here's an xkcd that hits it, another person on this topic posted it for me: http://xkcd.com/465/
i think the tech is cool, sure, but the hype kills it for me...it's just not quantum teleportation at all...it's a cheap knockoff...like one of those chinsese Iphone rip-off's that have virtually the same case but the software is rudimentary & essentially a flip phone with a big screen
i just don't know how we,/. readers, can fix it...is there someone on/. who has the exposure to change the nomenclature on this?
let's call it "quantum cryptography"...it still sounds super cool and futuristic! you can still have headlines that talk about "overturning Einstien" and "teleportation"...you can say it's use now is cryptography but "one day could pave the way for *true quantum computing*"
No causality- or Eisenstein-breaking paradoxes here.
exactly...this is about **non-local** entanglement...which is terminology that means actual "spooky action at a distance" which would be instantaneous not bound by c
otherwise it's multiplexing....really, really fancy multiplexing...something we've done since computing began
TFA is hype...good research sure...but still hype
why do we have to exaggerate when it's already awesome?
What if you could transmit data without link layer flow control bogging down throughput with retransmission requests, and also optimize the size of the transmission for network efficiency and application latency constraints? Researchers from MIT, Caltech and the University of Aalborg claimed to have accomplished this...
it can "piggyback" on TC-IP but you have to use their "software" on either end
RLNC encoding can ride on top of the TCP-IP protocol, so implementation does not require the replacement of communications equipment. But it does require software incorporating RLNC-licensed technology to execute on both ends.
i'm not sure where they want this to be used, "mobile" WiFi and LTE are mentioned but I dont see this as anything other than a demonstration of a capability, not an application
i come from a CCNA background but I've never worked with or seen something like this...seems like they would use it in data centers?
at least we in the tech industry can be thankful that the NBA & LA community will now have to put up with Ballmer's antics
what if it was the reverse?
successful athletes, coaches, and celebrities bought up startups with their big spending...
can you imagine a consortium of Oprah, Magic Johnson, and some Goldman/Sach's types buying facebook.com from Zuck & Co when it was still valued in the low millions before they got on their IPO track w/ Theil?
if so we should start over...i have a good point to make & you took the time to copy/paste (even though you're not directly clashing just arguing terminology)
no point hinges on one word...if you want to continue, tell me and I'll try to explain it so you understand
it is a copyright problem, because no one can make an app that has the features w/o being Google, Apple, or Amazon
TFA did indeed indicate that something 'new' had to happen, which is wrong...the devices **have the ability to do those features right now**
unless you are those Google, Apple, or Amazon, the answer is a copyright issue, all other things being equal (ability to code and launch the app)
if you want me to admit that i was wrong I won't...I may be stretching things a bit to link it all the way to copyright, but stretching an analogy is different than being "dead wrong"
the main point is that there is no **technical limitation**...it's corporate BS that keeps e-readers or e-reader apps from havign those features
good...let's get the false equivalence of arguments fallacy out of the way right now...
The only difference between the two faces of the Oligarch Party is the range of hot-button issues they use to create an illusion of real choice.
we can check this...we can look at the votes on *actual policy* and see which party votes for dumb wedge issues (creationism in textbooks, anti-abortion) and to enrich oligarchs by deregulating...deregulation is a Republican philosophy
obviously money influences all politicians...just because that fact is true does not mean that one party cannot be dramatically and irredeemably more corrupt
Republicans are, by policy vote which is 100% checkable, the party that supports Oligarchs and conjures artificial budget scarcity to justify cutting funding to government programs that help people who are not Oligarchs
this regulatory environment brought to you by the GOP.....
sure trolls can probably pull one Democrat or so who are not as vocal about regulating this industry...but we all know the truth
Republicans, by their policy votes and rhetoric, support giving Verizon open season to have their way with us as consumers
if you don't like the news in TFA, your only option is to vote for Democrats...they are the only realistic choice if we want t-Com robber barons brought under control
Piketty's data is sound. His conclusions support his contextualiztion of the problem in a global context.
I'm not paying a global tax, but our nation pays money to all kinds of countries in the form of aid & econmic benefit...that's tax money...hell, the US practically armed the Egyptian army
that's our tax money...so we're already paying taxes for world peace as it stands
so you admit what no one else who criticizes me will...that your criticizm is based in your political ideology not at all about actual usage of spreadsheets in research work
yeah...obviously you (and whoever upmodded you) have some sort of database branded software you use
what is it?
