There are 4 consistent sets of numbers that allow you to construct a mathematical system with addition/subtraction and multiplication/division. These are the real numbers, the complex numbers, the quaternions, and the octonions. These systems have 1,2,4, and 8 units, respectively (and are therefore intrinsically 1,2,4, and 8 "dimensional" systems). Each one gains and looses some nice properties that are useful in various circumstances. The reals are useful for things like finance or sheep counting, the complex for quantum mechanics, and quaternions for 3D vectors (like CGI graphics). In principle you can always use the reals, but other systems have properties that naturally make it easier to do certain things.
Now, in physics there is something called the Standard Model (SM) that describes most of our understanding of particle physics: how they interact, how they're created and destroyed, and (almost all) their properties (there are a few exceptions, such as the neutrino mass, which is not included in the SM). The SM has been shown to be extremely accurate and predicts nearly every phenomenon that we see. There are a few things missing: notably, gravity is a completely separate model from the SM (not that they're opposed to each other, but no one's found a good way to integrate the two models together without running into mathematical absurdities).
Now, the SM uses regular old complex numbers, and adds a lot of very complicated and fancy math on top in order to make it's predictions. It all works, but the math could maybe be made simpler or more elegant: right now, it requires adding several sets of complex numbers together, because the dimensionality of the model is higher than the 2 that complex numbers alone can perform. Since octonions are 8 dimensional, it may be possible to re-write the math of the SM into a form that uses octonions with fewer groups of numbers. This would kinda be cool, and could maybe make the math easier (or reveal certain properties of the model that weren't obvious before), but wouldn't really change the physics (because that's already fairly well understood and, as mentioned above, very accurate). So far, Cohl Furey has managed to do that for one set ("generation") of particles in the SM. Note that the math for a single generation is far easier than for multiple generations, so it remains to be seen if it can be extended to include the entire SM, but from a purely mathematical standpoint, it's kinda cool.
Average rent for a 900sqft housing in Toronto: $1,501 USD per month (source). Average rent for same thing in San Francisco: $3,620 (source). So, uh, yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say Toronto's a fair bit cheaper. Also, if you want to buy, I'm finding median prices in Toronto of more like $835k versus $1,600k in SF (not sure if the former is CAD or USD, but USD makes sense for both).
It's sometimes hard to take these "threats" seriously, especially coming from someone like Brianna Wu, who has proven record of blatantly launched fake attacks against herself before to make herself look like a victim (she has a very long history of this, too). She's probably be right that these are sock puppets and bot accounts, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they're owned by her. And her "proof" is posts on 4chan, a site where everyone posts anonymously? Come on, son.
That's some seriously weak shit right there, even by her standards.
I'm real shaky on quantum entanglement, but I think this would work by sending one entangled photon off never to be seen again and determining presence of an object and its distance from the time delay between firing the photon off and its mate changing state.
No, that's just not how quantum entanglement works. How it works is you have two objects, in this case photons. Each of these photons has two possible relevant states, call them A and B (the state usually used for entanglement is the quantum spin, which for a photon is +1 or -1). Now you entangle them together, and you have two photons each in a superposition of states A and B, but in such a way that you know if you measure photon 1 and find it in A, you then know that photon 2 will be in state B (at that moment, if the two photons are still entangled). But now that you've measured them, they cease to be entangled: you can change the state of photon 1 to B and photon 2 will remain completely unchanged. No information can be transferred between the two photons. You don't even know (from measuring photon 1) if the two photons are still entangled together: it could be the entanglement was broken long ago, and then photon 2 could be in any state after measuring photon 1.
Another important point: it isn't the case that photon 1 was already in state A when you made the measurement: it really was neither in state A or B, but a state of superposition between the two. It collapsed into one or the other states when you made the measurement (there's no way prior to making the measurement which it will collapse into, either), and that collapse also causes the collapse of photon 2 into the other state. That collapse is the "spooky action at a distance", not any kind of changing one of the photons to manipulate the other (which you cannot do).
In short, measuring the photon you keep at the radar station doesn't really tell you anything at all about the other photon you sent out, unless you actually make a measurement of that photon somehow. If you get the photon back and can measure it, then maybe the quantum entanglement can be useful... but not reflecting photons back to the radar is exactly how most stealth technology works.
