Don't feel to bad if you don't understand it, even quantum physicists don't understand quantum physics very well.
Richard Feynman once said of quantum theory: "Don't ask how it can be like that. Nobody knows how it can be like that!"
The mechanics behind what is really happening in entanglement is still unknown, there is only guesswork as to how it might happen.
Not quite true at least for the other end of the process, the so-called collapse of the wave function, when one makes a measurement and entangled states decohere. As I've posted once before a while ago, what is going on there was worked out in detail by a gifted yet relatively unknown (outside of theoretical physics circles) Australian mathematical physicist, HS Green http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_S._Green perhaps best known for his ground breaking work in fluids and as a protege of Max Born, who described Bert Green, in a letter to Einstein, as "brilliant". This side of his work has not got the recognition it deserves. Green proved that the collapse of the wave function to the single measured state that we perceive has nothing to do with mystical mumbo jumbo and can be entirely accounted for by the mathematics of the interaction between the set of possible states and the environment. Or something like that. Unfortunately the silly wikipedia article does not reference that work, I'll have to find it again and put it there.
Bell's theorem (ie entanglement) cannot be used for communication that violates the limiting velocity of the speed of light. But a workaround would be nice:=).
That sounds all very nice but it also sounds like metaphysics. But do you want to unpack that for those of us who have some education in theoretical physics? I thought not.
What about Mona Lisa? (she was a beauty at those times and, cough, she got rid of eyebrows)
Cough, Rubens' beauties?
I recall my grandma telling me that man having a bit overweight would make him more attractive.
Heck, in India, women with slim bodies are considered not as sexy as those with a bit overweight. (in western terms)
Ever seen what some african tribes do, to look more attractive?;)
Easy. I was talking about *beauty* which is primarily about facial geometry. Studies have shown that the ratios in facial geometry that is identified as beautiful - which includes greater L-R symmetry that is found in the ugly - are remarkably consistent across race and culture. Which implies the response is biologically hard-wired against all the tripe we have been led to believe. Body shape is subject to fashion mainly because of economics - it just isn't cool to be thin in a society or time where nearly everyone is underfed. Thin is cool because Westerners overeat. If you look at YouTube you'll note that Bollywood hotties have got much thinner in recent years as India's economy has grown. But their faces haven't changed much.
African neck-rings and ear or lip stretching originated to make girls *less* attractive to slavers not more attractive and has become normalized into their beauty practice. It doesn't change the basic ratios like eyes-mouth eye-nose etc, those are bony features.
Perhaps I was being pedantic. I certainly wouldn't call much on TV real, no. But we know for sure it isn't real (hopefully). I meant the definition of the term. "Hyper-real" is an expression first coined in the 1980s by postmodernist cultural theorists such as Jean Baudrillard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality
It is usually used to refer to that tendency of postmodernity to so blur the boundaries between reality and our reproductions of reality (eg in design or the media) that we can't really tell the difference anymore. For Baudrillard this would eventually lead to a kind of catastrophic implosion of meaning or mass psychosis in which we would all get permanently lost. This was in his The Evil Demon of Images, the only book of his I ever waded through. Disclaimer: IANAP (I am not a philosopher)
But wouldn't you say what you masturbate to tends to take over your desires? A chicken and egg argument I know. Not that I masturbate to chickens or eggs (not very often anyway).
In the decades I have been in the big city, I have not met a single beauty once! Never!
Then you are blind? Even I have known technically extremely beautiful women and even dated one or two in my youth. But not for long before I was dumped. Because I am not a handsome man and biology is the supreme fascist.
