I find it surprising the suggestion that anyone said this (designer babies) would never happen. They must not have had much imagination.
Others have already pointed out your unjustified assumption that this is actually a bad thing. There's also the point that, because individuals within society profess differing opinions (in particular, differing to yours), somehow society is "so doomed", is a pretty silly non sequitur.
Well, theoretically, either. Entanglement is a general concept, so it's entirely possible to have entanglement in photon wavelength (thus, colour) as it is to have entanglement in polarisation.
But practically speaking, neither, because you would need to have all those photons that are projected for the movie (and that's, typically, a metric fuckton -- a fucktonne) would have to be entangled with each other. Getting two photons entangled with each other is relatively easy, but getting that sort of number of photons entangled, let alone entangled in the right way so the scheme could work, is so difficult it's ridiculous. What you're asking for is very much like a high-N NOON state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noon_state
Emphasis on 'without knowing what "this" or "that" actually is'. Entanglement is "measuring these two things will give related results". Example, you can perform an experiment where you have two photons, which are entangled in their polarisations, and you cannot know beforehand what the results of a measurement of either photon will be. Either photon might turn out to be horizontally polarised (H), or vertically polarised (V), with 50% probability each way. But, the effect of entanglement is that there is a definite relationship between the two, such that if you detect H the other detection will always be V. And vice versa. This is why people often think of it as a "connection" between the two particles, because the result of a measurement of one, which is random, ensures that the measurement of the other is well defined. It's as if the two suddenly know what state each other is in.
I've been doing this, too. Every once in a blue moon something crazy happens (like every message in a folder getting marked unread, somehow), but overall it's a pretty good system.
You imply PNG has only minor technical advantages, in context I'm assuming you're comparing to GIF. In which case, WTF? Uh, true-colour support and proper alpha blending is a lot more than "minor technical".
Doesn't have animation support though. MNG, where are you?
A single particle in a confinement, with all the thermal energy removed, is distributed like a wave. That is, you're more likely to find the particle in the middle than at the edges. There's a formula for it (square of a sin, IIRC).
Bosons can all exist in the same state in the same place.
Couple these two facts, and you have a BEC. Basically, put a bunch of bosons in a box, turn the temperature way (way way) down, and you get this neat fuzzy blob of stuff, each particle in (or near) the "ground" (lowest energy) state, denser in the middle than at the edges, that's neither gas nor liquid nor solid. (Nor plasma, for the pedantic.)
Seeing as we're talking about relative "sizes" of bandwidths you should probably be comparing the difference between the logs of the relevent extents. The reason being that visible light extends over roughly an octave, whereas this cloak extends over roughly 4. You'd be right to say that the size of the cloak's bandwidth is four times that of the visible light spectrum, but not four orders of magnitude more. Your overall conclusion is right, the article is way off.
I might regret admitting this, seeing as I like to think I'm not a bad writer, but... flunked? What the hell is wrong with it? Sure, it doesn't flow very nicely (I'd probably try to look for something better), but the meaning is strictly correct ("not superior" != "inferior", if that's what you're thinking) and it's unambiguous. I would've thought that would be important for what techies write.
Despite that being an interesting video, it contradicts your point. SWF is indeed open. It's just that it's openness is useless since it had been reverse engineered years prior.
Pretty horrid license restrictions on the plugin, though. Fuck Adobe.
PAL typically just speeds everything up to 25 FPS, rather than duplicate frames which NTSC does. Thus, a PAL conversion actually has more words-equivalent-per-second than NTSC (but over a slightly shorter time and in higher pitch).
It's not that simple, though, when you are talking about papers with multiple authors. It doesn't take into consideration to what level of involvement any particular author was. It's not uncommon for authors to be listed due to small contributions, or insight, or internal politics. At what point do you say their contribution was significant enough to warrant exclusion from impact factor calculations because of self-citation? And how do you even quantify that level of contribution?
A principal supervisor of a group may not have much involvement on a particular paper, and yet expect and receive an authorship of it. Do you reject self-citation in that case, when the authors who actually did the work are not directly affiliated with the other papers their supervisor was previously a part of?
Of course, that's going into subtleties regarding free-will vs. determinism beyond the point I was trying to make in my comment.
I personally don't always (only sometimes) feel angry at people for "choosing" to believe in ancient fairy tales, but I often feel pity for them for being so thoroughly indoctrinated as to make it difficult if not impossible for them to realise what has happened. This indoctrination is typically forced upon them as innocent children, which they cannot reasonably be expected to bear full blame for. Religion is a memetic disease that cripples those who are unwilling (the choice argument) or too young (the indoctrination argument) to have sufficiently developed mental immunity.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it surprising the suggestion that anyone said this (designer babies) would never happen. They must not have had much imagination.
Others have already pointed out your unjustified assumption that this is actually a bad thing. There's also the point that, because individuals within society profess differing opinions (in particular, differing to yours), somehow society is "so doomed", is a pretty silly non sequitur.
Thank your lucky stars you've never met a drop bear.
Well, theoretically, either. Entanglement is a general concept, so it's entirely possible to have entanglement in photon wavelength (thus, colour) as it is to have entanglement in polarisation.
