Absolutely! Damn that one annoys me! You'd have to shift across a dimension to move into a parallel universe, but you can't move into a different dimension, cuz you have to be within a dimension to be able to move along it!
"as it would be possible to read data at a near infinite number of specific wavelengths"
A high number perhaps, but light frequency does appear to be quantized, that being the case it's definitely a finite set.
The article that appeared recently about the ultra high speed camera, which works with a single wide spectrum pulse, split through space by prism to interact with the object, with the reflections being recombined to a single point, but seperated through time and read by a single photo diode (or whatever), was similarly very interesting, in a dimension splitting/changing kind of way. I bet there's some way of combining the two...
I disagree with your questions (heh) - this isn't a single solution, this is multiple technologies providing multiple solutions. In this instance, they're working together, but they don't have to be. Only by knowing as many different solutions as possible can we be more certain to be picking the best ones.
"Solid state is the future, if I am not mistaken"
You may be mistaken... partially... probably. As a replacement for spinning random access media, perhaps, but what about mass distribution where re-writeability isn't important such as entertainment distribution (movies, games) or software, or perhaps that non-rewriteability is important, such as for taking backups, or that software you're about to install hasn't been modified since leaving the publishers?
By doing things in different places at the same time, rather than different times in the same place - you are asleep already, a few inches to your left.
Yar, I originally read it as dimensions to describe the data read from any physical point, rather than addressing dimensions required to locate the data which is what's meant.
With something like a CCD array? Without movement, you could only read as much data as the CCD could hold, so each disc would be fairly limited in size.
Even that's not really true. It has three dimensions of space occupied (size), it also has three dimensions of space where it's positioned... so, size and position in a 3 dimensional space requires 6 dimensions. I dunno what you'd use your "fourth dimension" for... it's age perhaps (if we assume it exists now)? If we don't assume it exists now, then you'd need two time dimensions to describe it, one for when it was created and one for when it was destroyed. Of course, four dimensions would be enough to describe where to find it, but that's it.
"I might as well claim my fingers are five dimensional, since they have five degrees of freedom too"
They can store information in multiple places in multiple ways at the same time (address 1,1,1,1,1 could store a 1 while address 1,1,1,1,2 could store a 0), whereas your hand can only exist in one state at any one time. The equivalent addressing would be something like a single dimension (finger number) and the value retrieved could be the % at which that finger is extended... so that's five bits of information addressable by a single dimension, but with a greater range of values stored per digit.
"Or you know, it's really just a 3D physical thing in 3D space that they measure various properties of"
What do you think the 3 dimensions of a physical object are but properties? Is height not a property? Is wavelength of light reflected off something not as important the objects width when describing it? Could you recreate the object exactly with only one of those bits of information?
"Could I make a CD that records data not as pits but as pits painted with color and say I've gotten more dimensions out of it?"
If you had more different colours than there were more different depths of the pits then yes, you exactly could.
I was wondering how two polorizations of light were being counted as dimensions, as light still needs a wavelength. Looks like each wavelength can store two bits of information, two patterns (see the photo on the article page), by polorizing it at different angles. So horizontal red is one dimension, verticle red is another; they're both used seperately. Hmm... why are they calling it 5? Am I missing something?
Ya know, reading the actual article (yes, I know) it actually looks like it is 6 dimensions not 5 anyway... as it's 3 wavelengths x 2 polorizations, not 3 wavelengths + 2 polorizations... ie, each colour is used twice, creating 6 virtual colours, ie, 6 dimensions.
"Rotation and spin are another degree of freedom (and, IRC, has been refered to as such by my physics lecturers), but physically not another dimension"
Well they kind of are, in that they can't be collapsed into a smaller number of dimensions. If you take rotation of an object, what that refers to in the lower dimensions is the different in momentum of one side of the object to the other. If you do not include that information, to be able describe the object to the same degree of detail, you'd have to include momentum details of two different points of the object (for a single axis of rotation). Collapsing it into a single dimension loses information.
There is no "the" anythingth dimension; a dimension is just a property or variable that can be changed independantly of other dimensions within the context. So, in many areas of physics, the four dimensions you use in equations etc will often include time, but that doesn't mean that time is some universal dimension to be found in all equasions. For this storage, when you do the reading/writing is irrelevant to the data, eg, if you write a 1 at 4pm, it will be the same as if you wrote that 1 at 5pm. But, if you write it in a different colour, then the data is different, so, the data at any location can be expressed as a function of the intensity of each of the three colours (or wavelengths) and the intensity of the two different polorizations of light - five dimensions.
