Remove Electronic signature Word Now
Make the most out of your eSignature workflows with airSlate SignNow
Extensive suite of eSignature tools
Robust integration and API capabilities
Advanced security and compliance
Various collaboration tools
Enjoyable and stress-free signing experience
Extensive support
How To Erase eSign Word
Keep your eSignature workflows on track
Our user reviews speak for themselves
Remove Electronic signature Word Now. Investigate probably the most user-pleasant knowledge of airSlate SignNow. Manage your entire papers handling and discussing method electronically. Change from hand-held, papers-based and erroneous workflows to automated, digital and faultless. You can easily generate, produce and signal any documents on any device anyplace. Ensure your airSlate SignNow enterprise circumstances don't move overboard.
Learn how to Remove Electronic signature Word Now. Adhere to the easy information to begin:
- Make your airSlate SignNow accounts in mouse clicks or sign in with your Facebook or Google bank account.
- Take pleasure in the 30-working day free trial or select a costs plan that's ideal for you.
- Find any lawful web template, create on the web fillable types and share them safely.
- Use advanced characteristics to Remove Electronic signature Word Now.
- Indicator, individualize signing buy and accumulate in-particular person signatures 10 times quicker.
- Establish auto alerts and acquire notifications at every move.
Relocating your tasks into airSlate SignNow is easy. What adheres to is an easy approach to Remove Electronic signature Word Now, along with tips to keep your colleagues and associates for better alliance. Empower your employees with the very best tools to remain in addition to organization processes. Increase productivity and size your company more quickly.
How it works
Rate your experience
-
Best ROI. Our customers achieve an average 7x ROI within the first six months.
-
Scales with your use cases. From SMBs to mid-market, airSlate SignNow delivers results for businesses of all sizes.
-
Intuitive UI and API. Sign and send documents from your apps in minutes.
A smarter way to work: —how to industry sign banking integrate
FAQs
-
What are the best electronic signature (e-signature) solutions on the market, in your opinion?
[full disclosure: I’m VP Digital Transformation at Solutions Notarius Inc., a company that supplies electronic and digital signature solutions]It completely depends on the requirements. I do not believe there is a uniquely better e-signature solution for all scenarios. For example, if the type of documents to be signed require low to medium reliability only, most modern e-signature platforms could be ok, subject to meeting legal requirements in the applicable jurisdiction, but if the document must meet stringent regulatory and statutory requirements that include high reliability of identity of signers, those platforms do not typically meet that threshold.Ideally, you would analyze, define and obtain agreement as to what constitutes the minimal acceptable legal reliability threshold you are willing to accept - or that readers of that document will accept. Next, define the technology requirements that correspond to that threshold. Finally, research e-signature options that meet these requirements and provide the best combination of price, features, scalability, etc..Finally, it should be noted that higher legal reliability e-signature platforms and solutions can always accommodate lower reliability documents while the converse is not true…
-
Is wave-particle duality an illusion?
"Illusion" is an interesting choice of words. To acquire the kind of understanding I think you're after, let's back up a bit and see if we can excavate the foundation of this question. Let me start with a quote. “The voyage of discovery lies not in seeking new horizons, but in seeing with new eyes.” ~ Marcel Proust An examination of the double-slit experiment will give us a good introduction to the mystery you have singled out. But to make that examination worthwhile, we need to make sure that we are familiar with an important effect known as interference. [i]Interference applies universally to all interacting waves. A water wave, for instance, can be described as a disturbance in the shape of the water’s surface. This disturbance produces regions where the water level is higher and regions where it is lower than the undisturbed value. The highest part of each ripple is called a peak and the lowest part is called a trough. Typically waves involve periodic succession, peak followed by trough followed by peak and so on. In general, we can define a wavelength as the distance between identical parts of adjacent waves. Measurements from peak to peak, or trough to trough, for example, give the same value for wavelength.Figure 1 Peaks and troughs of wavesWhen waves interact in a medium, they interfere. For example, if we drop two rocks into spatially separated parts of a pond, their waves will interfere when they cross. (Figure 2) When a peak of one wave and a peak of another wave come together, the height of the water rises to a height equal to the sum of the two peaks. Similarly, when a trough of one wave and a trough of another wave cross, the depression of the water's surface dips to the sum of the two depressions. And when a peak of one wave crosses with a trough of another, the (at least partially) cancel each other out. The peak of one wave contributes a positive displacement while the trough of the other wave contributes a negative displacement. If the two waves have equal magnitude, then there will be perfect cancelation and the water's surface will be flat, just as it was before any wave existed.Figure 12-2 Constructive and destructive interference Keeping these rules of interference in mind, let’s turn our attention to light. If we take a laser emitting a single wavelength—a single color, and shine it on a screen that has a slit etched into it (Figure 3), what image should we expect to see on the wall behind the screen? [ii] Classically speaking, we would expect to see a stripe of light on the wall. (Classically means according to our four-dimensional intuition, or the rules of Euclidean geometry.) It turns out that this is what we see. In this sense light’s behavior correlates perfectly with our Euclidean intuition.Figure 12-3 Expected single slit projectionWhat image should we expect to see on the wall if we etch a second slit on our screen and cover the first slit with a black piece of tape? Well, our classical intuitions tell us to expect a line of light projected on the wall, just like we did before, except this line of light should be offset from the first. Again, this is exactly what we see when we perform the experiment. So far all of this is straightforward and conceptually trivial. But as it turns out, we are only one step away from a profound mystery. We discover this mystery by removing the piece of tape. To understand the impact of this mystery, ask yourself: What sort of projection do we expect to see on the wall when both slits are open?Classical intuition tells us that we should see two parallel bands of light on the wall (Figure 4).Figure 4 Expected double slit projectionBut this is where our classical training (our Euclidean intuition) lets us down. This is also where classical mechanics breaks down. When we perform this experiment, something completely counterintuitive happens, contradicting our Euclidean intuitions. A distinct interference pattern is projected on the wall (Figure 5).Figure 5 Actual double slit projection The bright and dark bands produced in this double-slit experiment are telltale signs that light propagates as a wave. [iii] Interference patterns are key signatures of waves. The problem is that this wavelike characteristic directly clashes with our observations of light’s particulate behavior. After all, photons are always found in point-like regions rather than spread out like a wave, and individual photons are always found to have very discrete amounts of energy. When measuring a wave, you would expect to find its energy spread out over a region instead of being concentrated in one location. So how are we supposed to make sense of this observation? What is going on?These diametrically opposed properties of light are verified facts. Contradictory as they may seem, they are here to stay. They have forced us to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that light is both a wave and a particle. But how can this be? How can it be both? Although many scientists have found thewave-particle duality of light to be conceptually vague and schizophrenic, this description has persisted. In fact, after the wave-particle concept was adopted as an accurate description of light, it was extended to describe electrons and, eventually, all of matter. This transition was nothing short of a revolution.Up until 1910, atoms were simplistically viewed as miniature solar systems with the nucleus making up the “central star” and orbiting electrons being “planets”. [iv] The wave-particle duality of light and matter rejected this view and pointed to a signNowly different architecture for atoms. Of course, this conceptual transition did not take hold over night.In 1924, Prince Louis de Broglie found that in addition to their particle like character, [v] electrons also possessed a wavelike character. In 1927, Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer followed this up by firing a beam of electrons at a piece of nickel crystal, which acted as a barrier analogous to the one used in the double-slit experiment. A phosphor screen recorded the resultant pattern of electrons. [vi] When they examined the screen, they observed an interference pattern just like the one produced in the double-slit experiment, showing that even electrons have wavelike properties.These experiments shook the foundation of physics by threatening the structure of classical mechanics and destroying humanity’s intuitive framework of reality. But it didn’t stop there. The next step was to tune the beam of electrons down so that the electron gun fired just a single electron at a time. Similar experiments were later used with lasers wherein individual photons were fired seconds apart from each other. The results were mind-bending.Completely against expectation these experiments also produced interference patterns over time as the collection of electrons (or photons) continued to build (Figure 6).Figure 12-6 Over time individual photons construct an interference patternThese observations only added to the confusion. Waves are supposed to be a collective property—something that has no meaning when applied to separate, particulate ingredients. (A water wave, for example, involves a large number of water molecules.) So how can a single electron, or a single photon, be a wave? Furthermore, wave interference requires a wave from one place to interact with a wave from another place. So how can interference be relevantly applied to a single electron or photon? While we are considering such questions, we should also ask, if a single electron or photon is a wave, then what is it that is “waving”? [vii]To answer these questions, Erwin Schrödinger proposed that the stuff that makes up electrons might be smeared out in space and that this smeared electron essence might be what waves. If this idea was correct then we would expect to find all of the electron’s properties, spread out over a distance, but we never do. Every time we locate an electron, we find all of its mass