There is a reason our system is adversarial. It's assumed that when the chips are down, everyone (or at least enough of the population) will tell a falsehood. An adversarial system, all other things being equal, gives the advantage to those who have the truth behind them or so the theory goes. In small claims court this is probably true. Are scientists any different than 'regular' people? Really? When I think back to my days as an unwashed plebian undergrad majoring in MetE I can't say I was left with a inspiring impression. In any sufficently large population you'll see a reflection of society, with all of the laters greatness and failings. I've had professors that I believe would eat their children if it would provide some sort of advantage. I've had insane professors that understood things on a level I will never fathom, but who's lives were horrible wrecks because they treated people like toilet paper, and didn't grasp this truth. Fortunately I was an undergrad, something akin to minimum human decency standards had to be observed for me. But not for the staff, certain visiting professors, and the lowest of the low, graduate students. I'll admit I never saw a grad student washing cars, but in all honesty that would have been a huge promotion for some of them. Scientists are just like everyone else, they have prejudices, blind-spots and all the human frailties extolled in greek tragedy. To blindly trust anything is foolhardy in the extravagent extream. Fortunately, our adversarial system doesn't trust anything. I know many will claim that the ludicrious excesses would certainly have been prevented with better information. Many have. While that's certainly a persuasive argument I, at least, remain unconvinced. In our world, obtaining information (of a physical law sort) and determining in authenticity isn't a terribly difficult task, even without special powers granted by the state. I'm inclined to think that there are more fundemental flaws that cause the truly disturbing conclusions of courts and juries. Look at Dow Corning and that flap over the silicone breast implants. Dow Corning was right, they're essentially deviod of risks. Dow makes money faster than the government can print it, who doesn't think they had the absolute best scienctific evidence on their side? What about Cessna(sp?). They were sued out of the small plane business by families who couldn't afford as many experts. McDonalds? They don't have enough money to show the vast majority of their customers prefer their coffee hot? These extream excesses are just mirroring the society that spawned them. Merit is not an accurate predictor of success. If if was, Scott Adams would be that wierd unfunny guy working for Bell Labs (or wherever). The extreams everyone (myself included) rails against are just that extreams. And for every monsterous failure there is a colossal success. It's the price of an open society.
I certainly didn't intend to come off this preachy, but it seemed like people were elevating this to undue heights. Science isn't a religion, and scientists aren't priests, so we should save our faith for something worthy of it.
There is at least one physicist who claims that time truly does not exist and is taken seriously. His view is that when you try to make the simplified wave equation for the universe you can do so if you factor out time. This has lead at least him to believe that time is something of an illusion caused by our consiousness slipping between what he calls "nows". Really all he's doing is claiming that the multiple worlds/universes theory for QM is fact and the undisputed underlying reality and the fact that you can factor out time and get a simpler model is evidence of this. It's pretty flakey, but he's taken fairly seriously, and puts his work up for peer review. Scientific American had an article on him a while back. Personally, I find his ideas a bit fruity, but it really all boils down to personal taste. I prefer decoherence, but technically it doesn't even matter. If a certain point of view is more illuminating in a certain aspect then that view is useful for investigating those aspects. The underlying reality is a veil that isn't readily pulled back, so anything that maps the another process onto time just becomes a question of semantics. In the end Neils Bohr would disagree with everyone (and he rarely lost an argument). He would concede one point; however, this whole jag is the domain of philosophy.
What about the test newsgroups? Are they illegal everywhere in the US, or just New York. How will I spam myself with confirmations from helpful servers all across the world, so I can be absolutely sure my newest thoughts, on why a Star Destroyer can turn the Enterprise into space confetti, will enlighten those in need? What about rec.photo.nudes.babies.animal-skins.f-stop.low.kod ac? Or sci.pediatrics.dermatology? What about Anime? Appearently even a depiction similar to a child is now child porn in the US. And there are a LOT of sailor suits in Anime. Don't even get me started on nudist family reunions.
On a slightly more serious note. What's more frightening? A pedophile tapping away at a computer, or cruising the neighborhood cause there's nothing good on the net.
