it's not just that "you cannot predict which of the two [states] you will measure";
I never said such a thing.
You are a pathetic lying swine.
THIS is what i said:
You will either measure a Zero or a One. You cannot predict which of the two you will measure.
YOU are the only one here blathering about classical states before any measurement is performed. You intentionally added the word "states" to a sentence that clearly and unambiguously was making reference to the outcome of measurements.
You're falsifying other peoples words such as to make them say something that is wrong and then you go and insult them over the wrong thing that YOU inserted?
Wow. That's a new low.
If you don't even know the most basic stuff about quantum mechanics (as is clear from the post), please educate yourself[...]
I'm a physicist. I have a PhD. *I* have already done my homework.
The Democrat Party is the natural home to politicians who dislike the American system of government.
*yawn*
Hmm. US Government is designed with limited powers. Democrat Party ALWAYS works to make Government more powerful. It may be boring, but it is indisputably true.
So why does the government always grow more when Republicans are in charge than Democrats? Why do taxes always grow faster and steeper when Republicans are in charge?
Yes, information can only be transmitted at light speed. (Except information pertaining to gravitational fields, which must be transmitted instantly over vast distances in order for planets and moons to stay within stable orbits. Run the numbers for yourself -- see if you can get the planets to stay in orbit when the force points towards where the *current* light-speed gravitational waves say the massive object is.)
Who modded this "interesting"? It is nonsense. The use of the term "force" in the context of gravity indicates that the poster is is talking about classical, Newtonian gravity. And there is no speed-of-light-limit in Newtonian gravity. Neither is there anywhere else in Newtonian mechanics.
You want to do gravity relavtivistically (i.e. correctly, in agreement with actual, modern-level observations) you'll have to use general relativity. Which just so happens to work just fine. You'll find that there's no "force" (or other absolute vector) in there at all. The whole thing is essentially geometry-free, only the differential of any vector ever plays a role. As it should be, in a properly relativistic physics.
Then can you please explain what TFA is all about?
In effect I hand you a state and you can perform a measurement on it. You will either measure a Zero or a One. You cannot predict which of the two you will measure. And you can perform the measurement only once. However I can prepare my side of the link such as to ensure that you will measure Zero with exactly 15.37586 percent probability. I can now write a learned paper in which I claim that 8 digits worth of "quantum information" have been teleported.
Note that this cannot be used to actually transmit any actual, real, information. Like a phone call or a TV signal or anything anybody actually cares about. Because it's about teleporting a quantum state.
People figured out that this is really uninteresting, boring, and there's no reason to fund it; so they call it "teleporting quantum information" instead, because that keeps the public (and hopefully the funding agencies) interested.
They report a variety of folks statements, all of them critical of Obama. That makes it an article critical of Obama. That's all there is to it. Welcome to adult conversation.
There is no reason at all why the writer or the editor of the piece should insert their own voice in this. They're supposed to report the facts, not distort them. If, in your eyes, an article is only critical of the president if it is filled with cuss words, then by all means go back to Fox News.
[...]conduct the following though experiment: that you are black and some is chanting "nigger nigger nigger nigger" [...]
If there were a group of people who calls black people niggers and another group of people who condones, advocates and commits murder, then I know which of the two I would side with.
I submitted a picture of Mohammed. And somewhere in the future, I will be able to say "When they came for South Park, I did speak up". Will you?
Although something similar may be posted below, I'm feeling to lazy to read the entire thread. There are no commandments in the Qur'an that ban images of this sort:
It doesn't matter what is or isn't written in any one pretty book in the world.
Fact of the matter is that Islam has been effectively censoring all western press for five years now.
No part of your bare body will do the job. The only footwear that I'd confidently say would kill one is ice skates.
Very cool, but I don't think these qualify as insects (they hatch directly from eggs, for one thing, whereas insects go through a larval stage and pupate).
Is it now? I seem to be getting rather mixed messages.
