No. The experimenter cannot manipulate the state in any way. The experimenter measures one photon and determines "not an oscar winner". The state of the other photon is now determined.
One could measure the other photon and determine "is an oscar winner" without delay, but the photon itself does not "know" this in any way, it is not internally carrying that state along with it. The Martian Oscars are linked by what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance".
What it seems like to me is that what we call probability is just that we don't understand the universe. The universe has objective criteria for handing out oscars to photons.
Feel free to report to us all of the pleasant positive effects of global warming to offset my negative ones. Just stick to facts instead of namecalling, tho.
Suppose we put Angelina Jolie on a rocket and send her to Mars. While there, they open the envelope. Angelina instantly becomes an Oscar winner. She doesn't know it because information will take several minutes to get there, but her state changes instantly.
I use Ms. Jolie because she is frequently mentioned as part of an "entangled pair".
According to Wikipedia, the increase from 1832 to 2004 is not "ppm" it is 33%. The CO2 in the air is only 383 ppm, so citing the total mass of the atmosphere is misleading. Annual emissions due to human activity are around 2.4x10^13 Kg and is about 5% of the total emissions. The amount emitted and consumed was probably in equilibrium prior to the recent (last 500 years or so) increase due to human activity, so all of the human emissions are going into increased concentration until a new equilibrium is reached. Since humans are also doing things like clearing forests, which are carbon sinks, its not clear what level the final value will reach.
Did you look at the graph? The error wasn't in anybody's favor. It was negligable.
The overall shape of the graph is the same - a 0.8 degree rise in average temperature over the last century with increasing slope.
I was in the Bahamas last year measuring water temperature, beach erosion and doing population counts to provide data on why coral is dying off all over the world. Its a complex topic but one of the leading culprits is ocean warming. Coral is adapted to a narrow range. Once the coral reefs are gone, which will be soon, say goodbye to fish diversity and sandy beaches.
I live in New England, the recent scare is over West Nile virus. According to the CDC, over 15,000 people in the U.S. have tested positive for WNV infection since 1999 and over 500 have died.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that a small change in temperature won't have a significant effect.
"On Windows XP some urls for "web" protocols that contain %00 launch the wrong handler and appear to be able to launch local programs, with limited argument passing. It is not yet clear that this can be used to compromise a machine but we can always fear the worst.
The same behavior is observed using "Run" from the Windows Start menu for the affected protocols (http, https, ftp, gopher, telnet, mailto, news, snews, nttp, possibly others?).
The behavior seems to be that if there's a %00 in the URL for these schemes then the URL Protocol handler is not called, instead the FileType handler is called based on the extension of the full url. The url is then passed to that File handler. For "non-web" URL handlers the URL is passed to the expected handler.
In Firefox browser protocols are handled internally so are not vulnerable, but the mailnews protocols are handed off to the OS and can be abused in this way."
==== So you can construct a uri like: "mailto:/...%00...something.exe" Firefox sees mailto and hands it to Windows to give it to the mail program Windows sees %00 and mistakenly hands it to the FileType handler. The FileType handler sees ".exe" and runs the program.
To be fair, there was no piloting errors on Challenger or Columbia. Those failures were caused by the volunteer engineering designs of the tiles and boosters done by the Shriners.
"given that Microsoft never says anything but lies"
A Microsoft PR guy and a linux kernel developer are standing at the entrance to a cave, but you don't know which is which. The cave contains either a dragon or a treasure. The MS guy always lies. The kernel developer never says anything that you could understand. Think of one question that you can ask which will tell you whether to enter the cave.
First off, you are using "open source" in a teeth-gratingly wrong context.
Second, collections of facts are not copyrightable, so I'm not sure on what basis they could sue you. But why would you want to screw up a valuable service? Is it worth $5/month not to have to program your PVR schedule by hand out of the newspaper? Because if you and other a**holes like you put them out of business, that's what you'll end up doing.
This ABC article title says a device failed an FCC test. The actual article reads that broadcasters simply "fear" interference. Which is it? Do they fear signal interference or ubiquitous broadband at the expense of their decaying empire?"
