Yes, in fact it's pretty much required to make a practical quantum computer (because the pesky environment interacts with the computer, reading the quantum states when, say, a particle collides with one in the computer). But you have to do so without copying anything, so they aren't based on redundancy like classical error correcting codes.
If you have a person with identical body, memories, personality, beliefs, thoughts etc and the original no longer exists, are they the same person?
There is a theory I've heard that on a quantum level the universe is permanently ripped apart and recreated, so this may already be happening to you right now. Not sure what it's called or where I heard it though. If so, what's different about this?
Unfortunately it must be destroyed, as quantum mechanics prevents us copying (well, cloning) anything. Look up the No Cloning Theorem for the technical explanation and mathematical proof if you're interested.:)
Basically true.:) And the reason it's so useful is that you don't need to read the state first atom to transport it, which nicely gets around the fact that quantum mechanics prevents you reading something and it having the same state afterwards (beforehand it has a probability of being in each possible state, after reading it can only be in the state you saw it in). It does unfortunately for that reason destroy the original though.
On a macroscopic level it might be possible to transport an object in the Star Trek fashion, by copying every property of every atom in the first object to another object. The second object would have the same quantum state as the first did (but no longer has) so theoretically is identical and therefore effectively 'is' the original object. The problem is that you need something to copy to, something much like equal mass displacement except the problem is you might even need the same particles/atoms/molecules, in the same locations and everything. In which case the object you want to transport is already there anyway.
You also have the problems of whether we'd be copying every quantum property (what of the ones we might not know about) and the metaphysics question of whether anything like a soul would go with it if it was an animal/person being transported.
It's incredibly useful for quantum computing, whether it'll ever be of use on a macroscopic level is a very different matter.
I've had XP crash with the BSOD a few times, but reading that it's always been a buggy driver and not Windows itself. The worst culprit was the old Dlink DSL-200 I used to have, which would do it every 20 minutes or so and thus wasn't around for long.
They do interact with matter, but because they're very small they simply pass straight through matter because the distance between particles in atoms / atoms are so great and only actually collide very rarely.
When you give the players such an open system like a skill-based system, the developers have exponentially more work on their hands. They have to make sure all the combinations are viable gaming options.
Poppycock. There is no reason why a certain skill set needs to be viable. It's OK if no one plays that combo. What they need to do is to make certan that certain combinations aren't overpowered.
I think that's what he meant by viable; and none being underpowered too.
The problem is that "copying" the file without redistribution or profit is confused with "copy"right when it really is petty theft.
Are you accused of copyright violations when you shoplift a CD from a store? No. Are you accused of copyright violations when you sell said stolen goods? No.
Then what is the difference?
The difference is in the legal definition of theft.
In the UK, this is defined in the Theft Act 1968: "(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and 'theft' and 'steal' shall be construed accordingly."
The US has a different law but uses the same definition. The key point is it is theft if, and only if, you permanently deprive the other of it. When you steal a CD from a shop, they no longer possess that CD. That is theft. When you download a song or copy a CD, the other person still has the CD. That is the difference.
If you then try to sell it it makes no difference, because you have already stolen it. Same law (probably a harsher sentence though).
Copyright laws are completely separate to theft. They allow the owner to control when you can copy their work. They can give you permission (e.g. to publishers so they're allowed to create the copies to sell) or not (by default). They exist because theft does not cover copying work, because the original still exists.
That would need high temperatures and pressure near the surface.
It's possible that it has cooled enough to have frozen solid near the surface (thus no longer having techtonic plates or eruptions), but it could still be molten at the centre.
I worked there too for a while (student placement).
21CN is basically running fiberoptic cable to the green box at the end of your road, and you only use ADSL as far as that box. That'll let you get much faster speeds than ADSL does currently, and it won't matter how far you are from the exchange. In the longer term they may even run fiberoptic straight into your house.
Once they've done that they'll move the entire phone network onto running over a network using the IP protocol (they've already done this for the core of the network). That's where the VOIP comes in - they'll move calls onto IP.
It goes further than that though because they'll have much faster connections than now and be able to do things like HDTV streaming.
Whether it's worth it is debatable. Phonewise, it won't really be different now, except for subtle differences like being able to use your computer as a phone (easily). The increase in speed will be nice on it's own, but should also lead to people coming up with new ways of using it which BT's hoping. The new connection's should also be more reliable and easier to debug when there is a problem. It'll take quite a while to upgrade though, and cost them a hell of a lot.
You're forgetting the 0th generation - Tennis For Two http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_for_Two (1958 Pong like game in an analog circuit and displayed on an oscilloscope).
It's very easy to get fusion to occur if you just want an uncontrolled explosion - the difficult part is working out how to control it so that we can use it to generate power.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks really good, and it's even working on x64 (except shell integration, I might try porting it if I have time).
Couple of wishes, but they're probably already there if I get shell integration working. (Like 'Move to Desktop').
Anyone know if you can set a hotkey to show/hide the desktops window? I don't want it there all the time, but want to get it to show on a hotkey...
On the whole it's far better than the last ones I tried (which were slow and kept losing windows).
The best proof of how good a feature it is, that once you do they can't imagine not using it a week later.
Yes, in fact it's pretty much required to make a practical quantum computer (because the pesky environment interacts with the computer, reading the quantum states when, say, a particle collides with one in the computer). But you have to do so without copying anything, so they aren't based on redundancy like classical error correcting codes.
