Hence QM and GR will never 'collide' because GR will have disappeared to be replaced by something else - possibly something which QM has no problem with.
I don't understand where you're going with this. It seems the same to me as saying that the constant speed of light and classical mechanics don't collide, because Special Relativity replaced classical mechanics.
I assume the result would be the same as for SR - we would use GR (or QM) in the domain where it is applicable, and the new theory where it isn't.
General relativity is known to be incompatible with quantum mechanics. People are still trying to come up with a theory that reconciles the two.
This is similar to the way we knew: * the constant speed of light (regardless of reference frame) was incompatible with the classical laws of momentum and energy [resolved by Special Relativity] * the equations for low energy blackbody radiation and high energy blackbody radiation were incompatible with one another [resolved by quantum mechanics]
I haven't RTFA, but if they have something testable, I would think this means we have a basis for making quantitative measurements of what happens where GR and QM collide. (And hence a basis for coming up with a unifying theory.)
You still need a classical signal. Information still cannot be transmitted faster than light.
It's possible there are esoteric uses for this if it could be scaled up dramatically in terms of the sophistication of the state transmitted, and this could matter for quantum computer communication some day, but I fail to see any real use for quantum teleportation today.
I do have a BS in Physics, but that was 15 years ago and I have never done physics professionally - I got sucked up by the nice pay and abundant job market for programmers.
When this sort of thing happens (we discover the laws of physics aren't quite what we thought they were) then the best historical way to get a new theory is to keep the fundamental assumptions and figure out exactly what laws fit the fundamental assumptions plus all the observations.
For example:
Special relativity came from reconciling the constant speed of light with conservation of energy and momentum.
General relativity came from reconciling the implications of special relativity along with the indistinguishability of acceleration and gravity with cons. of E and M.
Quantum mechanics came from reconciling high and low energy black body radiation, the behavior of atoms excited by light, and the quantized behavior of light under some circumstances while it behaved like a wave in others. Again, barring fluctuations over very short times or in extremely precise location measurements, energy and momentum are conserved.
I totally agree, but IMO the faculty of our state universities should be writing/updating, reviewing and recommending those books. In fact, that process could be part of their classes.
I still haven't figured out why college classes aren't working on projects with long term value. You have a bunch of people at least supposedly interested in high level intellectual work at your disposal and an opportunity to let them get familiar with real-world problems.
Textbooks, OSS, Wikipedia updates, engineering projects to help bootstrap education in third world (or first world) countries should all be produced as part of our university classwork.
If I was a state governor, I'd pay the faculty of my state universities create textbooks for my k-12 curriculum. Instead of paying royalties to large publishers, my faculty would be better paid.
And again, this problem is easy to spot, and can be fixed in one place. When the people with permissions just honor all requests given to them in a stern voice, it's a harder problem to resolve.
IMO the place to start if you want to fix computer security is with the culture of software use rather than the software itself.
There are plenty of places where security can be made better technically, and it is our nature as "software guys" to focus on those, but most significant break-ins come from the way people treat software and password information.
Leaving USB drives or laptops lying around without using existing encrypted drive technology
writing your password down
believing someone is there in an official capacity because they talk in the expected way and are dressed correctly
etc.
are all bigger problems than
buffer overflows
privilege escalation
sql injection
Not because the latter aren't issues that need work, but because those are issues that get recognized and fixed quickly. As far as I know, there is no widely accepted way of fixing the social problems that plague computer security.
Some neural nets can learn on their own, without training. It shocked me too the first time I read of it.
Dammit, I can't find a reference now. The example I read about was classifying plants in broad and more specific types - the only input was data describing each of the plants.
Granting the government power in lieu of giving the complementary right to humans is liberal, at least as liberal/conservative are defined today.
I don't see where you're disagreeing with me.
Again, issues do not fall on some liberal/conservative graph which has some moral value associated. Life is more complicated than that, and besides, lib/cons have been loaded with so much baggage by political meme engineers as to be worthless.
I agree that understanding meaning is important to getting better speech recognition, but I disagree about "true speech recognition". What you're describing is almost true Turing complete AI.
What Google is doing is in fact paying attention to context. And it does let them identify speech that even humans would have difficulty with. If I say "Jonathon Coulton Code Monkey", Google gets it completely right, including the odd spelling of the last name, because it knows those words go together.
The article's assertion is that speech recognition has stagnated. On the contrary, I think it had mostly stagnated for 10 years, but what we have now is a big leap over what we had 10 years ago. Ten years ago, it was a toy for anyone with the use of both hands. Today, it is often the most convenient way to enter information on my phone, and I'm an excellent typist.
I agree with you, but that falls into the case of the electorate buying lobbyists ourselves.
I don't think there's anything to do about it other than encourage more of it, though. If you outlawed lobbying you would just end up with lobbyists having lies as job titles.
In general I agree with you completely, but lobbyists do have an advantage: they are paid to spend time with representatives making their case. Unless the electorate buys lobbyists ourselves, we have no such full time opinionated political buddy to foist on our civil servants.
Thanks for the good vibes, and risking your karma by posting with your True Name in response to one of the damned.
BTW, someone is definite removing my karma bonus in addition to slapping troll mods on me. Either that or there's some automatic removal of karma bonuses when two troll mods are given.
One wonders about the shitty ways people use power, then you find someone abusing petty powers like this in your own back yard.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but the state engines and the thread mindset (share data and use mutexes/semaphores to control access) are.
I don't understand where you're going with this. It seems the same to me as saying that the constant speed of light and classical mechanics don't collide, because Special Relativity replaced classical mechanics.
I assume the result would be the same as for SR - we would use GR (or QM) in the domain where it is applicable, and the new theory where it isn't.
People address race conditions by adding more code? Yuck. The solution to a bug is rarely to add (significantly) more code.
