If capital can be created out of thin air, why don't they just make everyone rich instead of those connected enough to use the discount window?
Because a government can create money from thin air but it can't create new value to go with it.
The value in thin-air-created money comes from diluting the value of the already-created money. No value is created, the existing value is just moved around.
The point of the exercise is to suck some of the value out of existing money, put it into new the new money, and use it or dispense it to their cronies. If they gave it to everybody they would defeat the purpose.
Giving it to everybody in proportion to the dollars and dollar-valued securities and contracts would just raise the prices of everything (and lower things like wages until they can be renegotiated). Giving it to everybody equally would suck the value out of everybody's savings - especially retirement plans - and spread it around among both those who worked and saved and those who didn't.
Of course value isn't strictly conserved, either. Value is subjective among those who are trading in each commodity (which is all of us in the case of money).
Currency once was actual precious metal and more convenient paper certificates which could be exchanged for metal. The value came from the inherent value of the metal, the convenience of its form for simplifying barter, and the government's promise to accept it for payment of debts and taxes and to recognize (and require) acceptance of it as paying off any private debt. Once it was in regular use the government gradually debased the coinage (substituting cheaper metal) and defaulted on the promise to redeem the paper for metal.
The remaining value is the expectation that the paper (or numbers in accounts) will continue to pay off debts (which it will) and be accepted for future purchases (which is variable). If the government makes it clear that it is willing to print as much as it pleases, people will anticipate a future flood of extra money. At that point people will demand even more of it in new dealings - or demand some other form of payment. Then the value of the money can drop far more than it would if there were some constant amount of "value" that was merely spread around among the old and new currency.
The classic example of such a situation is the Weimar Republic Hyperinflation. Thanks to Nixon's destruction of the Bretton Woods system by the elimination of the US' payment of gold in even intergovernmental currency dealings, there is even less to retard such a meltdown of the current US Dollar than there was the Weimar Republic Mark.
The Tacoma Narrows bridge problem was caused by the cross wind if I recall correctly.
And by a design of some windbreak structures on the sides of the bridge that caused the twisting motion of the bridge, once the resonance was being pumped up, to modulate the crosswind airflow over the bridge in a way that pumptd the resonance further.
It was essentially a vibratory wind turbine. It failed when the wind down the narrows was finally high enough to pump energy into the resonance faster than the bridge's internal friction at high excursions damped it.
Works better to put the patent and deal in the shell company and THEN sue the fishies - and repeat with a new shell company buying the assets of the old one. If you sued 'em once (step 1) you'll have a hard time claiming the contract you wrote and sold doesn't still bind you.
A little under a decade ago (when our little-fish startup had been eaten by a middle-sized fish started-up-and-running but that hadn't yet been eaten by the giant conglomerate) Nortel sued our company on something I'd been co-architect on.
Though we'd done things differently (I ended up with seven patents for my inventions) I think the settlement still involved us paying them a few megabux to even out the patent licensing swap.
We all agreed that this proved Nortel was on the rocks. Switching from innovation to patent trolling, we figured, showed they were in deep trouble and trying to squeeze money out of every asset. As it turned out we were right.
Does anybody know if such cross-licensing agreements survive a bankruptcy and a patent portfolio sale? (I suspect not, since they're contracts with a bankrupt corp.)
Either way this should put the purchasers in a very good position to fend off attacks by telecoms and their equipment vendors against internet-based communication services. And if the agreements die with the previous owner it could let the buyers go on the offensive as well.
So I see this mainly as part of the generational struggle between the "Bell Head" telecoms and the "Packet Head" internet network companies, more than setting up a fight between Android and iPhone / Windows Phone / whatever.
Geez, guys. The whole POINT of wireless is that you can use it anywhere, rather than tethered to a personal access point.
Yet the wireless companies, during the upgrades from analog to digital and voice to voice-plus-data, have abandoned the space between the cities in favor of serving only the concentrated populations wandering around in urban areas. You aren't limited to your hardwired tether. But you ARE tethered to your "coverage area". And even within that, some areas are drastically degraded compared to others.
How about some testing of service ON THE ROAD and otherwise out in the boonies, rather than going cross-country yet measuring only in one big city after another.
I see no reason the "holes" actually have to be all the way through. A flexible diaphragm covering each one (easily built by sheathing the whole plate in a film) would deflect the water flow while passing the sound about as well as an open hole. For "DC" the surface is continuous. For sonar it's full of holes.