Wait a minute. Because people won't take proper precautions to protect their own damn data, it's the Chair of this standards commities fault? He simply presented options, the same options one has with any network. I fail to see how the irresponsability of others is in anyway his fault. If you want to protect your data, do so. If you're a sysadmin and are tasked with protecting your company's data, do so. But blaming this guy for preserving the choice is crap.
This claim has been around forever. TV will kill radio. Radio will kill the news paper. The internet will kill everything. Of course it's all crap. And deep down, everyone who's in touch with the world at large knows it. E-books will probably make better text books, and manuals. But anything truly great, I'll want to read in paper. For Whom The Bell Tolls is one book, that needs the texture of paper (others have mentioned this already). The feel, the smell, they both lend something to the experience of reading. Maybe it's the subconsious connection to something older. I suppose I could buy it on CD and have James Earl Jones read it to me. But I don't. Maybe I'm silly and sentimental (if one can be that at 26), but I don't take the experience of reading lightly. Maybe it's because I didn't really find joy in reading until I was 12, I don't know. But what is certain, is that when I read for pleasure, it will always be paper over plastic. Besides, paper has a lot going for it. It's cheap, doesn't need batteries, it isn't shattered if you sit on it, if someone steals it was cheap, and it doesn't crash even if it's got Microsoft on the label. Media formats are only tools for the distribution of information. We'll have a new varient of an old tool, it can join the others in the tool chest and wait to be needed. Not all screw drivers are electric, and not all books will be electronic.
is can satire be considered a troll? In a way the author is fishing for responses, and using a point of view that is something less than laudable to make their (gender ambigious, I can be P.C. to) rebuke. I'll admit, the post was subtle, but doesn't one consider the pool of people writing to slashdot when reading from it? Jerry Fallwell and the Christian Family Protection Alliance and Gun Purchasing Cooprative (CFPAGPC) isn't terribly likely to participate in this grand melee of ideas. Or perhaps I'm full of crap. You Make The Call.
A. If the world must be made safe enough for the stupidest of us, then let's shut down Space Watch cause I welcome the Apocalypse.
B. Schrodinger's Cat is a cruel thought experiment that encoureges the abuse of cats via vial smashers, cyanide, and unspecified radioactive isotopes. So all textbooks, conference papers and other information reguarding this and similar inhumane thought experiments should be destroyed. Never mind that in the near century since this experiment has been posed not one cat has been both alive and dead in the presence of a vial smasher.
C. Idiot's don't need encouregment. Encouregment mearly adds direction to what would otherwise be directionless and equally entertaining.
D. "Don't believe everything you read." -- Dad. Or "You're eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them." --Alec Guiness
Now I'm no expert. But trolls are at least as old as bridges and billy goats. It's been said that the first email was a test, and the second a flame, but on closer examination, the first was acctually a troll. People have been trolling since before they used the web for porn, and back when all anime came from ftp.cdrom.com. '/.' doesn't even have very good trolls, unless you're a troll (but I'm an easy fish to catch). I don't see any ask slashdot's about why there are no shadows in space for Christ's sake.
The FBI tricked Mark Chumura into going to a post-High School Prom party. That's down right insidious!
"Mr. Chumura, the All-pro Tight end of the Green Bay Packers, went over to complain about the noise, but the FBI entraped him into having sex with a seventeen year old girl. Mr. Chumura was later aquited of all charges, and hopes to resume his career with the XFL in 2002 as a player for the Miami Mayors." -- 2/9/01 Green Bay Value Market Shopper.
Can I hop on? Seriously, someone might shoe horn a kitten into an old mini coke bottle as a conversation piece, so let's ban satire?! When you go to a rave, always take your pills to Dance Safe, especially the green triangles, and never lick someone elses stickers. You should never accept drinks from someone you don't know well, especially waiters (I've seen Fight Club). It's one thing to object, as a matter of taste. And perhaps, "It's not for me, thanks" lacks impact. But web + alcohol + hyperbole != argument. The thing that sets you appart, aside from Justin Bailey, is that you admitited you're under the influence, which is commendable (down right Presidential). But what scares me is the other people with the same view point, what's their excuse? Just how many people in Appalachia read slashdot? I'm sure Bonsai Kitten isn't what Al Gore had in mind when he invented the internet, but it's funnier than black kids working minimum wage at McDonald's to subsidising rich, white, kids with their tax dollars. No, wait...yeah, Bonsai Kitten is funnier, but less ironic, that's it.
