No they don't. They think an appropriate penalty for being found guilty of sharing a song is on the order of 10-100k (it varies significantly). You do no one any favors by intentionally (or, I suppose, out of ignorance) confusing the concepts of "penalty" and "value".
Just as easily as a random sample can accurately reflect a population as a whole, it can equally be skewed to be a completely inaccurate representation of the real world.
If by "just as easily" you mean "with an enormously lower probability", then yes. But then, that's what a statement of margin of error says.
Statistics isn't all that complicated, and what a statistical measure means can be both demonstrated and proven. You don't need to get all faux existential about how "it's all just a bunch of crap, man". You don't know what you're talking about.
Also, entropy? No such thing as random? Really? Don't inject physical phenomena you clearly don't understand in a discussion about pure mathematics.
There's no fundamental difference between there; it's just that an electric dipole has a nonzero separation and a magnetic dipole has a zero separation.
For one, you can remedy this by either making your electric dipole have a very small separation or moving your charges that are interacting with the dipole "far away". Either way, the electric dipole will be sufficiently similar to a zero-separation dipole.
For another, you don't actually see a lone magnetic dipole in nature, either. They're caused by moving electrons. Both electric dipoles and magnetic dipoles have a fine structure if you get close enough to them.
I'm not visualizing exactly how you propose this wheel and magnet to be built, but magnetic monopoles and dipoles behave exactly as electric monopoles and dipoles. So, build your perpetual motion machine out of electric charges and ferroelectric dipoles instead. Or, analyze how your perpetual motion machine wouldn't actually work.:p
There are no magnetic monopoles. You can try to separate north and south pole. You can even construct models of "magnetic charge" and dipoles if you like. But in the end, you can't get a north pole without having a corresponding south pole, very, very close by.
Interesting. It seems if you properly understood experimentalism, you would say, "No experiment has shown the existence of a magnetic monopole, but no experiment has shown that they must not exist."
You seem to be taking the approach that if an experiment does not show that A is true, then A must be false. Not only would a physicist criticize you (rightly) for this line of reasoning, so would any philosopher or logician.
If a perpetual motion machine would work if only they had a magnetic monopole, they should swap "magnetic" and "electric" everywhere in their design and build the machine. It would work the same way -- the physics of electric and magnetic fields are interchangeable.
You may be insane, but it's not that a lot of people don't understand what a magnetic field is -- it's that you don't understand what a magnetic field is.
"Magnetic field lines" aren't real, anyway, they're a theoretical construct to visualize the magnetic field. Their apparent behavior -- going in a loop from one side of a dipole to another -- is a consequence of the Maxwell equation (div B = 0). Really, it's div B = rho_m (magnetic charge density), but if no magnetic monopoles exist, rho_m is zero everywhere. You cannot use a consequence of (div B = 0) to show (div B = 0), which is what you're doing.
The magnetic field behaves exactly like the electric field. If you want to know what a particular magnetic construct would behave like -- it's exactly the same as the corresponding electric construct. So, for example, you claim that a monopole in the presence of a dipole forms a perpetual motion machine. We certainly have electric dipoles and electric monopoles (charges). There are even crystals that form permanent electric dipoles (ferroelectrics), the electric analogue of a ferromagnet. So, is an electric monopole in the presence of an electric dipole a perpetual motion machine?
The general point is that the article has enormously more information and subtlety, yet has been distilled to a fairly inaccurate attention-grabbing headline.
If you work in science, you see this constantly. It's maddening.
They don't live and breathe new technology -- they live and breathe commodity technology, and think of it as new because they have no familiarity with actual R&D.
First of all, I think that number is way too high.
Just like everyone else who cites a percentage in the high-90s, they just made it up. Do you really think they have any data suggesting that 3 out of 100,000 computer users care?
Depending on whether you say a console application "has a window". Invoked directly by the user, there's no way for it to run without a window. A userland application can be launched by another application without the second application ever having or displaying a window.
But you certainly cannot have GUI applications that are running yet have no window. That requires evil service hacks.
Perhaps you can appreciate that, as the government does not own or control the infrastructure, they cannot simply "disconnect" it. They could either mandate keeping infrastructure disconnected from the Internet, or they could mandate that they have the ability in the future to disconnect them from the Internet in the event of an attack. This bill is the latter.
Surely you appreciate that the only thing keeping Ron Paul and the libertarians from taking over and fixing the country's problems is that The Man spies on every red-blooded American citizen and silences their political dissent by sending them off to Guantanamo.
With Gitmo being closed, The Man needs another means of keeping silent the influential bloggers that could otherwise oust them from power.
What's surprising is that Big Brother actually let information about this new plan slip out to the sheeple, rather than keeping it under wraps (just like Area 51 and Apollo).
I'm not entirely sure how you intend that to be applied to this topic, but it's certainly true. To use Rumsfeld's terms, unknown unknowns are completely different from known unknowns.
It's not really valid, though; it makes a false distinction between "a hidden variable" and "a hidden variable controlled by another hidden variable" as if they were different. Bell's theorem covers (or at least appears to cover) any additional information or state, regardless of the theory or process involved, provided that state is "attached" to the entangled particles (that is, it's local).
This argument only seems relevant if your generic theory is completely generic; that is, with the proper choice of parameters, it can be exactly equal to any alternative theory. This is true neither of string theory nor physics-as-cellular-automata.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, also using Shor's algorithm.
No they don't. They think an appropriate penalty for being found guilty of sharing a song is on the order of 10-100k (it varies significantly). You do no one any favors by intentionally (or, I suppose, out of ignorance) confusing the concepts of "penalty" and "value".
Just as easily as a random sample can accurately reflect a population as a whole, it can equally be skewed to be a completely inaccurate representation of the real world.
