The only thing quantum entanglement tells you is that there is a correlation between the observed states of the two particles. It does not tell you if the other particle has been observed or not.
You and I both have a quantum particle, and neither of us knows the state.
I check my particle. It has spin 1/2. I therefore know that if and when you observe your particle, it will have spin -1/2. I do not know whether or not you have actually done so. You may have already done so and observed -1/2. You may not yet. Therefore I know nothing about your situation other than what I already knew when I gave you your particle -- that you will observe a result that is correlated with mine. That's it.
XBox - Buttons in approximately the same locations/quantities + the white and black buttons.
The important difference is the location of the left analog stick.
Every game controller outside of the Dual Shock -- including the original PSX controller -- is designed so that the primary inputs on both sides are directly under the relaxed thumb. Thus you get the face buttons on the right where they are in every controller, and the left analog stick where they are on everything that isn't a Dual Shock. On the original PSX controller and other pre-analog controllers, the D-Pad was in the primary position on the left. For the Dual Shock, they just added the two analog controllers to the existing PSX controller without changing the primary input locations 1) in case analog didn't take off on PSX and 2) to not mess with playing older games. The analog stick was intentionally placed in a sub-optimal place. It stayed that way on the PS2 and PS3 because of brand recognition.
When a new game company starting from scratch with no history or anything decides to emulate the Dual Shock and not fall back on basic principles, this is indicative of a deep problem with that company.
Both VLC and mplayer are so insanely good, so much better than any alternatives, that it's kind of like arguing about whether you should drink belgian beer or german beer compared to drinking raw sewage.
Oh come on are those really any better, or are you just biased? I like raw sewage, but I admit I grew up drinking it which is probably why I like it more than that ucky german beer. You are probably just used to german beer which is why you don't like sewage; if you were used to sewage like I am you'd like it too.
Really people act like their personal preference is like a fact or something.
In the 50:0 situation, there is nobody to visit on the other side.
But it didn't start that way, it only ended that way. And why would randomly walking roaches stop walking unless they knew there were no roaches in the other location? And why would they stop walking once the two small enclosure scenario reached equilibrium, unless they were capable of seeing that equilibrium had been reached between the two groups? That's also the part that suggests possible communication, because not all of the roaches would have even been directly aware of the size of the other group at the equilibrium point yet still decided to stop their random visits.
Some years ago an experiment appeared on/. where they tested how roaches would hide in shelters. Roaches naturally like to hide in the biggest groups that they can. The researchers found that if they put 50 roaches into an enclosure, and put two shelters in the enclosure, one that could hold 50 and one that could hold 40, all the roaches would pile into the big enclosure. If they put two enclosures that could hold 40, the roaches would split into two groups of very close to half (like 26 and 24) in the two enclosures, with roaches actually moving from one to the other in order to balance it out.
Not counting, but it did demonstrate they had some notion of group size and size equivalence, and that they considered more than their own benefit (otherwise a roach would not have left an enclosure that could have held more roaches), possibly even communicating to do so.
It's weird how smart animals with tiny tiny brains can be.
I'd be much more fascinated by a robot that given access to its own schematics etc. was to implement its own survivability routine like avoiding excess heat, cold, pressure, electrical jolts, water damage, corrosion, metal fatigue and so on and found pressing the "off" button as one of the identified threats to its survival. Not self-awareness in a human sense but enough logic to recognize the puppeteer.
I would like to think that the robot would be rational about it and realize that "Off" was an orderly shut down and an intentional and reversible condition, while shorting due to water was probably neither. The robot would hopefully go so far as to realize that the Off state was a good way to protect itself from certain hazards, so if it gets stuck in the rain it'd shut itself off to save itself, or if you told it that you were going to turn it off to protect it during transport it'd be okay with that instead of going berserk and killing you. Though if you said you were going to turn it off in order to cannibalize some critical component you needed for something else, preventing it from being able to turn back on, then you need to watch out.
Yeah it is funny hearing people say they have made a "quantum leap" which would mean "the smallest possible discreet leap". I mean even the show with that name wasn't implying huge leaps, so I don't know how it came to mean that in their heads. Or maybe they mean it's an advancement worthy of Scott Bakula?
I actually liked how the last Bond movie, "Quantum of Solace", used the term correctly. Though this probably confused some people. My roommate thought the name was stupid till I told him what "quantum" really meant and then he thought it was cool.:)
You bring as proof of a scientific statement an article that demonstrate it using an item (ansible) found in SciFi books?
