Jesus, did you even read the article? There's nothing wrong with the update. Some ASUS boards were shipped with a misconfiguration.
There wasn't anything Microsoft could have done, short of simply never updating any part of Windows 7 that might trigger the problem. That doesn't exactly sound like a sensible solution to me.
In an enterprise environment, taking anything away is risky, because you can never be sure you know all the possible dependencies. Leaving Quicktime in place meant deploying the occasional update, but only a few times a year; next to Firefox, Thunderbird, Acrobat and Java it barely registered. It was way less work to update it than it would have been to figure out whether or not we could safely remove it.
Basically, well, what your.sig says; it wasn't broken, so we didn't try to fix it.
Do you have a reference for that? I'd love to see something from Apple to explain what's going on. If they're actually going to release a patch, that's great, but why did they tell Trend Micro they wouldn't?
We're not talking about Quicktime as a standard, by the way, just the Quicktime for Windows software. This news doesn't (directly) affect your camera.
We can already explain the behaviour of quantum particles, at least for all the kinds we know about.
Whatever. The only further point I think I should make at this stage is that science has assigned reasonably well-defined meanings to the words "communication" and "information", and by those definitions entanglement and quantum collapse don't qualify. Personally, I don't think the dictionary definitions are a good fit either, but that is arguably subject to interpretation.
Well, what I really meant was that our best current theory is a quantized field, so individual particles don't really have an independent objective existence but are just a subjective interpretation of certain kinds of vibrations. But your way works too. (At the end of the day it all boils down to how you choose to define words like "information" and "communication" so it's a bit of a tree-falling-in-a-forest thing.)
In short, it is because the nature of spin itself is non-classical. Whenever you look at the electrons, they are always either pointing either up or down - never left or right, because there isn't any such thing.
The way in which the is-it-up-or-is-it-down property transforms as you look at the electron from different angles makes it impossible for the spin to be predetermined for more than one angle at a time. If measuring it at one angle would definitely produce a spin-up result, the result of measuring it at any different angle has to be uncertain.
It's a much more complicated theory, with no obvious advantages, so Occam's razor suggests that we shouldn't get too excited about it.
Also, you can't posit that the pilot wave propagates at the speed of light, because it doesn't propagate through space at all. As per the article: "In de Broglie–Bohm theory, the velocities of the particles are given by the wavefunction, which exists in a 3N-dimensional configuration space, where N corresponds to the number of particles in the system."
If I'm reading the paper correctly, that's because the results of each experimental run are discarded unless the measurements of Ap and Bp show that A and B are correctly lined up with one another. (Or the experiment isn't performed until the measurements show that A and B are correctly lined up with one another, it isn't entirely clear.)
The Economist article, unsurprisingly, kind of skimmed over that part.:-)
To extend the pea analogy, Alice and Bob both have a half-pea, oriented at random. They both tell Carol which way their half-pea is facing, and if they aren't lined up, Carol tells them to try again. When you're done, the alignment of the two half-peas is definitely correlated, but that doesn't mean that the two half-peas were talking to one another..
Entanglement IS communication, in the proper sense of the word. You cannot use it to send a message, but entanglement without hidden variables implies that information is exchanged between particles.
Only if you assume that particles actually exist in the first place, and that wavefunction collapse is objectively real. Neither of those assumptions is particularly well-founded.
It is ridiculous to ask a web site operator to have 200-odd different versions of the same web site, one for each nation, and geo-fencing shouldn't even be legal, never mind mandatory.
So *in effect* enforcing French laws on web sites located outside of France amounts to enforcing French laws outside of France. Technically, no, they're not doing that. But it amounts to the same thing in the long run.
Basically the problem is that they have jurisdiction over one part of Google's business - the parts that actually operate in France - and they're leveraging that to claim jurisdiction over other parts. Legal, no doubt, but definitely improper.
