This was argued a long time ago. Find me a (practicing, non-bankrupt) lawyer who says GPLv2 is revocable, and you will have proven the entire FOSS community wrong.
That's so stupid. You would never get enough resources together to get such a network to cross a state, let alone the entire continent!
This is one of those stupid ideas that sound good on paper when implemented in small scale, like in New York City, but it will never work on a trans-continental scale in practice.
That's why you don't use cookies blacklist—you use cookies whitelist; no cookies allowed for anybody without your explicit permission (and you can give permission in a way cookies get wiped out in browser re-start).
The workable solution would be a vigorous enforcement of antitrust regulations. Government does routinely prevent mergers and acquisitions on antitrust grounds; it should not be too hard for them to bar Facebook and Google from gobbling up new start-ups in order to nip nascent competition in the bud.
No you should not. You should learn it as the best, most accurate model of particle physics that we have, how we have tested it and what the limitations of it are.
Do you even know what the Standard Model is? Skipped reading the rest of your uninformed drivel.
The fact that you can't spell "superposition" correctly (or know what superposition principle even refers to) invalidates the entirety of your over-long post.
There is one thing that can be said with certainty—the probability that someone who can't follow the mathematics of quantum mechanics can discriminate between different interpretations of quantum mechanics correctly is vanishingly small.
(And, if you are not a total sociopath, just don't tell the people that you don't trust them; let them believe that you trust them, since it makes them feel better.)
I'll take your "thought experiments" and raise you some real experiments: Bell test experiments.
The only widely-accepted interpretation that has proven consistent with real experiments has been Copenhagen interpretation. All those ideas about hidden variables had to be thrown out or be replaced by something that ended up re-introducing the ideas that Einstein found abhorrent in the first place (that is, non-localism).
It's not that Copenhagen interpretation just "came first", as if there are multiple equally valid interpretations (before Bell's theorem, a lot of people did think these discussions were metaphysical). The only thing more surprising than how well Copenhagen interpretation withstood the test of time is how many other more "reasonable" theories had to be thrown out because they failed the real-world test.
This isn't to say Copenhagen interpretation has no problems—but it's that there aren't any other interpretations that address these problems without raising more serious problems of their own (I mean, "many worlds," really?).
That's why we gave it a name, "measurement", so that we can put it in a black box and forget about it. It's magic!
P.S. Don't ask us about "dark matter" or "dark energy" either. Or "color confinement". Or "anthropic principle". (Although maybe we should just chuck the last one.)
If you truly teach in a way that puts Copenhagen interpretation in the same box as the semi-classical Bohr model, I feel sorry for your students.
Just as in a particle phenomenology class, you should learn Standard Model as if it is correct (not as a useful introductory model that is soon to be discarded) despite its many problems, Copenhagen interpretation ought to be taught in a university quantum-mechanics class as if it is correct despite its many problems.
It really comes down to this: you can't replace a paradigm—no matter how flawed—with nothing. You need something comparable to replace it with, and other than some vague references to decoherence and/or many worlds (I hope you do your students enough service not to bring up the pilot wave model), there is no paradigm that can replace Copenhagen interpretation.
If, as a teacher, you don't recognize that, I do believe you are doing your students disservice.
P.S. Bohr model is different in that we do have a replacement. Maybe in some classes students don't have the necessary mathematics to understand the solutions to the hydrogen-atom Schroedinger equation, but since a robust replacement exists, we can present Bohr model as a useful toy-model introduction (perhaps to introduce importance of angular momentum).
I saw your other posts in this thread. If you agree with him, that subtracts from the point he was making, not add. You also don't have an understanding of quantum mechanics (or if you do, you are taking great care to avoid showing it here).
Seriously? I hope that means you are at best a first-year graduate student. Because if that meant anything else (like, heavens forbid, if you are a PI or something), NSF has seriously failed us.
Wavefunction collapse is believed to be non-local despite all the problems it causes, because to be otherwise is to allow for possibility of non-conservation of conserved quantities (most notably angular momentum, which is the most popular way to entangle quantum states). It's not because "the quantum measured is a single object", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
I would have used the word "mainline", but that's the word that David J. Griffiths uses in his Introduction to Quantum Mechanics.
I'll grant that interpretations of quantum mechanics still remains controversial, with the Bell's Theorem being the last meaningful progress on this topic (yes, this is counting the paper that was just published). Who knows why Many Worlds interpretation is as popular as it is; it's probably more a symptom of the problem that is the difficulty of giving an interpretation to quantum mechanics that is consistent with the laws of universe (locality, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
https://www.xkcd.com/955/
This was argued a long time ago. Find me a (practicing, non-bankrupt) lawyer who says GPLv2 is revocable, and you will have proven the entire FOSS community wrong.
Why, "Contribute back to the community," of course!
You forgot:
Um, if you are looking for "western capitalistic dogma," you are using the wrong website for your example.
