Well, no: a completely toxic process-driven scheme will drive away creative and intelligent engineers. So will a completely batty and air-headed and uncontrolled 'agile' scheme. Balance and common sense is vital.
Even then they help you: They help you recognize that you have done something wrong.
Another conclusion might be: Sometimes it's the right tool, sometimes it's the wrong tool. Failing to get a nail in using a screwdriver doesn't mean you're a fool (OK, you are a fool for choosing the screwdriver, but let's say you are ordered to use it), it means that a screwdriver just isn't good for putting nails in. Yet it can do miracles for screws.
I guess it's not about the behaviour of the bar itself, but about the behaviour of the developers who invented it. Developers not listening to the wishes of the users, but only developing what they personally consider a good idea could well be considered a sort of "developer autism." After all, a typical symptom of autism is lack of communication with the rest of the world. The autistic person to some extent lives in his own little world, and so do the developers who don't listen to the users.
You say "these professors still exist" like its a bad thing.
I think a professor using anything but a blackboard or whiteboard for basic teaching (as opposed to showing additional material) is bad. My experience is that taking notes on a blackboard lecture works well, but taking note o a lecture with slides or beamer presentation doesn't work too well. I don't know why it is that way, but I suspect it's the fact that in the first case the professor has to write himself, and therefore automatically allows for enough time for the students to write.
Why aren't profs using Smart Tech or equivalent and making the notes available from the board. With higher ed costing a squilly billion $$$$ they just can't afford the technologies that grade schools use?
Maybe because unlike manual note taking, it doesn't involve your brain.
And yes, it does make a difference. At the first semester, in one of my lectures the lecturer followed his book very closely, therefore I figured I wouldn't have to take notes because I actually had them in form of the book. It turned out to be a very bad idea. Taking notes doesn't just create a document to learn from; taking note actually is part of the learning.
Do they really know it? Who tells you that the two overlapping interference patterns are not there even when we measure the which-way information, just we cannot detect it because we don't know which of the hits belong to which of the overlapping interference patterns? Remember that the total pattern doesn't change; the only thing which changes is whether we are able to form two subsets which each show an interference pattern.
Say the idler photons are detected by the "interference detectors", but we don't read out that information. Then we will not be able to see the interference pattern either. Or even: Say I read the idler data out, you don't. Then I'll see an interference pattern, while you won't. So does the interference pattern actually exist in that case?
After the measurement (the "instant energy transfer"), the average energy at the receiving site will still be the same. So until you receive the information from the measurement, you don't know whether your local energy was increased (-> extract it) or decreased (-> don't try to extract it; you'll lose).
Historical correction: Newton lived and died a virgin. He was starring at apples not melons.
He was starring? In which movies?
BTW, living as a virgin is no contradiction to occasional stiffening. Being a virgin just means that the stiff thing never has entered a hole. I doubt that we have a historical record about whether Newton ever experienced a stiffening...
However, this was discussing an effect predicted with our existing theories. And within the theories used to predict the effect, FTL information transfer is not possible. Period.
Damn, I should have previewed a bit more thoroughly. The second sentence is of course wrong; it's of course not the subsets identified by the which-way information, but the subsets identified by the other two detectors (the ones which do not give which-way information) which show interference patterns. I also exchanged the meaning of "D1/D2" with "D3/D4": In the setup described by Wikipedia, D3/D4 are the which-way detectors, while D1/D2 are the which-pattern detectors.
The important part is this: In the delayed choice quantum eraser discussed here, the pattern reappears even if the which-path information is erased shortly after, in time, the signal photons hit the primary detector. However, the interference pattern can only be seen retroactively once the idler photons have already been detected and the experimenter has obtained information about them, with the interference pattern being seen when the experimenter looks at particular subsets of signal photons that were matched with idlers that went to particular detectors.
The total pattern of signal photons at the primary detector never shows interference, [...]
