Funnily enough, my point is in my previous post, namely:
"So the difference in life expectancy (60 vs 90 in these examples) makes _precisely no difference_ to how many years of royalties your offspring will receive."
As a counter to what I quoted in my first post:
"The European term of lifetime +70 years was put into play due to longer lifespans. The original Berne Convention term of lifetime +50 was to allow for the lifetime of the author plus children and grandchildren. With longer lifespans, 50 years was no longer considered enough."
Which stressed repeatedly that life expectancy made a difference. You see, I quoted a point that was bogus, then provided an argument against it. That's how argumentation works. If you're unable to see the connection between point and counter-point if separated by more than 3 cm of screen real-estate, then I pity you.
Now lets disect in miniscule detail your arithmetic: You're completely and utterly wrong, and have made yourself look like an innumerate idiot in public. You're living in a world of fiction! Just do the sums - it might help if you had the reading comprehension to read what I wrote, but I guess that's too much to ask.
So in summary, if you can't be bothered to read what's posted, and can't be bothered to comprehend what you read, and can't be bothered to work out even primary-school level arithmetic, then just turn off your computer and go back to bed, there's nothing for you here.
There was the OISC, is that what you're thinking of? I think its only operation was something like subtract A from B, and if negative jump to C. However, google will probably do better than my addled memory.
Because you can chose the basis in which you are going to perform the measurement to determine the answer, you can either measure along the 0-pfft axis, or the meh-1 axis. That simplifies things greatly.
Controlled-Not is not Not. Controlled-Not is "if the control line is 1, then not the input, else preserve the input", i.e. XOR. (But being quantum, it must also output the control line too, so that the operation can be reversed.)
You invite the retort "an honest russian inhabitant of Tallinn would be most welcome"!
Maybe I'm just pissed off because/Woodstock/ is one of my regular haunts. And don't believe the press, it's not full of ultra-nationalists. There are way more bikers and metallers than skins most of the time. In fact it can be a hang-out of some of Tallinn's modern day arty philosophers too.
And your parent poster was talking completely out of his arse. The plan was always to relocate the statue to the war cemetary, not just to magically disappear it. The intention to move it to somewhere more appropriate - who'd have thought, a war cemetary! - was announced on 10th January, more than 3 months before the idiotic russian teenagers decided to go and get all boozed up and pretend to be Milwall football fans.
I hope that the Swedish media reported that the only russian to die in the riots was killed by a fellow russian, a 'friend', arguing over a bottle of stolen vodka. I know that the mainstream US media didn't report that detail.
If you're not in an inertial reference frame, then your phrase "precise timeline" isn't particularly meaningful. If it means anything at all it's vapid.
Imagine the travelling twin (at c/2) is sent monthy food parcels (at 3c/4). On his way out he receives those at one frequency (one every 3 months), but on the way home he receives them at a different frequency (one every 18 days). If he tears off pages of his calender based on those food parcels, he's suddenly going to have trouble when he changes direction. I view that as imprecision in his timeline. All clocks in all inertial frames are clocks in all other intertial frames. That I view as having precision in your timeline.
If all you meant was "all signals that arrive at observer's time t arrive at observer's time t", then I guess all I can do is shrug and say "yeah, whatever".
The last figure I saw from NASA (linked to from the previous/. story about it) was that EC was *likely* to supernova within 3000 years. It's I'm sure defined by a statistical model, and a PDF. PDFs have tails.
Stars are spinning fluid systems. They have angular momentum, poles, and equators. I.e. radial symmetry. Anything that involves flinging part of their mass into space is also going to have radial symmetry, but not necessarily spherical symmetry. Beams from the poles, and disks from the equator are two typical shapes. If the beams spread out after ejection, then you can get dumbbells/hour-glasses.
It's just a shame that in the middle of debunking things that are just plain wrong, he can make assertions that are just plain wrong too.
See http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/grandcen.html for an example of him making _exactly_ the same kind of mistake that he critices fools for. Sure, like all supposedly good science resources, he's constrianed by trying to simplify his ideas so that they'd be understood by the intended audience, but in this particular case, his example was not just wrong, but unnecessary.
Oh sheesh, I'm going to have to explain primary-school arithmetic, obviously.
