This will still create paradoxes and violate causality. To see how, consider this:
* Light always travels at c, no matter your own speed. This is a very basic tenet of relativity, and has been tested again and again. * Place two light detectors at some (large) distance from each other. When either one receives a pulse of light, it will send you a message through a wormhole that this has happened. * Place a light source between the two detectors. * Stand some distance away. When the light source sends out a light pulse, the light will travel to both detectors, and each will transmit a message that they received a light pulse at the same time, if they are equally far from the source. * While you are standing there, your friend is running past you at close to c. To him, light will reach one detector before the other, because the light pulse is travelling at c in his reference frame too, but in his reference frame, one detector will move towards the light source and one away from it. When he receives a signal that the first detector triggered (which will happen before the second one does), he jumps through the wormhole to the second detector and destroys it before the light pulse arrives.
Do you receive one or two messages from the detectors?
No experiments have been performed where actual information has been transmitted faster than the speed of light. Various tunneling experiments are often misunderstood to do this, but they do not.
The article you are quoting is from a science fiction magazine. Hardly a source for reliable scientific information.
According to special and general relativity, the universe is completely deterministic, with a future that is as much set in stone as the past. This may or may not be true - we simply don't know at this point.
Causality violations aren't as simple as that. Causality violations are when superluminary communications cause events to happen in one order to one observer, and in another order to another observer, causing a paradox. Google will give you ample examples of thought experiments to illustrate this.
Now technically speaking, we could add a nofollow to their URLs. Or strip them entirely. But that puts me into the position of editing not just the submission, but the submittor, and i really don't think that this is "Right".
This statemenet makes no sense whatsoever. Adding nofollow puts you in the position of writing a few lines of code to add nofollow attributes to all tags, and being a good net citizen. Trying to weasel out of adding nofollow just makes it sound like you actually support using Slashdot as an SEO platform. Is that so?
Ok, the wavelength of light is around 0.5 micrometers. Let's say we want to fit a couple of those in a pixel, so 1 micrometer pixels. That gives you one square millimeter per megapixel. You can fit quite a number of square millimeters in your average-sized CCD sensor, no?
As was pointed out elsewhere, the limiting factor for pixel size is actually noise. And since this method combines many pixels anyway, you can get away with noisier individual pixels.
I'm not sure why you seem to be personally insulted by this technology, with all the shouting and ranting.
What I was getting at was that the original story was just pathetic patting yourself on the back - "We're just like social activists! We're important and good people just like them!" - and all you did was write down that implication explictly.
Also, no, I can see why you don't wouldn't want to try and have a serious discussion with someone who enjoys insulting idiots.:) *grin* lol!!!
Lame excuses. There's no reason whatsoever an editor can't be powerful to power users and friendly to new users. Emacs and vi, on the other hand, are still stuck somewhere in the early eighties. The rest of the world moved on to better things, they didn't.
Slashdot Mirror
You seriously never noticed before now that the one thing Slashdotters fear more than anything is new technology?
So what's your call on this, then?
None of what you quote invalidates what I said. I never said the article was science fiction, I said the magazine was.
This will still create paradoxes and violate causality. To see how, consider this:
* Light always travels at c, no matter your own speed. This is a very basic tenet of relativity, and has been tested again and again.
* Place two light detectors at some (large) distance from each other. When either one receives a pulse of light, it will send you a message through a wormhole that this has happened.
* Place a light source between the two detectors.
* Stand some distance away. When the light source sends out a light pulse, the light will travel to both detectors, and each will transmit a message that they received a light pulse at the same time, if they are equally far from the source.
* While you are standing there, your friend is running past you at close to c. To him, light will reach one detector before the other, because the light pulse is travelling at c in his reference frame too, but in his reference frame, one detector will move towards the light source and one away from it. When he receives a signal that the first detector triggered (which will happen before the second one does), he jumps through the wormhole to the second detector and destroys it before the light pulse arrives.
Do you receive one or two messages from the detectors?
No experiments have been performed where actual information has been transmitted faster than the speed of light. Various tunneling experiments are often misunderstood to do this, but they do not.
The article you are quoting is from a science fiction magazine. Hardly a source for reliable scientific information.
Your post is quite simply completely false, unless you replace every "we" with "I" and "our" with "my".
According to special and general relativity, the universe is completely deterministic, with a future that is as much set in stone as the past. This may or may not be true - we simply don't know at this point.
Causality violations aren't as simple as that. Causality violations are when superluminary communications cause events to happen in one order to one observer, and in another order to another observer, causing a paradox. Google will give you ample examples of thought experiments to illustrate this.
Must be new here, &c. Welcome to Luddite Central.
This is Slashdot. It's practically Luddite Central. "Must be new here" and all that.
Now technically speaking, we could add a nofollow to their URLs. Or strip them entirely. But that puts me into the position of editing not just the submission, but the submittor, and i really don't think that this is "Right".
This statemenet makes no sense whatsoever. Adding nofollow puts you in the position of writing a few lines of code to add nofollow attributes to all tags, and being a good net citizen. Trying to weasel out of adding nofollow just makes it sound like you actually support using Slashdot as an SEO platform. Is that so?
No, it's still the implementation that sucks. The article you link to doesn't support your claim, either.
Something like half of those words actually mean something. You've gotta try harder than that.
That sounds incredibly dull for those of us who like to be surprised by what we listen to. I like discovering new music and new genres.
Not to say most of FM radio is any better. But I'd much rather listen to WFMU any day than hyper-formatted satellite radio.
Another thing there are plenty of is people who will fall for the most obvious trolls.
Yeah, Linux has been doing that for years. Oh wait...
Now you can evaluate Slashdot's predictive ability:
New Intel Trademark Filed - An article trying to guess what this trademark was referring to.
Ok, the wavelength of light is around 0.5 micrometers. Let's say we want to fit a couple of those in a pixel, so 1 micrometer pixels. That gives you one square millimeter per megapixel. You can fit quite a number of square millimeters in your average-sized CCD sensor, no?
As was pointed out elsewhere, the limiting factor for pixel size is actually noise. And since this method combines many pixels anyway, you can get away with noisier individual pixels.
I'm not sure why you seem to be personally insulted by this technology, with all the shouting and ranting.
But, according to Gauss' law, a charge inside a closed surface *does* produce a net flux out through the surface.
A transmitter does not have a net charge.
Nothing gets past you, does it?
Thank you, Captain Obvious, for re-stating the original poster's point as if it was your own insight.
What, are you expecting sensible, informed or balanced reporting on RFID to appear on Slashdot?
What I was getting at was that the original story was just pathetic patting yourself on the back - "We're just like social activists! We're important and good people just like them!" - and all you did was write down that implication explictly.
:) *grin* lol!!!
Also, no, I can see why you don't wouldn't want to try and have a serious discussion with someone who enjoys insulting idiots.
In other words, you're falling for an incredibly lame and over-extended analogy posted on Slashdot.
Aw, man, I was so disappointed when I found out your link didn't go to some "Daniel Lyons Watch" blog like the previous poster mentioned.
Lame excuses. There's no reason whatsoever an editor can't be powerful to power users and friendly to new users. Emacs and vi, on the other hand, are still stuck somewhere in the early eighties. The rest of the world moved on to better things, they didn't.