If for example you want to talk about the mass of any of the points where data's stored, then what matters is how many atoms there are there, nothing else is relevant, and so you'd only say there's one dimension.
So as you see, dimensions aren't universal things, they're purely contextual.
"It isn't so they can see the hologram watermarks... it is to check for cocaine residue"
Ya know, "things" can have more than one reason, in our universe, it is allowed, and will often actually be the case. For example, using UV lights to check watermarks can have the benefit that it could make coke stand out too (cuz people who fly with coke first of all get their passport out and rub all their drugs in it). Just because the coke can stand out under UV, doesn't make all the other said reasons lies, it just means there's more than one reason.
But hey, why care about reason when blind panic is so much more fun?
Perhaps there's an element of competition (with some people at least). People feel that humans are the dominant, superior one in the relationship, thus shouldn't have to meet the computer half way, it should just do what they want or it's rubbish - its creators have failed. When people say stuff like how they should be able to just talk to a computer and tell it what to do, as if our spoken language expressive enough in the ways it would need to be for us to be able to use it to control our machines the way we can with a keyboard, mouse, and a user interface designed as the half way point, it very clearly illustrates the lack of understanding in the purpose of the interfaces and computer languages we have. They do their job better than using spoken English would do.
Anything Microsoft related on Slashdot forums is automatically flamebait because of the emotional reactions the mere word 'Microsoft' triggers in so many Slashdotters which makes it unpossible to have a proper serious, well thought out debate. Just look at the replies it's getting. It's pathetic huh.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely! Damn that one annoys me! You'd have to shift across a dimension to move into a parallel universe, but you can't move into a different dimension, cuz you have to be within a dimension to be able to move along it!
"diet soda drinkers are MORE likely than their regular soda drinking counterparts to be obese"
Cuz if you're not fat, why put yourself through diet? It's hardly rocket surgery.
Have you ever listened to a health nut?! *lol* that would explain it perfectly!
hint: there's more to life than extending it! Ya gotta enjoy a little!
We live longer. Is all about balances.
"as it would be possible to read data at a near infinite number of specific wavelengths"
A high number perhaps, but light frequency does appear to be quantized, that being the case it's definitely a finite set.
The article that appeared recently about the ultra high speed camera, which works with a single wide spectrum pulse, split through space by prism to interact with the object, with the reflections being recombined to a single point, but seperated through time and read by a single photo diode (or whatever), was similarly very interesting, in a dimension splitting/changing kind of way. I bet there's some way of combining the two...
I disagree with your questions (heh) - this isn't a single solution, this is multiple technologies providing multiple solutions. In this instance, they're working together, but they don't have to be. Only by knowing as many different solutions as possible can we be more certain to be picking the best ones.
"Solid state is the future, if I am not mistaken"
You may be mistaken... partially... probably. As a replacement for spinning random access media, perhaps, but what about mass distribution where re-writeability isn't important such as entertainment distribution (movies, games) or software, or perhaps that non-rewriteability is important, such as for taking backups, or that software you're about to install hasn't been modified since leaving the publishers?
"When will I sleep?"
By doing things in different places at the same time, rather than different times in the same place - you are asleep already, a few inches to your left.
The two can be equal, in perl.
Which is why Sony refer to it as the sting ray... ouch.
(which I guess would eventually make the blue ray an ex ray?)
Yar, I originally read it as dimensions to describe the data read from any physical point, rather than addressing dimensions required to locate the data which is what's meant.
"a 12x12 multiplication table is finite and discrete, but still has two dimensions"
Surely they're factors of a single dimension rather than two dimensions?
With something like a CCD array? Without movement, you could only read as much data as the CCD could hold, so each disc would be fairly limited in size.
"It has 3 dimensions of space"
Even that's not really true. It has three dimensions of space occupied (size), it also has three dimensions of space where it's positioned... so, size and position in a 3 dimensional space requires 6 dimensions. I dunno what you'd use your "fourth dimension" for... it's age perhaps (if we assume it exists now)? If we don't assume it exists now, then you'd need two time dimensions to describe it, one for when it was created and one for when it was destroyed. Of course, four dimensions would be enough to describe where to find it, but that's it.