Assuming someone else had lousy genes, and no-one in their family lives over 60, but they also breed at 35. The life+70 years term gives 35 years to their children, and then another 35 years to their grandchildren. Whereas for you, it gives 35 years to your children, and then another 35 years to your grandchildren.
So the difference in life expectancy (60 vs 90 in these examples) makes _precisely no difference_, not one iota, not even a fraction of a smidgen of an iota, difference to how many years of royalties your offspring will receive.
"The European term of lifetime +70 years was put into play due to longer lifespans. The original Berne Convention term of lifetime +50 was to allow for the lifetime of the author plus children and grandchildren. With longer lifespans, 50 years was no longer considered enough."
I sincerely hope everyone can see the completely innumerate idiocy of that statement.
*Strictly* speaking, a balance compares the torques that the forces exert. Place the pivot closer to one mass than the other, and they'll both still have the same gravitational force pulling on them, but the balance will not balance.
Slashdot Mirror
So, what's the difference in the output in that case?
XOR: input 0 control 1 -> output 1
CNOT: input 0 control 1 -> output 1 (and control 1)
1 looks remarkably similar to 1 to me. Maybe my brain's just not quantum enough.
"First of all, what is your point, exactly?"
Funnily enough, my point is in my previous post, namely:
"So the difference in life expectancy (60 vs 90 in these examples) makes _precisely no difference_ to how many years of royalties your offspring will receive."
As a counter to what I quoted in my first post:
"The European term of lifetime +70 years was put into play due to longer lifespans. The original Berne Convention term of lifetime +50 was to allow for the lifetime of the author plus children and grandchildren. With longer lifespans, 50 years was no longer considered enough."
Which stressed repeatedly that life expectancy made a difference. You see, I quoted a point that was bogus, then provided an argument against it. That's how argumentation works. If you're unable to see the connection between point and counter-point if separated by more than 3 cm of screen real-estate, then I pity you.
Now lets disect in miniscule detail your arithmetic: You're completely and utterly wrong, and have made yourself look like an innumerate idiot in public. You're living in a world of fiction! Just do the sums - it might help if you had the reading comprehension to read what I wrote, but I guess that's too much to ask.
So in summary, if you can't be bothered to read what's posted, and can't be bothered to comprehend what you read, and can't be bothered to work out even primary-school level arithmetic, then just turn off your computer and go back to bed, there's nothing for you here.
For values of "essentially equivalent" equal to "can be reformulated into, and the result therefrom converted back, in polynomial time", yes.
Note that factoring is not known to be, and suspected (by gut feel only) to not be, NP complete.
There was the OISC, is that what you're thinking of?
I think its only operation was something like subtract A from B, and if negative jump to C.
However, google will probably do better than my addled memory.
Because you can chose the basis in which you are going to perform the measurement to determine the answer, you can either measure along the 0-pfft axis, or the meh-1 axis. That simplifies things greatly.
Controlled-Not is not Not. Controlled-Not is "if the control line is 1, then not the input, else preserve the input", i.e. XOR. (But being quantum, it must also output the control line too, so that the operation can be reversed.)
You invite the retort "an honest russian inhabitant of Tallinn would be most welcome"!
/Woodstock/ is one of my regular haunts. And don't believe the press, it's not full of ultra-nationalists. There are way more bikers and metallers than skins most of the time. In fact it can be a hang-out of some of Tallinn's modern day arty philosophers too.
Maybe I'm just pissed off because
And your parent poster was talking completely out of his arse. The plan was always to relocate the statue to the war cemetary, not just to magically disappear it. The intention to move it to somewhere more appropriate - who'd have thought, a war cemetary! - was announced on 10th January, more than 3 months before the idiotic russian teenagers decided to go and get all boozed up and pretend to be Milwall football fans.
I hope that the Swedish media reported that the only russian to die in the riots was killed by a fellow russian, a 'friend', arguing over a bottle of stolen vodka. I know that the mainstream US media didn't report that detail.
If you're not in an inertial reference frame, then your phrase "precise timeline" isn't particularly meaningful. If it means anything at all it's vapid.
