>Well, if we have both particles we've ourselves made entangled, and then measure both (in whatever order, , we see that they indeed were entangled.
So I can prove that the _were_ entangled by a measurement which destroys said entaglement?
Yeah. Which proves that the method to make them entangled works (or tells how reliably it works, statistically). And then that method can be used to create entangled particles for whatever other purposes than just testing if entanglement works.
It's worth noting that measuring just one pair, and finding them in states where they could have been entangled proves nothing, as there was 50% chance that they were in those states just by coincidence. But when 50% probabilities keep adding up, you can be more and more sure it's not coincidence, until it's practically certain.
How do researchers know when two particles are entangled?
If you measure two particles that are not entangled, you get the normal random distribution, half the time they're the same, half the time the opposite (assumign 2 possible states). But if you successfully cause the particles to get entangled, and then measure both, they'll be in opposite states. You don't know which will be which before you measure it, but you know they'll be opposite.
In quantum entanglement, it's not "opening sealed envelopes" type of predetermined thing either, and that is the "spooky" part. The state is determined at the time of first measurement. Though I'm not sure how exactly it's been measured or if the measurement method is 100% certain (it involves statistics...), but that's how it's supposed to be, not predetermined at the time of entanglement.
Regardless of whether we can measure the particles, what might happen? Could a change of state of one particle cause a change of state of the other back in time?
The state of other is not "changed", it's determined. This is not a change one can see, and measuring the state will give "normal" result. But if the particles were entangled, then if you know state of one (by measuring), you know the state of other, no matter where or when it was or will be measured.
Note that it doesn't really have to be a human measurement, which makes things tricky for practical applications. Simplified, anything where the state matters happening (say, a wrong kind of collision with another particle) will determine the state, because the state is "needed" by the rest of the universe.
If that is the case why do we even know about entanglement in the first place?
Well, if we have both particles we've ourselves made entangled, and then measure both (in whatever order, , we see that they indeed were entangled.
And why do we care about that fact?
Well, it used to be pretty much basic physics research, but we're approaching the point where we have practical quantum cryptography and then practical quantum computing, and who know what future applications we come up with. Being able to stop entangled light sounds like a pretty nifty building block for future technologies. I don't think anybody looked at the first huge proof-of-concept transistor in a lab and said "hey, I know, people will use technology based on this to write on global discussion forums, while sitting on a beach at the back-end-of-nowhere".
Let's say I have a total of 1024 entangled pairs; well contained and stable. Now, I take the one half of those pairs and transport them somewhere else. Then, I proceed to measure the state of them _or not_. When checking the other half, shouldn't I get a total of 1024 "altered" and "unaltered" read-outs, resulting in the transmission of 128 bytes?
You can't measure if a particle is entangled, or if something was done to the entangled pair even if you know it's entangled.
Suppose you have two entangled particles, and you put one in a space ship which travels at relativistic speeds for a while. The ship comes back, and 100 years have passed for the other particle. Would the particles still be entangled? If so, what would happen to the other when one's state changes?
You can't set, change or know the state of entangled particles, so question is kind of moot. What happens is, the particles are no longer entangled. Nothing observable happens to the other particle, ie. it can't be known that the entanglement was broken.
Dang it, I'm much happier with T-Mobile (except for the lack of 3G at home) than I ever was with AT&T, but now I really want an N900 (even more than I did yesterday). I've also been considering switching to Credo Mobile, since the liberal-progressive/ethical niche they've been claiming suits my own beliefs. Just not sure about using a smaller company, even though they apparently use Sprint's network, or shelling out a bunch for a new phone when I'm mostly happy with mine. Too much information! Go back!!!!
Well, look at your financial situation. Then look at the price of switch involved, including the worst-case scenario of you having to switch back for whatever reason. Then look at how strongly you feel about the involved issues. That should easily tell you if you want to pay the price or not.
And there you have it. A real Linux, to be more specific, in a pocketable form factor (it's not that long when everybody's regular mobile phone was that size), with WLAN and 3G. Anybody (be they pro- or anti-Linux) reading/. should understand the implications.
It's a multitool, and something I've waited to have happen since the N770 (which I have as well). It has EDGE, 3G(T-mobile-friendly bands), 802.11b/g, IR, plenty of storage and it's open.