Surely this won't stop manufacturers from shipping routers with OpenWRT built in? (Well, I guess it will if OpenWRT is GPLv3, but that should be easily fixed.)
Just how much is the music industry actually worth? I suppose there's no hope of crowdfunding enough to buy them out, but maybe if a few philanthropist billionaires were willing to help...
I don't think it's quite that simple. While my intuition tells me that quantum error correction can't work once the number of states becomes too large, when I tried to prove that mathematically the results showed that I was wrong. (That is, they showed that the *particular* argument I was attempting to use was wrong, not that QEC can definitely work.
I'm also doubtful that quantum mechanics is really linear at that sort of scale - historically, linear theories have always proved to be only approximations. But while a quantum computer that fails due to non-linearity would not be useful for cryptography, it would be a huge step forwards for physics - and even a negative result (yep, still looks linear!) would be interesting. So if the experts think that quantum error correction is possible in principle, I'm all in favour of the research.
Yeah, I suspect still somewhat inflated - for a start, I wouldn't be surprised if they had counted every stream initiated, even the ones that only ran for 30 seconds. And if I personally had to come up with a figure I'd have wanted to look at the statistics somewhat harder - people who only stream one or two movies a week *would* probably have paid a pound per if they'd had to, but people who stream fifty movies a week probably wouldn't. (Were most of those 12 million sessions from people in the first category, or the second? I don't know, and I think it makes a difference.)
But when you're used to reading about lawsuits where the damages have obviously been inflated by several orders of magnitude, one pound per instance seems remarkably reasonable, if only by comparison.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
New Zealand is one such country, but there are some historical exceptions.
Could the update actually detect BIOS settings? How would that work, exactly?
What would you have suggested they do instead?
Jesus, did you even read the article? There's nothing wrong with the update. Some ASUS boards were shipped with a misconfiguration.
There wasn't anything Microsoft could have done, short of simply never updating any part of Windows 7 that might trigger the problem. That doesn't exactly sound like a sensible solution to me.
It's official now.
In an enterprise environment, taking anything away is risky, because you can never be sure you know all the possible dependencies. Leaving Quicktime in place meant deploying the occasional update, but only a few times a year; next to Firefox, Thunderbird, Acrobat and Java it barely registered. It was way less work to update it than it would have been to figure out whether or not we could safely remove it.
Basically, well, what your .sig says; it wasn't broken, so we didn't try to fix it.
Now it's broken.
Do you have a reference for that? I'd love to see something from Apple to explain what's going on. If they're actually going to release a patch, that's great, but why did they tell Trend Micro they wouldn't?
We're not talking about Quicktime as a standard, by the way, just the Quicktime for Windows software. This news doesn't (directly) affect your camera.
Nope, not taking the blame for that one. :-)
https://slashdot.org/submissio...
If Australia wants more foreign investment, they might want to stop the practice of arbitrarily imprisoning foreigners without any show of cause.
We can already explain the behaviour of quantum particles, at least for all the kinds we know about.
Whatever. The only further point I think I should make at this stage is that science has assigned reasonably well-defined meanings to the words "communication" and "information", and by those definitions entanglement and quantum collapse don't qualify. Personally, I don't think the dictionary definitions are a good fit either, but that is arguably subject to interpretation.
Well, what I really meant was that our best current theory is a quantized field, so individual particles don't really have an independent objective existence but are just a subjective interpretation of certain kinds of vibrations. But your way works too. (At the end of the day it all boils down to how you choose to define words like "information" and "communication" so it's a bit of a tree-falling-in-a-forest thing.)
In short, it is because the nature of spin itself is non-classical. Whenever you look at the electrons, they are always either pointing either up or down - never left or right, because there isn't any such thing.
The way in which the is-it-up-or-is-it-down property transforms as you look at the electron from different angles makes it impossible for the spin to be predetermined for more than one angle at a time. If measuring it at one angle would definitely produce a spin-up result, the result of measuring it at any different angle has to be uncertain.
