Try the famous P. Horowitz & W. Hill "The Art of Electronics". Great amount of theory with emphasis on UNDERSTANDING how circuits work and DESIGNING them, without counting every single possible value on your calculator. First book covers the basics and analog electronics, the second one covers logical circuits and digital electronics in general.
Oh, and even if You want to program microcontrollers, you'd still need at least some theory to really understand what you're doing.
I don't find separating "as wave" and "as particle" situations satisfying.
I think the experiment is just supposed to be a beefed up Bell-test experiments, i.e. an experiment to check (and exploit) validity of quantum entanglement and solve EPR Paradox (if anyone doesn't follow, wikipedia has it explained in a pretty understandable way). The "beefing up" here is placing two detectors in different distances (SR intervals) from the source - and check whether the change in corresponding wavefunctions really occur faster than c would allow.
And no, it can't be used to transmit information faster than light, because you can't make two entangled photons when they're separated - so even if you entangle them, "information" still can spread at their speed.
(I'm sorry if I dumbed the explanation to the level unsatisfactionary for Ph.D's in physics - I'm just a mere undergraduate in physics)
Actually the experiment is designed properly. The thing is, they are already going to misinterpret the results. Quantum entaglement means that at the moment of setting wavefunction of one of the particles, the wavefunction of second particle is immediately changed to "second" possible state.
The key word here is "immediately". Special relativity redefined "the same moment" as "the same interval", i.e. line of constant t^2 - (x/c)^2 instead of plain ol' time t. Entangled states are able to react in classically understood "same moment", without regard to c and limitation of transmitting the signal at most at light speed. Which, by means of special relativity, means travelling back in time (as any transmission of signal or matter with speed greater than light).
If I did any spelling or grammar error, excuse me, I'n not a native English speaker.
So the signal is "intercepted" in its original digital format, before ever passing throughan D/A converter, and is not actually taken through the sound card?
Exactly:) The name AnalogWhole may seem confusing, because I think they wanted to show analogy to "plugging" everything in and out.
Bullshit. Or, if you like it that way, you're right, but that's completely not applicable here. It's just that signal - still in digital form - is received by another app, that's all. Sort of like JACK works - manages exchange of many (digital) audio "streams" between applications.
So it's something completely different than "physical" loopback, like plugging your card's line-out to its line-in.
Some audio apps already work that way (mentioned JACK for Linux, for example), the only new thing here is automatisation of the whole process and using already available players in the system.
Did Microsoft take the time to clarify exactly which features their Office suite offers that Open and Star offices don't?
They don't have to, there is a bit of them that John Doe will never use, but bother some more advanced users. Like plotting experimental data with different error (uncertainity) value for each measurement. In OOo it's possible to do just the basics - i.e. same error (+/- value or percentage) for each measurement.
This of course could bring questions like what sick people use Excel for plotting experimental data - well, believe me, there are faculties where such methods are taught.
Personally, to be system-independent I've searched and found GnuPlot, which is plain great for what I wrote above, but a lot of fellow students just stick with MS Office.
Dvorak is a troll, as he proved many times last year. He certainly does NOT deserve/. news about every single editorial of his. Actually he doesn't deserve any attention in world of IT nowadays.
As with IE - these are not bugs, these are features. You know, Internet Explorer enables browsing the Internet from user's computer and the other way too.
No, it's extremely hard. Probability of collision AND valid code is too damn low. Although this article proves that, with little social engineering, you can "emulate" (or cheat) a valid-code collision.
How can you write a secure program if you don't know what a buffer overflow is?
I know what a buffer overflow is. I can read C standard lib documentation. I know what "designed with security in mind" means.
Yet still, I work as "junior programmer" (21yr old student of physics) and don't consider my apps "secure".
And I don't know how to crack. I'm not a script-kiddie and don't want to become one. If you don't know what a buffer overflow is, you are not a programmer.
Slashdot Mirror
Try the famous P. Horowitz & W. Hill "The Art of Electronics". Great amount of theory with emphasis on UNDERSTANDING how circuits work and DESIGNING them, without counting every single possible value on your calculator. First book covers the basics and analog electronics, the second one covers logical circuits and digital electronics in general.
Oh, and even if You want to program microcontrollers, you'd still need at least some theory to really understand what you're doing.
About the same requirements as the US military then, eh?
That'd be about two zeros more, AND Large Earth Collider does guarantee the effect.
Bundled with level of corruption in OLPC-buying countries it seems pretty scary.