But practically speaking, neither, because you would need to have all those photons that are projected for the movie (and that's, typically, a metric fuckton -- a fucktonne) would have to be entangled with each other. Getting two photons entangled with each other is relatively easy, but getting that sort of number of photons entangled, let alone entangled in the right way so the scheme could work, is so difficult it's ridiculous. What you're asking for is very much like a high-N NOON state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noon_state
Emphasis on 'without knowing what "this" or "that" actually is'. Entanglement is "measuring these two things will give related results". Example, you can perform an experiment where you have two photons, which are entangled in their polarisations, and you cannot know beforehand what the results of a measurement of either photon will be. Either photon might turn out to be horizontally polarised (H), or vertically polarised (V), with 50% probability each way. But, the effect of entanglement is that there is a definite relationship between the two, such that if you detect H the other detection will always be V. And vice versa. This is why people often think of it as a "connection" between the two particles, because the result of a measurement of one, which is random, ensures that the measurement of the other is well defined. It's as if the two suddenly know what state each other is in.
I've been doing this, too. Every once in a blue moon something crazy happens (like every message in a folder getting marked unread, somehow), but overall it's a pretty good system.
You imply PNG has only minor technical advantages, in context I'm assuming you're comparing to GIF. In which case, WTF? Uh, true-colour support and proper alpha blending is a lot more than "minor technical".
Doesn't have animation support though. MNG, where are you?
Against assailants, I prefer to just shoot them. And then eat their banana.
Insert appropriate inequality signs. :/
Whether true or not, it misses the important point: No electricity Coal generated electricity Nuclear generated electricity
FYI, KDE 4.2 Debian packages are currently arriving in experimental where they will live until Lenny is released. Unstable and testing have 3.5.
A single particle in a confinement, with all the thermal energy removed, is distributed like a wave. That is, you're more likely to find the particle in the middle than at the edges. There's a formula for it (square of a sin, IIRC).
Bosons can all exist in the same state in the same place.
Couple these two facts, and you have a BEC. Basically, put a bunch of bosons in a box, turn the temperature way (way way) down, and you get this neat fuzzy blob of stuff, each particle in (or near) the "ground" (lowest energy) state, denser in the middle than at the edges, that's neither gas nor liquid nor solid. (Nor plasma, for the pedantic.)
Huh? In my experience, multiple tags in gmail just means the same message appears in multiple IMAP folders. Each folder corresponds to a single tag.
Infra-red is a range, not a colour.
Seeing as we're talking about relative "sizes" of bandwidths you should probably be comparing the difference between the logs of the relevent extents. The reason being that visible light extends over roughly an octave, whereas this cloak extends over roughly 4. You'd be right to say that the size of the cloak's bandwidth is four times that of the visible light spectrum, but not four orders of magnitude more. Your overall conclusion is right, the article is way off.
Alll the keyboards I use start to go dyslexic long before I reach that kind of speed. Look, it did it to the firrst word! Argh there it is again!
I might regret admitting this, seeing as I like to think I'm not a bad writer, but... flunked? What the hell is wrong with it? Sure, it doesn't flow very nicely (I'd probably try to look for something better), but the meaning is strictly correct ("not superior" != "inferior", if that's what you're thinking) and it's unambiguous. I would've thought that would be important for what techies write.
Upstream bandwidth is a bit of a dog, though...
I think Einstein was on to something when he said, "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education."
Almost sounds like a kind of insurance.
Disney just haven't made a movie about them yet. Worked for fis- sorry, sea kitties.
Despite that being an interesting video, it contradicts your point. SWF is indeed open. It's just that it's openness is useless since it had been reverse engineered years prior.
Pretty horrid license restrictions on the plugin, though. Fuck Adobe.
PAL typically just speeds everything up to 25 FPS, rather than duplicate frames which NTSC does. Thus, a PAL conversion actually has more words-equivalent-per-second than NTSC (but over a slightly shorter time and in higher pitch).
It's not that simple, though, when you are talking about papers with multiple authors. It doesn't take into consideration to what level of involvement any particular author was. It's not uncommon for authors to be listed due to small contributions, or insight, or internal politics. At what point do you say their contribution was significant enough to warrant exclusion from impact factor calculations because of self-citation? And how do you even quantify that level of contribution?
A principal supervisor of a group may not have much involvement on a particular paper, and yet expect and receive an authorship of it. Do you reject self-citation in that case, when the authors who actually did the work are not directly affiliated with the other papers their supervisor was previously a part of?
Of course, that's going into subtleties regarding free-will vs. determinism beyond the point I was trying to make in my comment.
I personally don't always (only sometimes) feel angry at people for "choosing" to believe in ancient fairy tales, but I often feel pity for them for being so thoroughly indoctrinated as to make it difficult if not impossible for them to realise what has happened. This indoctrination is typically forced upon them as innocent children, which they cannot reasonably be expected to bear full blame for. Religion is a memetic disease that cripples those who are unwilling (the choice argument) or too young (the indoctrination argument) to have sufficiently developed mental immunity.
Hmm. Is being brainwashed as a child a choice?