Allanach said she's not sure if the site is a parody -- and even if it isn't, it should be taken offline because it could encourage people to experiment on their own household pets.
I've owned my share of pets, but only on rare occasions have I tried to force one or more of them into Klein Bottles. Is this really a concern, people who can't differentiate between satire and reality will be able to use the internet to 'prune' kittens into exotic shapes? Appearently the Humane Society has offcially run out of problems, and the FBI crimes. I think we may be able to declare Utopia, and go home. Slightly more seriously, does anyone get tired of seeing these IQ tests in action? I don't. And those gamblin' folks out there might want to start a pool on which of the people in this article will be the first to make the Darwin Awards.
I couldn't help but notice the degree of finese required. That's fine, I'm no stranger to statistics. But the calculations of the cloud of virtual particles that surround the muon are insanely difficult. I'm curious if perhaps an error may lie in wait. Appearently, their paper was only submitted to Phys. Rev. Letters Febuary 8th. I think it might be pretty neat to add some other exhibits to the zoo, but I think it might be a little early to begin the last rights for the standard model. Sure it's time is limited, but it's not up.
But on the other hand, they chose the muon for a reason.... Tau would have produced a more measurable result (I assume), but crunching the numbers on it might be a nightmare.... I guess it all boils down to how concrete the expectations are for the muon's interations with virtual particles. I guess that makes me curious, anyone know the answer?
The solving the wave equation is fun. Math will be your bestest friend. So I'll break up my specific list.
Math
Obviously you'll want to go pretty far, as most of the harder courses will rely greatly on this. Calculus is a given, the Differential Equations, and Multi variable Differential Vector Calculus. A statistics with calculus course might be nice to help introduce some of the nomenclature.
Physics
You be required to take all the basics. But as electives you'll probably end up with either Thermal Physics (which is usually Thermodynamics for dummies) or a course in Relativity as a precurser to Quantum Physics (probably titled Modern Physics). You might want to look at some classes that focus on Solid State physics, like electronic properties of materials where you learn about holes. Many of these will be found in one of the engineering programs, or joint between them.
Chemistry
You'll obviously take the basics, but will want to skip all the organic crap, that won't be useful to you. As one of your electives you'll probably want to take 1 or 2 Physical Chemistry classes. This will be some in depth shit, and pretty hard. (at least for me) Some of it won't pertain to exactly your designs but you'll know the math, nomenclature, and rules backwards and forewards when you're done.
Engineering
Most of the truly difficult classes will be here. Any classes that are dealing with quantum computing specifically will be senior electives in either EE or CompE. But more important is finding a Professor you REALLY identify with, like and who likes you in your department. You don't want someone who will lie to you to get you out of their office because you're not as valuable as their time. You want someone who's at least respected by their peers, but preferably liked. You want to ask often about things you can do to further your goal, and perhaps if you could attend a graduate level class (these are more individualized and you'll nearly count as 3/5ths human, but require a lot of really hard work). But I can't overestimate the importance of finding a professor to be an ally. The smaller the department the more important this might be.
First I would submit that among those who know, not scifi authors, the most popular interpritation is called decoherence. Essentially, the reality we percive is made up of the beats in the multitude of wave equations. But the best interpritation might be the Copenhagen version. The underlying reality doesn't really matter outside of a conceptual tool. I would say the multiple universe version is silly, and more appropriate for bad fiction. But that's me. There are also version in which time is an illusion created by our consiousness shifting from the moment of one universe to a slightly different universe. Again, I think this is crap. I tend to be of the opinion the decoherence is a much more elegant interpritation. Once again none of that is important, what does matter is that if one of the many different conceptual tools helps you see the world in a different way, that's swell. Much like a paintling, the particular interpritation changes the viewer, not the subject it represents.