This one is an "arch". What it does is create an (acoustic) illusion (think "virtual image") of a flat surface located behind it - at the same distance as the actual surface it's sitting on (assuming that surface is flat).
Result: Anything under the arch (either an object hiding there or a hole in the underlying surface) is not visible to the sonar, which instead sees the illusionary surface.
It's not an "invisibility cloak" because that would direct the sonar energy AROUND the object hiding under the arch, let it bounce off whatever is actually under it, and similarly redirect the sonar energy around the object again on its way to the detectors. (Problem with this: There will be an unavoidable delay, making whatever is behind the "cloak" seem farther away if you're timing the echoes - though not if you're just listening to their form. Metamaterial invisibility cloaks have the same problem: You'll see the object behind the cloak at the right distance, but if you ping it with a radar you get a longer return time.)
This thing is apparently using metamaterials to get the necessary delay to make the accoustic image appear at the right distance time-delay-wise, in addition to doing the wave-bending to make the sound take the correct paths.
Also: This is an early model and only works for sonar devices in a particluar halfplane. They claim they can make it work for sonar devices anywhere in the hemisphere "above" the device but that the design and layout for a fully dimensioned version is computationally much more difficult (and perhaps also harder to fabricate) so they haven't done it yet.
That's why GPS is generally what is used to sync up the power grid in the first place, although I imagine they have some expensive holdover and standalone cesium clocks as well.
As I recall it USED to be done by watching a wall clock with a big face and a sweep second hand while listening to a short wave radio tuned to WWV.
Why use fancy stuff - including your own very expensive hyper-accurate clock - when the government continuously broadcasts a time signal that's accurate BY DEFINITION and that plus a cheap clock with an electric motor in it is more than adequate to make the adjustment?
Of course that was the local power company days. Once the grid got big it became a thing that had to be coordinated nationally. You had to agree about which way and how much you were going to noodge the frequency.
Meanwhile: How much money do we lose from the clocks being wrong?
Far more. But the benefits of the proposed non-correction appear where they're easy to see and the costs are distributed where they're easy to ignore and virtually impossible to tally.
It's like "economic stimulus" that way: The jobs created are easy to see and count (though the bureaucrats overcount them anyhow). The greater number of jobs lost due to the cost of the jobs created are scattered and only show up when you start wondering why, after all this "job creation", the unemployment rate kept rising and/or the usual rebound after a recession was weak or didn't happen.
Nope. The sync is sent with the signal. They tried line sync originally and found out that it didn't work all that well.
(But the frame rate is still 60 half-frames per second as a legacy of the early experiment and because it keeps power line hum from making a ripple move up or down the screen.)
A highly accurate crystal costs in the order for $1 for single quantities.
And gains or loses perhaps a minute per year - while the grid has been good for a fraction of a second (adjusted when the powerhouse clocks drift more than that from the national standard committee of atomic clocks).
So that's why line-powered clocks use the line for the primary reference and the crystal oscillator to avoid having to reset it after a power failure (and to insure you get your wake-up alarm). And why most appliances don't bother with a crystal at all. (Why spend extra to make them LESS accurate?)
Keeping accurate time is HARD. Distributing it by the power grid is EASY.
Even quartz-crystal line-powered clocks use the line for reference and the crystal for backup during power outages.
The line frequency has been kept stable by comparing it to the national standard clock and adjusting it when it has accumulated small errors. This makes it far more stable than any inexpensive quartz crystal with no oven.
A one part-per-million crystal oscillator will accumulate over half a minute of error per year. The power grid has been good for a fraction of a second in the time since it was constructed by Tesla and Westinghouse. (Accurate time distribution and cheap clocks was one of its selling points back during the AC-DC wars with Edison.)
Most digital clocks use a quartz oscillator as their frequency source. The mains power is not directly used for timing.
Most lime-powered digital clocks use the line for the frequency reference and run from the quartz crystal reference only when there's a power outage. That's because the quartz crystal, absent oven stabilization and expensive calibration (or even WITH it), will drift by minutes per year while the line frequency has been kept stable by reference to the national bureau of standards. The oscillator is only there as a backup, so you don't have to reset (or miss your wake-up call) due to a power outage.
Ummmm, this is not going to affect generator synchronization at all.
The point being made is that the claim that the east coast runs several cycles per day faster than the west coast is bogus. If they're interted without frequency conversion they don't slip cycles at all. The east coast might run with a phase shift. But if it slips a cycle this immediately precipitates the phase-thrash catastrophe that finished bringing down the east coast grid during the first "great northeast blackout".