If by "just as easily" you mean "with an enormously lower probability", then yes. But then, that's what a statement of margin of error says.
Statistics isn't all that complicated, and what a statistical measure means can be both demonstrated and proven. You don't need to get all faux existential about how "it's all just a bunch of crap, man". You don't know what you're talking about.
Also, entropy? No such thing as random? Really? Don't inject physical phenomena you clearly don't understand in a discussion about pure mathematics.
There's no fundamental difference between there; it's just that an electric dipole has a nonzero separation and a magnetic dipole has a zero separation.
For one, you can remedy this by either making your electric dipole have a very small separation or moving your charges that are interacting with the dipole "far away". Either way, the electric dipole will be sufficiently similar to a zero-separation dipole.
For another, you don't actually see a lone magnetic dipole in nature, either. They're caused by moving electrons. Both electric dipoles and magnetic dipoles have a fine structure if you get close enough to them.
I'm not visualizing exactly how you propose this wheel and magnet to be built, but magnetic monopoles and dipoles behave exactly as electric monopoles and dipoles. So, build your perpetual motion machine out of electric charges and ferroelectric dipoles instead. Or, analyze how your perpetual motion machine wouldn't actually work. :p
There are no magnetic monopoles. You can try to separate north and south pole. You can even construct models of "magnetic charge" and dipoles if you like. But in the end, you can't get a north pole without having a corresponding south pole, very, very close by.
Interesting. It seems if you properly understood experimentalism, you would say, "No experiment has shown the existence of a magnetic monopole, but no experiment has shown that they must not exist."
You seem to be taking the approach that if an experiment does not show that A is true, then A must be false. Not only would a physicist criticize you (rightly) for this line of reasoning, so would any philosopher or logician.
If a perpetual motion machine would work if only they had a magnetic monopole, they should swap "magnetic" and "electric" everywhere in their design and build the machine. It would work the same way -- the physics of electric and magnetic fields are interchangeable.
You may be insane, but it's not that a lot of people don't understand what a magnetic field is -- it's that you don't understand what a magnetic field is.
"Magnetic field lines" aren't real, anyway, they're a theoretical construct to visualize the magnetic field. Their apparent behavior -- going in a loop from one side of a dipole to another -- is a consequence of the Maxwell equation (div B = 0). Really, it's div B = rho_m (magnetic charge density), but if no magnetic monopoles exist, rho_m is zero everywhere. You cannot use a consequence of (div B = 0) to show (div B = 0), which is what you're doing.
The magnetic field behaves exactly like the electric field. If you want to know what a particular magnetic construct would behave like -- it's exactly the same as the corresponding electric construct. So, for example, you claim that a monopole in the presence of a dipole forms a perpetual motion machine. We certainly have electric dipoles and electric monopoles (charges). There are even crystals that form permanent electric dipoles (ferroelectrics), the electric analogue of a ferromagnet. So, is an electric monopole in the presence of an electric dipole a perpetual motion machine?
curl-H = J_e + dE/dt
curl-E = -(J_m + dB/dt)
The general point is that the article has enormously more information and subtlety, yet has been distilled to a fairly inaccurate attention-grabbing headline.
If you work in science, you see this constantly. It's maddening.
SMBC is completely accurate on this count.
They don't live and breathe new technology -- they live and breathe commodity technology, and think of it as new because they have no familiarity with actual R&D.
First of all, I think that number is way too high.
Just like everyone else who cites a percentage in the high-90s, they just made it up. Do you really think they have any data suggesting that 3 out of 100,000 computer users care?
Depending on whether you say a console application "has a window". Invoked directly by the user, there's no way for it to run without a window. A userland application can be launched by another application without the second application ever having or displaying a window.
But you certainly cannot have GUI applications that are running yet have no window. That requires evil service hacks.
Practical. Basic research requires quite a lot of specialised knowledge, training, and practice.
Uhm, my tax dollars paid for that, so yeah, I want it for free.
No, no. It's "I want what I already paid for."
Perhaps you can appreciate that, as the government does not own or control the infrastructure, they cannot simply "disconnect" it. They could either mandate keeping infrastructure disconnected from the Internet, or they could mandate that they have the ability in the future to disconnect them from the Internet in the event of an attack. This bill is the latter.
Assuming what the bill says and posting an angry, ill-informed reply based on the fabrication is basically the same as reading it, right?
Disconnect is a little difficult. Let's start with something simple, like not having their opinions appear on the front page of Slashdot.
He didn't even point out that Obama's middle name is "Hussein".
Surely you appreciate that the only thing keeping Ron Paul and the libertarians from taking over and fixing the country's problems is that The Man spies on every red-blooded American citizen and silences their political dissent by sending them off to Guantanamo.
With Gitmo being closed, The Man needs another means of keeping silent the influential bloggers that could otherwise oust them from power.
What's surprising is that Big Brother actually let information about this new plan slip out to the sheeple, rather than keeping it under wraps (just like Area 51 and Apollo).
I'm not entirely sure how you intend that to be applied to this topic, but it's certainly true. To use Rumsfeld's terms, unknown unknowns are completely different from known unknowns.
"Hidden" in this sense doesn't mean "impossible to deduce by experiment" but simply "currently unknown to us".
It's not really valid, though; it makes a false distinction between "a hidden variable" and "a hidden variable controlled by another hidden variable" as if they were different. Bell's theorem covers (or at least appears to cover) any additional information or state, regardless of the theory or process involved, provided that state is "attached" to the entangled particles (that is, it's local).
This argument only seems relevant if your generic theory is completely generic; that is, with the proper choice of parameters, it can be exactly equal to any alternative theory. This is true neither of string theory nor physics-as-cellular-automata.