But enough about how well that was trolled. I'm a little curious about why no one has mentioned how bad symantec's products are. For the past two years, really, installing Norton Antivirus was a great way to insure you WinTel was never up for more that 30 minutes at a time. (No stones please, I'm not a windows fan, but I am a trueSpace fan, so I don't have a lot of options. Besides windows can be metastable for long periods.) But back to why symantec sucks. I remember that in older toshiba laptops, norton used to kill the video driver. But back when I was fixing computers on the side, on of the first questions I'd ask for people who just had a laundry list of problems was, "Do you have Norton Antivirus?" Something like 95% the people replied affermatively. I do realize a degree of the fault lies with windows, but none of the other virus protection programs had the truly incredible array of serious problems that Norton AV does. Ghost is probably the only software Symantec makes that I would risk owning. By in large, their products can be described as evil in a box. I know, they didn't use to be that kind of company, but times change and my way-back machine is in the shop.
From my limited under standing, an idea, as implimented, being obvious is not enough to count as obvious in the world of patents. It must be obvious within the space of all the other possible solutions. So while their 'solution' to the particular problem might be obvious after the fact, prior to its excecution, they might have chosen another equally or even more effective method. But they didn't they chose the method they chose. Oddly, their chosen method, now patented, may cover all the previously unpatented methods. It's this changing scope and lack of omnipotence among patent examiners that causes the problem. Just the presence of other at least equally good choices in the space of possible choices is what makes their patent technically non-obvious, and gives them the stick to control the space of all possible choices. It's an odd system we have here in the US. Much of it was done by the courts, the test reads as perfectly reasonable, but it's applied in a hopelessly contorted fashion thanks to the courts. But what else did we expect, we're letting sophists make important descisions.
Well not that my crappy textbooks aren't biased, everyones are. But I have a Computer Structure and Organization book which makes a pretty good case for hardware and software being equal partners. In that, anything you do with software you can do in hardware and vice versa. The case Sun seems to have publicly settled on is without hardware, software is an idea waiting to be executed, while the hardware is real, and can be poked with sharp sticks. I suppose in a world of plentiful hardware and multi-platform languages that's a more tenuous position. But this is really a pointless question. (IMHO) As it would seem to be wholey in the domain of personal perogative and Philosophy 101.
I think there might be a little hyperbole there, no? There were more than a few anti-monopoly barbs, not to mention flat out ridicule. I'm not saying I wasn't greatly amused. It certainly makes thier corporate culture seem to be something akin to angry interns. This sort of fued can't be helped. The companies view information at large as very seperate things, and they're competing for acceptance in a limited space. But for the rhetoric to take such an amusing turn. I can't help but wonder if the informal, and hyperbole prone culture of the internet help fosters such displays. If so, I'm once again in Al Gore's debt.
Clinton? Hardly. In one sence it might be Lincon who decided which country all your property belonged to. But overall I'd have to go with Washington. Mearly because he was the 1st President to agree that African Americans were 3/5th human. Or how about the President that presided over prohibition. Most of the drug war philosophy springs from that font of knowledge, to say nothing of organized crime and the laws enacted to combat it. Wire taps, and its modernday equivalents Carnivore and Eschlon may owe their very existence to prohibition. Or how about Nixon for enacting prohibition v 2.0: The War on Drugs. It's called perspective, and it's a pretty (pardon my French) fucked up day when you're getting a history lesson from a Metallugical Engineer.
Yes I know it was probably a troll, and I should have a nice day. But still....
That just lacks imagination. Seriously. Kent State is a university, probably with a law school. Now when you consider that most University Law Schools provide free legal assistance to students, the opportunity for irony and revenge are just to sweet to pass up. Ahh. To see a Kent State student suing the University, with the help of the Universities own Law School and students. Hell the students involved might not even need to finish college they could just move to St. Thomas and live on the beach playing Red Alert 3 (with real-time radiosity) over their wireless lan. Talk about sowing the seeds of discontent..
Be not popular, for Gate's is not mocked, for whatsoever game a man playth, he doth tithe Microsoft. -- Elders of Zion (Redmond Campus) 6:7
Well considering GeoWorks is claiming to have invented all markup languages on wireless devices, ya remind me a little of that "Crossing Over" guy on the scifi channel, or that random Jamaican chick with the tarot cards. They're also succesfully patenting calling from an address book on your cell phone. Most of the patent claims deal with the typical operation of a markup language. I would suspect they only expected to recive a patent for a slightly smarter cell phone web browser. Of course they'll loose. But they're here and they're funny, so laugh. (Nice website those guys at delphion put together, I esspecially like the scrolling of Claim 24, I guess that one is particularly ammusing so they wanted to make you work for it.)