If the US grid is cut up into several islands with automatic frequency-phase correction where they're tied together I'm unaware of it.
The study, conducted by WDS, found that 14 percent of all technical support calls for Android devices could be traced to a hardware fault, versus 3.7 percent for RIM BlackBerry, 8 percent for iPhones and 9 percent for Windows Phone 7 devices.
WDS did not disclose how many support calls in g eneral technicians fielded for each platform.
And there you have it. If the platforms had, say, the same amount of hardware trouble calls as non-Android platforms but a far lower number of software trouble calls you'd get the same result.
Without additional data we can't tell if my headline or the one from PC magazine is more accurate.
I don't know of any reason the Android-platform hardware produced by several big-name companies using modern parts and fabs should be almost four times as flakey as the non-Android-platform hardware produced by several big-name companies using modern parts and fabs. Maybe a little from this being earlier in the product life cycle. But a factor of 3.8? So I'm betting at least some of the result is from Android SOFTware being less failure prone and the article's slant being anti-Android FUD.
I don't think there exist a mirror able to reflect (without being destroyed) in all the wave-lengths the wiggler is able to generate.
Indeed, that's part of the point of using a free-electron (and thus continuously tunable) laser., Anything but a diffraction coating will have that tiny bit of loss that will cause it to vaporize, and the vapor be blasted away, long before the laser is done firing. And a diffraction coating only works at a set of very narrow frequency spikes.
Retune the laser a couple percent off the magic frequency and BANG! goes the mirror.
I see how the fees for codec products (in OSes or Apps) could be a problem for open source. The Freebie there only applies to the first hundred thousand units. There's no way to limit the number of units in an open source product.
But in addition there are freebies for services and encoding for broadcast:
- Encoding as a service for a fee pays only if the encoded "title" is 12 minutes or longer. (At first I thought that might be related to YouTube's (former) 10 minute limit but the Wikipedia article claims otherwise.)
- Encoding for free-to-user (i.e. advertiser or otherwise funded) broadcast has a lump-per-year fee for air broadcast station based on the market size and is free for Internet distribution.
Looks like they are trying to be benevolent to Internet broadcasting, figure there is no money to be made off it, or don't want to get caught in a publicity or lobbying meat-grinder here in cyberspace.
The blame probably goes much further back to something like IRC.
Back farther: To pre-internet "chat" and conferencing programs on timesharing computers. And further to Morse code radio telegraphy. (Wired telegraph didn't promote shortening words because it was billed by the word - but didn't send punctuation marks, either.)
My take:
On one hand some stuff (like limited size text messaging on twitter and SMS with latter's typically rotten keypad interface) promotes extreme abbreviation, rebus-style phonetic respellings, and the like.
On the other, some of this technology actually promotes literacy. Netnews and mailing lists, along with their successors (personal web sites, blogs, and news-followup commenting, especially on controversial subjects) are prime examples. Reading comprehension helps in the formulation of an argument while good grammarand spelling helps convince the readership (much like a clear voice and high-class accent). Participants tend to realize this (or have their noses rubbed in it by their opponents) and with practice improve greatly. And integrated spelling (and even grammar) checkers in editing and posting tools helps further.
If I've characterized the experiment correctly it does not, IMHO, constitute getting any additional measurement on "which slit each photon passed through".
It might, however, give interesting information about whether whatever they placed in the path on one side interacts by changing the phase etc. of the wave function continuously and universally (which would produce a modified diffraction pattern) or by interacting with some photons and not others on a statistical basis (which would produce an overlay of a "did" and "didn't" pair, or family, of diffraction patterns). Perhaps that is what this experimant was really about.
And (as I read the summary - having not read and understood the paper) it looks like they modified the amplitude, phase, and/or polarization of the wave function/photon path through one of the slits, and measured the resulting changes of the diffraction pattern.
If I've characterized the experiment correctly it does not, IMHO, constitute getting any additional measurement on "which slit each photon passed through".
Slashdot Mirror
If capital can be created out of thin air, why don't they just make everyone rich instead of those connected enough to use the discount window?
Because a government can create money from thin air but it can't create new value to go with it.
The value in thin-air-created money comes from diluting the value of the already-created money. No value is created, the existing value is just moved around.
The point of the exercise is to suck some of the value out of existing money, put it into new the new money, and use it or dispense it to their cronies. If they gave it to everybody they would defeat the purpose.
