Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 40

by circletimessquare (#49798127) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

SAT and IQ tests certain domains that are predictive of intelligence and achievement but don't gauge the most important intelligence for life: social intelligence

much as you can have as autistic savant/ asperger's individual who can play 12 games of chess in his head but doesn't know the difference between the price of a candy bar and a car, the rest of us also have small mental domains where we are geniuses, but in other domains we are idiots. all of us. for those who attach much value to topological manipulation or word memorization, tested intelligences, real life will come as a shock when someone else who isn't "smart," according to traditional testing methods, achieves highly and surpasses the "smart" individuals, because they are able to perceive, communicate, and manipulate in the social sphere of life at a more advanced level

social intelligence is the real iq, the real true intelligence, and the most crucial and vital mental skill you can have in your life. the rest are pathetic sideshows. there are math professors who can't balance their checkbooks. see the problem?

btw, i scored near perfect on my SAT and very highly on my IQ tests. i attach no self-worth to either. they are cute little games, sandboxed kiddie stuff, not my sense of meaning in life. anyone who attaches meaning to their SAT scores or IQ tests is, in all serious, an idiot

I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers.

- Response upon being questioned as to his IQ, in interview with Deborah Solomon "The Science of Second-Guessing", The New York Times (12 December 2004).

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/S...

Comment: Re:faster than light never violates Relativity (Score 1) 206

yes, agreed. the idea of keeping anything larger than an atom entangled for anything longer than a second over any distance over an inch seems like a colossal almost impossible task with today's technology

i was only doing a thought experiment

in the realm of way out there then: i wonder if you could entangle a number of "copies" of yourself: dozens, hundreds, millions

you just sort of disperse throughout the universe (not interacting with anything, i know, basically impossible by today's standards)

but in an instant, if you, or someone outside, decides one "copy" of you should be the one that coheres at a given place: boom, you're there

just an interesting thought with interesting ramifications- you (or someone else) doesn't have to decide out of dozens or maybe thousands of destinations... until the very last moment. that's a pretty exotic form of "travel"

Comment: Re:A niche product in a niche market (Score 1) 505

it's called desalination and it's a common mundane technology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

"boiling the oceans" makes me think you have no fucking clue about the kind of scale we're talking about here

if every nation exerted every single drop of it's GDP building desalination plants, we wouldn't make the tiniest of dents in the oceans genius

Comment: Re:A niche product in a niche market (Score 1) 505

if they desalinate ocean water for drinking purposes, the question is what to do with all that salt

answer: process it and take out all of the economically important trace elements, not just lithium

The total lithium content of seawater is very large and is estimated as 230 billion tonnes, where the element exists at a relatively constant concentration of 0.14 to 0.25 parts per million (ppm),[40][41] or 25 micromolar;[42] higher concentrations approaching 7 ppm are found near hydrothermal vents.[41]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

sure, this would put lithium at a high price point, but not that high if the desalination and concentration process is mostly solar powered and on a massive scale for drinking water purposes

Comment: Re:faster than light never violates Relativity (Score 1) 206

i get it: they are guaranteed the same white noise, which is fine for encryption purposes (and know if someone snooped, because that would render their white noise dissimilar)

but there is no preserving the integrity of a particle/ wave for transportation purposes

thank you, i learned something

Comment: Re:faster than light never violates Relativity (Score 3, Interesting) 206

that's an excellent analogy, thank you

and you are correct, there's no real movement, only a collapse to a single frame of reference

however, for the intents and purposes of outside human observers, haven't you instantly blinked across light years?

Comment: Re:faster than light never violates Relativity (Score 4, Interesting) 206

we have no technology remotely capable of this, but:

1. a quantum entangled version of yourself moves away from you (at "normal" speed, less than c)

2. say... many light years away (i know, i said we have no technology remotely capable of this, bear with me here, just a thought experiment)

3. the "copy" of you can't violate c, but at the last moment, one version of you interacts with its surroundings, collapsing you to that single copy. such that you have achieved instantaneous transportation across light years of distances

doesn't that happen faster than c?

"If a computer can't directly address all the RAM you can use, it's just a toy." -- anonymous comp.sys.amiga posting, non-sequitir

Working...