So my analogy was obviously incorrect, but so is any other analogy. QM says nothing about the underlying details of the particle before measurement. The wave function collapses, the particle is just observed.
"it's in a superposition of two states" is like saying the "position is washed out over the entire universe", it's just the mathematical function used to predict probabilities that's in a superposition, and it's just another mathematical function that's washed out over the entire universe.
The underlying math doesn't say anything about the particle, it just lets us calculate probabilities. The position operator is in infinite dimensional Hilbert space, but that doesn't mean every position is a new dimension.
Quantum erasure is kinda spooky, but it doesn't magically change the picture on the wall when you erase the information, which is implied in almost every article on it.
it's in a superposition state of up and down that "decide" to be only up or only down only when you (or a detector) look at it.
I think this is the other most common misconception. The density matrix used to calculate probabilities is a superposition of two states. It says nothing, NOTHING, about the actual particle before measurement. It's only a mathematical description that allows us to calculate probabilities of a measurement.
You are correct in what I said, "you don't know if it's up or down until you measure it" may imply a hidden variable, and is incorrect. However, any interpretation of the electron before a measurement is not described by QM. Furthermore, since hidden variables have been proven to not exist, there is no further insight into the details of the particle that we can gain from using quantum field theory.
Ok, rotate the detector so its set to 45, in between horizontal and vertical. The photons arriving at 0, will, at random, will have to choose, at random, a new polarisation.
Incorrect, not all the photons will get through, and any that do go through are now polarized at 45. Perhaps you were thinking about electron spin and the Stern-Gerlach experiment.
So, in classical theory, the bit streams should no longer correlate..... This is not the case.
HVVHVVHVVHVHHVHVHHVVHVHVHV -> Photon
VHHVHHVHHVHVVHVHVVHHVHVHVH -> Entangled Pair
No, this is not the case at all. If you do not know which axis to measure on you destroy the entangled state.
The spooky effect is that you do see either a quicker or slower dropoff than the cos^2(theta) for polarizers with these entangled state, I can't remember which (quicker/slower).
It's about 12 cent a kwh where I am, and considering my entire 1500 milliamp hour 7.2 volt pack takes a whole 10.8 watt hours of energy to charge, that's roughly 0.12 cents for each charge.
Yes, it's in the details,I haven't read this article, but I assume it's similar to other methods than seem to invoke FTL.
You can't be sure what state you have before you transfer it, and if you do measure it, it changes the state. Therefore, when you teleport the current state, the receiver can see what state it's in, let's say 0 or 1. But since the sender didn't know if it was a 0 or a 1, the information is useless.
Personally I think spooky action at a distance isn't spooky at all. Consider the time-honored classic of two electrons in a correlated state being shot out of some device. Assume they are entangled in such a way that when you measure one to be up, you instantly know the other is down. Physicists will say, how could the other electron possibly know this, instantly. But a very simple explanation is that the device always shoots 1 up, 1 down. Sure you don't know if it's up or down until you measure it, but that doesn't make it spooky at all.
The actual spookiness is in the details, like what if I now measure it's spin with respect to a different axis, the classical and quantum results differ then, but I cannot think of any practical application this provides us.
Well after you are done paying $1000's in traffic violations, let me know if it was worth it.
He could simply claim he thought you were texting, bam, probable cause.
It's the selling point of street fighter, that you can play 2 player. It's the marketing strategy of those games. It's nonsensical to think that a successful game, that is bought often just because you can play 2 player, is somehow making a loss by offering 2 player.
Big difference, physical books degrade quickly over time, especially paperbacks.
Digital 0's and 1's don't degrade at all. Look at Steam, you can't sell old games, but older games prices are slashed, and all the profit is funneled to Steam, no middlemen.
Also, used books don't require Sony to sell me subsidized hardware first, nobody incurred a loss from me being able to buy a used book.
Are you sure that they can't have a used section, or did you just pull that out of your ass.
The gamestops by me encourage people to buy used games and return them when they are done. It's like renting for free with no profit at all.
Considering gamestops and other video game stores have places in a mall, where rent is insanely high, I think the margins are much much bigger than you think.
I was trying to make the point that digital media is different from analog products. Cars and other real things degrade over time my used car is of lower quality than a new one.
To me, all the packaging and manuals are irrelevant, the website usually has manuals and videos and all that.
The 0's and 1's are the identical and not used.
