Thanks, you've added the key fact that always seems to be missing from every explanation of quantum entanglement that I've heard. That is, if you rotate one photon 90 degrees (without observing it) you would expect the other to photon to then have the same polarity. They don't, so obviously something strange must be going on.
do you really think that you, John Q. Random Slashdotter, with only a layman's knowledge of physics, have found the obvious truth that pretty much every quantum physicist has missed? Get over yourself.
What a rude response. Did you ever think that maybe I was asking for further information on why communication was required for the explanation? Go away, troll.
Why does one photon have to "communicate" to the other? Take two photons, one is polarized 90 degrees from the other. You don't know anything else. At some point you observe one, and now know the polarization of the other. Why is their communication taking place?
To make an analogy,say I flip a coin and don't look at it. Then I cut the coin in half between the two sides (without looking at which side is which). I take one side across town to my friend, and keep one. I have no idea which side I have until I look at it, but once I do I also know which side my friend has across town. Where's the mystery here, because I've never been able to understand why there's any spooky action at a distance?
So I take it you wouldn't mind if life ended for people by law at age 60, since life isn't about more moments?
Your philosophy may be great for you, but making blanket statements like "life isn't about accumulating more moments, it's about investing the ones we have with as much quality as possible." is just plain ridiculous. Why is your way better? Why can't life be about living a long time with a lot of quality moments? Like allmost all philosophy it's interesting and not alltogether useless, but in the end there's not really any "truth". Your opinion on what life is and isn't about is just as true as anyone elses.
It wasn't a personal attack so much as it was an attack against your self-righteous disrespect of a field where the majority of its practitioners use completely scientific methods
Nice attempt at a dodge, but I know a personal attack when I see one. The fact that "90% of the time" you think psychological studies are crap proves nothing. You could be reading about the studies from crap sources or you may have a poor understanding of the field of psychology and how it fits into traditional scientific methods (as I believe, given your statements about psychology and how they jibe with the reality of the field).
Nope, wrong again. I've either heard this directly from the researcher at a conference who conducted the study, or read the actual paper. "misunderstanding the field of psychology" has nothing to do with whether a study is scientific or not. It either is or it isn't and has nothing to with with understanding psychology and everything to do with understanding how science is done and how we aquire knowledge. A big point I made in my post was that the clinical definition of an addiction is NOT sloppy or loosely defined. Why did you ignore this?
Because the chosen word doesn't reflect the meaning of the word. You can re-define dog as cat, but that doesn't mean people won't be confused when you speak. The definition is a bad one. "TV is addictive" implies that there's some property of the TV that's causing people to be "addicted" to it, not a property of the person that's obsessed with TV. There are factions within the field that take less than scientific approaches to their work or throw their weight behind untested and unorthodox theories. However, isn't this the same in any field?
Umm. no? The examples that come to mind are the psedo-scientists that occasionally appear on Slashdot. Some nut who studies making zero point energy devices or Intelligent Design theory isn't educated in the field they're studying, but is just a kook with minimal knowledge of the field. Those people aren't in the field of physics or evolutionary biology. I assume you're talking about psychologists with advanced degrees in psychology.
Congratulations! We obviously don't need psychologists anymore because you are clearly more qualified and knowledgable about the subject. Since YOU don't think psychological addictions are real, I guess they aren't. Problem solved!
Thanks for the personal attack. Did I hit a nerve on how un-scientific psychology is? My "negative impression" of psychology has nothing to do with Freud (I have no idea where you came up with that idea. Maybe you're "projecting") and everything to do with how it isn't science. I find it interesting that 90% of the time that I read about a "scientific" study by a psychologist it's done incredibly poorly. I find it unsurprising that psychology is sloppy in its use of terminology like "addiction". With such great traditions as defining homesexuality as a mental illness it's no surprise that psychology has such a bad reputation among the sciences. I'd be perfectly happy if psychology were redefined as philosophy and we could all give it the credit that it's due.
Not that exactly. Addiction is more like a compulsive behaviour: irrationally motivated. It is a complex psychological issue.
Sounds like a lot of malarky to me. What's the difference between a compulsive behaviour and non-compulsive behaviour? What's "irrationally motivated"? The word addiction used to mean something that was physically addictive, like heroin or nicotine. Now it's taken on this "I want to do thing X a lot" meaning. I call bullshit on that definition.
