The parent is correct, as far as it goes. The weird bit that QM adds is that the two entangled particles will be measured to have a random spin, but they are always opposite spins. Do the experiment a million times, and each measurement gives "spin up" 50% of the time and "spin down" 50% of the time, but the other measurement is always the opposite.
If the measurement events are spacelike-separated (i.e., no signal can move between them), how can they give correlated but totally random results? The standard QM explanation is that measuring one particle instantaneously collapses the wavefunction that describes both particles, thus fixing the result of the other measurement. This is Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" that he so hated.
What the parent describes is a local-hidden-variables model (the cat being the hidden variable). QM predicts something different. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem.
The states aren't genuinely undetermined, it's jus that we don't know what it is. However, it's also the wrong explanation - because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem. A brilliant bit of work that showed you could in fact test and measure whether there were such local hidden variables. There aren't. Quantum weirdness won the battle.
This is true, but to be clear, Bell's Theorem shows that the correlation between spatially-separated measurements predicted by local-hidden-variables theories is less than the correlation predicted by QM (i.e., QM predicts the measurements are _more_ correlated than local hidden variables can make them).
Now that the experiments have been performed, QM is generally considered the winner.
Think about what you are proposing. You want a government agency to hand out key-pairs??? Rule #1 in asymmetric crypto: Nobody -- but nobody -- posseses a copy of your private key.
Do you seriously think that there will be no abuse of power if the government gets to keep a copy of my private key? Forget the government itself. If the private keys gets stolen, it's a recipe for massive identity theft.
It wasn't video. Satellites take still pictures. Even weather satellites give you pictures of clouds at best every few minutes -- they're stitched together into pseudo-video for the TV weatherman to show you.
In addition, most applications these days are not CPU bound. Having eight cores doesn't help you much when three are waiting on socket calls, four are waiting on disk access calls and the last is waiting for the graphics card.
I'm not sure this is true. It certainly is not the only bottleneck, but it seems to be the biggest one.
I would argue that disk I/O is the biggest bottleneck. Disk access times are measured in milliseconds. Memory access times are measured in nanoseconds. Eliminating those multi-millisecond pauses will vastly improve the performance of just about any app and the whole system. And don't forget that paging in code and static data from the executable image is disk I/O too.
Have you ever used a system with fast-rotating SCSI disks? They blaze compared to the same configuration without those fast disks. Unless your your load average is almost always greater than 1.0, you will benefit more by having faster disks than by having more CPUs.
Linux is loaded first, then a closed source module, which loads a closed source OS. The closed source module is a derived work of linux.
In my opinion, "derived from X" != "needs X to run". In my opinion, "derived from X" == "contains source code from X" (which isn't Linus's definition, but his definition isn't law).
Are you claiming that the VMware closed source module contains source code from the Linux kernel?
The answer is #3. XM advertises that O&A are offensive. XM marks their channel as an Extreme Language (XL) channel that can be blocked. XM did this to make money on O&A, then they suspend them for a reason that is contrary to XM's previous statement about O&A.
Nobody has a right not to be offended, especially by words broadcast on a pay service (cf. HBO). Pay radio seems to be held to a higher standard than pay TV. Should complaints from Italians that The Sopranos offends them be reason for a cable channel to cancel or suspend the show? No. The same goes for pay radio.
Nowhere here you can see the concern for well-being of United Artists, Warner Brothers or star actors.
Touché. Should the early adopters of passenger plane technology have had any concern for the airship manufacturers? Should early users of automobiles have had any concern for makers of horse-drawn carriages? Should people who used the first scientific calculators have had concern for the slide-rule makers?
At the most, this guy has managed to make 3 titles playable on a single player.
I beg to differ. He has managed to extract the video data in unencrypted form. He can now watch those 3 titles forever by playing them from his hard disk or by burning them unencrypted to a writable HD-DVD. He can also seed a torrent of those titles so others can watch/burn them too.
As others have pointed out, revoking title and player keys will not prevent every single HD-DVD from being decrypted in time. That may not be what you mean by "HD-DVD is cracked" but it's close enough for me. The vast majority of people will never manually crack an HD-DVD. They'll either use automated tools (that are continuously updated to cope with revoked keys) or simply download an already-decrypted copy of the disc using a BitTorrent client.
I see your point, but tamperproof hardware offers different challenges to the crackers than a software-only DRM scheme. If software can get the key, then the DRM system is doomed to failure.
Can you supply some references describing how Javascript code can access the client filesystem? The language has no file I/O constructs, so it must be the browser-supplied library that's allowing that particular security violation to happen, right?
For both points, I think you're looking for what XAML offers. C# as the scripting language, rounded corners / shapes with real primitives. XAML intro
The page your link points to says this about XAML:
XAML is a new descriptive programming language developed by Microsoft. The purpose of XAML to build user interfaces for next-generation Windows operating system.
XAML is proprietary MS technology (and Windows-specific to boot). I'm not blindly bashing MS here, but we want Web standards, and MS hardly has a good track record for innovating those. If the W3C or ECMA were to back XAML as an open standard, then fine, but that hasn't happened (AFAIK). And despite Mono's ability to make C# available on multiple OSes, C# effectively suffers from the same reputation as XAML. Yes, C# an ECMA standard, but I don't see the W3C getting behind C# in the near future.