Giving it to everybody in proportion to the dollars and dollar-valued securities and contracts would just raise the prices of everything (and lower things like wages until they can be renegotiated). Giving it to everybody equally would suck the value out of everybody's savings - especially retirement plans - and spread it around among both those who worked and saved and those who didn't.
Of course value isn't strictly conserved, either. Value is subjective among those who are trading in each commodity (which is all of us in the case of money).
Currency once was actual precious metal and more convenient paper certificates which could be exchanged for metal. The value came from the inherent value of the metal, the convenience of its form for simplifying barter, and the government's promise to accept it for payment of debts and taxes and to recognize (and require) acceptance of it as paying off any private debt. Once it was in regular use the government gradually debased the coinage (substituting cheaper metal) and defaulted on the promise to redeem the paper for metal.
The remaining value is the expectation that the paper (or numbers in accounts) will continue to pay off debts (which it will) and be accepted for future purchases (which is variable). If the government makes it clear that it is willing to print as much as it pleases, people will anticipate a future flood of extra money. At that point people will demand even more of it in new dealings - or demand some other form of payment. Then the value of the money can drop far more than it would if there were some constant amount of "value" that was merely spread around among the old and new currency.
The classic example of such a situation is the Weimar Republic Hyperinflation. Thanks to Nixon's destruction of the Bretton Woods system by the elimination of the US' payment of gold in even intergovernmental currency dealings, there is even less to retard such a meltdown of the current US Dollar than there was the Weimar Republic Mark.
yea, its really more like the millennium bridge.
Yes.
The Tacoma Narrows bridge problem was caused by the cross wind if I recall correctly.
And by a design of some windbreak structures on the sides of the bridge that caused the twisting motion of the bridge, once the resonance was being pumped up, to modulate the crosswind airflow over the bridge in a way that pumptd the resonance further.
It was essentially a vibratory wind turbine. It failed when the wind down the narrows was finally high enough to pump energy into the resonance faster than the bridge's internal friction at high excursions damped it.
Bio-compatable, bio-degradable, flexible, and about the same density as most human tissue. There's lots of uses for that.
Use it for ballistic gelatin. Talk about authenticity!
Do you know any vegans who eat food products made from GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms)?
Unless I miss my guess there will be few to none who would consider this acceptable, regardless of the human source of the inserted gene.
Works better to put the patent and deal in the shell company and THEN sue the fishies - and repeat with a new shell company buying the assets of the old one. If you sued 'em once (step 1) you'll have a hard time claiming the contract you wrote and sold doesn't still bind you.
A little under a decade ago (when our little-fish startup had been eaten by a middle-sized fish started-up-and-running but that hadn't yet been eaten by the giant conglomerate) Nortel sued our company on something I'd been co-architect on.
Though we'd done things differently (I ended up with seven patents for my inventions) I think the settlement still involved us paying them a few megabux to even out the patent licensing swap.
We all agreed that this proved Nortel was on the rocks. Switching from innovation to patent trolling, we figured, showed they were in deep trouble and trying to squeeze money out of every asset. As it turned out we were right.
Does anybody know if such cross-licensing agreements survive a bankruptcy and a patent portfolio sale? (I suspect not, since they're contracts with a bankrupt corp.)
Either way this should put the purchasers in a very good position to fend off attacks by telecoms and their equipment vendors against internet-based communication services. And if the agreements die with the previous owner it could let the buyers go on the offensive as well.
So I see this mainly as part of the generational struggle between the "Bell Head" telecoms and the "Packet Head" internet network companies, more than setting up a fight between Android and iPhone / Windows Phone / whatever.
Geez, guys. The whole POINT of wireless is that you can use it anywhere, rather than tethered to a personal access point.
Yet the wireless companies, during the upgrades from analog to digital and voice to voice-plus-data, have abandoned the space between the cities in favor of serving only the concentrated populations wandering around in urban areas. You aren't limited to your hardwired tether. But you ARE tethered to your "coverage area". And even within that, some areas are drastically degraded compared to others.
How about some testing of service ON THE ROAD and otherwise out in the boonies, rather than going cross-country yet measuring only in one big city after another.
I see no reason the "holes" actually have to be all the way through. A flexible diaphragm covering each one (easily built by sheathing the whole plate in a film) would deflect the water flow while passing the sound about as well as an open hole. For "DC" the surface is continuous. For sonar it's full of holes.