Bah. You speak, but do not know. Our toys sucked, they just look good compared to what's out now. The original Macross/Robotech versions of "Jetfire" came with missles you could choke on, and best of all would shoot shells out their gun and put your friends eye out from damn near across the room. If I had known that as a child, Jetfire would have single handedly whuped GI Joe, Cobra, and the Green, Grey and Tan army men.
As extra bonus info, SDF-1's in Japan would shoot these sharp little fighters off its arms. In japan, children will have fun and totally sweet toys even if it kills them. And there's a lesson to be learned from that.
I happen to have a few of the original "Robotech" aka Macross toys. "Jetfire" is from a VF-1S Super Valkyrie. I happen to have 2 VF-1S Strike variants (which are cooler). The Transformer version has a slightly blunted nose, and minimaly different paint. Also in the US versions the guns don't shoot, but you could probably fix that with spring from a small retractable pen. As a side note the ladies don't seem to be as impressed as the dudes by a couple of grand worth of the coolest toys ever made. Who would have ever imagined that?
But they're still dealing with the feature size argument. All the added logic for the laptop-at-a-go take space, a lot of it. Instead of 20 million transitors, it's a task that demands maybe 20 billion with all the devices. But you're still limited by the area/volume of say a regular laptop. But instead of a very tiny feature size to help you, you've got a large one (on plastic I'd bet the limit for a 'printing' style feature would be about 500 nm). Asynchronous clocking probably offers the best bet for their ideal, and even this is not without it's challanges. You're suggestion, to make up the deficencies they need to make a fairly highly parallel computer, could be one way. To do it with transistors that are many times larger than their silicon cousins, that's yet more challenging. More over, they need to do so over a much larger area, with a vastly more complicated circuit. Let's not forget that fine features are easily screwed up by a speck of dust. The cleanliness of a room must be in proportion to the size of the object being fabricated, and the size of the features. They have all these enormous technical hurdles to overcome, but their site is dedicated to things almost on the periphery of their goal, and ifs and a litany of what might be. Oh and their time table for their paradim shift? Five years. Normally I would chalk such a claim up to hyperbole, but in their case it seems to be ignorance. We have a better chance of the Pentium 5 debuing on GaAs in 5 years, then they have of getting their dream off the ground in 10.
I truly do wish them the best of luck. Hell, it's a nice idea. But they have all the problems of starting with a new substrate material, with the one advantage of cost in the far flung future. Coupled with the problems of, creating a circuit many times larger (in area), using much more material over longer distances increasing resistance on a material that disipates heat less effectivly, with mechanical properties that change appreciably over the tempeture range used and in the presence of water (even vapor). I've probably left many of the major hurdles they haven't addressed out. Let me just close with the following observation: In my personal experience magic and happy thoughts do not a business model make.
Slashdot Mirror
I certainly didn't intend to come off this preachy, but it seemed like people were elevating this to undue heights. Science isn't a religion, and scientists aren't priests, so we should save our faith for something worthy of it.
There is at least one physicist who claims that time truly does not exist and is taken seriously. His view is that when you try to make the simplified wave equation for the universe you can do so if you factor out time. This has lead at least him to believe that time is something of an illusion caused by our consiousness slipping between what he calls "nows". Really all he's doing is claiming that the multiple worlds/universes theory for QM is fact and the undisputed underlying reality and the fact that you can factor out time and get a simpler model is evidence of this. It's pretty flakey, but he's taken fairly seriously, and puts his work up for peer review. Scientific American had an article on him a while back. Personally, I find his ideas a bit fruity, but it really all boils down to personal taste. I prefer decoherence, but technically it doesn't even matter. If a certain point of view is more illuminating in a certain aspect then that view is useful for investigating those aspects. The underlying reality is a veil that isn't readily pulled back, so anything that maps the another process onto time just becomes a question of semantics. In the end Neils Bohr would disagree with everyone (and he rarely lost an argument). He would concede one point; however, this whole jag is the domain of philosophy.