I don't think it's about exclusivity at all, it was about hot college chicks posting photos. It was about a simple design that's easy to use, easy to make, and doesn't crash my computer when I try loading your page. It was about ad sales revenue all going directly to the parent company. Simplicity won.
Now that facebook has won the market, I think Facebook's data being sold off for $10 or $ $100 billion or more to a new company is the most likely way of Facebook's demise.
Unless a future hack is so bad that people are literally FORCED to leave, I'm sure it won't have a major effect.
It even updates your video card driver if it needs to be. If it wasn't for steam I'd never know when to update my ati driver.
Then there are also all the great demos he can freely tryout. And while I'm at it, http://www.humblebundle.com/, they are steam compatible and as cheap as your heart desires, and one of them happens to be a 2d platformer, although I haven't played it at all.
The used market seems to think the value of the 0's and 1's are worth 1/2 the retail price (or 3/4 or whatever).
But the 0's and 1's are worth fractions of a penny, the LICENSE to use it in YOUR console is what you are paying for.
Selling it as 'used' doesn't change anything, it's the same. In fact, if it's not identical it's not 'used', it's corrupt. So the entire 'used' market is really just reselling brand new video games, and transferring that license to a new owner (with no money going to Sony), which is the exact opposite of how the DRM laden subsidized video game model works.
If you want subsidized hardware, of course you can't skirt paying the license fees, how else would they ever turn a profit?
Depends entirely on the percentage of resale guys. Like I mentioned, I assumed 99% aren't resale buyers. Obviously I just pulled that out of my ass, but I'm sure you have no idea either, so it's almost impossible to figure out.
Either way, the profit made in the used market is going toward video game stores and not Sony, and that's what they want. If Sony realizes this through cheaper games and higher volumes, or same price games and slightly higher volumes is irrelevant. They will capture some of that money, if not all of it, by removing the used video game market.
I thought the whole point of this particular game was that there was additional content.
Yes someone else paid a 1-time access fee for himself, and it's not transferable. Someone that buys new games won't expect service to last as long as someone buying a 3yr old game, just to find out the servers are going offline in a month. There is added cost, and less revenue, I would think them charging for this would just be common sense. Just because PSN might be free doesn't mean it's free to operate, it's subsidized by video game sales, NEW video game sales.
Although in a way this makes a great argument that xbox360 games shouldn't have to have this added fee, because it's already built into their monthly access fee model.
Usually if you buy something as a 'gift', it's meant to be transferred before use, not after, huge difference.
The entire notion of 'used' 0's and 1's doesn't make sense to me anyway, it should be identical to the original, and if it's not, it's not 'used', it's corrupt.
So actually they are reselling brand new video games, and marketing them as 'used' and not giving any proceeds to Sony, wonder why they don't like this?
Well until eventually, they will continue to rake in Billions in ad sales. It was almost 2 Billion last year, that's a P/E ratio of 25, right on par with other publicly traded companies.
It's impossible to break into the facebook model nowadays. It's like saying Google is just a search engine, someone else will come along and push them away. Perhaps Bing will, but what you are saying is that it'll be some small startup, I just don't see it happening unless they do something stupid, oh wait... they do that all the time.
I mean extremely stupid, like letting everyone get hacked to the point they are forced to leave. And believe me, you will have to FORCE people to leave their beloved facebook.
Perhaps that's why is split screen, not dual screen.
It gives you a shittier experience than you would get if you did actually go buy your own copy. You watch the owner play fullscreen and wish you could do that. You play split screen and immediately notice the lack of FOV and resolution, and it makes you only want the full screen version (purchase your own copy) more.
Also, I don't need to own a ps3 to go play split screen at my friends house, but I do need one to purchase used games. Sony doesn't sell ps3 to be used without video games, they would lose money that way. Well, they tried it with their otherOS and it turned into a horrible fiasco, even the military figured it out and started buying subsidized products from Sony.
Slashdot Mirror
So my analogy was obviously incorrect, but so is any other analogy. QM says nothing about the underlying details of the particle before measurement. The wave function collapses, the particle is just observed.
"it's in a superposition of two states" is like saying the "position is washed out over the entire universe", it's just the mathematical function used to predict probabilities that's in a superposition, and it's just another mathematical function that's washed out over the entire universe.
