Spatial channels. You actually transmit on the same wavelength from multiple antenna, but (oversimplification) you aim one beam at one antenna and a different beam at a different antenna.

Usually in such schemes you can recover a packet if you have the surrounding packets before and after it.

Considering each one is only sent once, that would be some feirce level of broken compound load balancing.

Note he said each packet contains the modulus of the entire original file with a different prime. The only thing that would cause duplicate packets would be running out of acceptably-sized primes.

If it is like most such articles, they use 35 pages of polynomial math over a GF(2) field as a way to mathematically formalize what could be better explained with a one-page circuit diagram with a few XOR and shift registers and one paragraph of commentary, so yeah, wait for the boiled down version.

That philisophical debate hinges around whether the essence of the object being teleported must be destroyed.

It basically boils down to this: you have to send point B the data about what you did at point A for the reading you made at point B to be interpreted in any meaningful fashion. That data travels in a classical fashion so you don't know what your reading at point B actually means until after the light carrying the data from point A has arrived. Once the data are combined, they become actual information.

Not useful for exceedind the speed of light under currently accepted theory, but very useful for cryptography because only you have the reading from point B and both peices of data are needed to get the information, so someone stealing the classically transported data is still missing a part.

The double slit experiment. Even when you slow down the rate of photons going through the slit so no two can possibly interfere, they still present a self-interference pattern. If the function was "already collapsed" it could not interact with itself.

It stopped meaning that in browsers and many windowed applications when Windows hotkeys started to creep in because the linux desktop wanted to provide a shallow learning curve for transitioning users. On top of all the other bullshit they've done to mess up text entry in the URL bar for people who can actually type, not providing an easy switch to choose a bash/emacs keybinding style bugs the hell out of me. Not sure exactly what CTRL-K supposedly does but it sure doesn't cut the line off.

The pothole app was probably a poor choice of example, but is much simpler to understand than insurance risk pools, so that's probably why they chose it. There are plenty of examples of digital ghettos that don't open themselves up to this "personal responsibility" bullshit argument, and the economic bias the big data introduces into the system is going to negatively impact groups of people that are not so easily defined as by race, gender or poverty. It's a real and growing problem and without constant attention to the effects of data mining, it will get much worse over time.

Also note that when the delusional complain about the "welfare queens" possession of a cell phone is often an item on their list alongside cable TV.

I wouldn't give it 25 years. The last technical obstacle is about to fall on the enterprise campus, in that the latest generation of switches and wifi conrollers that are being sold now have roadmapped upgrade paths to RIPE-554. Almost all our other gear has been IPv6 ready for year; once the old edge switches are phased out (5 year timeframe) those roadmaps will have become reality and then it's just a matter of finding the time, which won't take two decades.

I do. Just because data is aggregate does not make it harmless, especially when insurance company risk pools get involved. The people using this data are under no oath or legal obligation to use it in a humane, reasonable, or positive fashion. This data is slowly building the boundaries of the digital ghettos of the future.

Yeah, to say that "standards don't keep up with technological progress" is a one-sided perspective, since technology doesn't keep up with standards. If it did, I'd be more of a coder and less of an implementer, because 80% of my time is papering over standards noncompliance in vendor equipment.

Better to say implementors and standards bodies don't coordinate like they should.

Engineers don't just apply known science, they deal with the parts of the system that aren't obeying the textbook rules and find places to look for new phenomena in the process. To do so they analyse behavior and build models that predict the tolerances needed to get things working with a high degree of confidence. The difference is they don't go off on tangents because they have an objective, but engineers are often the initial discoverers of phenomena. It usually takes a pure scientist to then go in to spend the time explain more precisely why they had to make the tweaks they did, but there is plenty of overlap and there are plenty of people you cannot put into one category or another.

Um, no, mechanical engineering has more to deal with now than they did then, because materials science and nanotech are increasingly important components.

I don't know where you get your ideas about the engineering disciplines. They pretty much all have frontiers.

It's a worn out thesis echoed many times over by the occasional erudite edlder for some physchological reasons that will perhaps never be fully understood, even by said erudite elders.

If you want an interesting discussion along these lines, it's much more interesting to discuss how educational techinique could be improved to bring people up to speed faster, given the amount of knowlege needed to make an impact is arguably higher but we obviously haven't managed to figure out how to teach faster. Or how we are starting to get culturally desensitized to discoveries that actually would be ground shaking back in the day. Or how emergent behaviors have suddenly made new areas of math not formerly considered worthy of the title of "science" much more pertinent, and after all, physicists were really doing just math to explain observations back when they made their Nobel winning discoveries.

I don't think so in this case. I normally would have waited on the firehose for a submission with a better writeup, but this was relatively urgent news so I upvoted it anyway.

(Yes someone did understand you weren't talking about the potential intentionality of the bug, don't despair there are people capable of comprehension out there and you may even meet one face to face someday :-)