Um, yes. To show how FTL communication causes paradoxes requires an FTL communication device. None exist in reality, and thus a fictional one must be posited. Ansibles already exist in fiction, so the author lifted that just to make use of the word.
Seems you're missing the fact that that 1.3mm 'upward trend' is in fact an acceleration.
d = 4m. v = 0.0018m/y a = 0.0013m/15y^2 = 0.00086m/y^2 (taking your stated figure to mean it took 15 years to go from 1.8mm/y to 3.1mm/y)
d = v*t + 0.5*a*t^2 0.00043*t^2 + 0.0018*t - 4 = 0 t = 94.37y.
We'll probably have some new religions by then (though the old ones won't be around), but the flying car is still going to be a long way off. Starting to see why people are nervous about "If this trend continues..." scenarios?
Uhm... okay. So please demonstrate how else they could do it without calling out the company and product by name?
Exactly how I said -- refer to the properties of said product with enough specificity that only that product meets them all. But it's usually used in the opposite direction, when the government wants to hand a company some phat government lewt for a contract but doesn't want it to look like that's what they're doing.
This isn't singling out a company or product. It is an IT department simply stating, in a governmental bureaucratic setting, that they are not confident in the upgrade-ability of the software.... which is singling out a company and product. You don't think it's a bad thing, and I don't disagree.
Meanwhile, if this is what is going on, I hope my speculation (if it has any effect) adds to the confusion rather than blowing the cover.
Don't worry, since the CIA has upgraded to Triple Recursive Silly Cover, which Nesson is surely aware of, you're just explaining the equivalent of how we broke Enigma.
We're surprised that the Texas Senate Finance Committee adopted a rider which, in effect, singles out a specific corporation and product for unequal treatment.
I'm surprised that they would single out a specific corp/product by name. Not so much that they would "in effect". I thought that was the standard way they did things -- don't name a company or product, but specify the product requirements so specifically that there was precisely one product that met them all. Then when they wanted to change their mainstream products they had to keep an old line just to produce the government-required product, and this was part of why the government ends up paying out the nose for everything.
But I guess it's harder to disallow a specific product via the same method. "No Texas Government Agency shall install an operating system with an obnoxious security mechanisms that constantly ask your permission to do everything and gets in your way when you're browsing sketchy pr0n sites..."
Sure, it's got legroom and good food, but it loses out big-time on the quality of the film.
Worth it 10000% IMO. I will not go to any theater except the Drafthouse, because the entire experience is a big lose anywhere else. I'd rather wait for the DVD and watch a movie on my little 28" SD TV than go to most theaters, so a theater I actually enjoy going to will automatically have better picture. When I'm otherwise completely miserable, a nice picture isn't appreciated.
Plus, The Alamo is just plain fun. Where else can I watch Dark Knight in a comfy chair with tons of leg room, pizza and beer that is priced like a normal restaurant (as in, cheaper than the crappy soda and popcorn at a normal theater), and while I'm waiting for the movie to start they play clips from the old Batman movies and the Adam West TV series. Batman vs Joker Surfing Contest! Bat Shark Repellent!
I 3 The Alamo as it is. But hey, sounds like they're getting around to upgrading their projectors. I certainly won't complain about that.:)
Maybe you think picking up and moving some of the world's largest population centers, i.e. gigantic cities, due to them being flooded is no big deal. But I assure you that this is incorrect, and it is in fact a big deal.
You're being intentionally intellectually dishonest. You know the correct analogy would be to say "I can't sell alcohol to you so I'm going to make sure no-one is buying alcohol anywhere else".
I do know that, and it's still not the same as alcohol! Anti-slavery is still not the same as slavery! War is in fact not Peace! Even if the Peace is rooted in selfishness!
Let me just point out that it's very cold in space. Even with the sun nearby, I think we'd all experience at least a little bit of shrinkage if we were in Jupiter's position and it's not fair for the other planets to laugh at him.
Well we sure have no room to laugh. Jupiter's spot, shrinkage and all, is still several times bigger than our entire planet.
Saturn probably has the right for a chuckle or two, though, and Neptune might join in. Uranus as usual will just try to avoid attention since it always ends up with it being made fun of.
"So fucking what" to slavery -- versus "so fucking what" to battling slavery, but not necessarily for the most altruistic reasons? Are you seriously still trying to make those two things the same? Alcohol is the same as no-alcohol?
