There have been a number of replies on here regarding guns as an "equalizer", enabling smaller people to fend off larger attackers, and as a deterrent more than anything. It's off topic, but how would these people reconcile this argument with nuclear weapons proliferation around the world? Should we not then extend the same rights to countries large and small to arm themselves in defense of agression and foreign hegemony? By the same logic, we should all feel much more comfortable that more countries have in their possession the ability to entirely obliterate another.
Call me Canadian, but that just doesn't sit well with me. Not to mention the quaint notion of a people overthrowing a monarchy. That just ain't happening nowadays. Even with the number of citizens unhappy with George W. Bush, his abysmal approval ratings (not to mention his disdain for the Constitution), and the number of armed Americans, I doubt King Dubya is worried about the second American revolution.
Well, you possibly are implying that I am self-centered, and fair enough. But, in my history of apartment dwelling, I have never paid for utilities (they've been figured in with rent). I don't deny that it's possible that this is some freak streak that I've enjoyed, but just saying that "it's not that common" isn't enough for me to believe you. Also, while rent includes utilities, it's not like I get a discount or refund for being more energy-efficient. And, there is clearly the cost and time involved with retrofitting fixtures, which in my mind, may not be a good reason to prevent landlords from doing it, but they're plausible enough to be used.
This struck me instantly, as I had a recent shopping trip wherein the primary purchase was lightbulbs (I seem only to remember to buy them when my apartment is totally unlit =) ). When I went into the shop, I compared the prices, and noticed the price difference -- not exorbitantly higher to by CFs, and clearly they would pay out IF I paid the utilities in my building. Did this occur to others as well? People who live in apartments (and other arrangements where they're not the owner) cannot always choose fixtures, nor are they always responsible for the electric bills.
Believe it or not, there are keyboard layouts that are designed to be better suited to languages other than English. QWERTZ is the German version, the French use a layout called AZERTY, etc.
"The more you know"... *shooting star*
Maybe now, I can write the great american novel. Mine's about a theme park island where scientists have brought pre-historic dinosaurs back to life using genetic engineering, but things go horribly wrong. I call it, "Johnny and the Clonasaurus."
...is a god of some sort necessary to make sense of this[?]
A god is both necessary and desirable to make sense of those questions of science you ask and any other basic questions people are too lazy to answer for themselves.
If what I just read is scarcasm, all I have to say is:
Now THAT's scarcasm!
However: if you actually believed a word of what you just said, I advise you to take the crack pipe out of your mouth and check into a rehab centre. Perhaps you could write a book for Oprah's book club.
I'm no geometry expert, but the reason that they actually measure the diagonals and make them equal is to ensure that the square shape that they measure out is actually square -- or that there are 90 degree corners. Not doing so wiil result in huge problems.
By instructing them to use the pythagorean theorem, you are allowing them to implicity assume that your corners are in fact true. Perhaps you should double check your garage's corner angles.
There is no reason why quantum entanglement couldn't be described using a classical theory/
I am on pins and needles awaiting your description of quantum entanglement in a classical framework. Don't leave us hanging, as Einstein and others have tried to do what you nonchalantly claim to be possible. The EPR paradox might be of interest to you.
I see your point, however I'll stick to my cautious (but hopeful) skeptism. My point is simply that the idea of useful quantum computing is still a pie in the sky concept. Dreaming about desktop Quantum PCs (while fun), does not solve what many experts still view as insurmountable problems, such as decoherence time, thermal noise, etc. To me, as a scientist, such imaginating would probably be more beneficial if it were applied to these pressing issues, instead of fantasies that would be more suited to a science fiction novel. I still fully agree that imagination drives innovation. It's just that I believe we should at least keep our predictions for technology in the ballpark of one order of magnitude of that is even theoretically possible.
As far as Wozniak goes, his rendition of the PC in 1975 is a completely different matter because the proof of a working electronic computer which had preceded him by over 25 years. The outlook for classical computing in 1975 was far more certain than that of quantum computing right now. As for laptops, PDAs, etc., these devices are simple refinements of the same general formula. Super-conducting quantum computers, for example, require huge dilution fridges to maintain the temperature needed for superconduction. The approach is definitely promising, however, it is not scalable at all for personal use.
I assume the revolutionary technology to which you're referring is the quantum computing technology that will allow everyone to have a quantum computer (and play Duke Nukem Forever, Windows Vista, etc). Let's not forget that no useful quantum computer has ever been built, let alone one that is viable for consumers.
A quick search on Google would suggests that there is increasing interest in this field. How aboutIBM , as well as a start up company called D-Wave Systems located in Vancouver, for a start.
As for my two cents, don't bet on an up-and-comer quantum-computer-making-business "knock them [the processor giants] them of their perch". The article (in addition to previous stories) doesn't predict a quantum computer that you'll be able to buy off the shelf and use on your desktop. Perhaps a look at the current prospects for implementations of quantum computers, and a miniscule amount of common sense would convince you of this unliklihood.
Most of what you say about quantum mechanics is true; it is complicated. However, it is not unusual for the media to try to make a leading edge area of research seem impossibly difficult to comprehend with (sometimes inaccurate) sensationalist hyperbole.
That being said, it isn't impossibly difficult to learn a bit about quantum mechanics, and the fact is that you only need to know a little linear algebra to make some sense of it.
In addition, quantum computing is especially elegant (at least in theory) because the defining property of qubits is that their state space is hopefully restricted to a two-dimensional Hilbert space. This makes the analysis simpler. For a good read, grab the de facto bible of quantum information by Neilsen and Chuang "Quantum Computation and Quantum Information" which spells out a sufficient amount of quantum mechanics in the first chapter to support you through the rest of the book.
