no you didn't...you responded to selected sections, ignoring the context of the actual greater point
you are *still* trying to use rhetoric to avoid actual debate
since the begining, my *first* post you responded to I have been completely consistent
my point is that TFA is NOT "Quantum Computing" b/c its not using 'entanglement'
see, if your assertation is right, and I'm wrong, then the research team in TFA can be said to be doing 'true quantum computing' w/o having entanglement be involved at all...no non-locality, no quant. teleportation...but, according to you, still 'quantum'
you are wrong...true non-local, quantum teleportation exists...as you admit ("check the journals")
the research group in TFA is *not* doing Quantum Computing, b/c to do true Quantum Computing current understandings of 'entanglement' must be involved in the system
so I made a mistake...its **4** seconds instead of **2** (btw, the DMV rules vary by state in the USA...& some states mandate a time-distance, some don't)
you dodged my greater point...
Google's engineers gamed the test by slowing the cars down...
TFA headline says the cars drive 'better'. How does the Google engineers define 'better'?
One of those analyses showed that when a human was behind the wheel, Google’s cars accelerated and braked **significantly more sharply** than they did when piloting themselves. Another showed that the cars’ software was much better at **maintaining a safe distance** from the vehicle ahead than the human drivers were.
lets look in reverse order
> maintaining 'safe' distance from car in front of you...'safe' as defined by the DMV is '2 seconds'...a variable distance that accounts for speed...
so, they programed the Google cars not to get closer than a prescribed ammount...the cars did not significantly get any closer than programmed...so "we win!!"
not so fast...that 'safety' they measure has very rapidly decreasing marginal utility...after awhile a.0000000000000001% gain in 'safety' is not work the extra 20 minutes to your commute b/c the Google control software won't let your car ever get any closer than 2 car lengths...so turning left on that busy intersection takes 3x as long in the morning....
> cars [with drivers] accelerated and braked significantly more sharply....again this is a programmed parameter, not some 'victory' for the car...
they defined 'safe' as smooth stops and starts...programed the machine to do smooth stops and starts...therefore, scientifically "ITS SAFER!"
wrong again...it's ridiculously **slower** which almost by default makes it 'safer'...
humans can estimate distances in real time and **make decisions** that safe TIME
TIME is the key here
anyone can just drive more slowly to be safer...we don't b/c we'd never get where we are going if we didn't cut corners
see, if your assertation is right, and I'm wrong, then the research team in TFA can be said to be doing 'true quantum computing' w/o having entanglement be involved at all...no non-locality, no quant. teleportation...but, according to you, still 'quantum'
you are wrong...true non-local, quantum teleportation exists...as you admit ("check the journals")
the research group in TFA is *not* doing Quantum Computing, b/c to do true Quantum Computing current understandings of 'entanglement' must be involved in the system
b/c that's what my post, which you replied to, was about...
TFA is not 'Quantum' Computing, b/c Quantum Computing proper must involve true non-local, quant. teleportation...(which has been experimentally verified to exist)...
non-local, quantum teleportation-style, fully 'entangled' particles can theoretically exist
They actually exist - check the journals but I seem to remember reading relatively recently that it has been experimentally confirmed.
also, don't try to equivocate...
my point was that to be 'quantum' computing the system had to have some use of entanglement...
you retorted that 'entanglement' is just one of many parts of 'quantum'...therefore, by logical deduction, attempting to refute my point about how 'quantum' computing in TFA was hype
see, if your assertation is right, and I'm wrong, then the research team in TFA can be said to be doing 'true quantum computing' w/o having entanglement be involved at all...no non-locality, no quant. teleportation...but, according to you, still 'quantum'
you are wrong...true non-local, quantum teleportation exists...as you admit ("check the journals")
the research group in TFA is *not* doing Quantum Computing, b/c to do true Quantum Computing current understandings of 'entanglement' must be involved in the system
1. we did have a direct clash on ideas, 2. you knew you were wrong and tried to use rhetoric to "win", 3. I forced you to actually engage the topic, and 4. have proven you wrong (or at least to be a troll)
why didn't you respond this way before? you obviously feel motivated to continue the conversation, but yet you wasted so much of **your own time**
my goal was to get you to engage or keep asking until comments became disabled...
so, now, after 12 cycles, you make an **attempt** to engage my point...
which was about, originally, Current Quantum Computing Research is mostly hype & only 'Quantum' in the marketing sense of the word
I then stated that, in essence, true 'quantum computing' wouldnt exist until a research team actually dealt with Quantum Entanglement.
