My understanding is quantum entanglement cannot be used to transfer information. It can be used for transfer of information: for that it is enough to transfer entangled q-bits.
Lots of ways an innocent person can find it. For example, such apartment could be seen by a UPS delivery guy, a firemarshal, a plumber/landlord dealing with a clogged drain, cable guy setting up the internet connection, a callgirl in for a visit... You get the picture. Yes, I get the picture, of the absolute surveillance society: everybody is at the watch-out
for anything suspicious. All these innocent people calling police or whomever whenever they
think something suspicious is going on within a space that is commonly referred to as the private.
Pretty scary stuff, no?
Putting "bush-like" and "universe splitting" in the same sentence makes me a bit nervous, thinking about our political situation. Speaking about Deutch and the current political situation maybe you should read what he wrote after 911 in answer to the question What Now?.
But if someone finds an urban apartment stuffed with egg hatchers, Petri dishes, vacuum pumps, and high-speed milling equipment along with some photocopied manuals in Arabic, I would have that observer drop a dime on you as fast as it falls... Meaning what? How does someone "finds and urban apartment" with this stuff in it?
I think you are correct up until you reference the girl in the airport. In all honesty she invited lethal force. She was lucky they didnt use it.
She is stupid and deserves to be punished severely. You are stupid.
2) Scientists are/aren't able to write to a lay audience I half agree - there are brilliant bumbling scientists out there who couldn't explain a movie plot to someone who just watched it with them, never mind their own research. What are your half-agreeing here with? That scientists are/aren't able to write to a lay audience?
What does that mean, that you have half agreed with something that is/isn't?
Let's see: what you are saying next is that some scientist are "bad" in their explanations, some are "good", like in:
I have met some brilliant people, whose metaphors and analogies I admired so much, I use them myself when explaining my work. Wonderful. Now let's think for a moment what metaphors and analogies are. Metaphor is: "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them"
and analogy is:
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike. Oki-doki. So when somebody tells you an analogy, he or she may tell you:
1) that two thing that are similar in one respect will be similar in some other respect. Is there then an assumption hidden somewhere?
2) that two things that are similar in one respect will be different in some other respect.Is there then an assumption hidden somewhere?
Well then, our mini-course is near its end. Metaphors imply analogies which sometimes imply assumptions that some things, that are similar, might be even more similar, or, that some things that are similar in some respect might be otherwise very different.
1) Assumptions in Science: good or bad? A: Ultimately, unless your area of research covers the finest of analytical fields, assumptions are unavoidable. Its how you approach them that makes you a good or bad scientist. Take ecologists as an example[...] the relative scope these assumptions (which are in fact well laid out in academic publications) cover is difficult to understand as a lay person. [my emphasize] Even with the finest analytical sciences, assuming of things happens, metaphorically speaking, everywhere all the time.
You want ecology. Ok, let's agree. But then you say that assumptions there are well explained in scientific journals, but hard to convey to lay persons. Sure, that's where scientific journalists as well as scientists would have to do a bit of work, to get those assumptions presented somehow, let's say by metaphors and analogies. What happens then is that your metaphorical description of the real assumptions is changed into an approximation with another set of assumptions. But hey, I don't think that there is a way out of this problem.
I'm all for scientists learning English, math, German, Latin and a bit of Greek so that they can communicate with each other and those who need to know. When technical topics are to be presented to the public, however, I strongly urge that a professional be allowed to handle it. and, you forgot French (so that they can express themselves). Speaking (about) Greek, I would
go all the way, so that they can at least read Plato, Aristotle and Levinas.
The Society for Technical Communication (stc.org) is a good place to start. Many of their thousands of members are dedicated to that art. They have done their own scientific studies of communications and published in peer-reviewed journals. but, my friend, do they speak French and Greek?
You probably know them as the people who wrote your software manual or the instructions for repairing your bicycle. They also do medical & bio docs. Some specialize in educational material, a few are expert in glyphs and their effectiveness in various environments, others in fun specialties like indexing, many are well versed on effective web presentation of particular topics... Wherever technical information has to be introduced to unfamiliar users, tech comms will be there. I personally think that for this kind of manuals and documentation, German is the way to go. I really like to study manuals written in German.
"Either he succeeds in being intelligible by concealing the core of the problem and by offering to the reader only superficial aspects or vague allusions, thus deceiving the reader by arousing in him the deceptive illusion of comprehension; or else he gives an expert account of the problem, but in such a fashion that the untrained reader is unable to follow the exposition and becomes discouraged from reading any further. If these two categories are omitted from today's popular scientific literature, surprisingly little remains."