Sure they're different crimes, but in many states firing into the air (at least within a city) is still considered a felony offense, precisely because it has the potential to kill people. A felony is absolutely appropriate for deliberately reckless behavior that can kill people (same thing should be, and sometimes is, true of things like swatting or shining a laser at a plane).
You don't wait until people start dying before you fix a problem (this is why they grounded flights in the first place), especially a problem that can be fixed with little to no side effects, like banning drones near wildfires.
I suspect this might be a flaw in the free market solves all ills school of thought
But this is also a problem that can be solved by the free market. See, a pharma maker with a drug that manages a disease (rather than curing it) may not be inclined to produce a drug that could cure said disease, but another company, one that does not make such a drug (especially a company that is a competitor to the first) does have a strong incentive to produce a cure, as not only would it make them a large amount of money (even if for a short period of time), it would undermine the revenue stream of the competing company, a win for them. Note that this requires the market to actually be free. Collusion between companies can prevent it from happening, because then it ceases to be a free market (note that this does mean a free market requires some government intervention at times).
This is why all the conspiracy theories about researches not actually wanting to find a cure for cancer make no sense. Aside from the fact that researchers themselves have ethical incentives to find a cure (not to mention reputational: there is, after all, a Nobel prize in medicine, and a cure for cancer would be a guaranteed shoe-in), and of course the fact that cures for plenty of other diseases have been (and continue to be) developed (which shows that pharma companies really do still put out cures), the company that discovers a cure for cancer would make all the money in cancer treatment, not just some of it, and for quite a long time, and would completely decimate their competitors. Plus ongoing money, since cancer would still occur and need curing (in fact, they could probably end up making even more money in the long run, since people surving cancer means they're more likely to develop another cancer in the future)
Most people are more concerned with data loss than they are with "fuck da police", especially as for most people data loss is a real and genuine concern, while "pigs" are not.
Fraud requires someone to misrepresent, well, something. Short selling doesn't misrepresent anything (unless the borrower doesn't have enough to cover the short, but then they go into debt which is a problem with any case of borrowing/lending in any situations).
Higgs interactions do not count, as the Higgs is not a fundamental force. The sterile neutrino is actually a solution to the problem of the neutrino mass: neutrinos are massless in the Standard Model, but not in reality, so we know there must be some mechanism to produce their observed mass. A coupling of the neutrino to its sterile counterpart (through the Higgs) could give it mass in the same way as all the other fermions, but that requires sterile neutrinos (or very very heavy non-sterile neutrinos), which are heavily dis-favored by theoreticians. The alternative, the Majorana mechanism, would make the neutrino and anti-neutrino the same particle and give them mass by coupling them together. This measurement, if true (it's possible there's unknown systematics) would probably prove the sterile neutrino theory correct, though it's possible there is another explanation. Neutrinos are tricky beasts.
They're banning "hundreds" of people out of the hundreds of millions of customers they have. These are people who are abusing the system, and they deserve the bans (well, maybe some of them don't, but I strongly suspect they all do). People like that are the reason why companies have to institute less lenient return policies, and by banning them Amazon can prevent abuse of their policies while still allowing people who may have legitimate reason for returning items to do so. In other words, Amazon can offer those free returns precisely because they ban people who abuse them, not because they ban people who use them.
The theory would be that all life on Earth derives somewhat from this extra-terrestrial seeding, and that octopuses are simply a manifestation of the sudden appearance of complex properties previously unobserved which were derived from the seeding. That at least has some plausibility, in that it cannot be easily falsified. Or at least I think that'd be the theory, the linked "paper" is rather long and I'm not going to waste my time reading it thoroughly (although I question any "paper" that has in one section a direct quotation from wikipedia on tardigrades...).
That said, pansperia is a load of crap: it explains nothing about the origin of life (even if life didn't originate on Earth, it had to originate somewhere, can't be turtles all the way down), has little or no scientific motivation (organic molecules are not life), and is (IMO) only really exists at all as a "theory" because it appeals to the sci-fi fan in many scientists.
It's obviously not a perfect measure of GDP, but actually people have done the research and shown a strong link between the two. If, as you claim, you have a PhD (and it's in a relevant field: sorry, an English PhD gives you zero qualifications here), you're not only free, but should have the capability to put out your own research disproving this work. Of course, given the quality of logic in your post, I suspect you don't have that capability. For example:
A city with street lights but no people do not produce GDP.
