First let's not argue what or what not is in Bell's theorem given that we violently agree that you can't transmit information faster than the speed of light. THe work surrounding bell's theorem seems to establish two things
1. state changes can be transmitted faster than the speed of light (as we both agree)
2. That the nature of the state changes cannot transmit information faster than the speed of light (I aver and I think you agree).
So however you want to state it, information can't be transmitted the way that was described in the article.
Here's how. Bell's theorem requires acting on the entangled pair in a way that will change the pair relationship. If you simply force one of the particles to a specific state then it breaks the entanglement and the other particle becomes independent. (thus no FTL info). And if you act on the entangled pair, then when you measure the local particle's state you also break the entanglement (thus no FTL).
Awesome, so this disproves bell's theorem and thus re-writes the laws of WM as we currently understand them.
Or at least the simplified description of this does. perhaps the real process is different.
Bell's entanglement experiment results in a rather cool result that even though one can have spooky actions at a distance, you cannot use it to transmit information. That is you can if you compare results at each end see that there was a measurement induced correlation in the photons but you can't determine this from the statistical distribution of measurements at either end by themselves.
Thus you can't possibly see the aircraft in the local beam due to changes in the remote beam.
Where does this wealth come from that you are investing? The areas Amazon is moving into are actually zoned as economically distressed and needing re-investment incentives. So you can't just Invest if you are also not making money too.
On the otherhand, I think Ocasio-hyphen got it right when she said Displacement is not urban renewal.
That'a totally correct. But it'a the model that Seattle, and San Francisco and other areas use. You gentrify the ghetto. As the Bus Boy's famous song said "Oh Boy, There goes the Neighborhood/ The whites are moving in/ they'll bring their next of kin".
In places like Santa Fe however, this sort of thing has led to cultural displacement too. Instead of houses with 300 year old family casas with poor tenants fighting over access to the Acequia waters, you have kambucha guzzling prius owners fighting over parking places in the Whole foods parking lot. The poor can't pay the rising taxes, sell off their water rights and thus extinguishing the historical wealth of the lands, and eventually move out so another condo-casita cand go up.
But that's also the story of the Bronx too. It's populace has changed over the years in immigrant waves.
So it's not so sad. It's just urban renewal and re-invention. And to invest money you need to make money.
Amusement part rides are effectively self driving vehicle you get into. If one of them fails you could die, or it might fall on the general public milling around the ride. The park operators try to evade responsibility at four levels 1. Posted warnings 2. Submission to inspections by regulators 3. Good faith in adhering to regulations and documenting timely repairs as needed. 4. limited liability companies as a stop-loss from reachback in law suits
I'd assume waymo is going to do all that, plus probably obtain favorable legislation.
If they are smart then they should adopt the practices of boeing. That company has a fairly solid reputation for being aggressively interested in why their plane crashed so they can make the next one better. In practice that means that they encourage investigators not to be seeking the answer to "Why boeing isn't at fault" but "planes are ridiculously dangers contractions, let's learn from this to make flying safer each time we fail". The result has been, that flying is now very safe, and boeing is not too scared of saying they might have done something imperfectly that enabled the crash.
Just look at the Lion air investigation. Already there's no denying that a "safety" upgrade may also have triggered some unanticipated consequences. This is how things get safer. I hope the settlements for lawsuits stay bounded so we can have more of this
If you think Peer review catches mistakes then you need to learn more about peer review because that's not what it does.
Peer review looks to see if the methods are reasonable to the task, if the authors show an awareness of the literature on the topic and by consequence know the pitfalls and problems others have overcome. It looks to see if the finding support the strength of the conclusions. And when possible it looks for gaps or alternative hypotheses that would have been reasonable to rule out given the strength of the conclusions.
it does not check the work in detail that's essentially impossible except for glaring errors. Many peers won't even fully understand the topic but are experience enough to know how to check reasonableness of the approach and support for conclusions.
In this case the retraction is not of the main finding. Their data are still fully consistent with the stated mean energy absorption. What they are retracting is the error bars on that analysis. It's the difference between saying the mean of a set of data is wrong, and the probability the mean of the data is different by 30% than the actual mean. They got the probability wrong. So their findings are less certain in strength.
You're also talking about a place that elected Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Incompetent. The 29 yo idiot bartender that thinks money just pops in to existence.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez opposes the Queens Amazon. Didn't you just prove my point?
It's perfectly legitimate for an employee to negotiate a raise when they have offers from other companies. Likewise it's perfectly fine for Amazon to ask for tax breaks and to shop around for a better deal before accepting the offer of the city they most prefer.