and all of its charge concentrated in one tiny, point-like region. Max Born came up with a different idea. He suggested that the wave is actually a probability wave. [viii] Einstein tinkered with a similar idea when he hypothesized that these waves were optical observations that refer to time averages rather than instantaneous values. Inserting a probability wave (also called a state vector, or a wave function) as a fundamental aspect of Nature delivers another blow to our common-sense ideas about how things truly operate. It suggests that experiments with identical starting conditions do not necessarily lead to identical results because it claims that you can never predict exactly where an electron will be in a single instant. You can only define a probability that we will find it over here, or over there, at any given moment. Two situations with the same probabilistic starting conditions, say of a single particle, might not produce the same results, because the particle can be anywhere within that probability distribution. From a classical perspective, the discovery that the microscopic universe behaves this way is absolutely baffling. Nevertheless, it is how we have observed Nature to be.This leads us to a rather interesting precipice. It seems that the map we have been using to chart physical reality somehow dissolves when we look closely at it. The rules of four-dimensional geometry simply fail to accurately map Nature when we examine the smallest scales. Nature doesn’t strictly behave as our old Euclidean map dictates. Stumbling upon this discovery forces us to face a vital question. Is Nature ultimately and fundamentally probabilistic in a way that we may never understand, as many modern physicists have chosen to believe; or, is this probabilistic quality a byproduct of our reduced dimensional representation of Nature?After pondering these questions long and hard, some physicists have come to believe that the tapestry of spacetime is analogous to water: that the smooth appearance of space and time is only an approximation that must yield to a more fundamental framework when considering ultramicroscopic scales. As far as I can tell, however, up until now this point has only been entertained abstractly. Geometrically resolving a molecular structure for space might resolve our greatest quantum mechanical mysteries, but as of yet, no one has taken that final step. No one has developed a self-consistent picture from this geometric insight. No one has moved beyond the mathematical suggestion that spacetime is analogous to water, or interpreted the theoretical quanta of space as being physically real. Consequently, a framework that enables conceptualization of what is meant by the “molecules” or “atoms” of spacetime has not been developed.Eight decades of meticulous experiments have confirmed the predictions of quantum mechanics based on this wave function, or probability wave, description with amazing precision. “Yet there is still no agreed-upon way to envision what quantum mechanical probability waves actually are. Whether we should say that an electron’s probability wave is the electron, or that it’s associated with the electron, or that it’s a mathematical device for describing the electron’s motion, or that it’s the embodiment of what we can know about the electron is still debated.” [ix]Although quantum mechanics describes the universe as having an inherently probabilistic character, we don’t experience the effects of this character in our day-to-day lives. Why is this? The answer, according to quantum mechanics, is that we don't see quantum events like a chair being here now and then across the room in the next instant, because the probability of that occurring, although not zero, is absurdly miniscule. But what exactly makes the probability for large things to act, as electrons do, so small? At what scales do such effects become important? And, why should the macroscopic universe be so different from the microscopic universe?As if these newly uncovered characteristics of reality weren’t obscure enough, quantum physicists conceptually fuddle things further by suggesting that without observation things have no reality. They claim that until the position of an electron is actually measured the electron has no definite position. Before it is measured, the position exists only as a probability, and then suddenly, through the act of measuring, the electron miraculously acquires the property of position.Einstein acutely recognized the absurdity of this claim. When approached with this conjecture, he famously quipped, “Do you really believe that the moon is not there unless we are looking at it?” [x] To him everything in the physical world had a reality independent of our observations. Measurements that suggested otherwise were mere reflections of the incompleteness by which we currently map and comprehend physical reality. To many quantum physicists, however, the unobserved Moon’s existence became a matter of probability. To them, a discoverable, complete map of physical reality, with the ability to resolve an underlying determinism, became nothing more than a myth—a romantic dream.The mathematical projection of quantum mechanics can be statistically matched with our four-dimensional observations, but when it comes to a conceptual explanation of those observations, it completely lets us down. Intuitive explanations cannot be gleaned from a framework of physical reality that is assumed to be fundamentally probabilistic. By definition, randomness blurs causality. This vague description of physical reality keeps us from grasping a deeper truth by allowing what should be the most basic of concepts to drip into a realm of nonsense.As an example of the confusion that stems from swallowing the standard quantum mechanical interpretation “guts, feathers, and all,” consider the fact that a probabilistic treatment of quantum mechanics leads us to the conclusion that the double-slit experiment can be explained by assuming that a photon actually takes both paths. We can combine the two probability waves emerging from both slits to statistically determine where a photon will land on a screen. The result mimics an interference pattern.According to this, we can explain interference patterns by assuming that one photon somehow always manages to go through both slits, but is this really what is going on? Does a photon really travel along both paths? Can this count as an explanation if we have no coherent sense of what it means? You might notice that if we were to design our experiment with three slits, then we would have to consider whether or not the photon really travels all three routes. This question can be extended for as many slits as you like, but the fundamental conceptual problem remains the same.In order to solve this mystery, you may suggest that we place detectors in front of the slits to determine if the photons are actually going through both slits, or just one. When we do this, we always find that individual photons pass through one slit or the other—never both. But, when we measure the position of individual photons we no longer get an interference pattern and so the question retains its ambiguity. Some have taken this to mean that the act of observation forces wave properties to collapse into a particle, but how and why this theoretical collapse occurs still lacks explanation.Because probability waves are not directly observable and because photons (and electrons) are always found in one place or another when measured, we might be tempted to think that probability waves might not be real—that they were never really there. If that is true, then how are the interference patterns created? Surely these probability waves exist, but in what sense? What are they referencing? Why is it that whenever we know which path the photon takes, we get a classical image instead of an interference pattern? How does the detection of a photon, or an electron, change its behavior?To date, these questions have yet to be resolved. In fact, more clever experiments designed to solve these questions have only deepened the mystery. For example, let’s perform the double-slit experiment again, but this time let’s place devices in front of the slits, which mark (but do not stop or detect) the photons before they pass through the slits. This marking allows us to examine the photons that strike the screen and subsequently determine which slit they passed through. Thus we only gain knowledge of which path the photon takes after the path has been completed. For some reason, however, when we do this we find that the photons do not build up an interference pattern. They form a classical image (Figure 4).Once again, it seems that “which-path” information inhibits us from probing these ghostly waves. But is it really the fact that we gain the ability to determine which path a photon goes through—independent of when we gain that information—that disrupts the interference pattern? Or does our marking of the photon somehow disrupt its interference potential?To explore this question, we perform what’s known as the quantum eraser experiment. We start with the same set up we just described. Then we place another device between each slit and the screen, which completely removes the mark from the photon. We already know that the marked photons project a classical image. Will an interference pattern reemerge if we remove the effects of this mark—if we lose the ability to extract the which-path information?When we perform this experiment the interference pattern does return (Figure 7). Does this mean that photons somehow choose how to act, based on our knowledge of them? Or does it imply something even stranger—that the photons are always both particles and waves simultaneously? How are we to understand either conclusion?Figure 12-7 An interference pattern Another curiosity of Nature is known as the photoelectric effect. Philipp Lenard first discovered this effect through controlled experiments in 1900. When light shines on a metal surface, it causes electrons to be knocked loose and emitted. Knowing this, Lenard designed an experiment that allowed him to control the frequencyof the incoming light. During the experiment, he increased the frequency of the light—moving from infrared heat and red light to violet and ultraviolet. Greater frequencies caused the emitted electrons to speed away with more kinetic energy. After discovering this, Lenard reconfigured his experiment to allow him to control the intensity of the incoming light. He used a carbon arc light that could be made brighter by a factor of 1,000.Because both experiments involved increasing the amount of incoming light energy he expected to have identical results. In other words, because the brighter, more intense light had more energy, Lenard expected that the electrons emitted would have more energy and speed away faster. But that’s not what happened. Instead, the more intense light produced more electrons, but the energy of each electron remained the same. [xi]In response to these experiments Einstein suggested that light is composed of discrete packets called photons. Under this assumption, light with higher frequency would cause electrons to be emitted with more energy, and light with higher intensity, that is, a higher quantity of photons, would result in emission of more electrons—just as we observe.The problem with this solution (a solution that is now universally accepted among physicists) is that it doesn’t provide us with a clear description for what the light quanta