Addiction automatically has this negative consequence associated with it, yet we don't associate things people like with addiction. Was Isaac Newton "addicted" to Science and Mathematics when he wrote the Principia Mathematica? (he supposedly did nothing but write and sleep for 18 months). I think the word obsessive should be used for gaming, but not addiction. Addiction implies this dangerous quality that can hook you.
Obviously people can become obsessed with things that aren't good for them. That doesn't mean the thing is addictive though. That's just a lot of psychological bullshit.
I'm pretty sure that he did, and going to Canada sounds like shirking duty to me.
You're comparing trying marijuana to being a drunk and a cokehead? I've no idea what you mean by going to Canada, but Clinton was never in the military.
In all fairness, most of that slur applies to our past two presidents.
Clinton was never a drunk, into coke, or shirked any duty. I suppose you could call him a draft dodger, though he had a student deferment during the war, unlike W who got daddy to get him into the reserves. Obviously we do know he was a fast-food eating, blowjob receiving President, but you take what you can get..
We'll become a generation where we have to admit--because we've seen the electronic evidence--that, for example, our next President was, as a teenager, a Green Day listening, Microsoft hating, MySpace blogging, whiny, self absorbed git.
I'll take that over a former coke sniffing, alcohol abusing, draft dodging, duty shirking President.
Well, in this case I'd put the blame soley on the doctors. Whenever you design something you have to make assuptions about how it's going to be used and by whom. This isn't a device to be used to untrained joe sixpack. Think of it like any dangerous piece of equipment.
Let's say you design a paper cutter that is rated to cut 500 sheets of paper with a guard around it to prevent people from accidentally cutting off their fingers. Then someone removes the guard because it gets in the way when they want to cut 1000 sheets of paper. This same person then cuts off his fingers because the guard was removed. Who's to blame, the guy who designed the guard to be removable, or the guy who used the device like it was never intended to be used? My blame goes to the guy who removed the guard.
Trying to "trick" the software into doing what you want (and were told it wouldn't do) is just a bad bad bad idea when you're using it to calculate something as important as radiation dosages. Anyone who's good at writing software wants to make it perfect, i.e. every possibility is accounted for. Software is flexible enough for us to think this is possible. But what else in the world is designed in such a way that it's not possible to injure someone if used by someone in a wrong way?
And your analogy still sucks. Those conceal and carry laws have specific exemptions against the right to carry guns into places like courtrooms. Beyond the law it's easy to see why such a restriction is justifiable.
Why then is merely carying cigarettes considered "wrong"? I don't dispute the fact that schools have the right to make moronic rules, they do that all the time. What's under dispute is the justifiability of this rule. By comparing it to something that's entirely justifiable you make it sound like this rule is a perfectly acceptable one.
I saw what I thought was a fireball a few days ago, but wasn't sure since it was so bright. It was a big streak of green across the sky I saw in my peripheral vision clearly through the city lights. I thought it might be just fireworks, but now a fireball seems a much more likely explanation.
At this point, the GPL is mostly irrelevant to the Open Source movement. Once hailed as a means to safeguard the communal creation, exchange, and improvement of software, it's now being subverted by companies and individuals generating their own licenses loosely based on the GPL but permitting the commercial extension/closed-binary distribution of code for the right amount of money.
Huh? How does the existance and popularity of non-GPL licenses make the GPL irrelevant? There's an enourmous amount of very popular software in daily use licensed under the GPL that says that the GPL is far from irrelevant. By another token, Open Source is being used by companies as a way to get individuals to create code without compensating them. This unfairly competes with the American software industry, and exploits what was intended to be a reliable means of assuring access to code to effectively outsource a whole chunk of what used to be paying jobs -- thus stagnating the future creation of code.
Nonsense. Making code freely available eliminates some work, but it also creates new work. If everyone isn't stuck re-inventing the wheel then there's more time for software to do larger, more complex jobs.
That's part of it, but mainly light slows down in a medium because photons are absorbed and re-transmitted by atoms. There's a small amount of time between the absorption and the re-transmission, so this effictively slows down the transmission of light through the medium.
