Either: population growth stops, and the whole growing economy model falls apart.
That's not true. Economic growth (expressed in dollars) can also be driven by increase in efficiency and automation. Simple proof: the economic output of 100 US-Americans is much higher than the economic output of 100 Papua-New-Guineans. The 100 Papua-New-Guineans could increase their economic output (i.e. grown their economy) by employing the same tools and processes as the Americans.
Some contractual details are given in the article: the use of the seven images was limited to 3 years (from 2011), to within Austria and for internet/brochures/adverts of maximum A5 size (A5 is about half the size of US Letter format).
The photographer had asked a symbolic license of 6 EUR fee for using of six photos over 3 years and 450 EUR for the seventh photo. In anticipation of further business with the hotel chain, as he explained.
He could use your wedding photos for advertising his own shop (many photographers do exactly that) and yes, he could license your photos to whoever is looking for photos of a wedding.
What you don't get is that America's comparative advantage is bullshit, AKA "marketing".
That is officially recognized. The World Economic Forum calls it "Business Sophistication" http://reports.weforum.org/glo... and scoring high in this area (the US do) is indicative of advanced economies.
It's the human learning principle taken further. The point is that an AI is immortal, whereas human beings are not. It takes 10-20 years for a human child to learn a (meanwhile tiny) fraction of human knowledge and ideas. In contrast, an AI can keep learning as long as you keep the hardware running - you can even copy it's state to a new hardware. That will become a huge difference in future, potentially making AIs more powerful thinkers. It could be that AIs will be used to combine research and ideas from different domains where no human experts exist that are proficient in both.
Well, no. Since neutrino oscillations are confirmed we are good again as we expect to see only 1/3 of the total neutrino flux (the other 2/3 are the two neutrino flavours muon- and tau-neutrinos that our detectors are not sensitive to)
Before the experimental proof, most scientists tended to side with the Standard Model, i.e. massless neutrinos and therefore no oscillations - which meant that seeing only 1/3 of the expected neutrino flux from the sun indicates something's wrong, either with the sun or with the model of the sun predicting neutrino flux.
The authors report coherence times of 120us and 61us for the two (slightly different) Qubits. Experimental evidence for Qubit Q2 is provided in the Supplementary Material and for Qubit Q1 in reference 4.
Also, citing: " the error can be less than 1%, corresponding to a fidelity above 99% for the two-qubit CZ gate. The fast two-qubit operation frequency implies also that over 100,000 CZ gates can be performed within the single-qubit coherence time. [4]"
and further
"The tremendeous progress of quantum error correction codes over the last decade has resulted in schemes that allow fault-tolerant quantum computing with single and two-qubit errors as high as 1% [10]; values that already seem consistent with the fidelities of these silicon quantum dot qubits. These qubit fidelities could be further improved by lowering the sensitivity to electrical noise. This could be achieved by designing the two-qubit system such that it is completely decoupled from the reservoir during qubit control, possibly by additional pulsing on the barrier gates."
My feeling is that artists provide a creative source of "noise" and crazy ideas that are critical for breakthroughs. Such kind of out-of-the-box thinking is heavily sought after in the scientific community. Science really needs sometimes a "mutation" of ideas to make the next big leap. Just throwing money at a problem will give you only incremental small steps of improvement. Ideas are the most important ingredient for scientific breakthrough. Therefore I encourage scientists to expose themselves to art and I also value artists' contributions although many of them don't make sense (to me).
Scientists don't get paid to figure out a particular problem, at least not in academia. That happens only in commercial research. In the majority of cases scientists get to select the problem they want to solve themselves (the finding of a sufficiently interesting problem itself being a difficult task). Often in countries there are overseeing funding agencies, like NSF, DARPA, DOD who define broad areas of research focus, but they don't assign them to scientists in a top down manner.
In fact, scientists very often try to explain very obvious things. It's very rare to discover something truly new and usually it is by accident: you find something new and remarkable when you were actually trying to understand the obvious.
Where Excel 2003 would fail to load an complex file, OpenOffice (didn't try LibreOffice at that time) would load the same file just fine. Complex in the sense of lot's of cells used ( a few hundred rows with about 50 columns - not that much actually), with only basic arithmetic- no funky math or functions used.
"they explicitly state that they don't actually think they did"
Where do you find that statement ? In their preprint paper they state:
"An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum of (60.7 ± 6.9 (stat.) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns was measured. This anomaly corresponds to a relative difference of the muon neutrino velocity with respect to the speed of light (v-c)/c = (2.48 ± 0.28 (stat.) ± 0.30 (sys.)) * 10^-5."