The underlying math doesn't say anything about the particle, it just lets us calculate probabilities. The position operator is in infinite dimensional Hilbert space, but that doesn't mean every position is a new dimension.
Quantum erasure is kinda spooky, but it doesn't magically change the picture on the wall when you erase the information, which is implied in almost every article on it.
it's in a superposition state of up and down that "decide" to be only up or only down only when you (or a detector) look at it.
I think this is the other most common misconception. The density matrix used to calculate probabilities is a superposition of two states. It says nothing, NOTHING, about the actual particle before measurement. It's only a mathematical description that allows us to calculate probabilities of a measurement.
You are correct in what I said, "you don't know if it's up or down until you measure it" may imply a hidden variable, and is incorrect. However, any interpretation of the electron before a measurement is not described by QM. Furthermore, since hidden variables have been proven to not exist, there is no further insight into the details of the particle that we can gain from using quantum field theory.
I thought it did still hold, and that I was incorrect in my analogy, and it is kinda spooky. Anyone else care to chime in?
Ok, rotate the detector so its set to 45, in between horizontal and vertical. The photons arriving at 0, will, at random, will have to choose, at random, a new polarisation.
Incorrect, not all the photons will get through, and any that do go through are now polarized at 45. Perhaps you were thinking about electron spin and the Stern-Gerlach experiment.
So, in classical theory, the bit streams should no longer correlate..... This is not the case. HVVHVVHVVHVHHVHVHHVVHVHVHV -> Photon VHHVHHVHHVHVVHVHVVHHVHVHVH -> Entangled Pair
No, this is not the case at all. If you do not know which axis to measure on you destroy the entangled state.
The spooky effect is that you do see either a quicker or slower dropoff than the cos^2(theta) for polarizers with these entangled state, I can't remember which (quicker/slower).
It's about 12 cent a kwh where I am, and considering my entire 1500 milliamp hour 7.2 volt pack takes a whole 10.8 watt hours of energy to charge, that's roughly 0.12 cents for each charge.
If you flip it after you make the measurement it doesn't do anything.
So you are suggesting to put in a spin flipper before you make a measurement. Does the entanglement still hold then?
Yes, it's in the details,I haven't read this article, but I assume it's similar to other methods than seem to invoke FTL.
You can't be sure what state you have before you transfer it, and if you do measure it, it changes the state. Therefore, when you teleport the current state, the receiver can see what state it's in, let's say 0 or 1. But since the sender didn't know if it was a 0 or a 1, the information is useless.
Personally I think spooky action at a distance isn't spooky at all. Consider the time-honored classic of two electrons in a correlated state being shot out of some device. Assume they are entangled in such a way that when you measure one to be up, you instantly know the other is down. Physicists will say, how could the other electron possibly know this, instantly. But a very simple explanation is that the device always shoots 1 up, 1 down. Sure you don't know if it's up or down until you measure it, but that doesn't make it spooky at all.
The actual spookiness is in the details, like what if I now measure it's spin with respect to a different axis, the classical and quantum results differ then, but I cannot think of any practical application this provides us.
I thought truecrpyt on the N900 didn't encrypt the OS files, just your other folders and partitions.
My N900 can't do a full system partition encryption, which is very unfortunate. It stores my passwords for email in plain text. Is Android any better?
Well after you are done paying $1000's in traffic violations, let me know if it was worth it. He could simply claim he thought you were texting, bam, probable cause.
It's the selling point of street fighter, that you can play 2 player. It's the marketing strategy of those games. It's nonsensical to think that a successful game, that is bought often just because you can play 2 player, is somehow making a loss by offering 2 player.
Big difference, physical books degrade quickly over time, especially paperbacks.
Digital 0's and 1's don't degrade at all. Look at Steam, you can't sell old games, but older games prices are slashed, and all the profit is funneled to Steam, no middlemen.
Also, used books don't require Sony to sell me subsidized hardware first, nobody incurred a loss from me being able to buy a used book.
And where can I find 1080p DRM-free digital copies?
Are they more expensive than a normal dvd?
Are you sure that they can't have a used section, or did you just pull that out of your ass.
The gamestops by me encourage people to buy used games and return them when they are done. It's like renting for free with no profit at all.
Considering gamestops and other video game stores have places in a mall, where rent is insanely high, I think the margins are much much bigger than you think.
I thought the lifespan of pressed cds was between 10-25 years. Considering ps1 is already 17yrs old, it is a problem.
