A friend of mine once proposed building a mechanical box that duplicated, in hardware, the two-winged thrum of a dragonfly. He spends a LOT of time outside, wandering about in the woods and in marshes and has come to the conclusion that as soon as a dragonfly appears, the mosquitoes seem to vanish.
Now, it's either that he only noticed the 'fly after it ate all the little turds, or they're hardwired to flee the noise of it's wings.
I'm wondering if that particular thrumming sound would be effective (since the high-pitched whine version would probably drive me nuts anyway: I can sense tones up to 21KHz or so... TVs drive me up the wall).
So, who's got a recording of dragonfly sounds they want to share(ware)?;-)
There are always carrier fees for bandwidth unless you're building your own backbone. If you're not paying for the bandwidth you're using directly yourself, it's being subsidised by someone else (like lighter users of the same ISP).
Well, to quote myself: "What I'd like to see, though, is something that let *some* people hop REALLY huge distances, broadband." So yes, build our ownn backbone. Somewhere in the back of my head was the idea that all those HAM ops could find a magic broadband bullet that would let them gateway between 'clouds'. Assuming they paid their own power and hardware bills, it would be free... for everyone else.
Of course, with great diversity would come great Free Market Pressure and the whole paying-for-bandwidth thing would just vanish. Instead, we'd be paying a nebulous group of amature and professional types for their time and costs.
Hell, it worked for FidoNet, which was my original point....
Now, if there was some way to have EVERYONE be a part of some global broadband network, then everyone would pay their OWN way in hardware and power costs (this 'cloud' business extended out from urban zones to continental or planetary zones). That would be the ultimate, but physics just won't give in that easily. Yet. Maybe.;-)
Well, sure, that's sort of the essence of an urban-area WiFi 'cloud' (using that 802.whatever hack for large hops). What I'd like to see, though, is something that let *some* people hop REALLY huge distances, broadband. That would let 'clouds' link up to form the Winternet. No carrier fees for bandwidth (since I said 'broadband'), but someone would have to pay for the hardware, uptime, configuration, etc. The nice thing about FidoNet was (is?) that it was distributed, and the 'costs' were borne by all the users....
So, like another poster said: what if every municipality used tax money to maintain the inter-cloud links? Well... that's a mess I'm not going to get into, today.;-D
Anyone remember when a small group of people, disaffected with CompuSpend and other BBS corps got together and formed their own distributed network, based on private citizen's telco services? Wondering if the same thing will happen with medium-to-wide area networks? I mean, now that the 802.whateveritwas hack-thing is out there (you know, the one that lets you do wireless over medium-area distances), how long before people shuck off the "shackles" of their ISP and start forming small Winternet groups?
(Oh god, I might have just coined something. Quick! Alert Wired! =] )
The logistics of gluing small (urban?) 'clouds' together comes down to boundary-routing. Now, if only there was an 802.somethingelse hack that let these 'clouds' contact each other over inter-city distances, the Winternet wouldn't depend on Spring or Bellnexxia or whoever is backboning, today.
William Gibson's "Idoru" hit the nail on the head: it's insufficient merely to have the technology available, there needs to be a pre-existing group of interested parties (a "SIG" for all you old-timers =] ).
I'm betting that they're going to attempt a Harry Potter/LotR of this classic. And I'm also betting that if they don't get precisely the right people, it's going to tank. Hard. My bet's on the tanking....;-)
But anyway, it's sort of a shame to see the best literatre of my youth ("'The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe', 'Lord of the Rings', etcetera) turned into Hollywood extraveganzas. Where's the imagination? The visualization of the scenes and characters was, for me, the whole joy in those works? Perhaps it's just a sign of our times, that an active imagination is now considered to be a Bad Thing.
Admittedly, a fantastic job has been done with LotR, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.
Perhaps if the WiFi boxes sold to Joe Consumer didn't allow Just Anyone to use the gateway it wouldn't be a problem? Say, by silently rejecting non-approved MAC addresses, or by adding an HTTP 'login to use this proxy transparently for a few hours' layer on port 80 (to enable a limited-time session on that MAC).
Those who don't want to sacrifice the ultimate in convenience (walk in to a friend's place and have their laptop be online, instantly), will have to accept that there are commensurate secutiry risks.
Convenient or Secure: be it in WiFi or OS or even *gasp* Real Life, it's always a trade off....