The only missing part is that Nokia really hates Perl, loves Python, or both.
Well, Perl really is kind of a relic. The effort involved (how many operators does perl have, again? how many different implicit variables, conversions and other stuff you just have to know to be able to understand any code?) just isn't worth it. And if you learn Perl well anyway, your "reward" is being able to write code even you yourself can't decipher after a while without serious research. And if you're not going to learn it well, why waste time on it at all, instead of spending it to learn well something more sensible. And if you're only going to write readable and maintainable code, why not do it using some language that is designed for that from ground up?
"Technically speaking, hologram is projected to the retina of the eyes."
Only if you believe everything you see is projected to the retina of the eyes.
Well, the image on retina is a projection, isn't it, and with holograms there's also the lamp (not just any ambient light) and the hologram itself containing the image of an object (as opposed to just being the object), a complete projector system when combined with the lens of the eye.
Holograms recreate the wavefront originally reflected off of the actual objects that appear in the hologram. This is the virtual image.
There is also a real image that allows you to create a 2D photograph without using lenses.
As for the Star Wars 3D projection technology is concerned, there's really no reason to call it a hologram. 3D virtual sculptures would be a more appropriate name.
Well, unless it is a hologram, ie. the original wavefront is recreated, when light reflects from the projection. A holographic projector would project a hologram as the name implies. I mean, nothing prevents us from projecting a 360 degree hologram onto the air, right? Well, nothing except our feeble technology and possibly the boring laws of nature in our Universe.
Well, depends on the definition... Technically speaking, hologram is projected to the retina of the eyes. You need the light source, which is reflected or filtered by the image creating material, goes through a lens system so that it is in focus when it hits the surface it's being projected to. If lens is in human eye and surface is retina, it still sounds like projection to me.
Also, I'm not sure if Star Wars 3D projection technology has been explained in imaginary technical detail, but if not, then it could very well be a "true" hologram created out of the air with force field (instead of some kind of real 3D shape being projected into the air, or some kind of force field mirror trick similar to TFA thing, or whatever).
So you can get the effect to work for 1 person it does not work with 2 or more.
Actually I think it would work just fine for as many persons as you want, as long as they are in different directions, ie. one is not looking over other ones head. Just do some eye tracking with a bunch of webcams to get the eye levels of all wathcers.
Oh, wow. I read this as Google is porting android. Intel porting android is a much more interesting bit of news. Either Intel is so big that they have multiple departments with the same goal, and completely contradictory strategies, or they've decided that Meego is crap already, and are abandoning it for Android.
Hmm, I think it's more like, Intel is "afraid" of ARM processors, and wants to be an alternative for a device, no matter the OS. I bet they'd be porting iPhone OS to Intel if it was open... Also it doesn't sound too good for Intel imago-wise, if they aren't an option for both Android and Meego, but ARM is.
Also, Intel involvement with Android is quite different from their involvement with Meego, as far as I can see. So I don't think this tells anything about Intel-Meego, one way or another.
I personally prefer the direction Intel was going with Moblin/Meego to Android. I wonder if this means Intel is going to leave Meego development up to Nokia?
Unlikely.
However, I wonder when there'll be first Android VM for Meego... Obviously with Android App Store support, or wouldn't be all that useful. Shouldn't be too hard, now should it?
worth noting that a game running well under wine is one compilation away from being native, thanks to winelibs
Also worth noting that a pre-compiled native binary for "Linux" isn't necessarily a good way to distribute an application for Linux. Even if you make sure it runs (or make separate versions for) all major distros today, you have no idea if it'll work even with next releases of same major distros.
Ironically, if it's a Windows application built to work well under WINE, it's likely to work on any Linux in the foreseeable future... And if it stop working, and you still want to to support that application, a bug report to wine upstream will probably fix the breakage easily, and for *all* the Linux distros.
IOW, if you're doing closed source for Linux, don't do Linux, do WINE.
Indeed, but it isn't exactly the same, but rather a subset that could be called "justified vengeance". Vengeance is rather important survival trait for human groups, even things like nuclear MAD come down to vengeance: bomb us and you too will be destroyed, even if it makes us even more fucked, too. Without that we wouldn't have the relative peace in relatively large parts of the world at the moment.
