You're missing the point by describing quantum entanglement as "less mysterious". It was Einstein's (discredited) "hidden variable" theory that used the analogy of two (unknown but predetermined) coins in a pair of envelopes. In that analogy the state of the coins exists but is unknown, and the relationship between the two coins is known. The key feature of entanglement of a pair of photons is that the state of the photons is FUNDAMENTALLY UNKNOWN i.e. "does not exist", but the relationship between the two photons is known.
The only way you can explain that is in the real world is that the instant the state of one photon is measured (remember, quantum theory states that the state does not exist until measured) it them communicates this new information to the other photon (faster than the speed of light).
If we were going to try to stick to the coin analogy, we would be mailing two identical dice in envelopes to two different cities. Who ever opens their letter first roles the dice. Whenever the second person opens their letter and rolls their dice, they get the SAME RESULT as the first person. Both dice are completely random, but they both roll the same result, ***even if they roll their dice at exactly the same instant***.
Now I know you're thinking "the second dice isn't random at all". Well, it doesn't make any sense, but it's exactly as random as the first dice, it's just that the dice are both random in the same way. (btw, this only works for the first dice role. Looking at the die destroys the entanglement)
Einstein said (politely) that "entanglement" was proof that Quantum Theory was a load of fucking bullshit. Problem is: entanglement happens.
On the bright side, you're in exalted company if you think this is a load of bullshit.:)
As for why they are using eyeballs instead of electronic photon detectors... I have no idea. Based on the abstract (not the "fine" article) I'd say they were really working on amplifying entangled photons (which sounds HARD!) and someone said, "hey, if we could cascade >x photons, you could actually see it....". Well, after that, it's just a matter of writing an important-sounding article to justify the expense!:)
And I for one welcome our new entangled overlords.
I'm always happy to compensate a builder/author/artist for their work. What I don't like is giving great gobs of cash to a monopolitic middle-man who gouges me for far more that his obsolete distribution efforts are worth.
I work at a large company where were the users got too much influence over naming the servers one year. They used an app called (lets says) ATKAS (an acronym). The database it uses got named... ATKAS, and the server name (against my seemingly insanely vigorous objections) got named "atkas".
I mean, naming it "atkas" only makes sense, right?
Fast forward 3 weeks to when "Atkas is Down!!!". What do you mean? The server, the app, the database... something else! I don't know!! People would hear "atkas was down" and the meaning would change with each iteration...and skip forward to the next day in the management meeting where PHBs are discussing "Atkas". That's when I have to stand up and say "It wasn't Atkas because ATKAS was up, although ATKAS was leaking memory". It's a complete cluster-fuck.
This is why I always insist that hostnames be fairly short, easy names hopefully with a common theme. They shouldn't be anything to do with the servers actual purpose or the always useless "tkmailextdev"-type names. Much better to call it "cherry" or "fork" or something. Anything!!!
TFA is pretty thin. IT people are stressed due to the... economy?
Rant begins>
What's driving me mad at work is dealing with buzz-word spouting idiots. They can barely spell "computer" but they'll come with requests that I perform some half-witted change to fix a problem that they created. (that, of course, won't work)
If they could just summon the brains the come to me with a goal (i.e. we want the application to run faster) I could fix their problems. Instead, I'm not allowed to address the garbage they've created for themselves so they can avoid looking as clueless as they really are. And just forget about introducing new tech to make everyone's life easier. They'd have to learn something new. That makes me a bad guy, until we NEED that new tech, in which case I'm a slacker for not having already done it!
And, no, I'm not perfect, but when I make a mistake I admit it and fix it. Meetings are a lot shorter when you say "yeah, that was my mistake. Sorry about that. I'll fix it" instead of blame-storming the issue for an hour or two of my life that I'll never get back! FUCK!!! FUCK!!! FUCK!!!
So I guess I'm saying, it not the job, it's the people. In the end, it's way less stressful to lower yourself to their level and play the blame-game instead of trying to achieve something useful. Note: this drives you insane if you have a brain. Never forget:
- no good deed goes unpunished
- if you fix something it's your fault that it broke in the first place
Anyway, that why I think about quitting 5 times a day. Unfortunetly, now is not the best time.
/bias - Sysadmin in a medium-sized company/
Note: there are some rare semi-competent to competent people out there who can at least partially do their job (whatever it is). They are no problem to deal with at all.
wisdom [wiz-duhm] 1. the quality or state of being wise; knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action; sagacity, discernment, or insight. 2. scholarly knowledge or learning: the wisdom of the schools. 3. wise sayings or teachings; precepts. 4. a wise act or saying.
You should really be asking the parent if he is confusing intelligence with wisdom. I'd be the one confusing education and wisdom. Despite the definition (#2 above), I'd suggest that it's pretty easy to have an education and still not be wise.