"I might as well claim my fingers are five dimensional, since they have five degrees of freedom too"
They can store information in multiple places in multiple ways at the same time (address 1,1,1,1,1 could store a 1 while address 1,1,1,1,2 could store a 0), whereas your hand can only exist in one state at any one time. The equivalent addressing would be something like a single dimension (finger number) and the value retrieved could be the % at which that finger is extended... so that's five bits of information addressable by a single dimension, but with a greater range of values stored per digit.
And (to reply to myself once more) here's my answer http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1239971&cid=28032371
"Or you know, it's really just a 3D physical thing in 3D space that they measure various properties of"
What do you think the 3 dimensions of a physical object are but properties? Is height not a property? Is wavelength of light reflected off something not as important the objects width when describing it? Could you recreate the object exactly with only one of those bits of information?
"Could I make a CD that records data not as pits but as pits painted with color and say I've gotten more dimensions out of it?"
If you had more different colours than there were more different depths of the pits then yes, you exactly could.
I was wondering how two polorizations of light were being counted as dimensions, as light still needs a wavelength. Looks like each wavelength can store two bits of information, two patterns (see the photo on the article page), by polorizing it at different angles. So horizontal red is one dimension, verticle red is another; they're both used seperately. Hmm... why are they calling it 5? Am I missing something?
Ya know, reading the actual article (yes, I know) it actually looks like it is 6 dimensions not 5 anyway... as it's 3 wavelengths x 2 polorizations, not 3 wavelengths + 2 polorizations... ie, each colour is used twice, creating 6 virtual colours, ie, 6 dimensions.
"Rotation and spin are another degree of freedom (and, IRC, has been refered to as such by my physics lecturers), but physically not another dimension"
Well they kind of are, in that they can't be collapsed into a smaller number of dimensions. If you take rotation of an object, what that refers to in the lower dimensions is the different in momentum of one side of the object to the other. If you do not include that information, to be able describe the object to the same degree of detail, you'd have to include momentum details of two different points of the object (for a single axis of rotation). Collapsing it into a single dimension loses information.
There is no "the" anythingth dimension; a dimension is just a property or variable that can be changed independantly of other dimensions within the context. So, in many areas of physics, the four dimensions you use in equations etc will often include time, but that doesn't mean that time is some universal dimension to be found in all equasions. For this storage, when you do the reading/writing is irrelevant to the data, eg, if you write a 1 at 4pm, it will be the same as if you wrote that 1 at 5pm. But, if you write it in a different colour, then the data is different, so, the data at any location can be expressed as a function of the intensity of each of the three colours (or wavelengths) and the intensity of the two different polorizations of light - five dimensions.
If for example you want to talk about the mass of any of the points where data's stored, then what matters is how many atoms there are there, nothing else is relevant, and so you'd only say there's one dimension.
So as you see, dimensions aren't universal things, they're purely contextual.
"It isn't so they can see the hologram watermarks... it is to check for cocaine residue"
Ya know, "things" can have more than one reason, in our universe, it is allowed, and will often actually be the case. For example, using UV lights to check watermarks can have the benefit that it could make coke stand out too (cuz people who fly with coke first of all get their passport out and rub all their drugs in it). Just because the coke can stand out under UV, doesn't make all the other said reasons lies, it just means there's more than one reason.
But hey, why care about reason when blind panic is so much more fun?
What, because emotional hysteria is the necessary defence for Microsoft's evils in the world? If we aren't angry and if we don't hate, then MS wins???
Perhaps there's an element of competition (with some people at least). People feel that humans are the dominant, superior one in the relationship, thus shouldn't have to meet the computer half way, it should just do what they want or it's rubbish - its creators have failed. When people say stuff like how they should be able to just talk to a computer and tell it what to do, as if our spoken language expressive enough in the ways it would need to be for us to be able to use it to control our machines the way we can with a keyboard, mouse, and a user interface designed as the half way point, it very clearly illustrates the lack of understanding in the purpose of the interfaces and computer languages we have. They do their job better than using spoken English would do.
Anything Microsoft related on Slashdot forums is automatically flamebait because of the emotional reactions the mere word 'Microsoft' triggers in so many Slashdotters which makes it unpossible to have a proper serious, well thought out debate. Just look at the replies it's getting. It's pathetic huh.
"How the hell do those 2 even compare?"
Exactly!