Fired up Minecraft last week after a long break. They've added a bunch of stuff to it. Jungle biomes, teleporting NPCs.

But the worst by far are still the hissers, I swear they spawn behind me. Frustrating as hell.

Although I did get knocked off a very high cliff by a skeleton and lost a bunch of my diamond stuff. I am not sure why dropped items by player death disappear faster than the rocks you mine and leave on the floor. Can come back hours later and pick up 100+ blocks. But the 10 minutes it took me to to find where I died and how to get back to it cost me a significant portion of my stuff.


I find it far too boring to play without the monsters though.

Ninja Spider, that's what it is. Upvote for shinobi spider skills but I still hate the little bastards though.
>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^soulmonarch:
Jumping spiders are some of the coolest creatures on earth.

That thing JUMPS too?
notcute
horrifying
burnitwithfire

Not really, no. I'm fully convinced they actually teleport from place to place.
Watch one all you want, you'll never see him actually jump, they just vanish from where they are, and appear somewhere else.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^soulmonarch:
Jumping spiders are some of the coolest creatures on earth.

That thing JUMPS too?
notcute
horrifying
burnitwithfire


Not really, no. I'm fully convinced they actually teleport from place to place.

Watch one all you want, you'll never see him actually jump, they just vanish from where they are, and appear somewhere else.

Ahh, now I understand what you meant when you said it "doesn't matter where facts come from".

Alex Jones? Please.

If Glenn Beck & Sara Palin got caught in some sort of "The Fly" teleporter , the buzzing BeckPalinfly that resulted would still be more sane and honest than this psychopath.

>> ^mas8705:

Also I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been any "Nightcrawler" related comments...
You never see him run into this problem...


Of course not. Nightcrawler doesn't normally teleport to a location that he can't see precisely because of this.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It definitely seems like a scary robopocalypse moment - but trust will be earned over time.>> ^peggedbea:

I'm holding out for teleport.
also, I just imagined my future grandkids being toted around this way and gave me shivers.

I think there is an obsession with texture/shadow resolution, with the amount of polygons etc. What I find more impressive is they built a landscape that looks real with enough variation that I can more or less tell where each of the "exposures" in this video were taken.

I somewhat dislike the option to fast travel. Towards the end of the game I ended up just telelporting from each hub city to the next hub nearest to my objective then spent 20 minutes in a dungeon before teleporting back.

I'm holding out for teleport.

also, I just imagined my future grandkids being toted around this way and gave me shivers.

>> ^messenger:

...I thought that it was an absolute fact that you cannot determine both the speed/direction and position of anything, no matter how it's measured by definition of the measurement of speed/direction requiring more than one position. That's to say, I'm under the impression that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has nothing to do with technology and will always be true under any conditions with any equipment in the areas where it applies, world without end, Amen. Am I wrong?

That is a combined 'yes' and 'no' answer.

Yes: Measuring exact values of electron is really hard. They don't even show up as precise values when we look at them, simply because they are so small and move so fast. We see that as a sort of 'smear'. (A Fourier transform.)

Heisenberg's equations for determining more precise values don't commute. (i.e. You cannot shuffle the variables around and still have it work.) This implies that it should be mathematically impossible to determine the velocity and position at the same instant.

No: Because all of the above is still based on the assumption that that our current method of measuring particles is all there is. If they could be measured more accurately or without adding energy to the system, the Uncertainty Principle should no longer be relevant.

Of course, science is pretty sure that's impossible. (Hell, they didn't even have that in Star Trek.) But we've proved ourselves wrong a lot of times in the past.

Soulmonarch, first, thanks for the excellent answers above. They were just enough for me to understand that something real was being measured and why I didn't understand the rest of the concept.

Now, you clearly know oodles more than I do about this stuff, but I thought that it was an absolute fact that you cannot determine both the speed/direction and position of anything, no matter how it's measured by definition of the measurement of speed/direction requiring more than one position. That's to say, I'm under the impression that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has nothing to do with technology and will always be true under any conditions with any equipment in the areas where it applies, world without end, Amen. Am I wrong?>> ^soulmonarch:

>> ^Payback:
When "they" talk about being able to see velocity or position, but not both... that's just a failure of technology right? There's not some weird universal law making it impossible?

You refer to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. (The more accurately you measure a particle's position, the less accurate you are regarding momentum. And vice-versa.)
And yes, the problem is primarily technological. If someone ever invents a way to peer in and measure tiny particles without some kind of energy exchange with the particle (via light or electron scatter), the whole argument pretty much becomes a moot point.
And man would THAT ever screw with quantum physics.

>> ^Payback:

When "they" talk about being able to see velocity or position, but not both... that's just a failure of technology right? There's not some weird universal law making it impossible?


You refer to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. (The more accurately you measure a particle's position, the less accurate you are regarding momentum. And vice-versa.)

And yes, the problem is primarily technological. If someone ever invents a way to peer in and measure tiny particles without some kind of energy exchange with the particle (via light or electron scatter), the whole argument pretty much becomes a moot point.

And man would THAT ever screw with quantum physics.

This guy does a terrible job of presenting his facts. He's not wrong, strictly speaking, he just didn't say it in a way that made sense.

1.) "Teleportation" is a misnomer. "Quantum Teleportation" always refers to the act of destroying something at the source and recreating it at the destination.

2.) See above.

3.) It is a Bell measurement. The specifics get confusing unless you want to do a lot of reading.

The short version: The 'Bell Basis' of A-B is measured. Both qubits are destroyed. The information is sent to the person holding C, via traditional channels. The same process is performed (in reverse) on C. This creates a new copy of A, despite not knowing what it originally looked like.

Confusing as hell at first. But this is the exact experiment they did, and it works.

4.) Because he didn't make the infographic very well.

5.) See above.

6.) To measure the particle, we are bouncing electrons or light off the qubit and surrounding matter. This add energy to the system and therefore changes it's behavior. Therefore, measuring any particle changes it's state.

It's what makes Quantum Mechanics so fun!

>> ^messenger:

This doesn't explain clearly to me that this is teleportation.

This doesn't explain clearly to me that this is teleportation.

Questions:
1. How is this different from going somewhere else and changing something to resemble something else where you just came from?
2. How much of this is facetious? I mean, did they really teleport a photon with a fax machine?
3. What kind of information about the relationship between the two photons did they measure without measuring the original photon?
4. If they teleported photon A, then why is it still at the origin in the graphic?
5. If they teleported photon A, then why is it in a different state than the disrupted photon A?
6. At what point did something get measured that would change the state?