That's as explicitly FTL as their data allows. I don't see any denial there. Yes, they are very cautious and they ask others to confirm, but that is very natural for such unexpected results.
With detectors based on Cherenkov radiation like Super-Kamiokande you can determine the direction of the neutrino beam by working out the Cherenkov cone.
The neutrino and photon bursts of SN1987A _have_ been both detected and correlated. The neutrino burst came a few hours earlier than the photons and the explanation was along the line that the photons seen where not the primary photons (i.e. not generated at the same time as the neutrinos).
Well, space offers a nice view. Certainly a motive for tourists. Why would you go to Grand Canyon or Ayers Rock? What can you DO in space? Sure you cannot surf a wave..but a space hike, the experience of low gravity is definitely interesting. I am pretty sure that sooner or later some crazy guys will find a way to have fun in space.
One problem I see: (space) tourism doesn't really create value, like for example building a house does. You literally blow the money into the air/space. Only as a side effect you help space industry to build up. Compared to serious space industry, like satellite deployment or space based observation the return is rather small.
word! To add some content, here is the home page of Bradley E. Schaefer (the guy who made the discovery). There you can find hi-res photos of the globe, a powerpoint presentation which has more details than the NYT article, some quicktime movies (didn't work on my machine) showing the precession of earth's rotation axis and a preprint of the research article.
You can dim LED lights by operating them in pulsed mode and changing the duty cylce. You can do this up to MHz frequencies (for red LEDs - I don't know about white ones), so people (and video cameras) will not notice any flickering. Of course you need a special power supply.
Slashdot Mirror
Either: population growth stops, and the whole growing economy model falls apart.
That's not true. Economic growth (expressed in dollars) can also be driven by increase in efficiency and automation.
Simple proof: the economic output of 100 US-Americans is much higher than the economic output of 100 Papua-New-Guineans.
The 100 Papua-New-Guineans could increase their economic output (i.e. grown their economy) by employing the same tools and processes as the Americans.
You'd think professional journalists would properly cite even link to the original publication.
Oussama Mhibik, Sebastien Chenais, Sebastien Forget, Christophe Defranoux and Sebastien Sanaur: Inkjet-printed vertically emitting solid-state organic lasers, J. Appl. Phys. 119, 173101 (2016).
http://scitation.aip.org/conte...
Some contractual details are given in the article:
the use of the seven images was limited to 3 years (from 2011), to within Austria and for internet/brochures/adverts of maximum A5 size (A5 is about half the size of US Letter format).
The photographer had asked a symbolic license of 6 EUR fee for using of six photos over 3 years and 450 EUR for the seventh photo. In anticipation of further business with the hotel chain, as he explained.
He could use your wedding photos for advertising his own shop (many photographers do exactly that) and yes, he could license your photos to whoever is looking for photos of a wedding.
The rising tide really does lift all boats, and the trick is to not begrudge them their 8% raise when you're only getting a 2% raise.
Indeed. After all, they'll be soon enough or are already customers.
What you don't get is that America's comparative advantage is bullshit, AKA "marketing".
That is officially recognized. The World Economic Forum calls it "Business Sophistication"
http://reports.weforum.org/glo...
and scoring high in this area (the US do) is indicative of advanced economies.
The middle class in other countries is exactly what you want to have. They buy iphones like crazy, among other things.
It's the human learning principle taken further. The point is that an AI is immortal, whereas human beings are not. It takes 10-20 years for a human child to learn a (meanwhile tiny) fraction of human knowledge and ideas. In contrast, an AI can keep learning as long as you keep the hardware running - you can even copy it's state to a new hardware. That will become a huge difference in future, potentially making AIs more powerful thinkers. It could be that AIs will be used to combine research and ideas from different domains where no human experts exist that are proficient in both.
I believe you are totally unaware of the realities in the E.U. We have the Free Movement principle in the European Union:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/mai...
In fact, there was strongly growing emigration from countries like Spain and Greece (to stronger economies like Germany).
Source:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/t...
Well, no. Since neutrino oscillations are confirmed we are good again as we expect to see only 1/3 of the total neutrino flux (the other 2/3 are the two neutrino flavours muon- and tau-neutrinos that our detectors are not sensitive to)
Before the experimental proof, most scientists tended to side with the Standard Model, i.e. massless neutrinos and therefore no oscillations - which meant that seeing only 1/3 of the expected neutrino flux from the sun indicates something's wrong, either with the sun or with the model of the sun predicting neutrino flux.
The authors report coherence times of 120us and 61us for the two (slightly different) Qubits. Experimental evidence for Qubit Q2 is provided in the Supplementary Material and for Qubit Q1 in reference 4.