I was trying to make the point that digital media is different from analog products. Cars and other real things degrade over time my used car is of lower quality than a new one.
To me, all the packaging and manuals are irrelevant, the website usually has manuals and videos and all that. The 0's and 1's are the identical and not used.
I was referring to the split screen games, it's seemed idiotic to take your comment on fighting games seriously.
I don't think it's about exclusivity at all, it was about hot college chicks posting photos. It was about a simple design that's easy to use, easy to make, and doesn't crash my computer when I try loading your page. It was about ad sales revenue all going directly to the parent company. Simplicity won.
Now that facebook has won the market, I think Facebook's data being sold off for $10 or $ $100 billion or more to a new company is the most likely way of Facebook's demise.
Unless a future hack is so bad that people are literally FORCED to leave, I'm sure it won't have a major effect.
It even updates your video card driver if it needs to be. If it wasn't for steam I'd never know when to update my ati driver. Then there are also all the great demos he can freely tryout. And while I'm at it, http://www.humblebundle.com/, they are steam compatible and as cheap as your heart desires, and one of them happens to be a 2d platformer, although I haven't played it at all.
The used market seems to think the value of the 0's and 1's are worth 1/2 the retail price (or 3/4 or whatever). But the 0's and 1's are worth fractions of a penny, the LICENSE to use it in YOUR console is what you are paying for.
Selling it as 'used' doesn't change anything, it's the same. In fact, if it's not identical it's not 'used', it's corrupt. So the entire 'used' market is really just reselling brand new video games, and transferring that license to a new owner (with no money going to Sony), which is the exact opposite of how the DRM laden subsidized video game model works.
If you want subsidized hardware, of course you can't skirt paying the license fees, how else would they ever turn a profit?
Depends entirely on the percentage of resale guys. Like I mentioned, I assumed 99% aren't resale buyers. Obviously I just pulled that out of my ass, but I'm sure you have no idea either, so it's almost impossible to figure out.
Either way, the profit made in the used market is going toward video game stores and not Sony, and that's what they want. If Sony realizes this through cheaper games and higher volumes, or same price games and slightly higher volumes is irrelevant. They will capture some of that money, if not all of it, by removing the used video game market.
I thought the whole point of this particular game was that there was additional content.
Yes someone else paid a 1-time access fee for himself, and it's not transferable. Someone that buys new games won't expect service to last as long as someone buying a 3yr old game, just to find out the servers are going offline in a month. There is added cost, and less revenue, I would think them charging for this would just be common sense. Just because PSN might be free doesn't mean it's free to operate, it's subsidized by video game sales, NEW video game sales.
Although in a way this makes a great argument that xbox360 games shouldn't have to have this added fee, because it's already built into their monthly access fee model.
Usually if you buy something as a 'gift', it's meant to be transferred before use, not after, huge difference.
The entire notion of 'used' 0's and 1's doesn't make sense to me anyway, it should be identical to the original, and if it's not, it's not 'used', it's corrupt. So actually they are reselling brand new video games, and marketing them as 'used' and not giving any proceeds to Sony, wonder why they don't like this?
Well until eventually, they will continue to rake in Billions in ad sales. It was almost 2 Billion last year, that's a P/E ratio of 25, right on par with other publicly traded companies.
It's impossible to break into the facebook model nowadays. It's like saying Google is just a search engine, someone else will come along and push them away. Perhaps Bing will, but what you are saying is that it'll be some small startup, I just don't see it happening unless they do something stupid, oh wait... they do that all the time.
I mean extremely stupid, like letting everyone get hacked to the point they are forced to leave. And believe me, you will have to FORCE people to leave their beloved facebook.
And if you don't file the provisional patent, but instead do release the product, then you still get a year to apply for a patent.
A provisional patent is NOT required, that's the issue.
Perhaps that's why is split screen, not dual screen.
It gives you a shittier experience than you would get if you did actually go buy your own copy. You watch the owner play fullscreen and wish you could do that. You play split screen and immediately notice the lack of FOV and resolution, and it makes you only want the full screen version (purchase your own copy) more.
Also, I don't need to own a ps3 to go play split screen at my friends house, but I do need one to purchase used games. Sony doesn't sell ps3 to be used without video games, they would lose money that way. Well, they tried it with their otherOS and it turned into a horrible fiasco, even the military figured it out and started buying subsidized products from Sony.