After their offices were firebombed in 2011, cartoonist and editor-in-chief Stéphane Charbonnier, who is rumored to be one of the causalities of today's attack, said he did not see the bombing as the work of French Muslims, but of what he called "idiot extremists." Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
As I understand it, Pilot Wave theory is a hidden variable theory, and Bell's Theorem says you can have hidden variables or locality (meaning no action-at-a-distance), but you can't have both, and most physicists really don't like the idea of giving up locality.
So I haven't read too much into pilot wave theory, but it's a hidden variable theory, and according to Bell's Theorem, you can have hidden variables, you can have "locality" (meaning no action at a distance), but you can't have both. And most physicists would MUCH RATHER have locality than hidden variables.
One particle doesn't interfere with itself, and can't because the interference pattern is seen in the density of collisions over an area.
As many of these single dots build up, they tend to cluster around an interference pattern - as if some particles went through one slit, and some particles went through the other slit.
Not quite--and that's really the key element of this whole thing: the particle somehow DOES interfere with itself, because the interference pattern that builds up, just one particle / one dot at a time is DIFFERENT than what you'd get if each particle only went through one hole. Imagine you're up on a ladder, dropping beanbags through a plank with two slits in it (you can cover those slits if you want), and they form a pile on the ground below. If the beanbags can only go through one slit, the pile you get on the ground is a nice mound. If you open up BOTH slits, then what you expect is TWO mounds. If the slits are close enough together, you expect those mounds to overlap, with the height at each spot being AT LEAST AS HIGH as the height you'd see dropping the beanbags through just one hole.
But instead, what you see in the double-slit experiment is that, in between the two mounts, you get spots where there are FEWER beanbags than you'd get dropping them through just one hole. Somehow, instead of getting that 1+1=2, you're finding that 1+1=0. The beanbags are all still there--it's not like they're cancelling each other out.. they're just not all where you'd expect them.
The ONLY WAY to explain this (that we've found so far) is if each beanbag, which, again, you're dropping one at a time, somehow goes through BOTH slits and INTERFERES WITH ITSELF. This is where the idea of wave-particle duality comes in, because the patterns that you see (with valleys where there should be ridges) are similar to what you'd see with water waves or sound waves (sound waves can cancel each other out--that's the whole premise behind noise-cancelling headphones).
So then why don't we just say that photons (and beanbags) are waves and not particles at all? Well, because classical waves aren't "quantal," meaning you can't divide sound waves into discrete, indivisible components. You can have one "particle" of light (a photon). There's no corresponding discrete element of sound. So we say that they're particles after all, and simply adjust our thinking regarding just what a particle is and how one behaves.
You build a box. That box contains a Geiger counter, which clicks if it detects the decay of a particle. Because you're a sick, sadistic fuck, you hook up that Geiger counter to a hammer such that if the Geiger counter detects the decay, it engages the hammer to smash a vial of poison, thus releasing it into the box. You then--because, as I said, have issues with sociopathy--put a cat in the box and close the lid. The box is very thick, completely opaque and completely soundproof. You have no way of knowing what's going on inside the box.
You wait an hour. In that hour, you do some maths that shows that there was a 50% chance that the particle decayed, triggering the Geiger counter, which triggered the hammer to break the vial of poison, releasing the gas and killing the cat.
The question becomes: before you open the box, is the cat alive or dead? Or is it somehow...both?
Your gut instinct is to say, "That's stupid. Of course it's either alive or dead. How the fuck could it be both?"
But the thing is, there are certain, non-cat-related experiments that we've done that REQUIRE the answer to be BOTH. Perhaps the simplest (and certainly the one we physicists learn about first) is the double-slit experiment. The basic idea is, you shoot a beam of something (light, gold atoms, DNA, doesn't really matter) at a slit, and it forms a pattern on a wall. It'll form this pattern even if you shoot your particles one at a time. Then, you close that slit and open another one, and fire your beam again. It forms a different pattern.