I then offered the wikipedia quote, which has **its own citations** in 4 PLACES to support the general concept that, at the current state of research, we understand that **non-local** **quantum teleportation** is theoretically possible
non-local, quantum teleportation-style, fully 'entangled' particles can theoretically exist
that current research proves your p. 427 obsolete...the EPR Paradox is no longer a paradox...true 'spooky action at a distance' can happen
that's my point...okay?
my real point is that non-local, quantum teleportation **can** exist, therefore, for any computing system to be considered 'quantum' it must, by logic, make some use of our current understanding of 'entanglement' or it isn't really 'quantum'
that's my point...
I don't want to hear any shit about 'at the core' vs 'fundamental' b/c that shit isn't...um....'at the core' of the 'fundamental' point I was making...looooong looooong ago up in my first comment...
which was about how 'quantum computing' in TFA is hype
now...if you want to pick this comment apart and have me respond, go right ahead....
The copy I have is an older version so my page number of the hydrogen orbital chapter would not help you in any case
why did you refer me to a source that doesn't support your claim?
you claimed that your point about EPR Paradox was **so fucking obvious** and I was an idiot who apparently couldn't understand the simplest concpets of QM & was dumb for not having my own text
i presented actual evidence...you presented a link to a book that **by your own admission** does not support your claim
Technically I first started reading on July 11, 2000 when I heard the co-founder of Gnutella testify before congress and mention slashdot...
I was a Congressional intern and I snuck in the press box (obv b/c of Metallica and Fanning it was packed). These were the days were an Intern badge meant that you could pretty much go anywhere, because you were so insignificant. We were sort of purposefully overlooked. Lewinsky & the Patriot Act ruined that forever:/
Gene Kan, a co-founder of the Gnutella project just came in and PWNed the whole situation like a boss...the sum of the moment, with all the ways Napster changed the industry, really had a profound effect on my career.
He said that from a technical perspective, Gnutella essentially made the Judiciary's current plans pointless. I was headed for a career in the Air Force but the energy and weight of the moment always stuck with me.
I started reading/. daily after that but I didn't comment until around 2004 or so when I felt I could actually add value...before that I browsed as an AC.
at a certain point the hands who do the work change the FOSS so much that it has become its own fork....good to see others here on/. are thinking the same way I am
put yourself in the other situation...what if *you* made a claim, with evidence (the wiki i linked to used Einstein as a source for the claim quoted...i have never just linked to a wiki and called it good...it's the **sources the wiki uses**)
would you just change your mind b/c some random/.'er said "no, you are wrong"
You'd want evidence of some sort for something as complex as QM...not just some guys damn word...
Post the link
If you really want me to go to that trouble
I wrote it in all caps 3x....i made a separate post about what I would accept...
If it is in 'any QM textbook' then it should be easy to link to...
remember...you cant just post the link and say "there"....you have to show where your ideas about EPR Paradox differ from the stuff I quoted...
The reason we don't see Linux everywhere on the desktop is strictly due to marketing
oh boi...didn't mean to fan the flames...maybe you're not...let's see were you're going with this...
Linux is mature enough to run workstations and servers, it's just missing something on the level of an iPhoto.
fanboi alter!
caught you...
Linux is industry standard on W, Y, & Z...the only thing it doesn't do is X.
Where X = what 99% of computer end users do on a computer
understand this: it's not good enough...it's just not...
and maybe: now that M$ is dying its slow death the desktop OS won't be bottlenecked for irrational profit...maybe the big companies will eventually **release the desktop for free**
yeah go for it you crazy kids! OpenOffice (libre office?) is de rigeur for college students these days...they use Word too, but OO is always there as they navigate from computer lab, to old laptop, to classmates laptop, to their new macbook they got for xmas
fanbois of Linux sure mean well, but Linux on the desktop (try Gentoo!...) just has all the elements of fanboidom...used to be even *mentioning* a criticism of Linux would get you -1 Troll faster than you can forward an NSFW email...
