The story quotes someone from MIT who did a study on something fairly simple; timing one's recognition response to colors and letters. The article tries to sensationalize it into a broad swath of "multitasking is inefficient.". Just what this means is totally unclear.
Be wary of anyone trying to simplify how humans think and work. No one understands the mind to any substantive degree--we have a hard time just figuring out how an ant's neurons fire when it walks.
For big name university and complicated statistical techinques, check out the PEAR group at Princeton. They do "psychic" research dealing with quantum randomness fluxuations.
I've used TeamSite for years.. and checked out the patent. everyone needs to settle down. Interwoven uses some clever tricks in the caching and indexing in their management system that go above and beyond what something like CVS does.
This is what they're pantenting. TeamSite was actually built on top of CVS when the project started, but the standard content manageement scheme is not what's being patented here..
I'm not sure I can completely subscribe to the electromagnetic -> cancer theories after seeing how Nicola Tesla lived his life (frequently he would subject himself to insanely high levels of electricity and radiation). He did not die of cancer.
good information source on this is http://www.pbs.org/tesla/
Sure you can do easy things like that in Windows. Even easier actually, all you do is click the pretty little Adobe icon in the World toolbar and boom, pdf.
I guess the whole idea of preventing airplanes from going into buildings in the first place is just too hard to handle so we gotta start thinking of how to build airplanes and buildings to handle such events.
for pete's sake just STOP THE AIRPLANES FROM CRASHING INTO A SKYSCRAPERS. end of story!
Once again note that, in the absence of communication from (a), we can't detect any physical difference in our photon. The only way we can say an effect has occured is if we can detect one.
I agree that from perspective (b) one cannot detect the effect measurement (a) has already made on particle (b) until after you measure (b), but the paradox is that in fact (a) is already predetermined because a faster than light signal, transfer of effect, whatever you want to call it, has made its way through space from the point where the collapse of particle (a) takes place. Even though you don't have knowledge of it from any perspective, the effect still takes place, and the effect transfers at faster than light speed.
No, it isn't. In the absence of any communication from (a) we still have a 50% chance of getting an H, and a 50% chance of getting a V.
Yes this is correct from the *local* perspective where measurement (b) takes place, but in actuality the outcome of our measurement is predetermined by the measurement already done on particle (a). This is an experimentally verified fact, and why entanglement is such a big deal. There is a transfer of effect faster than light. Once particle (a) has been measured and collapsed, particle (b)'s measurement outcome is thus determined.
Look at it this way. If (a) had not told us anything about her measurement would you be willing to bet your entire fortune on the outcome of ours?
Of course not, but this has nothing to do with us trying to predict what the outcome will be on our side. The fact remains our measurement of particle (b) is predetermined to have the opposite outcome of the previous measurement of (a).
Having local knowledge of what this predetermed outcome is before we measure (b) is of course impossible. But you're mistaking this with the fact that the outcome of our measurement of (b) is determined by the previously collapsed wave of our entangled sister particle (a).
By the way, whats up with this auto-mod points for your posts?
If we measure our photon we are 50% likely to get an H, and 50% likely to get a V. This occurs whether or not (a) has measured their photon prior to us.
This is false. If particle (a) has already been measured then the 50/50 probability disappears and we are guaranteed that we will get the opposite spin of particle (a).
However, when we measure on our side particle (b) we don't know that particle (a) has already been measured, or what the result was. But this does not change the fact that the outcome of the measurement is predetermined.
There is no transfer of information faster than light and there is no action at a distance.
How do you define information? If particle b is affected immediately upon collapse of particle a, then how has an action not occured? We only must agree that particle a is seperate from particle b in space to make true that an action has occured, whose 'effect' has been transferred faster than light speed. Here effect replaces the word information.
What's actually being transferred here? If the effect itself is the change of quantum state then what mediates this? If both particles are spatially seperated, and one particle's quantum state is affected by a change in the other's change in state, then 1) a force must exist to mediate this change, and 2) this force must be travelling at faster than light speeds (hence being acausal, goes backward in time, etc).
The only way to escape this logic is to assert that particle a and particle b are not really seperated in space at all, but are physically connected somehow (through a wormhole perhaps?). This will be answered when general relativity and quantum mechanics are brought together in a cohesive theory.