Now you open BOTH slits and fire your beam. What happens? Well, what you'd expect is to get a pattern that's the SUM of the pattern you get through each slit. That corresponds to the idea that the particles each go through either Slit 1 or Slit 2. But instead what you get is an INTERFERENCE pattern, which can ONLY happen if the particles are going through BOTH HOLES. And recall I said earlier--you get the same pattern even if you shoot your particles one at a time, which means THE PARTICLE MUST BE INTERFERING WITH ITSELF.
So back to the cat: is it alive or dead, or is it alive AND dead? According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, it's both. But that's why the cat thought experiment was devised in the first place: to highlight how RIDICULOUS that was. The crazy thing is that, seventy years later, we don't really have a better interpretation (at least not one that's widely accepted). So until someone builds this possibly-cat-killing box, we won't really know if the Copenhagen Interpretation is right, or whether something even stranger goes on when quantum events get amplified to the macro level.
One final note: practically speaking, there's no way to build this experiment, because of the whole "you have no way of knowing if the cat is alive or dead without opening the box" part. Isolating a system as big as a cat-box from the rest of the universe is not really feasible. You would also have to construct a particle decay detector that did not, itself, "collapse" the waveform of the decaying particle (otherwise the paradox is resolved before you ever make it to the cat).
Here we show that [wave-particle duality relations] correspond precisely to a modern formulation of the uncertainty principle in terms of entropies, namely the min- and max-entropies. This observation unifies two fundamental concepts in quantum mechanics. Furthermore, it leads to a robust framework for deriving novel WPDRs by applying entropic uncertainty relations to interferometric models.
So they're looking at it in terms of entropies, and when they do, it resolves a debate about whether WPDRs are equivalent to the Uncertainty Principle AND generates new WPDRs.
Not impressed? Was not meant to impress you. That is per year not per month.
Quick pedantic note: the unit is kWh, not kW/h. Watt is energy over time. So Watt / hour would be energy over time squared. Your energy consumption per year is 1700 kWh or 6120 Megajoules.
I was really excited to see that new builds of ffmpeg (which is FOSS) implement the hqx family of filters, but I've also read that these filters are pretty outdated at this point. So I was hoping that this article would be a comparison of upscaling algorithms, both free and proprietary. But alas...
Wow is this uneducated. I can't speak to the federal workforce as a whole, but for a variety of technical fields, like the one described in this article, as well as my own (data science), the federal government pays "competitively" but salaries in the private sector tend to be quite a bit higher. As for the hours and the benefits, that's largely a function of where you work, but I will point out that federal pensions for new hires got slashed as part of a recent round of budget negotiations.
VR control of robots (and body swapping/mind-sharing with other humans) is the central premise of Joe Haldeman's Forever Peace. Definitely a novel worth reading.
Sorry, my original post was unclear. I am completely uninterested in either phone, and those (plus the S4) are the only ones I've managed to find that have keyboard cases.
The problem is that the Galaxy S4 and the iPhone are basically the only two phones for which someone has bothered to make one of these. If someone were to make one for the Nexus 4/5, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
Have not managed to find a keyboard case for a single phone that I would actually consider buying. iPhone? nope. Samsung Galaxy III? Nuh uh. There exists not a single keyboard case for the Nexus 4/5. If someone makes one, I will buy it in a heartbeat.
Presumably there's a general compression algorithm that works on all data types, but Richard wrote specific optimizations for certain media types (the original goal of the project was to process music, so he probably started there).
Slashdot Mirror
After their offices were firebombed in 2011, cartoonist and editor-in-chief Stéphane Charbonnier, who is rumored to be one of the causalities of today's attack, said he did not see the bombing as the work of French Muslims, but of what he called "idiot extremists." Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
The Wi-Fi issues with Yosemite were horrible. What was worse was that they refused to acknowledge there was an issue for MONTHS.
Maybe they just REALLY don't like Inbox.
As I understand it, Pilot Wave theory is a hidden variable theory, and Bell's Theorem says you can have hidden variables or locality (meaning no action-at-a-distance), but you can't have both, and most physicists really don't like the idea of giving up locality.
