Your example is completely wrong, and the fact that you have been moderated up shows how low Slashdot goes these days... You ignores the very basic idea of entanglement that is: "If I change a property of a entangled particle (spin, polarization, etc), that state automatically reflects on the other particle".
How can I take advantage of this for communication? I'll show using a correct version of your flawed example:
1) Get two marbles that you can "set" to blue or red, quantum entangle then, and put each one on a box;
2) Send one box to your fellow scientist on Alpha Centauri;
3) After the other box arrived on Centauri, "set" your marble to red;
4) On Alpha Centauri, your fellow scientist while measuring will know that their marble now is red because you set your marble to red. You and he know that the result will be red on both marbles because of the entanglement.
The only real problems with this idea are:
a) Can I set one property of the particle without destroying the entanglement?
b) Can my partner scientist in Centauri measure the property of his particle without this measurement altering the property itself?
The angry "evangelists" will say to you "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE AND IF YOU DARE TO THINK THIS AGAIN I KILL YOU!!"
I will say "we should find a way to test this, maybe send the same message over a long distance using the entanglement AND a conventional radio (or fiber) link to see if both messages arrives the same time?"
I'm currently using a 16:9 screen with the Windows taskbar underneath, at the top the window title bar, the Firefox menu bar, a tab bar and the address bar. It does not seem tight at all.
You are exactly the kind of person who can not understand the consequences of an idea. What would you do with those who do not have jobs because there is no job for them? Kill them all? And better yet, what will you do if it is you who do not have a job because there are no more jobs? You will accept to be killed "for the sake of the nation" by people who think like you?
Of course not.
So obviously you can not understand the consequences, otherwise you would not be insisting on the selfish (and wrong) idea of "every man for himself".
P.S: And no, a minority would not be "enslaved" to support others, stop this pathetic presumption. Reread the whole concept of basic income and maybe you will understand why.
A) Humans are really, really bad in deducing the consequences of the ideas they advocate (especially those who defend the idea of limitless capitalism and extreme individualism);
B) These same humans appear to be unable to understand what they read, especially the concept expressed by the word "BASIC" from "basic income";
Attempting to explain the concept: BASIC income is the minimum income needed for the individual to have their basic needs met: Housing, food, basic clothing.
Anyone who wants more than the basics would have to look for a job
But in compensation would not be at risk of starving if they can not get a job, this is the objective of the BASIC income.
No risk of everyone stop working (no one will want to stay only in basics if they can work), no risk of social disasters if there is not enough work available for all those who want or need to work (because with BASIC not having work ceases to be a death sentence).
This. I have some bought legit copies of some movies that I particularly like, and guess what: It's a pain in the ass to get them to watch on the computer (I do not have a dedicated Blu-ray player, for various reasons). It's much simpler and easier to watch the "generic" copy.
This. Create a development platform to please those who can only program web pages (and who also have no idea how to design desktop applications), do a half-job defining the APIs and then hand it over to the new team of (very cheap) keyboard-smashing trained monkeys. What can go wrong?
Uber self-driving cars was banned on the roads because the recent accident made it clear that his system is not competent enough to be allowed to transit on public roads.
In driving situations you do not even have to recognize what the object is, merely finding that there is an object on the road that can become (or is) an obstacle is enough.
If you're right, my guess is that the person in charge of programming the Uber system was not paranoid enough. A proper paranoid system would classify objects too close to the projected path as "potential hazards" and would attempt to take preventive measures such as slowing down (to increase the time available for reactions) or deflecting preventively if possible.
A) From what I could see in the video, the car completely failed to identify an obstacle/possible obstacle. In the same way that the car ran over the woman, it could have hit any other object in the lane that was not clearly another car. It's as if the collision detection system has stopped working or it does not even exist;
B) The pedestrian tried to cross a highway of several lanes at night without paying attention to the sides, this is a really stupid thing to do and would have surely caused the same accident if it were a normal car with a human driver;
C) Putting an idiot as a "backup driver" in an experimental vehicle is something really, really stupid to do, as others correctly commented the car should have at least a "riding shotgun" technician following the actions of the system and a professional driver in front of the wheel to act in case of problems;
The three involved in the case, Uber, the "driver" and the pedestrian need to be accused of gross negligence.
I doubt the UBI has any relation with this case... The problem is that the famous 1% are very determined to profit even more regardless of the consequences, and the UBI is just one of the attempts to mitigate these consequences to avoid a social disaster that may, among other things, wipe out the country itself.