First of all this article is talking about quantum entanglement, something entirely different from what you're talking about. Quantum entanglement's effect is basically the transfer of information at faster than light speeds (nonlocal). It has nothing to do with reconstructing particles from other particles at a distance.
But it's NOT teleporation. Teleportation involves taking an object from point A and moving it to point Z without crossing the in-between space, C through Y.
Teleportation of photons has been done in the lab, and you are correct that the method of doing this involves destroying the original particle to create the new one which is located spatially apart from the original. But the particle *is* crossing the in between space. The information required to reconstruct the carbon copy particle is transferred to the final location, in effect, transferring the actual object. Whether this is a nonlocal (entanglement type) effect or not makes no difference. If it's a nonlocal transfer, then true the particle doesn't 'appear' to actually travel through point B to get to point C, however in reality it *must* be travelling spatially otherwise your arguement would be that every point in space is physically connected to everything, in effect, everything in existance in the universe is condensed into an infintesimal point such as the singularity 'particle' that existed before the big bang.
Think of it this way, if every particle of your body, subatomic or otherwise, was teleported to another location using this method, and in the process the old particles were destroyed, would you not in effect have been teleported in the star-trek idea of the concept? This can bring in pretty deep philosophical arguements, but by looking at the problem with a deterministic, or classical viewpoint of consciousness, your brain, your 'self', should function in its new location just as it did in the old one.
Whether this is true, or whether you'd just be a hump of biochemical dead matter is a question left for those brave individuals (or unlucky animals) who will be the first ginea pigs in human teleportation devices.
I remember the days when Emmanuel used to hang in #hack on efnet and argue with kiddies all day about how he was elite - apparently because he had nothing better to do.
This is a guy who has profited from teenage kids writing articles for him for free, in exchange for their chance to be in "2600" ooooh wow, 2600. 2600 was lame back in 93, and its even lamer today because its politically focused and imo slaps the real hacker community in the face. I can't see any legitimate hacker reading 2600 and not laughing his ass off.
Emmanuel Goldstein isn't even his real name. He is the epitome of poser.
What I'd really like to know is how Borland is going to use the same VCL, when the current VCL encapsulates Win32 APIs to create UI components. How will portability be accomplished without Win32?
Slashdot Mirror
The story quotes someone from MIT who did a study on something fairly simple; timing one's recognition response to colors and letters. The article tries to sensationalize it into a broad swath of "multitasking is inefficient.". Just what this means is totally unclear.
Be wary of anyone trying to simplify how humans think and work. No one understands the mind to any substantive degree--we have a hard time just figuring out how an ant's neurons fire when it walks.
For big name university and complicated statistical techinques, check out the PEAR group at Princeton. They do "psychic" research dealing with quantum randomness fluxuations.
I've used TeamSite for years.. and checked out the patent. everyone needs to settle down. Interwoven uses some clever tricks in the caching and indexing in their management system that go above and beyond what something like CVS does.
This is what they're pantenting. TeamSite was actually built on top of CVS when the project started, but the standard content manageement scheme is not what's being patented here..
This 'technology' was first used in the program "PowerTools" from http://www.bpssoft.com back in 1994. This is EIGHT years ago!
The program automatically responded to IMs for you on the Windows version of AOL, much like IM bots do today through AIM and other services.
I'm not sure I can completely subscribe to the electromagnetic -> cancer theories after seeing how Nicola Tesla lived his life (frequently he would subject himself to insanely high levels of electricity and radiation). He did not die of cancer.
good information source on this is http://www.pbs.org/tesla/
Sure you can do easy things like that in Windows. Even easier actually, all you do is click the pretty little Adobe icon in the World toolbar and boom, pdf.
for pete's sake just STOP THE AIRPLANES FROM CRASHING INTO A SKYSCRAPERS. end of story!
Once again note that, in the absence of communication from (a), we can't detect any physical difference in our photon. The only way we can say an effect has occured is if we can detect one.
