How many times must we repeat this lesson? EVERYTHING that is free gets overused, or pissed on. Even air. EVEN AIR. There are no exceptions. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Privacy is doomed. The march of technology can be slowed, but not stopped. Eventually this will give us a world without theft. The trick is keep it from also giving us a world without fun. That means getting rid of most of our laws, not just nibbling around the edges trying to make it hard to enforce them.
No, I don't know how to achieve that goal, short of re-wiring some brains.
So solar output was correlated with sunspots. Now it is also correlated with a subsurface current. A step forward, but it is a bit premature to use the word "explain."
On a different not, how depressing that I have been pushed into resenting several forms of science. When I saw the headline, my first thought was, "Crap. More data to cherry pick to justify central control over individuals." And I say this as someone who has actually published in peer reviewed journals. Gloom.
The main criticism of string theory is that it is too flexible. It can be contorted to generate any prediction, so it predicts nothing. This problem is not unique to physics; I saw it in economics too. Add more parameters to your model and you can fit historical data better, but your predictions of the future get worse. TFA seems to be just a string of examples of contorting string theory to fit past experimental results.
I compute only one chance in 100,000 that failing to activate the LHC will result in ignorance that eventually causes us to fail to prevent destruction of the earth.
I thought the essence of the 2-slit experiment was that you can detect quantum indeterminacy without measuring the quantum state, and hence without collapsing the waveform, by observing whether the various possible quantum states are interfering with each other. In the case of 2 slits, if you get fringes you have indeterminacy (particles are going through both slits) and if you get spots then the wavefunctions are collapsed (the particles have been forced to choose a slit). I assume there is an analogous test to see whether particles have been forced to choose their polarization. This seems to be all you need for instant transfer of the message "I have measured the polarization".
This confuses me further. Are you saying there is no way to determine whether particles are interfering with themselves, or others, due to quantum indeterminacy?
As I understand, the essence of teleportation is that collapsing the wavefunction of the first particle (by measuring it) instantly collapses the wavefunction of the second particle. What I don't understand is why this does not represent transmission of the information that the first particle has been measured. Is it not possible to test whether the second particle's wavefunction has been collapsed by, say, sending it through slits?
I have played with 3D glasses and found the experience disappointing. Parallax is only important within a few feet, and most of my depth cues seem to come from other sources. In game settings a 3-D "feel" was obtained only by exaggerating the parallax cues, which quickly became unpleasant. IMO, the sense of immersion depends much more on peripheral vision. Hopefully we will have that before long, through some technique more elegant than having 16 monitors.
Why deny suing? I can't imagine RIAA collects enough money from downloaders to pay their legal costs. It seems more likely they are trying to deter thieves. However, for reasons that are all too obvious, it doesn't work if you keep it a secret.
And at the risk of being flamed and down-modded, let's not forget that achieving artistic excellence is grindingly difficult and will rarely be done for charitable purposes.
My apologies for long words. I didn't have time to write short ones.
2nd derivative of plot
on
Anathem
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Anathem is the classic slow starter. I almost gave up at first, but by the halfway mark it was on my all-time short list.
Its great strength is the theme of intellectual elitism. Not the modern "liberal condescension" interpretation of that term, but rather the deeper idea that those willing to do what it takes to perceive reality are both rare and precious.
If the book has a flaw, it is in promulgating the idea that intellectual elites are to be found in academic cloisters.
Since we know a priori that men and women have equal innate interests and skills, it must logically be the case that a difference in employment statistics reflects white male oppression.
Happily, this justifies forcible extraction of wealth from the oppressors.
I second this. McMaster-Carr gives magically good service. I routinely order items at 4PM for UPS ground shipment (Houston) and receive them the next day.
The number of primes less than x is roughly equal to x/log(x). I think the implication is that, for numbers with 10 million digits, about one in every five million is prime. Since it took 6 days to verify that this new number is prime, you can see why they are concentrating on the mersennes instead of just checking numbers at random.
I think big prime numbers are a clue. I just don't know what they are a clue to.
It's interesting to find a brain mechanism for persistence versus adaptation, but not interesting to add an exaggerated normative claim. If at first you don't succeed, (1) Quit; (2) Try again; or (3) Split the difference and alter the plan. Different people favor different strategies. Pretty obvious and pretty benign, unless your objective is to get research funding "for the children".
IMO, a much better oath would be "I pledge to face the truth and report it bluntly." The big problem in science is not the isolated cases of harming "the community" (whatever that means) or failing to do enough for your subjects. The big problem is the temptation to get funding and publications by ignoring data that don't fit what you think the editor or government grant committee wants to see. And yes, IAAS. I know of what I speak.