The downlink speed using UHF is quite fast. They didn't mention that the upstream link uses USPS. The rate increase makes this pretty high cost/bit. Secure TCP (letter rate) is 0.41/packet and insecure UDP (postcard) is 0.26/packet.
The code is owned by the company that makes the equipment. So what? Information which matters in a court case gets subpoenaed all the time. What makes software any different then private mail, bank account records, or anything else?
Amazingly, standard Unix filesystems keep time of last access (atime), change of status (ctime), and file modification (mtime) but do not remember when the file was first created, which is something I have frequently wished for.
Your answer is a good illustration of what the parent poster was saying. "What's the difference between lossy and lossless compression?" Sheesh, that's exactly the computer equivalent of "Write a report about Sweden". No wonder the dropout rate is at an all time high. How about "Does the Star Trek transporter use lossy or lossless compression? Why?"
Back in the day, we could have typed stuff out of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia and computers has made cheating a little easier, but hasn't enabled anything new.
"The actual environmental effect of CFLs is the subject of much debate. Apart from the gross electrical power saved during operation, it is questioned whether the amount of power and raw materials used in their manufacture compares well with incandescent lamps, and also whether the mercury used in CFLs is a significant environmental hazard."
Perhaps there is a group of people who would like to sell you CFLs and make a higher profit and are manipulating naive people by using environmentalism as a marketing tool.
Slashdot Mirror
1. fewer people dying of cold.
Worldwide, malaria is a leading cause of death. Freezing deaths are negligable.
2. easier/quicker ocean navigation due to new polar routes
You don't mention the accompanying sea level rise and coastal flooding which is a somewhat more serious effect.
3. less road/bridge corrosion due to less salt usage
and less need for roads and bridges with a lower population.
4. coral reefs can be planted in new areas that haven't had them before
Corals are highly adapted to conditions of nutrients, temperature and salinity so this may not work out real well.
5. New agricultural lands in Asia and N. America will open up that should be a net positive on food balance
Where? Agricultural land needs soil. Soil exists where plants have been growing for a long time. Sand and rock are not arable.
No. The experimenter cannot manipulate the state in any way. The experimenter measures one photon and determines "not an oscar winner". The state of the other photon is now determined.
One could measure the other photon and determine "is an oscar winner" without delay, but the photon itself does not "know" this in any way, it is not internally carrying that state along with it. The Martian Oscars are linked by what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance".
What it seems like to me is that what we call probability is just that we don't understand the universe. The universe has objective criteria for handing out oscars to photons.
Feel free to report to us all of the pleasant positive effects of global warming to offset my negative ones. Just stick to facts instead of namecalling, tho.
Suppose we put Angelina Jolie on a rocket and send her to Mars. While there, they open the envelope. Angelina instantly becomes an Oscar winner. She doesn't know it because information will take several minutes to get there, but her state changes instantly.
I use Ms. Jolie because she is frequently mentioned as part of an "entangled pair".
According to Wikipedia, the increase from 1832 to 2004 is not "ppm" it is 33%. The CO2 in the air is only 383 ppm, so citing the total mass of the atmosphere is misleading. Annual emissions due to human activity are around 2.4x10^13 Kg and is about 5% of the total emissions. The amount emitted and consumed was probably in equilibrium prior to the recent (last 500 years or so) increase due to human activity, so all of the human emissions are going into increased concentration until a new equilibrium is reached. Since humans are also doing things like clearing forests, which are carbon sinks, its not clear what level the final value will reach.
Did you look at the graph? The error wasn't in anybody's favor. It was negligable.
The overall shape of the graph is the same - a 0.8 degree rise in average temperature over the last century with increasing slope.
I was in the Bahamas last year measuring water temperature, beach erosion and doing population counts to provide data on why coral is dying off all over the world. Its a complex topic but one of the leading culprits is ocean warming. Coral is adapted to a narrow range. Once the coral reefs are gone, which will be soon, say goodbye to fish diversity and sandy beaches.
I live in New England, the recent scare is over West Nile virus. According to the CDC, over 15,000 people in the U.S. have tested positive for WNV infection since 1999 and over 500 have died.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that a small change in temperature won't have a significant effect.
mozilla bug 389580
"On Windows XP some urls for "web" protocols that contain %00 launch the wrong
handler and appear to be able to launch local programs, with limited argument
passing. It is not yet clear that this can be used to compromise a machine but
we can always fear the worst.
