Well, you have to remember that the parts will be unable to recognise the greatness of the emerged system, since it is larger than they are. In fact, whether they are correct or not, the parts will always see demergence.
So, maybe to some space aliens, watching our civilisation is like watching a swiss clock. Certainly, to the individual ants, the whole thing about building bridges and stacks is an utter waste of time.
Actually, I thought the acting talent was 'perfectly sufficient', at least in the main characters. Obviously they couldn't afford Hollywood-grade lighting and cameras, and this is what gives that 'my neighbours on vacation'-veneer. But, if you make a conscious effort to ignore that (and if you succed - it's pretty hard), you might come to agree with me on the acting.
And the answer to this legitimate question is: no, it's not stealing. Though it's illegal, the name of the crime is not 'theft', but 'copyright infringement'. 'Theft' protects you from losing your belongings, while the notion of copyright enables you to, essentially, charge for services rendered by overpricing the resulting product without competition.
This difference in nomenclature may seem trivial, but it indicates that, at some point, it has been understood that these two concepts have nothing to do with eachother.
Those who still grasp this difference may realise, that the copyright concept - the business model-turned-law, invented by Victor Hugo who didn't feel he was making enough money from his book about a man whose morally honorable actions render him a criminal under an insane legal system - is based on the _assumption_, that without it you could not be professionally creative. They might ask if this assumption still holds (and if it ever has).
The idea is that the police is run by the law, set by parliament. The actual methods of police work are regulated in (I think) polisförordningen. Everything that's a crime must be investigated. Prioritising a crime can only be done by adjusting the severity of the punishment. (If this seems like a kludge to you... well, then you're not blind to the obvious).
Of course, in reality the words of the minister of justice do have a direct influence, since he controls the money, and since he could turn those words into law without much hassle anyway.
In this case, the law-to-be hasn't been put before parliament, and the minister is already pointing out situations where he doesn't intend it to be upheld. So, he's giving himself a roomy law, within which he can actively (without being responsible, since the police aren't directly controlled by him) protect the downloading teens, or appease the copyright lobby, depending on the political needs of his party. Now, even in a situation where he had the authority to write the law directly, I think many would see that as two-faced.
Errm, bzzzt, we were talking about towns, weren't we? A town is a collection of households that aren't far from each other. If you live in one of those then, jointly paying the that part of the connection which will be jointly used, can be discussed.
If you live in a remote shack high on a hilltop because you feel the benefits of the sereneness and solitude outweighs the practical problems, well then, stand by your choice instead of demanding of me that I provide all the comforts that a town-dweller might expect - and at a much higher price - at least until you start providing me with all the comfort that you have and I lack (like sound-proofing my apartment so I could turn up my stereo without disturbing my neighbours).
Getting a backbone connection to a town costs the same no matter how many people, in the end, chose to use it. It therefore makes, some, sense to pay for it in taxes - so long as enough people want it. However, the cost of getting the households connected is simple the sum of costs of getting each connected. The fair way is therefore to let each household pay for itself. It doesn't matter if, as you say, most people are willing to pay for it (through taxes). If I'm not willing to pay for it, I shouldn't have to.
Looking at the results, in most small towns, the backbone connections AREN'T used by more than a few percent - they simply don't want it that badly. The conclusion would be, in some fictional country where reason is relevant, that it was a bad idea to rush the backbone connection in the first place.
Oh, please! Everyone knows that QM is just a lowest order approximation of a massively non-linear theory, whatever it may be. And it's the linearity of QM that's at the root of the uncertainty principle, the non-cloning principle and, as someone wrote, Heisenberg's principal.
Btw. The cryposystem you quoted is of a different kind than the machine in question here.
Quantum computers are not super fast. They are, at best, as fast as classical computers. The point is that they can run many computations in parallel, although they can only print out one value in the end - like the average of all results, or the fourier transform of it...
Sometimes, like with factoring primes, this can be exploited to create a faster "quantum" algorithm. For creating primes, nobody has thought of one.
