If Alice and Bob are one light-minute apart, and they both agree to measure the state of entangled particles, and agree that Bob sends Alice his measurement immediately. Alice predicts the value Bob will send, a minute prior to receiving it, which means she knew it in the past according to the principal of causality.
Well... that's how I understand it. But this is an area that I really don't get very well... my interpretation is probably fundamentally wrong somewhere. I know that Alice couldn't send any new information. So it seems that causality wouldn't necessarily be broken, but that one could now predict certain forms of information obtained by quantum entanglement at faster-than-light speeds.
And to be clear, I understand the concepts of time dilation and length contraction. So I'm still acknowledging that each of those particles will, in their own frame, see the other particle leaving at a speed of less than C. They will see the distance between themselves as less than the distance I see between the two.
And this doesn't account for the time light travels back to me. That has to be accounted for and calculated as I receive the information back. It also doesn't speak for relativity of simultaneity... events from both particles that appear simultaneous with me will not appear simultaneous to each other, even accounting for the speed of information travel.
I don't think so. If a particle is traveling away from me at 185K miles per second, after 1000 seconds, it will be a distance of 185M miles. If another particle is traveling the opposite direction at the same velocity, after 1000 seconds it will be a distance of 185M miles. (All distance/time measurements in my frame.)
So in my frame, they will be 370M miles apart after 1000 seconds, and having started 0 miles apart, the delta-T is 370K mi/sec. Which is nearly 2C (372K mi/sec).
The only way to say their separation speed is less than 2C in my frame is to admit that either their distance is less than 186M miles apart after 1000 sec (in my frame), or that my measurement of time is incorrect in my own reference frame.
Well, if one particle goes one direction at near C, and another particle goes the opposite direction at near C, then the they are traveling apart at nearly 2C (relative to the original frame, that is). IANAP, but that's how I understand it.
That could help your lag, because you could position an intermediate server between Earth and Mars serving as the host. Then it would only be a minimum of 1 minute 33 seconds lag, perfectly acceptable for a 1993 game of Doom.:)
When I started, we had SourceSafe for version control, and Visual Studio 2002. That was pretty much it. Now, a few colleagues and I have made CI and unit testing a norm (at least for projects we are involved with). We now use CruiseControl.NET for CI, MbUnit for unit testing, SpecFlow for BDD, and Subversion (VisualSVN) for source control. We have also upgraded our toolkit significantly with open source and commercial tools (such as Resharper, various Red Gate tools, and various control libraries).
The point: be your own advocate. The boss isn't going to care or even know about most of these things. Either that, or find a job where these are already established.
This isn't insightful. It's plain wrong. As someone who attended the Build conference and spoke directly with several Microsoft program managers, I can attest that Metro/WinRT is not a replacement for.NET. I asked several times something like "But can I do Q in the sandbox?" and they would say "No, in that case use regular.NET to do Q and distribute your apps through traditional channels (or link to the installer in the app store)." I never got the impression that Metro was always the preferred approach, just the preferred approach for slate devices.
I don't know what Microsoft wants to do in the future past Windows 8. Maybe you're right, and Microsoft wants to give up their stronghold on enterprise applications that have certain hardware or interoperability requirements not allowed by Metro, so that they get control over tablet apps. But I'm not betting the bank on that.
Ok, most everyone here understands the issue of privacy here.
As devil's advocate, technology of this nature could be used to find and diagnose people with psychological issues who stay away from the doctor, or simply don't have the money to get evaluated. And this technology can be used to bring help to people before rather than after a violent incident.
As a culture, we find that the most appropriate treatment of people who have a criminal psychosis is to isolate them and help them, forcibly. We also find that they are not "wrong" and don't need to be punished, but require help. I don't readily see how an act of violence in this case is a critical point where we force help on the unwilling. So, why not force it earlier and prevent the violent acts?
