What another groan worthy/. summary. It's not the standing waves that equate to photons. The only thing photonic here is the quantum exchange between the light field and the electrons used for imaging.
And no, you don't need to have several PhDs to understand this, reading the articles at the links totally suffices.
Color me unimpressed. While somewhat original the whole approach is completely flawed. There are many more things than just stars in the universe. After all, for all we know, the visible universe only makes up a small portion of all matter.
Marketing also encompasses requirement gathering i.e. understanding what the market needs. Especially for the fast moving software industry it is a core business process and about much more than just advertising and branding.
(DISCLAIMER: I do not work for Bayesia, but actually a competitor, yet any person or company that understand Bayesianism as a sound foundation for knowledge inference knows this dirty little secret about Watson)
A better source for entangled photon pairs will come in handy for Quantum Cryptography, but Quantum Computing requires many entangled qubits.
There is no indication how these resonators could produce more than pair-wise entanglement, after all this is very different from the Josephson junction loops that D-Wave and the future Google chip are build on. These allow an arbitrary coupling via the magnetic flux (only restricted by the chip's geometry).
What's in a name? I also thought Bluetooth was idiotic when it came out, but there are only so many short and descriptive names. Getting a trademark is actually not that easy, and in the end the only thing that matters is that it is unique, and that your competition can't take it away from you.
Firefox, Chrome etc. aren't particular descriptive names but everybody now knows what they stand for.
That was in 1997 when I worked at what later became the KIT.
Back then they tested an early artificial neural net controller under real life conditions on the Autobahn A8. The driver just sat with his arms folded behind the wheel.
This technology has been a long time coming and still lawmakers haven't caught on to it.
Complex molecules have characteristic absorption spectra. More energy per photon will not work if you move it outside the specific energy gap (a classical analog would be resonance, if the frequency fits little energy will suffice).
As somebody who has worked on artificial neural networks in the past, and holds a physics degree, I don't think that this assessment is wrong.
I think at this point this is more a curiosity. Interesting in it's own right, but not something that I would expect to yield new and improved algorithms.
Really have no idea what your are talking about. As far as I am concerned Frozen and Tangled are perfectly fine, but my favorite remains Lilo and Stitch.
Doubt that you've watched any of them, but if you have then please get a bit more concrete about what you consider to be negative 'feminist' influence. I.e. plot points characterizations etc.
So far you made the most well reasoned argument on behalf on the whiners and than you lost me with this:
"... the last Disney movies are also feminist porn of the bad kind."
See, I have two daughters, and the classical Disney princess role model just makes me want to hurl. So I very much appreciate that they at least try a little bit to break away from this. Yet, with Frozen it still was way too much about the dress and being pretty. But at least they got nicely across that just because a dude's a prince, and a smooth talker, doesn't mean you should just fall for him.
The latter is a message that any dad will very much appreciate. If you think that's feminist you obviously don't have a daughter.
Slashdot Mirror
Really it's just the equivalent of a fourier transformations. Something engineers use all the time.
It really isn't that complicated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
What another groan worthy /. summary. It's not the standing waves that equate to photons. The only thing photonic here is the quantum exchange between the light field and the electrons used for imaging.
And no, you don't need to have several PhDs to understand this, reading the articles at the links totally suffices.
The US is late to the game. In Germany you sometime get 50% of the power load from solar on especially sunny summer days, while hardly any in the winter. The demand on the grid is of course brutal, but so far has been manageable.
Gas turbine power plants are key for load balancing.
Color me unimpressed. While somewhat original the whole approach is completely flawed. There are many more things than just stars in the universe. After all, for all we know, the visible universe only makes up a small portion of all matter.
How do you think will Quantum Computers or more specifically Quantum Cellular Automatons impact IT?
Marketing also encompasses requirement gathering i.e. understanding what the market needs. Especially for the fast moving software industry it is a core business process and about much more than just advertising and branding.
You are absolutely right, only problem is that Watson doesn't perform proper statistics. It's anything but Bayesian learning.
Watson was impressive on Jeopardy, but a TV show is a very different venue than business data analytics.
For the latter you really need a statistically sound approach in order to reach the right conclusion.
(DISCLAIMER: I do not work for Bayesia, but actually a competitor, yet any person or company that understand Bayesianism as a sound foundation for knowledge inference knows this dirty little secret about Watson)
A better source for entangled photon pairs will come in handy for Quantum Cryptography, but Quantum Computing requires many entangled qubits.
There is no indication how these resonators could produce more than pair-wise entanglement, after all this is very different from the Josephson junction loops that D-Wave and the future Google chip are build on. These allow an arbitrary coupling via the magnetic flux (only restricted by the chip's geometry).
Regrettably, this just yet another poorly written pop-science article not informed by any actual knowledge of quantum information science. If I had a cent for each of them I'd be rich by now.
What's in a name? I also thought Bluetooth was idiotic when it came out, but there are only so many short and descriptive names. Getting a trademark is actually not that easy, and in the end the only thing that matters is that it is unique, and that your competition can't take it away from you.
Firefox, Chrome etc. aren't particular descriptive names but everybody now knows what they stand for.
So let me get this straight, you seriously don't know who Vivaldi was, and you think everybody else is as proudly ignorant as you are.
Obviously the name works perfectly. This browser is not for you.
KITT, not invented in Germany but certainly embraced like nowhere else by an entire generation of German pre-teen boys.
Probably lead directly to this prototype.
That was in 1997 when I worked at what later became the KIT.
Back then they tested an early artificial neural net controller under real life conditions on the Autobahn A8. The driver just sat with his arms folded behind the wheel.
This technology has been a long time coming and still lawmakers haven't caught on to it.
And if you value freedom and liberty and good public health care you can move to Canada (that's what I did).
How the times have changed.
Complex molecules have characteristic absorption spectra. More energy per photon will not work if you move it outside the specific energy gap (a classical analog would be resonance, if the frequency fits little energy will suffice).
Remarkable. Does your business have a web site?
As somebody who has worked on artificial neural networks in the past, and holds a physics degree, I don't think that this assessment is wrong.
I think at this point this is more a curiosity. Interesting in it's own right, but not something that I would expect to yield new and improved algorithms.
No worries anonymous coward. If he has already been found guilty in the court of wikipedia why wait on the earthly jurisprudence.
All good.
Dang it, I moderated this as 'Funny' but it still shows as "Informative" which it really isn't.
Now I have to write this comment just to role back the moderation.
And boy, you must just hate the Legend of Korra ...
Really have no idea what your are talking about. As far as I am concerned Frozen and Tangled are perfectly fine, but my favorite remains Lilo and Stitch.
Doubt that you've watched any of them, but if you have then please get a bit more concrete about what you consider to be negative 'feminist' influence. I.e. plot points characterizations etc.
So far you made the most well reasoned argument on behalf on the whiners and than you lost me with this:
"... the last Disney movies are also feminist porn of the bad kind."
See, I have two daughters, and the classical Disney princess role model just makes me want to hurl. So I very much appreciate that they at least try a little bit to break away from this. Yet, with Frozen it still was way too much about the dress and being pretty. But at least they got nicely across that just because a dude's a prince, and a smooth talker, doesn't mean you should just fall for him.
The latter is a message that any dad will very much appreciate. If you think that's feminist you obviously don't have a daughter.
Embarrassment is like athletes foot, it just crops up uninvited and no matter how much you scratch, it just won't go away.
But thanks anyway.
BTW I don't know why the dude's in a Stormtrooper outfit, but I have a hunch that he won't be the villain.
Good point.