No, it works because of the no-cloning principle. The process of observing a photon destroys it, so the uncertainty principle doesn't get a shot at being relevant.
Of, course, if you were able to clone the photon you could make two different measurements on them, and therefore, knowing too much, violate the uncertainty principle. You could argue, then, that the no-cloning principle "comes from" the uncertainty principle, but it would be a pointless argument. These principles aren't anything you think about when you do QM, since there already part of the maths anyway. The principles are what you use to determine when you can no longer get away with doing classical physics.
As for the cat: That's always a pretty bad thing to bring up when explaining QM, since it gives the impression that QM is nothing more than the obvious statement that we sometimes don't know everything. Bring up the Bell inequalities instead.
It's an especially bad thing to bring up the cat here, since everything depends on the fact that there are two diffent kinds of measurement you can make.
Oh, and the spins don't enter into it; it's the angle of polarisation that matters.
Spins don't enter into it. A photon with spin +/-1 is means it is circularly polarised. In this matter all photons are spin 0, what you measure is the angle of polarisation. In one system an angle of 0 means the bit is zero and an angle of 90 degrees means the bit is one. In the other system the angles are 45 and 135 degrees. If you know a photon has an angle of 0/90, you would pass it through a filter which blocks, say, the photons with an angle of 0 and then put a detector behind the filter. If it blips then you've read a one.
If you don't know what system the photon was encoded in, you will have to guess. When you guess incorrectly, the result of your measurement will be 0/1 randomly (indepentantly, of course, of what the photon was representing in the correct system), this is what the 45 degrees are about.
When she guesses correctly, Eve can manufacture a new photon which is sufficiantly identical to the original to fool Bob. However, half (on average) of her incorrect guesses will give her away.
Yes, as long as Eve is passive on the public channel; but why would she be? If Alice and Bob are relying on quantum cryptography, that must mean that quantum computers have evolved to the point where classical cryptography is obsolete. So for Alice to be sure that she really is speaking to Bob, she would have to meet him face to face; she could just give him the one time pad then instead.
First: the definition of the speed of light applies
only to free EM-waves in vacuum.
Second: The i,j and k are actually more restricted
than you state. At most one, any one, may be zero.
This means that i,j or k can never be directly
related to omega. (I mean: the square root always
contains more than one term.)
Also. Even in the simplest case, where just one
mode is excited, one must remember that for each
mode there are two possible polarisations. Unless
the oven is set up so that only one of these is
excited - and why would it be - you have a
a situtation where you will not, in general, be
able to tell what hot spots correspond to what
polarisation.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you have to remember that the parts will be unable to recognise the greatness of the emerged system, since it is larger than they are. In fact, whether they are correct or not, the parts will always see demergence.
So, maybe to some space aliens, watching our civilisation is like watching a swiss clock. Certainly, to the individual ants, the whole thing about building bridges and stacks is an utter waste of time.
Actually, I thought the acting talent was
'perfectly sufficient', at least in the main characters. Obviously they couldn't afford Hollywood-grade lighting and cameras, and this is what gives that 'my neighbours on vacation'-veneer.
But, if you make a conscious effort to ignore that (and if you succed - it's pretty hard), you might come to agree with me on the acting.
And the answer to this legitimate question is: no, it's not stealing. Though it's illegal, the name of the crime is not 'theft', but 'copyright infringement'. 'Theft' protects you from losing your belongings, while the notion of copyright enables you to, essentially, charge for services rendered by overpricing the resulting product without competition.
This difference in nomenclature may seem trivial, but it indicates that, at some point, it has been understood that these two concepts have nothing to do with eachother.
Those who still grasp this difference may realise, that the copyright concept - the business model-turned-law, invented by Victor Hugo who didn't feel he was making enough money from his book about a man whose morally honorable actions render him a criminal under an insane legal system - is based on the _assumption_, that without it you could not be professionally creative. They might ask if this assumption still holds (and if it ever has).