I would have gone to the root of the problem and killed the 1%.
If you do not want someone to copy your image, do not post it on the internet. This should have been learned a long time ago but we still have people completely ignorant of how the Internet works.
I know that. To be more clear, I am just stressing the point for a lot of "new guys" who think they can just drop on any powerplant and change everything to their shiny new (javascript) framework fad without end up killing someone (literally!) in the process.
Some things need to be updated? No doubt. The problem is that this "new guys" does not stop to think first about what they can upgrade without causing problems later, they are too arrogant to first analyze why the process they intend to upgrade is done in the current way (see what is happening with the GUI development these days).
This. As a fellow developer on the "this MUST work" industry, I also have trouble trying to explain to the newbies why they should not do certain things that they are accustomed to do when you are dealing with systems controlling millions of dollars worth of equipment.
Meritocracy don't work if the criterion for selecting who has the most merit is their bank balance or in which family he was born. Many people think they have merit when in fact they only got there because they have rich parents and rich friends.
This has been explained extensively. No usefull payload was placed on the rocket because being an experimental flight the engineers were expecting the rocket would not work (anything between blowing up on the launch pad to disintegrating in orbit).
Okay, try this: Pick the Microsoft Office 2007, 2012, etc (I don't have the 365 and it is WAY different so I don't know if it do right), you may also try Firefox or another text editor on Windows. Use the font "Verdana" with 10pt, and then write the characters "m" and "a" side by side, or any word that has side by side the characters described ("marine" for example).
Now, still on Windows, do the same (some text containing "m" and "a" together, font "Verdana" 10pt) on LibreOffice 5.4 or 6.0: You will see to much space between the "m" and the "a", this is a kerning error. And that does not happen in Libreoffice 5.1.1 (the version I use now), in the latest versions they changed something that messed up kerning and text rendering in general (there are other bugs I've seen other than kerning but they are more subtle)
Slashdot Mirror
His example is flawed.
Your example is completely wrong, and the fact that you have been moderated up shows how low Slashdot goes these days... You ignores the very basic idea of entanglement that is: "If I change a property of a entangled particle (spin, polarization, etc), that state automatically reflects on the other particle".
How can I take advantage of this for communication? I'll show using a correct version of your flawed example:
1) Get two marbles that you can "set" to blue or red, quantum entangle then, and put each one on a box;
2) Send one box to your fellow scientist on Alpha Centauri;
3) After the other box arrived on Centauri, "set" your marble to red;
4) On Alpha Centauri, your fellow scientist while measuring will know that their marble now is red because you set your marble to red. You and he know that the result will be red on both marbles because of the entanglement.
The only real problems with this idea are:
a) Can I set one property of the particle without destroying the entanglement?
b) Can my partner scientist in Centauri measure the property of his particle without this measurement altering the property itself?
Good question.
The angry "evangelists" will say to you "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE AND IF YOU DARE TO THINK THIS AGAIN I KILL YOU!!"
I will say "we should find a way to test this, maybe send the same message over a long distance using the entanglement AND a conventional radio (or fiber) link to see if both messages arrives the same time?"
I'm currently using a 16:9 screen with the Windows taskbar underneath, at the top the window title bar, the Firefox menu bar, a tab bar and the address bar. It does not seem tight at all.
You are exactly the kind of person who can not understand the consequences of an idea. What would you do with those who do not have jobs because there is no job for them? Kill them all? And better yet, what will you do if it is you who do not have a job because there are no more jobs? You will accept to be killed "for the sake of the nation" by people who think like you?
Of course not.
So obviously you can not understand the consequences, otherwise you would not be insisting on the selfish (and wrong) idea of "every man for himself".
P.S: And no, a minority would not be "enslaved" to support others, stop this pathetic presumption. Reread the whole concept of basic income and maybe you will understand why.
Two points, from a AI point of view:
A) Humans are really, really bad in deducing the consequences of the ideas they advocate (especially those who defend the idea of limitless capitalism and extreme individualism);
B) These same humans appear to be unable to understand what they read, especially the concept expressed by the word "BASIC" from "basic income";
Attempting to explain the concept: BASIC income is the minimum income needed for the individual to have their basic needs met: Housing, food, basic clothing.
Anyone who wants more than the basics would have to look for a job
But in compensation would not be at risk of starving if they can not get a job, this is the objective of the BASIC income.
No risk of everyone stop working (no one will want to stay only in basics if they can work), no risk of social disasters if there is not enough work available for all those who want or need to work (because with BASIC not having work ceases to be a death sentence).
