a parity storage space also solves bitrot and it's built into Window 8.1. Plus you can use an SSD as a cache.
You can do the initial seed as a local backup and then take that offsite to the friends location, that's what I did with my brothers, we traded HDD's around to seed the backups to each other.
In your first reply you mentioned that computers are based on binary logic - on or off. I thought you were getting at quantum computing where you can have a combination of the two.
From the article - "One is the discovery of a material that allows electrons to switch states really quickly that could improve magnetic random access memory speeds by a factor of thousand." So, yeah, that's essentially what I said.
If the difference is that a single electron can store on or more bits then this is definitely equivalent to a Turing Machine.The only thing a Turing Machine specifies for storage is a sequence of symbols. How you create the symbols, whether by on/off bits or an electron that can represent multiple bits, is completely irrelevant as to whether or not is is the equivalent of a TM.
Ack! Should have read more carefully before posting. Not "pointless drudgery" - there's definitely a point to it. More like tedious drudgery to support the interesting bits.
They're not. But there seem to be a whole bunch of people who like to turn to science or technology for some type of transcendent experience or something.
"Oh almighty computer, how powerful you are! Surely your intellect will excel beyond us puny humans soon. I am so unworthy. *Grovel*"
It's just a desire to have something to take the place of what the faithful crowd use some omnipotent god for. All over a tool that can do pointless drudgery work quickly and efficiently so that us humans can spend our time working on interesting stuff. Meh.
Hmmm, I'm not so sure. Unless I'm missing something in the article the proposal does not offer anything new toward quantum computing. The advantages listed are the ability to switch electron states very quickly to improve RAM speeds and being able to read the spin of electrons - both without requiring excessive power to drive it.
I'm not sure how quantum computers compare to TMs. After some quick browsing it looks like they don't have the computational speed potential of the (only theoretical) non-deterministic Turing Machine.
I admit you got me at first. I guess I was never a fan of people determined to turn science and technology into religions. Those topics are already cool enough as they are. Plus there are enough faith-based alternatives for that kind of thing if it feels like it's something you need in your life.