So is MacOS really. This was true even when it was competing with MS-DOS of all things.
we should probably just say "The desktop market is irrelevant" right?
that's what always got me, going way back to the olden days...you brought up DOS...I remember when Windows 3.x came out I really didnt' understand what the big deal was...it was just a staging area to run the actual programs you wanted to use...that's what the OS does (heh not saying its easy to make one!)
i love that an Open Source desktop option exists...if i had disposable income i'd donate...i'll even say that Linux killed Microsoft...
none of that contradicts that the OS is mostly a functional, boring, workmanlike piece of software in the computing world...it's like an actual desk in that way...
we couldn't work w/o them, and people can spend millions on it...but it's really just a surface to do other things
advice: don't base your profit model on selling desktop operating software;)
hey man...you sound dramatically over-qualified & I don't know you but from your short description I think you might hate the work as soon as you got there
you are better than 'cybersecurity'...hell, you probably know more than some of the owners of those companies!
their success is not based on quality work...they are typical 'government contractors'
it's soul-sucking work...just look at some of the responses on here
dude I think you should start your own company consulting on all tech areas you have expertise in...
hell, I'd rather be the manager of a Game Stop than do IT security
I expect journals or widely accepted books...copy/paste of the wikipedia (including the sources on the wiki of course) will do just fine
I won't respond if you just post links to arvix...you have to go aaaaalllll the way back and identify where we disagree on the EPR Paradox and **how** your evidence counters what I've shown (the einstien/shrodinger info)
I'll accept the same stuff I have used...you quote a wiki with proper sources and I'll go to the wiki and check the sources..
I'd fucking *love* for your dumb ass to post some real evidence...
You wrote this:
I have repeatedly explained that the EPR paradox is a result of the fundamental nature of QM being applied to a particular situation and not a core principle of QM. You have offered not one jot of evidence against this
I offered links and evidence...
YOU HAVENT LINKED TO ONE SOURCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS
What evidence? indeed...
if you're so fucking right, and you just want to 'teach me' then proffer up more than a calculated antipathy argument based on rhetoric
LINK TO SOURCES MOTHERFUCKER
LINK TO SOURCES
i will respond if you link to sources for your 'refutation' of the sources that I have linked to
Slashdot Mirror
Lord have mercy...the most random stuff brings out the trolls
I'm talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-second_rule
It's a common US heuristic taught to help keep a safe following distance
that's all...two second rule exists...
no you didn't...you responded to selected sections, ignoring the context of the actual greater point
you are *still* trying to use rhetoric to avoid actual debate
since the begining, my *first* post you responded to I have been completely consistent
my point is that TFA is NOT "Quantum Computing" b/c its not using 'entanglement'
I was right all along:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-second_rule
I revoke my apology...
so I made a mistake...its **4** seconds instead of **2** (btw, the DMV rules vary by state in the USA...& some states mandate a time-distance, some don't)
you dodged my greater point...
Google's engineers gamed the test by slowing the cars down...
Of course they are 'safer'
TFA headline says the cars drive 'better'. How does the Google engineers define 'better'?
lets look in reverse order
> maintaining 'safe' distance from car in front of you...'safe' as defined by the DMV is '2 seconds'...a variable distance that accounts for speed...
so, they programed the Google cars not to get closer than a prescribed ammount...the cars did not significantly get any closer than programmed...so "we win!!"
not so fast...that 'safety' they measure has very rapidly decreasing marginal utility...after awhile a .0000000000000001% gain in 'safety' is not work the extra 20 minutes to your commute b/c the Google control software won't let your car ever get any closer than 2 car lengths...so turning left on that busy intersection takes 3x as long in the morning....
> cars [with drivers] accelerated and braked significantly more sharply....again this is a programmed parameter, not some 'victory' for the car...
they defined 'safe' as smooth stops and starts...programed the machine to do smooth stops and starts...therefore, scientifically "ITS SAFER!"
wrong again...it's ridiculously **slower** which almost by default makes it 'safer'...
humans can estimate distances in real time and **make decisions** that safe TIME
TIME is the key here
anyone can just drive more slowly to be safer...we don't b/c we'd never get where we are going if we didn't cut corners
b/c that's what my post, which you replied to, was about...
