What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
77 Comments
- motorbikematt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Hmm, a Nasty Little Truth about RebelScience?
http://digg.com/users/pimansan/submitted
http://digg.com/users/fontamarasan/submitted
http://digg.com/users/Mapou/submitted
http://digg.com/users/eightwings/comments
http://digg.com/users/sixwings/comments
I bet this comment gets a negative rating to keep everyone from seeing the real truth here... - fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3pimansan: "But quantum computer scientists like David Deutsch are armchair scientists. Most are Star-Trek fanatics and dream of traveling back in time or to another universe to romance their forbears or their parallel twins. ahaha..."
You're forgetting a few things:
A: Quantum computers have been build and tested independently and reliably.
B: Quantum computers have successfully factored small numbers - that *you* are unable to purchase one at your local Fry's does not mean that they do not exist - indeed, progress on quantum computers is comparable to progress on digital computers in the days when such things were equally 'advanced'.
C: Even your page admits that the theories it's denouncing accurately predict events.
D: Quantum computers have nothing to do with time travel; it appears that the page you cited is confusing it with the TV show "Quantum Leap".
E: Kurt Godel was actually one of Einstein's closest companions, and Einstein tried unsuccessfully until the day he died to find a way of countering Godel's observation.
F: The arguments of the site you cited are based on flawed assumptions - such as the assumption that the universe is comprised of discreet locations in a rigid grid, and everything "jumps" between the locations despite the complete lack of basis for those assumptions (That guy has played WAY too much War craft 3, I think), or the claim that a force "has to know" what relative velocities it needs to alter, or the claim that relativity must be fake because he can't comprehend that there's a difference between simple recursion and recursion in general (X/X equals 1, (X-3)/X does not equal 1)
The entire site is based entirely on attacking things which the writer does not have even a basic understanding of - it's not even pseudoscience, it's just stupidity with a thin veneer of concessions.
From: http://www.rebelscience.org/Seven/bible.html
"We must, however, understand how this evolution came about and what sort of evolution actually took place. It was, without a doubt, an evolution guided by an intelligent agent."
I could keep going, but frankly it's not worth it. You can be skeptical about quantum computers all you like - just as the Amish are skeptical about the light bulb - but I have to ask you to put up arguments that make sense if you're going to go around bashing on it. - Kam3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'd like to believe this is genuine but has anyone else read this other article on that site http://www.quantumbiocommunication.com/ideas/like-mass-can-time-be-converted-into-energy.html ? It casts serious doubt as to the reliability of this source.
"Some believe the state of timeless quantum existence called the unified consciousness is the ultimate state of existence. Tome, mass, matter all converge into one and only one entity – the super quantum vacuum below sero degree absolute." - wbrendel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The discussion you guys are having about this story is a great reason why Digg needs threaded discussions... +digg
- motorbikematt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hey, look, it gets worse:
http://digg.com/users/jobeemar/submitted
http://digg.com/users/boudetta
http://digg.com/users/pergamum - fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1pimansan: "This shows that Einstein had a poor understanding of his own theory..."
Do you even listen to yourself?
As for your "LOL! GOD WRITES THE BEST CODEZ!" page: We all know that doing something entirely in hardware is faster - X86 processors just became capable of doing the same job that collosus did back in the 50s at the same rate about 2-3 years ago. However, you're mistaken in your belief that there exist problems which software cannot solve - you must have read about NP problems, and how they constitute problems that can't be solved easily or quickly. Indeed, software is fully capable of, if nothing else, a perfect simulation of the circuits that a hardware solution would be based on.
Additionally, you forget that - development costs completely aside - hardware involves expensive fabrication costs, where software involves negligible fabrication costs.
The only places where hardware-only solutions are making headway are in NP problems with large data sets, of which there are few where the speed and accuracy justify the increased cost. Of course, since your precious site doesn't believe in logical systems, I'm sure terms like P/NP have no meaning for you. - motorbikematt, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/hmm_a_ ...
- motorbikematt, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1http://www.planeterlang.org/story.php?title=Erlang ...
- MikeCampo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1^^ @ Motorbikematt
- motorbikematt, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1http://www.techtakeaway.com/page.php?id=191207
- motorbikematt, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/the_ret ...
- MikeCampo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1^^ Whats the problem?
- blincoln, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics"
...or, in other words, yet another armchair scientist claiming that the greatest minds in modern physics all have it wrong because he has found TEH GLARING FLAW in their work. - motorbikematt, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/01/laug ...
