Correct me if I'm wrong here, but according to the article this process relies on quantum entanglement. As far as I know this has never been achieved on a large scale - only in single pairs.
IANAPhysicist, but...
Doesn't the uncertainty principle and the whole probability function idea of quantum mechanics suggest than a single photon pair would be all you'd need for the whole object? Theoretically, you could superimpose the probabilities of it bouncing off every single surface of the object at once to get the whole thing. The article mentioned that they would measure when the particle hit the sphere, not where, so that measurement wouldn't disrupt anything.
Now how do they extract and superimpose all those probablilities.
This would be like somebody splitting cable tv service with your neighbor, with only one household paying the bill.
Almost. If I split cable service with my neighbor, we can both watch TV at the same time, even different channels: I don't lose anything for doing so, and end up cheating the company. But if I share my bandwith with someone, I have to split the bandwith. That's the difference. Splitting bandwith doesn't double it; splitting CATV service does.
(Well, okay, the real argument is probably that the providers see a way to make more money but....)
I pay for a certain amount of bandwidth. Why do they care how it gets used?
I think you've got it, and I agree. What's the difference between setting up a home network versus a network between you and two neighbors? The pipe is the same width. And I distinctly remember my RoadRunner representatives telling me that it was perfectly fine to set up multiple computers for the one cable modem they gave me!
This article has been on HSW for a week or two. I remember them hosting a discussion that brushed on some of the issues already mentioned here on slashdot (what is a page, what about non-USA surfers, privacy concerns a la Passport and Hailstorm, etc), but I can't seem to find it now.
While I agree with all of the issues against this idea, I also feel that there are sites out there that probably could use a little money and put it to good use. I wonder if this thing could be tackled instead at the ISP level -- say a small (dollar or two) charge that gets distributed to sites based on the aggregate transfer of data or connections with that site. It would certainly solve most of the privacy issues, as well as all the mini credit card transactions.
At least it might cut down on banner ads and those annoying pop-unders. It would be worth a couple of bucks a month for me if I never had to experience another browser bombing.
When you've seen one non-sequitur, the price of tea in China.
I just don't see how these services are all that different from existing technology, notably photocopiers and scanners. True, a photocopier doesn't make an exact and perfect copy of the source, but most of the time it's just text. As long as it can still be read easily, there's no complaint.
It is true that photocopiers are often used to illegally duplicate copyrighted material, but I have yet to hear of any court or government agency outlawing their use. Is this situation really that different?
My question is, how do these companies altering the language/screening your email/rating your TV shows (v-chip) know what is right for you?
That's exactly my point. Even within one community, values and opinions can be extremely diverse. How can one person or organization arbitrarily decide that you can't see/use something because you may find it offensive? Let me decide for myself what I consider offensive, and when I find it, I'll avoid it.
And you're right: at least Eudora allows you to disable such limiting software features. Why can't M$ incorporate a filter instead?
They're doing it for the same reason that dictionaries and thesauri targeted at school children exclude the very same words.
Granted I've met a number of adults who need do be sent back to Kindergarten to re-learn ideas like "sharing" and "being nice", but since when should the general population be indiscriminately treated as school children -- especially with regard to language and research? We are supposed to be free to make up our own minds on what we consider offensive, and if the word "idiot" is offensive to someone, then why would s/he type it into M$ Word in the first place?
I don't think they have to push hard for.NET or XP. The majority of PC users out there live and breathe Microsoft because that's all they know. It just takes enough consumers and business managers to pick up these "enhancements". Then everyone else will have to adopt just to do business or communicate. Winner: M$. Loser: your privacy.
What happens if my best friend or my brother needs to borrow a little money? All I have to do is fork over a couple of bills and send him on his way (and hope I get it back sometime in this lifetime).
With a totally cashless society, I and whoever else would loan him money would have to follow him wherever he needs to go in order to help him pay. Unless of course you get ATM machines with a "transfer balance" option (more big-brother paranoia), but even then we both would have to had out to the ATM together.