The entire point of both a city and street lights is to have people. It's true that China has been building "ghost cities, but all that does is suggest that in fact the light-based estimate overestimates economic activity, which just makes the point in TFA that much stronger.
On the other hand, a factory that only works in the daytime, like in industrialized countries such as western europe and east China, do not have light volume at night.
Have you seen a factory at night before? Or even seen a factory in a movie at night? Most of them absolutely put out light at night (they're usually glittering beacons of light, in fact). In fact if they have smokestacks or chimneys they're required to or they're a huge safety risk to aircraft. Also lots (most?) factories in most climates run in mornings and evenings before/after sunrise, and it's not uncommon for them to run overnight: downtime is a huge waste of money when you have an expensive factory. In fact, factories not running overnight would be an indicator of economic weakness, such as happened to the US auto industry in the 2000s.
Wrong. It says that any standing army raised (which it gives Congress the explicit power to do) must have it's appropriations approved by Congress at least every 2 years (this is to help prevent the President from having exclusive long-term control over the army, even though he/she is the commander-in-chief). Nothing says that it can't approve the same funding year after year to create a permanent standing army. In fact, a standing army was approved by the first Congress.
What's your problem with wood, exactly? It's one of the best construction materials in the world for many applications. It's strong, flexible, easy to work with, cheap, and not bad for the environment (unless you're making your wooden posts out of old-growth redwood or something). It actually can be carbon negative, since wood forms a natural carbon store. Just because it's old doesn't make it bad.
If you won't, I will: they didn't succeed in building such a device. They can't, entanglement just doesn't work that way. See the no-communication theorem, which mathematically proves that entanglement is a no-go as far as FTL communication is concerned. Actually, it's worse than that: entanglement alone cannot send information, any information, ever (you can with quantum "teleportation", but that relies on using a classical channel as well as entanglement, and those always travel at or less than the speed of light).
No real coastline is infinite, because real coastlines are made up of matter which is made up of atoms, not mathematical idealizations. Only mathematically ideal coastlines are infinite. You can, of course, create many different measures for the length of the coastline, some of which will be much much longer than others (but also useless), but all of them will be longer than some number (a strict lower limit would be the size of the "rectangle" that contains the US minus the length of the box that crosses over dry land, but the minimum practical definition would be longer than that) and shorter than some other (much larger) number, which would be the length if you measured the distance between individual atoms along the coastline. Note that the latter definition is not only not practical but also difficult to define except in an instant of time, as what is "sea" and what is "shore" theoretically changes with tides and even waves, but it absolutely is a finite number.
No, and you won't, because Apple doesn't sell screens to end users (well, maybe there's an Apple logo on the connector for the screen, I have no idea, but probably not). If they did sell the screen to you directly, Apple screens would come in nice little boxes with the Apple logo on them, and 3rd party screens would come in boxes without an Apple logo. In fact, anyone who repairs iPhones does in fact buy iPhone screens, and screens made by Apple will be shipped in boxes with the Apple name on them (maybe the logo too, maybe not, bulk product often lacks such niceties), and screens not made by Apple will come in boxes without the Apple name on them. If non-Apple screens come in boxes with the Apple name on them, it's counterfeit. Apple seems to be claiming the latter happened, which is why they sued him for trademark violation.
It is, and that's exactly how Intel's hardware-based random number generator in their CPUs works (so, yes, we have used a truly provably random source of RNGs... that is, if Intel is telling the truth about how it works). Another source of RNG is radioactive decay, though that's not terribly commonly used thanks to the hardware requirements. In this case, the article doesn't describe the source of randomess (aside from "correlations in superpositions", which could be anything from completely random to completely unrandom). It might not even be as random as they think it is (just being quantum is very much not enough), especially because they "improved their data" by only looking at sequences where the bits were almost perfectly uniformly 50/50 1 and 0, which is precisely not the right way to ensure good randomness: true random sequences usually don't obey uniformity, except in the limit as the length of the sequence goes to infinity, and requiring uniformity (or near-uniformity) in a "random" sequence reduces the entropy. That tells me they don't really understand randomness, which does not bode well for their claims.