You know, you have something there. Getting help from the Chinamen is possibly the only chance to get this infeasible idea done.
Wake me when Chromebooks can run AutoCAD and COMSOL.
That's so stupid. You would never get enough resources together to get such a network to cross a state, let alone the entire continent!
This is one of those stupid ideas that sound good on paper when implemented in small scale, like in New York City, but it will never work on a trans-continental scale in practice.
Wait, Slashdot can handle nicod now? Why is it still so roken? \_()_/
P.S. Preview still looks broken, so maybe this won't go through.
That's why you don't use cookies blacklist—you use cookies whitelist; no cookies allowed for anybody without your explicit permission (and you can give permission in a way cookies get wiped out in browser re-start).
Or better yet, stop bookmarking porn pages. Just commit it to memory.
But it was submitted only recently. That makes it news. For Slashdot editors. Anyway.
The workable solution would be a vigorous enforcement of antitrust regulations. Government does routinely prevent mergers and acquisitions on antitrust grounds; it should not be too hard for them to bar Facebook and Google from gobbling up new start-ups in order to nip nascent competition in the bud.
Oh, wait. I misread it. In any case, I disagree.
Do you even know what the Standard Model is? Skipped reading the rest of your uninformed drivel.
The fact that you can't spell "superposition" correctly (or know what superposition principle even refers to) invalidates the entirety of your over-long post.
There is one thing that can be said with certainty—the probability that someone who can't follow the mathematics of quantum mechanics can discriminate between different interpretations of quantum mechanics correctly is vanishingly small.
10? Which optimism training school did you go to?
Yap. "Distrust and verify."
(And, if you are not a total sociopath, just don't tell the people that you don't trust them; let them believe that you trust them, since it makes them feel better.)
I'll take your "thought experiments" and raise you some real experiments: Bell test experiments.
The only widely-accepted interpretation that has proven consistent with real experiments has been Copenhagen interpretation. All those ideas about hidden variables had to be thrown out or be replaced by something that ended up re-introducing the ideas that Einstein found abhorrent in the first place (that is, non-localism).
It's not that Copenhagen interpretation just "came first", as if there are multiple equally valid interpretations (before Bell's theorem, a lot of people did think these discussions were metaphysical). The only thing more surprising than how well Copenhagen interpretation withstood the test of time is how many other more "reasonable" theories had to be thrown out because they failed the real-world test.
This isn't to say Copenhagen interpretation has no problems—but it's that there aren't any other interpretations that address these problems without raising more serious problems of their own (I mean, "many worlds," really?).
That's why we gave it a name, "measurement", so that we can put it in a black box and forget about it. It's magic!
P.S. Don't ask us about "dark matter" or "dark energy" either. Or "color confinement". Or "anthropic principle". (Although maybe we should just chuck the last one.)
If you truly teach in a way that puts Copenhagen interpretation in the same box as the semi-classical Bohr model, I feel sorry for your students.
Just as in a particle phenomenology class, you should learn Standard Model as if it is correct (not as a useful introductory model that is soon to be discarded) despite its many problems, Copenhagen interpretation ought to be taught in a university quantum-mechanics class as if it is correct despite its many problems.
It really comes down to this: you can't replace a paradigm—no matter how flawed—with nothing. You need something comparable to replace it with, and other than some vague references to decoherence and/or many worlds (I hope you do your students enough service not to bring up the pilot wave model), there is no paradigm that can replace Copenhagen interpretation.
If, as a teacher, you don't recognize that, I do believe you are doing your students disservice.
P.S. Bohr model is different in that we do have a replacement. Maybe in some classes students don't have the necessary mathematics to understand the solutions to the hydrogen-atom Schroedinger equation, but since a robust replacement exists, we can present Bohr model as a useful toy-model introduction (perhaps to introduce importance of angular momentum).
I saw your other posts in this thread. If you agree with him, that subtracts from the point he was making, not add. You also don't have an understanding of quantum mechanics (or if you do, you are taking great care to avoid showing it here).
FTFY
Seriously? I hope that means you are at best a first-year graduate student. Because if that meant anything else (like, heavens forbid, if you are a PI or something), NSF has seriously failed us.
Wavefunction collapse is believed to be non-local despite all the problems it causes, because to be otherwise is to allow for possibility of non-conservation of conserved quantities (most notably angular momentum, which is the most popular way to entangle quantum states). It's not because "the quantum measured is a single object", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
I would have used the word "mainline", but that's the word that David J. Griffiths uses in his Introduction to Quantum Mechanics.
I'll grant that interpretations of quantum mechanics still remains controversial, with the Bell's Theorem being the last meaningful progress on this topic (yes, this is counting the paper that was just published). Who knows why Many Worlds interpretation is as popular as it is; it's probably more a symptom of the problem that is the difficulty of giving an interpretation to quantum mechanics that is consistent with the laws of universe (locality, etc.).