Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Submission + - SingularDTV: using Ethereum for DRM on a sci-fi TV show about the Singularity (rocknerd.co.uk)

David Gerard writes: SingularDTV is an exciting new blockchain-based entertainment industry startup. Their plan is to adapt the DRM that made $121.54 for Imogen Heap, make their own completely premined altcoin and use that to somehow sell two million views of a sci-fi TV show about the Singularity. Using CODE, which is explicitly modeled on The DAO ... which spectacularly imploded days after its launch. There's a white paper, but here's an analysis of why these schemes are a terrible idea for musicians.

Comment Re: "simply right click" (Score 2) 260

From TFA:

As you can see, Microsoft is making this change not only to Win32 software but also to Windows Store applications, as they’re playing an essential role for the future of Windows. Application manifests, which are mostly resources included in every executable file for compatibility reasons, will require apps to add a mention of this new policy, thus making sure that they support a path longer than 260 characters.

This means that unless it’s specified, the change won’t be supported, so apps will need to be updated by developers to benefit from this new behavior.

So, no, this shouldn't cause an issue unless a developer is stupid enough to put the required manifest information in without actually ensuring the code can handle the longer paths/filenames.

Comment Re:Remote quantum surveillance (Score 1) 238

I don't think any alien race is going to succeed in entangling all the particles in the Solar System, but even if they do they won't stay entangled for very long. Remember that a lot of the challenges to making viable quantum computers are preventing the entangled particles from interacting with anything else. If they do they're then no longer entangled.

Comment Re:Why do you need to know the state? (Score 1) 238

Someone more able to work in the detail of QM should comment.

Off the top of my head: I guess this is saying that if when they measure in this manner the result comes out in a certain way they know the photon still has an un-collapsed wave function? Presumably if it had a definite state it would be either vertically or horizontally polarised ? I'm still not sure that the wave function of the 'second' particle will actually show locally as having collapsed just because the 'first' particle was measured. It's just that when you perform a full measurement you'll get the complementary value.

As you say... where's the experiment to test this? I'm spouting "currently accepted theory in layman's terms", and it's possible that will be proven incorrect.

Comment Re:Remote quantum surveillance (Score 1) 238

Technically you would only know, in an FTL sense, that the particle at the other location had the opposite value. Just because you agreed that a certain state of that certain particle would mean a certain action was taken/not taken doesn't mean that the other person didn't change their mind, or wasn't prevented from carrying out the agreed-upon course of action.

You'd still only know if using some light-speed limited communication means to verify the outcome.

Comment Re:Why do you need to know the state? (Score 2) 238

What makes you think that the second particles wave function has collapsed, so far as you're concerned locally, before you force it to by attempting measurement? Entanglement only means that once one of the particles is measured the other when measured will have the complementary value.

Please, honestly, give me a citation from somewhere/one trustworthy about this detection of wave function collapse without the particle interacting such that the entanglement has been destroyed. An repeatable, verifiable experimental result would be ideal.

Comment Re:Remote quantum surveillance (Score 1) 238

No.

Let's assume you have a whole bunch of entangled pairs set up, so that you can consult one per day, month, year, whatever. That still doesn't help. When Twin A checks his particle 1 and sees it has (spin, polarisation, whatever) value +1 all you know is that when Twin B measure their matching particle they'll get value -1. That's it. A did not, and cannot choose that his particle measures as +1 rather than -1. All entanglement means is that the pair of particles will have complementary values measured.

And, no, you can't assign life event, decisions, or any other information to which particle you measure out of the set. Then Twin B would need to measure them all to see... what? Which has changed? No, that doesn't work because the moment you measure any of the entangled particles you lose the entanglement. Measure them all, record the state, measure them all later... oops, now the measurements are no longer correlated with the state of the particles with Twin A. You literally have no idea if Twin A measured any of them without using a (maximally) light-speed conventional connection to ask.

Comment Re:Quantum science is in it's infancy (Score 2) 238

There's a difference between "we have no idea how to do this" (heavier than air flight 500 years ago) and "we have a lot of experimental evidence demonstrating that this works in a manner that will absolutely not allow for that" (the current knowledge about quantum mechanics and what it means for entangled pairs of particles).

Comment Re:Why do you need to know the state? (Score 3, Informative) 238

You can't tell if the state has changed without measuring it. The first of the entangled pair of particles (one at home, one on your spaceship) to be measured will mean the other will be measured (when it is) in a complementary state. That's all that happens. We're not talking about some particle giving off a photon of light when its partner is measured or anything like that. Also measuring breaks the entanglement. Purposefully changing the state of one of them also breaks the entanglement. So you can't have a bunch of them that you keep on measuring, waiting for one of them to change state. It just doesn't work that way.

Comment Re:test it (Score 1) 238

The problem is that:

  1. You don't get to choose which particle of the pair gets which value. It's random as to if it's -1 here and +1 there or vice versa.
  2. That's pretty much it. Look up Bell's Theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... for a proof that the future-measured state of a given entangled particle isn't pre-determined (no "hidden values"). The only thing you know from a pair being entangled is that whatever value you measure on one particle for the entangled property, you will get the opposite/complementary value on the other particle when it is also measured.

Thus all you can actually transmit using such a system is a random stream of data, with the knowledge that the matching data at the other end is complementary (and thus can be used to derive what you have). Also, this assumes no-one trying to intercept the transmitted particles in the middle. If you don't get your implementation correct it's possible to do so without detection, or for that to be detectable precisely because it broke the entanglement and thus you don't even have a complementary data set.

Slashdot Top Deals

Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why you should.

Working...