There is a really good book I read about stuff like this a few years ago, called "Schrodinger's Kittens". To sum it up, the guy says there is ANOTHER way to look at quantum weirdness, other than the "Standard/Copenhagen" model.
The idea is that since photons travel at the speed of light (duh), they don't experience "time", and can actually make a "choice" about the path they are going to take, so that an entangled pair of photons "agree" as to where they will be in the future. This has the affect of looking to us like there is an "instantaneous transmission" of information from one to the other, which would violate causality from the standard view. The "choice" is the ability of the photon to "feel out" all the possible paths it could take, and select an event in the future to which to tie itself to. This might be interpreted as a basis for "fate", which is fine by me, since that's the way I lean anyhow.
Obviously (as IANAP) this explanation is worded poorly and not really an accurate representation of the weird math involved. But, while information is "traveling back in time", I don't think there is a practical way to use this effect as a communications medium. Maybe you could have four entangled beams (two each for two observers)?
So what you are saying, is that if I was a game designer and wanted to make the most crack-like piece of entertainment software, I would have frequent/immediate rewards on the small scale, and infrequent/unreliable rewards that were much more rewarding. Then I would suck people into playing the game, keeping them playing, and make it hard for them to kick the habit.
My g/f was taking a behaviour course, and I remember hearing about how if you put a rat next to a feeding mechanism that gives him food when he hits a lever, he will end up hitting the lever and eating the food until he gets full, and then he will stop. If you make him hit the lever 50 times before he gets the food he will be hitting that lever over and over and over. And if you REALLY want that little guy to hit the lever like his life depends on it? You do step 1 and 2, and then you break the link between lever and food, and just randomly give him food. It's both funny and sad to see the films of this. About as funny and sad as taking a walk down Hastings and Main in Vancouver, Canada.
Let's face it: most of us have engaged in self-destructive, obsessive, and generally dumb behaviour. Playing games more than half of the time is all of these things. I myself have issues with Counter-Strike, and there have been more than a few games that I've "played 'til my eyes bled". I have many friends who have become "addicted" to games, recognized it, and recovered. It's not exactly unusual behaviour for geeks.
But because it's "normal" doesn't mean it's good. Someone else posted that somebody who spends all their time working as a lawyer would be praised as a "hard worker". Well, (disregarding the obvious jokes about the value of lawyering) anything that takes you over and locks you into a specific set of behaviours is bad. The great thing about being alive and human is the potential for doing new things. Doing the same exact thing for hours, days, months, years... that doesn't just make you an addict, it makes you uninteresting.
Whether you're an alcoholic, a crackhead, an obsessive EQ'er, or Bill Gates, it just isn't healthy to devote every waking moment to something that diminishes your capacity to be an interesting human. Obviously, whatever behaviours these types of people engage in give them some short-lived boost to their self-esteem, but at the expense of their lovability.
Do you want to be loved? Stop being so damn boring then, and take a fscking walk. Read a book. Hell, write a book... just do something different! Try to find a little balance in your life.
I don't think the article was that good. It should have had a better overview section, more details about competing forms of fuel cells, etc. Not much that's news here, really.
In any case, fuel cells are a great technology that will eventually kick batteries and petro-based fuels in the nuts. There will be several fuel-cell fuels (propane, methanol, even gasoline in the transitional stage), so there we don't need to rely on hydrogen alone. And there'll be electrolysis production of H2 from solar, wind, and other "alternative" sources. You can even use biomass to create hydrogen-rich fuels. I mean, why are we burning oil?... save it for plastics and other stuff, and stop sending up carbon for Pete's sake.
The main problem with H2 as a fuel is compressability: unless you have a cryogenic fuel tank you are going to run into problems with the amount of fuel you can carry. Unless they can solve this problem, methane/-ol might be a better option. H2 would be fine for applications where you could have big fuel tanks, or gas lines.
The main problem with fuel cells as a technology/industry is that while they will eventually be a big industry (a few trillion in cumulative investment by AD 2020, from what I've heard), there is a definite need for government at all levels to pony up with some investment. This stuff will benefit everybody, including the energy companies (though, they may not see it that way right now), so some demand from gov.'t would move things forward.