This one is an "arch". What it does is create an (acoustic) illusion (think "virtual image") of a flat surface located behind it - at the same distance as the actual surface it's sitting on (assuming that surface is flat).
Result: Anything under the arch (either an object hiding there or a hole in the underlying surface) is not visible to the sonar, which instead sees the illusionary surface.
It's not an "invisibility cloak" because that would direct the sonar energy AROUND the object hiding under the arch, let it bounce off whatever is actually under it, and similarly redirect the sonar energy around the object again on its way to the detectors. (Problem with this: There will be an unavoidable delay, making whatever is behind the "cloak" seem farther away if you're timing the echoes - though not if you're just listening to their form. Metamaterial invisibility cloaks have the same problem: You'll see the object behind the cloak at the right distance, but if you ping it with a radar you get a longer return time.)
This thing is apparently using metamaterials to get the necessary delay to make the accoustic image appear at the right distance time-delay-wise, in addition to doing the wave-bending to make the sound take the correct paths.
Also: This is an early model and only works for sonar devices in a particluar halfplane. They claim they can make it work for sonar devices anywhere in the hemisphere "above" the device but that the design and layout for a fully dimensioned version is computationally much more difficult (and perhaps also harder to fabricate) so they haven't done it yet.
At least that's how I read TFA.
That's why GPS is generally what is used to sync up the power grid in the first place, although I imagine they have some expensive holdover and standalone cesium clocks as well.
As I recall it USED to be done by watching a wall clock with a big face and a sweep second hand while listening to a short wave radio tuned to WWV.
Why use fancy stuff - including your own very expensive hyper-accurate clock - when the government continuously broadcasts a time signal that's accurate BY DEFINITION and that plus a cheap clock with an electric motor in it is more than adequate to make the adjustment?
Of course that was the local power company days. Once the grid got big it became a thing that had to be coordinated nationally. You had to agree about which way and how much you were going to noodge the frequency.
This one is within 2.5 minutes per year.
While a plug-in clock that was off by 2.5 SECONDS per year would be considered defective.
Meanwhile: How much money do we lose from the clocks being wrong?
Far more. But the benefits of the proposed non-correction appear where they're easy to see and the costs are distributed where they're easy to ignore and virtually impossible to tally.
It's like "economic stimulus" that way: The jobs created are easy to see and count (though the bureaucrats overcount them anyhow). The greater number of jobs lost due to the cost of the jobs created are scattered and only show up when you start wondering why, after all this "job creation", the unemployment rate kept rising and/or the usual rebound after a recession was weak or didn't happen.
your repetitive horseshit looses appeal after the 4th lie
Given that the false statement that the line-powered clocks were crystal controlled appeared multiply, I posted my correction multiply.
If you are offended by it, then thank me for not posting it as a followup to EVERY posting that made the claim. B-)
Nope. The sync is sent with the signal. They tried line sync originally and found out that it didn't work all that well.
(But the frame rate is still 60 half-frames per second as a legacy of the early experiment and because it keeps power line hum from making a ripple move up or down the screen.)
A highly accurate crystal costs in the order for $1 for single quantities.
And gains or loses perhaps a minute per year - while the grid has been good for a fraction of a second (adjusted when the powerhouse clocks drift more than that from the national standard committee of atomic clocks).
So that's why line-powered clocks use the line for the primary reference and the crystal oscillator to avoid having to reset it after a power failure (and to insure you get your wake-up alarm). And why most appliances don't bother with a crystal at all. (Why spend extra to make them LESS accurate?)
Keeping accurate time is HARD. Distributing it by the power grid is EASY.
So untrue. Maybe it was done that way in 1930. But not anymore.
You're wrong.
Line powered clocks with crystal oscillators generally use the line for the reference and the crystal for a backup during power failures.
The line has been far more accurate than a cheap crystal - at least until these goons implement their harebrained scheme.
Even quartz-crystal line-powered clocks use the line for reference and the crystal for backup during power outages.
The line frequency has been kept stable by comparing it to the national standard clock and adjusting it when it has accumulated small errors. This makes it far more stable than any inexpensive quartz crystal with no oven.
A one part-per-million crystal oscillator will accumulate over half a minute of error per year. The power grid has been good for a fraction of a second in the time since it was constructed by Tesla and Westinghouse. (Accurate time distribution and cheap clocks was one of its selling points back during the AC-DC wars with Edison.)
Most digital clocks use a quartz oscillator as their frequency source. The mains power is not directly used for timing.