Yes. It is the TRUE BLACK METAL \m/, i.e. ist Krieg.
I don't find separating "as wave" and "as particle" situations satisfying.
I think the experiment is just supposed to be a beefed up Bell-test experiments, i.e. an experiment to check (and exploit) validity of quantum entanglement and solve EPR Paradox (if anyone doesn't follow, wikipedia has it explained in a pretty understandable way).
The "beefing up" here is placing two detectors in different distances (SR intervals) from the source - and check whether the change in corresponding wavefunctions really occur faster than c would allow.
And no, it can't be used to transmit information faster than light, because you can't make two entangled photons when they're separated - so even if you entangle them, "information" still can spread at their speed.
(I'm sorry if I dumbed the explanation to the level unsatisfactionary for Ph.D's in physics - I'm just a mere undergraduate in physics)
Actually the experiment is designed properly. The thing is, they are already going to misinterpret the results. Quantum entaglement means that at the moment of setting wavefunction of one of the particles, the wavefunction of second particle is immediately changed to "second" possible state.
The key word here is "immediately". Special relativity redefined "the same moment" as "the same interval", i.e. line of constant t^2 - (x/c)^2 instead of plain ol' time t. Entangled states are able to react in classically understood "same moment", without regard to c and limitation of transmitting the signal at most at light speed. Which, by means of special relativity, means travelling back in time (as any transmission of signal or matter with speed greater than light).
If I did any spelling or grammar error, excuse me, I'n not a native English speaker.
So the signal is "intercepted" in its original digital format, before ever passing throughan D/A converter, and is not actually taken through the sound card?
:) The name AnalogWhole may seem confusing, because I think they wanted to show analogy to "plugging" everything in and out.
Exactly
Bullshit. Or, if you like it that way, you're right, but that's completely not applicable here. It's just that signal - still in digital form - is received by another app, that's all. Sort of like JACK works - manages exchange of many (digital) audio "streams" between applications. So it's something completely different than "physical" loopback, like plugging your card's line-out to its line-in. Some audio apps already work that way (mentioned JACK for Linux, for example), the only new thing here is automatisation of the whole process and using already available players in the system.
iPod shuffle (which the article is about) does not have hard disk, it has solid-state memory.
Who the hell modded you Funny?
Did Microsoft take the time to clarify exactly which features their Office suite offers that Open and Star offices don't?
They don't have to, there is a bit of them that John Doe will never use, but bother some more advanced users. Like plotting experimental data with different error (uncertainity) value for each measurement. In OOo it's possible to do just the basics - i.e. same error (+/- value or percentage) for each measurement.
This of course could bring questions like what sick people use Excel for plotting experimental data - well, believe me, there are faculties where such methods are taught.
Personally, to be system-independent I've searched and found GnuPlot, which is plain great for what I wrote above, but a lot of fellow students just stick with MS Office.
And I thought this /. meme is dead since at least a year. Come on, let's revive the "imagine Beowulf cluster" and "does it run linux" too!
Dvorak is a troll, as he proved many times last year. He certainly does NOT deserve /. news about every single editorial of his. Actually he doesn't deserve any attention in world of IT nowadays.
Just treat this /. topic as "Web Developer's Daily Reminder", it helps.
Slashdot - because you can't afford forgetting.
It is damn sad that parent has been moderated "Funny".
This comment made my day. Such gems are worth reading /. comments for! :)
All your base are belong to Google!
Because it's easy to deploy, easy to manage and - because not feature-bloated - easy to learn and use. Is that enough?
There is something like that. It's called mirrordot.org , you just have to know about it and use it.
As with IE - these are not bugs, these are features. You know, Internet Explorer enables browsing the Internet from user's computer and the other way too.
No, it's extremely hard. Probability of collision AND valid code is too damn low. Although this article proves that, with little social engineering, you can "emulate" (or cheat) a valid-code collision.
But it lets you browse & mangle your filesystem. Sheesh, even reading summaries became less popular ;>
Hey, that'd mean AJAX compiles every code to WhiteSpace! Kewl!
How can you write a secure program if you don't know what a buffer overflow is?
I know what a buffer overflow is. I can read C standard lib documentation. I know what "designed with security in mind" means.
Yet still, I work as "junior programmer" (21yr old student of physics) and don't consider my apps "secure".
And I don't know how to crack. I'm not a script-kiddie and don't want to become one. If you don't know what a buffer overflow is, you are not a programmer.
And it runs Longhorn!
And comes with Duke Nukem Forever preinstalled!