I actually don't blame the bad acting on the actors at all. Some of it is just the actors inability to act, and some of it is the inability of Lucas to get good acting from the ones who could act (part of a directors job). But really the one to blame for it is Lucas. He's the one who's got ultimate say over everything, so the crappyness of the movie is ultimately his fault. There's no money guy watching over his shoulder. There's no beancounter telling him he can't fire crappy actors. It's all his baby, and all his fault.
You seem to misunderstand the question this article is addressing. The question is "what performance benefits should I expect from buying low-latency RAM?". The question is not "Should all computers be designed for lower latency?" Me buying lower latency RAM doesn't make anyone design games or the majority of software for lower latency.
Can anyone give me a precise reason why they think Star Wars I, II or III were horrible movies?
Terrible terrible acting. When your best actor isn't even real and exists only inside a computer (Yoda) you know you've hired shitty actors. The dialogue in 1-3 was complete dreck. The storyline was terrible. The only thing 1-3 had going for it was the action scenes, and that wasn't enough to hold it up. Well you know what? If they did truly suck, people wouldn't go like crazy to watch them (don't forget, Episode I is 5th on the All Time Box Office for the USA) all.
You must live in a different country than I do where people don't like utter crap.
Yah, and that's why India came to mind. I remember seeing a guy on the Discovery Channel who was debunking some famous quack who went around trying to "cure" people.
As anti-Christian as Slashdot is, I know that gives you guys a warm fuzzy feeling, that you get to keep the club to yourselves and all.
It's not so much anti-christian as it is anti-nonsense. The problem with many religions is when they start saying things about the natural world. Creation stories, geocentrism, heaven/hell, born gay/became gay, crystals, and astrology are all examples of this. I doubt you'd get such a reaction against christianity if discussion focused on widely agreed on moral principles like combatting poverty, helping the weak, loyalty to loved ones, etc.
Most people on Slashdot are people that think science has produced the best explanation of natural phenomenon, and not religion. So when christians bring up their own non-scientific explanations of natural phenonmenon you're going to see people be critical of those explanations. It's not really specifically anti-christian. If there were a branch of slashdot in India, I'm sure you'd see the same kind of bias against the explanation of natural phenomenon in Hindu.
All we have to do is convince them that teaching religion in science classes is counterproductive. And to that end, it is just as counterproductive to go around saying that we want to convince them that ID isn't true. It makes them cranky.
I disagree. What needs to be done is show that ID is not science. Science is falsifiable, and ID isn't. The problem is that advocates of ID think that science is just a collection of facts. ID is philosophy, not science. If someone wanted to teach ID in the context of a religion or philosophy class I don't think many people would have a problem with that. Teaching it in a science classroom is just plain wrong because ID has never been science. Even geo-centrism was once science (and actually all the epi-cycle business does eventually work out, but also requires unseen forces).
I don't disagree with you, but are there really a majority of people that blindly trust blog entries? Obviously there's some, but there's always those kind of people. Everything is about reputation and throwing all blogs in one pile makes about as much sense as throwing all people into one pile. That's really the major flaw of this article. It's as if someone wrote an article entitled "Man on the street corner is a lunatic!" and then goes on to either completely distort non-lunatics as lunatics, or has quotes from schizophrenic bums.
Everyone should know you shouldn't trust everything you read, especially on slashdot where 30% of the posts are just plain wrong.
The explanation is a bit heavy handed, but you have to admit Kubrick was portraying Man as very vulnerable in space. Kubrick was trying to show what no one had done before, just how alien an environment space really is. I think the explanation has some major holes in it, particularly with regard to Hal's behaviour. All in all it's not bad though. A little simplistic, but what do you expect from a simple flash animation?
The conventional wisdom (I am not sure if it is true) is that Atari made a huge mistake in letting almost any third-party release games for the 2600. There were hundreds of bad games.
Yah, I know there were tons of bad games available, but blaming that for the crash is just nonsense. There's thousands of terrible games available for the PC. I recall terrible games being available for the C64. I don't recall either of these game platforms dying.
All these platforms (including the 2600) suceeded because of the great games available for it. I remember playing a game at a friends house or in a store and knowing if it sucked or not. Word of good games travels fast. I don't know why the videogame industry crashed, but it didn't have anything to do with only sucky games being available. If I were to guess I think it was just out-competed by the games availble on personal computers at the time like the C64 or even the Apple II.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, you've added the key fact that always seems to be missing from every explanation of quantum entanglement that I've heard. That is, if you rotate one photon 90 degrees (without observing it) you would expect the other to photon to then have the same polarity. They don't, so obviously something strange must be going on.
do you really think that you, John Q. Random Slashdotter, with only a layman's knowledge of physics, have found the obvious truth that pretty much every quantum physicist has missed? Get over yourself.
