Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:So just rename it then? (Score 1) 330

If we're driving and actively engaged, we can keep our attention on the task for long periods of time without much trouble. But we're supposed to just sit there "at the ready" that's a failure waiting to happen, because people don't work like that.

I guess you've never heard of a back-seat driver, because this is exactly what they're doing as passengers. Except instead of being ready to take the wheel they're ready to give driving advice.

And considering that back-seat driving is common enough that there's a well-known term for the behaviour, I'd say that people DO work like that. Maybe not all people, but many people.

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 238

How is A to know which entanglements to break? A has to look at the entangled particles to determine which are which, and that tells A what B sees.

How is needing to look at each entangled particle first an issue? Can you not look at them all first, then "set" after you look?

Also, the article states that setting breaks entanglement leaving the chances of finding either red or black on the B side put to random.

Unless this is an oversimplification of how it works, I'm not seeing the issue here.

Using your cards analogy, starting with say, 100 envelopes:
1) A reads all of the envelopes. Sorts them with all of the red in one pile and black in the other. It'd be a 50/50 split.
2) A takes the black cards and replaces them with red. This breaks the entanglement for these cards, which according to the article resets what cards B has in these envelopes. Now A knows B has the original 50% black cards that were never touched, and then because the entanglement was broken, the remaining cards for B are black and red split 50/50. That's 75% black and 25% red.
3) B reads all of their envelopes at a pre-specified time. Looks to see which are 75% to determine what A was trying to send.

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 238

So, from the article, if you just "read" the state, it'll remain entangled, but if you "set" the state, then it breaks the entanglement and the other side's chances become independent...

So what if you did this...
Use many quantum entangled photons instead of just one. Read them all, then "set" the ones that aren't in the state that you are trying to achieve to break the entanglement of these ones with the incorrect states.

Shouldn't that you give you 75% of the photons on the other side with the state that you are trying to communicate?

Comment Star turning into a Black Hole? (Score 1) 412

I'm not an astrophysicist, so there's probably a huge hole in this theory. Please anyone with greater knowledge on the subject comment.

What would a extremely massive star turning into a black hole look like? And how quickly would the process take?

Let's say there's a extremely massive star on the brink of becoming a black hole. Then a comet or some other small object falls into this object and pushes the inner core of the star over the tipping point. The inner part of the star outside of the black hole core would still have strong enough gravity to generate fusion, but the star's output would be reduced.

Then as more objects fall into the star the event horizon's diameter increases and the star's output decreases.

Thoughts?

Comment Re:As a Facebook employee... (Score 1, Redundant) 130

these people that don't want to work.

In Canada, we get a whole year off after a child is born. The majority of this time can be split between the mother and father. For my first child, I didn't take any time. But for my second, I took 5 months.

I can assure you that this 5 month period was more difficult than "working". Anyone who thinks that people who are staying at home to parent babies and/or toddlers is not "working" hasn't truly experienced it. Perhaps they don't have kids, perhaps their spouse/partner does all/most of the work, or perhaps they're just not putting in the effort required to be a good parent, but either way they haven't truly experienced it.

After the first week, I was looking forward to going back to work for a "vacation" from the crazy amount of work I had at home.

Submission + - Why Self-Driving Cars Must Be Programmed to Kill (technologyreview.com)

Strudelkugel writes: When it comes to automotive technology, self-driving cars are all the rage. Standard features on many ordinary cars include intelligent cruise control, parallel parking programs, and even automatic overtaking—features that allow you to sit back, albeit a little uneasily, and let a computer do the driving.

So it’ll come as no surprise that many car manufacturers are beginning to think about cars that take the driving out of your hands altogether (see “Drivers Push Tesla’s Autopilot Beyond Its Abilities”). These cars will be safer, cleaner, and more fuel-efficient than their manual counterparts. And yet they can never be perfectly safe.

Comment Re:Smaller than Planck (Score 1) 134

Without doing the actual math myself, I think I can present an example.

Imagine you have a ship going at a certain relativistic speeds. The observers inside the ship could observe themselves arriving at a destination in x Planck units of time (where x is an integer), but depending on the exact speed of the ship, a stationary observer would likely observe them arriving at the destination in y Planck units of time (where y is a real number that is not also an integer).

Let me know if you want me to take this beyond a mere thought experiment and come up with an actual velocity for the ship.

Comment Re:Safety (Score 1) 452

One example hardly proves anything, as you are well aware.

Now, if you were to find a case study of a similar country to the States that has guns allowed and knives banned and also has a much lower incidence of mass murder, I'd be on your side with banning knives. But at this point there's no evidence suggesting that knives are typically an effective tool for mass killings.

There IS, however, evidence showing that guns are an effective tool and there are examples of other countries with similar cultures who limit their accessibility that have many fewer mass killings.

Comment Re:Safety (Score 1) 452

It is blatantly, obviously clear to any truly thinking person that the problem is the choice, not the tool.

Though I agree that you are technically correct, I don't think that addressing the actual cause of the problem is realistic.

Take the following analogy:
You could say that bike thefts are a direct result of the choice of the thief not because some bikes are poorly locked or aren't locked at all, and you would be absolutely correct. But this does not imply that we should ignore the very real solution of making it harder for a bike thief to steal a bike by using a good bike lock.

Similarly, there is a very real solution of locking down the most convenient mass murder tool to make it much harder for the murderer to commit their crime. Does this solve the root cause? No. Is it effective? Well, look at the track record of any other country with a similar culture but restricted access to guns. (Canada, for example is inundated by American television so our cultures are about as different as the differences found between two states).

Sure the root cause would still exist. But when a person attempts a mass murder with a knife because that's all they can get their hands on, the death toll will be much lower, if any at all. If a person attempts a mass murder with a home made bomb, they might just blow themselves up trying to make the thing before getting a chance to use it on anyone. And let's be honest, there's a certain level of knowledge that a person would need to get even that far. Basically, there is no tool that is as good for the job as a gun is for murdering.

And you know what really sucks? Because there is such an intense and myopic misfocus on the choice of tools being used by many, nothing substantial is being done about the real problem, interpersonal, personal/group, group/personal and group/group abuse.

And you know what really sucks? Because there is such an intense and myopic misfocus on the real problem, interpersonal, personal/group, group/personal and group/group abuse, nothing substantial is being done about the choice of tools being used by many.

There FTFY

Comment After reading TFA, what I don't get is... (Score 1) 172

Why is it that the article can state things like "the known laws of physics break down" inside a black hole, yet insist that this particular law of physics, the conservation of information, shouldn't also break down and therefore results in a paradox.

Who gets to decide which laws break down and which ones don't?

Why isn't it all or nothing?

Comment Re: Mission accomplished (Score 1) 399

Now the feed in is around 50c I think meaning my panels pay about 60% more than if you were to do it after buying a house that doesn't have them already installed.

Actually, having just looked into this myself, I can tell you that the rate as of January 1st, 2015 is 38.4 c/kWh (source).

You're getting an amazing deal compared to current prices, but you also would have had to pay a lot more for your install costs, I imagine. So, it all balances out, I'm guessing.

Slashdot Top Deals

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Working...