The "repeat what they say in a different context oh snap" rebuttal only makes sense if the other context is related to the original in some way other than being it's opposite. In fact it only demonstrates how ridiculous your argument is.
Your comparison of an anti-slave ship to a klan hood is retarded, wrong, and offensive in its stupidity. You have no business calling anyone an idiot, unless they agree with you in which case the statement is sufficiently justified.
Can't see the videos at work, but I was really expecting more from that link. Seriously is that the "cream of the crop" of "Obamaisms"? A couple things that were politically unwise, using the wrong name for a town, making factual errors... the one about eating waffles mirrors a similar event with Bush which was one time I was actually proud of our last President's answer!
Those are nothing like Bush-isms where he would invent new words, mangle the pronunciation of words, butcher common sayings beyond recognition, or abuse grammar and randomly re-arrange words such that what he says either makes no sense ("food on your family") or is the opposite of what he wanted to say (he never stops thinking of ways to harm the US). The closest thing I see in that list of Obamaisms is where he implies he sees fallen heroes in the audience, which is pretty funny, but Bush was spouting gut-busters all the time.
Look, I'm all for fairness and not giving a free pass to any President, and all Presidents make gaffs. But this is not the EXACT same thing. He is more like Reagand, Bush Senior, or Clinton. The reason Obama's gaffs don't get as much coverage is because they are not on the same order of magnitude. Bush was more like Dan Quayle, and not since Quayle has there been someone in that high a position with so much unintentional humor coming out of their mouths.
Maybe this will change. It's been only a couple months, of course. But still, if you really really honestly truly can't see any difference between Bush's speaking ability, and, well, basically everyone else who's ever held the office then something is really honestly truly broken in your brain. That link is very disappointing (and I really was hoping for more; I'll have to check out the videos later I suppose) as a way of equating the two.
Slashdot Mirror
The only thing quantum entanglement tells you is that there is a correlation between the observed states of the two particles. It does not tell you if the other particle has been observed or not.
You and I both have a quantum particle, and neither of us knows the state.
I check my particle. It has spin 1/2. I therefore know that if and when you observe your particle, it will have spin -1/2. I do not know whether or not you have actually done so. You may have already done so and observed -1/2. You may not yet. Therefore I know nothing about your situation other than what I already knew when I gave you your particle -- that you will observe a result that is correlated with mine. That's it.
XBox - Buttons in approximately the same locations/quantities + the white and black buttons.
The important difference is the location of the left analog stick.
Every game controller outside of the Dual Shock -- including the original PSX controller -- is designed so that the primary inputs on both sides are directly under the relaxed thumb. Thus you get the face buttons on the right where they are in every controller, and the left analog stick where they are on everything that isn't a Dual Shock. On the original PSX controller and other pre-analog controllers, the D-Pad was in the primary position on the left. For the Dual Shock, they just added the two analog controllers to the existing PSX controller without changing the primary input locations 1) in case analog didn't take off on PSX and 2) to not mess with playing older games. The analog stick was intentionally placed in a sub-optimal place. It stayed that way on the PS2 and PS3 because of brand recognition.
When a new game company starting from scratch with no history or anything decides to emulate the Dual Shock and not fall back on basic principles, this is indicative of a deep problem with that company.
Both VLC and mplayer are so insanely good, so much better than any alternatives, that it's kind of like arguing about whether you should drink belgian beer or german beer compared to drinking raw sewage.
Oh come on are those really any better, or are you just biased? I like raw sewage, but I admit I grew up drinking it which is probably why I like it more than that ucky german beer. You are probably just used to german beer which is why you don't like sewage; if you were used to sewage like I am you'd like it too.
Really people act like their personal preference is like a fact or something.
Yeah? Well vultures have great senses of smell. Maybe these were vulture chicks. I bet the scientists didn't think of that! I'm so smart.
"VLC: Best media player for jerks!"
In the 50:0 situation, there is nobody to visit on the other side.
But it didn't start that way, it only ended that way. And why would randomly walking roaches stop walking unless they knew there were no roaches in the other location? And why would they stop walking once the two small enclosure scenario reached equilibrium, unless they were capable of seeing that equilibrium had been reached between the two groups? That's also the part that suggests possible communication, because not all of the roaches would have even been directly aware of the size of the other group at the equilibrium point yet still decided to stop their random visits.