What a rude response. Did you ever think that maybe I was asking for further information on why communication was required for the explanation? Go away, troll.
Why does one photon have to "communicate" to the other? Take two photons, one is polarized 90 degrees from the other. You don't know anything else. At some point you observe one, and now know the polarization of the other. Why is their communication taking place?
To make an analogy,say I flip a coin and don't look at it. Then I cut the coin in half between the two sides (without looking at which side is which). I take one side across town to my friend, and keep one. I have no idea which side I have until I look at it, but once I do I also know which side my friend has across town. Where's the mystery here, because I've never been able to understand why there's any spooky action at a distance?
So I take it you wouldn't mind if life ended for people by law at age 60, since life isn't about more moments?
Your philosophy may be great for you, but making blanket statements like "life isn't about accumulating more moments, it's about investing the ones we have with as much quality as possible." is just plain ridiculous. Why is your way better? Why can't life be about living a long time with a lot of quality moments? Like allmost all philosophy it's interesting and not alltogether useless, but in the end there's not really any "truth". Your opinion on what life is and isn't about is just as true as anyone elses.
It wasn't a personal attack so much as it was an attack against your self-righteous disrespect of a field where the majority of its practitioners use completely scientific methods
Nice attempt at a dodge, but I know a personal attack when I see one.
The fact that "90% of the time" you think psychological studies are crap proves nothing. You could be reading about the studies from crap sources or you may have a poor understanding of the field of psychology and how it fits into traditional scientific methods (as I believe, given your statements about psychology and how they jibe with the reality of the field).
Nope, wrong again. I've either heard this directly from the researcher at a conference who conducted the study, or read the actual paper. "misunderstanding the field of psychology" has nothing to do with whether a study is scientific or not. It either is or it isn't and has nothing to with with understanding psychology and everything to do with understanding how science is done and how we aquire knowledge.
A big point I made in my post was that the clinical definition of an addiction is NOT sloppy or loosely defined. Why did you ignore this?
Because the chosen word doesn't reflect the meaning of the word. You can re-define dog as cat, but that doesn't mean people won't be confused when you speak. The definition is a bad one. "TV is addictive" implies that there's some property of the TV that's causing people to be "addicted" to it, not a property of the person that's obsessed with TV.
There are factions within the field that take less than scientific approaches to their work or throw their weight behind untested and unorthodox theories. However, isn't this the same in any field?
Umm. no? The examples that come to mind are the psedo-scientists that occasionally appear on Slashdot. Some nut who studies making zero point energy devices or Intelligent Design theory isn't educated in the field they're studying, but is just a kook with minimal knowledge of the field. Those people aren't in the field of physics or evolutionary biology. I assume you're talking about psychologists with advanced degrees in psychology.
Congratulations! We obviously don't need psychologists anymore because you are clearly more qualified and knowledgable about the subject. Since YOU don't think psychological addictions are real, I guess they aren't. Problem solved!
Thanks for the personal attack. Did I hit a nerve on how un-scientific psychology is? My "negative impression" of psychology has nothing to do with Freud (I have no idea where you came up with that idea. Maybe you're "projecting") and everything to do with how it isn't science. I find it interesting that 90% of the time that I read about a "scientific" study by a psychologist it's done incredibly poorly. I find it unsurprising that psychology is sloppy in its use of terminology like "addiction". With such great traditions as defining homesexuality as a mental illness it's no surprise that psychology has such a bad reputation among the sciences. I'd be perfectly happy if psychology were redefined as philosophy and we could all give it the credit that it's due.
Not that exactly. Addiction is more like a compulsive behaviour: irrationally motivated. It is a complex psychological issue.
Sounds like a lot of malarky to me. What's the difference between a compulsive behaviour and non-compulsive behaviour? What's "irrationally motivated"? The word addiction used to mean something that was physically addictive, like heroin or nicotine. Now it's taken on this "I want to do thing X a lot" meaning. I call bullshit on that definition.
