On one hand, I don't want to think about places like Pakistan, North Korea, Thailand, FSR's, etc having free reign to use nuclear power. It's like giving your redneck neighbor in Kentucky a vintage Ferrari. They litterally wouldn't be able to do anything but tear it up (try finding an oil filter for a 80s Italian sports car in rural Kentucky...)
On the other hand, its immoral to stifle technology and human development. We have harnessed the power of the atom and we need the energy it can provide or our species will **destroy itself**
In the final analysis, pushing down technology and progression of human knowledge is a delay tactic at best...that's why I favor a full frontal R&D assault on nuclear power...let's kill it...pin it down like a butterfly...
Fusion is in this conversation somehow, but it's not just about R&D for new types of nuke power...we can do both...
We should have "Mr. Fusion" processors on our cars...or at least powering our homes...the tech is there to do it safely if we only put the R&D into the engineering of it (which is not a simply task of course)
energy should be as 'cheap' as the market dictates...which, in a properly competitive market, means really large companies with big time resources would then fund the *best* Research and Development to compete with each other to bring the cheapest & most sustainable (read: clean) energy that modern science can provide
your idea attempts to solve the right problems, but does it in the most contentions, unworkable way possible...this is why you fail
see, you identify some problems most would agree with:
We have way too many devices slowly sipping the power, while an average house still leaks way too much of the (heat) energy. We are overconsuming way too many goods..
everyone agrees with this...hell even some Republican Wal-Mart executive would agree with this even though they profit from it...
your solution of purposefully, artificially inflating prices is nothing more than a **giveaway to energy companies for doing nothing**
your idea guarantees a revenue chain for said energy companies, takes away incentives to do R&D on better technology (instead its marketing R&D), and ensures that the current, **unsustainable** fossil fuel model will continue
you are way, way off from solving the problems you identify
I disagree completely with your "planned to fail" theory, but I'd love to see them do **what Obama was elected to do in 2008**
People forget that in the Democratic primary in 2008, Hillary and Obama had competing health care plans. What we have now is essentially a modified Hillary/Romney plan, whereas originally Obama was in favor of a single payer system (which he later allowed for a "public option").
But after the 2008 election moronic Democrats in Congress (right philosophically, strategically they are sub-idiots) passed a comprimise with the Republicans that eliminated even the public option (but greatly extended Medicaid, which is for poor people).
So yeah, I hope that part of your dumb comment is right! Bring on the single-payer system! Technology has made the personal health care model obsolete...we need to stop subsidizing Kaiser-Permanente with government money.
The problems that were reported as "problems with the website" were either standard IT issues (no excuse, but no need to exaggerate) solvable with routine IT engineering work or they were problems inherent in the profit model of the insurance companies.
Health care is like clean water, plumbing, or roads...it is something virtually every American would want or need.
The very definition of government is to group our resources...and any time humans group for any reason...it is to somehow pool resources.
"insurance" is a viable concept in the free market...I'm thinking especially for things like automobile insurance. It makes sense that it could be profitable.
Technology has improved our ability to give health care such that, essentially, it is cheaper to just let everyone have access to health care (b/c on a per person basis it is cheaper) than to deal with the consequences of having an unhealthy populace.
Technology has rendered the health care insurance industry obsolete. It is similar to the effect the internet had on the RIAA's profit model of licensing and holding legal copyrights.
one could assume that these 5 "discs" are supposed to be assembled in some way to get the cup as the end product.
not rationally...not at all...those 5 discs do not look at all like they could be assembled into the cup no matter what the 6th piece looked like
those 5 things (the discs) are too small and not shaped properly to add up to form something as large as the cup (even if you added some ridiculous final 'piece') and no one would think otherwise
if what you say is true, the question would be forcing the child to **think wrongly** about the 5 coins....
the fact that some (theoretically educated) adults defend this question at all is a clue as to the source of idiotic ideas like 'Common Core'
so, go up a few branches and you'll find your original comment...it **didn't mention other factors** and, most importantly, you said that the success was **due to using Moore's Law**
indep. of each other, fine, but you used pretty flowery language to describe the pressures of your decision and cited **only** Moore's Law for your making the right choice...here's one example:
If we hadn't used Moore's Law in our planning, we would have come out with products using two-year old technology, and our competition would have eaten our lunch.
but throughout you only attributed your success to Moores Law...
