How do you know if you're not measuring it unless you measure it?
All this talk of Bob in the lab sending messages to Alice in the field is irrelevant, because Alice can measure whenever she wants. Once she has the entangled particles in the field, she has the message. Bob already shot his load whether he measures or not.
>If B sees A and C each moving away from it at nearly the speed of light, that just means that A sees C moving away at even-more-nearly the speed of light. Funky, eh?
Yes, I'm aware. But what you're forgetting is that A and C are not linked in any way. They do not affect the speed of each other. So just because you measure the speed between them as c doesn't mean they are each moving at half-c. They are still both moving at c, in opposite directions, for an effective 2c with regards to their eventual position.
Here's a better example. The furthest objects in the universe are about 13b light-years away. The light they emitted 13b years ago is getting to us now. Do you think, in the past 13b years, that they haven't moved any further??
Indeed, I'm starting to feel sorry for him. What I don't understand is why he never gave up physics. There's plenty of jobs you can do sitting down. Composer, art critic, you name it. He could have had a better life. At least that nurse went his way.
As for his writing, I'll never forget reading his idea for how black hole evaporation happens. In his original book, he speculated that near the event horizon, particle-antiparticle pairs pop into existence randomly. Space is zero energy, so you can get blips of +1/-1 every so often. OK so this happens.
Then antiparticles fall into the black hole, reducing its mass. And I was like, wouldn't regular particles fall in with equal probability? I was freaking 17 years old.
It works like this. You put a red and a blue shirt in a bag. You and Alice close your eyes. You each take out a shirt and put it in a briefcase. Then you both go on a trip.
When you get to the hotel, you open the briefcase and you have a red shirt. You know Alice's shirt is blue. The next question is, so what?
As you can see from the example, you essentially pre-loaded the answer before you went on the trip. It's not real-time communication when you hand somebody a sealed envelope and walk away.
Bump. If you scroll down to "Measurements on an entangled state", it explains entanglement really well.
The next section on Locality is also good, but what it comes down to (with regards to this 16km experiment) seems to be, "We're cool with the fact that this is happening, but we have no idea why."
>That's a cool thought experiment when discussing what "simultaneously" means given relativity
Actually, simultaneity has no meaning given relativity. That was the whole point of Einstein's career, to prove that the universe is asynchronous. If you've taken computer architecture, you know what this means. All devices operate independently and communicate with each other on a need basis. The synchronous computers we have on our desks have a shared clock, whose resolution degrades as the computer gets bigger.
In other words, any clock is an approximation.
>Well, it seems like we need a car analogy!
Ironically, I replied to your last post with one! o_O
>This has been misunderstood by several SciFi writers
What's worse, even Hawking doesn't get it. Last I heard, he believes in alternate simultaneous realities now. America's "most famous" physicist sadly doesn't have a basic grasp of 100-year-old concepts. Discover had a recent article on his "legacy" that basically said, "We're not sure this guy has actually done anything."
That's interesting, but you'd probably be more precise if you brought Time into the explanation.
The reason light can't move any faster than it does is because it's already instantaneous. Speed is calculated as distance divided by time. With light, time equals zero so you're dividing by zero, therefore infinite speed.
Clearly light and time are directly related phenomena. I don't think there's a third phenomenon ("speed of information") capping them both. After all, objects are free to move faster than light in relation to one another. The headlights and tail-lights of your car emit photons at c in opposite directions. The speed difference between them is clearly some approximation of 2c. To suggest otherwise would imply that they are somehow physically linked, which they are not. But your measurements are bounded by time, putting an effective cap on the speed you can observe.
Another way of saying it is, "If you can measure speed, it's going to be c or less. Otherwise you can't measure it."
I'll be scrolling down to see if this experiment breaks any of those rules. Relativity I understand, quantum not so much.
Some seasonal shows are not broadcast on the internet. I challenge you to find this week's Damages or Breaking Bad without jumping through hoops.