This was written by Einstein in a forward for Linconln Barnett's popularization of the theory of relativity in 1948. Are you talking about Albert here? The guy who claimed that light travels at constant speed? That light rays furthermore do not travel along the straight lines because they get bent in the gravitational field, or, in other words, that they travel along the shortest paths in the curved space-time? The one who said that God does not play dice?
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are two of the most celebrated journalists in American history, for a story you may have heard about -- and, curiously, not only has neither of them ever been the President of the United States, but neither has even held public office. Hold your horses right there cowboy, cuz I saw the movie and let me tell you: they didn't write much there either.
The only things that can be responsibly reported are things that are well established. But they aren't news. And the irresponsible are then left to report on the news. So we need responsible journalists to report on Science. Which they can't do properly.
The outcome is what we have. Science news that is at best inaccurate. More often it's sensationalized and misleading.
If there's a solution to this I certainly don't see it.
-Peter Well Peter, you might not be a Scientist, but you surely are a Philosopher!
(Disclosure: I'm a scientist.) (This really puts things into perspective.)
A well-respected scientist [some more perspective] that I've collaborated with had a rule: "If you can't explain what you did in three sentences, then you have not thought about it enough." How about in one sentence: "We don't need another hero"?
The first nuclear bomb test is an example of a science news story that could easily be reported correctly. The experiment succeeded. Yes Forest, you got that right: "YOUR manias become SCIENCE"
The fact that we can grasp moving objects, use multiple tenses when speaking, drive vehicles, and learn how to shop represents an enormous cognitive achievement. I don't need no multiple tenses, no moving, no grasping. "I shop, therefore I am"
Now, wait a minute. Are they "sensing" through American walls (cardboard, wood and plaster) or through European walls (bricks or concrete) ? There's quite a bit of difference here, as anyone who tried to set up a WLAN may have found out... I don't know whether you've followed other posts, but in East Germany they had no problem with spying through concrete walls...
So on one hand, my opinion is the gold standard, and on the other hand, my tests are crap? You could just concentrate on my conclusion that vista is pretty decent, because I'm pretty sure that was in my post. But where did I say any of these two claims? Where did I say that the multitasking is gold standard, or that your tests are crap? Nowhere indeed. I can even imagine that somebody who would run the same or similar tests on Linux would find Linux to be pretty decent just as well.
Or else you could run it yourself for a while on decent hardware and see what you think and perhaps share your conclusions with the crowd. The thing is, I did test extensively Windows XP 64bit, for instance. Multitasking there, and not only that, was, compared to Debian or Fedora, just bad according to my tests, which are different from yours (I do lots of numerical computing).
Then there is the ever popular third option of spouting fud in public. All I'm asking for is fairness in conversation. In my opinion, Vista is getting a really bad rap on Slashdot by people whom I cannot help but suspect are not fit to judge (more precisely, they ARE fit to judge, but can't be bothered to try it). But then, from all that I read on slashdot about Vista, I did not get the impression that it is all just fud and unjustified judgments. What you want, I gather, is that Vista gets fair hearing on slashdot. But is this not too much to ask? Imagine people asking that Linux gets the fair judgment in the mainstream media when compared to Vista or any windows for that matter.
What else is all this monopoly of Microsoft about if not, at least in part, about suppression of some information getting around?
[...] I don't expect anyone to fall to their knees and kiss Vista's feet, but for the love of God, give credit where credit is due, [...] According to your post, the only credit that I could give to Microsoft is that they
implemented the so-called multitasking into their latest and hottest operating system.
Remember the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...
As Disaster Area's earnings require hypermathematics, their chief research accountant was named Professor of Neomathematics at the University of Maximegalon and in his Special Theories of Tax Returns he proves that space-time is "not merely curved, it is, in fact, totally bent." Ok, that explains lots of things.
...let it be string theory that gets booted. The only scientific research into string theory that should be ongoing is that which seeks to determine whether or not string theory is even falsifiable. If it is not, you may as well call it a religion or shuffle it over to the philosophy department. I'm not so thirsty for a quantum theory of gravity that I'll buy into this voodoo. aha, we have a Popperian here!
Nerds across America! If you're interested, we have the biggest fucking data sets of all time. Terabytes upon terabytes, piling up and we can't handle it. Literal jumbo jets full of tapes. I know there are many many astronomy departments trying to find new ways to drill through these things. What kind of data is on the tapes?