As you may have heard China now has a social karma score. If your score is too low things get taken away like say air travel. You can see this coming a mile away: your internet access will be taken away if you speak unkindly of party officials.
This argument isn't remotely new. It goes back at least as far as trusted platform computing. And maybe as far back as the Clipper chip which was the primordial TPC mutation. It even has shades of the original 68K mac rom code.
The tension is who owns the computer if hardware prevents unsigned software from running in trusted status?
If the user does then viruses can never be stopped and evil users mean platforms can't be trusted on a network.
If the manufacturer or govt controls the signed boot chain of trust then you don't own the computer but for most people this level of control isn't important. And the benefits of having the safety of a trusted platform are overwhelmingly positive
The good news is that both macs and chrome books support VM like enclaves that suffice for most of the cases it matters.
So we're left with edge cases where those people can just buy a machine without it.
Even if there were no commercial advantage of TPC it still was the inevitable security model. We had a lot of years to find something better and no one has that I know of.
The danger is creeping vertical integration of walled gardens that won't inter operate. That is where the commercial benefit lies. Not the signed boot
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for "proof of voting". I'm arguing against destroying ballot secrecy.
If anyone, including you, can recover the ballot assigned to "you" it's secret anymore.
if you can write down a key, then you can later prove how you voted. that's not a secret ballot.
An additional important feature of ballot security is destroying the serial ordering of ballots. This is why, in many states, anytime a ballot box is opened the order of the ballots is not supposed to be recorded or a shuffle is used. If you are stuffing ballots serially into a block chain, that maintains the order. If you are not serially entering the ballots into a block chain, then it's not a chain, it's just a database without the temporal security the chain part of block chain imposes.
If there is a data base of keys and the ledger is public then any leak of the keys exposes all the votes in the serial order they were recorded.
If there isn't a database of keys then there is no way to check the ledger is the same as the recorded votes so it has no value.
Okay let's try running through the 3 possible scenarios of "who-has-the-key"
If the block chain is the vote then it has to be readable by the govt and by you. Therefore you can prove how you voted and sell your vote. This is not a secret ballot
If the block chain cannot be read by the govt then it's not the ballot that is being counted and so there is no added security or provability from the block chain.
if the block chain is simple a record that you voted but does not contain your vote then it is not the ballot that is being counted and there is no added security or provability.
Just saw the video. It looks lame. A big chunk brick. Since they say the display is much much thinner (no glass, half the thickness polarizer) why does it need to be so thick? Should be thinner right?
Until I see a movie of this thing, not still photos I kinda suspect it's just a kludge.
What I think might be better than this would be the haptic combination of normal phone and a google glass. So the idea would be you hold your regular phone up and the google glass paints a larger phone arround it. You then get all the tactile interactions with the physical part of the image-- the actual phone but the benefits of a larger display when you need it.
Thus the etherealness and problems with eye focus and gorilla arm go away.
So for example, with a projected phone that you are supposed to treat like a touch screen you force the hand-eye feedback coordination problem onto the human's brain,. THey have to align their hand to the imaginary screen in free space. But if you reverse this and have the google glass augmenting the iphone by tracking it all this unatural hand eye coordination goes away. it just becomes something you naturally can interact with even though it's not there because it acts just like a physical tablet would.
1.If the ballot is in the block chain who has the key to read it? 2. If machines are not on-line then the block chain isn't validated in real time. Plenty of time to change it. 3. If the machine is online you just bolted the worlds largest security hole onto a voting machine for no gain.
People who don't want to screw around often buy commercially supported software. If you are going to run a windows shop the techs you hire are (eventually) going to know WLinux if they know any Linux. Likewise if you use Azure and purchase a configuration you know will just work well because microsoft will make sure it does.
And finally people who want re-implement some stack that is already working on WLINUX. it's cheap.
Eventually however I think the log game is IBM is going to move into the Azure linux turf since they just bought red hat. Linux sales and support. Now Microsoft can play too with a holistic solution.
Slashdot Mirror
First let's not argue what or what not is in Bell's theorem given that we violently agree that you can't transmit information faster than the speed of light.
THe work surrounding bell's theorem seems to establish two things
1. state changes can be transmitted faster than the speed of light (as we both agree)
2. That the nature of the state changes cannot transmit information faster than the speed of light (I aver and I think you agree).
So however you want to state it, information can't be transmitted the way that was described in the article.