I think this argument is pointless, but for record the issue was not stupidity or design differences, it was theft, and to imply that Rand's heroes initiated the use of force to impose their will on others is grotesque to the point of being Orwellian.
Slashdot Mirror
You pay a lot for the first byte. Every subsequent byte is the free commons.
Don't make me say this again.
No, I don't know how to achieve that goal, short of re-wiring some brains.
On a different not, how depressing that I have been pushed into resenting several forms of science. When I saw the headline, my first thought was, "Crap. More data to cherry pick to justify central control over individuals." And I say this as someone who has actually published in peer reviewed journals. Gloom.
Parent post is insightful. If a model is flexible enough, it can fit any data.
The main criticism of string theory is that it is too flexible. It can be contorted to generate any prediction, so it predicts nothing. This problem is not unique to physics; I saw it in economics too. Add more parameters to your model and you can fit historical data better, but your predictions of the future get worse. TFA seems to be just a string of examples of contorting string theory to fit past experimental results.
What he said. In a world of villains and idiots, mischaracterizing constitutional liberties is not harmless.
I'm pleased that at least one person got it.
Of course, my model could be wrong.
I thought the essence of the 2-slit experiment was that you can detect quantum indeterminacy without measuring the quantum state, and hence without collapsing the waveform, by observing whether the various possible quantum states are interfering with each other. In the case of 2 slits, if you get fringes you have indeterminacy (particles are going through both slits) and if you get spots then the wavefunctions are collapsed (the particles have been forced to choose a slit). I assume there is an analogous test to see whether particles have been forced to choose their polarization. This seems to be all you need for instant transfer of the message "I have measured the polarization".
This confuses me further. Are you saying there is no way to determine whether particles are interfering with themselves, or others, due to quantum indeterminacy?
As I understand, the essence of teleportation is that collapsing the wavefunction of the first particle (by measuring it) instantly collapses the wavefunction of the second particle. What I don't understand is why this does not represent transmission of the information that the first particle has been measured. Is it not possible to test whether the second particle's wavefunction has been collapsed by, say, sending it through slits?
I have played with 3D glasses and found the experience disappointing. Parallax is only important within a few feet, and most of my depth cues seem to come from other sources. In game settings a 3-D "feel" was obtained only by exaggerating the parallax cues, which quickly became unpleasant. IMO, the sense of immersion depends much more on peripheral vision. Hopefully we will have that before long, through some technique more elegant than having 16 monitors.
And at the risk of being flamed and down-modded, let's not forget that achieving artistic excellence is grindingly difficult and will rarely be done for charitable purposes.
Next class, the professor explained recursion. He demonstrated its power by solving the Towers of Hanoi recursively in four (4) lines of Pascal.
Zing. 25 years later I remember that moment crisply.
The difficult and crucial part of teaching is motivation.
*snicker*
My apologies for long words. I didn't have time to write short ones.
Anathem is the classic slow starter. I almost gave up at first, but by the halfway mark it was on my all-time short list. Its great strength is the theme of intellectual elitism. Not the modern "liberal condescension" interpretation of that term, but rather the deeper idea that those willing to do what it takes to perceive reality are both rare and precious. If the book has a flaw, it is in promulgating the idea that intellectual elites are to be found in academic cloisters.
Since we know a priori that men and women have equal innate interests and skills, it must logically be the case that a difference in employment statistics reflects white male oppression. Happily, this justifies forcible extraction of wealth from the oppressors.
I second this. McMaster-Carr gives magically good service. I routinely order items at 4PM for UPS ground shipment (Houston) and receive them the next day.
I think big prime numbers are a clue. I just don't know what they are a clue to.
It's interesting to find a brain mechanism for persistence versus adaptation, but not interesting to add an exaggerated normative claim. If at first you don't succeed, (1) Quit; (2) Try again; or (3) Split the difference and alter the plan. Different people favor different strategies. Pretty obvious and pretty benign, unless your objective is to get research funding "for the children".
I'll admit that you don't fit the tendency if you will admit that there is such a thing as a tendency.
IMO, a much better oath would be "I pledge to face the truth and report it bluntly." The big problem in science is not the isolated cases of harming "the community" (whatever that means) or failing to do enough for your subjects. The big problem is the temptation to get funding and publications by ignoring data that don't fit what you think the editor or government grant committee wants to see. And yes, IAAS. I know of what I speak.
I think this argument is pointless, but for record the issue was not stupidity or design differences, it was theft, and to imply that Rand's heroes initiated the use of force to impose their will on others is grotesque to the point of being Orwellian.