CO2 is a naturally occurring gas in significant quantities. The only way it can be considered a pollutant or undesirable by-product is if it causes global warming (my post was making a point assuming the uncertainty of this point). CO2 scrubbers are not profitable, or else power plants would already be using them to capture and sell the gas. So the economic implications of reducing the emission of CO2 (which is a by-product, not a waste) are, well, bad. Try again...
So you want to reduce carbon emissions, thereby putting an enormous economic strain on the developed countries (and an even worse strain on undeveloped countries), when you don't know if it will do any good or not?
No that won't work. What if I see this cool thing I want to buy from an obscure website. I want to give them my credit card info, but there's no way of doing it securely.
Sort of. Quantum cryptography is provably secure, but you need a way to transmit photons between the two points (generally, an optical fiber or free space).
You forgot:
-Optics (what this article is about): Little decoherence, but making a deterministic universal gate is difficult, so current implementations won't scale
It's also a shame that (at least in the USA) the funding system has made science another self-reinforcing status quo just like the political system, in that no one who is willing to change things and try a totally different approach has any chance of receiving the funding and support that's necessary to get off the ground.
You don't know what you're talking about. Explain what you meant, and give examples if you can.
Yes, I agree that the only conclusion that can be made is what part of the brain which group used. And from the first line of the article: "Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work."
So thank you for explaining my point how absurd it is to make these sorts of conclusions. What they concluded made it not science (though I'll grant that it certainly could have been the reporter embellishing, but I would guess the "scientists" that did the study at least suggested similar conclusions).
All science is based off a test sample and than basing some hypothesis that the idea will scale to the rest of society, with some margin of error.
No it isn't. All psychology maybe, but that's the reason I hardly consider psychologists scientists, especially when they draw ridiculous conclusions from a button-pressing competition. I could just as easily conclude that liberals are challenged by looking at letters and need to think about it, while conservatives are too smart to waste their time on such a mundane activity.
i.e. change one item, then measure the time it takes to response in the 2nd atom.
There is no response in the second atom. If two particles are entangled, no measurement or manipulation of one can change the measurement outcome statistics of the other. You just know that if you measure them a certain way, the results will be correlated. It can seem like a subtle difference, especially if you aren't familiar with some of the odd aspects of QM (i.e. you can't simultaneously know both position and momentum, and you can't simultaneously know the angular momentum along the z-axis and x-axis).
Maybe they understand the issue, but oppose (or see no reason for) government intervention, like I do. And like all the supposed libertarians on/. should.
Is the article really saying that ALL HD content, regardless of if it is indicated to be copyrighted or not, is degrade? IE if I take a video with my HD camera, I can't play it on Vista? It sounds like the article is saying that...but...wow
I would argue that those who cap human desire with religion fill their mind with answers to the great question of "Why?" to get through their lives.
And those who don't search for meaning in things like nature, going to the extent of "worshiping" the Earth and the environment, placing them about humanity.
According to the calculations, however, these vibrations should either possess a ridiculously high energy density - 122 orders of magnitude larger than are observed - or cancel out to exactly zero.
That is ignoring the fact that this is not patentable, but it's the intent.
Why is this not patentable? The method they proposed does not seem obvious (using irises). Do you know of some prior art, or this just the typical/. anti-patent stance?
Slashdot Mirror
CO2 is a naturally occurring gas in significant quantities. The only way it can be considered a pollutant or undesirable by-product is if it causes global warming (my post was making a point assuming the uncertainty of this point). CO2 scrubbers are not profitable, or else power plants would already be using them to capture and sell the gas. So the economic implications of reducing the emission of CO2 (which is a by-product, not a waste) are, well, bad. Try again...
So you want to reduce carbon emissions, thereby putting an enormous economic strain on the developed countries (and an even worse strain on undeveloped countries), when you don't know if it will do any good or not?
I think I want some.
Then you have someone at Verisign (or some other trusted provider) who can read all of the worlds sensitive data.
No that won't work. What if I see this cool thing I want to buy from an obscure website. I want to give them my credit card info, but there's no way of doing it securely.
Sort of. Quantum cryptography is provably secure, but you need a way to transmit photons between the two points (generally, an optical fiber or free space).
You forgot: -Optics (what this article is about): Little decoherence, but making a deterministic universal gate is difficult, so current implementations won't scale
It's also a shame that (at least in the USA) the funding system has made science another self-reinforcing status quo just like the political system, in that no one who is willing to change things and try a totally different approach has any chance of receiving the funding and support that's necessary to get off the ground.
You don't know what you're talking about. Explain what you meant, and give examples if you can.
Yes, I agree that the only conclusion that can be made is what part of the brain which group used. And from the first line of the article: "Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work."
So thank you for explaining my point how absurd it is to make these sorts of conclusions. What they concluded made it not science (though I'll grant that it certainly could have been the reporter embellishing, but I would guess the "scientists" that did the study at least suggested similar conclusions).
All science is based off a test sample and than basing some hypothesis that the idea will scale to the rest of society, with some margin of error.
No it isn't. All psychology maybe, but that's the reason I hardly consider psychologists scientists, especially when they draw ridiculous conclusions from a button-pressing competition. I could just as easily conclude that liberals are challenged by looking at letters and need to think about it, while conservatives are too smart to waste their time on such a mundane activity.
That'd be awesome if being a lawyer were an indictable offense.
If you want to drive a super lightweight car, go right ahead. Don't tell me what to drive though.
i.e. change one item, then measure the time it takes to response in the 2nd atom.
There is no response in the second atom. If two particles are entangled, no measurement or manipulation of one can change the measurement outcome statistics of the other. You just know that if you measure them a certain way, the results will be correlated. It can seem like a subtle difference, especially if you aren't familiar with some of the odd aspects of QM (i.e. you can't simultaneously know both position and momentum, and you can't simultaneously know the angular momentum along the z-axis and x-axis).
Maybe they understand the issue, but oppose (or see no reason for) government intervention, like I do. And like all the supposed libertarians on /. should.
Is the article really saying that ALL HD content, regardless of if it is indicated to be copyrighted or not, is degrade? IE if I take a video with my HD camera, I can't play it on Vista? It sounds like the article is saying that...but...wow
Why is our existence only meaningful if it serves some purpose of some creator or "something greater than yourself" (whatever the hell that means)?
Because otherwise it's just nature's laws playing itself out, with all of our existence being nothing more than a random series of events.
Oh, and by the way, I believe in God and am pursuing a doctorate in physics.
I would argue that those who cap human desire with religion fill their mind with answers to the great question of "Why?" to get through their lives.
And those who don't search for meaning in things like nature, going to the extent of "worshiping" the Earth and the environment, placing them about humanity.
If you don't believe in a creator of some sort or something greater than yourself, then human existence as something to be sustained means nothing.
Radioactive decay would be a quantum RNG.
According to the calculations, however, these vibrations should either possess a ridiculously high energy density - 122 orders of magnitude larger than are observed - or cancel out to exactly zero.
What's 122 orders of magnitude between friends?
It's being published in Nature today. That means there's something new going on here.
That is ignoring the fact that this is not patentable, but it's the intent.
/. anti-patent stance?
Why is this not patentable? The method they proposed does not seem obvious (using irises). Do you know of some prior art, or this just the typical
In some other (but perfectly valid) reference frame, the star exploded after you hit submit.
I disagree. It surely is not in our future lightcone, but it also is surely not in our past lightcone. So you can't say whether it's happened or not!