Unfortunately my neighbors have no imagination, all networks in the area use standard names or thinks like "[name of the guy] network"
This. I have some bought legit copies of some movies that I particularly like, and guess what: It's a pain in the ass to get them to watch on the computer (I do not have a dedicated Blu-ray player, for various reasons). It's much simpler and easier to watch the "generic" copy.
This. Create a development platform to please those who can only program web pages (and who also have no idea how to design desktop applications), do a half-job defining the APIs and then hand it over to the new team of (very cheap) keyboard-smashing trained monkeys. What can go wrong?
Uber self-driving cars was banned on the roads because the recent accident made it clear that his system is not competent enough to be allowed to transit on public roads.
In driving situations you do not even have to recognize what the object is, merely finding that there is an object on the road that can become (or is) an obstacle is enough.
If you're right, my guess is that the person in charge of programming the Uber system was not paranoid enough. A proper paranoid system would classify objects too close to the projected path as "potential hazards" and would attempt to take preventive measures such as slowing down (to increase the time available for reactions) or deflecting preventively if possible.
I saw three serious flaws in the case.
A) From what I could see in the video, the car completely failed to identify an obstacle/possible obstacle. In the same way that the car ran over the woman, it could have hit any other object in the lane that was not clearly another car. It's as if the collision detection system has stopped working or it does not even exist;
B) The pedestrian tried to cross a highway of several lanes at night without paying attention to the sides, this is a really stupid thing to do and would have surely caused the same accident if it were a normal car with a human driver;
C) Putting an idiot as a "backup driver" in an experimental vehicle is something really, really stupid to do, as others correctly commented the car should have at least a "riding shotgun" technician following the actions of the system and a professional driver in front of the wheel to act in case of problems;
The three involved in the case, Uber, the "driver" and the pedestrian need to be accused of gross negligence.
I doubt the UBI has any relation with this case... The problem is that the famous 1% are very determined to profit even more regardless of the consequences, and the UBI is just one of the attempts to mitigate these consequences to avoid a social disaster that may, among other things, wipe out the country itself.
I would have gone to the root of the problem and killed the 1%.
Somedays I think photographers and publishers have no idea how the internet works.
If you do not want someone to copy your image, do not post it on the internet. This should have been learned a long time ago but we still have people completely ignorant of how the Internet works.
The Chinnok is not a example of redundancy, it can fly only if both rotors are working.
Yes. Redundancy is always good.
Yes. Redundancy is always good.
Yes. Redundancy is always good.
Yes. Redundancy is always good.
:^))
(Let's see how much levels Slashdot can take before crashing
Almost. I think you forgot two or three fixes on your fixchain. :^)
I know that. To be more clear, I am just stressing the point for a lot of "new guys" who think they can just drop on any powerplant and change everything to their shiny new (javascript) framework fad without end up killing someone (literally!) in the process.
Some things need to be updated? No doubt. The problem is that this "new guys" does not stop to think first about what they can upgrade without causing problems later, they are too arrogant to first analyze why the process they intend to upgrade is done in the current way (see what is happening with the GUI development these days).
This. As a fellow developer on the "this MUST work" industry, I also have trouble trying to explain to the newbies why they should not do certain things that they are accustomed to do when you are dealing with systems controlling millions of dollars worth of equipment.
Meritocracy don't work if the criterion for selecting who has the most merit is their bank balance or in which family he was born. Many people think they have merit when in fact they only got there because they have rich parents and rich friends.
This has been explained extensively. No usefull payload was placed on the rocket because being an experimental flight the engineers were expecting the rocket would not work (anything between blowing up on the launch pad to disintegrating in orbit).
Okay, try this: Pick the Microsoft Office 2007, 2012, etc (I don't have the 365 and it is WAY different so I don't know if it do right), you may also try Firefox or another text editor on Windows. Use the font "Verdana" with 10pt, and then write the characters "m" and "a" side by side, or any word that has side by side the characters described ("marine" for example).
Now, still on Windows, do the same (some text containing "m" and "a" together, font "Verdana" 10pt) on LibreOffice 5.4 or 6.0: You will see to much space between the "m" and the "a", this is a kerning error. And that does not happen in Libreoffice 5.1.1 (the version I use now), in the latest versions they changed something that messed up kerning and text rendering in general (there are other bugs I've seen other than kerning but they are more subtle)
Well... At least for me, Word 2000~2007 (for example) do the job well. Firefox also get it right, so why only LibreOffice can't do it right?