Let's not forget the various needs for mobility besides work and home. For example, taking the laptop in the garden on a quiet summer evening; or using it as a multimedia station playing your favorite movies and songs while doing work in the kitchen; or moving it from the bedroom to the living room. Or taking it with you on vacations, filled with all your favorite movies, songs and photographs, and your favorite photo editing programs.
Laptops also take much less space and they are far less noisy than desktops (you can leave them on all night, downloading your favorite linux distro and sleep in the bed in the same room).
"Jaap van den Herik, editor of the International Computer Games Journal, calls the achievement "a truly significant advance in artificial intelligence".
Brute-forcing your way to a problem is not artificial intelligence.
1) music companies make a new format 2) the new format becomes popular 3) music companies patent the format 4) Linux users are illegal to use the format
So who's to blame here? why shouldn't I listen to the music I want, just because someone says the format is illegal? who is this someone? what's his power over me? just because that someone has lots of money, he can make laws? the hell he can't. Especially on algorithms!
So, for this reason exactly, those patent lovin' companies can go f. themselves over many times. Patenting algorithms is a way to make money you don't deserve, because algorithms are mathematics, and no one can patent mathematics!
I am not an anthropologist, but what you say is very easily observable in real life: There are quite a few afroamericans that have lighter skin than Africans. As a long-time basketball fan, I am surprised to see more and more NBA players of african origin to have lighter skin, compared to 20 and 30 years ago. Of course the effect is not only because of environmental reasons, but also because of interracial marriages.
As I citizen of a Mediterranean country, I have traveled in various places in Europe. I was once in Paris, in the metro. Next to me, there was a lady of African origin, obvious from her eyes and lips. But her skin was white! it was much whiter than mine! Her eyes were pitch black, whereas my eyes are between brown and green (depending on lighting), but my skin was much darker than her skin. It was a short but enlightening experience on real-life genetic variations.
"no, actually it doesn't. As has been proven NO information can travel faster then light."
The only thing proven is that no physical item of this universe can travel faster than light, including particles. But there is no proof that the universe does not possess properties that can help transmit information faster than light THROUGH A SHORTCUT.
"So if the sun disappeared, it's effects would not reach use for about 8 minutes."
Is the sun entangled with Earth? if not, why should its effects reach us sooner?
"maybe...but no one is sure. QM allows for the possibility that cause can create an effect before itself, hence the eperiment."
Nope. Actually, QM allows the possibility of OBSERVING the effect BEFORE observing the cause. That does not mean the effect happened before the cause.
"That's a very nice assumption you got there."
Most QM and theoritical physics beyond QM (loop quantum gravity, braids, etc) are all about assumptions. The Copenhagen interpretation is an assumption for the most part, as well.
"Um, when theory of relativity speaks about observations it speaks about causality itself. The observation B of an event A, is any event B that was caused by A."
But that only concerns photons. Events could also take place through quantum entanglement without violation of causality, as I will explain further down.
"The new idea that relativity brought is that there can be no universal standard for simultaneity itself, because time is dependent on the observer."
I am not talking about time simultaneity, but for event simultaneity. Different reference frames have different clocks, but that does not mean that when an event happens, the state of the universe has not changed.
"But FTL communication means that event C could be communicated to point-event D, even though in a different (but equally valid) frame of reference, point-event D precedes C. Event D could then use FTL to communicate itself to C. As such -- causality violation."
Nope. Here it goes: you may observe D before C, and even act upon cancelling D, but that would not succeed: events would already have been played out; it is just that you observe them in different order.
Here is a thought experiment: suppose one beam is transmitted straight to your brain and the other across your eyes. The beams are entangled. The beam in your brain is transmitted instantly. You can also control the beam in your brain by thought, which is an instant process as well: you can turn it off/on at will with your brain. Turning one beam off instantly turns the other beam off.
Suppose then that the whole system is about to go live...you hit the switch, the brain beam instantly goes in your brain, but you haven't seen the other beam yet, because its photons have not reached your eyes.
Now suppose that in the instant you understand a beam has reached your brain, you decide to turn it off. What will happen? Do you see the other beam or not?
Well, you will see the beam, although you decided to turn it off. Even if one of the beams reached your brain instantly, the event has happened.
You will see the act of switching the beam on AFTER you have switched it off, but that does not matter: you know you switched it on and off. It does not matter when you will see the event.
See? no causality violation. You may try to switch the beam off after you see it being turned on, but nothing will happen, because the beam will already be on.
Nope. The theory of relativity states that there is no universal simultaneity for OBSERVING an event. It talks about OBSERVATIONS, i.e. about photons. It does not talk about when the event actually happens.
So it is quite possible for an event E to happen in system A, to use FTL comm to transmit the event to system B, system B to take an action depending on the information before observing E, and then finally system B to observe the event E.
