Slashdot Mirror

Respectfully, I disagree.

1. You can screen your doctor for trustworthiness.
2. You can choose to visit a doctor of a gender you prefer.
3. Doctors are bound by the Hippocratic Oath: I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know.
4. Doctors rarely take, much less retain, nude photographs of your body.

Collection and use of personal information, including digital photographs, paves a road for government with inscrutable purposes: using information about people while denying them the ability to choose how that information is used. This is a severe tilt in balance between the power of the people and the power of the state. A tilt, to emphasize, that is unfavourable to the people.

In Smith v. City of Artesia, 1989, the court said, "Privacy is inherently personal. The right to privacy recognises the sovereignty of the individual." What is more private than our private parts? What can the general public be subjected to, en masse, that is more personally invasive than a pat-down or nude photo?

More blunt? Can do.

The choice: allow an anonymous agent to take nude photographs of your child, or let strangers grope your child until their hands meet "resistance": a euphemistic way to say, "touch their testicles, penis, or vulva."

Any job that forces someone to feel a child's crotch so as to encourage parents to usher their children through a machine that takes nude photographs--without probable cause of having committed a crime--is a job that aught not to exist.

Systematic violations of our private areas must be countered with outrage and utmost resistance (!) against corporations and governments alike. The TSA are not police and North America has no Police States, yet.

Add to this the uncertain health risks. Terahertz waves have resonant effects that can unzip double-stranded DNA, which, ultimately, could significantly interfere with gene expression and DNA replication. Think children, pregnant women, or sperm. And guess what wave frequency x-ray backscatter machines use? Hint: THz. http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294

My emotions surge at the thought of people speaking or acting out against tyranny. People must express themselves vehemently and eloquently against the infractions that governments permit to be made on our freedoms. Sometimes one voice, or one courageous action, is enough to inspire a nation. http://i.imgur.com/cfifB.jpg

Martin Niemöller foretells of what happens when people--even those who prefer to drive than fly--keep quiet: They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.

John Dewey stated, "We cannot separate the idea of ourselves and our own good from our idea of others and of their good." When we protect the rights of individuals by forcing Corporations and Governments to sit at the same table as Respect, Dignity, and Decency, we protect all of our society.

I implore you to read: http://davidjarvis.ca/dave/letters/nothing-to-hide.pdf

1.) You have 2 Rubick's Cubes.
2.) You "entagle" them by making the faces of each Cube exactly identical to the other.
3.) You separate them physically into different geological locations.
4.) You "measure" Cube A by turning one of its sides.
5.) You call a handler at Cube B using a "common channel" (phone).
6.) Cube B is "measured" by having its identical face turned exactly replicating Step 4, per the instructions received by step 5.
7.) Repeat steps 4 through 6 until your heart is content.
8.) Bring the Cubes together, and marvel that their faces are still identical to each other.

Except that isn't how it works.

Here's a neat page which goes to some lengths to explain why people are excited and mystified by this particular feature of reality.

It is a high school science level presentation, but frankly, that's my level and with something as peculiar as Quantum Entanglement, it helps to go through the steps as a refresher. If you want to skip ahead, then the goods can be found on this page.

-FL

1.) You have 2 Rubick's Cubes.
2.) You "entagle" them by making the faces of each Cube exactly identical to the other.
3.) You separate them physically into different geological locations.
4.) You "measure" Cube A by turning one of its sides.
5.) You call a handler at Cube B using a "common channel" (phone).
6.) Cube B is "measured" by having its identical face turned exactly replicating Step 4, per the instructions received by step 5.
7.) Repeat steps 4 through 6 until your heart is content.
8.) Bring the Cubes together, and marvel that their faces are still identical to each other.

Except that isn't how it works.

Here's a neat page which goes to some lengths to explain why people are excited and mystified by this particular feature of reality.

It is a high school science level presentation, but frankly, that's my level and with something as peculiar as Quantum Entanglement, it helps to go through the steps as a refresher. If you want to skip ahead, then the goods can be found on this page.

-FL

My first guess was 2074; looks like these lenses will happen much sooner.

http://www.davidjarvis.ca/dave/essays/daycorder.shtml

http://davidjarvis.ca/warfare.pdf

Although I snail mailed it, I doubt he actually read it.

http://www.davidjarvis.ca/dave/entanglement - Introduction to Q.E. without math.

Learning Blender can be slow; so I took notes along the way and wrote them up here:
http://www.davidjarvis.ca/blender/

An animated short using Blender:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvQbYXPmqiA

1. Entanglement. Is this a fact or a theory? Looking on web I found only few experiments with some possible loopholes. I found the principle hard to grok.

2. Heisenberg principle. It mainly states that observing an object you are changing the state of the object. The Heisenberg example from wikipedia is using a photon for measuring the position of an electron and the photon is changing the position of electron. What is happening if you are using a smaller particle that is not impacting the electron so much? Are you going to change the constant? Looks mostly like a limitation from a time when the atom was considered to be indivisible.

KublaiKhan, you are absolutely correct; more thoughts on this:

http://www.davidjarvis.ca/dave/essays/scientific-rule.shtml

"That people do not understand is not their fault. Rather, fault lies with the scientific community. Modern scientific use of 'theory' has hardly changed since 1638. Scientists have not successfully educated the public, after nearly 400 years, on the difference between Theory and theory."

http://www.davidjarvis.ca/essays/daycorder.shtml

The future is coming much, much faster than I envisioned in late 2007.

A site that explains quantum entanglement in terms even your grandparents could (almost) understand:

http://www.davidjarvis.ca/entanglement/

From http://davidjarvis.ca/essays/solar-power.shtml ...

If the United States of America were to invest the money it spent on the Iraq War ($452,673,414,399) on solar-based energy solutions, they could have met 6% of their annual energy needs. The United States has more than enough rooftop space available for solar panels to meet their electrical needs twice over. Their planned military budget during the next five years is $2.75 trillion ($2,750,000,000,000), or 36% of their electrical usage if spent, instead, on solar panels.

Changing to CFLs, as some posters noted, is a good start but can lead to squandering the savings through other means (leaving lights on, cranking the heat, and such). Instead of worrying about what other people might do, take action yourself. Start simply; although laudable, dramatic lifestyle changes are difficult. Easy ways to help the environment are listed online:

http://davidjarvis.ca/essays/environment.shtml