Other commenter here on this branch is right...we don't need to dance around the issue...Moore's Law is an interesting novelty and that's all...nothing wrong with running the numbers on it for comparison sake (b/c others in the industry use it if nothing else!)
We were confident because the availability of that process was predicted by Moore's Law and any number of foundries were spending billions to make it happen.
Right, so did you just use Moore's Law or did you look at other factors as well?
What I mean by other factors:
> Trends of the capacity of other recent products? Did you look at teh speeds of CMOS processes from that company over the last 10 years and extrapolate?
> Did you talk to a sales rep or engineer or product development manager at the CMOS process company and **ASK THEM** how fast their upcomming models would be (approximately)
> Do literature review of what academic research groups and possible FOSS (idk if it applies for you) were doing in that CMOS wireless type transciever tech? My former university, Ball State University did research for WiMax coverage and speed for Cisco (before WiMax was ditched)...did you look at any of that to predict the CMOS process capability you needed?
I'm trying to be polite, but I call BS.
If you claim your company made that decision based **soley** on math from Moore's Law....well I have a hard time believe that claim's veracity. You are either fabricating or that company is not very wise. And if you company **did** use other factors, then that kind of invalidates your point and parenthetically supportsy my point...I won't deny that using it **might** have added value, but only IF you also did common practices like I mentioned above...
Seriously...did you use other factors besides Moore's Law?
Like asking the vendor? (or any of the others mentioned above)
If TSMC isn't keeping up with Moore's Law, that's not a problem with Moore's Law. It's a problem with TSMC.
see, when the data does not support the hypothesis, you **change the hypothesis** not how you interpret the data
Moore's Law has never been a 'law'...it was a cool statistical novelty that seemed to predict processor advancements...it is NOT and HAS NEVER BEEN fit to predict anything invovling money or resources...it's 'for fun'
I've seen Singularity/Kurzweil types in TED talks show some dumb graph of 'Moore's Law' and show how, according to the law, humans will have the processor speed to do XYZ by 2050....it's all bunk...
Using Moore's Law to make important decisions is about like using a Slashdot Poll to do the same...I don't trust people professionally who take a concept like Moore's Law and build their understanding of an industry around it. It's a common mistake of perception.
Maybe there is some sort of pattern to processor speed, but it's not helping us understand anything to be so reductive and irresponsible with how we use scientific concepts.
b/c this, in TFA summary, was a really stupid question:
Does this also mean webmasters will need to write seperate versions of CSS and javascript for older versions of Chrome and Firefox like they did with IE 6 if the user base refuses to leave Windows XP?"
I LOL'ed
i'm making an 'ecommerce' site *right now* and putting custom system shortcuts & stuff all over it...using CSS3 alot to make quasi-animated features but still be lean
there's absolutely no way in hell I would do something like this...w/ my CSS3 'magic' i'd have to fucking run javascript (which my goal is not to need for presentation stuff) on all my main visual 'content' to make it all render properly
this crap is *exactly* why i hate M$ to begin with!
see, I actually have fond memories of Windows XP...it was the least bullshit of M$'s stuff & i could actually get work done on it w/ some tweaking
there will always be a place in my heart for a super-lean, fast, simple, non-Mac OS...
if those people repost it and other people are interested enough to want to re-repost it that it spreads and a lot of people see it
I am usually extremely critical of the way f/b works...and similar companies...bottlenecking features, boxing-in user's privacy w/ changes to defaults, on and on...the hype chorus...