Some years ago an experiment appeared on /. where they tested how roaches would hide in shelters. Roaches naturally like to hide in the biggest groups that they can. The researchers found that if they put 50 roaches into an enclosure, and put two shelters in the enclosure, one that could hold 50 and one that could hold 40, all the roaches would pile into the big enclosure. If they put two enclosures that could hold 40, the roaches would split into two groups of very close to half (like 26 and 24) in the two enclosures, with roaches actually moving from one to the other in order to balance it out.
Not counting, but it did demonstrate they had some notion of group size and size equivalence, and that they considered more than their own benefit (otherwise a roach would not have left an enclosure that could have held more roaches), possibly even communicating to do so.
It's weird how smart animals with tiny tiny brains can be.
I'd be much more fascinated by a robot that given access to its own schematics etc. was to implement its own survivability routine like avoiding excess heat, cold, pressure, electrical jolts, water damage, corrosion, metal fatigue and so on and found pressing the "off" button as one of the identified threats to its survival. Not self-awareness in a human sense but enough logic to recognize the puppeteer.
I would like to think that the robot would be rational about it and realize that "Off" was an orderly shut down and an intentional and reversible condition, while shorting due to water was probably neither. The robot would hopefully go so far as to realize that the Off state was a good way to protect itself from certain hazards, so if it gets stuck in the rain it'd shut itself off to save itself, or if you told it that you were going to turn it off to protect it during transport it'd be okay with that instead of going berserk and killing you. Though if you said you were going to turn it off in order to cannibalize some critical component you needed for something else, preventing it from being able to turn back on, then you need to watch out.
Are you listening Mr. Pitt?
Yeah it is funny hearing people say they have made a "quantum leap" which would mean "the smallest possible discreet leap". I mean even the show with that name wasn't implying huge leaps, so I don't know how it came to mean that in their heads. Or maybe they mean it's an advancement worthy of Scott Bakula?
I actually liked how the last Bond movie, "Quantum of Solace", used the term correctly. Though this probably confused some people. My roommate thought the name was stupid till I told him what "quantum" really meant and then he thought it was cool. :)
You bring as proof of a scientific statement an article that demonstrate it using an item (ansible) found in SciFi books?
Um, yes. To show how FTL communication causes paradoxes requires an FTL communication device. None exist in reality, and thus a fictional one must be posited. Ansibles already exist in fiction, so the author lifted that just to make use of the word.
LOL not that it's anywhere near that simple of course.
Maybe I'm missing something here
Seems you're missing the fact that that 1.3mm 'upward trend' is in fact an acceleration.
d = 4m.
v = 0.0018m/y
a = 0.0013m/15y^2 = 0.00086m/y^2 (taking your stated figure to mean it took 15 years to go from 1.8mm/y to 3.1mm/y)
d = v*t + 0.5*a*t^2
0.00043*t^2 + 0.0018*t - 4 = 0
t = 94.37y.
We'll probably have some new religions by then (though the old ones won't be around), but the flying car is still going to be a long way off. Starting to see why people are nervous about "If this trend continues..." scenarios?
Uhm... okay. So please demonstrate how else they could do it without calling out the company and product by name?
Exactly how I said -- refer to the properties of said product with enough specificity that only that product meets them all. But it's usually used in the opposite direction, when the government wants to hand a company some phat government lewt for a contract but doesn't want it to look like that's what they're doing.
This isn't singling out a company or product. It is an IT department simply stating, in a governmental bureaucratic setting, that they are not confident in the upgrade-ability of the software. ... which is singling out a company and product. You don't think it's a bad thing, and I don't disagree.
Gawd, it's not funny!
-- Uranus
Meanwhile, if this is what is going on, I hope my speculation (if it has any effect) adds to the confusion rather than blowing the cover.
Don't worry, since the CIA has upgraded to Triple Recursive Silly Cover, which Nesson is surely aware of, you're just explaining the equivalent of how we broke Enigma.
I like the 33rd Amendment, which gives the People the right to keep and wear b34rz!
We're surprised that the Texas Senate Finance Committee adopted a rider which, in effect, singles out a specific corporation and product for unequal treatment.
I'm surprised that they would single out a specific corp/product by name. Not so much that they would "in effect". I thought that was the standard way they did things -- don't name a company or product, but specify the product requirements so specifically that there was precisely one product that met them all. Then when they wanted to change their mainstream products they had to keep an old line just to produce the government-required product, and this was part of why the government ends up paying out the nose for everything.