Maybe I've misunderstood something fundamentally, but I don't understand how the choice of a geometry of the dimensions can be considered less arbitrary than the choice of particle masses. I know you said that you aren't a string theorist, but you seem to have a greater idea of the theory than I have, at least. I'm really hoping you can answer that question! The fundamental point of string theory is:
It is less arbitrary than the Standard Model in the sense that now you have a theory that includes gravity,
which, let me remind you, is insoluble by just adding some "masses" or parameters or
quantum fields into the standard quantum field theory. So, even though there is still
a big problem of choosing the right geometry as you say, there is also one fundamental step taken,
that of inclusion of gravity at the microscopic level.
I think he's just getting off a bit. Check out this part:
Culture has affected me too; I won't deny that this reply is just as aggressive as yours. Is he really saying that exposure to culture makes him aggressive?
The example given in the summary is DJ Danger Mouse, who mixed two different works to create something totally original. Which sounds to me just like blurring the blur.
A wristwatch has an alarm function. I want this alarm to automatically sync with my calendar, and beep at me when I'm meant to be doing something. I also want it to be automatically updated to changes in daylight saving times, and to set itself to local time when I am travelling. Which means, of course, must have GPS: I don't want my watch to beep me for my Tokyo appointments if I'm on the plane to Paris.
Oh, and I want it to be not more than 5mm thick, never need recharging, and be stylish and elegant. And a pony. It seems like we can't have ponies...
There just needs to be ubiquitous and robust means to confirm that Anonymous Coward 2058436658 is Anonymous Coward 2058436658. Whether you attach that identification to a real name & information (or not) should be immaterial. Then let me do a quick check...(checking)... yes you're right: Anonymous Coward 2058436658. It is it!
Slashdot Mirror
She is stupid and deserves to be punished severely. You are stupid.
Metaphor is: "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them"
and analogy is:
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike.
Oki-doki. So when somebody tells you an analogy, he or she may tell you:
1) that two thing that are similar in one respect will be similar in some other respect. Is there then an assumption hidden somewhere?
2) that two things that are similar in one respect will be different in some other respect.Is there then an assumption hidden somewhere?
Well then, our mini-course is near its end. Metaphors imply analogies which sometimes imply assumptions that some things, that are similar, might be even more similar, or, that some things that are similar in some respect might be otherwise very different.
1) Assumptions in Science: good or bad? A: Ultimately, unless your area of research covers the finest of analytical fields, assumptions are unavoidable. Its how you approach them that makes you a good or bad scientist. Take ecologists as an example[...] the relative scope these assumptions (which are in fact well laid out in academic publications) cover is difficult to understand as a lay person. [my emphasize] Even with the finest analytical sciences, assuming of things happens, metaphorically speaking, everywhere all the time. You want ecology. Ok, let's agree. But then you say that assumptions there are well explained in scientific journals, but hard to convey to lay persons. Sure, that's where scientific journalists as well as scientists would have to do a bit of work, to get those assumptions presented somehow, let's say by metaphors and analogies. What happens then is that your metaphorical description of the real assumptions is changed into an approximation with another set of assumptions. But hey, I don't think that there is a way out of this problem.
This was written by Einstein in a forward for Linconln Barnett's popularization of the theory of relativity in 1948. Are you talking about Albert here? The guy who claimed that light travels at constant speed? That light rays furthermore do not travel along the straight lines because they get bent in the gravitational field, or, in other words, that they travel along the shortest paths in the curved space-time? The one who said that God does not play dice?
The only things that can be responsibly reported are things that are well established. But they aren't news. And the irresponsible are then left to report on the news. So we need responsible journalists to report on Science. Which they can't do properly.
The outcome is what we have. Science news that is at best inaccurate. More often it's sensationalized and misleading.
If there's a solution to this I certainly don't see it.
-Peter Well Peter, you might not be a Scientist, but you surely are a Philosopher!
"I shop, therefore I am"
What else is all this monopoly of Microsoft about if not, at least in part, about suppression of some information getting around?
...let it be string theory that gets booted. The only scientific research into string theory that should be ongoing is that which seeks to determine whether or not string theory is even falsifiable. If it is not, you may as well call it a religion or shuffle it over to the philosophy department. I'm not so thirsty for a quantum theory of gravity that I'll buy into this voodoo. aha, we have a Popperian here!