I hate when people say "Print is dead"...it's a distinction w/o a difference....exhitibit A is the point we all agree on...facebook isn't reporting news
Its still words on a page...just a different type of page
However...I'm no luddite...I used to work in news and was super stoked (i was practically a kid) to use all the new internet tech, satellites, etc to do better news...to **connect** with our readers/viewers better
data about what stories users choose to share, and with whom, and how many respond, and why they say...all of this is **absolute researcher gold**
it's 'rich' data...it has the specificity and lack of abstraction that only comes with 'case study' research, yet it is quantifiable, spreadsheetable, graphable, and analyzable in ways usually reserved only for numberic abstractions of human behavior
the 'richness' is the problem...the facebook.com's of the world don't know what to do with what they have...
it's like if the hottest girl in school asks the geek to be her date to the dance...is he really going to know what to do with her?
The pollsters missed it by the phrasing of their question. People aren't getting their news from Facebook. They're getting news from their friends and people they're following
but you missed directly from the News Company (CBS, MSNBC, NYTImes, etc)
the News orgs themselves post links to their stories...no reposting by individual 'friends' needed
I say this b/c a friend of mine uses facebook.com as essentailly a news aggregator and event calendar for rock shows and new films...his identity is made up and none of his friends are real 'friends'...he's kind of a privacy obsessive (nothing wrong with that) so he just wants to log on quick, check his feed and get what info he wants and be done
Other groups that give tailored content directly: sports teams, local news papers, local TV, individual reporters (esp ppl like Buzzfeed reporters), newsmakers (via f/b account reposting from twitter)
So you're right to criticize I just wanted to add that the organizations themselves also play a major role in that content...not just stuff from personal friends
I totally agree...Pew and virtually all mainstream 'polling' companies are just awful
IMHO the entire way people are polled about things like what they watch (Nielsen ratings), their political views (take your pick...), and their attitudes on technology (Pew in TFA)...hell, even SoundScan, which reports music industry sales figures, is gamed out by the industry & is not representative at all of what music people obtain and listen to...
Go down the line...they all use 1950s methodology juiced up...sort of exactly like 'Master Command' in Tron....methodology that is **easily gamed out** by modern techniques
That's my main point...all these ratings systems are done by private companies using obsolete science...it remained obsolete b/c they had no incentive to improve...b/c their profit model was not based on receiving pay for scientific research (maybe long ago it was?)
They are PR companies...their work is to make PR and Propaganda look like plausible consumer/voter research...that's what ppl get with their money...not science
facebook.com is does not employ reporters...they don't have a DC bureau...facebook.com does not report news
the news organizations (NBC, CBS, Fox, MSNBC, NYTimes, WSJ, etc etc)...**they** provide the news content that is viewed in the news feed
facebook, at best, can be seen as an aggregator of news content
NYTimes, CBS, your local paper...**they** report the news
facebook's news feed is an aggregator
ugh...IMHO this is just pointless to research this aspect from this perspective...a better research topic which would yield more useful data and results would be to study who closes their facebook accounts and why and if they suppliment it with other networks...that kind of thing would be value-added
your 'fact 1' is a fragment...it doesn't represent my point
I said that TFA was not truly 'quantum computing' b/c it didn't involve 'entanglement'
Just because you can pull a string of text from my post & make a counterpoint against that **isolated, context free fragment of words** doesn't mean your "Fact 2" refutes anything
You can't refute a **fragment of an argument** and say its a refutation of anything unless you **put in in context of the original statement**
All you've proven, for anyone still reading, is that you have been trolling this whole time...
try again...you can start being untrollface right now and redeem yourself by answering if you think what TFA research team is doing is true 'quantum computing'
Is the computing method mentioned in The Fucking Article (TFA) truly 'quantum computing' or not?
I know they say it is 'quantum'....but look at their technique and answer is it truly 'quantum computing'?
also, you said:
However it appears that having conceded the claim on quantum physics you are now determined to believe that we were having a conversation about something else entirely
I didn't conceed any point. But don't bother pointing out where you think i did b/c it doesn't matter.
I quoted you here to illustrate a point. Your idea and my idea of what we are debating is different.