are. Why does light come in quantized packets? Near the end of his life Einstein lamented over this problem in a letter to his dear friend Michele Besso. He wrote, “All these fifty years of pondering have not brought me any closer to answering the question, what are light quanta?” [xii] It’s been another fifty years and we seem as confused as ever over how it is that light is quantized into little discrete packets called photons.In the midst of these enigmas lies the uncertainty principle, which states that knowledge of certain properties inhibits knowledge of other complimentary properties. For example, the more accurately we determine the position of an electron, the less we can determine its momentum, and vise versa.Heisenberg tried to explain the uncertainty principle by appealing to the observer effect; claiming that it was simply an observational effect of the fact that measurements of quantum systems cannot be made without affecting those systems. [xiii] Since then, the uncertainty principle has regularly been confused with the observer effect. [xiv] But the uncertainty principle is not a statement about the observational success of current technology. It has nothing to do with the observer effect. It highlights a fundamental property of quantum systems, a property that turns out to be inherent in all wave-like systems. [xv] Uncertainty is an aspect of quantum mechanics because of the wave nature it ascribes to all quantum objects.If our current description of quantum mechanics is fundamental, if there is nothing beneath the state vector—a claim that defines the heart of the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics—then this uncertainty principle may be a sharp enough dagger to kill our quest for an intuitive understanding of physical reality. The corrosive power of the uncertainty principle, when mixed with our current paradigm, is poignantly illustrated by an old story involving Niels Bohr. According to the story, Bohr was once asked what the complementary quality to truth is. After some thought he answered—“clarity.” [xvi] Unlike classical mechanics, which describes systems by specifying the positions and velocities of its components, quantum mechanics uses a complex mathematical object called a state vector (also called the wave function [xvii]) to map physical systems. Interjecting this state vector into the theory enables us to match its predictions to our observations of the microscopic world, but it also generates a relatively indirect description that is open to many equally valid interpretations. This creates a sticky situation, because to “really understand” quantum mechanics we need to be able to specify the exact status of and to have some sort of justification for that specification. At the present, we only have questions. Does the state vector describe physical reality itself, or only some (partial) knowledge that we have of reality? “Does it describe ensembles of systems only (statistical description), or one single system as well (single events)? Assume that indeed, is affected by an imperfect knowledge of the system, is it then not natural to expect that a better description should exist, at least in principle?” [xviii] If so, what would this deeper and more precise description of reality be?To explore the role of the state vector, consider a physical system made of Nparticles with mass, each propagating in ordinary three-dimensional space. In classical mechanics we would use Npositions and N velocities to describe the state of the system. For convenience we might also group together the positions and velocities of those particles into a single vector V, which belongs to a real vector space with 6N dimensions, called phase space. [xix]The state vector can be thought of as the quantum equivalent of this classical vector V. The primary difference is that, as a complex vector, it belongs to something called complex vector space, also known as space of states, or Hilbert space. In other words, instead of being encoded by regular vectors whose positions and velocities are defined in phase space, the state of a quantum system is encoded by complex vectors whose positions and velocities live in a space of states. [xx]The transition from classical physics to quantum physics is the transition from phase space to space of states to describe the system. In the quantum formalism each physical observable of the system (position, momentum, energy, angular momentum, etc.) has an associated linear operator acting in the space of states. (Vectors belonging to the space of states are called “kets.”) The question is, is it possible to understand space of states in a classical manner? Could the evolution of the state vector be understood classically (under a projection of local realism) if, for example, there were additional variables associated with the system that were ignored completely by our current description/understanding of it?While that question hangs in the air, let’s note that if the state vector is fundamental, if there really isn’t a deeper-level description beneath the state vector, then the probabilities postulated by quantum mechanics must also be fundamental. This would be a strange anomaly in physics. Statistical classical mechanics makes constant use of probabilities, but those probabilistic claims relate to statistical ensembles. They come into play when the system under study is known to be one of many similar systems that share common properties, but differ on a level that has not been probed (for any reason). Without knowing the exact state of the system we can group all the similar systems together into an ensemble and assign that ensemble state to our system. This is done as a matter of convenience. Of course, the blurred average state of the ensemble is not as clear as any of the specific states the system might actually have. Beneath that ensemble there is a more complete description of the system’s state (at least in principle), but we don’t need to distinguish the exact state in order to make predictions. Statistical ensembles allow us to make predictions without probing the exact state of the system. But our ignorance of that exact state forces those predictions to be probabilistic.Can the same be said about quantum mechanics? Does quantum theory describe an ensemble of possible states? Or does the state vector provide the most accurate possible description of a single system? [xxi]How we answer that question impacts how we explain unique outcomes. If we treat the state vector as fundamental, then we should expect reality to always present itself in some sort of smeared out sense. If the state vector were the whole story, then our measurements should always record smeared out properties, instead of unique outcomes. But they don’t. We always measure well-defined properties that correspond to specific states. Sticking with the idea that the state vector is fundamental, von Neumann suggested a solution called state vector reduction (also called wave function collapse). [xxii] The idea was that when we aren’t looking, the state of a system is defined as a superposition of all its possible states (characterized by the state vector) and evolves according to the Schrödinger equation. But as soon as we look (or take a measurement) all but one of those possibilities collapse. How does this happen? What mechanism is responsible for selecting one of those states over the rest? To date there is no answer. Despite this, von Neumann’s idea has been taken seriously because his approach allows for unique outcomes.The problem that von Neumann was trying to address is that the Schrödinger equation itself does not select single outcomes. It cannot explain why unique outcomes are observed. According to it, if a fuzzy mix of properties comes in (coded by the state vector), a fuzzy mix of properties comes out. To fix this, von Neumann conjured up the idea that the state vector jumps discontinuously (and randomly) to a single value. [xxiii] He suggested that unique outcomes occur because the state vector retains only the “component corresponding to the observed outcome while all components of the state vector associated with the other results are put to zero, hence the name reduction.” [xxiv]The fact that this reduction process is discontinuous makes it incompatible with general relativity. It is also irreversible, which makes it stand out as the only equation in all of physics that introduces time-asymmetry into the world. If we think that the problem of explaining uniqueness of outcome eclipses these problems, then we might be willing to take them in stride. But to make this trade worthwhile we need to have a good story for how state vector collapse occurs. We don’t. The absence of this explanation is referred to as the quantum measurement problem.Many people are surprised to discover that the quantum measurement problem still stands. It has become popular to explain state vector reduction (wave function collapse) by appealing to the observer effect, asserting that measurements of quantum systems cannot be made without affecting those systems, and that state vector reduction is somehow initiated by those measurements. [xxv] This may sound plausible, but it doesn’t work. Even if we ignore the fact that this ‘explanation’ doesn’t elucidate howa disturbance could initiate state vector reduction, this isn’t an allowed answer because “state vector reduction can take place even when the interactions play no role in the process.” [xxvi] This is illustrated by negative measurements or interaction free measurements in quantum mechanics.To explore this point, consider a source, S, that emits a particle with a spherical wave function, which means its values are independent of the direction in space. [xxvii] In other words, it emits photons in random directions, each direction having equal probability. Let’s surround the source by two detectors with perfect efficiency. The first detector D1should be set up to capture the particle emitted in almost all directions, except a small solid angle θ, and the second detector D2 should be set up to capture the particle if it goes through this solid angle (Figure 8).Figure 8 An interaction-free measurement When the wave packet describing the wave function of the particle signNowes the first detector, it may or may not be detected. (The probability of detection depends on the ratio of the subtended angles of the detectors.) If the particle is detected by D1 it disappears, which means that its state vector is projected onto a state containing no particle and an excited detector. In this case, the second detector D2will never record a particle. If the particle isn’t detected by D1 then D2 will detect the particle later. Therefore, the fact that the first detector has not recorded the particle implies a reduction of the wave function to its component contained within θ, implying that the second detector will always detect the particle later. In other words, the probability of detection by D2 has been greatly enhanced by a sort of “non-event” at D1. In short, the wave function has been reduced without any interaction between the particle and the first measurement apparatus.Franck Laloë notes that this illustrates that “the essence of quantum measurement is something much more subtle than the often invoked ‘unavoidable perturbations of the measurement apparatus’ (Heisenberg microscope, etc.).” [xxviii] If state vector reduction really takes place, then it takes place even when the interactions play no role in the process, which means that