Sure, there is always piracy. But when piracy meets profit motive, it loses its appeal. "Sign on here to watch Damages for free...if you pay money." Ahhh....huh?
If you're willing to wait, everything goes to DVD eventually. I've been doing this with video games for years. They don't change.
But if you want it now, not everything is available now, in every format.
despite the fact that Nixon won the election with a 23.2% margin of victory in the popular vote, the fourth largest margin in presidential election history.
I'm sure Wikipedia would love to have your contributions.
Can the blogosphere figure out how to monetize at a rate high enough to support independent reporting on a local level?
The "blogosphere" only exists because computer-savvy people have too much time on their hands. From there, it is only a hop to getting plane fare and a hotel room and actually reporting on events.
Seriously, you can't take a day off per week to leave town? Or you can't afford it?
I would submit that if you "can't afford it," it's because you aren't willing to break even. Is your reporting "vacation" really not worth it?
Local reporting is the easiest shit. You have to observe and report. So easy, that a failure to do that, is not an economic or technological problem.
It is only a matter of time before we see a generation that skips cable and dish for TV entertainment. Just like my generation skipped land lines and only got cell phones.
Indeed.
But landlines are cool. If your GF is ok with you calling on the cell then you are definitely from the newer generation.
It's transmitting 20 Mbit/s * ~10 stations == 200 Mbit/s of data to each and every home. That's certainly more efficient than running 1/2 million cables.
Yes. But the question is, how long can you get enough people to watch the same 10 stations?
The elephant in the room is "balkanization," and everyone is struggling to figure out how hard it will hit.
Personally I think it's possible to be "not much," but only if broadcasters make a concerted effort to appeal to an audience.
If broadcasters take the route of cutting costs and services, then it will be "severe."
What is the old adage? That you have to spend in a recession? How does cancelling Leno and Conan figure into that equation?
they were pressured in continuing operations regardless because they were running behind schedule and "time is money".
In another post, someone mentioned that BP is making about a billion dollars per month in profit.
Somehow I doubt this one well would have made a big difference in their overall take. And truth be told, they lost the whole thing, and took a big hit to their rep as well.
Funny thing about greed, it's when you actually lose sight of the bottom line.
What Jobs is saying, is that he's finally found a way to reach the masses of computer noobs that Mac has been aiming for all along. The problem with the original Macs is that they required someone to actually use a computer.
Now that he's turned computers into toys, he can finally get "Grandma." But this doesn't really change anything in the computer world.
It's something to brag about for sure, on a marketing level. On a features level, he succeeds only by not having them. Kind of like how McDonald's succeeds by not having a steak dinner.
All this guy is showing is one motor (the input) being slowed down by an opposite force from another motor (the control). Take away the fancy gearset and you just have two motors linked up in opposite rotation. Add a third motor of equal strength and you can go reverse at full power.
The gears just affect the torque necessary to accomplish this. The output torque will be reduced proportionally. Since he's not measuring the output torque, he's not demonstrating anything at all.
Notice the large first set of gears which upshifts the input torque to greater speed for the control shaft. By reducing torque, this creates the illusion (or simply allows) the control motors to be weaker than the input motor. But since you've already upshifted, the output torque will be reduced.
The first set of input gears is the only real gear here and it's predetermined. This is like a car constantly in 6th gear with an electric motor attached to the wheels to slow it down.
What this guy is showing is not transmission but BRAKING. No wonder he spends so much time bragging about the lack of friction!
>Now I want ONE person out here to tell me that Chrono Trigger or Final Fantasy are "Simple".
Sure. The battle mechanics in FF boil down to pressing "Attack" four times per round until the battle is over. Granted, the last one I played was #7, but from what I remember, all the enemies were pretty much the same. Whether you attack with a sword, or a spell, the damage is about the same. It's just a question of what pretty graphic you want to see. Limit break? OK so you get more damage. Big deal.