The above is not violation of causality in any way. It's similar to thunders: you can see the thunder (FTL communication), go inside the house (react to event before observing it), then hear its sound (observe the event). But there is no violation of causality.
I apologize for the colorful title, but I can not describe my feelings towards the so called theorem of 'no communication faster than light' in any other way. There are no time paradoxes if FTL communication exists, for the simple reason that when an event happens, it happens for all the universe. The fact that photons would not have arrived to the FTL communication target when the FTL signal reaches that target is totally irrelevant. And there is no way to perceive an event before it happens and change the outcome, for the single reason that effect always follows cause. So even if FTL communication is real, there would not be possible to avoid doing events that already have happened, for the simple reason that the events have already happened.
Thanks for the reply, but I did not ask about the usefulness of multitouch displays in general, but on the desktop. Whatever you say is correct, but it can not be easily applied to the vertical desktop / laptop screen.
First of all, congratulations to the guy that made Linux MPX.
But what is the usefulness of multi-touch on a desktop computer, or even a laptop? I can understand its utility on mobile phones which are turned and tossed around, but a computer monitor is an entirely different beast.
First of all, a monitor usually sits vertically, so it is downright impossible to move hands around on a vertical monitor for a long time.
Having monitors be tables is impractical, because a lot more space would be required in offices and homes (although it would be a perfect emulator for MAME cocktail games!).
So why the fuss? I just do not see how multi-touch surfaces can be useful in a desktop/laptop environment.
It all depends on the host architecture: if it's properly engineered, then malware wouldn't even be a possibility. But as it is right now, PC operating systems are random bits of code thrown together without a clear architecture with security in mind. The overall PC architecture does not lend a hand to security.
Perhaps it is the void that pushes matter to clump together...if such was the case, then the acceleration of the universe would be explained by the same force that makes gravity: the pressure of the void onto matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if God can be downloaded over fiber links and stored in a few thousand TBs of data, then why not?
Why does Bush have to be included in every article? ...
oh you said Brush...sorry!
So the Rovers are in Arizona? I knew it! just like we did not go to the moon, we did not go to Mars as well!
Let's not forget the various needs for mobility besides work and home. For example, taking the laptop in the garden on a quiet summer evening; or using it as a multimedia station playing your favorite movies and songs while doing work in the kitchen; or moving it from the bedroom to the living room. Or taking it with you on vacations, filled with all your favorite movies, songs and photographs, and your favorite photo editing programs.
Laptops also take much less space and they are far less noisy than desktops (you can leave them on all night, downloading your favorite linux distro and sleep in the bed in the same room).
Why did Microsoft enter the console race anyway?
The wikipedia article says 'increasingly rare' for the million million definition. Practically, no one is using it any more. It's obsolete.
At least this guy claims so:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=92_KmTkbfqM
Now what is all this? could it be possible? is the old guy any credible?
Such a development would make landing a piece of cake.
From the article:
"Jaap van den Herik, editor of the International Computer Games Journal, calls the achievement "a truly significant advance in artificial intelligence".
Brute-forcing your way to a problem is not artificial intelligence.
"until you consider that in the USA a billion is a thousand million, but in most of the world it is a million million."
Where in the world a billion is a million million? I never ever met this definition in real life, even in ol' Blighty.
million = 1,000,000
billion = 1,000,000,000
trillion = 1,000,000,000,000
etc
Each unit is multiplied by 1000 to form the next unit.
1) music companies make a new format
2) the new format becomes popular
3) music companies patent the format
4) Linux users are illegal to use the format
So who's to blame here? why shouldn't I listen to the music I want, just because someone says the format is illegal? who is this someone? what's his power over me? just because that someone has lots of money, he can make laws? the hell he can't. Especially on algorithms!
So, for this reason exactly, those patent lovin' companies can go f. themselves over many times. Patenting algorithms is a way to make money you don't deserve, because algorithms are mathematics, and no one can patent mathematics!
I am not an anthropologist, but what you say is very easily observable in real life: There are quite a few afroamericans that have lighter skin than Africans. As a long-time basketball fan, I am surprised to see more and more NBA players of african origin to have lighter skin, compared to 20 and 30 years ago. Of course the effect is not only because of environmental reasons, but also because of interracial marriages.
As I citizen of a Mediterranean country, I have traveled in various places in Europe. I was once in Paris, in the metro. Next to me, there was a lady of African origin, obvious from her eyes and lips. But her skin was white! it was much whiter than mine! Her eyes were pitch black, whereas my eyes are between brown and green (depending on lighting), but my skin was much darker than her skin. It was a short but enlightening experience on real-life genetic variations.
"no, actually it doesn't. As has been proven NO information can travel faster then light."
The only thing proven is that no physical item of this universe can travel faster than light, including particles. But there is no proof that the universe does not possess properties that can help transmit information faster than light THROUGH A SHORTCUT.