we are completely in the dark about how this reduction is initiated or how it unfolds. Why then is state vector reduction still taken seriously? Why would any thinking physicist uphold the claim that state vector reduction occurs, when there is no plausible story for how or why it occurs, and when the assertion that it does occur creates other monstrous problems that contradict central tenets of physics? The answer may be that generations of tradition have largely erased the fact that there is another way to solve the quantum measurement problem.Returning to the other option at hand, we note that if we assume that the state vector is a statistical ensemble, if we assume that the system does have a more exact state, then the interpretation of this thought experiment becomes straightforward; initially the particle has a well-defined direction of emission, and D2records only the fraction of the particles that were emitted in its direction.Standard quantum mechanics postulates that this well-defined direction of emission does not exist before any measurement. Assuming that there is something beneath the state vector, that a more accurate state exists, is tantamount to introducing additional variables to quantum mechanics. It takes a departure from tradition, but as T. S. Eliot said in The Sacred Wood, “tradition should be positively discouraged.” [xxix] The scientific heart must search for the best possible answer. It cannot flourish if it is constantly held back by tradition, nor can it allow itself to ignore valid options. Intellectual journeys are obliged to forge new paths.So instead of asking whether of not wave-particle duality is an illusion, perhaps we should ask whether wave-particle duality implies that the state vector is the most fundamental description of a quantum mechanical system, or if a deeper level description exists? That's an open question, and at the moment there are many possible answers — interpretations of quantum mechanics that are equally aligned with the empirical evidence. What's your answer?For more on this topic, and to discover how pilot-wave theory is elucidated by the assumption that the vacuum is a superfluid, see Einstein's Intuition, available in black and white softcover, full color softcover, full color hardcover, an iBook, and as an audiobook.[i] The discussion on interference and the double-slit experiment that follows is further developed by Brian Greene, (2004). The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality. New York: Knopf, pp. 84–84. Greene’s discussion was used as a general guide here.[ii] In order to show diffraction (a fuzzy border of light on the projected image) the slit must have a width that does not greatly exceed the wavelength of the color of the light that we have chosen.[iii] Light’s wave nature was first revealed in the mid-seventeenth century through experiments performed by the Italian scientist Francesco Maria Grimaldi, and was later expanded upon by experiments performed in 1803 by the physician and physicist Thomas Young. (1807). Interference of Light; Alan Lightman. A Sense Of The Mysterious. pp. 51–52, 71.[iv] Before the “planetary model” of the atom, physicists pictured the atom being a plum-shaped blob (the nucleus) with tiny protruding springs that each had an electron stuck to its end. When the atom absorbed energy it was thought that these electrons would jiggle (oscillate) on the ends of their springs. Consequently, any atom that was above its ground state of energy was understood to be an “excited atomic oscillator,” This depiction of the atom wasn’t overthrown until 1900. At that point in history the physical existence of atoms was still controversial. It was replaced by the planetary model, which in turn was replaced by the electron cloud model we use today—a model that was initiated in 1910 and was secured by 1930. Gary Zukav. The Dancing Wu Li Masters, pp. 49–50.[v] Electrons can be individually counted and you can individually place them on a drop of oil and measure their electric charge. Richard Feynman. (1988). QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton University Press, p. 84.[vi] According to de Broglie’s doctoral thesis all matter has corresponding waves. The wavelength of the “matter waves” that “correspond” to matter depends upon the momentum of the particle. Specifically, , which falls into an important group of equations along with Planck’s equation ) and the ever famous . (λ, pronounced “lambda,” stands for wavelength, h is Planck’s constant, and pronounced ‘nu’ represents the frequency of a photon) From this equation we are told to expect that when we send a beam of electrons (something we might traditionally think of as a stream of particles) through tiny openings, like the spacing between atoms in a piece of nickel crystal, the beam will diffract, just like light diffracts. The only requirement here is that the spacing between the atoms of the material must be as small, or smaller, than the electron’s corresponding wavelength—just like the slits in our double-slit experiment. When we perform the experiment, diffraction and therefore interference, occurs exactly as wave mechanics predicts.[vii] Part of the problem here is that in keeping with our four-dimensional intuition we tend to assume a particle aspect in the double-slit experiment without accounting for nonlocality. By doing this we are technically violating Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and missing the bigger picture.[viii] M. Born. (1926). Quantenmechanik der Stossvorgänge. Zeitschrift für Physik 38, 803–827; (1926). Zur Wellenmechanik der Stossvorgänge. Göttingen Nachrichten 146–160.[ix] Brian Greene. (2004), p. 91.[x] Albert Einstein quoted in Einstein by Walter Isaacson.[xi] Walter Isaacson. Einstein, pp. 96–97.[xii] Ibid.[xiii] Werner Heisenberg. The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory, p. 20.[xiv] Masano Ozawa. (2003). Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement. Physical Review A 67 (4), arXiv:quant-ph/0207121; Aya Furuta. (2012). One Thing Is Certain: Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle Is Not Dead. Scientific American.[xv] L. A. Rozema, A. Darabi, D. H. Mahler, A. Hayat, Y, Soudagar, & A. M. Steinberg. (2012). Violation of Heisenberg’s Measurement—Disturbance Relationship by Weak Measurements. Physical Review Letters 109 (10).[xvi] Steven Weinberg. Dreams Of A Final Theory, p. 74.[xvii] For a system of spinless particles with masses, the state vector is equivalent to a wave function, but for more complicated systems this is not the case. Nevertheless, conceptually they play the same role and are used in the same way in the theory, so that we do not need to make a distinction here. Franck Laloë. Do We Really Understand Quantum Mechanics?, p. 7.[xviii] Franck Laloë. Do We Really Understand Quantum Mechanics?, p. xxi.[xix] There are 6N dimensions in this phase space because there are N particles in the system and each particle comes with 6 data points (3 for its spatial position (x, y, z) and 3 for its velocity, which has x, y, zcomponents also).[xx] The space of states (complex vector space or Hilbert space) is linear, and therefore, conforms to the superposition principle. Any combination of two arbitrary state vectors and within the space of states is also a possible state for the system. Mathematically we write where & are arbitrary complex numbers.[xxi] Franck Laloë. Do We Really Understand Quantum Mechanics?, p. 19.[xxii] Chapter VI of J. von Neumann. (1932). Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik, Springer, Berlin; (1955). Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton University Press.[xxiii] It might be useful to challenge the logical validity of the claim that something can “cause a random occurrence.” By definition, causal relationships drive results, while “random” implies that there is no causal relationship. Deeper than this, I challenge the coherence of the idea that genuine random occurrences can happen. We cannot coherently claim that there are occurrences that are completely void of any causal relationship. To do so is to wisk away what we mean by “occurrences.” Every occurrence is intimately connected to the whole, and ignorance of what is driving a system is no reason to assume that it is randomly driven. Things cannot be randomly driven. Cause cannot be random.[xxiv] Franck Laloë. Do We Really Understand Quantum Mechanics?, p. 11.[xxv] Bohr preferred another point of view where state vector reduction is not used. D. Howard. (2004). Who invented the Copenhagen interpretation? A study in mythology. Philos. Sci. 71, 669–682.[xxvi] Franck Laloë. Do We Really Understand Quantum Mechanics?, p. 28.[xxvii] This example was inspired by section 2.4 of Franck Laloë’s book, Do We Really Understand Quantum Mechanics?, p. 27–31.[xxviii] Franck Laloë. Do We Really Understand Quantum Mechanics?, p. 28.[xxix] T. S. Eliot. (1921). The Sacred Wood. Tradition and the Individual Talent.
-
Why does Satoshi Nakamoto prefer to remain unknown (or anonymous) despite coming up with the disruptive innovation?
Good question. My guess is either:Satoshi was a truly selfless individual who wanted bitcoin to remain consensus based.Satoshi is dead and is not really committed to anonymity; orSatoshi is actually a group of people. Probably including several of the likely suspects below. Although the original code may have been written by one person the language in chat rooms, message boards and even the white paper itself suggest many unique contributors. Given this vision there were also probabaly non coders/developers who helped distribute the idea and were essentially “the political advocates” who brought the code to the internet at large. These are likely some of the people listed below that I have seen referenced as “potential Satoshi’s” (although none of these leads ever panned out).In a 2011 article in The New Yorker, Joshua Davis claimed to have narrowed down the identity of Nakamoto to a number of possible individuals, including the Finnish economist Dr. Vili Lehdonvirta and Irish student Michael Clear , then a graduate student in cryptography at Trinity College Dublin and now a post-doctoral student at Georgetown University.In October 2011, writing for Fast Company, investigative journalist Adam Penenberg cited circumstantial evidence suggesting Neal King, Vladimir Oksman and Charles Bry could be Nakamoto.They jointly filed a patent application that contained the phrase "computationally impractical to reverse" in 2008, which was also used in the bitcoin white paper.May 2013, Ted Nelson speculated that Nakamoto is really Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki.Later, an article was published in The Age newspaper that claimed that Mochizuki denied these speculations, but without attributing a source for the denial.A 2013 article in Gawker listed Gavin Andresen, Jed McCaleb, Casey Botticello, or a government agency as possible candidates to be Nakamoto. Dustin D. Trammell, a Texas-based security researcher, was suggested as Nakamoto, but he publicly denied it. Casey Botticello, the head of the Cryptocurrency Alliance has refused to comment.In 2013, two Israeli mathematicians, Dorit Ron and Adi Shamir, published a paper claiming a link between Nakamoto and Ross William Ulbricht. The two based their suspicion on an analysis of the network of bitcoin transactions, but later retracted their claim.Some considered Nakamoto might be a team of people; Dan Kaminsky, a security researcher who read the bitcoin code.