- davidmccabe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This looks like a fake. Check out the links along the right side of the page.
- rmtatum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Quantum Computers are so awesome. For more quantum goodness see http://qubit.org
- gamer31, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I cant wait to bring this up in my american studies class, my teacher is the biggest state fan ever.
- CadMasterAdam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0anyone got a link to verify this? i found this guys posts in the past to be, lets just say, less reliable then albertpachino
- ImANicePirate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Intense, this should be getting a lot mroe attention.
- Braamer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0While this is obviously still in its fetal stages, it is enormously facinating, and I would love to see people start pouring money into it.
I am an entanglement fanboy - drbroccoli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I hope there will be Linux for this chip.
- baltakatei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Go Daniel Stick! You've made a difference!
- anduril, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"QC is crackpottery."
You know this huh? If you know this, by definition, you should be able to produce a proof. Why not show us your proof and become the most respected scientist in existence? - akilo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Alright... I go to U of MI and I study this stuff (though I am not involved with the group that published these results). However, here is a link to the actual paper:
http://iontrap.physics.lsa.umich.edu/publications/archive/naturephys_2005_stick_GaAs.pdf
As a technical paper, it's a little dense. A key point is that this group can only confine a qubit for 10 mins (thats a problem, after 10 mins your processors boils away), and even then only with continuous laser cooling, which is probably not practical in a real system. Plus, they are unable to load multiple qubits (another big problem). This research is a step in the right direction, and the work has real potential, but it is a LONG way away. - orangetiki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0+Dig because the ship is Lithographed. Will the motherboard be screen printed soon? I'd hate to allign that on a press
- TheSenator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The first operating system to run on it will probably be NetBSD :D
- goldenratio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Absolutely amazing! There are many great things to come from Quantum computing.
- opennet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the buddha does not want anything but this not prevent him from doing things
if they are scalable, scale them, is what i want to say. luckily a lot of things are happening at once, someone will see this through. i hope in a way that the world is not radically different but what if it was radically better? - motorbikematt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ pimansan, fontamarasan, Mapou, eightwings, sixwings, jobeemar, boudetta, pergamum, MOBE2001, Radium, otherwise known as Louis.
I couldn't possibly care less about you. What I care about is your abuse, and your lack of ethics.
I am not disputing your ability to write, or even to think. I disagree with your point of view on several of your issues, I disagree with your logic, and I am not alone. I think you are trying to capture attention by simply disagreeing and calling people names. You are a FLAMER.
Let me be clear, you may be a smart person, but any intelligence that you could have displayed has been diminished by your lack of ethics. You made multiple accounts to boost your digg scores and generate traffic to your website. That, in my opinion, also makes you a SPAMMER. Moreover, it discounts, from this point onward, any comment or post you may put forward from this point onward.
You have cheated the system and may you continue to suffer the wrath of peer review. - opennet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0eventually people will probably build their own- they may be able to crack codes well but i suspect it is going to be a while until good ai algorithms become commonplace, it does put a new twist on things. instead of manufacturing chips i see more promise in manipulating certain kinds of matter like flouride molecules or colloids but who knows. nanodots (quantum dots) have potential as well (see colloidal gold etc)
manufacturing fullerenes is supposedly taking off- maybe they can put ions or isotopes inside these...someone no doubt is breaking out the magnets, lasers and radio equiupment as we speak.
I don't think that this type of tech is innately controllable from a security standpoint once the genie is out of the bottle that is it. in a spiritual sense an analogy could be drawn to newclear prolif- the horse really has left the barn and the inexorable spread of knowledge persists- lets hope that these tools are used for good works and serve to help out everyone in a positive sense. - pimansan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Look, think about this: PEER REVIEW."
Peer review is synonymous with ass review, IMO. - drbroccoli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0OMFG lasers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111
This is cool! - Gollywomp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That is just BADASS
- motorbikematt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ pimansan, fontamarasan, Mapou, eightwings, sixwings, jobeemar, boudetta, pergamum
"True peer review is what digg.com is about, a democratic process. Scientific peer review is an elitist mechanism used by a good old boy network to bar the public from participation."
That's odd. You represent a bit of a paradox. You hold digg.com to be 'true peer review' yet from the lack of diggs to your submissions and the reaction to your comments here, you are clearly not among your peers. You make it evident that Hawking and all the other 'crackpots' aren't your peers either...so I guess that makes you the poor little sap shouting from the top of the mountain "look at me look at me". Sad.