How much overlap is there between the programable graphics processing units (AKA "shaders") found on modern game platforms and the software/hardware used in the special effects industry? Would programming skills for one translate to the other?
BTW, I realize that special effects are half artistry, half mathematics and half sweaty work: kudos from a 'GL hacker...;-)
Fine, fine, 1.4 is good and all that, but OpenGL 2.0 is where it's REALLY at (as far as game development goes). I'm waiting for the ARB to finally admit that there's two distict uses for GL: CAD and Games. So why not split them off? Well, where would the pressure to extend GL come from if Carmack and Co. weren't shoving Quake N down the IHV's throats?;-)
Let's say they announce it's got Flash ROM, then people start hacking it, then "standard" apps no longer work on people's PDA's, 'cause their OS has been whacked up. What do you get? Returns! And what does that hurt? Profits! And who has to pay to support this stuff? Not the users!
If it was *designed* to be hacked with (*cough cough xbox cough*), then yes, Flash ROM would be a selling point. But it wasn't....
BTW, for a while, I thought the story was about a kerfuffle between Macromedia and the PDA people. =)
Oddly enough, I wrote a tesseract viewer that uses OpenGL a few years ago. Source is in C++ and GLUT. The program, source and readme file are all on my OpenGL/GLUT demos page. Specific URL:
It sounds to me like this work is trying to recapitulate epistomoligical philosophy and, essentially, mathematics itself.
Essentially, the first part of your statement is true, but I must disagree with the latter portion. What's being proposed is a new area of mathematics, based on the realization that "knowledge" (at least knowledge as humans understand it) appears to be stored structurally (in the brain) and be used in a "structural manner" by the "conscious process". Without getting into the messy details, it's pretty clear (to me, anyway) that in order to get a handle on cognitive processes, we must first be clear about the mechanisms that process require. I'm reasonably confident that there are four major areas, here: sensory devices, actuators, a knowledge store, cognitive process/inductive learning process.
The first two are dead simple (well, sort of), the third is where we're looking and the fourth depends on the previous three. The AI work I've seen, to date, either ignores or makes overly simplistic assupmtions about one or more of these (usually the latter two).
Hence the desire to provide a mathematical framework that describes structural relationships, including the generative history and some sort of basis for a similarity metric.
Once you have that, you can move on to bigger and brighter activities. Thank god I don't have to actually do that groundwork!;-)
Math itself is the mathematics of knowledge representation and manipulation. This attempt for a fully descriptive top-down conceptual model makes many assumptions about the nature of "knowledge" and "thought" that are extremely suspect.
Sure, which is why only a single, simple assumption was made: knowledge is structural in nature (both in it's interrelationships and it's generative history). We're nowhere near dealing, formally, with cognitive issues yet (though we talk about them).
Let me ask a question: what is "life"? [... snip...] Would you try to look for a complete mathematical structure which can fully describe "life"? Isn't that what biology, chemistry, and physics is doing?
Of these, only physics actually has a *model* at it's core. I would claim that the other two sciences are, at yet, mere collections of empirical observations. But that's beside the point: before you can formally tackle cognitive issues, you need to be clear that your foundations are secure. In this case, that means having robust, mathmatically-sound models for data collection (sensors), actuators, knowledge and possibly other areas. I vouch that both sensors and actuators (both biological and techological) are sufficiently well-modelled for preliminary research... but there is not yet a model for knowledge representation - at least one that actually embraces abstraction, rather than purely concrete or near-concrete abstract knowledge (or 'concepts').
[... snip...] But I don't think that we're in the position to discover these mathemtics. We no more understand the workings or nature of consciousness than the Greeks did the natural world. Western science only began to make progress in understanding the natural world when it scaled back its ambitions to almost nothing -- namely, to merely observe the natural world rather than formulate teleogical theories about how the natural world must work based upon assumed first principles. Trying to formulate theories of knowledge representation (in this context) and consciouness from first principles, at this point, is like reasoning about human anatomy from first principles like Aristotle did. It's both fairly hubristic and absurdly detached from experience.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought when I first started looking into this. However, a year of hard work has changed my mind on the subject. I'm now confident that a structural representation is at least *better* than anything else, to date... even if it's not the *right* representation (though I'm pretty sure it is, since that's what the only naturally-occurring sentience we know about appears to be using in it's information-processing system). Cognitive science is one of the most slippery areas to work in, and making true progress involved walking the knife edge between philosophy and technology. On one side lies a descent into sophistry, while on the other lies a descent into 'practicalities' that ignore the greater picture.