I agree that from perspective (b) one cannot detect the effect measurement (a) has already made on particle (b) until after you measure (b), but the paradox is that in fact (a) is already predetermined because a faster than light signal, transfer of effect, whatever you want to call it, has made its way through space from the point where the collapse of particle (a) takes place. Even though you don't have knowledge of it from any perspective, the effect still takes place, and the effect transfers at faster than light speed.
Yes this is correct from the *local* perspective where measurement (b) takes place, but in actuality the outcome of our measurement is predetermined by the measurement already done on particle (a). This is an experimentally verified fact, and why entanglement is such a big deal. There is a transfer of effect faster than light. Once particle (a) has been measured and collapsed, particle (b)'s measurement outcome is thus determined.
Look at it this way. If (a) had not told us anything about her measurement would you be willing to bet your entire fortune on the outcome of ours?
Of course not, but this has nothing to do with us trying to predict what the outcome will be on our side. The fact remains our measurement of particle (b) is predetermined to have the opposite outcome of the previous measurement of (a).
Having local knowledge of what this predetermed outcome is before we measure (b) is of course impossible. But you're mistaking this with the fact that the outcome of our measurement of (b) is determined by the previously collapsed wave of our entangled sister particle (a).
By the way, whats up with this auto-mod points for your posts?
This is false. If particle (a) has already been measured then the 50/50 probability disappears and we are guaranteed that we will get the opposite spin of particle (a).
However, when we measure on our side particle (b) we don't know that particle (a) has already been measured, or what the result was. But this does not change the fact that the outcome of the measurement is predetermined.
How do you define information? If particle b is affected immediately upon collapse of particle a, then how has an action not occured? We only must agree that particle a is seperate from particle b in space to make true that an action has occured, whose 'effect' has been transferred faster than light speed. Here effect replaces the word information.
What's actually being transferred here? If the effect itself is the change of quantum state then what mediates this? If both particles are spatially seperated, and one particle's quantum state is affected by a change in the other's change in state, then 1) a force must exist to mediate this change, and 2) this force must be travelling at faster than light speeds (hence being acausal, goes backward in time, etc).
The only way to escape this logic is to assert that particle a and particle b are not really seperated in space at all, but are physically connected somehow (through a wormhole perhaps?). This will be answered when general relativity and quantum mechanics are brought together in a cohesive theory.
But it's NOT teleporation. Teleportation involves taking an object from point A and moving it to point Z without crossing the in-between space, C through Y.
Teleportation of photons has been done in the lab, and you are correct that the method of doing this involves destroying the original particle to create the new one which is located spatially apart from the original. But the particle *is* crossing the in between space. The information required to reconstruct the carbon copy particle is transferred to the final location, in effect, transferring the actual object. Whether this is a nonlocal (entanglement type) effect or not makes no difference. If it's a nonlocal transfer, then true the particle doesn't 'appear' to actually travel through point B to get to point C, however in reality it *must* be travelling spatially otherwise your arguement would be that every point in space is physically connected to everything, in effect, everything in existance in the universe is condensed into an infintesimal point such as the singularity 'particle' that existed before the big bang.
Think of it this way, if every particle of your body, subatomic or otherwise, was teleported to another location using this method, and in the process the old particles were destroyed, would you not in effect have been teleported in the star-trek idea of the concept? This can bring in pretty deep philosophical arguements, but by looking at the problem with a deterministic, or classical viewpoint of consciousness, your brain, your 'self', should function in its new location just as it did in the old one.
Whether this is true, or whether you'd just be a hump of biochemical dead matter is a question left for those brave individuals (or unlucky animals) who will be the first ginea pigs in human teleportation devices.
I remember the days when Emmanuel used to hang in #hack on efnet and argue with kiddies all day about how he was elite - apparently because he had nothing better to do. This is a guy who has profited from teenage kids writing articles for him for free, in exchange for their chance to be in "2600" ooooh wow, 2600. 2600 was lame back in 93, and its even lamer today because its politically focused and imo slaps the real hacker community in the face. I can't see any legitimate hacker reading 2600 and not laughing his ass off. Emmanuel Goldstein isn't even his real name. He is the epitome of poser.
What I'd really like to know is how Borland is going to use the same VCL, when the current VCL encapsulates Win32 APIs to create UI components. How will portability be accomplished without Win32?