The assumption in your post is that the constitution is absolute and not open to interpretation. If this were the case, and if it were intended, then there would be no need for courts to rule on constitutional matters.
But, I don't necessarily agree with this. I would prefer the constitution be stated in completely unambiguous language, not left open for interpretation. I would prefer that ideas like "your rights stop where my rights begin" to be encoded into the constitution, instead of simply being a common interpretation. If a computer could determine my innocence or guilt simply based on all known facts, and based on open rules that can be implemented by anyone with a computer, then I think we would have a better situation that helps to resolve the problems you pointed out.
Anywhere in the Windows 8 Start Menu, you can start typing to bring up applications to select from. This is more akin to the Windows 7 Start Menu search box than to Launchy, but it gets the primary job done.
I wonder if Launchy itself will still work in Windows 8. I seriously doubt it is possible to overlay it on top of Metro style apps. So I wonder if it can switch you to desktop mode, and if the hotkeys can even be picked up when inside a Metro style app.
Not sure, but the justification is that most people pin their most-used applications to the task bar.
Re:Needs platform adoption first.
on
OCaml For the Masses
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Ah, and I forgot, F# 3 will have type providers, which gives you a hook into the compiler to provide types however you please. It is mostly used to create statically-typed elements from a dynamic resource such as a cloud database.
For us mere mortals, many of whom will never "see" UV except via night-vision goggles or something like that... what does UV look like? Is it purple-ish, white, something you can't describe?
(I understand it may be difficult, since for me describing the difference between red and green to someone colorblind is practically impossible.)
Space guns are impractical for launching humans to full orbital velocity due to high G-forces and atmospheric drag. However, combined with rockets, a hybrid system could do the trick and reduce onboard fuel. That is essentially the launch system used in aircraft carriers, but on a massive scale.
And I like the idea from the AC, although you still have the fundamental problem of high atmospheric drag at low altitudes. Perhaps we should add a ramp built a few miles upward...:)
No, I have 20/20 hindsight because I was at//build/. I talked to Microsoft developers and program managers personally, and they all said (as has been reiterated throughout the internet) that the desktop mode of Windows 8 would be practically the same, from a development perspective, as it always has been. You can still run system services, device drivers, whatever you want, so long as you're not in the Metro style app sandbox.
I can't vouch for Windows 9. And of course, they could have been lying to my face, as well as to everyone else on the Internet. But assuming you're talking about Windows 8 as it has been presented, then yes, my statement holds.
The Rogue link in the summary explains EXACTLY what Rogue is. It is a domain specific language for database commands.
Are you seriously getting this worked up over using the term "Rogue-like" instead of "similar to Rogue"? Do I get worked up over Slashdot articles that say Microsoft is a monopoly, simply because there is a popular game called "Monopoly" I like to play?
"Rogue is a type-safe internal Scala DSL for constructing and executing find and modify commands against MongoDB in the Lift web framework."
First line in the readme.
If you don't understand that, and can't use that page and Google to help you understand, then you need to move on to the next article. Your comment is pointless. Learn how to research things for yourself.
It would be like me seeing a summary article about gravity waves, and clicking a link to the Wikipedia entry on general relativity, and complaining because the first sentence doesn't tell me everything I need to know to understand how one relates to the other.
Slashdot Mirror
If Alice and Bob are one light-minute apart, and they both agree to measure the state of entangled particles, and agree that Bob sends Alice his measurement immediately. Alice predicts the value Bob will send, a minute prior to receiving it, which means she knew it in the past according to the principal of causality.
Well... that's how I understand it. But this is an area that I really don't get very well... my interpretation is probably fundamentally wrong somewhere. I know that Alice couldn't send any new information. So it seems that causality wouldn't necessarily be broken, but that one could now predict certain forms of information obtained by quantum entanglement at faster-than-light speeds.
And to be clear, I understand the concepts of time dilation and length contraction. So I'm still acknowledging that each of those particles will, in their own frame, see the other particle leaving at a speed of less than C. They will see the distance between themselves as less than the distance I see between the two.