There's truth in this except for your use of "hype real" which is incorrect. Nevertheless to echo a post I made somewhere else:
Read the statistics, beauty is not purely socially determined. It's not in the eye of the beholder. It's a near absolute. There are small variations and individual preferences, yes. What happened is this: before mass media and transport, the most beautiful girl most of us ever saw all our life was that one in our village or the next village. Probably 1% of the population. We never saw anyone more attractive than those one or two beautiful girls. Economics was much more important than looks in choosing a partner back then anyway. Nowadays, the media selects thousands of beauties (men and women) who are in the top 0.01% of beauty rankings and puts them on a pedestal. That has exposed us all to extremely attractive people as if they were all around us and we crave it.
Given the obesity epidemic in Western countries, if I could only train myself to go crazy for fat women with huge, wobbly, grotesque butts, I would be living in heaven.
Shut down the company? Facebook is based in Ireland, and it would mean lots of shit to many people (like it or not, Facebook has become part of life for almost every human on earth)
That may all be true but I still wish that Faecesbook (or Global Social Surveillance System to use its girly name) would simply *die*. I'm so sick of trying to explain to morons that putting their entire lives - their social connections, their thoughts, where they are, what they are doing now - documented with photos no less - on Faecesbook is maybe not such a great idea. The same people that balk at the idea of giving personal data to the government freely post the DNA of their entire lives to FB without batting an eyelid. Such implicit trust in the ethics of a megacorp is touching but oh so dumb.
Did you know that Faecesbook provides a special interface just to assist three-letter agencies search the huge collection of data they are keeping about you?
In short: we need better technology to travel very far at all in space. Better propulsion, better shielding, better everything. I believe it will come. So will better physics and with it we may just get the superscience our imaginations have been begging for. In the last 100 years, human science and technological growth has exploded exponentially. We cannot imagine what technology physics might give us within another 100 years let alone 500 years.
You got that right. I stayed home sick as a small kid in 1969 just to watch the entire televised moon landing and not the short bit they let the kids at school watch. And I'm still waiting for my holiday under the plexiglass dome on the moon. I've never understood how we could get there (the moon) and then just... stop.
WE NEED TO OWN THAT INFRASTRUCTURE, all of us; it needs to be a co-op enterprise. The human push into space must be a SOCIAL endeavor, and by social I mean the entire human tribe, not just one splinter group of it.
I'd like to agree with you, and I would have, once. At present it doesn't look like governments can afford to 'own that infrastructure'. They're all so in debt. I agree they could probably find some way around that but governments don't seem to give a shit about space anymore. When people started yawning at yet another boring shuttle shot it meant the end of more stuff for politicians and that meant the end of exciting space shots ie those carrying humans to exotic places which is a critical part of getting excited about exploration. The impetus needed to be kept up after the Apollo program, we should never have stopped choosing JFK-style targets to galvanize all sections of society and to do 'not because they are easy but because they are hard'. We miss you JFK. Still. Even in Europe. We should follow his example and do hard manned flight targets not only joy rides to the ISS.
Maybe bombing yes, but a ground force invasion of Iran won't happen. It's too big and Iran's military is too rich and powerful. If we think the US messed up in Iraq and Afghanistan - I mean, what a mess! - those would be nothing compared to the huge disaster that would result from an invasion of Iran.
Right. The etymology of 'amateur'? It literally means 'one who loves'. There was no shame in being an amateur in 19C and before. A fully rounded gentleman (we still use the phrase 'renaissance man' to refer to a multi skilled amateur) or lady could have a number of serious hobbies and being an amateur of science was one such pursuit. Many scientific advances were made by dedicated amateurs. Observational astronomy is one area where amateurs can still make extremely valuable contributions.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't feel to bad if you don't understand it, even quantum physicists don't understand quantum physics very well.
Richard Feynman once said of quantum theory: "Don't ask how it can be like that. Nobody knows how it can be like that!"
The mechanics behind what is really happening in entanglement is still unknown, there is only guesswork as to how it might happen.