And sometimes vengeance is the only kind of "compensation" the victims (including groups like family of a murdered person) can get. Of course not everybody want vengeance, even in a case like the one in TFA.
Linux is an OS, or rather a class of operating systems, when used in sentences like "There is a Linux version of Firefox". It doesn't mean there is a version of Firefox for Linux kernel, so "Linux" there doesn't refer to Linux kernel. It doesn't even refer to all operating systems based on Linux kernel, since "Firefox for Linux" can't run on all popular Linux-based operating systems (eg. Android, which would have Firefox for Android, not Firefox for Linux, no matter the kernel).
If you disagree with the usage, offer an alternative that means the exact thing that is meant in all the places which now say "application software X for Linux". If you don't disagree with an usage, then please tell what "Linux" in the sentence is, if it isn't a class of operating systems?
The truly appalling part to me was that the shooters volunteered. They were not appointed to shoot, they wanted to. It's one thing to have laws saying that killing your own people is ok given the "right" crime and discuss how humane or civilized the killing method is. It's quite another thing to have cops volunteer to kill another human being.
It's also quite natural, consider that cops are people, don't you think? I mean, killing other humans is what humans do naturally, as history demonstrates. If any of those cops wanted to kill for the sake of killing, then that's appalling, but fortunately wanting to kill for the sake of killing is very rare in humans. Wanting to kill to have subjective justice happen, on the other hand, is very natural, and likely all the cops volunteering felt this is justice.
Now if something is natural, can it be called "appalling"? "Sad", "barbaric", "unfortunate", "sobering", sure. But appalling, I think not.
Quite sure. It's an amorphous (non-crystaline) solid. That's the first reference I've ever seen that tried to define all amorphous solids as glasses. Who would consider waxes to be glass?
Well, since waxes are liquid, they must be glass by definition, right?;-)
The problem with using lenses is, at useful sizes, they sag! no matter how rigid they are, they sag. You can't support a lens in the middle (not without blocking the light you're trying to capture, at least) so they use mirrors instead, which/can/ be supported in the middle.
Yeah, but at this day and age, can't you just design the lens so that it's the correct shape when it's sagging? And narrow band filtering probably makes different bending of different frequencies of light a non-issue.
I think it's more a matter of cost: a big lens has to be thick -> heavy -> lots of material and heavy support structure -> expensive. Also thick lens probably absorbs more photons than a reflective surface. And doesn't a Fresnel lens unavoidably lose quite a bit of sharpness compared to a "proper" lens?
You can't assume that all other vehicles will be cars. I ride a bike in traffic, and the narrow lanes where I live make it necessary to for me to take the whole width of the lane. Is this outside your "limits of predictability"?
But isn't that a perfect example of a situation where the system could help even with partial coverage? When cars have to slow down on that street, the system could start hinting to other drivers to take an alternative route. In the long run, the system would know the likelihood of any street having some slowdown at a given time of day, and could route traffic accordingly.
Except in Star Trek. They have both noise and friction in vacuum.
The noise is just part of augmented reality stuff, allowing them to use sense of hearing to observe things like movement through space. And even children should immediately realize that the friction obviously comes from residual warp fields inside the warp nacelles, which can't be avoided without totally powering down the ship (which in general would be a bad idea).
except for stuff that is already a matter of public record or that you see no reason keep private?
There's difference between public information, and information available for data mining and cross-referencing with all previous and future information about you, put into the Internet by you or by your "friends", "privately" or publicly.
Storage capacities are still growing steadily, as well as processing power to analyse stored data, as well as algorithms used for analysing it. As long as it's just targeted ads, no problem. But it's not far-fetched to have a global data mining service by international organised crime. Want to find a suitable safe target for burglary, robbery, blackmailing, kidnapping, rape...? Just Crookle(tm) for it! Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if there's already one...
Other side of the coin is, if you keep low profile in the net, you won't be found by automatic data mining programs, and will be even more safe from crime than you're today, because on average those idiots sharing their life will get targeted more.
Slashdot Mirror
>Well, if we have both particles we've ourselves made entangled, and then measure both (in whatever order, , we see that they indeed were entangled.
So I can prove that the _were_ entangled by a measurement which destroys said entaglement?
Yeah. Which proves that the method to make them entangled works (or tells how reliably it works, statistically). And then that method can be used to create entangled particles for whatever other purposes than just testing if entanglement works.