I am not here to shut you up nor would I even try. Darwinan evolution will
seal your fate. No matter how hard you try to cheat the system, you are not fit enough to survive the selective pressure against you and your illogical points of view. - fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1pimansan: "LALALA! I'M NOT LISTENING!"
I want to know why you keep insisting that quantum computers have anything at all to do with time travel. Are you THAT stupid that you can't seperate an old TV show from reality? Do you believe that you can hear explosions in space because that's the way things are in movies?
By the by, it should be noted that Godel's theoretical model that allowed for a person to contact themselves required relativistic speeds which we are incapable of achieving, and that the expansion of the universe be the result of a rotating universe.
Additionally, it could not have been time travel, as it proved that time does not exist in the sense that we understand it - instead, time is an arbitrary benchmark by which events with a known relational 'rate' of progression happen; if I kick three people in a minute, and you punch five people in 30 seconds, then we can state the number of people kicked or punched as a set of relative numbers.
Indeed, time is defined in terms of a relational progression (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second ): "The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom."
Ergo, your car does not go at 55 miles per hour, it goes at a rate of 55 miles per 33,093,474,372,000 state transition cycles of caesium-133.
Of course, you're still going to respond to this with a flame saying how you're SO much smarter than the best and brightest minds in history, and how your theories which contradict observable data do a better job of explaining the world than the 'flawed' ones which fit and predict observable data, as well as most likely making yet another comment accusing people of wanting to commit incest.
Until your theories provide a better predictor of events than existing theories, your theories are invalid and you are a quack. - motorbikematt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ pimansan, fontamarasan, Mapou, eightwings, sixwings, jobeemar, boudetta, pergamum, MOBE2001, Radium, otherwise known as Louis.
Oh, I realize you're conscience is at peace...but the fact of the matter, YOU DID ADMIT, moron. Shall we dance?
"And yet two of my links made it to the front page and generated more than twenty thousand hits in a couple of days."
My my, that's funny, because according to one of your homepages:
http://digg.com/users/pimansan/homepage
None of your storied ever made it to the frontpage. But, in your arrogance, you admit more:
"Sure, one story got removed from the front page (thanks to a bunch time travel believers and Star-trek fanatics in their Klingon outfits, ahahaha...), even though it generated over 150 comments in a few hours, is the onethat refutes time travel and motion is spacetime."
Whoa.. wait a minute, you mean THIS STORY:
http://digg.com/science/No_Time_Travel
Gee, I wonder who submitted that one...Mapou?
But, your sheer genius in computing comes out even deeper:
"But so what? My work on software reliability is becoming known."
I guess that must refer to the OTHER story that didn't get removed:
http://digg.com/programming/The_Real_Enemies_of_Software_Reliability
again, by Mapou
or maybe you mean this article:
http://digg.com/programming/The_Hidden_Nature_of_Computing
by pergamum.
Most criminals are comfortable with their lack of ethics. That's fine. But let me be clear. I DON'T CARE about you. I don't! I don't even know you or what you're doing. Moreover, I am GOING TO FORGET about you withing a few hours, when I go out and enjoy my real life.
Though, I have to admit it does feel good to pwn an ass such as yourself. - Niten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0No, we aren't going to see Linux or anything "running on" these things. When quantum computing finally comes into production, our quantum computers will likely just be conventional computers with a quantum processor provided as an auxiliary unit, much like a math coprocessor or a 3D accelerator.
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Heh, I didn't even know you HAD a forum, pimansan. I find it interesting that the guy who's been throwing flame thinks that I'm offended when I call him a name that he doesn't know. :)
Really though, I want to know why you keep bringing up time travel, as you're the only person here who's said it's possible. As for quantum computers, while we may not yet know if this particular article is true or not, there's *plenty* of properly conducted and documented experiments involving quantum calculations. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics ) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0YES! this is amazing. truly revolutionary. keep it up
- motorbikematt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ pimansan, or is it fontamarasan, or Mapou or eightwings or sixwings or jobeemar or boudetta or pergamum
Yes, I suppose someone who would register multiple accounts on a peer review website to artificially inflate their stories or website would think that peer review is synonymous for ass review.
Fortunately, that is not how real life works. Fortunately, things evolve (YES EVOLVE) by building upon past works, past precedents. Peer Review is the mechanism for the evolution of the sciences, and actually the society we live in.
However, your comments, and your behavior clearly indicate that you do not enjoy our society or the fruits of scientific endeavor. You have violated section 3.9 of the Digg TOS agreement here:
http://digg.com/tos
9. to create separate user accounts with the intention of artificially inflating the .digg count., blog count, comments, or any other Digg service.