Measures like California's vehicle regulations, investment in "demonstration" fuel-cell city bus fleets, or pilot projects involving commuters are just the beginning of what needs to be done to get things moving: there needs to be a commitment to developing the unsexy infrastructure required to engineer, produce, and distribute this stuff.
Maybe government could do a deal for shares in the companies it partners with... so that the return on investment would be worth the risk.
Well, it'll happen. I'm sure of that. I just can't wait to get a fuel-cell motorcycle, and a van with a few kiloWatts of clean DC power, just aching to be driven out into the boonies for to power an all-night party.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea is that since photons travel at the speed of light (duh), they don't experience "time", and can actually make a "choice" about the path they are going to take, so that an entangled pair of photons "agree" as to where they will be in the future. This has the affect of looking to us like there is an "instantaneous transmission" of information from one to the other, which would violate causality from the standard view. The "choice" is the ability of the photon to "feel out" all the possible paths it could take, and select an event in the future to which to tie itself to. This might be interpreted as a basis for "fate", which is fine by me, since that's the way I lean anyhow.
Obviously (as IANAP) this explanation is worded poorly and not really an accurate representation of the weird math involved. But, while information is "traveling back in time", I don't think there is a practical way to use this effect as a communications medium. Maybe you could have four entangled beams (two each for two observers)?
My g/f was taking a behaviour course, and I remember hearing about how if you put a rat next to a feeding mechanism that gives him food when he hits a lever, he will end up hitting the lever and eating the food until he gets full, and then he will stop. If you make him hit the lever 50 times before he gets the food he will be hitting that lever over and over and over. And if you REALLY want that little guy to hit the lever like his life depends on it? You do step 1 and 2, and then you break the link between lever and food, and just randomly give him food. It's both funny and sad to see the films of this. About as funny and sad as taking a walk down Hastings and Main in Vancouver, Canada.
But because it's "normal" doesn't mean it's good. Someone else posted that somebody who spends all their time working as a lawyer would be praised as a "hard worker". Well, (disregarding the obvious jokes about the value of lawyering) anything that takes you over and locks you into a specific set of behaviours is bad. The great thing about being alive and human is the potential for doing new things. Doing the same exact thing for hours, days, months, years... that doesn't just make you an addict, it makes you uninteresting.
Whether you're an alcoholic, a crackhead, an obsessive EQ'er, or Bill Gates, it just isn't healthy to devote every waking moment to something that diminishes your capacity to be an interesting human. Obviously, whatever behaviours these types of people engage in give them some short-lived boost to their self-esteem, but at the expense of their lovability.
Do you want to be loved? Stop being so damn boring then, and take a fscking walk. Read a book. Hell, write a book... just do something different! Try to find a little balance in your life.
That goes for you, too, Gates.
In any case, fuel cells are a great technology that will eventually kick batteries and petro-based fuels in the nuts. There will be several fuel-cell fuels (propane, methanol, even gasoline in the transitional stage), so there we don't need to rely on hydrogen alone. And there'll be electrolysis production of H2 from solar, wind, and other "alternative" sources. You can even use biomass to create hydrogen-rich fuels. I mean, why are we burning oil?... save it for plastics and other stuff, and stop sending up carbon for Pete's sake.
The main problem with H2 as a fuel is compressability: unless you have a cryogenic fuel tank you are going to run into problems with the amount of fuel you can carry. Unless they can solve this problem, methane/-ol might be a better option. H2 would be fine for applications where you could have big fuel tanks, or gas lines.
The main problem with fuel cells as a technology/industry is that while they will eventually be a big industry (a few trillion in cumulative investment by AD 2020, from what I've heard), there is a definite need for government at all levels to pony up with some investment. This stuff will benefit everybody, including the energy companies (though, they may not see it that way right now), so some demand from gov.'t would move things forward.
Measures like California's vehicle regulations, investment in "demonstration" fuel-cell city bus fleets, or pilot projects involving commuters are just the beginning of what needs to be done to get things moving: there needs to be a commitment to developing the unsexy infrastructure required to engineer, produce, and distribute this stuff.
Maybe government could do a deal for shares in the companies it partners with... so that the return on investment would be worth the risk.
Well, it'll happen. I'm sure of that. I just can't wait to get a fuel-cell motorcycle, and a van with a few kiloWatts of clean DC power, just aching to be driven out into the boonies for to power an all-night party.
GO BALLARD POWER! ;)