Yes, but a lot less time than someone who committed 10,000 rapes or murders would have.
I wonder how many of these SJW manginas here cheering this bullshit were also cheering when Hulk Hogan had secret video of him having sex taken without his permission and, again without his permission or consent, had it splattered all over the web?
I didn't cheer about that. Did anyone else cheer about that?
"Wrong. Not all interactions collapse the wave function, and that's one of the great mysteries still being explored." That's faith in mysteries not proof.
No it's not, it's a perfectly factual statement.
It's magnetic influence is dependent on its spin, and thus it already determined because it has an influence before you detect it.
No. You can establish the location of an electron - detecting it - without determining its spin.
"Your reasoning seems to amount to " You misrepresent the explanation.
You haven't offered any explanation. Of anything.
" But it won't be long before someone comes up with a simpler one that better fits the observations" Indeed, and that simpler equation will meet opposition from believers in the old equation. That's you.
How can it "be me"? You haven't offered a simpler explanation for me to consider. Your "simpler explanation" - which apparently amounts to a simple pig-headed insistence that there are hidden variables, in direct contradiction to oft-repeated experimental results - has no evidence in its favour. Simple it may be, but it also has to explain observations. Hidden variables can not account for what is observed.
You have not debunked my simple thought experiment.
Your thought experiment doesn't need debunking, because it doesn't actually make any difference to what has already been observed in reality. Your vague thoughts about half-bricks don't make any difference to the observed facts, which, so far, are only explicable by theories which include quanta of light.
The problem here is a theory is either "right" or "is right but needs tweeking"
No. A theory is either proven false, or not yet proven false. If you think you're the guy to prove quantum theory false, go for out - but given the apparent level of your understanding of physics and the scientific method, I won't be holding my breath.
Detection/interaction is not the same as measurement (determination) of a quantum property, such as location, momentum, or spin. You can measure an electron's location with varying degrees of accuracy, if you so wish, and it's provably not a limit due to your measuring equipment. You can detect the presence of an electron without collapsing its spin to a definite state.
6. Thus your Quantum uncertainty theory can never work, the particle/photon/whatever's state MUST be determined BEFORE *you* detect it by its interactions with other matter.
Wrong. Not all interactions collapse the wave function, and that's one of the great mysteries still being explored.
This is false reasoning.
Your reasoning seems to amount to "bricks exist, and photons exist. You can have half a brick, therefore you can half a photon." That's just idiotic.
But I *can* make an equation that will predict the planets looping, and you observe them looping, ergo the planets and sun orbit around the earth?
Yes, you can. But it won't be long before someone comes up with a simpler one that better fits the observations, and that will oust your theory. (hint: it already happened)
Then there's the 'it matches my equations so it must be true'. I simply contrived a complex solution rather than give up on a bad idea.
Perhaps you should learn how science works. Science is never happy with a complex solution. In fact, in some ways science is the constant striving for a simpler solution.
if it fits you say "my theory works, I have proof", if it doesn't fit, you invent some extra tweak to your equation, this is a logical falsehood.
No it's not, because it's a continuous process. If it doesn't fit, sure, you tweak things. But you tweak them because they are necessary, not because you're being lazy.
Well, name any other big ticket movie where you actually hear the character's thoughts as a voice over
What would that prove, either way? Does that mean something like Memento (which, incidentally, opens with a scene "narrated" by the character's real-time inner thoughts) "fails the medium" because no other film shares its structure?
I mean, Ernest Borgnine died horrifically, as a robot with spinning blades eviscerates him as he feebly tries to shield his body with a book. As a child, that scene disturbed me
Be disturbed no longer, for it was actually Anthony Perkins who got minced.
That doesn't explain why you think* it's okay to present a person's inner thoughts on paper, but not on film.
*not that there's anything wrong with thinking that, but your wording implies that you think it's an objective truth.
because books can be written in third person or "God" mode
And films are (usually) shot in third person or "God" mode, so what's the difference there?
In case I wasn't clear (I hadn't realised you haven't read the books before) I was specifically talking about the Dune books when I mentioned literary inner thoughts. They're in there, just like they are in the film, and they're integral to understanding the characters. There's no way you could convey their meaning with a bit of "smell the fart" acting.
but expressions and actions are only described, not seen.
I don't see how that has any bearing on the portroyal of inner thoughts. In books, they're written down. In films, they're spoken. I don't see why one should be inherently better than the other.
