Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment MS plays the software patents game now (Score 4, Informative) 167

Microsoft makes money of Open Source software by shaking down companies that deploy it. I.e. they weaponize their software patent portfolio.

That's how they make money from Android.

Recently, they received good press for their Azure patents protection offer, but it is not what it seems at first glance, their is nothing benign about it. It's just a dressed up protection racket.

And while moving their Quantum Computing software to github, gave them press that they "Open Sourced" it, nothing could be further from the truth.

They will try to get a stranglehold on the future of computing, just as they had it in the PC market. They just switched strategy, but this tiger won't change its stripes.

Comment Re:America! (Score 1) 726

The money you have to pay for the license is an investment, and only pays off if the framework stays in place.

So yes, the point is to protect the incumbents from more competition without eliminating it altogether. Cap drivers still compete for business. The cities wanted to curtail the number of cabs on the road and ensure that the business model works for the drivers. That it also puts money into he citie's treasuries is a nice side-effect.

The regulatory framework accomplishes exactly what it was designed for.

Comment Re:America! (Score 1) 726

The artificial scarcity serves the same purpose. If the profit margin is high a driver doesn't need to self-exploit. Tired drivers are a public risk, and enforcement alone will not do the trick (and is expensive).

None of this is new.

Only the self driving cars will substantially alter the equation.

Comment Re:America! (Score 1) 726

"... markets themselves happen organically. If Arg trades his club for Rog's pelt, that's a market - no governance needed."

If Args club is big enough he just takes Rog's pelt.

Markets only happen organically when violence is kept in check and is not the easier option.

And this is not relegated to the stone age either. Anybody up for going and taking Iraq's oil?

Americans happen to live in one of the oldest Republics, with the exception of the civil war there is not much of a reminder that throughout history it was always the strongest who imposed their will. There were markets within domains at the grace of the rulers who enforced his rules with an iron fist, and trade between countries/kingdoms/empires when there was a balance of power.

But the natural state of humanity has always been war.

Comment Re:America! (Score 1) 726

"I couldn't hear your insights over the racket of all the command economists' necks snapping as they flipped from criticizing Uber drivers from stealing taxi drivers' business to pitying Uber drivers for having a poor quality of life."

Color me impressed. Not understanding how one is connected to the other is redefining the meaning of "dense". We are talking neutron star kind of dense.

Comment Re: "quantum" computing (Score 1) 45

"Using non-local quantum entanglement to instantaneously transmit information indeed would be faster-than-light."

Yes, and entanglement can't do that as I tried to explain in my earlier post.

You do not transport information but quantum information with entanglement. They are as far removed from each other as Schroedinger's cat from any pet you've ever owned.

BTW tachyon are hypothetical faster than light particles. Of course you could signal into the past if such a resource existed and could be technologically controlled.

And once again, nature has no concept of "instantaneous" it's a human approximation to a constant frame without relativistic speeds. Whenever a physicist uses this word in connection with entanglement its an unscientific shortcut that has no real physical meaning.

I'd highly recommend you to draw up some Minkowski diagrams, until this clicks for you.

Understanding the nature of quantum information is a bit more tricky, because it all comes down to how quantum correlations will look like perfect random noise until you get the information from a corresponding measurement on entangled systems. The way this is experimentally tested is via Bell's inequality violations.

Bell was much later than Einstein. Bell essentially codified the latter's reservations and wanted to prove Einstein right, but nature did not cooperate.

BTW the only quantum spookiness that QM allows are Quantum Erasers.

And please note, that all these oddities are not hypothetical but demonstrated in experiments. It's these weird experimental results that have brow beaten physicists into accepting entanglement as a fundamentally non-local phenomenon, against the marked resistance of some of the best and brightest minds like Einstein and Bell.

Comment Re: "quantum" computing (Score 1) 45

The ERP paradox that you are alluding two was solved by Niels Bohr just two days after Einstein presented it to him.

Quantum Information is fundamentally different than classical Information. A pure quantum information channel that only establishes entanglement does not transport classical information, it just established a quantum correlation. But this correlation can only be confirmed after corresponding classical information over the measured state on one end of the channel reaches the other end.

That classical signal of course obeys relativity and cannot propagate faster than light. Hence causality is preserved.

The common statement, (that many physicist who should know better make as well), that entanglement establishes an instantaneous signalling is grossly wrong. For spacelike separated events, linked via a quantum channel, instantaneous is not even defined. It is completely meaningless as the temporal order is relative to an observer's inertial frame. So I guess I shouldn't say it's grossly wrong, but stick to Pauli's formulation. It's not even wrong, it's worse, it carries no scientific meaning whatsoever.

(BTW I am physicist and dabble in quantum computing).

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.