Many RPG's will have one character cast buffs while another heals. Many RPGs feature different kinds of enemies with different strengths and weaknesses, e.g. use cold on fire, or lightning on water. Many RPG's will have you out-flank the enemy and attack from behind for bonuses. Many RPGs place importance in order of attack, or rows/formations. FF series has only a token amount of this strategy compared to other games.
The bulk of tapes kills me. Video is one of the few areas where computers really make a difference. Audio and print, not so much.
That said, you're lucky to have an S-VHS. I don't think I've ever had a "good" VCR, in terms of picture quality, stereo, and useful controls. The market got cheapened just when the quality was getting there.
Indeed, the free market is designed to give people what they want. Unfortunately, a lot of times, people's desire runs counter to their long-term self interest.
I've had enough experience selling products to know that the majority of customers are not shopping optimally. There's one class of customers that just wants the cheapest crap available, and damn the consequences. There's another class that is smart enough to ask for "the best," but it's how they define it, and they will pay an exorbitant price.
Relatively few customers are buying the right products for the right prices. They are smart enough that they could probably open their own business...if they weren't already involved in something else.
In short, the market is a competition that creates far more losers than winners. It does educate everyone along the way (did that crap not work out? Try something better next time.)
But the losers are still among us. Let's say you're smart enough to avoid buying Chinese wallboard, but you go to a friend's house who does, and you get sick. You made the right choices, and you still lose.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know if you're not measuring it unless you measure it?
All this talk of Bob in the lab sending messages to Alice in the field is irrelevant, because Alice can measure whenever she wants. Once she has the entangled particles in the field, she has the message. Bob already shot his load whether he measures or not.
>If B sees A and C each moving away from it at nearly the speed of light, that just means that A sees C moving away at even-more-nearly the speed of light. Funky, eh?
Yes, I'm aware. But what you're forgetting is that A and C are not linked in any way. They do not affect the speed of each other. So just because you measure the speed between them as c doesn't mean they are each moving at half-c. They are still both moving at c, in opposite directions, for an effective 2c with regards to their eventual position.
Here's a better example. The furthest objects in the universe are about 13b light-years away. The light they emitted 13b years ago is getting to us now. Do you think, in the past 13b years, that they haven't moved any further??
Indeed, I'm starting to feel sorry for him. What I don't understand is why he never gave up physics. There's plenty of jobs you can do sitting down. Composer, art critic, you name it. He could have had a better life. At least that nurse went his way.
As for his writing, I'll never forget reading his idea for how black hole evaporation happens. In his original book, he speculated that near the event horizon, particle-antiparticle pairs pop into existence randomly. Space is zero energy, so you can get blips of +1/-1 every so often. OK so this happens.
Then antiparticles fall into the black hole, reducing its mass. And I was like, wouldn't regular particles fall in with equal probability? I was freaking 17 years old.
But I did pass that book around.
It works like this. You put a red and a blue shirt in a bag. You and Alice close your eyes. You each take out a shirt and put it in a briefcase. Then you both go on a trip.
When you get to the hotel, you open the briefcase and you have a red shirt. You know Alice's shirt is blue. The next question is, so what?
As you can see from the example, you essentially pre-loaded the answer before you went on the trip. It's not real-time communication when you hand somebody a sealed envelope and walk away.
Bump. If you scroll down to "Measurements on an entangled state", it explains entanglement really well.
The next section on Locality is also good, but what it comes down to (with regards to this 16km experiment) seems to be, "We're cool with the fact that this is happening, but we have no idea why."
>That's a cool thought experiment when discussing what "simultaneously" means given relativity
Actually, simultaneity has no meaning given relativity. That was the whole point of Einstein's career, to prove that the universe is asynchronous. If you've taken computer architecture, you know what this means. All devices operate independently and communicate with each other on a need basis. The synchronous computers we have on our desks have a shared clock, whose resolution degrades as the computer gets bigger.
In other words, any clock is an approximation.
>Well, it seems like we need a car analogy!