Addiction automatically has this negative consequence associated with it, yet we don't associate things people like with addiction. Was Isaac Newton "addicted" to Science and Mathematics when he wrote the Principia Mathematica? (he supposedly did nothing but write and sleep for 18 months). I think the word obsessive should be used for gaming, but not addiction. Addiction implies this dangerous quality that can hook you.
Obviously people can become obsessed with things that aren't good for them. That doesn't mean the thing is addictive though. That's just a lot of psychological bullshit.
In a world where people sound like movie previews, their ideas often sound like movie plots.
"I never inhaled."
I'm pretty sure that he did, and going to Canada sounds like shirking duty to me.
You're comparing trying marijuana to being a drunk and a cokehead? I've no idea what you mean by going to Canada, but Clinton was never in the military.
In all fairness, most of that slur applies to our past two presidents.
Clinton was never a drunk, into coke, or shirked any duty. I suppose you could call him a draft dodger, though he had a student deferment during the war, unlike W who got daddy to get him into the reserves. Obviously we do know he was a fast-food eating, blowjob receiving President, but you take what you can get..
We'll become a generation where we have to admit--because we've seen the electronic evidence--that, for example, our next President was, as a teenager, a Green Day listening, Microsoft hating, MySpace blogging, whiny, self absorbed git.
I'll take that over a former coke sniffing, alcohol abusing, draft dodging, duty shirking President.
Well, in this case I'd put the blame soley on the doctors. Whenever you design something you have to make assuptions about how it's going to be used and by whom. This isn't a device to be used to untrained joe sixpack. Think of it like any dangerous piece of equipment.
Let's say you design a paper cutter that is rated to cut 500 sheets of paper with a guard around it to prevent people from accidentally cutting off their fingers. Then someone removes the guard because it gets in the way when they want to cut 1000 sheets of paper. This same person then cuts off his fingers because the guard was removed. Who's to blame, the guy who designed the guard to be removable, or the guy who used the device like it was never intended to be used? My blame goes to the guy who removed the guard.
Trying to "trick" the software into doing what you want (and were told it wouldn't do) is just a bad bad bad idea when you're using it to calculate something as important as radiation dosages. Anyone who's good at writing software wants to make it perfect, i.e. every possibility is accounted for. Software is flexible enough for us to think this is possible. But what else in the world is designed in such a way that it's not possible to injure someone if used by someone in a wrong way?
And your analogy still sucks. Those conceal and carry laws have specific exemptions against the right to carry guns into places like courtrooms. Beyond the law it's easy to see why such a restriction is justifiable.
Why then is merely carying cigarettes considered "wrong"? I don't dispute the fact that schools have the right to make moronic rules, they do that all the time. What's under dispute is the justifiability of this rule. By comparing it to something that's entirely justifiable you make it sound like this rule is a perfectly acceptable one.
I saw what I thought was a fireball a few days ago, but wasn't sure since it was so bright. It was a big streak of green across the sky I saw in my peripheral vision clearly through the city lights. I thought it might be just fireworks, but now a fireball seems a much more likely explanation.
At this point, the GPL is mostly irrelevant to the Open Source movement. Once hailed as a means to safeguard the communal creation, exchange, and improvement of software, it's now being subverted by companies and individuals generating their own licenses loosely based on the GPL but permitting the commercial extension/closed-binary distribution of code for the right amount of money.
Huh? How does the existance and popularity of non-GPL licenses make the GPL irrelevant? There's an enourmous amount of very popular software in daily use licensed under the GPL that says that the GPL is far from irrelevant.
By another token, Open Source is being used by companies as a way to get individuals to create code without compensating them. This unfairly competes with the American software industry, and exploits what was intended to be a reliable means of assuring access to code to effectively outsource a whole chunk of what used to be paying jobs -- thus stagnating the future creation of code.
Nonsense. Making code freely available eliminates some work, but it also creates new work. If everyone isn't stuck re-inventing the wheel then there's more time for software to do larger, more complex jobs.
That's part of it, but mainly light slows down in a medium because photons are absorbed and re-transmitted by atoms. There's a small amount of time between the absorption and the re-transmission, so this effictively slows down the transmission of light through the medium.