Philosophy time!
If you have a person with identical body, memories, personality, beliefs, thoughts etc and the original no longer exists, are they the same person?
There is a theory I've heard that on a quantum level the universe is permanently ripped apart and recreated, so this may already be happening to you right now. Not sure what it's called or where I heard it though.
If so, what's different about this?
And in this pre-FLT universe, that's a problem how exactly? ;-)
Unfortunately it must be destroyed, as quantum mechanics prevents us copying (well, cloning) anything. Look up the No Cloning Theorem for the technical explanation and mathematical proof if you're interested. :)
Basically true. :) And the reason it's so useful is that you don't need to read the state first atom to transport it, which nicely gets around the fact that quantum mechanics prevents you reading something and it having the same state afterwards (beforehand it has a probability of being in each possible state, after reading it can only be in the state you saw it in). It does unfortunately for that reason destroy the original though.
On a macroscopic level it might be possible to transport an object in the Star Trek fashion, by copying every property of every atom in the first object to another object. The second object would have the same quantum state as the first did (but no longer has) so theoretically is identical and therefore effectively 'is' the original object.
The problem is that you need something to copy to, something much like equal mass displacement except the problem is you might even need the same particles/atoms/molecules, in the same locations and everything. In which case the object you want to transport is already there anyway.
You also have the problems of whether we'd be copying every quantum property (what of the ones we might not know about) and the metaphysics question of whether anything like a soul would go with it if it was an animal/person being transported.
It's incredibly useful for quantum computing, whether it'll ever be of use on a macroscopic level is a very different matter.
As you do on Facebook, you just grant them a licence to use it.
Spooky. He sang that line at exactly the same time as I read that. :)
I've had XP crash with the BSOD a few times, but reading that it's always been a buggy driver and not Windows itself. The worst culprit was the old Dlink DSL-200 I used to have, which would do it every 20 minutes or so and thus wasn't around for long.
(of the electron variety anyway)
Moreover recent experiments have shown they do have mass (see Wikipedia).
They know their mass is >= 0 and 2.2 eV, hence why the proposed 2eV is possible.
They do interact with matter, but because they're very small they simply pass straight through matter because the distance between particles in atoms / atoms are so great and only actually collide very rarely.
Excellent. I tried 1.5 in beta, I might try this version out too.
But do they have official 64 bit support yet?
The problem is that "copying" the file without redistribution or profit is confused with "copy"right when it really is petty theft.
Are you accused of copyright violations when you shoplift a CD from a store? No.
Are you accused of copyright violations when you sell said stolen goods? No.
Then what is the difference?
The difference is in the legal definition of theft.
In the UK, this is defined in the Theft Act 1968:
"(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to
another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and 'theft' and 'steal'
shall be construed accordingly."
The US has a different law but uses the same definition. The key point is it is theft if, and only if, you permanently deprive the other of it. When you steal a CD from a shop, they no longer possess that CD. That is theft. When you download a song or copy a CD, the other person still has the CD. That is the difference.
If you then try to sell it it makes no difference, because you have already stolen it. Same law (probably a harsher sentence though).
Copyright laws are completely separate to theft. They allow the owner to control when you can copy their work. They can give you permission (e.g. to publishers so they're allowed to create the copies to sell) or not (by default). They exist because theft does not cover copying work, because the original still exists.
That would need high temperatures and pressure near the surface.
It's possible that it has cooled enough to have frozen solid near the surface (thus no longer having techtonic plates or eruptions), but it could still be molten at the centre.
I worked there too for a while (student placement).
21CN is basically running fiberoptic cable to the green box at the end of your road, and you only use ADSL as far as that box. That'll let you get much faster speeds than ADSL does currently, and it won't matter how far you are from the exchange. In the longer term they may even run fiberoptic straight into your house.
Once they've done that they'll move the entire phone network onto running over a network using the IP protocol (they've already done this for the core of the network). That's where the VOIP comes in - they'll move calls onto IP.
It goes further than that though because they'll have much faster connections than now and be able to do things like HDTV streaming.
Whether it's worth it is debatable. Phonewise, it won't really be different now, except for subtle differences like being able to use your computer as a phone (easily). The increase in speed will be nice on it's own, but should also lead to people coming up with new ways of using it which BT's hoping. The new connection's should also be more reliable and easier to debug when there is a problem. It'll take quite a while to upgrade though, and cost them a hell of a lot.
You're forgetting the 0th generation - Tennis For Two
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_for_Two
(1958 Pong like game in an analog circuit and displayed on an oscilloscope).
Likely no immediate danger of weapon proliferation...
Actually none - the fusion based nuclear weapons already exist and have done for decades: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-bomb.
It's very easy to get fusion to occur if you just want an uncontrolled explosion - the difficult part is working out how to control it so that we can use it to generate power.
its performance.
Me? Tired?
Oops that should have been:
3.7 * 1.40 = 5.18
But this seems reminiscent of the Intel vs AMD argument - its clock isn't 40% faster, but it's performance could be.
Perhaps he means equivalent to...?
3.34 * 1.40 = 5.18
not over-hype a new product
You're new to this planet, aren't you?
Simple, by making water run uphill.
"But the team, writing in Physical Review Letters, believes the effect may be useful in driving coolants through overheating computer microchips."