It's worth noting that measuring just one pair, and finding them in states where they could have been entangled proves nothing, as there was 50% chance that they were in those states just by coincidence. But when 50% probabilities keep adding up, you can be more and more sure it's not coincidence, until it's practically certain.
How do researchers know when two particles are entangled?
If you measure two particles that are not entangled, you get the normal random distribution, half the time they're the same, half the time the opposite (assumign 2 possible states). But if you successfully cause the particles to get entangled, and then measure both, they'll be in opposite states. You don't know which will be which before you measure it, but you know they'll be opposite.
In quantum entanglement, it's not "opening sealed envelopes" type of predetermined thing either, and that is the "spooky" part. The state is determined at the time of first measurement. Though I'm not sure how exactly it's been measured or if the measurement method is 100% certain (it involves statistics...), but that's how it's supposed to be, not predetermined at the time of entanglement.
Regardless of whether we can measure the particles, what might happen? Could a change of state of one particle cause a change of state of the other back in time?
The state of other is not "changed", it's determined. This is not a change one can see, and measuring the state will give "normal" result. But if the particles were entangled, then if you know state of one (by measuring), you know the state of other, no matter where or when it was or will be measured.
Note that it doesn't really have to be a human measurement, which makes things tricky for practical applications. Simplified, anything where the state matters happening (say, a wrong kind of collision with another particle) will determine the state, because the state is "needed" by the rest of the universe.
If that is the case why do we even know about entanglement in the first place?
Well, if we have both particles we've ourselves made entangled, and then measure both (in whatever order, , we see that they indeed were entangled.
And why do we care about that fact?
Well, it used to be pretty much basic physics research, but we're approaching the point where we have practical quantum cryptography and then practical quantum computing, and who know what future applications we come up with. Being able to stop entangled light sounds like a pretty nifty building block for future technologies. I don't think anybody looked at the first huge proof-of-concept transistor in a lab and said "hey, I know, people will use technology based on this to write on global discussion forums, while sitting on a beach at the back-end-of-nowhere".
One thing I always wondered:
Let's say I have a total of 1024 entangled pairs; well contained and stable. Now, I take the one half of those pairs and transport them somewhere else. Then, I proceed to measure the state of them _or not_. When checking the other half, shouldn't I get a total of 1024 "altered" and "unaltered" read-outs, resulting in the transmission of 128 bytes?
You can't measure if a particle is entangled, or if something was done to the entangled pair even if you know it's entangled.
So no transferring information that way, sorry.
Suppose you have two entangled particles, and you put one in a space ship which travels at relativistic speeds for a while. The ship comes back, and 100 years have passed for the other particle. Would the particles still be entangled? If so, what would happen to the other when one's state changes?
You can't set, change or know the state of entangled particles, so question is kind of moot. What happens is, the particles are no longer entangled. Nothing observable happens to the other particle, ie. it can't be known that the entanglement was broken.
Dang it, I'm much happier with T-Mobile (except for the lack of 3G at home) than I ever was with AT&T, but now I really want an N900 (even more than I did yesterday). I've also been considering switching to Credo Mobile, since the liberal-progressive/ethical niche they've been claiming suits my own beliefs. Just not sure about using a smaller company, even though they apparently use Sprint's network, or shelling out a bunch for a new phone when I'm mostly happy with mine. Too much information! Go back!!!!
Well, look at your financial situation. Then look at the price of switch involved, including the worst-case scenario of you having to switch back for whatever reason. Then look at how strongly you feel about the involved issues. That should easily tell you if you want to pay the price or not.
N900 is just linux plus phone.
And there you have it. A real Linux, to be more specific, in a pocketable form factor (it's not that long when everybody's regular mobile phone was that size), with WLAN and 3G. Anybody (be they pro- or anti-Linux) reading /. should understand the implications.
It's a multitool, and something I've waited to have happen since the N770 (which I have as well).
It has EDGE, 3G(T-mobile-friendly bands), 802.11b/g, IR, plenty of storage and it's open.
The only missing part is that Nokia really hates Perl, loves Python, or both.