You see, the past is not changed. What changes is that after we get the which-way information, we can identify subsets which show the interference patterns. There are no signals magically disappearing or moving after the fact. Basically the detectors D3 and D4 also convey information, just a different information than detectors 1 and 2: D3 and D4 reveal the information to which of the two overlayed interference patters the particular hit belongs. If the photon hits D1 or D2, that information is missing (just as the which-way information is missing if the photon hits D3 or D4). It still holds that you can only get one of the two types of information (complementarity), however saying that the past is modified is IMHO as reasonable as saying I'm modifying the past when I destroy an one-time pad previously used to encrypt a message, because as soon as I destroy it, the encrypted message disappears.
This "instant influence" is dependent on your preferred interpretation. Indeed, there's simply no way you could detect whether a measurement has occurred on the sender side (that's called no-signalling and is one of the important no-go theorems in quantum mechanics). Only after you get the message about the measurement result at the sender's side, you know what to do to get your teleported state.
But hasn't that always been the way things worked. Frankly I feel doing this on planet is about as stupid as above ground nuclear testing. This is why we need a space program. Doing this kind of research on say the moon seems like a much better plan than anywhere on earth. If not there maybe one of the dry valley's in the Antarctic.
Who said these rights must be exclusive to Google?
The settlement, combined with the way U.S. law works for class-action lawsuits. At least that is my understanding. I'd love to be proven wrong.
Aside from the Slashdot community having a general pro-Google bias, I believe it doesn't matter whose company's name is in the story, it's about the freedom of information.
It doesn't matter whose companies name is in the story. It does matter that a single entity gets the extra rights, be it Google, Microsoft, the FSF, or whoever.
So the inevitable future is that Google gets certain rights which no one else has?
Say someone (be it Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, or some startup company) wants to become a competitor to Google books. He can't. He doesn't have the special rights Google would be given by this agreement. He would still have to hunt down every single copyright owner and get his permission for every single book, while Google can just publish it unless the copyright owner explicitly told them not to. That's a huge competitive advantage for Google, and it's an unfair and anti-competitive one.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no: a completely toxic process-driven scheme will drive away creative and intelligent engineers. So will a completely batty and air-headed and uncontrolled 'agile' scheme. Balance and common sense is vital.
Even then they help you: They help you recognize that you have done something wrong.
Well, agile programming has done harm to the games industry, and therefore they are now looking for phlegmatic programmers.
Well, I usually test before I implement. Far fewer failures that way. Just a single "file not found."
Another conclusion might be: Sometimes it's the right tool, sometimes it's the wrong tool. Failing to get a nail in using a screwdriver doesn't mean you're a fool (OK, you are a fool for choosing the screwdriver, but let's say you are ordered to use it), it means that a screwdriver just isn't good for putting nails in. Yet it can do miracles for screws.
That should be pretty much method-independent.
I guess it's not about the behaviour of the bar itself, but about the behaviour of the developers who invented it. Developers not listening to the wishes of the users, but only developing what they personally consider a good idea could well be considered a sort of "developer autism." After all, a typical symptom of autism is lack of communication with the rest of the world. The autistic person to some extent lives in his own little world, and so do the developers who don't listen to the users.
National Search Agency?
I think a professor using anything but a blackboard or whiteboard for basic teaching (as opposed to showing additional material) is bad. My experience is that taking notes on a blackboard lecture works well, but taking note o a lecture with slides or beamer presentation doesn't work too well. I don't know why it is that way, but I suspect it's the fact that in the first case the professor has to write himself, and therefore automatically allows for enough time for the students to write.
Why aren't profs using Smart Tech or equivalent and making the notes available from the board. With higher ed costing a squilly billion $$$$ they just can't afford the technologies that grade schools use?
Maybe because unlike manual note taking, it doesn't involve your brain.
And yes, it does make a difference. At the first semester, in one of my lectures the lecturer followed his book very closely, therefore I figured I wouldn't have to take notes because I actually had them in form of the book. It turned out to be a very bad idea. Taking notes doesn't just create a document to learn from; taking note actually is part of the learning.
Just make sure you are able to read the x-ray image.
(Hint: 4:22)
Even if it works, it doesn't need to show up at your dentist. Carisolv apparently worked, too, and yet our teeth still get drilled.
