Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Quantum "Teleportation" isn't teleportation at all (Score 1, Troll) 365

by DigitalEntropy (#31043580) Attached to: Physicists Discover How To Teleport Energy

There is nothing transmitted between "entangled" particles, nor are any relevant bits of information passed between them in any method that comes close to the definition of "teleportation", or even "transportation". The quantum mechanics behind "entagled" particles should be described like this:

1.) You have 2 Rubick's Cubes.
2.) You "entagle" them by making the faces of each Cube exactly identical to the other.
3.) You separate them physically into different geological locations.
4.) You "measure" Cube A by turning one of its sides.
5.) You call a handler at Cube B using a "common channel" (phone).
6.) Cube B is "measured" by having its identical face turned exactly replicating Step 4, per the instructions received by step 5.
7.) Repeat steps 4 through 6 until your heart is content.
8.) Bring the Cubes together, and marvel that their faces are still identical to each other.

I think the principle problem with "quantum teleportation" is that any measurement on one Cube which is not duplicated exactly on the other, breaks the entanglement of the particles. They are only "entangled" in the sense that their states have been synchronized. There may be avenues of recovering the synchronization using permutations of "measurements", but then I haven't read much about what occurs during an error or fault in measurement, so this is all just my best guess.

Image

Zombie Pigs First, Hibernating Soldiers Next 193

Posted by samzenpus
from the fattening-up-on-brains dept.
ColdWetDog writes "Wired is running a story on DARPA's effort to stave off battlefield casualties by turning injured soldiers into zombies by injecting them with a cocktail of one chemical or another (details to be announced). From the article, 'Dr. Fossum predicts that each soldier will carry a syringe into combat zones or remote areas, and medic teams will be equipped with several. A single injection will minimize metabolic needs, de-animating injured troops by shutting down brain and heart function. Once treatment can be carried out, they'll be "re-animated" and — hopefully — as good as new.' If it doesn't pan out we can at least get zombie bacon and spam."

Comment: Re:DARPA is mapping society. (Score 1) 68

by DigitalEntropy (#30336482) Attached to: MIT and the DARPA Network Challenge

Well, the MIT terms and conditions suggest that the data will be anonymized for MIT's purposes, so MIT will not use the data in a personally identifiable way. But, the terms and conditions also state:

"You grant us a non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide, irrevocable license to use, reproduce, adapt, modify, publish, translate, create derivative works from, communicate to the public and display the Tracking Data."

So, while they limit their own use, they grant themselves the right to provide the raw data, with personally identifiable information in tact, to some other entity.

So, which one of us RTFA?

Comment: DARPA is mapping society. (Score 1) 68

by DigitalEntropy (#30333156) Attached to: MIT and the DARPA Network Challenge

That concerns me. What does the Department of Defense need from understanding the intimate social structures of the nation? So, for free, you're going to voluntarily tell the Department of Defense--those who were once involved in the search for Communists during McCarthy's heyday--everybody you have contact with, or influence over?

Sure, the auspices of the data, in an abstract, non-personally identifying manner, are relevant. But there's another purpose entirely by adding incentive to participate.

First and foremost, it breaks the scientific mold and corrupts the data. All of their data must be taken in the context of the incentive. It can only be applied to other situations that have a similar context. That severely limits the usefulness of the data, and negatively impacts the value of the data.

So what is the true value of this data, and how will it be used in the long run. Also: how long do they plan to keep it? (Until another McCarthy comes along on a witch-hunt? Who then, do you know, that would damn you to interrogation and thorough, disruptive inspection by the DoD?) They say it all with: "Is your blog effective at spreading information?"

I say, "Fuck red-balloons." Find me 10 people willing to die for the sins of everybody that ever lived. Hell, find me 10 Taco Bell dishes that don't make me shit my pants every time I sneeze.

Comment: What about the website? (Score 1) 167

by DigitalEntropy (#30041096) Attached to: Startup Claims Google Copied Web-Annotation Product

How do you calculate the theft of value from a website's internal commenting and user contribution functions by services such as these? What about the violation of Fair Use by adjoining or abridging copyrighted content with such a service? How about damages evident by the content of unmitigated and unmoderated user submissions?

Whether Google or ReframeIt does it, it's stealing, and it's wrong. Sites like DIGG and Fark implement this kind of thing the right way, by centralizing the user submissions away from the site, and into a representation that does not adjoin the linked content. This is not stealing. This is an acceptable, legally-protected, alternate forum for contextual discussion which does not impede, supplant, or otherwise illicit participation from users navigating directly to websites in question.