Ironically, I replied to your last post with one! o_O
>This has been misunderstood by several SciFi writers
What's worse, even Hawking doesn't get it. Last I heard, he believes in alternate simultaneous realities now. America's "most famous" physicist sadly doesn't have a basic grasp of 100-year-old concepts. Discover had a recent article on his "legacy" that basically said, "We're not sure this guy has actually done anything."
That's interesting, but you'd probably be more precise if you brought Time into the explanation.
The reason light can't move any faster than it does is because it's already instantaneous. Speed is calculated as distance divided by time. With light, time equals zero so you're dividing by zero, therefore infinite speed.
Clearly light and time are directly related phenomena. I don't think there's a third phenomenon ("speed of information") capping them both. After all, objects are free to move faster than light in relation to one another. The headlights and tail-lights of your car emit photons at c in opposite directions. The speed difference between them is clearly some approximation of 2c. To suggest otherwise would imply that they are somehow physically linked, which they are not. But your measurements are bounded by time, putting an effective cap on the speed you can observe.
Another way of saying it is, "If you can measure speed, it's going to be c or less. Otherwise you can't measure it."
I'll be scrolling down to see if this experiment breaks any of those rules. Relativity I understand, quantum not so much.
Some seasonal shows are not broadcast on the internet. I challenge you to find this week's Damages or Breaking Bad without jumping through hoops.
Sure, there is always piracy. But when piracy meets profit motive, it loses its appeal. "Sign on here to watch Damages for free...if you pay money." Ahhh....huh?
If you're willing to wait, everything goes to DVD eventually. I've been doing this with video games for years. They don't change.
But if you want it now, not everything is available now, in every format.
despite the fact that Nixon won the election with a 23.2% margin of victory in the popular vote, the fourth largest margin in presidential election history.
I'm sure Wikipedia would love to have your contributions.
Can the blogosphere figure out how to monetize at a rate high enough to support independent reporting on a local level?
The "blogosphere" only exists because computer-savvy people have too much time on their hands. From there, it is only a hop to getting plane fare and a hotel room and actually reporting on events.
Seriously, you can't take a day off per week to leave town? Or you can't afford it?
I would submit that if you "can't afford it," it's because you aren't willing to break even. Is your reporting "vacation" really not worth it?
Local reporting is the easiest shit. You have to observe and report. So easy, that a failure to do that, is not an economic or technological problem.
It is only a matter of time before we see a generation that skips cable and dish for TV entertainment. Just like my generation skipped land lines and only got cell phones.
Indeed.
But landlines are cool. If your GF is ok with you calling on the cell then you are definitely from the newer generation.
Don't forget "quality of service."
It's transmitting 20 Mbit/s * ~10 stations == 200 Mbit/s of data to each and every home. That's certainly more efficient than running 1/2 million cables.
Yes. But the question is, how long can you get enough people to watch the same 10 stations?
The elephant in the room is "balkanization," and everyone is struggling to figure out how hard it will hit.
Personally I think it's possible to be "not much," but only if broadcasters make a concerted effort to appeal to an audience.
If broadcasters take the route of cutting costs and services, then it will be "severe."
What is the old adage? That you have to spend in a recession? How does cancelling Leno and Conan figure into that equation?
Well, in order for Internet to defeat TV, people need to start hooking up their TV's to their computers.
It's not hard. Modern digital TVs are computer monitors.
But I've never seen it done. In open society, inertia is rampant.
Maybe this is the real problem. Upper middle class people can afford gasoline at any cost. Look at what they drive...SUVs and sports sedans.
Lower middle class people cannot. This includes the indirect cost when truckers pay more, causing food to get more expensive.
If you want to talk "class warfare," you can start at the gas pump.
One statistic I haven't heard mentioned is the amount of recoverable oil in that well. What percentage has leaked?
May be time to rebrand, mates.
Ironically they are in the middle of a "beyond petroleum" ad campaign. I'm almost glad this happened because the ads are shameless.
Joe Everyman: "Oil is cool, but you know what else? Solar and wind and geothermal are also cool."