So I haven't read too much into pilot wave theory, but it's a hidden variable theory, and according to Bell's Theorem, you can have hidden variables, you can have "locality" (meaning no action at a distance), but you can't have both. And most physicists would MUCH RATHER have locality than hidden variables.
One particle doesn't interfere with itself, and can't because the interference pattern is seen in the density of collisions over an area.
As many of these single dots build up, they tend to cluster around an interference pattern - as if some particles went through one slit, and some particles went through the other slit.
Not quite--and that's really the key element of this whole thing: the particle somehow DOES interfere with itself, because the interference pattern that builds up, just one particle / one dot at a time is DIFFERENT than what you'd get if each particle only went through one hole. Imagine you're up on a ladder, dropping beanbags through a plank with two slits in it (you can cover those slits if you want), and they form a pile on the ground below. If the beanbags can only go through one slit, the pile you get on the ground is a nice mound. If you open up BOTH slits, then what you expect is TWO mounds. If the slits are close enough together, you expect those mounds to overlap, with the height at each spot being AT LEAST AS HIGH as the height you'd see dropping the beanbags through just one hole.
But instead, what you see in the double-slit experiment is that, in between the two mounts, you get spots where there are FEWER beanbags than you'd get dropping them through just one hole. Somehow, instead of getting that 1+1=2, you're finding that 1+1=0. The beanbags are all still there--it's not like they're cancelling each other out.. they're just not all where you'd expect them.
The ONLY WAY to explain this (that we've found so far) is if each beanbag, which, again, you're dropping one at a time, somehow goes through BOTH slits and INTERFERES WITH ITSELF. This is where the idea of wave-particle duality comes in, because the patterns that you see (with valleys where there should be ridges) are similar to what you'd see with water waves or sound waves (sound waves can cancel each other out--that's the whole premise behind noise-cancelling headphones).
So then why don't we just say that photons (and beanbags) are waves and not particles at all? Well, because classical waves aren't "quantal," meaning you can't divide sound waves into discrete, indivisible components. You can have one "particle" of light (a photon). There's no corresponding discrete element of sound. So we say that they're particles after all, and simply adjust our thinking regarding just what a particle is and how one behaves.
Ok, let me give this a crack.
You build a box. That box contains a Geiger counter, which clicks if it detects the decay of a particle. Because you're a sick, sadistic fuck, you hook up that Geiger counter to a hammer such that if the Geiger counter detects the decay, it engages the hammer to smash a vial of poison, thus releasing it into the box. You then--because, as I said, have issues with sociopathy--put a cat in the box and close the lid. The box is very thick, completely opaque and completely soundproof. You have no way of knowing what's going on inside the box.
You wait an hour. In that hour, you do some maths that shows that there was a 50% chance that the particle decayed, triggering the Geiger counter, which triggered the hammer to break the vial of poison, releasing the gas and killing the cat.
The question becomes: before you open the box, is the cat alive or dead? Or is it somehow...both?
Your gut instinct is to say, "That's stupid. Of course it's either alive or dead. How the fuck could it be both?"
But the thing is, there are certain, non-cat-related experiments that we've done that REQUIRE the answer to be BOTH. Perhaps the simplest (and certainly the one we physicists learn about first) is the double-slit experiment. The basic idea is, you shoot a beam of something (light, gold atoms, DNA, doesn't really matter) at a slit, and it forms a pattern on a wall. It'll form this pattern even if you shoot your particles one at a time. Then, you close that slit and open another one, and fire your beam again. It forms a different pattern.
Now you open BOTH slits and fire your beam. What happens? Well, what you'd expect is to get a pattern that's the SUM of the pattern you get through each slit. That corresponds to the idea that the particles each go through either Slit 1 or Slit 2. But instead what you get is an INTERFERENCE pattern, which can ONLY happen if the particles are going through BOTH HOLES. And recall I said earlier--you get the same pattern even if you shoot your particles one at a time, which means THE PARTICLE MUST BE INTERFERING WITH ITSELF.