Google and ReframeIt should be held liable for infringing on the copyrights of every site they encapsulate or otherwise co-opt with their software.

Comment: Public Unschooling (Score 1) 1345

by DigitalEntropy (#29313889) Attached to: Schooling, Homeschooling, and Now, "Unschooling"

Aside from the science, language, and math classes I took until the end of high school, I'd say the it was pretty effective "unschooling". I've learned more about British aristocracy from Wikipedia than I ever learned in school--and far more interesting things than were present in any of the text books that we were tested on. History, Psychology, Social Studies... all of it was filled with crap I ultimately replaced with real education in the real world.

For example (and this may be only my experience), I never got exposed to the *whole* "states rights" argument about the Civil War in school, so for the most part I ended up thinking Lincoln was Jesus' second coming. 9 times out of 10, (especially if you come from the North) you leave school thinking that the whole point of the Civil War was about freeing the slaves, when it really had to do with a lot more things like taxes. Hell, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't come until well into the War. Then some of the things you learn about Lincoln outside of the heavily-doctored, high school textbooks makes him look like a generally nice guy that could be a real dick--which sounds a lot like a recent president I'm familiar with. In fact, in certain lights, he seems like being an agent of Empire than of Democracy. Either way, we can thank him for the world we live in today, as Americans, for better or worse.

My point is that I don't necessarily believe the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, had been imparted in school--making the substance worthless. And while I personally had some great teachers, there were far more "from the book" automatons which made the whole process uninteresting, and useless. But this is a perspective I didn't have until after I exposed myself to information outside of the classroom. Until then, I thought I had been fairly well schooled. Now, I'm certain I had been "unschooled".

What I think is important about the schooling process are those subjects which require a structured environment to really learn: namely science, language, and math. I would not hesitate for a moment to assume that those would be the weakest elements of a wholly "unschooled" individual. Which is a shame, as they are more important than anything else and serve as the best foundation for assimilating the world.

Comment: The financial investments made by your customers. (Score 1) 520

by DigitalEntropy (#29148989) Attached to: Ask Blizzard About Starcraft2, Diablo III, WoW, or Battle.net

Blizzard,

I've dropped more money into Blizzard than I care to admit. Year after year, you boast record profits from your largest titles. Each expansion for WoW costs as much as the original game itself, and with your adjustments to the original game content and the accelerated leveling mechanics the value of the original WoW, and the Burning Crusade, has all but been obliterated. Yet, the prices barely reflect this. On top of this, you are projecting SC2 to be an incomplete game, deliverable in 3 bite-size episodes at (probably more than) $50 a piece.

I'm personally sick and tired of having my wallet emptied by your new corporate strategies and board of directors for incomplete games. There was a time when Blizzard would not release an incomplete game--when years after the initial delivery dates would pass without event while the team worked tirelessly to perfect it and deliver a whole product, with a whole story, self-contained, and independent from any further expansion or episode.

It seems obvious that WoW was the changing point for Blizzard. Was it the lure of money-money-money that made Blizzard change how it treats is loyal fan-base? Why do you repeatedly rake your customers over the coals of investment, while actively depreciating their previous infusions of capital?

Biotech

+ - How do I donate and legally protect cord blood? 1

Submitted by DigitalEntropy
DigitalEntropy (146564) writes "I'm having a son (my first) in a few weeks, and have been toying with the idea of donating his cord blood. As I'm aware there are many medical benefits of utilizing the stem cells from cord blood, I would be more than happy to pitch into the community of public cord blood banking. However, I'm troubled by the recent trend of stem cell patents [nature.com]. Now, I don't think my child will be Superman, or anything like that, but in the highly distant chance that his stem cell line produces results that make it worth patenting, I would like to restrict the ability to patent it. I would prefer that the benefit and ability to use the line throughout all and any medical or scientific practice remains protected and not subject to the whims or fancy of any particular research firm. To be certain, I'm not opposed to the blood or cells being sold to recoup the cost of storing publicly donated blood; but I am opposed to the privatization or monopolization of the benefits derived therefrom. In essence, I'm asking to make the cord blood "open source". So my questions to Slashdot are these: What steps can I take to achieve this goal? Are there methods or regulations in place that the Slashdot community may be aware of to this end?"

Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too." -- Dave Haynie

Working...