Jane Goodytwo: "I have no relevant experience, but I think natural gas should be part of our Energy Mix. It's just what I've heard."
Steve American: "Five or six different energy sources in the same commercial makes me feel better about my crappy job waiting tables in L.A."
Sometimes you do get cosmic justice.
they were pressured in continuing operations regardless because they were running behind schedule and "time is money".
In another post, someone mentioned that BP is making about a billion dollars per month in profit.
Somehow I doubt this one well would have made a big difference in their overall take. And truth be told, they lost the whole thing, and took a big hit to their rep as well.
Funny thing about greed, it's when you actually lose sight of the bottom line.
What Jobs is saying, is that he's finally found a way to reach the masses of computer noobs that Mac has been aiming for all along. The problem with the original Macs is that they required someone to actually use a computer.
Now that he's turned computers into toys, he can finally get "Grandma." But this doesn't really change anything in the computer world.
It's something to brag about for sure, on a marketing level. On a features level, he succeeds only by not having them. Kind of like how McDonald's succeeds by not having a steak dinner.
All this guy is showing is one motor (the input) being slowed down by an opposite force from another motor (the control). Take away the fancy gearset and you just have two motors linked up in opposite rotation. Add a third motor of equal strength and you can go reverse at full power.
The gears just affect the torque necessary to accomplish this. The output torque will be reduced proportionally. Since he's not measuring the output torque, he's not demonstrating anything at all.
Notice the large first set of gears which upshifts the input torque to greater speed for the control shaft. By reducing torque, this creates the illusion (or simply allows) the control motors to be weaker than the input motor. But since you've already upshifted, the output torque will be reduced.
The first set of input gears is the only real gear here and it's predetermined. This is like a car constantly in 6th gear with an electric motor attached to the wheels to slow it down.
What this guy is showing is not transmission but BRAKING. No wonder he spends so much time bragging about the lack of friction!
>Now I want ONE person out here to tell me that Chrono Trigger or Final Fantasy are "Simple".
Sure. The battle mechanics in FF boil down to pressing "Attack" four times per round until the battle is over. Granted, the last one I played was #7, but from what I remember, all the enemies were pretty much the same. Whether you attack with a sword, or a spell, the damage is about the same. It's just a question of what pretty graphic you want to see. Limit break? OK so you get more damage. Big deal.
Many RPG's will have one character cast buffs while another heals. Many RPGs feature different kinds of enemies with different strengths and weaknesses, e.g. use cold on fire, or lightning on water. Many RPG's will have you out-flank the enemy and attack from behind for bonuses. Many RPGs place importance in order of attack, or rows/formations. FF series has only a token amount of this strategy compared to other games.
Cable cards are only like $4 on verizon, so with Tivo $14.77+8=$23 versus $17, the Comcast DVR is cheaper, but not that much.
Really? Last time I had broadcast, it was ten channels.
The bulk of tapes kills me. Video is one of the few areas where computers really make a difference. Audio and print, not so much.
That said, you're lucky to have an S-VHS. I don't think I've ever had a "good" VCR, in terms of picture quality, stereo, and useful controls. The market got cheapened just when the quality was getting there.
Indeed, the free market is designed to give people what they want. Unfortunately, a lot of times, people's desire runs counter to their long-term self interest.
I've had enough experience selling products to know that the majority of customers are not shopping optimally. There's one class of customers that just wants the cheapest crap available, and damn the consequences. There's another class that is smart enough to ask for "the best," but it's how they define it, and they will pay an exorbitant price.
Relatively few customers are buying the right products for the right prices. They are smart enough that they could probably open their own business...if they weren't already involved in something else.
In short, the market is a competition that creates far more losers than winners. It does educate everyone along the way (did that crap not work out? Try something better next time.)
But the losers are still among us. Let's say you're smart enough to avoid buying Chinese wallboard, but you go to a friend's house who does, and you get sick. You made the right choices, and you still lose.
You would be pretty lucky to have 5TB of disk, or to be able to find a 5TB dataset on the internet.