But regardless of arguing over what is or is not rolled up in Bell's theorem at least we both agree on the general principle that there's no FTL.
yes it is what Bell's theorem shows.
Here's how. Bell's theorem requires acting on the entangled pair in a way that will change the pair relationship. If you simply force one of the particles to a specific state then it breaks the entanglement and the other particle becomes independent. (thus no FTL info). And if you act on the entangled pair, then when you measure the local particle's state you also break the entanglement (thus no FTL).
here's a layman's description:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/c...
Awesome, so this disproves bell's theorem and thus re-writes the laws of WM as we currently understand them.
Or at least the simplified description of this does. perhaps the real process is different.
Bell's entanglement experiment results in a rather cool result that even though one can have spooky actions at a distance, you cannot use it to transmit information. That is you can if you compare results at each end see that there was a measurement induced correlation in the photons but you can't determine this from the statistical distribution of measurements at either end by themselves.
Thus you can't possibly see the aircraft in the local beam due to changes in the remote beam.
No evidence of those but we all know the stories--- they must be in a conspiracy to hide the evidence.
I think proton is swiss?
Where does this wealth come from that you are investing? The areas Amazon is moving into are actually zoned as economically distressed and needing re-investment incentives. So you can't just Invest if you are also not making money too.
On the otherhand, I think Ocasio-hyphen got it right when she said Displacement is not urban renewal.
That'a totally correct. But it'a the model that Seattle, and San Francisco and other areas use. You gentrify the ghetto. As the Bus Boy's famous song said "Oh Boy, There goes the Neighborhood/ The whites are moving in/ they'll bring their next of kin".
In places like Santa Fe however, this sort of thing has led to cultural displacement too. Instead of houses with 300 year old family casas with poor tenants fighting over access to the Acequia waters, you have kambucha guzzling prius owners fighting over parking places in the Whole foods parking lot. The poor can't pay the rising taxes, sell off their water rights and thus extinguishing the historical wealth of the lands, and eventually move out so another condo-casita cand go up.
But that's also the story of the Bronx too. It's populace has changed over the years in immigrant waves.
So it's not so sad. It's just urban renewal and re-invention. And to invest money you need to make money.
Amusement part rides are effectively self driving vehicle you get into. If one of them fails you could die, or it might fall on the general public milling around the ride.
The park operators try to evade responsibility at four levels
1. Posted warnings
2. Submission to inspections by regulators
3. Good faith in adhering to regulations and documenting timely repairs as needed.
4. limited liability companies as a stop-loss from reachback in law suits
I'd assume waymo is going to do all that, plus probably obtain favorable legislation.
If they are smart then they should adopt the practices of boeing. That company has a fairly solid reputation for being aggressively interested in why their plane crashed so they can make the next one better. In practice that means that they encourage investigators not to be seeking the answer to "Why boeing isn't at fault" but "planes are ridiculously dangers contractions, let's learn from this to make flying safer each time we fail". The result has been, that flying is now very safe, and boeing is not too scared of saying they might have done something imperfectly that enabled the crash.
Just look at the Lion air investigation. Already there's no denying that a "safety" upgrade may also have triggered some unanticipated consequences. This is how things get safer. I hope the settlements for lawsuits stay bounded so we can have more of this
If you think Peer review catches mistakes then you need to learn more about peer review because that's not what it does.
Peer review looks to see if the methods are reasonable to the task, if the authors show an awareness of the literature on the topic and by consequence know the pitfalls and problems others have overcome. It looks to see if the finding support the strength of the conclusions. And when possible it looks for gaps or alternative hypotheses that would have been reasonable to rule out given the strength of the conclusions.
it does not check the work in detail that's essentially impossible except for glaring errors. Many peers won't even fully understand the topic but are experience enough to know how to check reasonableness of the approach and support for conclusions.
In this case the retraction is not of the main finding. Their data are still fully consistent with the stated mean energy absorption. What they are retracting is the error bars on that analysis. It's the difference between saying the mean of a set of data is wrong, and the probability the mean of the data is different by 30% than the actual mean. They got the probability wrong. So their findings are less certain in strength.
You're also talking about a place that elected Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Incompetent. The 29 yo idiot bartender that thinks money just pops in to existence.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez opposes the Queens Amazon. Didn't you just prove my point?
my vote: Luuffa
I'm sure NYC acted in it's own best interests. It's a complex set of things to balance.