If it is possible to desensitize folks from strong reactions to roaches using exposure to virtual roaches, why is it somehow absurd to suggest that people are desensitized from strong reactions to violence by exposure to violence in video games? Just asking this question usually gets me modded to hell and back (usually troll or flamebait) but I've yet to see a coherent argument supporting such an odd schism. Virtual exposure to heights, desensitizes people who have aversions against height. Vitual crowds get people to be less fearful of real ones. Yet virtual exposure to bloodbaths cannot possibly desensitize people against real ones - and anybody who dares suggest otherwise must somehow be an evil video games-hater.
I fail to see how the table you linked there is supporting this claim.
You may want to do the following two things:
1) Sort the table by tonnage. There's all kinds of inconsequential spills all the times and you cannot expect this table to be complete on the level of single barrels. I can easily flood that table with ten times more entries, all of which have the little US flag in them and none of them mattering a whole lot.
2) Ignore the little flags that tell you where the spills happened and have a look at who was spilling. The largest oil spill in European waters, for example, would have to be the Amoco Cardiz - hardly a European operation.
Is how effective Tin foil might be at stopping the hallucinations. They haven't stopped since I started wearing my hat, I'm beginning to doubt they are hallucinations like my doctor tells me.
And if you are doing a strictly web browser like computer and don't want to use Windows, why not just build a netbook or computer with pre-installed Linux?
What, exactly is an iPad if not a "netbook with pre-installed Linux"?
As has been stated 1000 times already: The company cannot obligate you to use your resources for company work; if your job description requires a certain resource the company is obligated to provide it.
Saying something a thousand times doesn't make it true.
When I hire a carpenter to re-do my roof, I expect him to bring his own tools. And if he tells me that I'm supposed to supply him with every tool he might need for the roofing job, I'll call up a different contractor.
(And yes: if I am under the impression that he's bringing unsafe tools that might set my house on fire, then I'm going to tell him that he should get better ones).
This... the policy isn't draconian, it is absurdly lax. No unauthorized computers should be allowed, period.
Depends - the OP doesn't really say what he's working. For all we know he is a janitor and brings a laptop to work to browse for porn in the lunch hour. At that point it wouldn't matter to the security of the hospital business, but they might still require only secure systems to connect inside their (net-)perimeter.
Where I work, we have two Wifi networks - and internal one and a "courtesy" one that is for all intents and purposes an external network. You can open any laptop anywhere and get a wifi signal, but the lax network makes you be some random guy anywhere in the world. (for purposes of access to internal resources like email and such). And the internal network requires that your machine complies with the IT reqirements.
Funny that nobody came up with this answer: There's no condition that you have to win against him today. Nor that you have to win the first game you play. So I'll play a game against him, say, on the weekend. And then again on the next weekend. I'm already booked solid for the next couple weekends, but I could probably pencil him in in August or something. I mean - the guy must be a million years old by now, I'm sure I'd enjoy playing him a lot more than he'd enjoy playing me and I'm sure I could stall him until he dies.
What I want to know now is why did the trial take so long? And why did it have to go into technical detail? The issue wasn't technological in nature. It was a simple matter of a guy having authority, losing that authority, and refusing to give the tools of that authority back to the owners of the authority.
Was it? That has to be established first. Beyond a reasonable doubt in front of the Jury.
I served on a murder jury once, and we spent days just establishing that a murder had actually happened. Yes, there were two dead guys with holes in them and a lot of bullet casings all over the place - but the prosecution still had the burden to show that the two were the people they claimed they were (and not two completely different ones), that they were in fact dead, that bullets had indeed passed through their bodies, that these bullets were in fact the reason they were dead etc etc etc. In excruciating detail. Who establish when where and based on what evidence from which angle "this" bullet moved through "that" body part. Days. Nobody was contesting any of the facts - the defense didn't claim the guys were alive or anything - but the case still had to be established and presented to the jury.
How else would you claim that guilt was established "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
It took some doing to convince people that there was no proven guilt in the case, even though innocence was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is absurd: innocence does not have to be proven at all. Innocence is to be presumed. The accused does not need to defend himself in any way, shape or form. 100% of the burden of proof in a criminal case is on the prosecution; and it is the burden to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
And yet, despite the defendant not having any criminal record, no association with criminals, no shady past , some jurors seemed to be anguishing that they might have to actually acquit someone!
