Please tell me how to produce that vacuum, or where to find it. Note that it also would have to be free of electromagnetic radiation because a radiation bath (like the cosmic microwave background) also gives (extremely low, but non-zero) friction if you move relative to it.
Yeah, and you'll both get and not get the money at the same time. However don't complain if you find out that you didn't get it: It was you looking which caused the superposition to collapse into that state.
Goldman Sachs has given more money to Obama's campaign than any republican.
Well, I wouldn't expect any republican to give money to Obama's campaign. So if Goldman Sachs has given just one Cent to Obama's campaign, this statement probably already is true.:-)
Well, I can imagine that the title isn't actually "Absolutely Anything", but that "absolutely anything" is what they answered when asked what the title might be.
Refereeing is a very different situation from other criticism because negative referee reports can stop a paper from being published, doing (perceived) harm to him.
The problem with the referees writing crap and the editors not dealing with it would be taken care of by anonymously publishing the referee reports: Since the editors are known by name, they would certainly not like to be associated with bad decisions due to referee reports that are obviously crap. And if they reject too many good articles which then appear in other journals and that fact gets published, then the journal might also start to consider if that editor is good for the journal's reputation (and reputation is the main asset of a journal).
Remember, it's ultimately the editors who make the decision whether to publish a paper.
How can you get so emotionally involved in an algorithm used in a 20+ year old game?
This is slashdot, People here can get emotionally involved in almost anything, other humans of the female gender being the obvious exception.
Of course they can be emotionally involved in other humans of the female gender. It's just that the other humans of the female gender won't get emotionally involved in them. But then, neither will 20+ year old games.:-)
Reviewers' comments should be made public, with their names attached, after the review process is over.
Imagine some important person in your field, whose opinion about you might influence a lot on whether you advance, sends a paper of complete nonsense to a journal, and you happen to get it for review. With anonymous review, you'll probably reject the paper, because, well, it's complete nonsense. But if your name will be published afterwards, rejecting that paper might be scientific suicide on your part.
Let me guess - you're one of those lazy "can't find a job" leaches who all my tax dollars are going to!
You guessed wrong. I've got a job, and even if I were jobless, it would not be your tax dollars which would pay me. And I don't have a problem with paying for those having no job because I know that if I should lose my job then I'll get money, too, until I find something new.
And yes, there are some people abusing the system. But they are the minority.
Actually the number of possible states of a single qubit is uncountably infinite (according to quantum mechanics). Of course the number of results of any given complete measurement of that qubit is exactly two, but then, the number of measurements you can do on it is uncountably infinite. In theory, at least. In practice the number may be very high, but certainly finite, because you cannot make your measurement apparatus settings infinitely precise.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. See: Bell inequality.
Please tell me how to produce that vacuum, or where to find it. Note that it also would have to be free of electromagnetic radiation because a radiation bath (like the cosmic microwave background) also gives (extremely low, but non-zero) friction if you move relative to it.
Every proof rests on some assumptions. Without such assumptions, you cannot prove anything, be it positive or negative.
Yeah, and you'll both get and not get the money at the same time. However don't complain if you find out that you didn't get it: It was you looking which caused the superposition to collapse into that state.
Proving a negative is not impossible. For example, I can proof that I didn't murder JFK by just noting that I wasn't yet born when he got killed.
It's called HTML. Learn to code and host your website, I mean "blog", on a small machine at home.
Unless he lives in Europe, it will not be what he asked for ("preferably one hosted in Europe").
I think the motto should "Do no evil, unless it interferes with our business model."
The second part is always implied in everything a company says.
I'm still using smoke signals.
How original!!!
Yeah, your comment is very original. It's only the third time you make it in the discussion of this story. :-)
Well, I wouldn't expect any republican to give money to Obama's campaign. So if Goldman Sachs has given just one Cent to Obama's campaign, this statement probably already is true. :-)
Everyone knows that the truly dangerous solar flare will happen in December. :-)
jesus. these days you can get modded informative for missing the joke.
I didn't know that Stormthirst is Jesus.
They've all been HUGELY successful since their python days.... well except for Graham of course.
So you're saying the angels don't enjoy his new show?
The others didn't believe that he's not dead yet.
Well, I can imagine that the title isn't actually "Absolutely Anything", but that "absolutely anything" is what they answered when asked what the title might be.
Well, Slashdot has an Idle section, isn't that enough?
Refereeing is a very different situation from other criticism because negative referee reports can stop a paper from being published, doing (perceived) harm to him.
The problem with the referees writing crap and the editors not dealing with it would be taken care of by anonymously publishing the referee reports: Since the editors are known by name, they would certainly not like to be associated with bad decisions due to referee reports that are obviously crap. And if they reject too many good articles which then appear in other journals and that fact gets published, then the journal might also start to consider if that editor is good for the journal's reputation (and reputation is the main asset of a journal).
Remember, it's ultimately the editors who make the decision whether to publish a paper.
but only for N=1, obviously.
Wrong. Counter example: P=0, N=2.
How can you get so emotionally involved in an algorithm used in a 20+ year old game?
This is slashdot, People here can get emotionally involved in almost anything, other humans of the female gender being the obvious exception.
Of course they can be emotionally involved in other humans of the female gender. It's just that the other humans of the female gender won't get emotionally involved in them. But then, neither will 20+ year old games. :-)
Imagine some important person in your field, whose opinion about you might influence a lot on whether you advance, sends a paper of complete nonsense to a journal, and you happen to get it for review. With anonymous review, you'll probably reject the paper, because, well, it's complete nonsense. But if your name will be published afterwards, rejecting that paper might be scientific suicide on your part.
There's a reason why the reviewers are anonymous.
But very easy to do if you are the person.
Yes, I think that's a good analogy. Apart from the fact that adding and subtracting arbitrary numbers is much harder than adding 1+1, of course. :-)
Let me guess - you're one of those lazy "can't find a job" leaches who all my tax dollars are going to!
You guessed wrong. I've got a job, and even if I were jobless, it would not be your tax dollars which would pay me. And I don't have a problem with paying for those having no job because I know that if I should lose my job then I'll get money, too, until I find something new.
And yes, there are some people abusing the system. But they are the minority.
Actually the number of possible states of a single qubit is uncountably infinite (according to quantum mechanics). Of course the number of results of any given complete measurement of that qubit is exactly two, but then, the number of measurements you can do on it is uncountably infinite. In theory, at least. In practice the number may be very high, but certainly finite, because you cannot make your measurement apparatus settings infinitely precise.
And I have little faith in anything using excessive italics and bold text.