"So if the sun disappeared, it's effects would not reach use for about 8 minutes."
Is the sun entangled with Earth? if not, why should its effects reach us sooner?
"maybe...but no one is sure. QM allows for the possibility that cause can create an effect before itself, hence the eperiment."
Nope. Actually, QM allows the possibility of OBSERVING the effect BEFORE observing the cause. That does not mean the effect happened before the cause.
"That's a very nice assumption you got there."
Most QM and theoritical physics beyond QM (loop quantum gravity, braids, etc) are all about assumptions. The Copenhagen interpretation is an assumption for the most part, as well.
"Um, when theory of relativity speaks about observations it speaks about causality itself. The observation B of an event A, is any event B that was caused by A."
But that only concerns photons. Events could also take place through quantum entanglement without violation of causality, as I will explain further down.
"The new idea that relativity brought is that there can be no universal standard for simultaneity itself, because time is dependent on the observer."
I am not talking about time simultaneity, but for event simultaneity. Different reference frames have different clocks, but that does not mean that when an event happens, the state of the universe has not changed.
"But FTL communication means that event C could be communicated to point-event D, even though in a different (but equally valid) frame of reference, point-event D precedes C. Event D could then use FTL to communicate itself to C. As such -- causality violation."
Nope. Here it goes: you may observe D before C, and even act upon cancelling D, but that would not succeed: events would already have been played out; it is just that you observe them in different order.
Here is a thought experiment: suppose one beam is transmitted straight to your brain and the other across your eyes. The beams are entangled. The beam in your brain is transmitted instantly. You can also control the beam in your brain by thought, which is an instant process as well: you can turn it off/on at will with your brain. Turning one beam off instantly turns the other beam off.
Suppose then that the whole system is about to go live...you hit the switch, the brain beam instantly goes in your brain, but you haven't seen the other beam yet, because its photons have not reached your eyes.
Now suppose that in the instant you understand a beam has reached your brain, you decide to turn it off. What will happen? Do you see the other beam or not?
Well, you will see the beam, although you decided to turn it off. Even if one of the beams reached your brain instantly, the event has happened.
You will see the act of switching the beam on AFTER you have switched it off, but that does not matter: you know you switched it on and off. It does not matter when you will see the event.
See? no causality violation. You may try to switch the beam off after you see it being turned on, but nothing will happen, because the beam will already be on.
Nope. The theory of relativity states that there is no universal simultaneity for OBSERVING an event. It talks about OBSERVATIONS, i.e. about photons. It does not talk about when the event actually happens.
So it is quite possible for an event E to happen in system A, to use FTL comm to transmit the event to system B, system B to take an action depending on the information before observing E, and then finally system B to observe the event E.
The above is not violation of causality in any way. It's similar to thunders: you can see the thunder (FTL communication), go inside the house (react to event before observing it), then hear its sound (observe the event). But there is no violation of causality.
I apologize for the colorful title, but I can not describe my feelings towards the so called theorem of 'no communication faster than light' in any other way. There are no time paradoxes if FTL communication exists, for the simple reason that when an event happens, it happens for all the universe. The fact that photons would not have arrived to the FTL communication target when the FTL signal reaches that target is totally irrelevant. And there is no way to perceive an event before it happens and change the outcome, for the single reason that effect always follows cause. So even if FTL communication is real, there would not be possible to avoid doing events that already have happened, for the simple reason that the events have already happened.
Thanks for the reply, but I did not ask about the usefulness of multitouch displays in general, but on the desktop. Whatever you say is correct, but it can not be easily applied to the vertical desktop / laptop screen.
Brain Shutdown On Death
You simply were not dead, and your brain projected an image of surrounding events based on input from the whatever sensors worked at that point.
First of all, congratulations to the guy that made Linux MPX.
But what is the usefulness of multi-touch on a desktop computer, or even a laptop? I can understand its utility on mobile phones which are turned and tossed around, but a computer monitor is an entirely different beast.
First of all, a monitor usually sits vertically, so it is downright impossible to move hands around on a vertical monitor for a long time.
Having monitors be tables is impractical, because a lot more space would be required in offices and homes (although it would be a perfect emulator for MAME cocktail games!).
So why the fuss? I just do not see how multi-touch surfaces can be useful in a desktop/laptop environment.
It's also junk without all the security problems of IE.
Perhaps it is the void that pushes matter to clump together...if such was the case, then the acceleration of the universe would be explained by the same force that makes gravity: the pressure of the void onto matter.
Just kidding! :)) (as well)
This proves two things:
a) a virtual environment is as secure as its host.
b) it's time to stop using C.
(the above is valid if the flaw is in JNLP and/or ICC handling code, as some posters said).
Indeed, Jim.