On a slightly more serious note. What's more frightening? A pedophile tapping away at a computer, or cruising the neighborhood cause there's nothing good on the net.
Wait a minute. Because people won't take proper precautions to protect their own damn data, it's the Chair of this standards commities fault? He simply presented options, the same options one has with any network. I fail to see how the irresponsability of others is in anyway his fault. If you want to protect your data, do so. If you're a sysadmin and are tasked with protecting your company's data, do so. But blaming this guy for preserving the choice is crap.
This claim has been around forever. TV will kill radio. Radio will kill the news paper. The internet will kill everything. Of course it's all crap. And deep down, everyone who's in touch with the world at large knows it. E-books will probably make better text books, and manuals. But anything truly great, I'll want to read in paper. For Whom The Bell Tolls is one book, that needs the texture of paper (others have mentioned this already). The feel, the smell, they both lend something to the experience of reading. Maybe it's the subconsious connection to something older. I suppose I could buy it on CD and have James Earl Jones read it to me. But I don't. Maybe I'm silly and sentimental (if one can be that at 26), but I don't take the experience of reading lightly. Maybe it's because I didn't really find joy in reading until I was 12, I don't know. But what is certain, is that when I read for pleasure, it will always be paper over plastic. Besides, paper has a lot going for it. It's cheap, doesn't need batteries, it isn't shattered if you sit on it, if someone steals it was cheap, and it doesn't crash even if it's got Microsoft on the label. Media formats are only tools for the distribution of information. We'll have a new varient of an old tool, it can join the others in the tool chest and wait to be needed. Not all screw drivers are electric, and not all books will be electronic.
I vote for shush.
is can satire be considered a troll? In a way the author is fishing for responses, and using a point of view that is something less than laudable to make their (gender ambigious, I can be P.C. to) rebuke. I'll admit, the post was subtle, but doesn't one consider the pool of people writing to slashdot when reading from it? Jerry Fallwell and the Christian Family Protection Alliance and Gun Purchasing Cooprative (CFPAGPC) isn't terribly likely to participate in this grand melee of ideas. Or perhaps I'm full of crap. You Make The Call.
A. If the world must be made safe enough for the stupidest of us, then let's shut down Space Watch cause I welcome the Apocalypse.
B. Schrodinger's Cat is a cruel thought experiment that encoureges the abuse of cats via vial smashers, cyanide, and unspecified radioactive isotopes. So all textbooks, conference papers and other information reguarding this and similar inhumane thought experiments should be destroyed. Never mind that in the near century since this experiment has been posed not one cat has been both alive and dead in the presence of a vial smasher.
C. Idiot's don't need encouregment. Encouregment mearly adds direction to what would otherwise be directionless and equally entertaining.
D. "Don't believe everything you read." -- Dad. Or "You're eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them." --Alec Guiness
Now I'm no expert. But trolls are at least as old as bridges and billy goats. It's been said that the first email was a test, and the second a flame, but on closer examination, the first was acctually a troll. People have been trolling since before they used the web for porn, and back when all anime came from ftp.cdrom.com. '/.' doesn't even have very good trolls, unless you're a troll (but I'm an easy fish to catch). I don't see any ask slashdot's about why there are no shadows in space for Christ's sake.
Can I hop on? Seriously, someone might shoe horn a kitten into an old mini coke bottle as a conversation piece, so let's ban satire?! When you go to a rave, always take your pills to Dance Safe, especially the green triangles, and never lick someone elses stickers. You should never accept drinks from someone you don't know well, especially waiters (I've seen Fight Club). It's one thing to object, as a matter of taste. And perhaps, "It's not for me, thanks" lacks impact. But web + alcohol + hyperbole != argument. The thing that sets you appart, aside from Justin Bailey, is that you admitited you're under the influence, which is commendable (down right Presidential). But what scares me is the other people with the same view point, what's their excuse? Just how many people in Appalachia read slashdot? I'm sure Bonsai Kitten isn't what Al Gore had in mind when he invented the internet, but it's funnier than black kids working minimum wage at McDonald's to subsidising rich, white, kids with their tax dollars. No, wait...yeah, Bonsai Kitten is funnier, but less ironic, that's it.