-
My sixteen-year-old daughter has recently started collecting Barbies. My husband thinks it's ridiculous, and it causes our six-y
You have a very intelligent daughter…your husband on the other hand… well let's just hope she takes after your genes.Firstly, this is happening… Margot Robbie To Star As Mattel’s Live-Action BarbieSo expect barbie to be a big trending topic soon.Secondly… The Designer's Doll - 09/01/2009And lastly BARBIE ISN'T DRUGS, SEX, OR POSTING STUPID VIDEOS ON YOUTUBE THAT WILL HAUNT HER LONG INTO ADULTHOOD. So back off and count yourself lucky. In fact go hug your kid and thank her for being one of the good eggs.Not to mention the money to be made!!!Think the only barbie worth money is the original or really old ones? Think again. In a 2018 study done by 24/7 Wall St. Insightful Analysis and Commentary for U.S. and Global Equity InvestorsThe most expensive barbies might be in your toybox right now. With some of the more recent years seeing a market for designer collaboration. I personally have been looking for the Moschino barbie doll since it sold out a few years ago.Barbie is one of the most popular toys ever, selling about 1 billion dolls since debuting in 1959. And even though Barbies have been purchased by millions of people from 150 countries, some versions of the doll are more valuable than others.There are legions of collectors searching the internet and other places for rare editions of the doll. What makes some Barbies more valuable than others are the doll’s unique accessories; the physical condition of the item; variations on Barbie’s career outfits; limited edition dolls; versions found only in some countries; and if the box is unopened.Collecting rare and valuable Barbies has become more than a cottage industry, so with that in mind, 24/7 Wall St. compiled a list of the most valuable Barbies using the latest available .*No one would have predicted such zealous collecting of the toy back in 1959, when Barbie debuted at the New York Toy Fair. That year, the doll cost $3. Today, a mint condition Barbie from 1959, wearing a black and white bathing suit and clutching sunglasses, can garner more than $20,000 on eBay.*FOOTNOTE #1 SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE*Barbie made an appeal to history aficionados in 2003 by taking a turn as Marie Antoinette and decked out in a flowing gown. That Barbie was being auctioned for as much as $2,000 on eBay. Themes tied to television shows such as “I Love Lucy” also are popular with collectors.Several one-of-a-kind Barbies have sold for exorbitantly high prices, outshining dolls even on this list. The most expensive version of the doll was sold for $302,500 in 2010. That doll was designed to raise money for the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Another doll sold for $85,000 in 1999. As the introduction to designer dolls, that Barbie was clad in a gold bikini top and a belt featuring 160 diamonds.To identify the 50 most valuable Barbie dolls, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed Barbie dolls currently for sale on eBay. Price data was obtained on March 5, 6, and 7. To be considered, dolls needed to have maintained similar price ranges over that period. The year each Barbie was released came from Mattel. Release dates not listed by the dollmaker were obtained from news archives, collector’s blogs, and other sources. The rare qualities of these dolls were listed on eBay, and often among the key drivers of each doll’s price. We only considered the most expensive doll within a given model. We included identical models only when accessories, certain rare qualities, or the context of a special release meaningfully distinguished duplicates.Page 2 of 1150. Midnight Tuxedo Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $995> Year released: 2001> Rare qualities: Never removed from box49. Pink Splendor Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $999> Year released: 1996> Rare qualities: Limited Edition48. Carol Spencer Holiday Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $999> Year released: 1994> Rare qualities: Prototype47. The Glory of the 80’s Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,000> Year released: 2017> Rare qualities: 1 of 100 in existence, never removed from box46. Dahlia Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,000> Year released: 2006> Rare qualities: Never removed from boxPage 3 of 1145. Lucky Charm Ken Doll> Estimated value: $1,000> Year released: 2017> Rare qualities: 1 of 500 in existence, never removed from box44. “Sales Resistance!” I Love Lucy Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,050> Year released: 2004> Rare qualities: N/A43. Empress Josephine Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,099> Year released: 2005> Rare qualities: Never removed from box42. Chataine Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,150> Year released: 2002> Rare qualities: Limited Edition41. Debut Silkstone Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,150> Year released: 2009> Rare qualities: Exclusive Paris ConventionPage 4 of 1140. La Belle Epoque Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,395> Year released: 2012> Rare qualities: Exclusive Paris Convention, signed by Robert Best39. Calvin Klein Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,414> Year released: 1996> Rare qualities: Good condition38. Escada Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,414> Year released: 1996> Rare qualities: Limited edition, made in Japan37. Trace of Lace Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,475> Year released: 2004> Rare qualities: Platinum Label36. Coach Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,500> Year released: 2013> Rare qualities: Plus 3 genuine coach bagsPage 5 of 1135. Happy Holidays Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,500> Year released: 1994> Rare qualities: Special edition, signed by Ruth Handler34. Barbie Doll As Medusa> Estimated value: $1,500> Year released: 2008> Rare qualities: Never removed from box33. Faerie Queen Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,500> Year released: 2004> Rare qualities: Limited edition, platinum label32. Summer Daydreams Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,514> Year released: 1997> Rare qualities: Never removed from box31. Princess of the Korean Court Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,514> Year released: 2005> Rare qualities: 25th AnniversaryPage 6 of 1130. Monique Lhuillier Bride Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,600> Year released: 2006> Rare qualities: Signed by Monique Lhuillier29. Violette Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $1,750> Year released: 2005> Rare qualities: Platinum Edition28. Sparkle Beach Barbie> Estimated value: $1,999> Year released: 1995> Rare qualities: New in box27. Marie Antoinette Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,000> Year released: 2003> Rare qualities: Gold label, never removed from box26. “I Love Lucy” Starring Lucy as Santa in “The Christmas Show” Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,000> Year released: 2007> Rare qualities: Platinum EditionPage 7 of 1125. Winter Glamour White Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,000> Year released: 2006> Rare qualities: 1 of 15 in existence24. Gold Jubilee Prototype Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,000> Year released: 1994> Rare qualities: Sample sticker on box23. Pretty in Plaid BArbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,000> Year released: 1998> Rare qualities: Includes prototype, never removed from box22. Chicago Cubs Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,000> Year released: 2000> Rare qualities: Limited edition, never removed from box21. Cher Ringmaster Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,000> Year released: 2007> Rare qualities: Platinum Label, never removed from boxPage 8 of 1120. Galleries Lafayette Blonde Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,000> Year released: 1999> Rare qualities: Original box19. NASCAR Official #94 Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,293> Year released: 1999> Rare qualities: Never removed from box18. Summer Splendor Enchanted Seasons Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,495> Year released: 1996> Rare qualities: Limited Edition17. Designer Dress Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,500> Year released: 2009> Rare qualities: Platinum Label, Original box16. American Girl Barbie> Estimated value: $2,500> Year released: 1966> Rare qualities: European exclusive, near mint conditionPage 9 of 1115. Walking Jamie Furry Friends Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,500> Year released: 1970> Rare qualities: Nearly mint condition14. Hair Happenin’s Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,500> Year released: 1971> Rare qualities: Never removed from box13. A Date with Barbie in Atlanta Doll> Estimated value: $2,500> Year released: 1998> Rare qualities: White dress, 1 of 25 in existence12. City Smart Silkstone Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,995> Year released: 2003> Rare qualities: 1 of 600 in existence11. Blonde Bubble Cut Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $2,999> Year released: 1962> Rare qualities: N/APage 10 of 1110. Pink Jubilee Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $3,000> Year released: 1989> Rare qualities: Limited Edition, 30th anniversary9. Bild Lilli Hausser Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $3,200> Year released: 1964> Rare qualities: Near mint condition8. Career Girl Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $3,495> Year released: N/A> Rare qualities: Japanese exclusive7. American