Why on earth would the question whether or not to acquit someone have anything whatsoever to do with a criminal record, association with criminals or a shady past? What kind of jury instructions did you people get? You acquit someone if and when the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Period. Nothing else matters in any way.
And he didn't. He withdrew a bunch of cash. I'd probably try to do the same thing if I thought the government was going to arrest me - which he had been threatened with. Maybe you haven't noticed, but a common enough tactic is for the government to freeze the assets of people it tries to prosecute. No cash means the best you can get is an overworked public defender.
Not a bad theory, but here's a much better one: you've almost certainly lost your high-paying job, your career is in shambles, you may well get prosecuted; what are you going to do with the next week? I think "blowing a couple grand in Las Vegas" is not a particularly unlikely answer.
NASA routinely flies stratospheric balloon craft from a variety of locations in the world, chosen for various reasons. From northern Canada to the Antarctic.
Google "NSBF" or "CSBF" (national scientific ballooning facility).
All that said, these facilities can/do launch payloads manufactured by anybody who can afford a launch - the payload may or may not be built by a University working with money that may or may not have come from NASA originally.
Personally I would assume that this particular payload was NOT NASA funded for the simple reason that none of the various news outlets is willing to name a sponsor. The best I can find anywhere is that the instrument was built and operated by UC Berkeley researchers, but there's a conspicuous absence of any kind of information of what, exactly, was destroyed - what the instrument was called, for example, what it was supposed to measure up there, who the PI was (that would be the obvious person to interview, of course, not some bystander bumpkins) and all those bits of information that would be freely flowing if this was a purely university/research payload.
Slashdot Mirror
r. this thing has large engines to move from leo to meo if it needs to.
That's an understatement.
With a delta-v of 3.3, this thing can go to the moon, if needed. (Won't come back, though).
it's not just that "you cannot predict which of the two [states] you will measure";
I never said such a thing.
You are a pathetic lying swine.
THIS is what i said:
You will either measure a Zero or a One. You cannot predict which of the two you will measure.
YOU are the only one here blathering about classical states before any measurement is performed. You intentionally added the word "states" to a sentence that clearly and unambiguously was making reference to the outcome of measurements.
You're falsifying other peoples words such as to make them say something that is wrong and then you go and insult them over the wrong thing that YOU inserted?
Wow. That's a new low.
If you don't even know the most basic stuff about quantum mechanics (as is clear from the post), please educate yourself[...]
I'm a physicist. I have a PhD. *I* have already done my homework.
You haven't.
The Democrat Party is the natural home to politicians who dislike the American system of government.
*yawn*
Hmm. US Government is designed with limited powers. Democrat Party ALWAYS works to make Government more powerful. It may be boring, but it is indisputably true.
So why does the government always grow more when Republicans are in charge than Democrats? Why do taxes always grow faster and steeper when Republicans are in charge?
2+2 can equal 5 in sufficiently strange environments. Just like 0+0 can equal 1.
I see you have already been peeking at the new Texas textbooks.
Yes, information can only be transmitted at light speed. (Except information pertaining to gravitational fields, which must be transmitted instantly over vast distances in order for planets and moons to stay within stable orbits. Run the numbers for yourself -- see if you can get the planets to stay in orbit when the force points towards where the *current* light-speed gravitational waves say the massive object is.)
Who modded this "interesting"? It is nonsense. The use of the term "force" in the context of gravity indicates that the poster is is talking about classical, Newtonian gravity. And there is no speed-of-light-limit in Newtonian gravity. Neither is there anywhere else in Newtonian mechanics.
You want to do gravity relavtivistically (i.e. correctly, in agreement with actual, modern-level observations) you'll have to use general relativity. Which just so happens to work just fine. You'll find that there's no "force" (or other absolute vector) in there at all. The whole thing is essentially geometry-free, only the differential of any vector ever plays a role. As it should be, in a properly relativistic physics.
Then can you please explain what TFA is all about?
