Only if you approach 0 from the positive side. The limit of 1/n for n -> 0+ is infinity; the limit of 1/n for n -> 0- is minus infinity.
Which is why you can't in general assign a value of infinity to 1/0.
The point is that if you measure whether or not the photon went through slit 1, you "force it to take a stand", and choose which slit to go through. Thus, the wave function collapses and you no longer get the interference pattern, but just two blops of photons on the back wall.
I don't think you know what "exceeding the goal" means. This wasn't expected to be a perfect, smooth flight with a soft landing - it was the very first flight of an incomplete version of an all new design, and the succes criterium was simply "getting liftoff". And by that standard, it was a huge success!
X61s here. Last of the breed; I really wish it was available with Sandy Bridge and perhaps a 1400x1050 IPS-screen... Guess I will have to bite the bullet and buy an X220, in spite of the 16:9 screen.
See, I've heard that argument before, but seriously: Who buys 12-17 inch TVs? It might explain the change to 16:9 in the 20-odd inch category, but I really can't see how it is relevant for laptops. Can someone explain: Is there some part of the production apparatus that is shared between the different screen sizes? Or is it just to make the screens seem bigger than they are, and for bragging about "Full HD resolution"?
Completely safe as long as you don't lick the wires or put them in contact with open sores (sores, not source!). But it could only provide 120 W, which is barely enough for some laptops, let alone a couple of them...
So, what do you propose? That we just stop all research on quantum computers just because it is "highly unlikely" (in your opinion) that they would ever work? That really would be a self-fulfilling prophecy...
Fair enough, the dangerous effects of caffeine abstinence are all too well known by me;)
My point was just that Pink Floyd didn't really lose any integrity if they couldn't have stopped the cover version from being aired anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess we'll just have to publish Elsevier! (I'll see myself out)
So that's lower resolution than the 12 year old, 22.2" IBM T220? Yeah, it's mind-blowing all right. Where did it all go so horribly wrong?
Is this you?
Only if you approach 0 from the positive side. The limit of 1/n for n -> 0+ is infinity; the limit of 1/n for n -> 0- is minus infinity. Which is why you can't in general assign a value of infinity to 1/0.
[citation needed]
Yeah, it might interpret it as a "thumbs up"... Come to think of it, that interpretation would probably be correct anyway.
Incorporate an IQ-test in UEFI.Problem solved!
You can't even read write!
That's because you missed a T!
Dropbox?
But it IS possible to understand the math behind the uncertainty principle, even though the OP obviously doesn't.
Yeah, okay, so I wasn't completely stringent in my choise of words, but I think the point got through ;)
The point is that if you measure whether or not the photon went through slit 1, you "force it to take a stand", and choose which slit to go through. Thus, the wave function collapses and you no longer get the interference pattern, but just two blops of photons on the back wall.
I don't think you know what "exceeding the goal" means. This wasn't expected to be a perfect, smooth flight with a soft landing - it was the very first flight of an incomplete version of an all new design, and the succes criterium was simply "getting liftoff". And by that standard, it was a huge success!
X61s here. Last of the breed; I really wish it was available with Sandy Bridge and perhaps a 1400x1050 IPS-screen... Guess I will have to bite the bullet and buy an X220, in spite of the 16:9 screen.
See, I've heard that argument before, but seriously: Who buys 12-17 inch TVs? It might explain the change to 16:9 in the 20-odd inch category, but I really can't see how it is relevant for laptops. Can someone explain: Is there some part of the production apparatus that is shared between the different screen sizes? Or is it just to make the screens seem bigger than they are, and for bragging about "Full HD resolution"?
Oh, thank you, that works perfectly on my laptop! Why didn't I think of that before?
Money for nothing?
Completely safe as long as you don't lick the wires or put them in contact with open sores (sores, not source!). But it could only provide 120 W, which is barely enough for some laptops, let alone a couple of them...
Uh... Sorry, but the data is in the microchips, not in the metal shell. Cooking it is more likely to destroy the microwave than the data!
So, what do you propose? That we just stop all research on quantum computers just because it is "highly unlikely" (in your opinion) that they would ever work? That really would be a self-fulfilling prophecy...
It's a Nokia N82, and the keys are actually not half bad - they are much better for fat fingers than most cellphone keyboards.
Fair enough, the dangerous effects of caffeine abstinence are all too well known by me ;)
My point was just that Pink Floyd didn't really lose any integrity if they couldn't have stopped the cover version from being aired anyway.
Sure, but can PF decide what the fees are? I thought it was a standard rate depending on the number of listeners.
Wikipedia disagrees with you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_version#U.S._copyright_law (Although that is in the US. I don't have the patience to find the UK law.)