And this doesn't account for the time light travels back to me. That has to be accounted for and calculated as I receive the information back. It also doesn't speak for relativity of simultaneity... events from both particles that appear simultaneous with me will not appear simultaneous to each other, even accounting for the speed of information travel.
I don't think so. If a particle is traveling away from me at 185K miles per second, after 1000 seconds, it will be a distance of 185M miles. If another particle is traveling the opposite direction at the same velocity, after 1000 seconds it will be a distance of 185M miles. (All distance/time measurements in my frame.)
So in my frame, they will be 370M miles apart after 1000 seconds, and having started 0 miles apart, the delta-T is 370K mi/sec. Which is nearly 2C (372K mi/sec).
The only way to say their separation speed is less than 2C in my frame is to admit that either their distance is less than 186M miles apart after 1000 sec (in my frame), or that my measurement of time is incorrect in my own reference frame.
Well, if one particle goes one direction at near C, and another particle goes the opposite direction at near C, then the they are traveling apart at nearly 2C (relative to the original frame, that is). IANAP, but that's how I understand it.
That could help your lag, because you could position an intermediate server between Earth and Mars serving as the host. Then it would only be a minimum of 1 minute 33 seconds lag, perfectly acceptable for a 1993 game of Doom. :)
Community Service Officers - no power, only report crimes. Jumped up little Hitlers. The next step up from a traffic warden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
No matter how big these "Hitlers" are, I doubt they kill even one person. Let alone millions who are innocent and undeserving.
Any development tool beyond a print statement is over-engineering.
I hope you didn't use a web browser to make this comment. You wouldn't want to over-engineer your web experience, after all.
When I started, we had SourceSafe for version control, and Visual Studio 2002. That was pretty much it. Now, a few colleagues and I have made CI and unit testing a norm (at least for projects we are involved with). We now use CruiseControl.NET for CI, MbUnit for unit testing, SpecFlow for BDD, and Subversion (VisualSVN) for source control. We have also upgraded our toolkit significantly with open source and commercial tools (such as Resharper, various Red Gate tools, and various control libraries).
The point: be your own advocate. The boss isn't going to care or even know about most of these things. Either that, or find a job where these are already established.
This isn't insightful. It's plain wrong. As someone who attended the Build conference and spoke directly with several Microsoft program managers, I can attest that Metro/WinRT is not a replacement for .NET. I asked several times something like "But can I do Q in the sandbox?" and they would say "No, in that case use regular .NET to do Q and distribute your apps through traditional channels (or link to the installer in the app store)." I never got the impression that Metro was always the preferred approach, just the preferred approach for slate devices.
I don't know what Microsoft wants to do in the future past Windows 8. Maybe you're right, and Microsoft wants to give up their stronghold on enterprise applications that have certain hardware or interoperability requirements not allowed by Metro, so that they get control over tablet apps. But I'm not betting the bank on that.
Ok, most everyone here understands the issue of privacy here.
As devil's advocate, technology of this nature could be used to find and diagnose people with psychological issues who stay away from the doctor, or simply don't have the money to get evaluated. And this technology can be used to bring help to people before rather than after a violent incident.
As a culture, we find that the most appropriate treatment of people who have a criminal psychosis is to isolate them and help them, forcibly. We also find that they are not "wrong" and don't need to be punished, but require help. I don't readily see how an act of violence in this case is a critical point where we force help on the unwilling. So, why not force it earlier and prevent the violent acts?
The assumption in your post is that the constitution is absolute and not open to interpretation. If this were the case, and if it were intended, then there would be no need for courts to rule on constitutional matters.
