Let's change the politics of funding. Challenge the economic principles that require artificial scarcity of money. Dick Cheney was right when he said that Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Let's talk about that, not fall to fighting about who gets the scraps thrown to us, when there's plenty of food to go around and more where that came from.
Aaronson's language is so political. He seems to have rabbit ears, more concerned with what people are saying than what he's doing. The real question is why can't we explore both D-Wave's approach and "academic QC programs" in parallel? Economics is not a good reason; economics should serve the advance of knowledge, not throttle it.
"This particle collides with that one, causing the two to spin in opposite directions."
Hidden variable theory states the above; Bell's experiment was designed specifically to test it. Conclusion: Einstein was wrong; hidden variables don't exist.
The word "multinomial" probably isn't correct. What I meant was: when you repeatedly send a single photon through the double-slit apparatus, you get a wave interference pattern. Flipping a coin won't produce such a probability distribution, unless it can somehow interfere with itself.
The difference between classical probability and quantum superposition is that if you flip one coin many times you will get a binomial distribution, but if you send one photon at two slits you will get a wave-like multinomial distribution.
The original state must be regarded as the result of a kind of superposition of the two or more new states, in a way that cannot be conceived on classical ideas.
Agreed. Health care is a right. In this day and age, no one should have to worry about not getting health care. In most advanced countries, they don't.
We should abandon the feudal notion that a government can only spend what it takes in. Money is created all the time for banks, create it for government services too. Then make public safety decisions without economic pressures.
Another point to consider is the accuracy of the odometer, especially the trip odometer used in miles-per-gallon calculations. I've checked my car's trip odometer against freeway 5-mile "speedometer check sections"; the odometer underreports the reference distance by about 3-4%. So the odometer reads about 4.8 miles at the end of the 5-mile section. This means my gas mileage is a little better than my calculations (which are based on miles from the trip odometer divided by gallons reported on the fuel pump).
If capitalism doesn't provide a profit motive to develop alternative forms of energy, government should.
We can create money to fund research into ideas that the free market doesn't immediately reward. The Fed creates money now; but it goes to the banks at 0%, who want to buy T-bills even if they only pay 2% or 3%; but the austerity-pushing Republicans want to limit the sale of T-bills. So the banks sit on the money instead*, and get interest on it if they store it with the Fed.
Instead, give the Fed's created money directly to people, in the form of a basic income. Encourage individuals to innovate on their own or through ad hoc collaborations facilitated to an unprecedented degree by the internet. (Note that the market was too short-sighted to fund the creation of the internet; AT & T felt the internet threatened their business model of telephones, for example.) In this age of MOOCs we can educate ourselves about energy and work on hypotheses that business won't pursue because they are too driven by the requirement that they show a profit on next quarter's shareholder report.
So your concern is only about the social status of "having a job"? Isn't leisure a good thing? Why do we have to serve an obsolete, feudal economic theory that postulates only people with jobs can have money? A better solution is to use economics as a tool to serve us instead of the other way around: guarantee each individual a basic income.
Solution: guarantee everyone a basic income, and hold challenges to stimulate individuals to innovate on their own or through collaborations across the unprecedented communication tool of the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
You can take a MOOC on quantum physics. No need to remain ignorant...
Let's change the politics of funding. Challenge the economic principles that require artificial scarcity of money. Dick Cheney was right when he said that Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Let's talk about that, not fall to fighting about who gets the scraps thrown to us, when there's plenty of food to go around and more where that came from.
My guess? Free will, since particles are not completely random but can be in states such as i/2|0> + sqrt(3)*i/2|1>.
Aaronson's language is so political. He seems to have rabbit ears, more concerned with what people are saying than what he's doing. The real question is why can't we explore both D-Wave's approach and "academic QC programs" in parallel? Economics is not a good reason; economics should serve the advance of knowledge, not throttle it.
"This particle collides with that one, causing the two to spin in opposite directions."
Hidden variable theory states the above; Bell's experiment was designed specifically to test it. Conclusion: Einstein was wrong; hidden variables don't exist.
Aaronson's selling cynicism. Wrapped in emotional language that uses caps for emphasis!
Why aren't you asking why those dogs and cats come to PETA in the first place?
There's a world market for about 6 computers.
You can describe magic with math too, and it starts to make a lot more sense.
The word "multinomial" probably isn't correct. What I meant was: when you repeatedly send a single photon through the double-slit apparatus, you get a wave interference pattern. Flipping a coin won't produce such a probability distribution, unless it can somehow interfere with itself.
The difference between classical probability and quantum superposition is that if you flip one coin many times you will get a binomial distribution, but if you send one photon at two slits you will get a wave-like multinomial distribution.
Quoting Dirac (quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition):
The government pays the doctor.
Because figures in a ledger book are more important than people's lives.
Agreed. Health care is a right. In this day and age, no one should have to worry about not getting health care. In most advanced countries, they don't.
It sounds like an economic decision.
We should abandon the feudal notion that a government can only spend what it takes in. Money is created all the time for banks, create it for government services too. Then make public safety decisions without economic pressures.
Bankrupt, when the creditors keep coming back begging to buy more bonds at even lower interest rates?
MOOCs without the "honor code", which censors students helping each other.
Were you a slave-owner in a previous life?
Another point to consider is the accuracy of the odometer, especially the trip odometer used in miles-per-gallon calculations. I've checked my car's trip odometer against freeway 5-mile "speedometer check sections"; the odometer underreports the reference distance by about 3-4%. So the odometer reads about 4.8 miles at the end of the 5-mile section. This means my gas mileage is a little better than my calculations (which are based on miles from the trip odometer divided by gallons reported on the fuel pump).
If capitalism doesn't provide a profit motive to develop alternative forms of energy, government should.
We can create money to fund research into ideas that the free market doesn't immediately reward. The Fed creates money now; but it goes to the banks at 0%, who want to buy T-bills even if they only pay 2% or 3%; but the austerity-pushing Republicans want to limit the sale of T-bills. So the banks sit on the money instead*, and get interest on it if they store it with the Fed.
Instead, give the Fed's created money directly to people, in the form of a basic income. Encourage individuals to innovate on their own or through ad hoc collaborations facilitated to an unprecedented degree by the internet. (Note that the market was too short-sighted to fund the creation of the internet; AT & T felt the internet threatened their business model of telephones, for example.) In this age of MOOCs we can educate ourselves about energy and work on hypotheses that business won't pursue because they are too driven by the requirement that they show a profit on next quarter's shareholder report.
---
* See http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h3/current/. Current reserves are at or near all time highs.
This new amendment recalls the Mansfield Amendment ( http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2000/nsb00215/nsb50/1970/mansfield.html ), which is listed by J. Storrs Hall in "Beyond AI" as being one of the causes of the "AI Winter" during the 1970s. (See http://books.google.com/books/about/Beyond_AI.html?id=j6ofAQAAIAAJ page 82.)
This chart indicates productivity has increased, but the gains have gone to the 1% at the top:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html?ref=sunday
So your concern is only about the social status of "having a job"? Isn't leisure a good thing? Why do we have to serve an obsolete, feudal economic theory that postulates only people with jobs can have money? A better solution is to use economics as a tool to serve us instead of the other way around: guarantee each individual a basic income.
Solution: guarantee everyone a basic income, and hold challenges to stimulate individuals to innovate on their own or through collaborations across the unprecedented communication tool of the internet.
Stop eating meat.