I mean that an image formed - whether by a lens or by any other imaging device - depends on both the location of the impinging radiation and the direction in which it is traveling. In wave terms, both amplitude and phase matter to the image, which is therefore an observation of both.
Forming an image (using a lens or mirror or any other electromagnetic sensor) is not just a measurment of the position of impinging photons, but also of the direction from which it came. This is where momentum - a vector quantity encompassing both mass and velocity - comes into play. Thus the uncertainty principle is in fact the source of current thinking of the fundamental limits of imaging systems.
The interesting part of the article is the possiblity of systems in which the constraints of the uncertainty principle might be relaxed
Most banks suffer losses each year from fraud and (more often) inside jobs. You don't here much about this, but the amounts can be substantial. Banks and their regulatory bodies generally have a sense of proportion about such things - when online banking shows material losses, you can expect that they will respond. But the losses haven't made much of a splash yet...
This is great - the EU saying that collection of communications *without a particular goal* is naughty. Who doubts for a minute that the French could come up with a suitable goal for every message they intercept? This is just boilerplate EU doubletalk. French antenna envy!
Also: remember EU's vaunted personal privacy regulations do not apply to governments - only corporations. So not withstanding the blather in the European parliment, Big Brother is alive and well in the continent that gave us the modern police state
How about these two words: Software The Sun failures that M$ cites are all hardware failures. Of course NT never experiences hardware failures - because it's not hardware! I've seen NT on some hardware that alot flakier than any Sun box. Does that mean the M$ is to blame? Of course they don't want to discuss software reliability - they've got nothing to say
results might give a lazy journalist something to talk about, but this type scheme tells you nothing about a person ( other that how they test out in Myers-Briggs ). Real empirical studies of behavior or personality would be more interesting that this pseudo-scientific gibberish.
at all. Individual governments (especially France and Spain) and the Eurocrats in Brussels have found food scares to be a useful tool for the protection of their politically influential agricultural interests. Do you really think that the embargo of British beef would have got anywhere if it were not aligned with the interests of unproductive French cattlemen? Scaremongering about the safety of GM plants must be seen in the context of the EU's desire to protect its economically unviable cereals industry.
routinely in use in modern agriculture? Non-GM seed strains are generally developed by subjecting seeds to radiation or mutagenic chemicals to produce a high rate of random mutation. Seeds from offspring that have some sought-after quality are retained for the next round of mutation treatment. Genetic engineering techniques do not rely on such scattershot methods - they involve implantation of specific genetic material in the target organism. It is far from obvious that genetic engineering is more likely to produce dangerous organisms than more conventional methods. Isn't "radiation induced mutation" just as scary as "genetic modification?"
Where are these nameless results published? What toxic effects were verified? I challenge you to find any sound empirical evidence to establish this questionable claim. It is possible to argue that GM crops could possibly cause some form of environmental damage, but the foods produced from them are nutritionally indistinguishable from the alternatives.
Slashdot Mirror
Validatiing online voter identity without compromising the secret ballot is also problematic
I mean that an image formed - whether by a lens or by any other imaging device - depends on both the location of the impinging radiation and the direction in which it is traveling. In wave terms, both amplitude and phase matter to the image, which is therefore an observation of both.
Forming an image (using a lens or mirror or any other electromagnetic sensor) is not just a measurment of the position of impinging photons, but also of the direction from which it came. This is where momentum - a vector quantity encompassing both mass and velocity - comes into play. Thus the uncertainty principle is in fact the source of current thinking of the fundamental limits of imaging systems.
The interesting part of the article is the possiblity of systems in which the constraints of the uncertainty principle might be relaxed
Most banks suffer losses each year from fraud and (more often) inside jobs. You don't here much about this, but the amounts can be substantial. Banks and their regulatory bodies generally have a sense of proportion about such things - when online banking shows material losses, you can expect that they will respond. But the losses haven't made much of a splash yet...
Try the enemeywww.ucitaonline.com
You can even sign up for e-mail updates!
Try llrx They've been online for years. Sabrina Pacifici knows her stuff!
This is great - the EU saying that collection of communications *without a particular goal* is naughty. Who doubts for a minute that the French could come up with a suitable goal for every message they intercept? This is just boilerplate EU doubletalk. French antenna envy!
Also: remember EU's vaunted personal privacy regulations do not apply to governments - only corporations. So not withstanding the blather in the European parliment, Big Brother is alive and well in the continent that gave us the modern police state
How about these two words: Software The Sun failures that M$ cites are all hardware failures. Of course NT never experiences hardware failures - because it's not hardware! I've seen NT on some hardware that alot flakier than any Sun box. Does that mean the M$ is to blame? Of course they don't want to discuss software reliability - they've got nothing to say
results might give a lazy journalist something to talk about, but this type scheme tells you nothing about a person ( other that how they test out in Myers-Briggs ). Real empirical studies of behavior or personality would be more interesting that this pseudo-scientific gibberish.
at all. Individual governments (especially France and Spain) and the Eurocrats in Brussels have found food scares to be a useful tool for the protection of their politically influential agricultural interests. Do you really think that the embargo of British beef would have got anywhere if it were not aligned with the interests of unproductive French cattlemen? Scaremongering about the safety of GM plants must be seen in the context of the EU's desire to protect its economically unviable cereals industry.
routinely in use in modern agriculture? Non-GM seed strains are generally developed by subjecting seeds to radiation or mutagenic chemicals to produce a high rate of random mutation. Seeds from offspring that have some sought-after quality are retained for the next round of mutation treatment. Genetic engineering techniques do not rely on such scattershot methods - they involve implantation of specific genetic material in the target organism. It is far from obvious that genetic engineering is more likely to produce dangerous organisms than more conventional methods. Isn't "radiation induced mutation" just as scary as "genetic modification?"
Where are these nameless results published? What toxic effects were verified? I challenge you to find any sound empirical evidence to establish this questionable claim. It is possible to argue that GM crops could possibly cause some form of environmental damage, but the foods produced from them are nutritionally indistinguishable from the alternatives.