I've owned my share of pets, but only on rare occasions have I tried to force one or more of them into Klein Bottles. Is this really a concern, people who can't differentiate between satire and reality will be able to use the internet to 'prune' kittens into exotic shapes? Appearently the Humane Society has offcially run out of problems, and the FBI crimes. I think we may be able to declare Utopia, and go home. Slightly more seriously, does anyone get tired of seeing these IQ tests in action? I don't. And those gamblin' folks out there might want to start a pool on which of the people in this article will be the first to make the Darwin Awards.
But on the other hand, they chose the muon for a reason.... Tau would have produced a more measurable result (I assume), but crunching the numbers on it might be a nightmare.... I guess it all boils down to how concrete the expectations are for the muon's interations with virtual particles. I guess that makes me curious, anyone know the answer?
Math Obviously you'll want to go pretty far, as most of the harder courses will rely greatly on this. Calculus is a given, the Differential Equations, and Multi variable Differential Vector Calculus. A statistics with calculus course might be nice to help introduce some of the nomenclature.
Physics You be required to take all the basics. But as electives you'll probably end up with either Thermal Physics (which is usually Thermodynamics for dummies) or a course in Relativity as a precurser to Quantum Physics (probably titled Modern Physics). You might want to look at some classes that focus on Solid State physics, like electronic properties of materials where you learn about holes. Many of these will be found in one of the engineering programs, or joint between them.
Chemistry You'll obviously take the basics, but will want to skip all the organic crap, that won't be useful to you. As one of your electives you'll probably want to take 1 or 2 Physical Chemistry classes. This will be some in depth shit, and pretty hard. (at least for me) Some of it won't pertain to exactly your designs but you'll know the math, nomenclature, and rules backwards and forewards when you're done.
Engineering Most of the truly difficult classes will be here. Any classes that are dealing with quantum computing specifically will be senior electives in either EE or CompE. But more important is finding a Professor you REALLY identify with, like and who likes you in your department. You don't want someone who will lie to you to get you out of their office because you're not as valuable as their time. You want someone who's at least respected by their peers, but preferably liked. You want to ask often about things you can do to further your goal, and perhaps if you could attend a graduate level class (these are more individualized and you'll nearly count as 3/5ths human, but require a lot of really hard work). But I can't overestimate the importance of finding a professor to be an ally. The smaller the department the more important this might be.
First I would submit that among those who know, not scifi authors, the most popular interpritation is called decoherence. Essentially, the reality we percive is made up of the beats in the multitude of wave equations. But the best interpritation might be the Copenhagen version. The underlying reality doesn't really matter outside of a conceptual tool. I would say the multiple universe version is silly, and more appropriate for bad fiction. But that's me. There are also version in which time is an illusion created by our consiousness shifting from the moment of one universe to a slightly different universe. Again, I think this is crap. I tend to be of the opinion the decoherence is a much more elegant interpritation. Once again none of that is important, what does matter is that if one of the many different conceptual tools helps you see the world in a different way, that's swell. Much like a paintling, the particular interpritation changes the viewer, not the subject it represents.
But enough about how well that was trolled. I'm a little curious about why no one has mentioned how bad symantec's products are. For the past two years, really, installing Norton Antivirus was a great way to insure you WinTel was never up for more that 30 minutes at a time. (No stones please, I'm not a windows fan, but I am a trueSpace fan, so I don't have a lot of options. Besides windows can be metastable for long periods.) But back to why symantec sucks. I remember that in older toshiba laptops, norton used to kill the video driver. But back when I was fixing computers on the side, on of the first questions I'd ask for people who just had a laundry list of problems was, "Do you have Norton Antivirus?" Something like 95% the people replied affermatively. I do realize a degree of the fault lies with windows, but none of the other virus protection programs had the truly incredible array of serious problems that Norton AV does. Ghost is probably the only software Symantec makes that I would risk owning. By in large, their products can be described as evil in a box. I know, they didn't use to be that kind of company, but times change and my way-back machine is in the shop.