But that's the way Science works, eh? =)
For this reason, things like neural networks and the like are valid areas of research because they take an observation about some tiny portion of knowledge representation and attempt to abstract it. It's useful and explanatory only in this very small, limited sense. But that's something.
I must disagree: the money being spent (wasted) on NN research right now disgusts me. There's far, far too much being done in the "throw it all into a pot and stir it and see what happens", rather than thoughtful, intelligently guided research. The problem is, of course, money. There isn't any for people who can't claim to be making "technological" or "practical" progress.
Hell, Deep Blue beat Kasparov, but does it *feel*? No way. A *real* artifical intelligence will be nurtured, taught and will learn from experience, from the ground up (with a certain amount of pre-existing or "instinctive" behaviour/knowledge)... just like we do.
It will have NOTHING to do with NNs or GAs or anything of that sort.
The *existing* mathematic are simply insufficient to deal with cognitive issues... and that's been known since the 1940's! Ahhh, money.
I'm a graduate student at an obscure little university in eastern Canada. I was initially digging around in the area of Artifical Intelligence, but rapidly became disillusioned by the obviously-crap paradigms that exist, to date, for AI. I mean, while Neural Networks, at first, appear to capture the essence of biological information processing systems, a bit of digging, reading and (perhaps) experimentation reveals it to be a farcical numbers game.
Ditto for most of the other approaches, excluding the ones that attempt to address issues on a symbolic level (but aren't at all practical).
The fundamental problem, as I've come to see it, with this area is the lack of a formal model that describes the *FRAMEWORK* of knowledge representation, the operations and transformations that can be applied to that knowledge, and the mathematics to back it all up.
So, that's why I got really interested when my advisor started talking with me about a representational framework he'd been working on for a long, long time, now.
The publications on the ETS model, to date, are very sparse, and probably too difficult (mathematically) for anyone but the a serious researcher to get through... but it's there if you want to try. Try some of the papers on the bottom of Goldfarb's page if you're interested.
I haven't used this, but I have used XWin32. Could someone compare the ease of use of XWin32 (no cygwin, no console windows, nothing scary for Widiot32s to be terrified by) to Xfree86 (probably all of the above)?
No matter what, it still feels weird to be doing X stuff on my Win2K desktop. =)
But the method they applied in this case is really, REALLY exciting.
Going from memory, they used a dye that behaves like formic acid (or something, it's Friday, forgve me the details) that rapidly-multiplying cells tend to use in the division process... resulting in a large concentration of the dye in cancerous cells (since unchecked, rapidly multiplying cells is what cancer is all about). Then some compound in introduced (I totally forget which) that binds to the dye and triggers an immune-system response.
This is REALLY COOL, since it has obvious benefits over existing chemotherapy techniques, and so on. Basically, it tricks the immune system into attacking cells that really are part of the body, circumventing the normal mechanism that prevents auto-attacks.
Sure, it only works on mice (and there's probably side effects relating to other rapidly-dividing cells, as in the stomach lining, etcetera), but I can't see human trials being that far off.
It's such an *elegant* solution! Reminds me of the best of the Great Software Hacks....
Ie: Is there enough information in the 'onset' part of the wave to cause the reconstruction of a particle at the other end, similar to the other 'faster than light' story? I'm betting there is.
While I'm ranting: Why does the dot keep posting stories about obviously-misinterpreted science news while ignoring *serious* news like the cure for 1/3 of cancers in mice from a week ago?
Slashdot Mirror
"I can sense tones up to 21KHz or so ... "
e /
Yeah, right.
This isn't an uncommon claim. Go look, keeping in mind that I said "sense" (which some of the below translate as "feel"):
Dumbed down: http://home.netvigator.com/~ntomyng/dcc900/compar
More technical: http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/psychoacoustics
Etcetera.
A friend of mine once proposed building a mechanical box that duplicated, in hardware, the two-winged thrum of a dragonfly. He spends a LOT of time outside, wandering about in the woods and in marshes and has come to the conclusion that as soon as a dragonfly appears, the mosquitoes seem to vanish.
... TVs drive me up the wall).