So back to the cat: is it alive or dead, or is it alive AND dead? According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, it's both. But that's why the cat thought experiment was devised in the first place: to highlight how RIDICULOUS that was. The crazy thing is that, seventy years later, we don't really have a better interpretation (at least not one that's widely accepted). So until someone builds this possibly-cat-killing box, we won't really know if the Copenhagen Interpretation is right, or whether something even stranger goes on when quantum events get amplified to the macro level.
One final note: practically speaking, there's no way to build this experiment, because of the whole "you have no way of knowing if the cat is alive or dead without opening the box" part. Isolating a system as big as a cat-box from the rest of the universe is not really feasible. You would also have to construct a particle decay detector that did not, itself, "collapse" the waveform of the decaying particle (otherwise the paradox is resolved before you ever make it to the cat).
Hope that was helpful!
Here we show that [wave-particle duality relations] correspond precisely to a modern formulation of the uncertainty principle in terms of entropies, namely the min- and max-entropies. This observation unifies two fundamental concepts in quantum mechanics. Furthermore, it leads to a robust framework for deriving novel WPDRs by applying entropic uncertainty relations to interferometric models.
So they're looking at it in terms of entropies, and when they do, it resolves a debate about whether WPDRs are equivalent to the Uncertainty Principle AND generates new WPDRs.
You can't tell me that thing doesn't look like it has a scrotum.
physically locked.
But both of my desktop monitors are locked into landscape. Now what I'd *really* like to see is a portrait (or a flippable) LAPTOP monitor...
It's Serge!
Unless they're allowed to compete in the same markets, I'm really not sure how that would help.
is about 1700kW/h electric.
Not impressed? Was not meant to impress you. That is per year not per month.
Quick pedantic note: the unit is kWh, not kW/h. Watt is energy over time. So Watt / hour would be energy over time squared. Your energy consumption per year is 1700 kWh or 6120 Megajoules.
I've been hearing about batteries being needed for sun and wind is as long as I've been hearing about sun and wind...
I was really excited to see that new builds of ffmpeg (which is FOSS) implement the hqx family of filters, but I've also read that these filters are pretty outdated at this point. So I was hoping that this article would be a comparison of upscaling algorithms, both free and proprietary. But alas...
Wow is this uneducated. I can't speak to the federal workforce as a whole, but for a variety of technical fields, like the one described in this article, as well as my own (data science), the federal government pays "competitively" but salaries in the private sector tend to be quite a bit higher. As for the hours and the benefits, that's largely a function of where you work, but I will point out that federal pensions for new hires got slashed as part of a recent round of budget negotiations.
Sandtrout were pretty tiny and just as integral to the Dune ecosystem (IIRC, melange was their excretion).
That's what I thought I remembered from reading The Hot Zone, but I think this strain might be a bit more virulent--there've evidently been reported cases of contracting the disease at funerals of infected individuals.
VR control of robots (and body swapping/mind-sharing with other humans) is the central premise of Joe Haldeman's Forever Peace . Definitely a novel worth reading.
That's like saying I "own" the variable "x", and that all graphics programmers now need to pay me to lease use of that variable name.
Because that's never happened before.
Sorry, my original post was unclear. I am completely uninterested in either phone, and those (plus the S4) are the only ones I've managed to find that have keyboard cases.
The problem is that the Galaxy S4 and the iPhone are basically the only two phones for which someone has bothered to make one of these. If someone were to make one for the Nexus 4/5, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
Have not managed to find a keyboard case for a single phone that I would actually consider buying. iPhone? nope. Samsung Galaxy III? Nuh uh. There exists not a single keyboard case for the Nexus 4/5. If someone makes one, I will buy it in a heartbeat.
Presumably there's a general compression algorithm that works on all data types, but Richard wrote specific optimizations for certain media types (the original goal of the project was to process music, so he probably started there).