Just for the record, the change in one entangled particle does make an immediate effect on the other. They have verified this in laboratory experiments and concluded that the change occurs instantly, not merely at the speed of light.
The problem is this: you cannot actually transfer information using this scheme, only randomness. This is because when you're making the change in the original particle, you cannot control HOW the change is made.
Let's use pennies as an example, pretending that we can "entangle" them like we can subatomic particles so that if two spinning pennies are entangled, if one stops on heads, the other stops on tails, and vice versa. If you take two spinning entangled pennies, then send one of them a few light seconds away, you have a situtation similar to the way these experiments are set up.
So we have these two spinning pennies... Now let's just stop the one still in front of us. Ok, it landed on heads. Now we know the other has just landed on tails. Yet we have not transmitted useful information because we didn't FORCE the penny to land on heads, we just STOPPED the penny. There is no way of controlling how it was going to end up, so all we have transmitted is randomness. This is great for generating randomness for encryption, but you can't communicate with it.
Also, let's set up a different scenario. We'll say that instead of using the states of the tangled pennies to try to transfer information, we'll just use the fact that we stopped them. Now if we have, say, 1000 total entangled pennies (each side having 500), we can agree on a "pennies stoppped per second" rate that is used to transmit information. If we stop 1 penny per second, it's a ZERO bit, and if we stop 2 pennies per second, it's a ONE bit. This means we can transmit a series of 250 ones, or 500 zeroes. But this is instantaneous, so it violates the idea of faster-than-light communication, right?
Actually, it doesn't. However far apart those pennies are when you set up the communications, the "remote half" had to travel at most the speed of light to get there. So, you do not get any increase in the total communication speed.
Yeah, but it would be better if developers were getting laid for their work.
I don't know if this is such a good idea, though, what with the viral nature of the GPL. You never know what you might download over a "pee-er to pee-er" connection.
I hear they're going to start naming graphics card chipsets based on how many FPS they could conceivably render playing Duke Nukem Forever, which is fairly safe because they'll never have to make good on those numbers.
Unfortunately, the less scrupulous makers will try to rate theirs based on running Castle Wolfenstein at 640x480...
Apparently the pop-up blocker only blocks calls to window.open that show up in page load events (onload and onunload, for instance).
There ARE some in an unload event, but Mozilla correctly ignores those. The window.open calls that cause the pop-ups here are contained in mouseover and onclick events. (The picture on the lower right and the small submit button to its left both end up calling window.open from their onmouseover events. The submit button also has calls in its onclick event.)
This is a feature of "smart" pop-up blocking. They figure if it comes from an action you have taken directly (rather than just a page load event), the pop-up might be something you actually wanted to see.
The test he's talking about in the article is called the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) II. It consists of 567 true/false questions (the original had 566). As you might suspect, it takes a while to answer them all.
The test is very thorough. The scoring process includes statistical analyses to determine how much you're lying and whether you're trying to "fake good" or "fake bad". There are also a large number of scales that report how likely you are to be an alcoholic, have some kind of schizotypal personality disorder or depression, levels of anxious/antisocial/obsessive behavior, etc., etc.
side note:
It's odd being able to understand part of the text on those sites, even though I don't know Swedish. (I love the similarities in Germanic languages.)
I fully agree that there is a difference in meaning with regards to popular usage. I was just pointing out the problem with the great-grand-parent post that tries to use a constructivist approach to say that "amoral" and "atheist" indicate a lack of caring about a thing (here morals and gods, respectively), when the prefix 'a' actually indicates a simple lack of that thing.
Atheism is not a misnomer. Linguistically, the 'a' means "without". An amoral person acts without morals, not simply lacking concern for them. Similarly, an "atheist" is without gods. The lack of concern about gods is sometimes refered to as "apatheism", but this seems to be a recently coined word so you aren't likely to run across it in a dictionary.
They already store journals and other profile information for each of us. It would be trivial to add a field to store which custom stylesheet you chose, or have a little space for you to roll your own. No need to make it a subscription-based feature.
Besides, the way subscriptions currently work is based on numbers of ads viewed. After you went through your allotment, the page would suddenly switch back to the default stylesheet.;)
How many generations of advancing tech before their bodies and AI are up to snuff for jobs
I read that as "...AI are up for snuff jobs".
Just wait 'til all the hitmen are robots! The Mafia won't have to worry about their members getting busted for murder anymore! The hard part will be getting the robots to tie the people up BEFORE putting the concrete boots on and throwing them in the water. Perhaps we'll have robots with frickin' lasers on their heads. That would be easier, anyway. If a robot did it, who cares if they find the body or not?
Slashdot Mirror
I've always used various websites for reference material when writing papers, but I won't do it anymore. I just got an F on my paper on ninjas.
The problem is this: you cannot actually transfer information using this scheme, only randomness. This is because when you're making the change in the original particle, you cannot control HOW the change is made.
Let's use pennies as an example, pretending that we can "entangle" them like we can subatomic particles so that if two spinning pennies are entangled, if one stops on heads, the other stops on tails, and vice versa. If you take two spinning entangled pennies, then send one of them a few light seconds away, you have a situtation similar to the way these experiments are set up.
So we have these two spinning pennies... Now let's just stop the one still in front of us. Ok, it landed on heads. Now we know the other has just landed on tails. Yet we have not transmitted useful information because we didn't FORCE the penny to land on heads, we just STOPPED the penny. There is no way of controlling how it was going to end up, so all we have transmitted is randomness. This is great for generating randomness for encryption, but you can't communicate with it.