Girl Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $3,500> Year released: 1966> Rare qualities: Mint condition, original box6. Lively Barbie Figure & Fashion Dress-up Doll> Estimated value: $3,838> Year released: N/A> Rare qualities: N/APage 11 of 115. Aqua Queen of the Prom Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $5,000> Year released: 2001> Rare qualities: 1 of 30 in existence4. Karl Lagerfeld Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $6,000> Year released: 2014> Rare qualities: Platinum Label, original shipper box3. #4 Blonde Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $8,999> Year released: 1960> Rare qualities: Original wrist tag2. Barbie & Major Matt Mason> Estimated value: $15,000> Year released: 1967> Rare qualities: Original store display, “Funny Face” contest1. #1 Blonde Barbie Doll> Estimated value: $23,999> Year released: 1959> Rare qualities: Collectors Edition, mint conditionSource: Sandi Holder's Doll AtticBarbie Brio AuctionIn most cases, turning a profit in the world of doll collecting requires a great deal of research and patience. But a very recent example shows that trend spotting can be an exception to the rule.In October of 2011, Mattel released tokidoki Barbie, complete with a pink bob hairdo, tattoos and cactus friend, Bastardino. The dolls retailed for $50 and are, as of this writing, listed on Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & morestarting at $400 and going for as much as $1,590. That kind of escalation in value is rare in a market where vintage or antique is typically the way to go.“There was a limited amount made,” said Sandi Holder, author of Barbie, A Rare Beauty and owner of the Doll Attic in Union City, Calif. “It was in the news and it became controversial because mothers disapproved. More media attention drove up the demand.”Typically, though, the money to be made collecting Barbie dolls revolves around acquiring vintage dolls that are, optimally, still in the box with all their accessories, including the stand. Barbie was launched in 1959 and that original version, where she’s wearing a black-and-white striped bathing suit, can fetch between $7,000 and $27,000 depending upon the condition.The latter price tag is a Guinness record set in May 2006 for “highest price paid for a Barbie doll in an auction” and is held by Holder’s store. During her last auction, in November 2011, a doll sold for a whopping $19,000.“The Barbie market and values are strong,” Holder said.There are two camps in the collecting world: Never Removed From Box (NRFB) and De-Boxed. For investment purposes, NRFB is ideal, but many collectors prefer to enjoy the dolls by displaying them out of the box.Source: Sandi Holder's Doll AtticBarbie Japanese Auction“I do it for fun and love of the hobby,” Holder said. “I play Santa Claus 365 days a year. It lets people recreate childhood memories, especially in the dismal days we have right now.”For the purposes of investing, Holder recommends researching and consulting with someone who knows the business before making a signNow purchase. In Barbie collecting, for example, dolls from the 1970s — a.k.a. “the Malibu era” — can sell for around $200. It is also important to keep up with what special editions catch hold and which ones don’t. For instance, the artist series — in which dolls are dressed in clothes resembling the art of masters like Van Gogh and Renoir — is not as coveted as, say, Holiday Barbie, a tradition that began in 1988; only a limited number of each are sold annually.“It’s all about demand and what people will want to pay,” Holder said.That’s one universal truth in doll collecting. Another is that whether it’s Barbie, Madame Alexander, Russian or papier mache, words like “pristine” or “perfect” will drive up the value. At Patricia Vaillancourt’s eBay store called Antique Dolls, the starting bid on a Jumeau — 19th century French doll made of bisque — in “perfect” condition is $6,200. A rare glass-eyed China doll, also described as “perfect,” begins at $3,500.Denise Van Patten, a long-time doll collector and dealer of modern, vintage and antique dollswhose online home base is http://About.com, recommends that an aspiring collector explore the answers to these questions to get started: Are you interested in antique, vintage or modern? Are you interested in a narrow time period or one particular material? Do you want to collect based on a theme or variations of one doll?Alternative Investing - A CNBC Special Report - See Complete Coverage“Whether you are new to doll collecting or have been doll collecting for years, you need to have a good grasp of doll collecting basics,” Van Patten writes. “The basics you’ll need range from how to value and identify your dolls, to how to protect and preserve your dolls, to how to photograph your dolls and get the best prices for them on eBay.”Van Patten is the author of The Official Price Guide To Dolls, but the resource material out there, in print and on the web, is vast and constantly updated.Whether trying to assess the value of a doll found in an old attic or if it’s worth buying the latest model of Barbie, Holder said it’s worth consulting an expert. She felt it particularly gratifying to be able to give a retired couple $27,000 for a doll they brought to have appraised. They were astounded.“They set out to buy a motor home and see the world,” Holder said. “It was a very beautiful story."———HISTORICALBarbie’s full name is Barbara Millicent Roberts.Barbie was named after Ruth Handler’s daughter, Barbara. Her son was Kenneth.She is from (fictional) Willows, Wisconsin where she attended High School.Barbie doll’s official birthday is March 9, 1959 – the exact date she was unveiled to the toy industry during New York Toy Fair.Barbie first appeared in the now-famous black-and-white striped swimsuit.The first Barbie doll was sold for $3.00.Barbie’s first commercial aired during Mikey Mouse Club in 1959.Barbie doll’s signature color is Barbie™ Pink (PMS 219).Barbie doll stands 11.5 inches tall.The best-selling Barbie doll ever was 1992 Totally Hair™ doll, with hair from the top of her head to her toes.In 1968, the first black doll was introduced to the line.CAREERSBarbie doll has had over 200 inspirational careers including astronaut, robotics engineer, journalist and entrepreneur to name a few.Barbie traveled into space in 1965, four years before man walked on the moonAlthough she has never won an election, Barbie® has run for president 6 times since 1992. In 2016, she ran on the first all-female ticket.In the 1970s, Barbie saved lives in the operating room as a Surgeon, at a time when few women were applying to medical school.In the 1980s she took to the boardroom as “Day to Night” CEO Barbie, just as women began to break into the C-suite.In the 1990s, Barbie ran for President, before any female candidate ever made it onto the presidential ballot.In the 2000s, with only 24% of today’s STEM careers held by women, Barbie has been a Computer Engineer, Video Game Developer, Mars Explorer and Robotics Engineer, just to name a few.ICONIt takes a professional staff of top fashion designers, makeup artists and the most elite couturiers – more than 100 people in all – to create a Barbie doll and her fashions.Barbie® has been a muse to many artists over the past six decades – including Andy Warhol and Peter Max.Twiggy was the first celebrity to have a doll in her likeness.Oscar de la Renta was the first designer collaboration in the 1980s.The #1 honor from the Barbie brand is to be immortalized in plastic. The brand has honored role models from ages 6-99.In 2014, Jeremy Scott’s Moschino show was inspired by Barbie, complete with her dream wardrobe.In 1997, the hit song “Barbie Girl” by Aqua came on the scene.Barbie has fans of all ages. The National Barbie Doll Collectors Convention has been driven by doll clubs across the country for over 25 years.POWERBarbie is the most popular fashion doll ever produced and the No. 1 fashion doll property in the US.Barbie’s DreamHouse is sold every 2 minutes and was first introduced in 1962.Barbie is the most diverse fashion doll on the market.There are more than 100 dolls sold every minute, with a total of 58 million sold annually.Barbie is sold in 150 countries worldwide.Barbie has products in 45 categories, including food, fitness and clothing.The brand has over 99% brand awareness globally.Barbie’s YouTube channel has over 5 million subscribers, making Barbie the #1 girls brand on YouTubeBarbie has a powerful social media presence with over 14 million fans on Facebook, 263,000 followers on Twitter and over 1.2 million followers on Instagram (@Barbie).CONTENTBarbie has over 30 entertainment titles released to date.More than 151 million minutes of content has been watched on Barbie’s YouTube.Barbie has a powerful social media presence with over 14 million fans on Facebook, 263,000 followers on Twitter and over 1.2 million followers on Instagram (@Barbie).@barbiestyle launched in 2014 and quickly signNowed 1.9 million followers – it is one of the fastest growing fashion Instagram channels to date.In 2015, Barbie launched her first video blog (vlog) on YouTube which propelled the channel to be the #1 girls brand on YouTube.There is over 18 billion minutes of Barbie user generated content each year.CITATION REMOVED BECAUSE IT WAS FLAGGED AS SPAM, MY SINCERE APOLOGIES TO THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR WHO POSTED THE FOLLOWING ON THE WEBSITE 24/7 WALL ST. SOME PEOPLE HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO THAN TO TRY TO REPORT EVERY LITTLE THING THEY CAN ON A POST THAT IS GETTING MORE LIKES OR VIEWS THAN THEIRS IN HOPES THAT IT GETS REMOVED REGARDLESS OF IF THE ALLEGATIONS ARE FALSIFIED OR NOT. I HAVE APPEALED THE REMOVAL AND HOPEFULLY CAN RE-ADD THE LINK SOON.