Do they really know it? Who tells you that the two overlapping interference patterns are not there even when we measure the which-way information, just we cannot detect it because we don't know which of the hits belong to which of the overlapping interference patterns? Remember that the total pattern doesn't change; the only thing which changes is whether we are able to form two subsets which each show an interference pattern.
Say the idler photons are detected by the "interference detectors", but we don't read out that information. Then we will not be able to see the interference pattern either. Or even: Say I read the idler data out, you don't. Then I'll see an interference pattern, while you won't. So does the interference pattern actually exist in that case?
After the measurement (the "instant energy transfer"), the average energy at the receiving site will still be the same. So until you receive the information from the measurement, you don't know whether your local energy was increased (-> extract it) or decreased (-> don't try to extract it; you'll lose).
That one is easy: Yes, there is. Just perform the experiment they described.
Wrong. You'll have to "recharge" it with new entangled particles, because the entanglement gets destroyed by teleportation.
Historical correction: Newton lived and died a virgin. He was starring at apples not melons.
He was starring? In which movies?
BTW, living as a virgin is no contradiction to occasional stiffening. Being a virgin just means that the stiff thing never has entered a hole. ...
I doubt that we have a historical record about whether Newton ever experienced a stiffening
However, this was discussing an effect predicted with our existing theories. And within the theories used to predict the effect, FTL information transfer is not possible. Period.
Damn, I should have previewed a bit more thoroughly. The second sentence is of course wrong; it's of course not the subsets identified by the which-way information, but the subsets identified by the other two detectors (the ones which do not give which-way information) which show interference patterns. I also exchanged the meaning of "D1/D2" with "D3/D4": In the setup described by Wikipedia, D3/D4 are the which-way detectors, while D1/D2 are the which-pattern detectors.
The important part is this:
In the delayed choice quantum eraser discussed here, the pattern reappears even if the which-path information is erased shortly after, in time, the signal photons hit the primary detector. However, the interference pattern can only be seen retroactively once the idler photons have already been detected and the experimenter has obtained information about them, with the interference pattern being seen when the experimenter looks at particular subsets of signal photons that were matched with idlers that went to particular detectors.
The total pattern of signal photons at the primary detector never shows interference, [...]
You see, the past is not changed. What changes is that after we get the which-way information, we can identify subsets which show the interference patterns. There are no signals magically disappearing or moving after the fact. Basically the detectors D3 and D4 also convey information, just a different information than detectors 1 and 2: D3 and D4 reveal the information to which of the two overlayed interference patters the particular hit belongs. If the photon hits D1 or D2, that information is missing (just as the which-way information is missing if the photon hits D3 or D4). It still holds that you can only get one of the two types of information (complementarity), however saying that the past is modified is IMHO as reasonable as saying I'm modifying the past when I destroy an one-time pad previously used to encrypt a message, because as soon as I destroy it, the encrypted message disappears.
This "instant influence" is dependent on your preferred interpretation. Indeed, there's simply no way you could detect whether a measurement has occurred on the sender side (that's called no-signalling and is one of the important no-go theorems in quantum mechanics). Only after you get the message about the measurement result at the sender's side, you know what to do to get your teleported state.
Actually the canonical term for this meme is "misspelled".
But hasn't that always been the way things worked.
Frankly I feel doing this on planet is about as stupid as above ground nuclear testing.
This is why we need a space program. Doing this kind of research on say the moon seems like a much better plan than anywhere on earth.
If not there maybe one of the dry valley's in the Antarctic.
Well, even that may go wrong.
You don't really need a high resolution to play nethack.
The settlement, combined with the way U.S. law works for class-action lawsuits. At least that is my understanding. I'd love to be proven wrong.
It doesn't matter whose companies name is in the story. It does matter that a single entity gets the extra rights, be it Google, Microsoft, the FSF, or whoever.
So the inevitable future is that Google gets certain rights which no one else has?
Say someone (be it Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, or some startup company) wants to become a competitor to Google books. He can't. He doesn't have the special rights Google would be given by this agreement. He would still have to hunt down every single copyright owner and get his permission for every single book, while Google can just publish it unless the copyright owner explicitly told them not to. That's a huge competitive advantage for Google, and it's an unfair and anti-competitive one.