Not quite true at least for the other end of the process, the so-called collapse of the wave function, when one makes a measurement and entangled states decohere. As I've posted once before a while ago, what is going on there was worked out in detail by a gifted yet relatively unknown (outside of theoretical physics circles) Australian mathematical physicist, HS Green http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_S._Green perhaps best known for his ground breaking work in fluids and as a protege of Max Born, who described Bert Green, in a letter to Einstein, as "brilliant". This side of his work has not got the recognition it deserves. Green proved that the collapse of the wave function to the single measured state that we perceive has nothing to do with mystical mumbo jumbo and can be entirely accounted for by the mathematics of the interaction between the set of possible states and the environment. Or something like that. Unfortunately the silly wikipedia article does not reference that work, I'll have to find it again and put it there.
Bell's theorem (ie entanglement) cannot be used for communication that violates the limiting velocity of the speed of light. But a workaround would be nice :=).
That sounds all very nice but it also sounds like metaphysics. But do you want to unpack that for those of us who have some education in theoretical physics? I thought not.
In terms of irrational repression, Australia is the new UK only worse.
What about Mona Lisa? (she was a beauty at those times and, cough, she got rid of eyebrows) Cough, Rubens' beauties? I recall my grandma telling me that man having a bit overweight would make him more attractive. Heck, in India, women with slim bodies are considered not as sexy as those with a bit overweight. (in western terms) Ever seen what some african tribes do, to look more attractive? ;)
Easy. I was talking about *beauty* which is primarily about facial geometry. Studies have shown that the ratios in facial geometry that is identified as beautiful - which includes greater L-R symmetry that is found in the ugly - are remarkably consistent across race and culture. Which implies the response is biologically hard-wired against all the tripe we have been led to believe. Body shape is subject to fashion mainly because of economics - it just isn't cool to be thin in a society or time where nearly everyone is underfed. Thin is cool because Westerners overeat. If you look at YouTube you'll note that Bollywood hotties have got much thinner in recent years as India's economy has grown. But their faces haven't changed much. African neck-rings and ear or lip stretching originated to make girls *less* attractive to slavers not more attractive and has become normalized into their beauty practice. It doesn't change the basic ratios like eyes-mouth eye-nose etc, those are bony features.
Your pumpkin is showing.
This one is dumb. A number of banks are already threatened in Europe and are posting losses. Banks have ordinary people's money in there.
Please go back to targeting evil Facebook - now that is doing a real social service.
Perhaps I was being pedantic. I certainly wouldn't call much on TV real, no. But we know for sure it isn't real (hopefully). I meant the definition of the term. "Hyper-real" is an expression first coined in the 1980s by postmodernist cultural theorists such as Jean Baudrillard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality
It is usually used to refer to that tendency of postmodernity to so blur the boundaries between reality and our reproductions of reality (eg in design or the media) that we can't really tell the difference anymore. For Baudrillard this would eventually lead to a kind of catastrophic implosion of meaning or mass psychosis in which we would all get permanently lost. This was in his The Evil Demon of Images, the only book of his I ever waded through. Disclaimer: IANAP (I am not a philosopher)
Come to think of it, maybe that's TV after all.
(Signed)
Rupert Pupkin
But wouldn't you say what you masturbate to tends to take over your desires? A chicken and egg argument I know. Not that I masturbate to chickens or eggs (not very often anyway).
Oh shucks I thought I actually had a witty idea until I saw all the other beer posts.
I want these! For now I make do with the low tech version which is called "Beer Goggles". Just add alcohol.
In the decades I have been in the big city, I have not met a single beauty once! Never!
Then you are blind? Even I have known technically extremely beautiful women and even dated one or two in my youth. But not for long before I was dumped. Because I am not a handsome man and biology is the supreme fascist.
Jackson was murdered by his doctor. It's in bad taste to keep bashing him. Leave him alone.