If you, as a director and/or screenwriter, cannot get across the character's thoughts through action and expression, but have to resort to voice overs instead, you've really failed your medium.
Why doesn't the same apply to the books? There are "voiceovers" throughout.
I'd much rather have Dune's voiceovers that have to be subjected to an "as you know" speech.
No, it's convention. It's like telling someone they're not going to make a brilliant impression as an undertaker if they keep wearing their Elmo tie to work.
It's not the way people generally write, and certainly isn't how formal text is written. The ampersand is usually reserved/recommended for specific, named joinings - Hall & Oates, Smith & Wesson, <third example that escapes me at the moment>. It's not a general purpose drop-in replacement for the word "and."
As for it being "abuse," well... you may not have noticed, but my original post wasn't entirely serious.
personal information of the heads of state attending a G-20 summit [...] British Prime Minister David Cameron
A minor consitutional note, but David Cameron isn't a head of state. Queen Elizabeth is, but she doesn't have a passport, as they're issued in her name, and in any case she can just flash a tenner at passport control as ID, or just say "I'm the bloody queen, mate" and be done with it.
Slashdot Mirror
So he gets more time that rape or murder 2?
Yes, but a lot less time than someone who committed 10,000 rapes or murders would have.
I wonder how many of these SJW manginas here cheering this bullshit were also cheering when Hulk Hogan had secret video of him having sex taken without his permission and, again without his permission or consent, had it splattered all over the web?
I didn't cheer about that. Did anyone else cheer about that?
My point being you *detect* that interaction or you do not, and the quantum effect is the limit of your *detector*, not in the interaction.
That's not your "point," it's your uneducated hunch.
Do you honestly believe that you, from your armchair in the basement, have got it right where generations of physicists have got it wrong?
Can I come to the ceremony when you get your Nobel prize?
"Wrong. Not all interactions collapse the wave function, and that's one of the great mysteries still being explored."
That's faith in mysteries not proof.
No it's not, it's a perfectly factual statement.
It's magnetic influence is dependent on its spin, and thus it already determined because it has an influence before you detect it.
No. You can establish the location of an electron - detecting it - without determining its spin.
"Your reasoning seems to amount to "
You misrepresent the explanation.
You haven't offered any explanation. Of anything.
" But it won't be long before someone comes up with a simpler one that better fits the observations"
Indeed, and that simpler equation will meet opposition from believers in the old equation. That's you.
How can it "be me"? You haven't offered a simpler explanation for me to consider. Your "simpler explanation" - which apparently amounts to a simple pig-headed insistence that there are hidden variables, in direct contradiction to oft-repeated experimental results - has no evidence in its favour. Simple it may be, but it also has to explain observations. Hidden variables can not account for what is observed.
You have not debunked my simple thought experiment.
Your thought experiment doesn't need debunking, because it doesn't actually make any difference to what has already been observed in reality. Your vague thoughts about half-bricks don't make any difference to the observed facts, which, so far, are only explicable by theories which include quanta of light.
The problem here is a theory is either "right" or "is right but needs tweeking"
No. A theory is either proven false, or not yet proven false. If you think you're the guy to prove quantum theory false, go for out - but given the apparent level of your understanding of physics and the scientific method, I won't be holding my breath.
If it has closed captions. Don't they generally just use DVD bitmaps these days?
The #1 job for men in the United States is.. driving a truck.
#1 by what metric?
All the "You can have my steering wheel when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers!" people.
They'll all be dead soon enough.
I can't just get in my own car and drive when I want to?
You can, if you want. GP's point was that fewer people will probably need/want to.
"You don't have your own car? How quaint."
You don't have your own private jet?
Meaning working more for the same pay. Employers would be all for this.
Employers are probably all for paying everyone half their current salary, too, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen just because it can.
IANAP, but I'll give this one a bash.
Interactions with other stuff *IS* detection.
Detection/interaction is not the same as measurement (determination) of a quantum property, such as location, momentum, or spin. You can measure an electron's location with varying degrees of accuracy, if you so wish, and it's provably not a limit due to your measuring equipment. You can detect the presence of an electron without collapsing its spin to a definite state.
6. Thus your Quantum uncertainty theory can never work, the particle/photon/whatever's state MUST be determined BEFORE *you* detect it by its interactions with other matter.
Wrong. Not all interactions collapse the wave function, and that's one of the great mysteries still being explored.