TFA is not 'Quantum' Computing, b/c Quantum Computing proper must involve true non-local, quant. teleportation...(which has been experimentally verified to exist)...
glad you agree?
non-local, quantum teleportation-style, fully 'entangled' particles can theoretically exist
They actually exist - check the journals but I seem to remember reading relatively recently that it has been experimentally confirmed.
also, don't try to equivocate...
my point was that to be 'quantum' computing the system had to have some use of entanglement...
you retorted that 'entanglement' is just one of many parts of 'quantum'...therefore, by logical deduction, attempting to refute my point about how 'quantum' computing in TFA was hype
see, if your assertation is right, and I'm wrong, then the research team in TFA can be said to be doing 'true quantum computing' w/o having entanglement be involved at all...no non-locality, no quant. teleportation...but, according to you, still 'quantum'
you are wrong...true non-local, quantum teleportation exists...as you admit ("check the journals")
the research group in TFA is *not* doing Quantum Computing, b/c to do true Quantum Computing current understandings of 'entanglement' must be involved in the system
1. we did have a direct clash on ideas, 2. you knew you were wrong and tried to use rhetoric to "win", 3. I forced you to actually engage the topic, and 4. have proven you wrong (or at least to be a troll)
but you didn't, jerk off...you're a troll
why didn't you respond this way before? you obviously feel motivated to continue the conversation, but yet you wasted so much of **your own time**
my goal was to get you to engage or keep asking until comments became disabled...
so, now, after 12 cycles, you make an **attempt** to engage my point...
which was about, originally, Current Quantum Computing Research is mostly hype & only 'Quantum' in the marketing sense of the word
I then stated that, in essence, true 'quantum computing' wouldnt exist until a research team actually dealt with Quantum Entanglement.
I then offered the wikipedia quote, which has **its own citations** in 4 PLACES to support the general concept that, at the current state of research, we understand that **non-local** **quantum teleportation** is theoretically possible
non-local, quantum teleportation-style, fully 'entangled' particles can theoretically exist
that current research proves your p. 427 obsolete...the EPR Paradox is no longer a paradox...true 'spooky action at a distance' can happen
that's my point...okay?
my real point is that non-local, quantum teleportation **can** exist, therefore, for any computing system to be considered 'quantum' it must, by logic, make some use of our current understanding of 'entanglement' or it isn't really 'quantum'
that's my point...
I don't want to hear any shit about 'at the core' vs 'fundamental' b/c that shit isn't...um....'at the core' of the 'fundamental' point I was making...looooong looooong ago up in my first comment...
which was about how 'quantum computing' in TFA is hype
now...if you want to pick this comment apart and have me respond, go right ahead....
you can't present evidence for you claim...
except 'because I say so'
that's all you've ever done...
I said "X"
you just keep restating "not X"
you have used NOTHING but rhetoric this whole time
rhetoric troll
why did you refer me to a source that doesn't support your claim?
you claimed that your point about EPR Paradox was **so fucking obvious** and I was an idiot who apparently couldn't understand the simplest concpets of QM & was dumb for not having my own text
i presented actual evidence...you presented a link to a book that **by your own admission** does not support your claim
hey, since you obviously must have at least one QM textbook around, cite that...
just make sure to note the **page number** of course...and I still need you to **identify where your and my ideas of the EPR Paradox diverge...**
i'll go to my local library or the technical bookstore downtown or the university library ;)
let's see it!
Technically I first started reading on July 11, 2000 when I heard the co-founder of Gnutella testify before congress and mention slashdot...
I was a Congressional intern and I snuck in the press box (obv b/c of Metallica and Fanning it was packed). These were the days were an Intern badge meant that you could pretty much go anywhere, because you were so insignificant. We were sort of purposefully overlooked. Lewinsky & the Patriot Act ruined that forever :/
Gene Kan, a co-founder of the Gnutella project just came in and PWNed the whole situation like a boss...the sum of the moment, with all the ways Napster changed the industry, really had a profound effect on my career.
He said that from a technical perspective, Gnutella essentially made the Judiciary's current plans pointless. I was headed for a career in the Air Force but the energy and weight of the moment always stuck with me.
Here's a .pdf of the transcript...it's a great read...Lars is an asshole: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-106shrg74728/pdf/CHRG-106shrg74728.pdf
I started reading /. daily after that but I didn't comment until around 2004 or so when I felt I could actually add value...before that I browsed as an AC.
in the same manner:
Linux =! Android
Android is a fork of Linux...wouldn't you say?
at a certain point the hands who do the work change the FOSS so much that it has become its own fork....good to see others here on /. are thinking the same way I am
put yourself in the other situation...what if *you* made a claim, with evidence (the wiki i linked to used Einstein as a source for the claim quoted...i have never just linked to a wiki and called it good...it's the **sources the wiki uses**)
would you just change your mind b/c some random /.'er said "no, you are wrong"
You'd want evidence of some sort for something as complex as QM...not just some guys damn word...