Well, Perl really is kind of a relic. The effort involved (how many operators does perl have, again? how many different implicit variables, conversions and other stuff you just have to know to be able to understand any code?) just isn't worth it. And if you learn Perl well anyway, your "reward" is being able to write code even you yourself can't decipher after a while without serious research. And if you're not going to learn it well, why waste time on it at all, instead of spending it to learn well something more sensible. And if you're only going to write readable and maintainable code, why not do it using some language that is designed for that from ground up?
"Well, depends on the definition"
I'm using the actual definition.
"Technically speaking, hologram is projected to the retina of the eyes."
Only if you believe everything you see is projected to the retina of the eyes.
Well, the image on retina is a projection, isn't it, and with holograms there's also the lamp (not just any ambient light) and the hologram itself containing the image of an object (as opposed to just being the object), a complete projector system when combined with the lens of the eye.
Holograms recreate the wavefront originally reflected off of the actual objects that appear in the hologram. This is the virtual image.
There is also a real image that allows you to create a 2D photograph without using lenses.
As for the Star Wars 3D projection technology is concerned, there's really no reason to call it a hologram. 3D virtual sculptures would be a more appropriate name.
Well, unless it is a hologram, ie. the original wavefront is recreated, when light reflects from the projection. A holographic projector would project a hologram as the name implies. I mean, nothing prevents us from projecting a 360 degree hologram onto the air, right? Well, nothing except our feeble technology and possibly the boring laws of nature in our Universe.
Holograms are not projected.
Well, depends on the definition... Technically speaking, hologram is projected to the retina of the eyes. You need the light source, which is reflected or filtered by the image creating material, goes through a lens system so that it is in focus when it hits the surface it's being projected to. If lens is in human eye and surface is retina, it still sounds like projection to me.
Also, I'm not sure if Star Wars 3D projection technology has been explained in imaginary technical detail, but if not, then it could very well be a "true" hologram created out of the air with force field (instead of some kind of real 3D shape being projected into the air, or some kind of force field mirror trick similar to TFA thing, or whatever).
So you can get the effect to work for 1 person it does not work with 2 or more.
Actually I think it would work just fine for as many persons as you want, as long as they are in different directions, ie. one is not looking over other ones head. Just do some eye tracking with a bunch of webcams to get the eye levels of all wathcers.
In Soviet Russia, the 3D TV watches you.
Oh, wow. I read this as Google is porting android. Intel porting android is a much more interesting bit of news. Either Intel is so big that they have multiple departments with the same goal, and completely contradictory strategies, or they've decided that Meego is crap already, and are abandoning it for Android.
Hmm, I think it's more like, Intel is "afraid" of ARM processors, and wants to be an alternative for a device, no matter the OS. I bet they'd be porting iPhone OS to Intel if it was open... Also it doesn't sound too good for Intel imago-wise, if they aren't an option for both Android and Meego, but ARM is.
Also, Intel involvement with Android is quite different from their involvement with Meego, as far as I can see. So I don't think this tells anything about Intel-Meego, one way or another.
I personally prefer the direction Intel was going with Moblin/Meego to Android. I wonder if this means Intel is going to leave Meego development up to Nokia?
Unlikely.
However, I wonder when there'll be first Android VM for Meego... Obviously with Android App Store support, or wouldn't be all that useful. Shouldn't be too hard, now should it?
worth noting that a game running well under wine is one compilation away from being native, thanks to winelibs
Also worth noting that a pre-compiled native binary for "Linux" isn't necessarily a good way to distribute an application for Linux. Even if you make sure it runs (or make separate versions for) all major distros today, you have no idea if it'll work even with next releases of same major distros.
Ironically, if it's a Windows application built to work well under WINE, it's likely to work on any Linux in the foreseeable future... And if it stop working, and you still want to to support that application, a bug report to wine upstream will probably fix the breakage easily, and for *all* the Linux distros.
IOW, if you're doing closed source for Linux, don't do Linux, do WINE.
Sounds like vengeance to me...
Indeed, but it isn't exactly the same, but rather a subset that could be called "justified vengeance". Vengeance is rather important survival trait for human groups, even things like nuclear MAD come down to vengeance: bomb us and you too will be destroyed, even if it makes us even more fucked, too. Without that we wouldn't have the relative peace in relatively large parts of the world at the moment.
And sometimes vengeance is the only kind of "compensation" the victims (including groups like family of a murdered person) can get. Of course not everybody want vengeance, even in a case like the one in TFA.