But, I don't necessarily agree with this. I would prefer the constitution be stated in completely unambiguous language, not left open for interpretation. I would prefer that ideas like "your rights stop where my rights begin" to be encoded into the constitution, instead of simply being a common interpretation. If a computer could determine my innocence or guilt simply based on all known facts, and based on open rules that can be implemented by anyone with a computer, then I think we would have a better situation that helps to resolve the problems you pointed out.
This is why I'm on Windows 7; I like the Start Menu and being able to group my applications by purpose in a pretty *menu*.
Vista and 7 didn't take the menu or any of this away. And 7 gave you taskbar pinning, which you can turn off if you want.
Anywhere in the Windows 8 Start Menu, you can start typing to bring up applications to select from. This is more akin to the Windows 7 Start Menu search box than to Launchy, but it gets the primary job done.
I wonder if Launchy itself will still work in Windows 8. I seriously doubt it is possible to overlay it on top of Metro style apps. So I wonder if it can switch you to desktop mode, and if the hotkeys can even be picked up when inside a Metro style app.
Not sure, but the justification is that most people pin their most-used applications to the task bar.
Ah, and I forgot, F# 3 will have type providers, which gives you a hook into the compiler to provide types however you please. It is mostly used to create statically-typed elements from a dynamic resource such as a cloud database.
F# is an OCaml variant built to run in .NET. While not 100% compatible with OCaml, many programs can be cross-compiled.
F# includes features such as units of measure (numeric parameters) and computation expressions. It has many more, those are just the ones I like most.
For us mere mortals, many of whom will never "see" UV except via night-vision goggles or something like that... what does UV look like? Is it purple-ish, white, something you can't describe?
(I understand it may be difficult, since for me describing the difference between red and green to someone colorblind is practically impossible.)
Put up more doors with more locks... that'll fix it! (Just don't tell them about the hidden door into the basement...)
Space guns are impractical for launching humans to full orbital velocity due to high G-forces and atmospheric drag. However, combined with rockets, a hybrid system could do the trick and reduce onboard fuel. That is essentially the launch system used in aircraft carriers, but on a massive scale.
And I like the idea from the AC, although you still have the fundamental problem of high atmospheric drag at low altitudes. Perhaps we should add a ramp built a few miles upward... :)
if they pull off even a third of it they will roflstomp the national programs
Not so sure that getting a third of the way into space will do anything to those national programs.
(Score:3, Insightful)
This is where I need a mod (+1, Wish It Were Insightful).
No, I have 20/20 hindsight because I was at //build/. I talked to Microsoft developers and program managers personally, and they all said (as has been reiterated throughout the internet) that the desktop mode of Windows 8 would be practically the same, from a development perspective, as it always has been. You can still run system services, device drivers, whatever you want, so long as you're not in the Metro style app sandbox.
I can't vouch for Windows 9. And of course, they could have been lying to my face, as well as to everyone else on the Internet. But assuming you're talking about Windows 8 as it has been presented, then yes, my statement holds.
Remember that Windows 8 will be an ipad'ish walled garden.
Wrong. It will not be a walled garden, it will contain a walled garden. You can still do most anything you can do today outside of that garden.
The Rogue link in the summary explains EXACTLY what Rogue is. It is a domain specific language for database commands.
Are you seriously getting this worked up over using the term "Rogue-like" instead of "similar to Rogue"? Do I get worked up over Slashdot articles that say Microsoft is a monopoly, simply because there is a popular game called "Monopoly" I like to play?
Give me a break.
"Rogue is a type-safe internal Scala DSL for constructing and executing find and modify commands against MongoDB in the Lift web framework."
First line in the readme.
If you don't understand that, and can't use that page and Google to help you understand, then you need to move on to the next article. Your comment is pointless. Learn how to research things for yourself.
It would be like me seeing a summary article about gravity waves, and clicking a link to the Wikipedia entry on general relativity, and complaining because the first sentence doesn't tell me everything I need to know to understand how one relates to the other.
You're the one who can't read, therefore I'm stupid.
Makes sense.
If you're a moron.