But I guess it's harder to disallow a specific product via the same method. "No Texas Government Agency shall install an operating system with an obnoxious security mechanisms that constantly ask your permission to do everything and gets in your way when you're browsing sketchy pr0n sites..."
Sure, it's got legroom and good food, but it loses out big-time on the quality of the film.
Worth it 10000% IMO. I will not go to any theater except the Drafthouse, because the entire experience is a big lose anywhere else. I'd rather wait for the DVD and watch a movie on my little 28" SD TV than go to most theaters, so a theater I actually enjoy going to will automatically have better picture. When I'm otherwise completely miserable, a nice picture isn't appreciated.
Plus, The Alamo is just plain fun. Where else can I watch Dark Knight in a comfy chair with tons of leg room, pizza and beer that is priced like a normal restaurant (as in, cheaper than the crappy soda and popcorn at a normal theater), and while I'm waiting for the movie to start they play clips from the old Batman movies and the Adam West TV series. Batman vs Joker Surfing Contest! Bat Shark Repellent!
I 3 The Alamo as it is. But hey, sounds like they're getting around to upgrading their projectors. I certainly won't complain about that. :)
This really isn't a big deal.
Maybe you think picking up and moving some of the world's largest population centers, i.e. gigantic cities, due to them being flooded is no big deal. But I assure you that this is incorrect, and it is in fact a big deal.
You're being intentionally intellectually dishonest. You know the correct analogy would be to say "I can't sell alcohol to you so I'm going to make sure no-one is buying alcohol anywhere else".
I do know that, and it's still not the same as alcohol! Anti-slavery is still not the same as slavery! War is in fact not Peace! Even if the Peace is rooted in selfishness!
Intellectual dishonestly my ass.
Another crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Red Storm Linux community today when Jupiter...
Let me just point out that it's very cold in space. Even with the sun nearby, I think we'd all experience at least a little bit of shrinkage if we were in Jupiter's position and it's not fair for the other planets to laugh at him.
Well we sure have no room to laugh. Jupiter's spot, shrinkage and all, is still several times bigger than our entire planet.
Saturn probably has the right for a chuckle or two, though, and Neptune might join in. Uranus as usual will just try to avoid attention since it always ends up with it being made fun of.
And don't say "a failing bank kept afloat with public funds" -- the UK already has those.
Aw man! Oh well at least I kept my receipt. But now I have to think of something else to get them.
"So fucking what" to slavery -- versus "so fucking what" to battling slavery, but not necessarily for the most altruistic reasons? Are you seriously still trying to make those two things the same? Alcohol is the same as no-alcohol?
The "repeat what they say in a different context oh snap" rebuttal only makes sense if the other context is related to the original in some way other than being it's opposite. In fact it only demonstrates how ridiculous your argument is.
Your comparison of an anti-slave ship to a klan hood is retarded, wrong, and offensive in its stupidity. You have no business calling anyone an idiot, unless they agree with you in which case the statement is sufficiently justified.
Quite a few random quotes.
Can't see the videos at work, but I was really expecting more from that link. Seriously is that the "cream of the crop" of "Obamaisms"? A couple things that were politically unwise, using the wrong name for a town, making factual errors... the one about eating waffles mirrors a similar event with Bush which was one time I was actually proud of our last President's answer!
Those are nothing like Bush-isms where he would invent new words, mangle the pronunciation of words, butcher common sayings beyond recognition, or abuse grammar and randomly re-arrange words such that what he says either makes no sense ("food on your family") or is the opposite of what he wanted to say (he never stops thinking of ways to harm the US). The closest thing I see in that list of Obamaisms is where he implies he sees fallen heroes in the audience, which is pretty funny, but Bush was spouting gut-busters all the time.
Look, I'm all for fairness and not giving a free pass to any President, and all Presidents make gaffs. But this is not the EXACT same thing. He is more like Reagand, Bush Senior, or Clinton. The reason Obama's gaffs don't get as much coverage is because they are not on the same order of magnitude. Bush was more like Dan Quayle, and not since Quayle has there been someone in that high a position with so much unintentional humor coming out of their mouths.
Maybe this will change. It's been only a couple months, of course. But still, if you really really honestly truly can't see any difference between Bush's speaking ability, and, well, basically everyone else who's ever held the office then something is really honestly truly broken in your brain. That link is very disappointing (and I really was hoping for more; I'll have to check out the videos later I suppose) as a way of equating the two.