I said Quantum Computing must use 'entaglement' (as discussed) proper somehow in the system to be truly 'quantum computing'
certainly the nature of what defines 'quantum' is involved in that. but the **central question** of the post you replied to was asking if TFA was truly 'quantum computing'
You said that 'entanglement' (nonlocal, quant. teleportation) is not "at the core" of quantum physics...that's a rhetorical distinction that avoids the question...
whether you use the words 'at teh core' or 'fundament' is not part of my question **to which you responded**
now, either you answer on topic or continue trolling
I've always sided against Hawking on this...Susskind was right
The information of the matter falling into BH is completely preserved on the surface of the event horizon
I think you actually agree with me, b/c this is the same as the EH 'obliterating' it...
I never said it was "lost" i said it was "obliterated"
the **way** the energy is dispersed across the EH preserves the 2nd Law...the conflict over whether information is 'lost' or 'not lost' is a fault of Hawking-style information theory. Hawking (as is his custom) was making a distinction w/o a difference.
something can be obliterated without the information being 'lost'....we watch it obliterated into 'nothing' (aka the Evebt Horizon)...yes, you could call the state of the matter immediately before it becomes 'obliterated' as a 'hologram'...but it doesn't disprove what I'm saying at all
in this sense, a 'black hole' truly is 'nothing'...that's why if TFA is right, black holes are essentially bubbles of 'nothing' in the quantum foam of the universe
It seems, and this research bolsters the idea, that the Event Horizon obliterates **everything** and scatters the energy across the event horizon. Anything like "Hawking Radiation" then becomes just another result of the Event Horizon obliterating matter. The characteristics (information) of the matter (speed, mass, velocity, spin, charge, etc etc) are truly completely obliterated at the Event Horizon.
In this way, *nothing* ever actually crosses the Event Horizon. The 'Black Hole' then functions as a perfect 'black body'.
This view has repurcussions across physics. If what I say is true, then essentially, Black Holes could be viewed as bubbles in the Quantum Foam of the universe. Which means the universe ends in heat death.
Slashdot Mirror
I am of two minds on opposition to nuclear power.
On one hand, I don't want to think about places like Pakistan, North Korea, Thailand, FSR's, etc having free reign to use nuclear power. It's like giving your redneck neighbor in Kentucky a vintage Ferrari. They litterally wouldn't be able to do anything but tear it up (try finding an oil filter for a 80s Italian sports car in rural Kentucky...)
On the other hand, its immoral to stifle technology and human development. We have harnessed the power of the atom and we need the energy it can provide or our species will **destroy itself**
In the final analysis, pushing down technology and progression of human knowledge is a delay tactic at best...that's why I favor a full frontal R&D assault on nuclear power...let's kill it...pin it down like a butterfly...
Fusion is in this conversation somehow, but it's not just about R&D for new types of nuke power...we can do both...
We should have "Mr. Fusion" processors on our cars...or at least powering our homes...the tech is there to do it safely if we only put the R&D into the engineering of it (which is not a simply task of course)
energy should be as 'cheap' as the market dictates...which, in a properly competitive market, means really large companies with big time resources would then fund the *best* Research and Development to compete with each other to bring the cheapest & most sustainable (read: clean) energy that modern science can provide
your idea attempts to solve the right problems, but does it in the most contentions, unworkable way possible...this is why you fail
see, you identify some problems most would agree with:
everyone agrees with this...hell even some Republican Wal-Mart executive would agree with this even though they profit from it...
your solution of purposefully, artificially inflating prices is nothing more than a **giveaway to energy companies for doing nothing**
your idea guarantees a revenue chain for said energy companies, takes away incentives to do R&D on better technology (instead its marketing R&D), and ensures that the current, **unsustainable** fossil fuel model will continue
you are way, way off from solving the problems you identify
I disagree completely with your "planned to fail" theory, but I'd love to see them do **what Obama was elected to do in 2008**
People forget that in the Democratic primary in 2008, Hillary and Obama had competing health care plans. What we have now is essentially a modified Hillary/Romney plan, whereas originally Obama was in favor of a single payer system (which he later allowed for a "public option").
But after the 2008 election moronic Democrats in Congress (right philosophically, strategically they are sub-idiots) passed a comprimise with the Republicans that eliminated even the public option (but greatly extended Medicaid, which is for poor people).
So yeah, I hope that part of your dumb comment is right! Bring on the single-payer system! Technology has made the personal health care model obsolete...we need to stop subsidizing Kaiser-Permanente with government money.