You send the spacecraft at night. I'm only kind of joking: you make a heat shield that creates an artificial "night" behind the shield. The only way for heat to transfer in space is radiation, so you just have to make sure that a) the more delicate components can't see the sun (so the sun can't heat them up directly), b) the shield doesn't transfer heat very well to the rest of the craft (it does have to be physically attached, but you can use very good insulators), and c) the shield poorly absorbs heat through radiation. a is easy, c is relatively easy (literally, you just paint it white), and b is tricky but very much possible. If the craft was an ideal black body, this wouldn't be possible, but fortunately it isn't.
No they haven't, because the freakin' thing hasn't been released yet (source, about halfway down). All that's come out is a media release summary. If you put out a media release without the accompanying scientific report to support it, it's probably bullshit you don't want people to be able to call you out on.
Not really. In Poisson statistics, the variance is the expected value, in the case of the both groups, 3. So the expected standard deviation is sqrt(3), or 1.7. That means in a population of 409, you expect 1.5+/-0.85 cases of cancer, purely by chance, based on their control group. They measured 3+/-1.7. Oh yes, you have to account for Poisson errors on that side as well (the former errors come because of statistical fluctuations on the control cancer rate, the latter on statistical fluctuations on your exposed cancer rate). 3+/-1.7 isn't inconsistent with 0 (at the 2 standard deviation level), much less with 1.5+/-0.8.
I'm calling bullshit: the study did absolutely no such thing. In fact, I'm just going to link to a screenshot of their results (can't link to the actual study as it's behind a paywall). First, a couple of things to note: while their underlying population is large, the number of cases of tumors and lesions is tiny, so any results are going to be highly subject to statistical fluctuations (if the rate for a rare disease is 1/1000, a sample of 1000 people could easily still have 2-4 people with the disease, or none, just by chance). Secondly, there is little or no correlation between exposure and tumors (I'm not actually going to try to fit a line, but by eye the correlation is not great: in some cases the control groups showed a higher rate than the exposure). Third, they subdivided by male/female into separate groups. While there's some justification for doing that, what it means is that they've essentially doubled the number of studies they're conduction (actually kinda tripled, since they take male+female as another group, but that's not independent, so it's a bit more complicated than that), so finding something statistically significant (by chance) is twice as likely. In fact, given they made tests for 4 different conditions, with 3 different exposures, all divided into 2+ groups, they essentially made 24 tests. If you set your statistical significance at 0.05, you'd expect\* (by chance) 1.2 statistically significant results. They found one.
\*I'm simplifying here, it's more precise to say that if you conducted an infinite number of identical studies the average one would produce 1.2 "statistically significant" (p less than 0.05) results by pure chance.
As opposed to Intel, whose chips are perfectly secure. Except Intel had ~5 months to fix the problem before public disclosure (longer than responsible disclosure standards required). AMD is somehow only given 24 hours? That's not just irresponsible disclosure, that's an indirect attack.
Slashdot Mirror
There are 4 consistent sets of numbers that allow you to construct a mathematical system with addition/subtraction and multiplication/division. These are the real numbers, the complex numbers, the quaternions, and the octonions. These systems have 1,2,4, and 8 units, respectively (and are therefore intrinsically 1,2,4, and 8 "dimensional" systems). Each one gains and looses some nice properties that are useful in various circumstances. The reals are useful for things like finance or sheep counting, the complex for quantum mechanics, and quaternions for 3D vectors (like CGI graphics). In principle you can always use the reals, but other systems have properties that naturally make it easier to do certain things.
Now, in physics there is something called the Standard Model (SM) that describes most of our understanding of particle physics: how they interact, how they're created and destroyed, and (almost all) their properties (there are a few exceptions, such as the neutrino mass, which is not included in the SM). The SM has been shown to be extremely accurate and predicts nearly every phenomenon that we see. There are a few things missing: notably, gravity is a completely separate model from the SM (not that they're opposed to each other, but no one's found a good way to integrate the two models together without running into mathematical absurdities).
Now, the SM uses regular old complex numbers, and adds a lot of very complicated and fancy math on top in order to make it's predictions. It all works, but the math could maybe be made simpler or more elegant: right now, it requires adding several sets of complex numbers together, because the dimensionality of the model is higher than the 2 that complex numbers alone can perform. Since octonions are 8 dimensional, it may be possible to re-write the math of the SM into a form that uses octonions with fewer groups of numbers. This would kinda be cool, and could maybe make the math easier (or reveal certain properties of the model that weren't obvious before), but wouldn't really change the physics (because that's already fairly well understood and, as mentioned above, very accurate). So far, Cohl Furey has managed to do that for one set ("generation") of particles in the SM. Note that the math for a single generation is far easier than for multiple generations, so it remains to be seen if it can be extended to include the entire SM, but from a purely mathematical standpoint, it's kinda cool.