In effect I hand you a state and you can perform a measurement on it. You will either measure a Zero or a One. You cannot predict which of the two you will measure. And you can perform the measurement only once. However I can prepare my side of the link such as to ensure that you will measure Zero with exactly 15.37586 percent probability. I can now write a learned paper in which I claim that 8 digits worth of "quantum information" have been teleported.
Note that this cannot be used to actually transmit any actual, real, information. Like a phone call or a TV signal or anything anybody actually cares about. Because it's about teleporting a quantum state.
People figured out that this is really uninteresting, boring, and there's no reason to fund it; so they call it "teleporting quantum information" instead, because that keeps the public (and hopefully the funding agencies) interested.
They report a variety of folks statements, all of them critical of Obama. That makes it an article critical of Obama. That's all there is to it. Welcome to adult conversation.
There is no reason at all why the writer or the editor of the piece should insert their own voice in this. They're supposed to report the facts, not distort them. If, in your eyes, an article is only critical of the president if it is filled with cuss words, then by all means go back to Fox News.
[...]conduct the following though experiment: that you are black and some is chanting "nigger nigger nigger nigger" [...]
If there were a group of people who calls black people niggers and another group of people who condones, advocates and commits murder, then I know which of the two I would side with.
I submitted a picture of Mohammed. And somewhere in the future, I will be able to say "When they came for South Park, I did speak up". Will you?
Although something similar may be posted below, I'm feeling to lazy to read the entire thread. There are no commandments in the Qur'an that ban images of this sort:
It doesn't matter what is or isn't written in any one pretty book in the world.
Fact of the matter is that Islam has been effectively censoring all western press for five years now.
Here's where the line gets drawn.
FAT32 is a file system type. It can at most limit the size of a partition. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the size of a disk.
Dr. Phil is pop psychology, who's as worthless as they get.
Wait - how do you measure "worthless"?
Really - what other book can you buy on Amazon for $.01?
Oh, I see - the capitalist version of "worthless": measured by the amount of money somehting makes on the market.
OK, for the duration of this post I'll go with that.
[...]
Gary Craig used to give his instruction manual away for free [...]
At this point, you are expected to notice something.
All insects can be killed with a simple swat of my hand, thank you very much.
O RLY?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centipede
No part of your bare body will do the job. The only footwear that I'd confidently say would kill one is ice skates.
Very cool, but I don't think these qualify as insects (they hatch directly from eggs, for one thing, whereas insects go through a larval stage and pupate).
Virtual reality is virtually real.
Is it now? I seem to be getting rather mixed messages.
If it is possible to desensitize folks from strong reactions to roaches using exposure to virtual roaches, why is it somehow absurd to suggest that people are desensitized from strong reactions to violence by exposure to violence in video games? Just asking this question usually gets me modded to hell and back (usually troll or flamebait) but I've yet to see a coherent argument supporting such an odd schism. Virtual exposure to heights, desensitizes people who have aversions against height. Vitual crowds get people to be less fearful of real ones. Yet virtual exposure to bloodbaths cannot possibly desensitize people against real ones - and anybody who dares suggest otherwise must somehow be an evil video games-hater.
[...]
And historically, Europe's record on oil spills is far worse than that of the US. [...]
I fail to see how the table you linked there is supporting this claim.
You may want to do the following two things:
They have a delta-v of 3.3; if they want they can go to the moon with that thing.
Is how effective Tin foil might be at stopping the hallucinations. They haven't stopped since I started wearing my hat, I'm beginning to doubt they are hallucinations like my doctor tells me.
"They" claim that tinfoil helmets don't really work: http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/
And if you are doing a strictly web browser like computer and don't want to use Windows, why not just build a netbook or computer with pre-installed Linux?
What, exactly is an iPad if not a "netbook with pre-installed Linux"?
As has been stated 1000 times already: The company cannot obligate you to use your resources for company work; if your job description requires a certain resource the company is obligated to provide it.
Saying something a thousand times doesn't make it true.
When I hire a carpenter to re-do my roof, I expect him to bring his own tools. And if he tells me that I'm supposed to supply him with every tool he might need for the roofing job, I'll call up a different contractor.
(And yes: if I am under the impression that he's bringing unsafe tools that might set my house on fire, then I'm going to tell him that he should get better ones).