;-)
Now, it's either that he only noticed the 'fly after it ate all the little turds, or they're hardwired to flee the noise of it's wings.
I'm wondering if that particular thrumming sound would be effective (since the high-pitched whine version would probably drive me nuts anyway: I can sense tones up to 21KHz or so
So, who's got a recording of dragonfly sounds they want to share(ware)?
There are always carrier fees for bandwidth unless you're building your own backbone. If you're not paying for the bandwidth you're using directly yourself, it's being subsidised by someone else (like lighter users of the same ISP).
... for everyone else.
;-)
Well, to quote myself: "What I'd like to see, though, is something that let *some* people hop REALLY huge distances, broadband." So yes, build our ownn backbone. Somewhere in the back of my head was the idea that all those HAM ops could find a magic broadband bullet that would let them gateway between 'clouds'. Assuming they paid their own power and hardware bills, it would be free
Of course, with great diversity would come great Free Market Pressure and the whole paying-for-bandwidth thing would just vanish. Instead, we'd be paying a nebulous group of amature and professional types for their time and costs.
Hell, it worked for FidoNet, which was my original point....
Now, if there was some way to have EVERYONE be a part of some global broadband network, then everyone would pay their OWN way in hardware and power costs (this 'cloud' business extended out from urban zones to continental or planetary zones). That would be the ultimate, but physics just won't give in that easily. Yet. Maybe.
Well, sure, that's sort of the essence of an urban-area WiFi 'cloud' (using that 802.whatever hack for large hops). What I'd like to see, though, is something that let *some* people hop REALLY huge distances, broadband. That would let 'clouds' link up to form the Winternet. No carrier fees for bandwidth (since I said 'broadband'), but someone would have to pay for the hardware, uptime, configuration, etc. The nice thing about FidoNet was (is?) that it was distributed, and the 'costs' were borne by all the users....
... that's a mess I'm not going to get into, today. ;-D
So, like another poster said: what if every municipality used tax money to maintain the inter-cloud links? Well
Anyone remember when a small group of people, disaffected with CompuSpend and other BBS corps got together and formed their own distributed network, based on private citizen's telco services? Wondering if the same thing will happen with medium-to-wide area networks? I mean, now that the 802.whateveritwas hack-thing is out there (you know, the one that lets you do wireless over medium-area distances), how long before people shuck off the "shackles" of their ISP and start forming small Winternet groups?
;-)
(Oh god, I might have just coined something. Quick! Alert Wired! =] )
The logistics of gluing small (urban?) 'clouds' together comes down to boundary-routing. Now, if only there was an 802.somethingelse hack that let these 'clouds' contact each other over inter-city distances, the Winternet wouldn't depend on Spring or Bellnexxia or whoever is backboning, today.
Cross your fingers.
William Gibson's "Idoru" hit the nail on the head: it's insufficient merely to have the technology available, there needs to be a pre-existing group of interested parties (a "SIG" for all you old-timers =] ).
I'm betting that they're going to attempt a Harry Potter/LotR of this classic. And I'm also betting that if they don't get precisely the right people, it's going to tank. Hard. My bet's on the tanking.... ;-)
But anyway, it's sort of a shame to see the best literatre of my youth ("'The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe', 'Lord of the Rings', etcetera) turned into Hollywood extraveganzas. Where's the imagination? The visualization of the scenes and characters was, for me, the whole joy in those works? Perhaps it's just a sign of our times, that an active imagination is now considered to be a Bad Thing.
Admittedly, a fantastic job has been done with LotR, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.
Perhaps if the WiFi boxes sold to Joe Consumer didn't allow Just Anyone to use the gateway it wouldn't be a problem? Say, by silently rejecting non-approved MAC addresses, or by adding an HTTP 'login to use this proxy transparently for a few hours' layer on port 80 (to enable a limited-time session on that MAC).
Those who don't want to sacrifice the ultimate in convenience (walk in to a friend's place and have their laptop be online, instantly), will have to accept that there are commensurate secutiry risks.
Convenient or Secure: be it in WiFi or OS or even *gasp* Real Life, it's always a trade off....
Yes, with mathematics being extra important, which is why it totals to three halves. :P
;-]
Oh SHIT! I forgot my SARCASM TAG!!!
If I could, I'd mod myself down, since this is now O/T....