Also, let's set up a different scenario. We'll say that instead of using the states of the tangled pennies to try to transfer information, we'll just use the fact that we stopped them. Now if we have, say, 1000 total entangled pennies (each side having 500), we can agree on a "pennies stoppped per second" rate that is used to transmit information. If we stop 1 penny per second, it's a ZERO bit, and if we stop 2 pennies per second, it's a ONE bit. This means we can transmit a series of 250 ones, or 500 zeroes. But this is instantaneous, so it violates the idea of faster-than-light communication, right?
Actually, it doesn't. However far apart those pennies are when you set up the communications, the "remote half" had to travel at most the speed of light to get there. So, you do not get any increase in the total communication speed.
(You can read more details about quantum entanglement on Wikipedia.)
They just used LaunchPad... ;)
X.org devs: Yeah! Oh yeah! Splitters! Splitters!
Dev 2: What?
Dev 1: X.org! Splitters!
Dev 2: We're X.org!
Dev 1: I thought we were XFree86!
Dev 2: XFree86... huh!
Dev 3: Whatever happened to XFre86?
Dev 1: He's over there... (points to lone man)
X.org devs: SPLITTER!!
I don't know if this is such a good idea, though, what with the viral nature of the GPL. You never know what you might download over a "pee-er to pee-er" connection.
Everyone get back! I've got a 25-pack of decaf Irish Breakfast, and I'm not afraid to use it!!
*dunk dunk dunk*
Umm... Did anyone bring cream and sugar?
No no... it's:
3) Prophet
I hear they're going to start naming graphics card chipsets based on how many FPS they could conceivably render playing Duke Nukem Forever, which is fairly safe because they'll never have to make good on those numbers.
Unfortunately, the less scrupulous makers will try to rate theirs based on running Castle Wolfenstein at 640x480...
I bet this guy must have learned everything he knows from one of those books. I know who I'm not hiring for my next web design project...
"Open source" has taken on a whole new meaning since Hustler got involved...
Apparently the pop-up blocker only blocks calls to window.open that show up in page load events (onload and onunload, for instance).
There ARE some in an unload event, but Mozilla correctly ignores those. The window.open calls that cause the pop-ups here are contained in mouseover and onclick events. (The picture on the lower right and the small submit button to its left both end up calling window.open from their onmouseover events. The submit button also has calls in its onclick event.)
This is a feature of "smart" pop-up blocking. They figure if it comes from an action you have taken directly (rather than just a page load event), the pop-up might be something you actually wanted to see.
For the OCD filter you have to run it again and again and again and again...
You aren't the only one; I don't like them either.
I also don't like the ultra-hi-res TVs out now because I can see more of the mpeg compression artifacts on DVDs than on a regular TV.
I have taken the original MMPI before and I came out as normal on all the scales. I wonder if that should worry me. ;)
The test he's talking about in the article is called the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) II. It consists of 567 true/false questions (the original had 566). As you might suspect, it takes a while to answer them all.
The test is very thorough. The scoring process includes statistical analyses to determine how much you're lying and whether you're trying to "fake good" or "fake bad". There are also a large number of scales that report how likely you are to be an alcoholic, have some kind of schizotypal personality disorder or depression, levels of anxious/antisocial/obsessive behavior, etc., etc.
I swear it was just supposed to be a joke. I was as surprised as anyone to see it get modded as insightful!
I was going to mention that very missing file set but didn't want to start a text editor flame war. ;)
A conspiracy theorist could have a field day..
Is it sad the first thing that crossed my mind was "lots of well-timed security breaches... Microsoft may be behind them all"? ;)
Ohhh... my.
side note:
It's odd being able to understand part of the text on those sites, even though I don't know Swedish. (I love the similarities in Germanic languages.)
I fully agree that there is a difference in meaning with regards to popular usage. I was just pointing out the problem with the great-grand-parent post that tries to use a constructivist approach to say that "amoral" and "atheist" indicate a lack of caring about a thing (here morals and gods, respectively), when the prefix 'a' actually indicates a simple lack of that thing.
Atheism is not a misnomer. Linguistically, the 'a' means "without". An amoral person acts without morals, not simply lacking concern for them. Similarly, an "atheist" is without gods. The lack of concern about gods is sometimes refered to as "apatheism", but this seems to be a recently coined word so you aren't likely to run across it in a dictionary.
They already store journals and other profile information for each of us. It would be trivial to add a field to store which custom stylesheet you chose, or have a little space for you to roll your own. No need to make it a subscription-based feature.
;)
Besides, the way subscriptions currently work is based on numbers of ads viewed. After you went through your allotment, the page would suddenly switch back to the default stylesheet.
I read that as "...AI are up for snuff jobs".
Just wait 'til all the hitmen are robots! The Mafia won't have to worry about their members getting busted for murder anymore! The hard part will be getting the robots to tie the people up BEFORE putting the concrete boots on and throwing them in the water. Perhaps we'll have robots with frickin' lasers on their heads. That would be easier, anyway. If a robot did it, who cares if they find the body or not?
At an average of 3 minutes per song, it would take you just over 5700 years to even listen to all of them, much less download them! ;)
It's called Logical Volume Management, and you can get it with Gentoo.