The same behavior is observed using "Run" from the Windows Start menu for the
affected protocols (http, https, ftp, gopher, telnet, mailto, news, snews,
nttp, possibly others?).
The behavior seems to be that if there's a %00 in the URL for these schemes
then the URL Protocol handler is not called, instead the FileType handler is
called based on the extension of the full url. The url is then passed to that
File handler. For "non-web" URL handlers the URL is passed to the expected
handler.
In Firefox browser protocols are handled internally so are not vulnerable, but
the mailnews protocols are handed off to the OS and can be abused in this way."
====
So you can construct a uri like: "mailto:/...%00...something.exe"
Firefox sees mailto and hands it to Windows to give it to the mail program
Windows sees %00 and mistakenly hands it to the FileType handler.
The FileType handler sees ".exe" and runs the program.
To be fair, there was no piloting errors on Challenger or Columbia. Those failures were caused by the volunteer engineering designs of the tiles and boosters done by the Shriners.
"given that Microsoft never says anything but lies"
A Microsoft PR guy and a linux kernel developer are standing at the entrance to a cave, but you don't know which is which. The cave contains either a dragon or a treasure. The MS guy always lies. The kernel developer never says anything that you could understand. Think of one question that you can ask which will tell you whether to enter the cave.
So are you still smart and overachieving or do you now just do the minimum that you get paid for?
http://www.xkcd.com/301/
So are they deploying more cops on Wall St. just before quarterly earnings are announced?
First off, you are using "open source" in a teeth-gratingly wrong context.
Second, collections of facts are not copyrightable, so I'm not sure on what basis they could sue you. But why would you want to screw up a valuable service? Is it worth $5/month not to have to program your PVR schedule by hand out of the newspaper? Because if you and other a**holes like you put them out of business, that's what you'll end up doing.
The downlink speed using UHF is quite fast. They didn't mention that the upstream link uses USPS. The rate increase makes this pretty high cost/bit. Secure TCP (letter rate) is 0.41/packet and insecure UDP (postcard) is 0.26/packet.
The code is owned by the company that makes the equipment. So what? Information which matters in a court case gets subpoenaed all the time. What makes software any different then private mail, bank account records, or anything else?
Quite a few filesystems store creation time, just not standard Unix.
y stems#Metadata
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_s
I think I just want the time that get_inode was called.
The cases that you list are already covered in Linux by the touch command.
sort foo >bar
touch bar -r=foo
mv bar foo
touch -r uses the times from the reference file foo.
mv changes the name or directory but shouldn't affect the time.
Amazingly, standard Unix filesystems keep time of last access (atime), change of status (ctime), and file modification (mtime) but do not remember when the file was first created, which is something I have frequently wished for.
Your answer is a good illustration of what the parent poster was saying. "What's the difference between lossy and lossless compression?" Sheesh, that's exactly the computer equivalent of "Write a report about Sweden". No wonder the dropout rate is at an all time high. How about "Does the Star Trek transporter use lossy or lossless compression? Why?"
Back in the day, we could have typed stuff out of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia and computers has made cheating a little easier, but hasn't enabled anything new.
Wow you stepped right into that one.
"The actual environmental effect of CFLs is the subject of much debate. Apart from the gross electrical power saved during operation, it is questioned whether the amount of power and raw materials used in their manufacture compares well with incandescent lamps, and also whether the mercury used in CFLs is a significant environmental hazard."
Perhaps there is a group of people who would like to sell you CFLs and make a higher profit and are manipulating naive people by using environmentalism as a marketing tool.
Aaaaa aaaaaaa aaaaaaa aaaa aaa aaaaaa aaaaa aaaa a gggggggg gggg gggg gggghhh hhhhh hhhhhhhh hhh!!! !!!!!
Hardware vendors have to write and test their own drivers, then pay MS to be certified.
Has anybody asked the Dosbox folks whether they licensed the software?
"I have to wonder how it takes a grenade hit.."
We seem to be made to suffer. It's our lot in life.