It's about profit model.
The problems that were reported as "problems with the website" were either standard IT issues (no excuse, but no need to exaggerate) solvable with routine IT engineering work or they were problems inherent in the profit model of the insurance companies.
Health care is like clean water, plumbing, or roads...it is something virtually every American would want or need.
The very definition of government is to group our resources...and any time humans group for any reason...it is to somehow pool resources.
"insurance" is a viable concept in the free market...I'm thinking especially for things like automobile insurance. It makes sense that it could be profitable.
Technology has improved our ability to give health care such that, essentially, it is cheaper to just let everyone have access to health care (b/c on a per person basis it is cheaper) than to deal with the consequences of having an unhealthy populace.
Technology has rendered the health care insurance industry obsolete. It is similar to the effect the internet had on the RIAA's profit model of licensing and holding legal copyrights.
not rationally...not at all...those 5 discs do not look at all like they could be assembled into the cup no matter what the 6th piece looked like
those 5 things (the discs) are too small and not shaped properly to add up to form something as large as the cup (even if you added some ridiculous final 'piece') and no one would think otherwise
if what you say is true, the question would be forcing the child to **think wrongly** about the 5 coins....
the fact that some (theoretically educated) adults defend this question at all is a clue as to the source of idiotic ideas like 'Common Core'
these are probably Brin's old models...he upgraded to a bigger party barge & decided to sell his old one to his company
thnx again...
so, go up a few branches and you'll find your original comment...it **didn't mention other factors** and, most importantly, you said that the success was **due to using Moore's Law**
indep. of each other, fine, but you used pretty flowery language to describe the pressures of your decision and cited **only** Moore's Law for your making the right choice...here's one example:
but throughout you only attributed your success to Moores Law...
Other commenter here on this branch is right...we don't need to dance around the issue...Moore's Law is an interesting novelty and that's all...nothing wrong with running the numbers on it for comparison sake (b/c others in the industry use it if nothing else!)
hey thanks for the response
Right, so did you just use Moore's Law or did you look at other factors as well?
What I mean by other factors:
> Trends of the capacity of other recent products? Did you look at teh speeds of CMOS processes from that company over the last 10 years and extrapolate?
> Did you talk to a sales rep or engineer or product development manager at the CMOS process company and **ASK THEM** how fast their upcomming models would be (approximately)
> Do literature review of what academic research groups and possible FOSS (idk if it applies for you) were doing in that CMOS wireless type transciever tech? My former university, Ball State University did research for WiMax coverage and speed for Cisco (before WiMax was ditched)...did you look at any of that to predict the CMOS process capability you needed?
I'm trying to be polite, but I call BS.
If you claim your company made that decision based **soley** on math from Moore's Law....well I have a hard time believe that claim's veracity. You are either fabricating or that company is not very wise. And if you company **did** use other factors, then that kind of invalidates your point and parenthetically supportsy my point...I won't deny that using it **might** have added value, but only IF you also did common practices like I mentioned above...
Seriously...did you use other factors besides Moore's Law?
Like asking the vendor? (or any of the others mentioned above)
You've got it switched...
see, when the data does not support the hypothesis, you **change the hypothesis** not how you interpret the data
Moore's Law has never been a 'law'...it was a cool statistical novelty that seemed to predict processor advancements...it is NOT and HAS NEVER BEEN fit to predict anything invovling money or resources...it's 'for fun'
I've seen Singularity/Kurzweil types in TED talks show some dumb graph of 'Moore's Law' and show how, according to the law, humans will have the processor speed to do XYZ by 2050....it's all bunk...
Using Moore's Law to make important decisions is about like using a Slashdot Poll to do the same...I don't trust people professionally who take a concept like Moore's Law and build their understanding of an industry around it. It's a common mistake of perception.
