Things that make you go "Hmmmm…"

[Batalov]

For the first time, I see Wikipedia down today.

It's not just you! http://en.wikipedia.org looks down from here

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

http://.../futureofyou/2015... onal-intimacy/

[thinking]Hm... wondering what if that "professional" would be spelled a bit differently, with an "a" or with a "r", what my future would be for 2015...[/thinking]

(disclaimer: this is just making fun about how the links in clear are abbreviated on mersenneforum, no action needed, we never use links in clear, we always hide them behind some "click", "here", "this", or other text)
(edit: and for sure, the other is true, every time we see a clear link, we stay on it with the mouse until the "real" link appears in tooltip, before clicking. Maybe the clear link is just a mask for some nsfw/"onal-intimacy" sites... , like http://www.wikipedia.org/links)

[ewmayer]

PowerPoint should be banned. This PowerPoint presentation explains why - The Washington Post

The "Gettysburg Address PPT" is classic. :)

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by retina

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum...weirdness.html

[Technicality of reply perhaps more suitable for 'Science News']

I dislike misleading anthropomorphizations like the ‘at which point does the object decide [whether to act as particle or wave]?’ used here – more accurate IMO is that the observer decides for the object, via the nature of the measurement made, whose effect is to entangle the quantum object with the observers’s – i.e. the macroscopic – frame of reference.

There are - again IMO - compelling quantum-informatic arguments to the effect that the phenomenon of nonseparable (in the sense that the resulting disorder is the statistically preferred direction of the collective dynamics) 'messy' entanglement among a host of individually quantum objects is what defines the fuzzy boundary between the quantum and the macroscopic.

[retina]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

I dislike misleading anthropomorphizations like the ‘at which point does the object decide [whether to act as particle or wave]?’ used here – more accurate IMO is that the observer decides for the object, via the nature of the measurement made, whose effect is to entangle the quantum object with the observers’s – i.e. the macroscopic – frame of reference.

There are - again IMO - compelling quantum-informatic arguments to the effect that the phenomenon of nonseparable (in the sense that the resulting disorder is the statistically preferred direction of the collective dynamics) 'messy' entanglement among a host of individually quantum objects is what defines the fuzzy boundary between the quantum and the macroscopic.

The major problem I had with the article is the use of the word "after". They never stated in whose frame of reference they were considering when the choice was made after "the atom had passed through the crossroads".

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by retina

The major problem I had with the article is the use of the word "after". They never stated in whose frame of reference they were considering when the choice was made after "the atom had passed through the crossroads".

And how does one even meaningfully define such a location-specific event for an object which possesses quantum nonlocality?

[xilman]

Originally Posted by retina

The major problem I had with the article is the use of the word "after". They never stated in whose frame of reference they were considering when the choice was made after "the atom had passed through the crossroads".

I understood that phrase to mean that the choice and the passage were separated by a time-like interval with the choice event being located within the future light cone of the passing event. In consequence, all observers would agree on the time ordering, at least within the purview of special relativity. I think it reasonable to assume there were no significant closed timelike curves in the vicinity.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by xilman

I understood that phrase to mean that the choice and the passage were separated by a time-like interval with the choice event being located within the future light cone of the passing event. In consequence, all observers would agree on the time ordering, at least within the purview of special relativity. I think it reasonable to assume there were no significant closed timelike curves in the vicinity.

That argument appears to assume spatial localizability of events, though - yes or no?

[xilman]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

That argument appears to assume spatial localizability of events, though - yes or no?

Yes.

The experiment was specifically designed to test that assumption.

[ewmayer]

Recycling company searches for owner of vintage Apple 1 computer worth $200,000 | abc7news.com

[science_man_88]

Fab plants are now making superfast carbon nanotube memory

A new type of non-volatile memory known as Nano-RAM (NRAM) -- it's based on carbon nanotube and sports DRAM speed -- is now being produced in seven fabrication plants in various parts of the world.

One big advantage NRAM has over traditional NAND flash is its resistance to heat. It can withstand up to 300 degrees Celsius. Nantero claims its memory can last thousands of years at 85 degrees Celcius and has been tested at 300 degrees Celsius for 10 years. Not one bit of data was lost.

so no worry about high temperature when overclocking I guess. I'd think it would be more worrying for other components.