That is not known for certain. Spacetime could be flat, positively curved (i.e., a 4D hypersphere, which would be finite but unbounded), or negatively curved (i.e., a 4D saddle shape, which would be infinite and unbounded).
Er that's not *quite* true. If you take a nice swack of polarized like, and put it at a filter to about a 45 degree rotation, and then another filter a little further on with another 45 degree polarization, you will have about a quarter(IIRC) of your origial light intensity being polarized in the new direction.
But then it's not the same photon. In passing through the polarizing filter, the photon is absorbed and remitted many times by the filter's electons.
Slashdot Mirror
The parent is correct, as far as it goes. The weird bit that QM adds is that the two entangled particles will be measured to have a random spin, but they are always opposite spins. Do the experiment a million times, and each measurement gives "spin up" 50% of the time and "spin down" 50% of the time, but the other measurement is always the opposite. If the measurement events are spacelike-separated (i.e., no signal can move between them), how can they give correlated but totally random results? The standard QM explanation is that measuring one particle instantaneously collapses the wavefunction that describes both particles, thus fixing the result of the other measurement. This is Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" that he so hated.
What the parent describes is a local-hidden-variables model (the cat being the hidden variable). QM predicts something different. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem.
The states aren't genuinely undetermined, it's jus that we don't know what it is. However, it's also the wrong explanation - because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem. A brilliant bit of work that showed you could in fact test and measure whether there were such local hidden variables. There aren't. Quantum weirdness won the battle.
This is true, but to be clear, Bell's Theorem shows that the correlation between spatially-separated measurements predicted by local-hidden-variables theories is less than the correlation predicted by QM (i.e., QM predicts the measurements are _more_ correlated than local hidden variables can make them). Now that the experiments have been performed, QM is generally considered the winner.
And there's also this light bulb that has burned for over a century: http://www.roadsideamerica.com/set/lightbulbs.html
If wishes were fishes ... We'll never understand those mysterious devices of 1959 that are forever lost to the mists of time.
But the most important question would be: why? Do you really think that in 50 years anybody cares about a PC that was mediocre in the year 2000?
Time capsules are intended to preserve history for the future. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
Hmm. Was Wintermute truly friendly? Time to re-read that book.
Think about what you are proposing. You want a government agency to hand out key-pairs??? Rule #1 in asymmetric crypto: Nobody -- but nobody -- posseses a copy of your private key.
Do you seriously think that there will be no abuse of power if the government gets to keep a copy of my private key? Forget the government itself. If the private keys gets stolen, it's a recipe for massive identity theft.
Isn't the first derivative of accelleration with respect to time called a jerk?
It wasn't video. Satellites take still pictures. Even weather satellites give you pictures of clouds at best every few minutes -- they're stitched together into pseudo-video for the TV weatherman to show you.
In my opinion, "derived from X" != "needs X to run". In my opinion, "derived from X" == "contains source code from X" (which isn't Linus's definition, but his definition isn't law).
Are you claiming that the VMware closed source module contains source code from the Linux kernel?
The answer is #3. XM advertises that O&A are offensive. XM marks their channel as an Extreme Language (XL) channel that can be blocked. XM did this to make money on O&A, then they suspend them for a reason that is contrary to XM's previous statement about O&A. Nobody has a right not to be offended, especially by words broadcast on a pay service (cf. HBO). Pay radio seems to be held to a higher standard than pay TV. Should complaints from Italians that The Sopranos offends them be reason for a cable channel to cancel or suspend the show? No. The same goes for pay radio.
Touché. Should the early adopters of passenger plane technology have had any concern for the airship manufacturers? Should early users of automobiles have had any concern for makers of horse-drawn carriages? Should people who used the first scientific calculators have had concern for the slide-rule makers?
The answer to all of these questions is obvious.I beg to differ. He has managed to extract the video data in unencrypted form. He can now watch those 3 titles forever by playing them from his hard disk or by burning them unencrypted to a writable HD-DVD. He can also seed a torrent of those titles so others can watch/burn them too.
As others have pointed out, revoking title and player keys will not prevent every single HD-DVD from being decrypted in time. That may not be what you mean by "HD-DVD is cracked" but it's close enough for me. The vast majority of people will never manually crack an HD-DVD. They'll either use automated tools (that are continuously updated to cope with revoked keys) or simply download an already-decrypted copy of the disc using a BitTorrent client.Can you supply some references describing how Javascript code can access the client filesystem? The language has no file I/O constructs, so it must be the browser-supplied library that's allowing that particular security violation to happen, right?
The page your link points to says this about XAML:
XAML is proprietary MS technology (and Windows-specific to boot). I'm not blindly bashing MS here, but we want Web standards, and MS hardly has a good track record for innovating those. If the W3C or ECMA were to back XAML as an open standard, then fine, but that hasn't happened (AFAIK). And despite Mono's ability to make C# available on multiple OSes, C# effectively suffers from the same reputation as XAML. Yes, C# an ECMA standard, but I don't see the W3C getting behind C# in the near future.
Eclipse: http://eclipse.org/