(Your first problem was using threads to solve something more suited to state engines feeding one another via queues, but that's pervasive.)
General relativity is known to be incompatible with quantum mechanics. People are still trying to come up with a theory that reconciles the two.
This is similar to the way we knew:
* the constant speed of light (regardless of reference frame) was incompatible with the classical laws of momentum and energy [resolved by Special Relativity]
* the equations for low energy blackbody radiation and high energy blackbody radiation were incompatible with one another [resolved by quantum mechanics]
I haven't RTFA, but if they have something testable, I would think this means we have a basis for making quantitative measurements of what happens where GR and QM collide. (And hence a basis for coming up with a unifying theory.)
You still need a classical signal. Information still cannot be transmitted faster than light.
It's possible there are esoteric uses for this if it could be scaled up dramatically in terms of the sophistication of the state transmitted, and this could matter for quantum computer communication some day, but I fail to see any real use for quantum teleportation today.
I do have a BS in Physics, but that was 15 years ago and I have never done physics professionally - I got sucked up by the nice pay and abundant job market for programmers.
Do you think anyone who would conflate API with UI will know what conflate means?
When this sort of thing happens (we discover the laws of physics aren't quite what we thought they were) then the best historical way to get a new theory is to keep the fundamental assumptions and figure out exactly what laws fit the fundamental assumptions plus all the observations.
For example:
Special relativity came from reconciling the constant speed of light with conservation of energy and momentum.
General relativity came from reconciling the implications of special relativity along with the indistinguishability of acceleration and gravity with cons. of E and M.
Quantum mechanics came from reconciling high and low energy black body radiation, the behavior of atoms excited by light, and the quantized behavior of light under some circumstances while it behaved like a wave in others. Again, barring fluctuations over very short times or in extremely precise location measurements, energy and momentum are conserved.
You don't have to tell me about it. I live there/here. :-/
I totally agree, but IMO the faculty of our state universities should be writing/updating, reviewing and recommending those books. In fact, that process could be part of their classes.
I still haven't figured out why college classes aren't working on projects with long term value. You have a bunch of people at least supposedly interested in high level intellectual work at your disposal and an opportunity to let them get familiar with real-world problems.
Textbooks, OSS, Wikipedia updates, engineering projects to help bootstrap education in third world (or first world) countries should all be produced as part of our university classwork.
*That* is a brilliant fucking idea.
And again, this problem is easy to spot, and can be fixed in one place. When the people with permissions just honor all requests given to them in a stern voice, it's a harder problem to resolve.
I agree - I meant writing your password down and leaving it sitting beside your computer, and should have said that.
IMO the place to start if you want to fix computer security is with the culture of software use rather than the software itself.
There are plenty of places where security can be made better technically, and it is our nature as "software guys" to focus on those, but most significant break-ins come from the way people treat software and password information.
are all bigger problems than
Not because the latter aren't issues that need work, but because those are issues that get recognized and fixed quickly. As far as I know, there is no widely accepted way of fixing the social problems that plague computer security.
Great, then you should know what the name is... ?
+1, MC Frontalot in your sig
Some neural nets can learn on their own, without training. It shocked me too the first time I read of it.
Dammit, I can't find a reference now. The example I read about was classifying plants in broad and more specific types - the only input was data describing each of the plants.
Granting the government power in lieu of giving the complementary right to humans is liberal, at least as liberal/conservative are defined today.
I don't see where you're disagreeing with me.
Again, issues do not fall on some liberal/conservative graph which has some moral value associated. Life is more complicated than that, and besides, lib/cons have been loaded with so much baggage by political meme engineers as to be worthless.
Granting humans rights in lieu of giving the complementary power to a business is liberal, at least as liberal/conservative are defined today.
I just refuse to define myself in terms of liberal/conservative, personally. My opinions do not live on a one dimensional scale.
I agree that understanding meaning is important to getting better speech recognition, but I disagree about "true speech recognition". What you're describing is almost true Turing complete AI.
What Google is doing is in fact paying attention to context. And it does let them identify speech that even humans would have difficulty with. If I say "Jonathon Coulton Code Monkey", Google gets it completely right, including the odd spelling of the last name, because it knows those words go together.
The article's assertion is that speech recognition has stagnated. On the contrary, I think it had mostly stagnated for 10 years, but what we have now is a big leap over what we had 10 years ago. Ten years ago, it was a toy for anyone with the use of both hands. Today, it is often the most convenient way to enter information on my phone, and I'm an excellent typist.
Google voice recognition already does exactly that. It matches words against their database of words commonly used together via their search engine.
This message was composed using android voice recognition on my nexus 1 phone. I had to manually correct 2 words out of the whole post.
I agree with you, but that falls into the case of the electorate buying lobbyists ourselves.
I don't think there's anything to do about it other than encourage more of it, though. If you outlawed lobbying you would just end up with lobbyists having lies as job titles.
In general I agree with you completely, but lobbyists do have an advantage: they are paid to spend time with representatives making their case. Unless the electorate buys lobbyists ourselves, we have no such full time opinionated political buddy to foist on our civil servants.
That *is* my previous notion of what a laser looks like. (Well, a large room full of tubes, but basically the same thing.)
I think other people are thinking of ray guns, which aren't real (yet).
Thanks for the good vibes, and risking your karma by posting with your True Name in response to one of the damned.
BTW, someone is definite removing my karma bonus in addition to slapping troll mods on me. Either that or there's some automatic removal of karma bonuses when two troll mods are given.
One wonders about the shitty ways people use power, then you find someone abusing petty powers like this in your own back yard.
Disappointing.
Post-1600s? That's a rather broad stroke to only be intended for nuclear weapons.
Please practice reading comprehension before insulting.