Post the link
I wrote it in all caps 3x....i made a separate post about what I would accept...
If it is in 'any QM textbook' then it should be easy to link to...
remember...you cant just post the link and say "there"....you have to show where your ideas about EPR Paradox differ from the stuff I quoted...
oh boi...didn't mean to fan the flames...maybe you're not...let's see were you're going with this...
fanboi alter!
caught you...
Linux is industry standard on W, Y, & Z...the only thing it doesn't do is X.
Where X = what 99% of computer end users do on a computer
understand this: it's not good enough...it's just not...
and maybe: now that M$ is dying its slow death the desktop OS won't be bottlenecked for irrational profit...maybe the big companies will eventually **release the desktop for free**
just accept it...move forward
yeah go for it you crazy kids! OpenOffice (libre office?) is de rigeur for college students these days...they use Word too, but OO is always there as they navigate from computer lab, to old laptop, to classmates laptop, to their new macbook they got for xmas
fanbois of Linux sure mean well, but Linux on the desktop (try Gentoo!...) just has all the elements of fanboidom...used to be even *mentioning* a criticism of Linux would get you -1 Troll faster than you can forward an NSFW email...
n/t...
we should probably just say "The desktop market is irrelevant" right?
that's what always got me, going way back to the olden days...you brought up DOS...I remember when Windows 3.x came out I really didnt' understand what the big deal was...it was just a staging area to run the actual programs you wanted to use...that's what the OS does (heh not saying its easy to make one!)
i love that an Open Source desktop option exists...if i had disposable income i'd donate...i'll even say that Linux killed Microsoft...
none of that contradicts that the OS is mostly a functional, boring, workmanlike piece of software in the computing world...it's like an actual desk in that way...
we couldn't work w/o them, and people can spend millions on it...but it's really just a surface to do other things
advice: don't base your profit model on selling desktop operating software ;)
word good luck out there man!
When I read about the OS X Maverick's free release...
I didn't think about how it would affect Linux on the desktop at all...thought never crossed my mind...
Linux is just irrelevant to the desktop market. Is that harsh? Not intended to be...I still hate M$ and think Apple is a little fruity...
But srsly...after 8 years on /. reading ridiculous thread after thread debating Debian vs Red Hat or w/e (try Gentoo!)...
The open source world just hasnt' evolved the maturity to make a universal desktop OS **that people use**
It's totally possible...it *will* happen...but Linux destop fanbois need to rethink some shit
hey man...you sound dramatically over-qualified & I don't know you but from your short description I think you might hate the work as soon as you got there
you are better than 'cybersecurity'...hell, you probably know more than some of the owners of those companies!
their success is not based on quality work...they are typical 'government contractors'
it's soul-sucking work...just look at some of the responses on here
dude I think you should start your own company consulting on all tech areas you have expertise in...
hell, I'd rather be the manager of a Game Stop than do IT security
Your experiences and description of typical IT security workers is spot on!
I think it goes to the heart of how some define 'security'...it goes something like this...the guy says,
"Yeah see security is all about *risk*...we identify and mitigate any risks to your security"
Which sets up a never-ending spiral of mis-quantifying intangible 'risk factors' which may or may not correlate directly to the 'security breach'...
It's sort of like taking Heroin but saying you'll mitigate it with methodone later in life...
Def a better way to do 'security'...but the industry like the current approach b/c it guarantees job security!
Fixed
I expect journals or widely accepted books...copy/paste of the wikipedia (including the sources on the wiki of course) will do just fine
I won't respond if you just post links to arvix...you have to go aaaaalllll the way back and identify where we disagree on the EPR Paradox and **how** your evidence counters what I've shown (the einstien/shrodinger info)
I'll accept the same stuff I have used...you quote a wiki with proper sources and I'll go to the wiki and check the sources..
put up or shut up
can't help myself...
I'd fucking *love* for your dumb ass to post some real evidence...
You wrote this:
I offered links and evidence...
YOU HAVENT LINKED TO ONE SOURCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS
What evidence? indeed...
if you're so fucking right, and you just want to 'teach me' then proffer up more than a calculated antipathy argument based on rhetoric
LINK TO SOURCES MOTHERFUCKER
LINK TO SOURCES
i will respond if you link to sources for your 'refutation' of the sources that I have linked to
lets see it