It's a much more complicated theory, with no obvious advantages, so Occam's razor suggests that we shouldn't get too excited about it.
Also, you can't posit that the pilot wave propagates at the speed of light, because it doesn't propagate through space at all. As per the article: "In de Broglie–Bohm theory, the velocities of the particles are given by the wavefunction, which exists in a 3N-dimensional configuration space, where N corresponds to the number of particles in the system."
If I'm reading the paper correctly, that's because the results of each experimental run are discarded unless the measurements of Ap and Bp show that A and B are correctly lined up with one another. (Or the experiment isn't performed until the measurements show that A and B are correctly lined up with one another, it isn't entirely clear.)
The Economist article, unsurprisingly, kind of skimmed over that part. :-)
To extend the pea analogy, Alice and Bob both have a half-pea, oriented at random. They both tell Carol which way their half-pea is facing, and if they aren't lined up, Carol tells them to try again. When you're done, the alignment of the two half-peas is definitely correlated, but that doesn't mean that the two half-peas were talking to one another..
Entanglement IS communication, in the proper sense of the word. You cannot use it to send a message, but entanglement without hidden variables implies that information is exchanged between particles.
Only if you assume that particles actually exist in the first place, and that wavefunction collapse is objectively real. Neither of those assumptions is particularly well-founded.
Bell's Theorem.
It is ridiculous to ask a web site operator to have 200-odd different versions of the same web site, one for each nation, and geo-fencing shouldn't even be legal, never mind mandatory.
So *in effect* enforcing French laws on web sites located outside of France amounts to enforcing French laws outside of France. Technically, no, they're not doing that. But it amounts to the same thing in the long run.
Basically the problem is that they have jurisdiction over one part of Google's business - the parts that actually operate in France - and they're leveraging that to claim jurisdiction over other parts. Legal, no doubt, but definitely improper.
Surely this won't stop manufacturers from shipping routers with OpenWRT built in? (Well, I guess it will if OpenWRT is GPLv3, but that should be easily fixed.)
It's well past time the RIAA were shut down.
Just how much is the music industry actually worth? I suppose there's no hope of crowdfunding enough to buy them out, but maybe if a few philanthropist billionaires were willing to help ...
I don't think it's quite that simple. While my intuition tells me that quantum error correction can't work once the number of states becomes too large, when I tried to prove that mathematically the results showed that I was wrong. (That is, they showed that the *particular* argument I was attempting to use was wrong, not that QEC can definitely work.
I'm also doubtful that quantum mechanics is really linear at that sort of scale - historically, linear theories have always proved to be only approximations. But while a quantum computer that fails due to non-linearity would not be useful for cryptography, it would be a huge step forwards for physics - and even a negative result (yep, still looks linear!) would be interesting. So if the experts think that quantum error correction is possible in principle, I'm all in favour of the research.
Yeah, I suspect still somewhat inflated - for a start, I wouldn't be surprised if they had counted every stream initiated, even the ones that only ran for 30 seconds. And if I personally had to come up with a figure I'd have wanted to look at the statistics somewhat harder - people who only stream one or two movies a week *would* probably have paid a pound per if they'd had to, but people who stream fifty movies a week probably wouldn't. (Were most of those 12 million sessions from people in the first category, or the second? I don't know, and I think it makes a difference.)
But when you're used to reading about lawsuits where the damages have obviously been inflated by several orders of magnitude, one pound per instance seems remarkably reasonable, if only by comparison. :-)
Uh, 280,000 pounds over five years isn't exactly rolling in it. Not if you have to pay the cost of actually making the movies.
Clearly not, since the retail price for almost all movies is more than 1 pound.
Common, perhaps. Reasonable? Bullshit.
In civilized parts of the world, Nintendo couldn't get away with this sort of crap.
Unless you live in a civilized part of the world that protects you against being fired without proper cause.