I can't resist saying: So it was *intelligent* for Hans to kill his wife, but it wasn't *wise*? I never met her, but there's a chance that you're right.
I do not think that word means what you think it means...:)
Intelligent [in-tel-i-juhnt]....
2. displaying or characterized by quickness of understanding, sound thought, or good judgment
3. having the faculty of reasoning and understanding; possessing intelligence...
Perhaps you meant to slag "educated" people?
Attacking the legal government... setting off IEDs... That would make the Republicans... TERRORISTS!!!
I like how a self-professed Republican's response to (hopefully) losing a democratic election is to call it a coup and threaten setting off IEDs. I mean, that is really high-quality irony.
How did Bush put it? "If you're not with us, you're with the Ter.. err.. us."
The terrorists from the Middle East don't want to kill all Americans. They want all Americans to leave their country.
For some crazy reason, asking politely doesn't seem to work.
My vocabulary. I know exactly when and where I first read the words 'Dexterity' and 'Constitution'. For that matter, 'Wand of Orcus' and 'Prestidigitator', but I digress.
I got the same thing, so I edited the one line: (brackets edited out)
#include asm/page.h to read:
#include/usr/lib/klibc/include/asm/page.h and *poof* the exploit compiles and works on my 2.6.24 x86_64 box. Don't feel safe yet.:)
BTW: Has anyone figured out if there is an option you can disable in make menuconfig that removes vmsplice(), or is it integral to the kernel?
Note that IANAA (I Am Not An American), but I'd guess Ron Paul would say something like "If you like Pell Grants, then your state can keep them. I'll cut taxes by 13 billion, and you can do with the money what you will." (in this case your state would raise property taxes and put the money towards educational grants, I suppose)
He's one crazy old man alright. What the hell is he thinking!?!:)
I just read that link, and (note: IANAL) that's not what it says. It LOOKS like it says Sun will not use their patent rights to screw around with ODF (or it's decsendents), UNLESS someone tries launches legal trickery against the ODF, in which case the gloves are off (presumable so they have no limits on attacking the attacker).
I don't see anything about the agreement being revocable under any other circumstance. (like them leaving the ODF committee).
Slashdot Mirror
Already switched too. Whatever, Oracle. What are you up to with VirtualBox?
That's disturbing. I've heard that in prison, if they think Reiser isn't good enough, they use 'butter'.
Greatest post... Ever. Thank you.
As soon as I get past the whole "lesbians + me" fantasy, I'll let you know... ..but it'll be tough to post after I'm dead.
You're missing the point by describing quantum entanglement as "less mysterious". It was Einstein's (discredited) "hidden variable" theory that used the analogy of two (unknown but predetermined) coins in a pair of envelopes. In that analogy the state of the coins exists but is unknown, and the relationship between the two coins is known. The key feature of entanglement of a pair of photons is that the state of the photons is FUNDAMENTALLY UNKNOWN i.e. "does not exist", but the relationship between the two photons is known.
The only way you can explain that is in the real world is that the instant the state of one photon is measured (remember, quantum theory states that the state does not exist until measured) it them communicates this new information to the other photon (faster than the speed of light).
If we were going to try to stick to the coin analogy, we would be mailing two identical dice in envelopes to two different cities. Who ever opens their letter first roles the dice. Whenever the second person opens their letter and rolls their dice, they get the SAME RESULT as the first person. Both dice are completely random, but they both roll the same result, ***even if they roll their dice at exactly the same instant***.
Now I know you're thinking "the second dice isn't random at all". Well, it doesn't make any sense, but it's exactly as random as the first dice, it's just that the dice are both random in the same way. (btw, this only works for the first dice role. Looking at the die destroys the entanglement)
Einstein said (politely) that "entanglement" was proof that Quantum Theory was a load of fucking bullshit. Problem is: entanglement happens.
On the bright side, you're in exalted company if you think this is a load of bullshit. :)
As for why they are using eyeballs instead of electronic photon detectors... I have no idea. Based on the abstract (not the "fine" article) I'd say they were really working on amplifying entangled photons (which sounds HARD!) and someone said, "hey, if we could cascade >x photons, you could actually see it....". Well, after that, it's just a matter of writing an important-sounding article to justify the expense! :)
And I for one welcome our new entangled overlords.
I'm always happy to compensate a builder/author/artist for their work. What I don't like is giving great gobs of cash to a monopolitic middle-man who gouges me for far more that his obsolete distribution efforts are worth.
I work at a large company where were the users got too much influence over naming the servers one year. They used an app called (lets says) ATKAS (an acronym). The database it uses got named... ATKAS, and the server name (against my seemingly insanely vigorous objections) got named "atkas".
I mean, naming it "atkas" only makes sense, right?