Average rent for a 900sqft housing in Toronto: $1,501 USD per month (source). Average rent for same thing in San Francisco: $3,620 (source). So, uh, yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say Toronto's a fair bit cheaper. Also, if you want to buy, I'm finding median prices in Toronto of more like $835k versus $1,600k in SF (not sure if the former is CAD or USD, but USD makes sense for both).
It's sometimes hard to take these "threats" seriously, especially coming from someone like Brianna Wu, who has proven record of blatantly launched fake attacks against herself before to make herself look like a victim (she has a very long history of this, too). She's probably be right that these are sock puppets and bot accounts, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they're owned by her. And her "proof" is posts on 4chan, a site where everyone posts anonymously? Come on, son. That's some seriously weak shit right there, even by her standards.
I'm real shaky on quantum entanglement, but I think this would work by sending one entangled photon off never to be seen again and determining presence of an object and its distance from the time delay between firing the photon off and its mate changing state.
No, that's just not how quantum entanglement works. How it works is you have two objects, in this case photons. Each of these photons has two possible relevant states, call them A and B (the state usually used for entanglement is the quantum spin, which for a photon is +1 or -1). Now you entangle them together, and you have two photons each in a superposition of states A and B, but in such a way that you know if you measure photon 1 and find it in A, you then know that photon 2 will be in state B (at that moment, if the two photons are still entangled). But now that you've measured them, they cease to be entangled: you can change the state of photon 1 to B and photon 2 will remain completely unchanged. No information can be transferred between the two photons. You don't even know (from measuring photon 1) if the two photons are still entangled together: it could be the entanglement was broken long ago, and then photon 2 could be in any state after measuring photon 1.
Another important point: it isn't the case that photon 1 was already in state A when you made the measurement: it really was neither in state A or B, but a state of superposition between the two. It collapsed into one or the other states when you made the measurement (there's no way prior to making the measurement which it will collapse into, either), and that collapse also causes the collapse of photon 2 into the other state. That collapse is the "spooky action at a distance", not any kind of changing one of the photons to manipulate the other (which you cannot do).
In short, measuring the photon you keep at the radar station doesn't really tell you anything at all about the other photon you sent out, unless you actually make a measurement of that photon somehow. If you get the photon back and can measure it, then maybe the quantum entanglement can be useful... but not reflecting photons back to the radar is exactly how most stealth technology works.
Sure they're different crimes, but in many states firing into the air (at least within a city) is still considered a felony offense, precisely because it has the potential to kill people. A felony is absolutely appropriate for deliberately reckless behavior that can kill people (same thing should be, and sometimes is, true of things like swatting or shining a laser at a plane).
You don't wait until people start dying before you fix a problem (this is why they grounded flights in the first place), especially a problem that can be fixed with little to no side effects, like banning drones near wildfires.
I suspect this might be a flaw in the free market solves all ills school of thought
But this is also a problem that can be solved by the free market. See, a pharma maker with a drug that manages a disease (rather than curing it) may not be inclined to produce a drug that could cure said disease, but another company, one that does not make such a drug (especially a company that is a competitor to the first) does have a strong incentive to produce a cure, as not only would it make them a large amount of money (even if for a short period of time), it would undermine the revenue stream of the competing company, a win for them. Note that this requires the market to actually be free. Collusion between companies can prevent it from happening, because then it ceases to be a free market (note that this does mean a free market requires some government intervention at times).
This is why all the conspiracy theories about researches not actually wanting to find a cure for cancer make no sense. Aside from the fact that researchers themselves have ethical incentives to find a cure (not to mention reputational: there is, after all, a Nobel prize in medicine, and a cure for cancer would be a guaranteed shoe-in), and of course the fact that cures for plenty of other diseases have been (and continue to be) developed (which shows that pharma companies really do still put out cures), the company that discovers a cure for cancer would make all the money in cancer treatment, not just some of it, and for quite a long time, and would completely decimate their competitors. Plus ongoing money, since cancer would still occur and need curing (in fact, they could probably end up making even more money in the long run, since people surving cancer means they're more likely to develop another cancer in the future)
Most people are more concerned with data loss than they are with "fuck da police", especially as for most people data loss is a real and genuine concern, while "pigs" are not.