How much overlap is there between the programable graphics processing units (AKA "shaders") found on modern game platforms and the software/hardware used in the special effects industry? Would programming skills for one translate to the other?
;-)
BTW, I realize that special effects are half artistry, half mathematics and half sweaty work: kudos from a 'GL hacker...
Fine, fine, 1.4 is good and all that, but OpenGL 2.0 is where it's REALLY at (as far as game development goes). I'm waiting for the ARB to finally admit that there's two distict uses for GL: CAD and Games. So why not split them off? Well, where would the pressure to extend GL come from if Carmack and Co. weren't shoving Quake N down the IHV's throats? ;-)
Then again, remember MiniGL?
Brr.....
Let's say they announce it's got Flash ROM, then people start hacking it, then "standard" apps no longer work on people's PDA's, 'cause their OS has been whacked up. What do you get? Returns! And what does that hurt? Profits! And who has to pay to support this stuff? Not the users!
If it was *designed* to be hacked with (*cough cough xbox cough*), then yes, Flash ROM would be a selling point. But it wasn't....
BTW, for a while, I thought the story was about a kerfuffle between Macromedia and the PDA people. =)
Oddly enough, I wrote a tesseract viewer that uses OpenGL a few years ago. Source is in C++ and GLUT. The program, source and readme file are all on my OpenGL/GLUT demos page. Specific URL:
s s/ index.html
;-)
http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/daveg/opengl/viewte
Enjoy.
You must be really, really new to computers if you think something from 1995 is "old, old".
Um, let's see: I wrote my first program on a Commodore PET. So no, I'm not new to computers. Further, seven years is a long time in computer terms.
Smarten up and post something useful, please....
It sounds to me like this work is trying to recapitulate epistomoligical philosophy and, essentially, mathematics itself.
;-)
... but there is not yet a model for knowledge representation - at least one that actually embraces abstraction, rather than purely concrete or near-concrete abstract knowledge (or 'concepts').
...] But I don't think that we're in the position to discover these mathemtics. We no more understand the workings or nature of consciousness than the Greeks did the natural world. Western science only began to make progress in understanding the natural world when it scaled back its ambitions to almost nothing -- namely, to merely observe the natural world rather than formulate teleogical theories about how the natural world must work based upon assumed first principles. Trying to formulate theories of knowledge representation (in this context) and consciouness from first principles, at this point, is like reasoning about human anatomy from first principles like Aristotle did. It's both fairly hubristic and absurdly detached from experience.
... even if it's not the *right* representation (though I'm pretty sure it is, since that's what the only naturally-occurring sentience we know about appears to be using in it's information-processing system). Cognitive science is one of the most slippery areas to work in, and making true progress involved walking the knife edge between philosophy and technology. On one side lies a descent into sophistry, while on the other lies a descent into 'practicalities' that ignore the greater picture.
... just like we do.
... and that's been known since the 1940's! Ahhh, money.
Essentially, the first part of your statement is true, but I must disagree with the latter portion. What's being proposed is a new area of mathematics, based on the realization that "knowledge" (at least knowledge as humans understand it) appears to be stored structurally (in the brain) and be used in a "structural manner" by the "conscious process". Without getting into the messy details, it's pretty clear (to me, anyway) that in order to get a handle on cognitive processes, we must first be clear about the mechanisms that process require. I'm reasonably confident that there are four major areas, here: sensory devices, actuators, a knowledge store, cognitive process/inductive learning process.
The first two are dead simple (well, sort of), the third is where we're looking and the fourth depends on the previous three. The AI work I've seen, to date, either ignores or makes overly simplistic assupmtions about one or more of these (usually the latter two).
Hence the desire to provide a mathematical framework that describes structural relationships, including the generative history and some sort of basis for a similarity metric.
Once you have that, you can move on to bigger and brighter activities. Thank god I don't have to actually do that groundwork!
Math itself is the mathematics of knowledge representation and manipulation. This attempt for a fully descriptive top-down conceptual model makes many assumptions about the nature of "knowledge" and "thought" that are extremely suspect.
Sure, which is why only a single, simple assumption was made: knowledge is structural in nature (both in it's interrelationships and it's generative history). We're nowhere near dealing, formally, with cognitive issues yet (though we talk about them).
Let me ask a question: what is "life"? [... snip...] Would you try to look for a complete mathematical structure which can fully describe "life"? Isn't that what biology, chemistry, and physics is doing?