Maybe there is some sort of pattern to processor speed, but it's not helping us understand anything to be so reductive and irresponsible with how we use scientific concepts.
hats off to firefox then...
b/c this, in TFA summary, was a really stupid question:
I LOL'ed
i'm making an 'ecommerce' site *right now* and putting custom system shortcuts & stuff all over it...using CSS3 alot to make quasi-animated features but still be lean
there's absolutely no way in hell I would do something like this...w/ my CSS3 'magic' i'd have to fucking run javascript (which my goal is not to need for presentation stuff) on all my main visual 'content' to make it all render properly
this crap is *exactly* why i hate M$ to begin with!
see, I actually have fond memories of Windows XP...it was the least bullshit of M$'s stuff & i could actually get work done on it w/ some tweaking
there will always be a place in my heart for a super-lean, fast, simple, non-Mac OS...
so again...thnx firefox!
I was right...it's two seconds...which is what I originally said, before I was trolled
trolled 2x now...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-second_rule
I knew what I was talking about the whole time...my only mistake was being open to what other /.'ers had to say
see, this here is, IMHO actually valuable data:
I am usually extremely critical of the way f/b works...and similar companies...bottlenecking features, boxing-in user's privacy w/ changes to defaults, on and on...the hype chorus...
I hate when people say "Print is dead"...it's a distinction w/o a difference....exhitibit A is the point we all agree on...facebook isn't reporting news
Its still words on a page...just a different type of page
However...I'm no luddite...I used to work in news and was super stoked (i was practically a kid) to use all the new internet tech, satellites, etc to do better news...to **connect** with our readers/viewers better
data about what stories users choose to share, and with whom, and how many respond, and why they say...all of this is **absolute researcher gold**
it's 'rich' data...it has the specificity and lack of abstraction that only comes with 'case study' research, yet it is quantifiable, spreadsheetable, graphable, and analyzable in ways usually reserved only for numberic abstractions of human behavior
the 'richness' is the problem...the facebook.com's of the world don't know what to do with what they have...
it's like if the hottest girl in school asks the geek to be her date to the dance...is he really going to know what to do with her?
thanks!
if they were linked elsewhere I apologize...I didn't see them
I will have a look for sure...I've learned a few things reading this discussion
couldn't we check a quantum computer's accuracy (probability) or w/e by asking it to solve a problem we know the answer to?
do you possess links to these open published papers you speak of?
plz specify how they answer parent's questions as well...don't just copy/paste the links and hit 'publish'
you're right on here:
but you missed directly from the News Company (CBS, MSNBC, NYTImes, etc)
the News orgs themselves post links to their stories...no reposting by individual 'friends' needed
I say this b/c a friend of mine uses facebook.com as essentailly a news aggregator and event calendar for rock shows and new films...his identity is made up and none of his friends are real 'friends'...he's kind of a privacy obsessive (nothing wrong with that) so he just wants to log on quick, check his feed and get what info he wants and be done
Other groups that give tailored content directly: sports teams, local news papers, local TV, individual reporters (esp ppl like Buzzfeed reporters), newsmakers (via f/b account reposting from twitter)
So you're right to criticize I just wanted to add that the organizations themselves also play a major role in that content...not just stuff from personal friends
I totally agree...Pew and virtually all mainstream 'polling' companies are just awful
IMHO the entire way people are polled about things like what they watch (Nielsen ratings), their political views (take your pick...), and their attitudes on technology (Pew in TFA)...hell, even SoundScan, which reports music industry sales figures, is gamed out by the industry & is not representative at all of what music people obtain and listen to...
Go down the line...they all use 1950s methodology juiced up...sort of exactly like 'Master Command' in Tron....methodology that is **easily gamed out** by modern techniques
That's my main point...all these ratings systems are done by private companies using obsolete science...it remained obsolete b/c they had no incentive to improve...b/c their profit model was not based on receiving pay for scientific research (maybe long ago it was?)