Anyhow, Linux isn't even an OS - it's a kernel.
Linux is an OS, or rather a class of operating systems, when used in sentences like "There is a Linux version of Firefox". It doesn't mean there is a version of Firefox for Linux kernel, so "Linux" there doesn't refer to Linux kernel. It doesn't even refer to all operating systems based on Linux kernel, since "Firefox for Linux" can't run on all popular Linux-based operating systems (eg. Android, which would have Firefox for Android, not Firefox for Linux, no matter the kernel).
If you disagree with the usage, offer an alternative that means the exact thing that is meant in all the places which now say "application software X for Linux". If you don't disagree with an usage, then please tell what "Linux" in the sentence is, if it isn't a class of operating systems?
The truly appalling part to me was that the shooters volunteered. They were not appointed to shoot, they wanted to. It's one thing to have laws saying that killing your own people is ok given the "right" crime and discuss how humane or civilized the killing method is. It's quite another thing to have cops volunteer to kill another human being.
It's also quite natural, consider that cops are people, don't you think? I mean, killing other humans is what humans do naturally, as history demonstrates. If any of those cops wanted to kill for the sake of killing, then that's appalling, but fortunately wanting to kill for the sake of killing is very rare in humans. Wanting to kill to have subjective justice happen, on the other hand, is very natural, and likely all the cops volunteering felt this is justice.
Now if something is natural, can it be called "appalling"? "Sad", "barbaric", "unfortunate", "sobering", sure. But appalling, I think not.
I'm sure it compiles trivially for Maemo/Meego, but what about webOS, Android or iPhone OS?
As a matter of fact, very few NFL players get into the NFL without going to college.
Isn't it the other way around: very few NFL players got into college without being NFL-material athletes to begin with?
Quite sure. It's an amorphous (non-crystaline) solid. That's the first reference I've ever seen that tried to define all amorphous solids as glasses. Who would consider waxes to be glass?
Well, since waxes are liquid, they must be glass by definition, right? ;-)
The problem with using lenses is, at useful sizes, they sag! no matter how rigid they are, they sag. You can't support a lens in the middle (not without blocking the light you're trying to capture, at least) so they use mirrors instead, which /can/ be supported in the middle.
Yeah, but at this day and age, can't you just design the lens so that it's the correct shape when it's sagging?
And narrow band filtering probably makes different bending of different frequencies of light a non-issue.
I think it's more a matter of cost: a big lens has to be thick -> heavy -> lots of material and heavy support structure -> expensive. Also thick lens probably absorbs more photons than a reflective surface. And doesn't a Fresnel lens unavoidably lose quite a bit of sharpness compared to a "proper" lens?
You can't assume that all other vehicles will be cars. I ride a bike in traffic, and the narrow lanes where I live make it necessary to for me to take the whole width of the lane. Is this outside your "limits of predictability"?
But isn't that a perfect example of a situation where the system could help even with partial coverage? When cars have to slow down on that street, the system could start hinting to other drivers to take an alternative route. In the long run, the system would know the likelihood of any street having some slowdown at a given time of day, and could route traffic accordingly.
Except in Star Trek. They have both noise and friction in vacuum.
The noise is just part of augmented reality stuff, allowing them to use sense of hearing to observe things like movement through space. And even children should immediately realize that the friction obviously comes from residual warp fields inside the warp nacelles, which can't be avoided without totally powering down the ship (which in general would be a bad idea).
except for stuff that is already a matter of public record or that you see no reason keep private?
There's difference between public information, and information available for data mining and cross-referencing with all previous and future information about you, put into the Internet by you or by your "friends", "privately" or publicly.
Storage capacities are still growing steadily, as well as processing power to analyse stored data, as well as algorithms used for analysing it. As long as it's just targeted ads, no problem. But it's not far-fetched to have a global data mining service by international organised crime. Want to find a suitable safe target for burglary, robbery, blackmailing, kidnapping, rape...? Just Crookle(tm) for it! Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if there's already one...
Other side of the coin is, if you keep low profile in the net, you won't be found by automatic data mining programs, and will be even more safe from crime than you're today, because on average those idiots sharing their life will get targeted more.
Yeah, but it's all... fixed width, and this isn't a code writing environment.
What does "code writing environment" have to do with "fixed width"?