Most lime-powered digital clocks use the line for the frequency reference and run from the quartz crystal reference only when there's a power outage. That's because the quartz crystal, absent oven stabilization and expensive calibration (or even WITH it), will drift by minutes per year while the line frequency has been kept stable by reference to the national bureau of standards. The oscillator is only there as a backup, so you don't have to reset (or miss your wake-up call) due to a power outage.
Ummmm, this is not going to affect generator synchronization at all.
The point being made is that the claim that the east coast runs several cycles per day faster than the west coast is bogus. If they're interted without frequency conversion they don't slip cycles at all. The east coast might run with a phase shift. But if it slips a cycle this immediately precipitates the phase-thrash catastrophe that finished bringing down the east coast grid during the first "great northeast blackout".
If the US grid is cut up into several islands with automatic frequency-phase correction where they're tied together I'm unaware of it.
From TFA:
And there you have it. If the platforms had, say, the same amount of hardware trouble calls as non-Android platforms but a far lower number of software trouble calls you'd get the same result.
Without additional data we can't tell if my headline or the one from PC magazine is more accurate.
I don't know of any reason the Android-platform hardware produced by several big-name companies using modern parts and fabs should be almost four times as flakey as the non-Android-platform hardware produced by several big-name companies using modern parts and fabs. Maybe a little from this being earlier in the product life cycle. But a factor of 3.8? So I'm betting at least some of the result is from Android SOFTware being less failure prone and the article's slant being anti-Android FUD.
I don't think there exist a mirror able to reflect (without being destroyed) in all the wave-lengths the wiggler is able to generate.
Indeed, that's part of the point of using a free-electron (and thus continuously tunable) laser., Anything but a diffraction coating will have that tiny bit of loss that will cause it to vaporize, and the vapor be blasted away, long before the laser is done firing. And a diffraction coating only works at a set of very narrow frequency spikes.
Retune the laser a couple percent off the magic frequency and BANG! goes the mirror.
Hmmm...
I see how the fees for codec products (in OSes or Apps) could be a problem for open source. The Freebie there only applies to the first hundred thousand units. There's no way to limit the number of units in an open source product.
But in addition there are freebies for services and encoding for broadcast:
- Encoding as a service for a fee pays only if the encoded "title" is 12 minutes or longer. (At first I thought that might be related to YouTube's (former) 10 minute limit but the Wikipedia article claims otherwise.)
- Encoding for free-to-user (i.e. advertiser or otherwise funded) broadcast has a lump-per-year fee for air broadcast station based on the market size and is free for Internet distribution.
Looks like they are trying to be benevolent to Internet broadcasting, figure there is no money to be made off it, or don't want to get caught in a publicity or lobbying meat-grinder here in cyberspace.
The blame probably goes much further back to something like IRC.
Back farther: To pre-internet "chat" and conferencing programs on timesharing computers. And further to Morse code radio telegraphy. (Wired telegraph didn't promote shortening words because it was billed by the word - but didn't send punctuation marks, either.)
My take:
On one hand some stuff (like limited size text messaging on twitter and SMS with latter's typically rotten keypad interface) promotes extreme abbreviation, rebus-style phonetic respellings, and the like.
On the other, some of this technology actually promotes literacy. Netnews and mailing lists, along with their successors (personal web sites, blogs, and news-followup commenting, especially on controversial subjects) are prime examples. Reading comprehension helps in the formulation of an argument while good grammarand spelling helps convince the readership (much like a clear voice and high-class accent). Participants tend to realize this (or have their noses rubbed in it by their opponents) and with practice improve greatly. And integrated spelling (and even grammar) checkers in editing and posting tools helps further.
If I've characterized the experiment correctly it does not, IMHO, constitute getting any additional measurement on "which slit each photon passed through".
It might, however, give interesting information about whether whatever they placed in the path on one side interacts by changing the phase etc. of the wave function continuously and universally (which would produce a modified diffraction pattern) or by interacting with some photons and not others on a statistical basis (which would produce an overlay of a "did" and "didn't" pair, or family, of diffraction patterns). Perhaps that is what this experimant was really about.
I thought the photons went through both slits.
Ditto.
And (as I read the summary - having not read and understood the paper) it looks like they modified the amplitude, phase, and/or polarization of the wave function/photon path through one of the slits, and measured the resulting changes of the diffraction pattern.
If I've characterized the experiment correctly it does not, IMHO, constitute getting any additional measurement on "which slit each photon passed through".