They are PR companies...their work is to make PR and Propaganda look like plausible consumer/voter research...that's what ppl get with their money...not science
facebook.com is does not employ reporters...they don't have a DC bureau...facebook.com does not report news
the news organizations (NBC, CBS, Fox, MSNBC, NYTimes, WSJ, etc etc)...**they** provide the news content that is viewed in the news feed
facebook, at best, can be seen as an aggregator of news content
NYTimes, CBS, your local paper...**they** report the news
facebook's news feed is an aggregator
ugh...IMHO this is just pointless to research this aspect from this perspective...a better research topic which would yield more useful data and results would be to study who closes their facebook accounts and why and if they suppliment it with other networks...that kind of thing would be value-added
your facts are wrong
your 'fact 1' is a fragment...it doesn't represent my point
I said that TFA was not truly 'quantum computing' b/c it didn't involve 'entanglement'
Just because you can pull a string of text from my post & make a counterpoint against that **isolated, context free fragment of words** doesn't mean your "Fact 2" refutes anything
You can't refute a **fragment of an argument** and say its a refutation of anything unless you **put in in context of the original statement**
All you've proven, for anyone still reading, is that you have been trolling this whole time...
try again...you can start being untrollface right now and redeem yourself by answering if you think what TFA research team is doing is true 'quantum computing'
so is it?
c'mon...you know I'll read it if you answer...
Answer this:
Is the computing method mentioned in The Fucking Article (TFA) truly 'quantum computing' or not?
I know they say it is 'quantum'....but look at their technique and answer is it truly 'quantum computing'?
also, you said:
I didn't conceed any point. But don't bother pointing out where you think i did b/c it doesn't matter.
I quoted you here to illustrate a point. Your idea and my idea of what we are debating is different.
I said Quantum Computing must use 'entaglement' (as discussed) proper somehow in the system to be truly 'quantum computing'
certainly the nature of what defines 'quantum' is involved in that. but the **central question** of the post you replied to was asking if TFA was truly 'quantum computing'
You said that 'entanglement' (nonlocal, quant. teleportation) is not "at the core" of quantum physics...that's a rhetorical distinction that avoids the question...
whether you use the words 'at teh core' or 'fundament' is not part of my question **to which you responded**
now, either you answer on topic or continue trolling
sorry...one last thing...
when matter hits the Event Horizon, it is obliterated into 'nothing' and scattered across the EH...
one thing I forgot to mention is that, again, the 2nd Law is not violated in my view b/c the **black hole gets bigger** as it obliterates matter
I've always sided against Hawking on this...Susskind was right
I think you actually agree with me, b/c this is the same as the EH 'obliterating' it...
I never said it was "lost" i said it was "obliterated"
the **way** the energy is dispersed across the EH preserves the 2nd Law...the conflict over whether information is 'lost' or 'not lost' is a fault of Hawking-style information theory. Hawking (as is his custom) was making a distinction w/o a difference.
something can be obliterated without the information being 'lost'....we watch it obliterated into 'nothing' (aka the Evebt Horizon)...yes, you could call the state of the matter immediately before it becomes 'obliterated' as a 'hologram'...but it doesn't disprove what I'm saying at all
in this sense, a 'black hole' truly is 'nothing'...that's why if TFA is right, black holes are essentially bubbles of 'nothing' in the quantum foam of the universe
hey man...good thoughts...
I think I might have some answers...
It seems, and this research bolsters the idea, that the Event Horizon obliterates **everything** and scatters the energy across the event horizon. Anything like "Hawking Radiation" then becomes just another result of the Event Horizon obliterating matter. The characteristics (information) of the matter (speed, mass, velocity, spin, charge, etc etc) are truly completely obliterated at the Event Horizon.
In this way, *nothing* ever actually crosses the Event Horizon. The 'Black Hole' then functions as a perfect 'black body'.
This view has repurcussions across physics. If what I say is true, then essentially, Black Holes could be viewed as bubbles in the Quantum Foam of the universe. Which means the universe ends in heat death.
yes...here on /. it's called an 'off-topic' comment...also often can be a 'troll' comment as well
so you admit, finally, that this has been a rhetorical argument over a part of a sentence which was tangential to central point of my post
Lastly...you tacitly admit that you **AGREE** that TFA is *not* Quantum Computing...b/c true Quantum Computing must involve entanglement as discussed?
Have we reached that stage yet?
You are close to redemption
is the work in TFA true 'quantum computing'?
you can either answer, or write more rhetorical avoidance....