Of these, only physics actually has a *model* at it's core. I would claim that the other two sciences are, at yet, mere collections of empirical observations. But that's beside the point: before you can formally tackle cognitive issues, you need to be clear that your foundations are secure. In this case, that means having robust, mathmatically-sound models for data collection (sensors), actuators, knowledge and possibly other areas. I vouch that both sensors and actuators (both biological and techological) are sufficiently well-modelled for preliminary research
[... snip
Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought when I first started looking into this. However, a year of hard work has changed my mind on the subject. I'm now confident that a structural representation is at least *better* than anything else, to date
But that's the way Science works, eh? =)
For this reason, things like neural networks and the like are valid areas of research because they take an observation about some tiny portion of knowledge representation and attempt to abstract it. It's useful and explanatory only in this very small, limited sense. But that's something.
I must disagree: the money being spent (wasted) on NN research right now disgusts me. There's far, far too much being done in the "throw it all into a pot and stir it and see what happens", rather than thoughtful, intelligently guided research. The problem is, of course, money. There isn't any for people who can't claim to be making "technological" or "practical" progress.
Hell, Deep Blue beat Kasparov, but does it *feel*? No way. A *real* artifical intelligence will be nurtured, taught and will learn from experience, from the ground up (with a certain amount of pre-existing or "instinctive" behaviour/knowledge)
It will have NOTHING to do with NNs or GAs or anything of that sort.
The *existing* mathematic are simply insufficient to deal with cognitive issues
Are we talking about the same XWin32? I'm talking about this one (though I run an old, old version: 3.2.5, from 1995).
I'm a graduate student at an obscure little university in eastern Canada. I was initially digging around in the area of Artifical Intelligence, but rapidly became disillusioned by the obviously-crap paradigms that exist, to date, for AI. I mean, while Neural Networks, at first, appear to capture the essence of biological information processing systems, a bit of digging, reading and (perhaps) experimentation reveals it to be a farcical numbers game.
... but it's there if you want to try. Try some of the papers on the bottom of Goldfarb's page if you're interested.
Ditto for most of the other approaches, excluding the ones that attempt to address issues on a symbolic level (but aren't at all practical).
The fundamental problem, as I've come to see it, with this area is the lack of a formal model that describes the *FRAMEWORK* of knowledge representation, the operations and transformations that can be applied to that knowledge, and the mathematics to back it all up.
So, that's why I got really interested when my advisor started talking with me about a representational framework he'd been working on for a long, long time, now.
The publications on the ETS model, to date, are very sparse, and probably too difficult (mathematically) for anyone but the a serious researcher to get through
I haven't used this, but I have used XWin32. Could someone compare the ease of use of XWin32 (no cygwin, no console windows, nothing scary for Widiot32s to be terrified by) to Xfree86 (probably all of the above)?
No matter what, it still feels weird to be doing X stuff on my Win2K desktop. =)
What's the point of linking to an article when the /. "blurb" contains practically the entire contents of the piece anyway?
To lend journalistic integrity to those "blurb"s, I would guess. ;-)
But the method they applied in this case is really, REALLY exciting.
... resulting in a large concentration of the dye in cancerous cells (since unchecked, rapidly multiplying cells is what cancer is all about). Then some compound in introduced (I totally forget which) that binds to the dye and triggers an immune-system response.
Going from memory, they used a dye that behaves like formic acid (or something, it's Friday, forgve me the details) that rapidly-multiplying cells tend to use in the division process
This is REALLY COOL, since it has obvious benefits over existing chemotherapy techniques, and so on. Basically, it tricks the immune system into attacking cells that really are part of the body, circumventing the normal mechanism that prevents auto-attacks.
Sure, it only works on mice (and there's probably side effects relating to other rapidly-dividing cells, as in the stomach lining, etcetera), but I can't see human trials being that far off.
It's such an *elegant* solution! Reminds me of the best of the Great Software Hacks....
Anyone have the URL handy? I've lost it....
... would a particle have been emitted anyway?
Ie: Is there enough information in the 'onset' part of the wave to cause the reconstruction of a particle at the other end, similar to the other 'faster than light' story? I'm betting there is.
While I'm ranting: Why does the dot keep posting stories about obviously-misinterpreted science news while ignoring *serious* news like the cure for 1/3 of cancers in mice from a week ago?