That story you linked to is absolutely insane from the point of view of a physicist. I've read his claims and his model violates relativity as well as all of quantum mechanics. And he claims his theory is easy to prove but won't prove it to anyone just yet. The red flags should be going up super fast here. And even faster when you see that he has millions of dollars he conned from investors.
Essentially you are testing 2^n states at a time, where n = number of states you are working with. Except you're not really testing them, just kind of getting a probability. Quantum computers are totally different from transistor computers.
Specifically, the algorithm for factoring faster is Shor's algorithm, although it's kinda tough to understand without some physics background.
According to the notes I took in Astrophysics a couple days, ago, when the core collapses, it goes from R ~ 7000km -> R = 50km in under a second. Pretty quick contraction...
I never thought I'd use physics notes for a post on/....
Stars don't ever really start such reactions in the first place. I believe there can be trace amounts of nuclei heavier than iron produced in a star, but almost all heavier nuclei are created in a supernova, when atoms are hit with a ton of neutrons. So production of the heavy elements (ie supernova) has little to do with the burning that goes on prior to it.
You're insane. Absolutely utterly insane. You say the election looks tampered (which one? any evidence), imply that Bush caused 9/11 so he could solidify his power (he was already the President) and that he started the war in Iraq to train the troops to start a totalitarian state here.
GPS satellites would not work as well without correcting for the frequency shift due to the changing gravitational field. Quite a useful invention IMO.
Also, most cited instances of "legislating from the bench" are where the justices are clearly interpreting established law.
Please, tell me where in the Constituion, or in any document from that era, does it say that abortion at any time in the pregnancy is a protected right?
Turn off CNN and stop reading the NY Times, grab a copy of the Constitution, and learn something about the world.
This "up-or-down vote" is just a front for the Republicans' desire for a tyranny of the majority. Finally Democrats are standing up to them, and rightly so.
[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the supreme Court.
You can argue what "Advice and Consent" of the senate means, but it sure as hell doesn't mean that the senate picks the Justices. Historically it has meant an up-or-down vote once the Justice gets to the floor of the Senate.
How about he nominates someone who has the crazy idea of actually reading and interpreting US law instead of legislating from the bench or looking to foreign law.
Submit the site to dmoz.org (the open directory google uses). Once it gets reviewed (which can take a while) then you'll be good to go.
If you want to get it reviewed fast, apply to be an editor for that category:P
Oh please. You act as if the facts were changed and lies were put in their place. Reading through the article, it looks like the worst thing this guy did is:
In a section on the need for research into how warming might change water availability and flooding, he crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings.
He's not changing the facts here, he is just removing a somewhat offtopic section that reports something he doesn't want focused on. Research on human effects on the environment is VERY political on both sides...down to the scientists, the people funding, and the (non-scientists) editing. For all you know the person who originally wrote that section put it in their to advance their own side's agenda, rather than anything having to do with what the paper was supposed to be about.
The force on the wing can be computed by an integral of P . dA. So the pressure difference is just as good an explanation as directing the air downward.
And yes, the airflow doesn't meet up the way the GP said.
You're right, it's a different principle, and the analogy wasn't correct. However, you work with the limitations you have. You can work with memory cells that lose the information when you read them, and you can work with qubits that lose their information when you read them. In fact, since this is a crucial part of the theory, this is something that is assumed from the start and is able to be worked around.
Slashdot Mirror
He was talking about a cordless house phone, not a mobile/wireless phone. The terms can be confusing...
That story you linked to is absolutely insane from the point of view of a physicist. I've read his claims and his model violates relativity as well as all of quantum mechanics. And he claims his theory is easy to prove but won't prove it to anyone just yet. The red flags should be going up super fast here. And even faster when you see that he has millions of dollars he conned from investors.
One that knows what the Geneva convention is? Not wearing a uniform = Geneva convention not applicable.
You're making me feel bad about studying quantum computing and trying to make improvements on them :P
Specifically, the algorithm for factoring faster is Shor's algorithm, although it's kinda tough to understand without some physics background.
I think the anon poster above me is right. Do you have a link stating this?
According to the notes I took in Astrophysics a couple days, ago, when the core collapses, it goes from R ~ 7000km -> R = 50km in under a second. Pretty quick contraction...
/....
I never thought I'd use physics notes for a post on
Stars don't ever really start such reactions in the first place. I believe there can be trace amounts of nuclei heavier than iron produced in a star, but almost all heavier nuclei are created in a supernova, when atoms are hit with a ton of neutrons. So production of the heavy elements (ie supernova) has little to do with the burning that goes on prior to it.
Nope. That's how liberals go about waging the war on terrorism. Conservatives go about waging the war on terrorism by killing the f'ing terrorists.
You're insane. Absolutely utterly insane. You say the election looks tampered (which one? any evidence), imply that Bush caused 9/11 so he could solidify his power (he was already the President) and that he started the war in Iraq to train the troops to start a totalitarian state here.
You're absolutely batshit insane.
I'd bet London searches the bags of over 1000 plane loads of people each year. This just gives them a reason to pick people rather than random :)
GPS satellites would not work as well without correcting for the frequency shift due to the changing gravitational field. Quite a useful invention IMO.
The joke is that the scientists need to create matter from nothing to be able start out the same way God did.
If you mod down and post a reply, your mod will be cancelled. I guess your sig is a good way to get rid of negative modding :)
Hey...I'm drunk
To whoever modded me down:
Fuck you. That is all.
Mod me down. Please.
Once again. I'm drunk. And can take the karma hit. =].
Uhhhmmmmm....we do? I'm guessing you're talking about the 'right' to abortion, among other things?
No, I mean "historically," as in a filibuster has never been used to stop a vote on a judge on the Senate floor. Until now, of course.
Please, tell me where in the Constituion, or in any document from that era, does it say that abortion at any time in the pregnancy is a protected right?
Turn off CNN and stop reading the NY Times, grab a copy of the Constitution, and learn something about the world.
Try reading the Constitution. This "up-or-down" vote is spelled out in Article II, Section II, Clause II:
You can argue what "Advice and Consent" of the senate means, but it sure as hell doesn't mean that the senate picks the Justices. Historically it has meant an up-or-down vote once the Justice gets to the floor of the Senate.
Go put on your tin-foil hat before Bush's secret police come and use their mind control device!
Oh noes! Companies do things to make money! Unborn babies will no longer have the Constitutional right to be murdered! What is this world coming to?
How about he nominates someone who has the crazy idea of actually reading and interpreting US law instead of legislating from the bench or looking to foreign law.
Submit the site to dmoz.org (the open directory google uses). Once it gets reviewed (which can take a while) then you'll be good to go. If you want to get it reviewed fast, apply to be an editor for that category :P
In a section on the need for research into how warming might change water availability and flooding, he crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings.
He's not changing the facts here, he is just removing a somewhat offtopic section that reports something he doesn't want focused on. Research on human effects on the environment is VERY political on both sides...down to the scientists, the people funding, and the (non-scientists) editing. For all you know the person who originally wrote that section put it in their to advance their own side's agenda, rather than anything having to do with what the paper was supposed to be about.
The force on the wing can be computed by an integral of P . dA. So the pressure difference is just as good an explanation as directing the air downward.
And yes, the airflow doesn't meet up the way the GP said.
You're right, it's a different principle, and the analogy wasn't correct. However, you work with the limitations you have. You can work with memory cells that lose the information when you read them, and you can work with qubits that lose their information when you read them. In fact, since this is a crucial part of the theory, this is something that is assumed from the start and is able to be worked around.