From my limited under standing, an idea, as implimented, being obvious is not enough to count as obvious in the world of patents. It must be obvious within the space of all the other possible solutions. So while their 'solution' to the particular problem might be obvious after the fact, prior to its excecution, they might have chosen another equally or even more effective method. But they didn't they chose the method they chose. Oddly, their chosen method, now patented, may cover all the previously unpatented methods. It's this changing scope and lack of omnipotence among patent examiners that causes the problem. Just the presence of other at least equally good choices in the space of possible choices is what makes their patent technically non-obvious, and gives them the stick to control the space of all possible choices. It's an odd system we have here in the US. Much of it was done by the courts, the test reads as perfectly reasonable, but it's applied in a hopelessly contorted fashion thanks to the courts. But what else did we expect, we're letting sophists make important descisions.
Well not that my crappy textbooks aren't biased, everyones are. But I have a Computer Structure and Organization book which makes a pretty good case for hardware and software being equal partners. In that, anything you do with software you can do in hardware and vice versa. The case Sun seems to have publicly settled on is without hardware, software is an idea waiting to be executed, while the hardware is real, and can be poked with sharp sticks. I suppose in a world of plentiful hardware and multi-platform languages that's a more tenuous position. But this is really a pointless question. (IMHO) As it would seem to be wholey in the domain of personal perogative and Philosophy 101.
I think there might be a little hyperbole there, no? There were more than a few anti-monopoly barbs, not to mention flat out ridicule. I'm not saying I wasn't greatly amused. It certainly makes thier corporate culture seem to be something akin to angry interns. This sort of fued can't be helped. The companies view information at large as very seperate things, and they're competing for acceptance in a limited space. But for the rhetoric to take such an amusing turn. I can't help but wonder if the informal, and hyperbole prone culture of the internet help fosters such displays. If so, I'm once again in Al Gore's debt.
Clinton? Hardly. In one sence it might be Lincon who decided which country all your property belonged to. But overall I'd have to go with Washington. Mearly because he was the 1st President to agree that African Americans were 3/5th human. Or how about the President that presided over prohibition. Most of the drug war philosophy springs from that font of knowledge, to say nothing of organized crime and the laws enacted to combat it. Wire taps, and its modernday equivalents Carnivore and Eschlon may owe their very existence to prohibition. Or how about Nixon for enacting prohibition v 2.0: The War on Drugs. It's called perspective, and it's a pretty (pardon my French) fucked up day when you're getting a history lesson from a Metallugical Engineer.
Yes I know it was probably a troll, and I should have a nice day. But still....
Well considering GeoWorks is claiming to have invented all markup languages on wireless devices, ya remind me a little of that "Crossing Over" guy on the scifi channel, or that random Jamaican chick with the tarot cards. They're also succesfully patenting calling from an address book on your cell phone. Most of the patent claims deal with the typical operation of a markup language. I would suspect they only expected to recive a patent for a slightly smarter cell phone web browser. Of course they'll loose. But they're here and they're funny, so laugh. (Nice website those guys at delphion put together, I esspecially like the scrolling of Claim 24, I guess that one is particularly ammusing so they wanted to make you work for it.)
As extra bonus info, SDF-1's in Japan would shoot these sharp little fighters off its arms. In japan, children will have fun and totally sweet toys even if it kills them. And there's a lesson to be learned from that.
I happen to have a few of the original "Robotech" aka Macross toys. "Jetfire" is from a VF-1S Super Valkyrie. I happen to have 2 VF-1S Strike variants (which are cooler). The Transformer version has a slightly blunted nose, and minimaly different paint. Also in the US versions the guns don't shoot, but you could probably fix that with spring from a small retractable pen. As a side note the ladies don't seem to be as impressed as the dudes by a couple of grand worth of the coolest toys ever made. Who would have ever imagined that?
I truly do wish them the best of luck. Hell, it's a nice idea. But they have all the problems of starting with a new substrate material, with the one advantage of cost in the far flung future. Coupled with the problems of, creating a circuit many times larger (in area), using much more material over longer distances increasing resistance on a material that disipates heat less effectivly, with mechanical properties that change appreciably over the tempeture range used and in the presence of water (even vapor). I've probably left many of the major hurdles they haven't addressed out. Let me just close with the following observation: In my personal experience magic and happy thoughts do not a business model make.