-
What are the laws - Data Protection, Data Transmission and Export and Data Encryption in India to operate a technology platform
The Information Technology Act, 2000 came into force on 17.10.2000 vide G.S.R No. 788(E) dated 17.10.2000 and for the first time, a legal definition of “Computer”, “Data”, “electronic record”, “Information” et al were provided. The said Act gave a legal recognition to the electronic records and digital signatures and in Chapter IX thereof provided for penalty and adjudication. Section 43 of the Act interalia provided that in case of unauthorised access, download or copying or damage to data etc, the person responsible shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation not exceeding one crore rupees to the person affected.Apart from civil liability provided under Section 43, Chapter XI (Sections 63 to 78) of the Act of 2000 provided for criminal liability in cases of Tampering, Hacking, publishing or transmitting obscene material, misrepresentation etc. Apart from the same, Section 72 of the Act provided for penalty in case of bsignNow of confidentiality and privacy and laid that in case any person who has secured access to any electronic record, Data or information, discloses the same to any other person without obtaining the consent of the person concerned, he shall be punished with imprisonment upto two years or with fine upto Rupees one lakh or with both.However, the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 were not adequate and the need for more stringent data protection measures were felt, the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 was enacted which came into force on 27.10.2009. The said Amendment Act brought in the concepts like cyber security in the statute book and widened the scope of digital signatures by replacing the words “electronic signature”. The amendment act also provided for secure electronic signatures and enjoined the central government to prescribe security procedures and practices for securing electronic records and signatures (Sections 15-16) The amendment Act also removed the cap of Rupees One Crore as earlier provided under Section 43 for damage to computer and computer systems and for unauthorised downloading/ copying of data. The said Amendment Act also introduced Section 43A which provides for compensation to be paid in case a body corporate fails to protect the data. Section 46 of the Act prescribes that the person affected has to approach the adjudicating officer appointed under Section 46 of the Act in case the claim for injury or damage does not exceed Rupees Five crores and the civil court in case, the claim exceeds Rupees Five crores. The amendment act also brought/ introduced several new provisions which provide for offenses such as identity theft, receiving stolen computer resource/ device, cheating, violation of privacy, cyber terrorism, pornography (Section 66A-F & 67A-C). The amendment act also brought in provisions directing intermediaries to protect the data/information and penalty has been prescribed for disclosure of information of information in bsignNow of lawful contract (Section 72A)With the enactment of the Amendment Act of 2008, India for the first time got statutory provisions dealing with data protection. However, as the ingredients of “sensitive personal data and information” as well as the “reasonable security practices and procedures” were yet to be prescribed by the Central Government, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology vide Notification No. GSR 313 (E) dated 11th April 2011 made the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information ) Rules, 2011 (the said rules). Rule 3 of the said rules defines personal sensitive data or information and provides that the same may include information relating to password, financial information such as bank account or credit card details, health condition, medical records etc. Rule 4 enjoins every body corporate which receives or deals with information to provide a privacy policy. Rule 5 prescribes that every body corporate shall obtain consent in writing from the provider of the sensitive information regarding purpose of usage before collection of such information and such body corporate will not collect such information unless it is collected for a lawful purpose connected with the function or activity of such body corporate and collection of such information or data is necessary and once such data is collected, it shall not be retained for a period longer than what is required. Rule 6 provides that disclosure of the information to any third party shall require prior permission from the provider unless such disclosure has been agreed to in the contract between the body corporate and the provider or where the disclosure is necessary for compliance of a legal obligation. The Body corporate has been barred to publish sensitive information and the third parties receiving such information have been barred to disclose it further. Rule 7 lays down that the body corporate may transfer such information to any other body corporate or person in India or outside, that ensure the same level of data protection and such transfer will be allowed only if it is necessary for performance of lawful contract between the body corporate and provider of information or where the provider has consented for data transfer. Rule 8 of the said rules further provide reasonable security practises and procedures and lays down that international standard IS/ISO/IEC 27001 on “Information Technology- Security Techniques- Information Security Management System- requirements “ would be one such standard.The Ministry of Communication and Information Technology further issued a press note dated 24th August 2011 and clarified that the said rules are applicable to the body corporate or any person located within India. The press note further provides that any body corporate providing services relating to collection or handling of sensitive personal data or information under contractual obligation with any other legal entity located within India or outside is not subject to requirements of Rules 5 &6 as mentioned hereinabove. A body corporate providing services to the provider of information under a contractual obligation directly with them however has to comply with Rules 5 &6. The said press note also clarifies that privacy policy mentioned in Rule 4 relates to the body corporate and is not with respect to any particular obligation under the contract. The press note at the end provides that the consent mentioned in Rule 5 includes consent given by any mode of electronic communication.Data Protection relates to issues relating to the collection, storage, accuracy and use of data provided by net users in the use of the World Wide Web. Visitors to any website want their privacy rights to be respected when they engage in e-Commerce. It is part of the confidence-creating role that successful e-Commerce businesses have to convey to the consumer. If industry doesn't make sure it's guarding the privacy of the data it collects, it will be the responsibility of the government and it's their obligation to enact legislation.Any transaction between two or more parties involves an exchange of essential information between the parties. Technological developments have enabled transactions by electronic means. Any such information/data collected by the parties should be used only for the specific purposes for which they were collected. The need arose, to create rights for those who have their data stored and create responsibilities for those who collect, store and process such data. The law relating to the creation of such rights and responsibilities may be referred to as ‘data protection’ law.The world’s first computer specific statute was enacted in the form of a Data Protection Act, in the German state of Hesse, in 1970.The misuse of records under the Nazi regime had raised concerns among the public about the use of computers to store and process large amounts of personal data.The Data Protection Act sought to heal such memories of misuse of information. A different rationale for the introduction of data protection legislation can be seen in the case of Sweden which introduced the first national statute in 1973.Here, data protection was seen as fitting naturally into a two hundred year old system of freedom of information with the concept of subject access (such a right allows an individual to find out what information is held about him) being identified as one of the most important aspects of the legislation.In 1995, the European Union adopted its Directive (95/46/EC) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (hereinafter, the Directive), establishing a detailed privacy regulatory structure. The Directive is specific on the requirements for the transfer of data. It sets down the principles regarding the transfer of data to third countries and states that personal data of EU nationals cannot be sent to countries that do not meet the EU “adequacy” standards with respect to privacy.In order to meet the EU “adequacy” standards, US developed a ‘Safe Harbour’ framework, according to which the US Department of Commerce would maintain a list of US companies that have self-certified to the safe harbor framework. An EU organization can ensure that it is sending information to a U.S. organization participating in the safe harbor by viewing the public list of safe harbor organizations posted on the official website.Data protection has emerged as an important reaction to the development of information technology. In India data protection is covered under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter, the Act). The Act defines ‘data’ as, “‘data’ means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions which are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalized manner, and is intended to be processed, is being processed or has been processed in a computer system or computer network, and may be in any form (including computer printouts magnetic or optical storage media, punched cards, punched tapes) or stored internally in the memory of the computer”. Protection of such data and privacy are covered under specific provisions in the Act. In the recent past, the need for data protection laws has been felt to cater to various needs. The following analyses the position of data protection law with respect to some of the needs.Data Protection Law In Respect of Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES)India started liberalizing its economy in the 1990’s and since then a huge upsurge in the IT business process outsourcing may be witnessed. Financial, educational, legal, marketing, healthcare, telecommunication, banking etc are only some of the services being outsourced into India. This upsurge of outsourcing of ITES into India in the recent past may be attributed to the large English-speaking unemployed populace, cheap labour, enterprising and hardworking nature of the people etc. Statistics have shown that the outsourcing industry is one of the biggest sources of employment. In a span of four years, the number of people working in call centers in the country supporting international industries has risen from 42,000 to 3,50,000. Exports were worth $5.2 billion in 2004-2005 and are expected to grow over 40% this fiscal year. US is currently the biggest investor in Indian ITES, taking advantage of cheap labour costs. Statistics indicate that software engineers with two-years experience in India are being paid about 1/5th of an equivalent US employee.Concerns about adequacy of lawBPO FraudsWith globalization and increasing BPO industry in India, protection of data warrants legislation. There are reasons for this. Every individual consumer of the BPO Industry would expect different levels of privacy from the employees who handle personal data. But there have been situations in the recent past where employees or systems have given away the personal information of customers to third parties without prior consent. So other countries providing BPO business to India expect the Indian government and BPO organizations to take measures for data protection. Countries with data protection law have guidelines that call for data protection law in the country with whom they are transacting.For instance, in, the European Union countries according to the latest guidelines, they will cease to part with data, which are considered the subject matter of protection to any third country unless such other country has a similar law on data protection. One of the essential features of any data protection law would be to prevent the flow of data to non-complying countries and such a provision when implemented may result in a loss of "Data Processing" business to some of the Indian companies.In the recent past, concerns have been raised both within the country as well as by customers abroad regarding the adequacy of data protection and privacy laws in the country. A few incidents have questioned the Indian data protection and privacy standards and have left the outsourcing industry embarrassed. In June 2005, ‘The Sun’ newspaper claimed that one of its journalists bought personal details including passwords, addresses and passport data from a Delhi IT worker for £4.25 each. Earlier BPO frauds in India include New York-based Citibank accounts being looted from a BPO in Pune and a call-center employee in Bangalore peddling credit card information to fraudsters who stole US$398,000 from British