Slashdot Mirror
3. Right to look like an illiterate boob on slashdot.
There have been a number of replies on here regarding guns as an "equalizer", enabling smaller people to fend off larger attackers, and as a deterrent more than anything. It's off topic, but how would these people reconcile this argument with nuclear weapons proliferation around the world? Should we not then extend the same rights to countries large and small to arm themselves in defense of agression and foreign hegemony? By the same logic, we should all feel much more comfortable that more countries have in their possession the ability to entirely obliterate another.
Call me Canadian, but that just doesn't sit well with me. Not to mention the quaint notion of a people overthrowing a monarchy. That just ain't happening nowadays. Even with the number of citizens unhappy with George W. Bush, his abysmal approval ratings (not to mention his disdain for the Constitution), and the number of armed Americans, I doubt King Dubya is worried about the second American revolution.
...Profit?
I believe it's closer to "beloved son"
Well, you possibly are implying that I am self-centered, and fair enough. But, in my history of apartment dwelling, I have never paid for utilities (they've been figured in with rent). I don't deny that it's possible that this is some freak streak that I've enjoyed, but just saying that "it's not that common" isn't enough for me to believe you. Also, while rent includes utilities, it's not like I get a discount or refund for being more energy-efficient. And, there is clearly the cost and time involved with retrofitting fixtures, which in my mind, may not be a good reason to prevent landlords from doing it, but they're plausible enough to be used.
This struck me instantly, as I had a recent shopping trip wherein the primary purchase was lightbulbs (I seem only to remember to buy them when my apartment is totally unlit =) ). When I went into the shop, I compared the prices, and noticed the price difference -- not exorbitantly higher to by CFs, and clearly they would pay out IF I paid the utilities in my building. Did this occur to others as well? People who live in apartments (and other arrangements where they're not the owner) cannot always choose fixtures, nor are they always responsible for the electric bills.
Believe it or not, there are keyboard layouts that are designed to be better suited to languages other than English. QWERTZ is the German version, the French use a layout called AZERTY, etc. "The more you know" ... *shooting star*
Maybe now, I can write the great american novel. Mine's about a theme park island where scientists have brought pre-historic dinosaurs back to life using genetic engineering, but things go horribly wrong. I call it, "Johnny and the Clonasaurus."
Now THAT's scarcasm!
However: if you actually believed a word of what you just said, I advise you to take the crack pipe out of your mouth and check into a rehab centre. Perhaps you could write a book for Oprah's book club.
Is the article implying that it's NOT normal for someone to seek out cat urine-marked areas in one's house???
- A game in which get to paint a wall, hopefully followed by an expansion which will allow you to watch it dry
- A game in which you make calls to technical support hotlines and are placed on hold for various periods of time
Or maybe...For shame...
It remains to be seen whether robots that "pet" you have similarly positive results...although my impression is that they might do the job better.
I'm no geometry expert, but the reason that they actually measure the diagonals and make them equal is to ensure that the square shape that they measure out is actually square -- or that there are 90 degree corners. Not doing so wiil result in huge problems.
By instructing them to use the pythagorean theorem, you are allowing them to implicity assume that your corners are in fact true. Perhaps you should double check your garage's corner angles.
I see your point, however I'll stick to my cautious (but hopeful) skeptism. My point is simply that the idea of useful quantum computing is still a pie in the sky concept. Dreaming about desktop Quantum PCs (while fun), does not solve what many experts still view as insurmountable problems, such as decoherence time, thermal noise, etc. To me, as a scientist, such imaginating would probably be more beneficial if it were applied to these pressing issues, instead of fantasies that would be more suited to a science fiction novel. I still fully agree that imagination drives innovation. It's just that I believe we should at least keep our predictions for technology in the ballpark of one order of magnitude of that is even theoretically possible.
As far as Wozniak goes, his rendition of the PC in 1975 is a completely different matter because the proof of a working electronic computer which had preceded him by over 25 years. The outlook for classical computing in 1975 was far more certain than that of quantum computing right now. As for laptops, PDAs, etc., these devices are simple refinements of the same general formula. Super-conducting quantum computers, for example, require huge dilution fridges to maintain the temperature needed for superconduction. The approach is definitely promising, however, it is not scalable at all for personal use.
I assume the revolutionary technology to which you're referring is the quantum computing technology that will allow everyone to have a quantum computer (and play Duke Nukem Forever, Windows Vista, etc). Let's not forget that no useful quantum computer has ever been built, let alone one that is viable for consumers.
A quick search on Google would suggests that there is increasing interest in this field. How aboutIBM , as well as a start up company called D-Wave Systems located in Vancouver, for a start.
As for my two cents, don't bet on an up-and-comer quantum-computer-making-business "knock them [the processor giants] them of their perch". The article (in addition to previous stories) doesn't predict a quantum computer that you'll be able to buy off the shelf and use on your desktop. Perhaps a look at the current prospects for implementations of quantum computers, and a miniscule amount of common sense would convince you of this unliklihood.
Most of what you say about quantum mechanics is true; it is complicated. However, it is not unusual for the media to try to make a leading edge area of research seem impossibly difficult to comprehend with (sometimes inaccurate) sensationalist hyperbole.
That being said, it isn't impossibly difficult to learn a bit about quantum mechanics, and the fact is that you only need to know a little linear algebra to make some sense of it.
In addition, quantum computing is especially elegant (at least in theory) because the defining property of qubits is that their state space is hopefully restricted to a two-dimensional Hilbert space. This makes the analysis simpler. For a good read, grab the de facto bible of quantum information by Neilsen and Chuang "Quantum Computation and Quantum Information" which spells out a sufficient amount of quantum mechanics in the first chapter to support you through the rest of the book.
That's a common rookie mistake. You gotta take the "safe search" off.