I suppose I could just write a check. But then one could argue that a check is in some sense another form of paper money, in that it implies that someone is promising to back the note up with something of value (cash=gold, check=cash).
No.
I believe the EULA works the same as any contract. By opening the software package, you agree to be bound by the terms of the contract and voluntarily give up some of your rights.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAPhysicist, but...
Doesn't the uncertainty principle and the whole probability function idea of quantum mechanics suggest than a single photon pair would be all you'd need for the whole object? Theoretically, you could superimpose the probabilities of it bouncing off every single surface of the object at once to get the whole thing. The article mentioned that they would measure when the particle hit the sphere, not where, so that measurement wouldn't disrupt anything.
Now how do they extract and superimpose all those probablilities.
Almost. If I split cable service with my neighbor, we can both watch TV at the same time, even different channels: I don't lose anything for doing so, and end up cheating the company. But if I share my bandwith with someone, I have to split the bandwith. That's the difference. Splitting bandwith doesn't double it; splitting CATV service does.
I pay for a certain amount of bandwidth. Why do they care how it gets used?
I think you've got it, and I agree. What's the difference between setting up a home network versus a network between you and two neighbors? The pipe is the same width. And I distinctly remember my RoadRunner representatives telling me that it was perfectly fine to set up multiple computers for the one cable modem they gave me!
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/index.html
While I agree with all of the issues against this idea, I also feel that there are sites out there that probably could use a little money and put it to good use. I wonder if this thing could be tackled instead at the ISP level -- say a small (dollar or two) charge that gets distributed to sites based on the aggregate transfer of data or connections with that site. It would certainly solve most of the privacy issues, as well as all the mini credit card transactions.
At least it might cut down on banner ads and those annoying pop-unders. It would be worth a couple of bucks a month for me if I never had to experience another browser bombing.
When you've seen one non-sequitur, the price of tea in China.
How about NonCopyrightedFileOrDataSharingAreaOfTheWorld?
It is true that photocopiers are often used to illegally duplicate copyrighted material, but I have yet to hear of any court or government agency outlawing their use. Is this situation really that different?
And you're right: at least Eudora allows you to disable such limiting software features. Why can't M$ incorporate a filter instead?
How nice of them. I'd expect that sooner or later they'd start giving grammar errors whenever we type anything like Java or Unix or Open Source.
Java -> 1 synonym found: J#
Unix -> no synonyms found
Open Source -> 1 synonym found: crackerware
Linux -> [blue screen of death]
Granted I've met a number of adults who need do be sent back to Kindergarten to re-learn ideas like "sharing" and "being nice", but since when should the general population be indiscriminately treated as school children -- especially with regard to language and research? We are supposed to be free to make up our own minds on what we consider offensive, and if the word "idiot" is offensive to someone, then why would s/he type it into M$ Word in the first place?
I don't think they have to push hard for .NET or XP. The majority of PC users out there live and breathe Microsoft because that's all they know. It just takes enough consumers and business managers to pick up these "enhancements". Then everyone else will have to adopt just to do business or communicate. Winner: M$. Loser: your privacy.
What happens if my best friend or my brother needs to borrow a little money? All I have to do is fork over a couple of bills and send him on his way (and hope I get it back sometime in this lifetime). With a totally cashless society, I and whoever else would loan him money would have to follow him wherever he needs to go in order to help him pay. Unless of course you get ATM machines with a "transfer balance" option (more big-brother paranoia), but even then we both would have to had out to the ATM together. I suppose I could just write a check. But then one could argue that a check is in some sense another form of paper money, in that it implies that someone is promising to back the note up with something of value (cash=gold, check=cash).
No. I believe the EULA works the same as any contract. By opening the software package, you agree to be bound by the terms of the contract and voluntarily give up some of your rights.