SPSS?
what are the options? what database software?
tell me then I'll explain why whatever that software does can be done on an excell spreadsheet, with all work being shown for anyone with a bachelor's able to follow easily
it's done all the time...it's math...
so tell me, what is a "non spreadsheet" software program that analyzes data
do it, so I can explain how it doesn't matter for you...this is a bullshit TFA with a pointless argument and it bothers me so many agree with it
I've got at least three on most of my devices that have nothing to do with any of those companies
you have three (3) apps on your smartphone that sell 'e-books' from major publishers, and these three apps are independent completely of google play, apple or amazon's systems
give me a link to those app's websites...show me the apps
Where is the copyright problem that keeps the voice control and note-taking applications off of the same tablet that has an e-reader?
because you or me (or any geek off the street) **cannot** just make an app that sells copyrighted books from major publishers
BECAUSE OF COPYRIGHT
the tech exists to have those features, but **no one can make better apps** because only the likes of Amazon, Google, and Apple can negotiate licensing agreements with copyright holders
so unless Amazon, Google, or Apple *choose* to add those features, this will not happen...
because of copyright....
nowhere is a technical device limitation relevant salient...we have the devices with the ability but not the license from copyright holders to sell their eBooks
I'm not explaining this any further, if you don't get it after this you're hopeless
by your definition, watching a lab tech fertilizes a human egg with sperm in a dish is the same as watching two people fsk
in another context (not evolution) your description of what constitutes "direct observation" is not proper for comparison
you're exaggerating and you ***DONT NEED TO***
it's like you're padding your resume for a job where you're the only applicant
also, the condescending tone is alienating..."just go to your local university...fruit flies!...direct observation....**smiles**..."
give me a fsking break kellymcdonald
this is why creationists exist...you exaggerate and over-explain which gives the creationist book authors grist for their mill
for the record, a laboratory experiment where fruit flies DNA is mutated causing different traits does not "prove" something as complex and time-spanning as evolution, and what you described *is not* direct observation of "evolution"...
To repeat, there is no transition between "kinds of animal" in the theory of evolution. And rest of your post kinda falls apart from this simple misunderstanding.
your post is interesting but the above comment is just wrong
evolution *requires* all life coming from a common ancestor
it's change over time...there's no other way to interpret change over time as "transitions between kinds of animal" in laymen's language
you're just being pedantic on this point....stop it....it makes us all stupiderer
I suppose you could say such transitions happened when different "kingdoms of life" appeared (we really have no clue how exactly that went down, just wild speculation),
yeah...that was GP's point...
life changes over time...that's the "origin of species"...that's the theory, in laymen's terms...
you're overcomplicating it to make yourself be "right"
easy there...you're cutting off your nose to spite your face
we don't need to exaggerate scientific claims to counter arguments, ever...
"belief" is too complex of a human action to describe with scientific level certainty, so the notion is useless to this discussion...people "believe" things strongly yet directly contradict their beliefs with action depending on the situation...the word is not fit for comparison
no one has "observed" evolution in the same way we observe a snake molting or a comet
it's just a fact...that doesn't mean, at all, that evolution isn't scientific
just because people who don't understand science misuse it, doesn't mean that you have to abuse science equally to counter them!
science is not inherently anti- anything...it's pro-active...its a formal method for observing the world...that's plenty
Slashdot Mirror
AC's explanation above is the best I've read yet.
here's an xkcd that hits it, another person on this topic posted it for me: http://xkcd.com/465/
i think the tech is cool, sure, but the hype kills it for me...it's just not quantum teleportation at all...it's a cheap knockoff...like one of those chinsese Iphone rip-off's that have virtually the same case but the software is rudimentary & essentially a flip phone with a big screen
i just don't know how we, /. readers, can fix it...is there someone on /. who has the exposure to change the nomenclature on this?
let's call it "quantum cryptography"...it still sounds super cool and futuristic! you can still have headlines that talk about "overturning Einstien" and "teleportation"...you can say it's use now is cryptography but "one day could pave the way for *true quantum computing*"
quantum cryptography? anyone?
i missed that one!