There's truth in this except for your use of "hype real" which is incorrect. Nevertheless to echo a post I made somewhere else: Read the statistics, beauty is not purely socially determined. It's not in the eye of the beholder. It's a near absolute. There are small variations and individual preferences, yes. What happened is this: before mass media and transport, the most beautiful girl most of us ever saw all our life was that one in our village or the next village. Probably 1% of the population. We never saw anyone more attractive than those one or two beautiful girls. Economics was much more important than looks in choosing a partner back then anyway. Nowadays, the media selects thousands of beauties (men and women) who are in the top 0.01% of beauty rankings and puts them on a pedestal. That has exposed us all to extremely attractive people as if they were all around us and we crave it. Given the obesity epidemic in Western countries, if I could only train myself to go crazy for fat women with huge, wobbly, grotesque butts, I would be living in heaven.
People like you talk as if this was totally un-possible and unimaginable prior to Facebook selflessly revolutionizing your social life.
Don't you mean:
.. prior to Facebook selfishly documenting your social life ...
FTFY.
Shut down the company? Facebook is based in Ireland, and it would mean lots of shit to many people (like it or not, Facebook has become part of life for almost every human on earth)
That may all be true but I still wish that Faecesbook (or Global Social Surveillance System to use its girly name) would simply *die*. I'm so sick of trying to explain to morons that putting their entire lives - their social connections, their thoughts, where they are, what they are doing now - documented with photos no less - on Faecesbook is maybe not such a great idea. The same people that balk at the idea of giving personal data to the government freely post the DNA of their entire lives to FB without batting an eyelid. Such implicit trust in the ethics of a megacorp is touching but oh so dumb. Did you know that Faecesbook provides a special interface just to assist three-letter agencies search the huge collection of data they are keeping about you?
+3 insightful. Wow...
slashdot ... has turned into apple whoring google bashing fanboi infested retarded system.
That's a feature not a bug.
Mod ^up parent please.
In short: we need better technology to travel very far at all in space. Better propulsion, better shielding, better everything. I believe it will come. So will better physics and with it we may just get the superscience our imaginations have been begging for. In the last 100 years, human science and technological growth has exploded exponentially. We cannot imagine what technology physics might give us within another 100 years let alone 500 years.
You got that right. I stayed home sick as a small kid in 1969 just to watch the entire televised moon landing and not the short bit they let the kids at school watch. And I'm still waiting for my holiday under the plexiglass dome on the moon. I've never understood how we could get there (the moon) and then just ... stop.
WE NEED TO OWN THAT INFRASTRUCTURE, all of us; it needs to be a co-op enterprise. The human push into space must be a SOCIAL endeavor, and by social I mean the entire human tribe, not just one splinter group of it.
I'd like to agree with you, and I would have, once. At present it doesn't look like governments can afford to 'own that infrastructure'. They're all so in debt. I agree they could probably find some way around that but governments don't seem to give a shit about space anymore. When people started yawning at yet another boring shuttle shot it meant the end of more stuff for politicians and that meant the end of exciting space shots ie those carrying humans to exotic places which is a critical part of getting excited about exploration. The impetus needed to be kept up after the Apollo program, we should never have stopped choosing JFK-style targets to galvanize all sections of society and to do 'not because they are easy but because they are hard'. We miss you JFK. Still. Even in Europe. We should follow his example and do hard manned flight targets not only joy rides to the ISS.
Maybe bombing yes, but a ground force invasion of Iran won't happen. It's too big and Iran's military is too rich and powerful. If we think the US messed up in Iraq and Afghanistan - I mean, what a mess! - those would be nothing compared to the huge disaster that would result from an invasion of Iran.
Right. The etymology of 'amateur'? It literally means 'one who loves'. There was no shame in being an amateur in 19C and before. A fully rounded gentleman (we still use the phrase 'renaissance man' to refer to a multi skilled amateur) or lady could have a number of serious hobbies and being an amateur of science was one such pursuit. Many scientific advances were made by dedicated amateurs. Observational astronomy is one area where amateurs can still make extremely valuable contributions.
The "up skirt" and "bathroom cam" pron subgenres will put this to good use.
How log will it take?
How log is a piece of strig?