It's perfectly legitimate for an employee to negotiate a raise when they have offers from other companies. Likewise it's perfectly fine for Amazon to ask for tax breaks and to shop around for a better deal before accepting the offer of the city they most prefer.
It's not a scam. It's negotiating from strength.
the first 4 posts are imbeciles. Please mod them down
As you may have heard China now has a social karma score. If your score is too low things get taken away like say air travel. You can see this coming a mile away: your internet access will be taken away if you speak unkindly of party officials.
A beautiful one line summary! Bravo!
Chrome books do essentially the same thing.
This argument isn't remotely new. It goes back at least as far as trusted platform computing. And maybe as far back as the Clipper chip which was the primordial TPC mutation. It even has shades of the original 68K mac rom code.
The tension is who owns the computer if hardware prevents unsigned software from running in trusted status?
If the user does then viruses can never be stopped and evil users mean platforms can't be trusted on a network.
If the manufacturer or govt controls the signed boot chain of trust then you don't own the computer but for most people this level of control isn't important. And the benefits of having the safety of a trusted platform are overwhelmingly positive
The good news is that both macs and chrome books support VM like enclaves that suffice for most of the cases it matters.
So we're left with edge cases where those people can just buy a machine without it.
Even if there were no commercial advantage of TPC it still was the inevitable security model. We had a lot of years to find something better and no one has that I know of.
The danger is creeping vertical integration of walled gardens that won't inter operate. That is where the commercial benefit lies. Not the signed boot
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for "proof of voting". I'm arguing against destroying ballot secrecy.
If anyone, including you, can recover the ballot assigned to "you" it's secret anymore.
if you can write down a key, then you can later prove how you voted. that's not a secret ballot.
An additional important feature of ballot security is destroying the serial ordering of ballots. This is why, in many states, anytime a ballot box is opened the order of the ballots is not supposed to be recorded or a shuffle is used. If you are stuffing ballots serially into a block chain, that maintains the order. If you are not serially entering the ballots into a block chain, then it's not a chain, it's just a database without the temporal security the chain part of block chain imposes.
If there is a data base of keys and the ledger is public then any leak of the keys exposes all the votes in the serial order they were recorded.
If there isn't a database of keys then there is no way to check the ledger is the same as the recorded votes so it has no value.
Does no one recall Max Headroom?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Here's a screen shot from today's broadcast on Twitter Images:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dr...
Okay let's try running through the 3 possible scenarios of "who-has-the-key"
If the block chain is the vote then it has to be readable by the govt and by you. Therefore you can prove how you voted and sell your vote. This is not a secret ballot
If the block chain cannot be read by the govt then it's not the ballot that is being counted and so there is no added security or provability from the block chain.
if the block chain is simple a record that you voted but does not contain your vote then it is not the ballot that is being counted and there is no added security or provability.
Just saw the video. It looks lame. A big chunk brick. Since they say the display is much much thinner (no glass, half the thickness polarizer) why does it need to be so thick? Should be thinner right?
But it didn't catch on.
Until I see a movie of this thing, not still photos I kinda suspect it's just a kludge.
What I think might be better than this would be the haptic combination of normal phone and a google glass. So the idea would be you hold your regular phone up and the google glass paints a larger phone arround it. You then get all the tactile interactions with the physical part of the image-- the actual phone but the benefits of a larger display when you need it.
Thus the etherealness and problems with eye focus and gorilla arm go away.
So for example, with a projected phone that you are supposed to treat like a touch screen you force the hand-eye feedback coordination problem onto the human's brain,. THey have to align their hand to the imaginary screen in free space. But if you reverse this and have the google glass augmenting the iphone by tracking it all this unatural hand eye coordination goes away. it just becomes something you naturally can interact with even though it's not there because it acts just like a physical tablet would.
If I have the key, then can I use the block chain to prove how I voted? If so you just chucked the secret ballot.
1 .If the ballot is in the block chain who has the key to read it?
2. If machines are not on-line then the block chain isn't validated in real time. Plenty of time to change it.
3. If the machine is online you just bolted the worlds largest security hole onto a voting machine for no gain.
People who don't want to screw around often buy commercially supported software. If you are going to run a windows shop the techs you hire are (eventually) going to know WLinux if they know any Linux. Likewise if you use Azure and purchase a configuration you know will just work well because microsoft will make sure it does.
And finally people who want re-implement some stack that is already working on WLINUX. it's cheap.
Eventually however I think the log game is IBM is going to move into the Azure linux turf since they just bought red hat. Linux sales and support. Now Microsoft can play too with a holistic solution.