oh, xkcd...at least some things in this world work properly
from the 38 Studios wiki:
"The state of Rhode Island filed a lawsuit in November 2012 against Schilling, Stokes, and other backers of 38 Studios.[25]"
They admitted wrongdoing in 2014...vaporware on the public dime!
yeah but when the Sonics were purchased part of the deal was that they had to stay in Seattle...so...that shows how binding those agreements are
they'll be back in Seattle
exactly...this is about **non-local** entanglement...which is terminology that means actual "spooky action at a distance" which would be instantaneous not bound by c
otherwise it's multiplexing....really, really fancy multiplexing...something we've done since computing began
TFA is hype...good research sure...but still hype
why do we have to exaggerate when it's already awesome?
I wondered why a system would use it...if I understand it correctly...
it's a new encoding that requires software on either end for TCP, that's in TFA...
yeah TFA says it's link-layer flow control:
it can "piggyback" on TC-IP but you have to use their "software" on either end
i'm not sure where they want this to be used, "mobile" WiFi and LTE are mentioned but I dont see this as anything other than a demonstration of a capability, not an application
i come from a CCNA background but I've never worked with or seen something like this...seems like they would use it in data centers?
at least we in the tech industry can be thankful that the NBA & LA community will now have to put up with Ballmer's antics
what if it was the reverse?
successful athletes, coaches, and celebrities bought up startups with their big spending...
can you imagine a consortium of Oprah, Magic Johnson, and some Goldman/Sach's types buying facebook.com from Zuck & Co when it was still valued in the low millions before they got on their IPO track w/ Theil?
do you want to continue this conversation?
if so we should start over...i have a good point to make & you took the time to copy/paste (even though you're not directly clashing just arguing terminology)
no point hinges on one word...if you want to continue, tell me and I'll try to explain it so you understand
it is a copyright problem, because no one can make an app that has the features w/o being Google, Apple, or Amazon
TFA did indeed indicate that something 'new' had to happen, which is wrong...the devices **have the ability to do those features right now**
unless you are those Google, Apple, or Amazon, the answer is a copyright issue, all other things being equal (ability to code and launch the app)
if you want me to admit that i was wrong I won't...I may be stretching things a bit to link it all the way to copyright, but stretching an analogy is different than being "dead wrong"
the main point is that there is no **technical limitation**...it's corporate BS that keeps e-readers or e-reader apps from havign those features
so you agree that TFA is wrong, and that it's not a hardware solution, but a software solution
that was my point from the beginning...copyright was a parenthetical point
go back and read my post again
TFA is wrong...it's a software question...a **designer** question...
good...let's get the false equivalence of arguments fallacy out of the way right now...
we can check this...we can look at the votes on *actual policy* and see which party votes for dumb wedge issues (creationism in textbooks, anti-abortion) and to enrich oligarchs by deregulating...deregulation is a Republican philosophy
obviously money influences all politicians...just because that fact is true does not mean that one party cannot be dramatically and irredeemably more corrupt
Republicans are, by policy vote which is 100% checkable, the party that supports Oligarchs and conjures artificial budget scarcity to justify cutting funding to government programs that help people who are not Oligarchs
this regulatory environment brought to you by the GOP.....
sure trolls can probably pull one Democrat or so who are not as vocal about regulating this industry...but we all know the truth
Republicans, by their policy votes and rhetoric, support giving Verizon open season to have their way with us as consumers
if you don't like the news in TFA, your only option is to vote for Democrats...they are the only realistic choice if we want t-Com robber barons brought under control
Piketty's data is sound. His conclusions support his contextualiztion of the problem in a global context.
I'm not paying a global tax, but our nation pays money to all kinds of countries in the form of aid & econmic benefit...that's tax money...hell, the US practically armed the Egyptian army
that's our tax money...so we're already paying taxes for world peace as it stands
so you admit what no one else who criticizes me will...that your criticizm is based in your political ideology not at all about actual usage of spreadsheets in research work
yeah...obviously you (and whoever upmodded you) have some sort of database branded software you use
what is it?