bank accounts.UK's Channel 4 TV station ran broadcast footage of a sting operation exposing middlemen hawking the financial data of 200,000 UK citizens. The documentary has prompted Britain's Information Commissioner's Office to examine the security of personal financial data at Indian call centers.In the absence of data protection laws, the kind of work that would be outsourced to India in the future would be limited. The effect of this can be very well seen in the health-care BPO business, which is estimated to be worth close to $45 billion. Lack of data protection laws have left Indian BPO outfits still stagnating in the lower end of the value chain, doing work like billing, insurance claims processing and of course transcription. Besides healthcare, players in the retail financial sector are also affected. Financial offshoring from banks is limited because of statutory compliance requirements and data privacy laws protecting sensitive financial information in accounts. In the Human Resource (HR) domain, there are many restrictions on sharing of personal information. In the medical domain, patient history needs to be protected. In credit card transactions, identity theft could be an issue and needs to be protected. Companies in the banking, financial services and insurance (BFSI) sector and healthcare have excluded applications/processes which use sensitive information from their portfolio for offshoring till they are comfortable about the data protection laws prevalent in the supplier country.Since there is lack of data protection laws in India, Indian BPO outfits are trying to deal with the issue by attempting to adhere to major US and European regulations. MNCs have to comply with foreign Regulations so that they don’t lose on their international partners. There are problems involved in this. Efforts by individual companies may not count for much if companies rule out India as a BPO destination in the first place in the absence of data protection law.Today, the largest portion of BPO work coming to India is low-end call centre and data processing work. If India has to exploit the full potential of the outsourcing opportunity, then we have to move up the value chain. Outsourced work in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)-intensive areas such as clinical research, engineering design and legal research is the way ahead for Indian BPO companies. The move up the value chain cannot happen without stringent laws. Further, weak laws would act as deterrents for FDI, global business and the establishment of research and development parks in the pharmaceutical industry.Looking to the above scenario, we can say that for India to achieve heights in BPO industry stringent laws for data protection and intellectual property rights have to be made. . Thus, a law on data protection on India must address the following Constitutional issues on a "priority basis" before any statutory enactment procedure is set into motion:(1) Privacy rights of interested persons in real space and cyber space.(2) Mandates of freedom of information U/A 19 (1) (a).(3) Mandates of right to know of people at large U/A 21.Once the data protection rules are enforced in India, companies outsourcing to India are unlikely to dismantle the systems they have in place straightaway, and move data more freely to India. Hence ,the need for data protection laws would win over the confidence of international business partners; protect abuse of information; protection of privacy and personal rights of individuals would be ensured; there would be more FDI inflows, global business and the establishment of research and development parks in the pharmaceutical industry & impetus to the sector of e-Commerce at national and international levels would be provided.Data protection law in India (Present status):-Data Protection law in India is included in the Act under specific provisions. Both civil and criminal liabilities are imposed for violation of data protection.(1) Section 43 deals with penalties for damage to computer, computer system etc.(2) Section 65 deals with tampering with computer source documents.(3) Section 66 deals with hacking with computer system.(4) Section 72 deals with penalty for bsignNow of confidentiality and privacy. Call centers can be included in the definition of ‘intermediary’and a ‘network service provider’ and can be penalized under this section.These developments have put the Indian government under pressure to enact more stringent data protection laws in the country in order to protect the lucrative Indian outsourcing industry. In order to use IT as a tool for socio-economic development, employment generation and to consolidate India’s position as a major player in the IT sector,amendments to the IT Act, 2000 have been approved by the cabinet and are due to be tabled in the winter session of the Parliament.Proposed amendments:-The amendments relate to the following[22]:(i) Proposal at Sec. 43 (2) related to handling of sensitive personal data or information with reasonable security practices and procedures.(ii) Gradation of severity of computer related offences under Section 66, committed dishonestly or fraudulently and punishment thereof.(iii) Proposed additional Section 72 (2) for bsignNow of confidentiality with intent to cause injury to a subscriber.It is hoped that these amendments will strengthen the law to suffice the need.Data Protection Laws In Order To Invite ‘Data Controllers’.There has been a strong opinion that if India strengthens its data protection law, it can attract multi-national corporations to India. India can be home to such corporations than a mere supplier of services.In fact, there is an argument that the EU’s data protection law is sufficient to protect the privacy of its people and thus lack of strong protection under Indian law is not a hindrance to the outsourcing industry. To enumerate, consider a company established in EU (called the ‘data controller’) and the supplier of call center services (‘data processor’) in India. If the data processor makes any mistake in the processing of personal data or there are instances of data theft, then the data controller in the EU can be made liable for the consequences. The Indian data processor is not in control of personal data and can only process data under the instructions of the data controller. Thus if a person in EU wants to exercise rights of access and retrieve personal data, the data controller has to retrieve it from the data processor, irrespective of where the data processor is located. Thus a strong data protection law is needed not only to reinforce the image of the Indian outsourcing industry but also to invite multi-national corporations to establish their corporate offices here.Data Protection And TelemarketingIndia is faced with a new phenomenon-telemarketing. This is facilitated, to a large extent, by the widespread use of mobile telephones. Telemarketing executives, now said to be available for as low as US $70 per month, process information about individuals for direct marketing. This interrupts the peace of an individual and conduct of work. There is a violation of privacy caused by such calls who, on behalf of banks, mobile phone companies, financial institutions etc. offer various schemes. The right to privacy has been read into Article 21, Constitution of India, but this has not afforded enough protection. A PIL against several banks and mobile phone service providers is pending before the Supreme Court alleging inter alia that the right to privacy has been infringed.The EC Directive confers certain rights on the people and this includes the right to prevent processing for direct marketing. Thus, a data controller is required not to process information about individuals for direct marketing if an individual asks them not to. So individuals have the right to stop unwanted marketing offers. It would be highly beneficial that data protection law in India also includes such a right to prevent unsolicited marketing offers and protect the privacy of the people.Data Protection With Regard To Governance And PeopleThe Preamble to the Act specifies that, the IT Act 2000, inter alia, will facilitate electronic filing of documents with the Government agencies. It seeks to promote efficient delivery of Government services by means of reliable electronic records. Stringent data protection laws will thus help the Government to protect the interests of its people.Data protection law is necessary to provide protection to the privacy rights of people and to hold cyber criminals responsible for their wrongful acts. Data protection law is not about keeping personal information secret. It is about creating a trusted framework for collection, exchange and use of personal data in commercial and governmental contexts. It is to permit and facilitate the commercial and governmental use of personal data.The Data Security Council of India (DSCI) and Department of Information Technology(DIT) must also rejuvenate its efforts in this regard on the similar lines. However, the best solution can come from good legislative provisions along with suitable public and employee awareness. It is high time that we must pay attention to Data Security in India. Cyber Security in India is missing and the same requires rejuvenation. When even PMO's cyber security is compromised for many months we must at least now wake up. Data bsignNowes and cyber crimes in India cannot be reduced until we make strong cyber laws. We cannot do so by mere declaring a cat as a tiger. Cyber law of India must also be supported by sound cyber security and effective cyber forensics.Indian companies in the IT and BPO sectors handle and have access to all kinds of sensitive and personal data of individuals across the world, including their credit card details, financial information and even their medical history. These Companies store confidential data and information in electronic form and this could be vulnerable in the hands of their employees. It is often misused by unsurplous elements among them. There have been instances of security bsignNowes and data leakages in high profile Indian companies. The recent incidents of data thefts in the BPO industry have raised concerns about data privacy.There is no express legislation in India dealing with data protection. Although the Personal Data Protection Bill was introduced in Parliament in 2006, it is yet to see the light of day. The bill seems to proceed on the general framework of the European Union Data Privacy Directive, 1996. It follows a comprehensive model with the bill aiming to govern the collection, processing and distribution of personal data. It is important to note that the applicability of the bill is limited to ‘personal data’ as defined in Clause 2 of the bill.The bill applies both to government as well as private enterprises engaged in data functions. There is a provision for the appointment of, “Data Controllers”, who have general superintendence and adjudicatory jurisdiction over subjects covered by the bill. It also provides that penal sanctions may be imposed on offenders in addition to compensation for damages to victims.The stringency of data protection law, whether the prevailing law will suffice such needs, whether the proposed amendments are a welcome measure, whether India needs a separate legislation for data protection etc are questions which require an in-depth analysis of the prevailing circumstances and a comparative study with laws of other countries. There is no consensus among the experts regarding these issues. These issues are not in the purview of this write-up. But there can be no doubt about the importance of data protection law in the contemporary IT scenario and are not disputable.
Trusted esignature solution— what our customers are saying
Get legally-binding signatures now!
Related searches to Remove Electronic signature Word Now
Frequently asked questions
How do i add an electronic signature to a word document?
What is the original on an electronic signature document?
How to esign iacra?
Get more for Remove Electronic signature Word Now
- How Do I Electronic signature Maine Police Form
- Help Me With Electronic signature Maine Police Form
- How Can I Electronic signature Maine Police Form
- Can I Electronic signature Maine Police Form
- How To Electronic signature Maine Police Form
- How To Electronic signature Maine Police Form
- How To Electronic signature Maine Police Form
- How Do I Electronic signature Maine Police Form
Find out other Remove Electronic signature Word Now
- Request for proposals job order contracting for general form
- Callers name form
- Interview cheat sheetmonstercom form
- We are unable to offer you position at the present time form
- 1010 richards street form
- Iacigaingov form
- Document contents snl form
- State license search franchise michigan form
- Chapter 233 mn laws minnesota office of the revisor of form
- Rhode island uniform franchise registration application
- Fillable online open access max loan amount wkst form
- Texas exemption statement form
- Virginia uniform franchise registration application
- Franchise registration application forms workflow
- Justia uniform franchise registration application
- 20 f 1 tv51883820fhtm form 20 f united
- Applicant appraisal form questions templateword ampamp pdf
- A guide to interviewing and reference checking state of form
- 10 thank you email samples to wow your mailbird form
- How to respond to a request for a partialauthor author form