Whatever media replaces television will most likely use a display which is capable of showing moving pictures.
Which makes it television. Even if its interactive and the viewer can chose the decisions of the main character or whatever else you can think of.., its still basically television.
/flashback
Seriously, I believe that the video games in 95 years time will resemble current video games as much as current video games resemble television. Although you can take a guess at what innovations will be made, you can never guess how they will be used.
Re:Speaking of people understanding
on
100 Years of Einstein
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Thing I love about Special Relativity is that the maths is no more than the high school level yet the implications are astounding (space and time dilation and all that). All the college maths in the world wont help you understand special relativity. Try deriving it some time for fun, the clasical way is working out how long a light ray takes to bounce of the roof inside a moving train for a person in the train and a person outside the train. Its strangly satisfing and like all great theorys, mindboggling obvious once you actually see it. General Relativity on the other hand...
hmm, perhaps another explaination for America's Army, its not a recruting tool its a training tool. And to think I once pointed out to an enthusiasic friend that joining the army for real would probably require more that leet mousing skillz. Boy is my face red...
I always though British was the term for people from Great Britain which is England, Scotland and Wales only. Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain (as emphasised by the full name of whole country The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
Re:Mod parent up - there is no "grid computing"
on
GGF and Grid Security
·
· Score: 1
The grid community is more or less just high energy physicists (I am one but not involved directly in GRID). Due to our setup, (lots of different universities in different countries working on central experiment) it means that our systems are spread across the the world. We needed some way to transfer the data around to different machines so we helped develop/create the internet. Now the next logical step for us is to develop a means to take advantage of all those machines which belong to use accross the world and fully utilise their computing power. Enter the GRID. It is worth to note that only somebody who has our set up (lots of invidually university owned systems trying to accomplise the same task) would find the grid much use.
Commerically the grid is useless at the moment but this doesnt stop companies hyping it to make a quick buck. Also we cost hundreds of millions of dollars of tax payers money so our PR dept. really likes to point out the benfits of HEP. Currently this is the internet/web but you can only hype one thing so long. Hence when they heard the grid (in a very simplified picture) was kinda like the interent markII, they jumped on it like a rabid hyena, shouting its supposed benfits mankind from the rooftops in an atempt to justfiy what we cost the public.
We (the physicists) dont care about the revenue benfits, all we want to do is have our analysises faster. Thats why there is no securicity, as its build by academics for academic use (and we sorta trust each other). We did exactly the same thing with the internet, no security as was mainly supposed to provide a means to transfer large amounts of data amoung a trusted group.
I have indeed. But he's still out of his field. Steven Weinberg (http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1979/) believes (or has least championed) some crazy ideas including the notion that mass is generated by a new set of fermions transforming under a new gauge symmetry not unsimilar to SU(3) (the QCD gauge group). However we have experimentally ruled out these new particles, (the technifermions, the theory is technicolour for those interest) at every mass range currently acessible. Now it is possible that these fermions may have masses of above 500 GeV but is unlikely. Thus Wienburg was (or is most likely) wrong even though he is a nobel laureate. In the case of Dr Deutsch's shadow particles, by the shear fact that we have not experimentally observed them but from the experiment it is plain that they can be interacted with at low energies. Just because somebody has been successful in the past does not mean they are correct, espeically when they contradict known experimental evidence. I assume the article is not representive of Dr Deutsch's views but even if it is, as it stand it is utter tripe.
Again, as has been said before, this is the worst piece of pseudo science I have even seen. Shadow photons? We would have detected them by now in our particle acclerators (especially as you can "detect" them this way with a home laser. The Standard Model so far works just fine (much to many physicists' regrets) and has no shadow photons in it. No offense to Dr. Deutsch but also its a little outside his field as he's an atomic/laser physicist. I've never heard the particle or theory guys talking about "shadow photons" and I would know as I'm a particle physics DPhil student at Oxford.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever media replaces television will most likely use a display which is capable of showing moving pictures. Which makes it television. Even if its interactive and the viewer can chose the decisions of the main character or whatever else you can think of.., its still basically television.
/flashback
Seriously, I believe that the video games in 95 years time will resemble current video games as much as current video games resemble television. Although you can take a guess at what innovations will be made, you can never guess how they will be used.
and I hear they have massive bosons too :)
bet that would give somebody a hadron... /ducks
Thing I love about Special Relativity is that the maths is no more than the high school level yet the implications are astounding (space and time dilation and all that). All the college maths in the world wont help you understand special relativity. Try deriving it some time for fun, the clasical way is working out how long a light ray takes to bounce of the roof inside a moving train for a person in the train and a person outside the train. Its strangly satisfing and like all great theorys, mindboggling obvious once you actually see it. General Relativity on the other hand...
hmm, perhaps another explaination for America's Army, its not a recruting tool its a training tool. And to think I once pointed out to an enthusiasic friend that joining the army for real would probably require more that leet mousing skillz. Boy is my face red...
I always though British was the term for people from Great Britain which is England, Scotland and Wales only. Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain (as emphasised by the full name of whole country The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
The grid community is more or less just high energy physicists (I am one but not involved directly in GRID). Due to our setup, (lots of different universities in different countries working on central experiment) it means that our systems are spread across the the world. We needed some way to transfer the data around to different machines so we helped develop/create the internet. Now the next logical step for us is to develop a means to take advantage of all those machines which belong to use accross the world and fully utilise their computing power. Enter the GRID. It is worth to note that only somebody who has our set up (lots of invidually university owned systems trying to accomplise the same task) would find the grid much use.
Commerically the grid is useless at the moment but this doesnt stop companies hyping it to make a quick buck. Also we cost hundreds of millions of dollars of tax payers money so our PR dept. really likes to point out the benfits of HEP. Currently this is the internet/web but you can only hype one thing so long. Hence when they heard the grid (in a very simplified picture) was kinda like the interent markII, they jumped on it like a rabid hyena, shouting its supposed benfits mankind from the rooftops in an atempt to justfiy what we cost the public.
We (the physicists) dont care about the revenue benfits, all we want to do is have our analysises faster. Thats why there is no securicity, as its build by academics for academic use (and we sorta trust each other). We did exactly the same thing with the internet, no security as was mainly supposed to provide a means to transfer large amounts of data amoung a trusted group.
My thoughts
I have indeed. But he's still out of his field. Steven Weinberg (http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1979/) believes (or has least championed) some crazy ideas including the notion that mass is generated by a new set of fermions transforming under a new gauge symmetry not unsimilar to SU(3) (the QCD gauge group). However we have experimentally ruled out these new particles, (the technifermions, the theory is technicolour for those interest) at every mass range currently acessible. Now it is possible that these fermions may have masses of above 500 GeV but is unlikely. Thus Wienburg was (or is most likely) wrong even though he is a nobel laureate. In the case of Dr Deutsch's shadow particles, by the shear fact that we have not experimentally observed them but from the experiment it is plain that they can be interacted with at low energies. Just because somebody has been successful in the past does not mean they are correct, espeically when they contradict known experimental evidence. I assume the article is not representive of Dr Deutsch's views but even if it is, as it stand it is utter tripe.
Again, as has been said before, this is the worst piece of pseudo science I have even seen. Shadow photons? We would have detected them by now in our particle acclerators (especially as you can "detect" them this way with a home laser. The Standard Model so far works just fine (much to many physicists' regrets) and has no shadow photons in it. No offense to Dr. Deutsch but also its a little outside his field as he's an atomic/laser physicist. I've never heard the particle or theory guys talking about "shadow photons" and I would know as I'm a particle physics DPhil student at Oxford.