SPSS?
what are the options? what database software?
tell me then I'll explain why whatever that software does can be done on an excell spreadsheet, with all work being shown for anyone with a bachelor's able to follow easily
it's done all the time...it's math...
so tell me, what is a "non spreadsheet" software program that analyzes data
do it, so I can explain how it doesn't matter for you...this is a bullshit TFA with a pointless argument and it bothers me so many agree with it
you have three (3) apps on your smartphone that sell 'e-books' from major publishers, and these three apps are independent completely of google play, apple or amazon's systems
give me a link to those app's websites...show me the apps
because you or me (or any geek off the street) **cannot** just make an app that sells copyrighted books from major publishers
BECAUSE OF COPYRIGHT
the tech exists to have those features, but **no one can make better apps** because only the likes of Amazon, Google, and Apple can negotiate licensing agreements with copyright holders
so unless Amazon, Google, or Apple *choose* to add those features, this will not happen...
because of copyright....
nowhere is a technical device limitation relevant salient...we have the devices with the ability but not the license from copyright holders to sell their eBooks
I'm not explaining this any further, if you don't get it after this you're hopeless
tech culture is ripe for a revolution against the basement-dwelling dork-country club pissing contest that is tech work
but this ain't it...
tech dorks problems are not the same as the UCSB killers problems
they have **similarities** but these murders are not indicative of something about tech workers
the only similarity is that both the UCSB killer and tech dorks are antagonistic to women
tech culture hates women and it resents the sensabilities they bring to a project....that's awful....but TFA does nothing to solve that
yes...because they paid for the right to sell the 'ebook'
you admit you have 'e-reader apps'...so we agree they exist
you acknowledge copyright exists
you're proving me right
any "app" that sells books must be allowed
the maker of your current "e-reader app" could make a feature to do what TFA says *now*...which is a software fix
we have the apps, we have the technology to do it on the devices...
it's a software fix that any licensed seller of "e-reader" books could make to their software....done
most smartphones & tablets have voice input
so...what was your point again?
if someone wanted voice input & note taking *AND* an 'e-reader'....you can easily envision an app that does exactly that
your 'e-reader' app wouldn't have any books in it though, would it?
the listed features are **already available** on most digitalia I refered to
maybe you should think more about what an 'e-reader' really does
why are you telling me this?
is it b/c you think i'm a creationist?
don't bother litigating "creation vs evolution" with me b/c i'm not a creationist
you're the problem here...people like you exaggerate and misconstrue real science to "win" a conversation
you're feeding the very creationists you're trying to fight...stop...just stop forever
yeah...see your comment is the problem
by your definition, watching a lab tech fertilizes a human egg with sperm in a dish is the same as watching two people fsk
in another context (not evolution) your description of what constitutes "direct observation" is not proper for comparison
you're exaggerating and you ***DONT NEED TO***
it's like you're padding your resume for a job where you're the only applicant
also, the condescending tone is alienating..."just go to your local university...fruit flies!...direct observation....**smiles**..."
give me a fsking break kellymcdonald
this is why creationists exist...you exaggerate and over-explain which gives the creationist book authors grist for their mill
for the record, a laboratory experiment where fruit flies DNA is mutated causing different traits does not "prove" something as complex and time-spanning as evolution, and what you described *is not* direct observation of "evolution"...
it's a **copyright problem**
that's it...we have plenty of digitalia of all shapes, sizes, and makes to display the text
most use programs called "apps"
all are subject to backwards-minded legal copyright holders who misuse artificial scarcity
your post is interesting but the above comment is just wrong
evolution *requires* all life coming from a common ancestor
it's change over time...there's no other way to interpret change over time as "transitions between kinds of animal" in laymen's language
you're just being pedantic on this point....stop it....it makes us all stupiderer
yeah...that was GP's point...
life changes over time...that's the "origin of species"...that's the theory, in laymen's terms...
you're overcomplicating it to make yourself be "right"
easy there...you're cutting off your nose to spite your face
we don't need to exaggerate scientific claims to counter arguments, ever...
"belief" is too complex of a human action to describe with scientific level certainty, so the notion is useless to this discussion...people "believe" things strongly yet directly contradict their beliefs with action depending on the situation...the word is not fit for comparison
no one has "observed" evolution in the same way we observe a snake molting or a comet
it's just a fact...that doesn't mean, at all, that evolution isn't scientific
just because people who don't understand science misuse it, doesn't mean that you have to abuse science equally to counter them!
science is not inherently anti- anything...it's pro-active...its a formal method for observing the world...that's plenty