This is false reasoning.
Your reasoning seems to amount to "bricks exist, and photons exist. You can have half a brick, therefore you can half a photon." That's just idiotic.
But I *can* make an equation that will predict the planets looping, and you observe them looping, ergo the planets and sun orbit around the earth?
Yes, you can. But it won't be long before someone comes up with a simpler one that better fits the observations, and that will oust your theory. (hint: it already happened)
Then there's the 'it matches my equations so it must be true'. I simply contrived a complex solution rather than give up on a bad idea.
Perhaps you should learn how science works. Science is never happy with a complex solution. In fact, in some ways science is the constant striving for a simpler solution.
if it fits you say "my theory works, I have proof", if it doesn't fit, you invent some extra tweak to your equation, this is a logical falsehood.
No it's not, because it's a continuous process. If it doesn't fit, sure, you tweak things. But you tweak them because they are necessary, not because you're being lazy.
I never said I liked it...
I do, though.
Well, name any other big ticket movie where you actually hear the character's thoughts as a voice over
What would that prove, either way? Does that mean something like Memento (which, incidentally, opens with a scene "narrated" by the character's real-time inner thoughts) "fails the medium" because no other film shares its structure?
Dune's quite a unique film.
I mean, Ernest Borgnine died horrifically, as a robot with spinning blades eviscerates him as he feebly tries to shield his body with a book. As a child, that scene disturbed me
Be disturbed no longer, for it was actually Anthony Perkins who got minced.
Because books are a different medium.
That doesn't explain why you think* it's okay to present a person's inner thoughts on paper, but not on film.
*not that there's anything wrong with thinking that, but your wording implies that you think it's an objective truth.
because books can be written in third person or "God" mode
And films are (usually) shot in third person or "God" mode, so what's the difference there?
In case I wasn't clear (I hadn't realised you haven't read the books before) I was specifically talking about the Dune books when I mentioned literary inner thoughts. They're in there, just like they are in the film, and they're integral to understanding the characters. There's no way you could convey their meaning with a bit of "smell the fart" acting.
but expressions and actions are only described, not seen.
I don't see how that has any bearing on the portroyal of inner thoughts. In books, they're written down. In films, they're spoken. I don't see why one should be inherently better than the other.
If you, as a director and/or screenwriter, cannot get across the character's thoughts through action and expression, but have to resort to voice overs instead, you've really failed your medium.
Why doesn't the same apply to the books? There are "voiceovers" throughout.
I'd much rather have Dune's voiceovers that have to be subjected to an "as you know" speech.
Because inevitably something is going to fool me
Well, it's unlikely to be Slashdot with drivel like this.
I just want to go to bed and wake up tomorrow.
Ah, you didn't hear? They just discovered an error in the standard leap year calculation, so everyone has to skip April 2nd this year.
Massive Power Outage Paralyzes Turkey
Chicken unaffected.
No, it's convention. It's like telling someone they're not going to make a brilliant impression as an undertaker if they keep wearing their Elmo tie to work.
It's not the way people generally write, and certainly isn't how formal text is written. The ampersand is usually reserved/recommended for specific, named joinings - Hall & Oates, Smith & Wesson, <third example that escapes me at the moment>. It's not a general purpose drop-in replacement for the word "and."
As for it being "abuse," well... you may not have noticed, but my original post wasn't entirely serious.
global variables are seen redundant
As is the word "as," apparently.
Yeah... bout as bloody ignorant as them bloody Romans who invented the bloody thing thousands of years ago.
(You do realise that & is an older letter than K and Z, right...?)
What's that got to do with anything?
Aww, so close, but you accidentally a word.
Which side is going to win?
What makes you think it'll ever be over?
Here's a sports analogy, if you need one.
(the radio version was better but I couldn't find it)
making good-quality videos is expensive & making simple yet effective
Gah. Ampersand abuse is right up there with grocers' apostrophes. Burn the witch!
personal information of the heads of state attending a G-20 summit [...] British Prime Minister David Cameron
A minor consitutional note, but David Cameron isn't a head of state. Queen Elizabeth is, but she doesn't have a passport, as they're issued in her name, and in any case she can just flash a tenner at passport control as ID, or just say "I'm the bloody queen, mate" and be done with it.
Possibly because it's the operative word of a quote.
"we don't serve your kind here"
"Huh?"
"Your druids. They'll have to wait outside."