Also, citing:
" the error can be less than 1%, corresponding to a fidelity above 99% for the two-qubit CZ gate. The fast two-qubit operation frequency implies also that over 100,000 CZ gates can be performed within the single-qubit coherence time. [4]"
and further
"The tremendeous progress of quantum error correction codes over the last decade has resulted in schemes that allow fault-tolerant quantum computing with single and two-qubit errors as high as 1% [10]; values that already seem consistent with the fidelities of these silicon quantum dot qubits. These qubit fidelities could be further improved by lowering the sensitivity to electrical noise. This could be achieved by designing the two-qubit system such that it is completely decoupled from the reservoir during qubit control, possibly by additional pulsing on the barrier gates."
My feeling is that artists provide a creative source of "noise" and crazy ideas that are critical for breakthroughs. Such kind of out-of-the-box thinking is heavily sought after in the scientific community. Science really needs sometimes a "mutation" of ideas to make the next big leap. Just throwing money at a problem will give you only incremental small steps of improvement. Ideas are the most important ingredient for scientific breakthrough.
Therefore I encourage scientists to expose themselves to art and I also value artists' contributions although many of them don't make sense (to me).
Scientists don't get paid to figure out a particular problem, at least not in academia. That happens only in commercial research. In the majority of cases scientists get to select the problem they want to solve themselves (the finding of a sufficiently interesting problem itself being a difficult task). Often in countries there are overseeing funding agencies, like NSF, DARPA, DOD who define broad areas of research focus, but they don't assign them to scientists in a top down manner.
In fact, scientists very often try to explain very obvious things. It's very rare to discover something truly new and usually it is by accident: you find something new and remarkable when you were actually trying to understand the obvious.
Yes, bad news. That's an almost sure sign that they did actually crack it.
Probably by running a sufficient number of nodes themselves.
Anecdotally, I have the opposite to report.
Where Excel 2003 would fail to load an complex file, OpenOffice (didn't try LibreOffice at that time) would load the same file just fine.
Complex in the sense of lot's of cells used ( a few hundred rows with about 50 columns - not that much actually), with only basic arithmetic- no funky math or functions used.
"they explicitly state that they don't actually think they did"
Where do you find that statement ? In their preprint paper they state:
"An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum of (60.7 ± 6.9 (stat.) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns was measured. This anomaly corresponds to a relative difference of the muon neutrino velocity with respect to the speed of light (v-c)/c = (2.48 ± 0.28 (stat.) ± 0.30 (sys.)) * 10^-5."
That's as explicitly FTL as their data allows. I don't see any denial there. Yes, they are very cautious and they ask others to confirm, but that is very natural for such unexpected results.
With detectors based on Cherenkov radiation like Super-Kamiokande you can determine the direction of the neutrino beam by working out the Cherenkov cone.
The neutrino and photon bursts of SN1987A _have_ been both detected and correlated. The neutrino burst came a few hours earlier than the photons and the explanation was along the line that the photons seen where not the primary photons (i.e. not generated at the same time as the neutrinos).
Read the preprint: They know the relevant distance to an accuracy of 20 cm.
The exact value is (731278.0 +/- 0.2) m.
60ns time of flight difference corresponds to roughly 20meters, so it's a huge effect.
Half of the particles are named after Bose. I think that's a much better deal than getting a price that will be forgotten in a few hundred years.
"Fahrenheit" (in the US "Indigo Prophecy") is one of them.
Well, space offers a nice view. Certainly a motive for tourists. Why would you go to Grand Canyon or Ayers Rock?
What can you DO in space? Sure you cannot surf a wave..but a space hike, the experience of low gravity is definitely interesting. I am pretty sure that sooner or later some crazy guys will find a way to have fun in space.
One problem I see: (space) tourism doesn't really create value, like for example building a house does. You literally blow the money into the air/space. Only as a side effect you help space industry to build up. Compared to serious space industry, like satellite deployment or space based observation the return is rather small.
word!
To add some content, here is the home page of Bradley E. Schaefer (the guy who made the discovery). There you can find hi-res photos of the globe, a powerpoint presentation which has more details than the NYT article, some quicktime movies (didn't work on my machine) showing the precession of earth's rotation axis and a preprint of the research article.
That sounds like a good idea! It should be not too difficult to implement an automated solution using cameras and image processing.
Knowing about some subject and being able to apply the knowledge to solve a problem are two different things.
You can dim LED lights by operating them in pulsed mode and changing the duty cylce. You can do this up to MHz frequencies (for red LEDs - I don't know about white ones), so people (and video cameras) will not notice any flickering. Of course you need a special power supply.