Fast forward 3 weeks to when "Atkas is Down!!!". What do you mean? The server, the app, the database... something else! I don't know!! People would hear "atkas was down" and the meaning would change with each iteration. ..and skip forward to the next day in the management meeting where PHBs are discussing "Atkas". That's when I have to stand up and say "It wasn't Atkas because ATKAS was up, although ATKAS was leaking memory". It's a complete cluster-fuck.
This is why I always insist that hostnames be fairly short, easy names hopefully with a common theme. They shouldn't be anything to do with the servers actual purpose or the always useless "tkmailextdev"-type names. Much better to call it "cherry" or "fork" or something. Anything!!!
TFA is pretty thin. IT people are stressed due to the... economy?
/bias - Sysadmin in a medium-sized company/
Rant begins>
What's driving me mad at work is dealing with buzz-word spouting idiots. They can barely spell "computer" but they'll come with requests that I perform some half-witted change to fix a problem that they created. (that, of course, won't work)
If they could just summon the brains the come to me with a goal (i.e. we want the application to run faster) I could fix their problems. Instead, I'm not allowed to address the garbage they've created for themselves so they can avoid looking as clueless as they really are. And just forget about introducing new tech to make everyone's life easier. They'd have to learn something new. That makes me a bad guy, until we NEED that new tech, in which case I'm a slacker for not having already done it!
And, no, I'm not perfect, but when I make a mistake I admit it and fix it. Meetings are a lot shorter when you say "yeah, that was my mistake. Sorry about that. I'll fix it" instead of blame-storming the issue for an hour or two of my life that I'll never get back! FUCK!!! FUCK!!! FUCK!!!
So I guess I'm saying, it not the job, it's the people. In the end, it's way less stressful to lower yourself to their level and play the blame-game instead of trying to achieve something useful. Note: this drives you insane if you have a brain. Never forget:
- no good deed goes unpunished
- if you fix something it's your fault that it broke in the first place
Anyway, that why I think about quitting 5 times a day. Unfortunetly, now is not the best time.
Note: there are some rare semi-competent to competent people out there who can at least partially do their job (whatever it is). They are no problem to deal with at all.
Let's see:
wisdom [wiz-duhm]
1. the quality or state of being wise; knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action; sagacity, discernment, or insight.
2. scholarly knowledge or learning: the wisdom of the schools.
3. wise sayings or teachings; precepts.
4. a wise act or saying.
You should really be asking the parent if he is confusing intelligence with wisdom. I'd be the one confusing education and wisdom. Despite the definition (#2 above), I'd suggest that it's pretty easy to have an education and still not be wise.
I can't resist saying: So it was *intelligent* for Hans to kill his wife, but it wasn't *wise*? I never met her, but there's a chance that you're right.
I do not think that word means what you think it means... :)
Intelligent [in-tel-i-juhnt] ....
2. displaying or characterized by quickness of understanding, sound thought, or good judgment
3. having the faculty of reasoning and understanding; possessing intelligence ...
Perhaps you meant to slag "educated" people?
Attacking the legal government... setting off IEDs... That would make the Republicans... TERRORISTS!!!
I like how a self-professed Republican's response to (hopefully) losing a democratic election is to call it a coup and threaten setting off IEDs. I mean, that is really high-quality irony.
How did Bush put it? "If you're not with us, you're with the Ter.. err.. us."
"Won't get fooled again!"
The terrorists from the Middle East don't want to kill all Americans. They want all Americans to leave their country. For some crazy reason, asking politely doesn't seem to work.
My vocabulary. I know exactly when and where I first read the words 'Dexterity' and 'Constitution'. For that matter, 'Wand of Orcus' and 'Prestidigitator', but I digress.
BTW: Has anyone figured out if there is an option you can disable in make menuconfig that removes vmsplice(), or is it integral to the kernel?
Note that IANAA (I Am Not An American), but I'd guess Ron Paul would say something like "If you like Pell Grants, then your state can keep them. I'll cut taxes by 13 billion, and you can do with the money what you will." (in this case your state would raise property taxes and put the money towards educational grants, I suppose)
:)
He's one crazy old man alright. What the hell is he thinking!?!
Hmmm. I take it back. I guess that's why I'm not a lawyer. :)
In answer to your question, the part I didn't understand was: "in which development Sun participates to the point of incurring an obligation"
Seriously, that needs a comma after "participates". Maybe even a period.
I just read that link, and (note: IANAL) that's not what it says. It LOOKS like it says Sun will not use their patent rights to screw around with ODF (or it's decsendents), UNLESS someone tries launches legal trickery against the ODF, in which case the gloves are off (presumable so they have no limits on attacking the attacker). I don't see anything about the agreement being revocable under any other circumstance. (like them leaving the ODF committee).