I actually don't blame the bad acting on the actors at all. Some of it is just the actors inability to act, and some of it is the inability of Lucas to get good acting from the ones who could act (part of a directors job). But really the one to blame for it is Lucas. He's the one who's got ultimate say over everything, so the crappyness of the movie is ultimately his fault. There's no money guy watching over his shoulder. There's no beancounter telling him he can't fire crappy actors. It's all his baby, and all his fault.
You seem to misunderstand the question this article is addressing. The question is "what performance benefits should I expect from buying low-latency RAM?". The question is not "Should all computers be designed for lower latency?" Me buying lower latency RAM doesn't make anyone design games or the majority of software for lower latency.
Can anyone give me a precise reason why they think Star Wars I, II or III were horrible movies?
Terrible terrible acting. When your best actor isn't even real and exists only inside a computer (Yoda) you know you've hired shitty actors. The dialogue in 1-3 was complete dreck. The storyline was terrible. The only thing 1-3 had going for it was the action scenes, and that wasn't enough to hold it up.
Well you know what? If they did truly suck, people wouldn't go like crazy to watch them (don't forget, Episode I is 5th on the All Time Box Office for the USA) all.
You must live in a different country than I do where people don't like utter crap.
Yah, and that's why India came to mind. I remember seeing a guy on the Discovery Channel who was debunking some famous quack who went around trying to "cure" people.
As anti-Christian as Slashdot is, I know that gives you guys a warm fuzzy feeling, that you get to keep the club to yourselves and all.
It's not so much anti-christian as it is anti-nonsense. The problem with many religions is when they start saying things about the natural world. Creation stories, geocentrism, heaven/hell, born gay/became gay, crystals, and astrology are all examples of this. I doubt you'd get such a reaction against christianity if discussion focused on widely agreed on moral principles like combatting poverty, helping the weak, loyalty to loved ones, etc.
Most people on Slashdot are people that think science has produced the best explanation of natural phenomenon, and not religion. So when christians bring up their own non-scientific explanations of natural phenonmenon you're going to see people be critical of those explanations. It's not really specifically anti-christian. If there were a branch of slashdot in India, I'm sure you'd see the same kind of bias against the explanation of natural phenomenon in Hindu.
All we have to do is convince them that teaching religion in science classes is counterproductive. And to that end, it is just as counterproductive to go around saying that we want to convince them that ID isn't true. It makes them cranky.
I disagree. What needs to be done is show that ID is not science. Science is falsifiable, and ID isn't. The problem is that advocates of ID think that science is just a collection of facts. ID is philosophy, not science. If someone wanted to teach ID in the context of a religion or philosophy class I don't think many people would have a problem with that. Teaching it in a science classroom is just plain wrong because ID has never been science. Even geo-centrism was once science (and actually all the epi-cycle business does eventually work out, but also requires unseen forces).
I don't disagree with you, but are there really a majority of people that blindly trust blog entries? Obviously there's some, but there's always those kind of people. Everything is about reputation and throwing all blogs in one pile makes about as much sense as throwing all people into one pile. That's really the major flaw of this article. It's as if someone wrote an article entitled "Man on the street corner is a lunatic!" and then goes on to either completely distort non-lunatics as lunatics, or has quotes from schizophrenic bums.
Everyone should know you shouldn't trust everything you read, especially on slashdot where 30% of the posts are just plain wrong.
The explanation is a bit heavy handed, but you have to admit Kubrick was portraying Man as very vulnerable in space. Kubrick was trying to show what no one had done before, just how alien an environment space really is. I think the explanation has some major holes in it, particularly with regard to Hal's behaviour. All in all it's not bad though. A little simplistic, but what do you expect from a simple flash animation?
The conventional wisdom (I am not sure if it is true) is that Atari made a huge mistake in letting almost any third-party release games for the 2600. There were hundreds of bad games.
Yah, I know there were tons of bad games available, but blaming that for the crash is just nonsense. There's thousands of terrible games available for the PC. I recall terrible games being available for the C64. I don't recall either of these game platforms dying.
All these platforms (including the 2600) suceeded because of the great games available for it. I remember playing a game at a friends house or in a store and knowing if it sucked or not. Word of good games travels fast. I don't know why the videogame industry crashed, but it didn't have anything to do with only sucky games being available. If I were to guess I think it was just out-competed by the games availble on personal computers at the time like the C64 or even the Apple II.