Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Jerri (Score 1) 523

The US won against Germany and Japan while obeying the Geneva convention. Japan did expressly not, Germany at least to some extend.

The US did not obey the Geneva convention at Abu Ghraib.

Not playing by the rules worked out just swimmingly for you, didn't it?

Now for the first time the US finally faces an enemy that really makes America good look in comparison. And they are also morons that can be easily defeated.

But no ... for America's learning challenged winning the heart and minds is never an option, even in a beauty contest with barbarians from the 9th circle of hell.

Comment: Re:not the first time (Score 1) 124

by quax (#49169439) Attached to: Photo First: Light Captured As Both Particle and Wave

True, the heuristic for quantum chemistry like DFT are pretty good but that only takes you so far. Statistical physics with the particle model is much easier but then you miss all the emergent phenomena of collective quantum dynamics like superconductivity.

That's why I am excited about quantum computing. Recent research from the ETHZ group of Mathias Troyer have shown that quantum chemistry will already greatly benefit from even modest quantum computing resources (unlike Shor's algorithm which is pretty useless unless you are with the NSA).

Comment: Colin Powell on Iraq in summer 2002 (Score 1) 523

Well, you broke it and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Doesn't matter that the bleeding heart left just wants to be left alone, and the hard right just wants to blame Obama.

The rest of the world doesnt give a f*** about these internal squabbles.

The US broke it, you own it.

It's not like you haven't been warned.

Comment: Oh look they are making massive water particles! (Score 1) 124

by quax (#49168227) Attached to: Photo First: Light Captured As Both Particle and Wave

What another groan worthy /. summary. It's not the standing waves that equate to photons. The only thing photonic here is the quantum exchange between the light field and the electrons used for imaging.

And no, you don't need to have several PhDs to understand this, reading the articles at the links totally suffices.

Comment: The convoluted concept doesn't help (Score 2) 99

by quax (#48944797) Attached to: Cutting Through Data Science Hype

Watson was impressive on Jeopardy, but a TV show is a very different venue than business data analytics.

For the latter you really need a statistically sound approach in order to reach the right conclusion.

(DISCLAIMER: I do not work for Bayesia, but actually a competitor, yet any person or company that understand Bayesianism as a sound foundation for knowledge inference knows this dirty little secret about Watson)

Comment: Good for Quantum Cryptography not Computing (Score 1) 58

by quax (#48930147) Attached to: New Micro-Ring Resonator Creates Quantum Entanglement On a Silicon Chip

A better source for entangled photon pairs will come in handy for Quantum Cryptography, but Quantum Computing requires many entangled qubits.

There is no indication how these resonators could produce more than pair-wise entanglement, after all this is very different from the Josephson junction loops that D-Wave and the future Google chip are build on. These allow an arbitrary coupling via the magnetic flux (only restricted by the chip's geometry).

Regrettably, this just yet another poorly written pop-science article not informed by any actual knowledge of quantum information science. If I had a cent for each of them I'd be rich by now.

Comment: Re:quirky wacky name syndrome (Score 1) 158

by quax (#48917545) Attached to: Opera Founder Is Back, WIth a Feature-Heavy, Chromium-Based Browser

What's in a name? I also thought Bluetooth was idiotic when it came out, but there are only so many short and descriptive names. Getting a trademark is actually not that easy, and in the end the only thing that matters is that it is unique, and that your competition can't take it away from you.

Firefox, Chrome etc. aren't particular descriptive names but everybody now knows what they stand for.

Information is the inverse of entropy.