Consider yourself reported to abuse@digg.com - shooby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0okay...so what exactly is quantum computing?
this is soo cool nonetheless - etx313, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0""MSU > UofM. Lets just get that out of the way."
o yeah that's right. I hear groundbreaking things coming out of MSU all the time...."
Lol, no kidding. Best thing they have at MSU is a slew of drunk whores.
Remember kiddies, UofM has created a lot of great stuff we use every day. Hell, Photoshop was created by a prefessor at UofM. UofM > MSU. ;) - motorbikematt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@ pimansan, fontamarasan, Mapou, eightwings, sixwings, jobeemar, boudetta, pergamum, MOBE2001, Radium, otherwise known as Louis.
Hehe, it's becoming clear that your arrogance may be more pathologic that I first realized.
Look, you have proven yourself in this very thread to pick and choose those facts you wish to refute. Moreover, you have mischaracterized my exposing you as unethical fraud as an effort to discredit you. I assure you, you are far better at discreditting yourself than I ever could be.
This is fine Louis, I don't care. Keep checking your webcounter every five minutes. When the flood subsides and you realize that webhits don't translate into credibility, try not to get too depressed at how alone in the world you are, and that any moron can make a website.
Hmm, this gives me an idea...Perhaps I'll make a Digg article in your honor...I could have fun with this ;) - motorbikematt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@ pimansan
Can't say I buy into this quackpottery you keep preaching. I read your stories and there's a common theme.
Look, think about this: PEER REVIEW. You clearly have time to put up a website and several accounts to Digg your own stories. Why not put that energy into a manuscript? There are plenty of journals that would accept your material if you are right...
OTHERWISE, you come off sound like a quack yourself. Get with the program man...and quit trying to generate traffic to your website through Digg. If you have a real good article online...then let someone ELSE submit it. - fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I think everybody figured he was a troll as soon as they clicked his link, especially since he proposes beliefs (Barely even theories in the vernacular, and most certainly not scientific theories) which contradict basic logic, observable phenomena, and evidence resulting from controlled tests.
The problem with science trolls is that there are people who don't know any better, and these people go on to make idiots of themselves and spread misinformation. - zamecca, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"MSU > UofM. Lets just get that out of the way."
o yeah that's right. I hear groundbreaking things coming out of MSU all the time.... - fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Even if I did admit doing what you accuse me of doing, my conscience is at peace. I use every avenue at my disposition against those I consider my enemies."
Wow, that's right out of "The big book of cliche terrorist statements"! You seriously need to get better material.
Additionally, I'm rather interested why you consider science, logic, and reason to be your enemies.
"{I got a big little suprise for the ass kissers in the works, BTW, something that you will relish, I'm sure. ahahaha...}"
Is it going to be another midget in a box - you know, like last time?
"I will use every possible trick in the book, short of an illegal action) to get my message across even if nobody ever listens."
I suppose that, technically, the Digg ToS is not actually *law*...
"What is my point? My point is this: If what I do bothers you, go pack sand up your ass and see if I give a rat's ass. You self-righteous butt kisser."
Meh, it doesn't bother me any more than any other sign of stupidity. I'm sure you take great pride in being held on the same rung as the flat earch society, NAMBLA, and the KKK. Also, if you think a squickee like yourself can win through being offensive, insulting and arrogant, you really need to get laid less often. - LedZep95, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Can't wait until this thing shows up in the XBox360 sequel!
- perseon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Calm down ladies...
- motorbikematt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@ pimansan, fontamarasan, Mapou, eightwings, sixwings, jobeemar, boudetta, pergamum, MOBE2001, Radium, otherwise known as Louis.
Hehehe, if you only had a clue, you haven't done anything to me to 'crank' me. I'm by no means mad, in fact, I'm kinda enjoying your idiocy. You amuse me.
If you think revenge is me reporting you to abuse@digg.com because I disagree with your computer stuff or your logic on your webpage, then feel free to continue your self-absorbed fantasy. I've reported you only because you've established yourself as a violator of the TOS by establishing multiple accounts, in addition to being a arrogant, know-it-all Flamer and Spammer!
Enjoy your letter in Embedded.com's free newsletter, I'm sure you'll make a name for yourself in no time. Which name did you use by the way, Mapou or Louis Savain?
Nevermind, I'm closing my browser now anyway. Good luck! -
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is