Re: You are doing it all wrong
Greg Egan, is that you?
16005 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Jun 2008
"what if this is actually incorrect"
There is the problem. You can't start by postulating magic stuff.
The quantum thingamabob drive presentation is of the same caliber: "Here is what I would do if a had a magic space drive not needing any reaction mass!". Unfortunately it doesn't explain the magic space drive not needing any reaction mass.
There are no oscillating EM fields "inside" photons.
The EM field is the classical approximation of the "photon field", which is a quantum field which you query for its properties and you get a photon in response. Getting from that to the EM fields demands some major linear algebraic trickery and operator algebra that I'm not ready to perform.
And while "simultaneity" depends on the observer, "causality" does not. If A is in B's future lightcone, B can causally influence A.
Not to mention that "proper time" on an object going faster than light sure will be something of highly mathematical interest. Proper time for photons stands still, btw.
All this FTL and quantum blah is just schoolyard fantasy stuff. If all your experiments and all your math tells you that you are on a hiding to nowhere, what you gonna do? Invent zero-point energy?
Most obvious shite with more previous art than one can carry in a shopping bag put on paper and rubberstamped by the patent office, ifanbois jumping to the defense, people who are of the opinion that patents are important to defend the starving inventor and to give value to "intellectual property", RICO claiming that WIndows is bugfree etc...
Anyone interested in scheduling and intercommunication issues in systems with massive thread count should take a look at the August issue of IEEE Computer. Of course, the IEEE has still not convinced itself to fully move that magazine in front of the paywall, but one can easily snarf it from the neighbour or the library.
Actually, as Iraq has not renewed the SOFA in spite of prodding of all kinds, they are outta there (though Team Obama and the Progressive Blogosphere has spun this as a wise decision by the Leader to move out of the country after liberation "head held high". Yeah, right.)
This doesn't mean that the situation has improved, people might end up in Maliki's torture dungeon, be shot by some Shia armed outfit, be shot by Kurdish Peshmerga or be gunked by well-armed Sunni Fanatics in the sandy western part (if they are not busy rioting in Syria).
Let's take a light look at CoffeeScript.org, which reveals this intriguing project to our red-rimmed, coffeine-infused eyes, and after perusal, dare I say so good Sir, I thoroughly disagree with your clearly cynical commentariation attitude, which, although often de rigeur in this hive of scum and villany as we presently attend, might well be a tad off-base in this precise case.
> Or did the code suddenly become faster
That might be possible
> less buggy
Better, more compressed syntax means less bugs, yes
> better usable on slow browsers and behind shoddy links
That's a design problem
Overall advantage: YES, GO FOR IT.
Unfortunately all the companies able to implement it are now either owned by US or Chinese interests or else on the government black list. You gotta face the Elder Gods with bare hands.
Meanwhile, iPhones with frankly dangerous level of demonological glamour are being pushed at unsuspecting punters. What can one do?
I am currently noticing that basic print queueing still doesn't work in any reasonable way after ... uh ..... about 20 years? Granted there is a Brother printer on the other side, but still.
How hard is that? Yeah it's not.
Yeah, why dontcha fix that first, Microsoft? Faggots.
Self-indulgent prettyfication.
I think every designer should be forced to first design a CLI interface to his gizmo so as to really THINK about what he's actually doing and to weed those out that are better off designing Magic Hollywood Machine Interfaces as seen in movies.
" As such Apple hysteria is hurting our economies and undermining one of the main things supporting our way of life."
Oh well.
Don't you think after the economy bubble, kept afloat by politicians and central banksters (the former with increasingly highly stained pants, the latter with increasingly large cars) via cheap credit and "bailouts", it's a bit late to complain?
"Wikileaks assuring us the Manning dump was supertopsecret and groundbreaking, and it turned out to be 99.9999% boring"
Maybe, though all the US political glitterati and national-socialistas from left and right where pretty much screaming bloody murder (literally!).
Sticking it to these people alone makes it worth it.
Before the "Higgs Boson", which Peter Higgs calls "the boson that has been named after me", there was the now so-named "mechanism", called the "Anderson, Brout, Englert, Guralnik, Hagen, Higgs, Kibble and 't Hooft mechanism" by Peter Higgs, which was developed by quite a few people, working together or in competition over many years (a UK postal strike was even involved in determining what paper went to print first), so you have to toast to them all:
Philip Anderson
Robert Brout
François Englert
Gerald Guralnik
Carl Hagen
Peter Higgs
Tom Kibble
Gerard t'Hooft
Question now: Isn't "polarization" actually the spin (or rather, its direction)? And is that even a variable subject to an "uncertainty principle"? Doesn't the spin operator commute with the position or momentum operator (I think it does)? So aren't you are quite free to measure the heck out of spin without changing or affecting position or momentum at all?
Note that the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation" is not magic. In a Schrödinger Wave Equation is appears quite naturally as the tradeoff between the localization of a function and its Fourier transformtion (strong peak in the time domain leads to wide bumb in the frequency domain and vice-versa), it is thus a mathematical consequence. Richard Feynman can do without it in his explanation of QED as it is a natural consequence of the sum-over-all-trajectories, and I cite:
"This is an example of the 'uncertainty principle': there is a kind of 'complementarity' between knowledge of where the light goes between the blocks and where it goes afterwards - precise knowledge of both is impossible. I would like to put the uncertainty principle in its historicla place: When the revolutionary ideas of quantum physics were first coming out, people still tried to understand them in terms of old-fashioned ideas (such as, light goes in straight lines). But at a certain point the old-fashioned ideas would begin to fail, so a warning was developed that said, in effect, "Your old-fashioned ideas are no damn good when..." If you get rid of all the old-fashioned ideas and instead use the ideas that I'm explaining in these lectures - adding arrows for all the ways an event can happen - there is no need for an uncertainty principle!"