The idea is that the police is run by the law, set by parliament. The actual methods of police work are regulated in (I think) polisförordningen. Everything that's a crime must be investigated. Prioritising a crime can only be done by adjusting the severity of the punishment. (If this seems like a kludge to you... well, then you're not blind to the obvious).
Of course, in reality the words of the minister of justice do have a direct influence, since he controls the money, and since he could turn those words into law without much hassle anyway.
In this case, the law-to-be hasn't been put before parliament, and the minister is already pointing out situations where he doesn't intend it to be upheld. So, he's giving himself a roomy law, within which he can actively (without being responsible, since the police aren't directly controlled by him) protect the downloading teens, or appease the copyright lobby, depending on the political needs of his party. Now, even in a situation where he had the authority to write the law directly, I think many would see that as two-faced.
The size of this file: 42 bytes!
And better yet: Sean Connery still insists that
it's a god movie. John Boorman did as well - before
he died.
If you live in a remote shack high on a hilltop because you feel the benefits of the sereneness and solitude outweighs the practical problems, well then, stand by your choice instead of demanding of me that I provide all the comforts that a town-dweller might expect - and at a much higher price - at least until you start providing me with all the comfort that you have and I lack (like sound-proofing my apartment so I could turn up my stereo without disturbing my neighbours).
Looking at the results, in most small towns, the backbone connections AREN'T used by more than a few percent - they simply don't want it that badly. The conclusion would be, in some fictional country where reason is relevant, that it was a bad idea to rush the backbone connection in the first place.
Btw. The cryposystem you quoted is of a different kind than the machine in question here.
Sometimes, like with factoring primes, this can be exploited to create a faster "quantum" algorithm. For creating primes, nobody has thought of one.
Of, course, if you were able to clone the photon you could make two different measurements on them, and therefore, knowing too much, violate the uncertainty principle. You could argue, then, that the no-cloning principle "comes from" the uncertainty principle, but it would be a pointless argument. These principles aren't anything you think about when you do QM, since there already part of the maths anyway. The principles are what you use to determine when you can no longer get away with doing classical physics.
As for the cat: That's always a pretty bad thing to bring up when explaining QM, since it gives the impression that QM is nothing more than the obvious statement that we sometimes don't know everything. Bring up the Bell inequalities instead.
It's an especially bad thing to bring up the cat here, since everything depends on the fact that there are two diffent kinds of measurement you can make.
Oh, and the spins don't enter into it; it's the angle of polarisation that matters.
Spins don't enter into it. A photon with spin +/-1 is means it is circularly polarised. In this matter all photons are spin 0, what you measure is the angle of polarisation. In one system an angle of 0 means the bit is zero and an angle of 90 degrees means the bit is one. In the other system the angles are 45 and 135 degrees. If you know a photon has an angle of 0/90, you would pass it through a filter which blocks, say, the photons with an angle of 0 and then put a detector behind the filter. If it blips then you've read a one.
If you don't know what system the photon was encoded in, you will have to guess. When you guess incorrectly, the result of your measurement will be 0/1 randomly (indepentantly, of course, of what the photon was representing in the correct system), this is what the 45 degrees are about. When she guesses correctly, Eve can manufacture a new photon which is sufficiantly identical to the original to fool Bob. However, half (on average) of her incorrect guesses will give her away.
Yes, as long as Eve is passive on the public channel; but why would she be? If Alice and Bob are relying on quantum cryptography, that must mean that quantum computers have evolved to the point where classical cryptography is obsolete. So for Alice to be sure that she really is speaking to Bob, she would have to meet him face to face; she could just give him the one time pad then instead.
First: the definition of the speed of light applies only to free EM-waves in vacuum. Second: The i,j and k are actually more restricted than you state. At most one, any one, may be zero. This means that i,j or k can never be directly related to omega. (I mean: the square root always contains more than one term.) Also. Even in the simplest case, where just one mode is excited, one must remember that for each mode there are two possible polarisations. Unless the oven is set up so that only one of these is excited - and why would it be - you have a a situtation where you will not, in general, be able to tell what hot spots correspond to what polarisation.