Imagine the travelling twin (at c/2) is sent monthy food parcels (at 3c/4). On his way out he receives those at one frequency (one every 3 months), but on the way home he receives them at a different frequency (one every 18 days). If he tears off pages of his calender based on those food parcels, he's suddenly going to have trouble when he changes direction. I view that as imprecision in his timeline. All clocks in all inertial frames are clocks in all other intertial frames. That I view as having precision in your timeline.
If all you meant was "all signals that arrive at observer's time t arrive at observer's time t", then I guess all I can do is shrug and say "yeah, whatever".
The last figure I saw from NASA (linked to from the previous /. story about it) was that EC was *likely* to supernova within 3000 years. It's I'm sure defined by a statistical model, and a PDF. PDFs have tails.
You think that the twin who heads off with velocity V and comes back with velocity -V defines an intertial reference frame?
Did you not notice the change in velocity?
Hoorah! This is so often overlooked.
All that changes with a supposed beam is a multiplicative constant.
One is led to enquire quite how wide the gamma ray beam would be at our distance. I.e. what is the multiplicative constant?
Stars are spinning fluid systems. They have angular momentum, poles, and equators. I.e. radial symmetry. Anything that involves flinging part of their mass into space is also going to have radial symmetry, but not necessarily spherical symmetry. Beams from the poles, and disks from the equator are two typical shapes. If the beams spread out after ejection, then you can get dumbbells/hour-glasses.
Wrong. You need an inertial reference frame. Not all observers are inertial reference frames. See the twin paradox.
Are you confusing "it won't be much longer than that" with "it cannot be any longer than that"?
"we will surely see it go supernova sometime within the next 1000 years"
There's no 'surely' about it. Stop spreading misinformation.
"neutrinos don't interact with squat. "
Did they interact with your detector?
Never try to simplify physics to explain it to someone stupid, you only make it wrong.
It's just a shame that in the middle of debunking things that are just plain wrong, he can make assertions that are just plain wrong too.
l for an example of him making _exactly_ the same kind of mistake that he critices fools for. Sure, like all supposedly good science resources, he's constrianed by trying to simplify his ideas so that they'd be understood by the intended audience, but in this particular case, his example was not just wrong, but unnecessary.
See http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/grandcen.htm
Oh sheesh, I'm going to have to explain primary-school arithmetic, obviously.
Assuming someone else had lousy genes, and no-one in their family lives over 60, but they also breed at 35.
The life+70 years term gives 35 years to their children, and then another 35 years to their grandchildren.
Whereas for you, it gives 35 years to your children, and then another 35 years to your grandchildren.
So the difference in life expectancy (60 vs 90 in these examples) makes _precisely no difference_, not one iota, not even a fraction of a smidgen of an iota, difference to how many years of royalties your offspring will receive.
I don't think google are the greatest destroyer of mankind, yet.
I assume you've seen that google are getting into lobbying, and lobbying is the fulcrum of corruption.
"The European term of lifetime +70 years was put into play due to longer lifespans. The original Berne Convention term of lifetime +50 was to allow for the lifetime of the author plus children and grandchildren. With longer lifespans, 50 years was no longer considered enough."
I sincerely hope everyone can see the completely innumerate idiocy of that statement.
"Once upon a time the principles of sound scientific knowledge said that it was energeticly impossible to get out of Earth's gravity pit."
Cite which scientific principle(s), or retract.
"Once upon a time the principles of sound scientific knowledge said it was impossible to break the sound barrier."
Cite which scientific principle(s), or retract.
"Once upon a time the principles of sound scientific knowledge said that with the atomic model physics was complete."
Cite which scientific principle(s), or retract.
You seem to be confusing "commonly held belief" with science.
Isn't duck tape the new duck and cover? [*] Here's my g/f's take on such public (mis-)informationu ck.html
(it's a long-ish anagram):
http://theanna.org/grams/lardbucket/longer/misc/d
[* yes, I only ever use 'duct tape', but couldn't resist the wordplay]
I particularly like the way that he stressed /how much/ this imaginary 3:1 ratio demonstrated his point.
So, yet another blog post is liberally splattered with illogical and innumerate bullshit. Why am I not surprised?
Kermit and PIP were the first two comms programs I used. I don't think that makes me a fan of them though.
*Strictly* speaking, a balance compares the torques that the forces exert. Place the pivot closer to one mass than the other, and they'll both still have the same gravitational force pulling on them, but the balance will not balance.