This... the policy isn't draconian, it is absurdly lax. No unauthorized computers should be allowed, period.
Depends - the OP doesn't really say what he's working. For all we know he is a janitor and brings a laptop to work to browse for porn in the lunch hour. At that point it wouldn't matter to the security of the hospital business, but they might still require only secure systems to connect inside their (net-)perimeter.
Where I work, we have two Wifi networks - and internal one and a "courtesy" one that is for all intents and purposes an external network. You can open any laptop anywhere and get a wifi signal, but the lax network makes you be some random guy anywhere in the world. (for purposes of access to internal resources like email and such). And the internal network requires that your machine complies with the IT reqirements.
Funny that nobody came up with this answer: There's no condition that you have to win against him today. Nor that you have to win the first game you play. So I'll play a game against him, say, on the weekend. And then again on the next weekend. I'm already booked solid for the next couple weekends, but I could probably pencil him in in August or something. I mean - the guy must be a million years old by now, I'm sure I'd enjoy playing him a lot more than he'd enjoy playing me and I'm sure I could stall him until he dies.
What I want to know now is why did the trial take so long? And why did it have to go into technical detail? The issue wasn't technological in nature. It was a simple matter of a guy having authority, losing that authority, and refusing to give the tools of that authority back to the owners of the authority.
Was it? That has to be established first. Beyond a reasonable doubt in front of the Jury.
I served on a murder jury once, and we spent days just establishing that a murder had actually happened. Yes, there were two dead guys with holes in them and a lot of bullet casings all over the place - but the prosecution still had the burden to show that the two were the people they claimed they were (and not two completely different ones), that they were in fact dead, that bullets had indeed passed through their bodies, that these bullets were in fact the reason they were dead etc etc etc. In excruciating detail. Who establish when where and based on what evidence from which angle "this" bullet moved through "that" body part. Days. Nobody was contesting any of the facts - the defense didn't claim the guys were alive or anything - but the case still had to be established and presented to the jury.
How else would you claim that guilt was established "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
It took some doing to convince people that there was no proven guilt in the case, even though innocence was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is absurd: innocence does not have to be proven at all. Innocence is to be presumed. The accused does not need to defend himself in any way, shape or form. 100% of the burden of proof in a criminal case is on the prosecution; and it is the burden to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
And yet, despite the defendant not having any criminal record, no association with criminals, no shady past , some jurors seemed to be anguishing that they might have to actually acquit someone!
Why on earth would the question whether or not to acquit someone have anything whatsoever to do with a criminal record, association with criminals or a shady past? What kind of jury instructions did you people get? You acquit someone if and when the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Period. Nothing else matters in any way.
And he didn't. He withdrew a bunch of cash. I'd probably try to do the same thing if I thought the government was going to arrest me - which he had been threatened with. Maybe you haven't noticed, but a common enough tactic is for the government to freeze the assets of people it tries to prosecute. No cash means the best you can get is an overworked public defender.
Not a bad theory, but here's a much better one: you've almost certainly lost your high-paying job, your career is in shambles, you may well get prosecuted; what are you going to do with the next week? I think "blowing a couple grand in Las Vegas" is not a particularly unlikely answer.
NASA routinely flies stratospheric balloon craft from a variety of locations in the world, chosen for various reasons. From northern Canada to the Antarctic.
Google "NSBF" or "CSBF" (national scientific ballooning facility).
All that said, these facilities can/do launch payloads manufactured by anybody who can afford a launch - the payload may or may not be built by a University working with money that may or may not have come from NASA originally.
Personally I would assume that this particular payload was NOT NASA funded for the simple reason that none of the various news outlets is willing to name a sponsor. The best I can find anywhere is that the instrument was built and operated by UC Berkeley researchers, but there's a conspicuous absence of any kind of information of what, exactly, was destroyed - what the instrument was called, for example, what it was supposed to measure up there, who the PI was (that would be the obvious person to interview, of course, not some bystander bumpkins) and all those bits of information that would be freely flowing if this was a purely university/research payload.
And, of course, 8+3.3 > 11.2
Just sayin.