Fraud requires someone to misrepresent, well, something. Short selling doesn't misrepresent anything (unless the borrower doesn't have enough to cover the short, but then they go into debt which is a problem with any case of borrowing/lending in any situations).
Higgs interactions do not count, as the Higgs is not a fundamental force. The sterile neutrino is actually a solution to the problem of the neutrino mass: neutrinos are massless in the Standard Model, but not in reality, so we know there must be some mechanism to produce their observed mass. A coupling of the neutrino to its sterile counterpart (through the Higgs) could give it mass in the same way as all the other fermions, but that requires sterile neutrinos (or very very heavy non-sterile neutrinos), which are heavily dis-favored by theoreticians. The alternative, the Majorana mechanism, would make the neutrino and anti-neutrino the same particle and give them mass by coupling them together. This measurement, if true (it's possible there's unknown systematics) would probably prove the sterile neutrino theory correct, though it's possible there is another explanation. Neutrinos are tricky beasts.
They're banning "hundreds" of people out of the hundreds of millions of customers they have. These are people who are abusing the system, and they deserve the bans (well, maybe some of them don't, but I strongly suspect they all do). People like that are the reason why companies have to institute less lenient return policies, and by banning them Amazon can prevent abuse of their policies while still allowing people who may have legitimate reason for returning items to do so. In other words, Amazon can offer those free returns precisely because they ban people who abuse them, not because they ban people who use them.
The theory would be that all life on Earth derives somewhat from this extra-terrestrial seeding, and that octopuses are simply a manifestation of the sudden appearance of complex properties previously unobserved which were derived from the seeding. That at least has some plausibility, in that it cannot be easily falsified. Or at least I think that'd be the theory, the linked "paper" is rather long and I'm not going to waste my time reading it thoroughly (although I question any "paper" that has in one section a direct quotation from wikipedia on tardigrades...).
That said, pansperia is a load of crap: it explains nothing about the origin of life (even if life didn't originate on Earth, it had to originate somewhere, can't be turtles all the way down), has little or no scientific motivation (organic molecules are not life), and is (IMO) only really exists at all as a "theory" because it appeals to the sci-fi fan in many scientists.
It's obviously not a perfect measure of GDP, but actually people have done the research and shown a strong link between the two. If, as you claim, you have a PhD (and it's in a relevant field: sorry, an English PhD gives you zero qualifications here), you're not only free, but should have the capability to put out your own research disproving this work. Of course, given the quality of logic in your post, I suspect you don't have that capability. For example:
A city with street lights but no people do not produce GDP.
The entire point of both a city and street lights is to have people. It's true that China has been building "ghost cities, but all that does is suggest that in fact the light-based estimate overestimates economic activity, which just makes the point in TFA that much stronger.
On the other hand, a factory that only works in the daytime, like in industrialized countries such as western europe and east China, do not have light volume at night.
Have you seen a factory at night before? Or even seen a factory in a movie at night? Most of them absolutely put out light at night (they're usually glittering beacons of light, in fact). In fact if they have smokestacks or chimneys they're required to or they're a huge safety risk to aircraft. Also lots (most?) factories in most climates run in mornings and evenings before/after sunrise, and it's not uncommon for them to run overnight: downtime is a huge waste of money when you have an expensive factory. In fact, factories not running overnight would be an indicator of economic weakness, such as happened to the US auto industry in the 2000s.
Wrong. It says that any standing army raised (which it gives Congress the explicit power to do) must have it's appropriations approved by Congress at least every 2 years (this is to help prevent the President from having exclusive long-term control over the army, even though he/she is the commander-in-chief). Nothing says that it can't approve the same funding year after year to create a permanent standing army. In fact, a standing army was approved by the first Congress.
They don't have to hire a data protection officer, but they still need to follow everything else.
What's your problem with wood, exactly? It's one of the best construction materials in the world for many applications. It's strong, flexible, easy to work with, cheap, and not bad for the environment (unless you're making your wooden posts out of old-growth redwood or something). It actually can be carbon negative, since wood forms a natural carbon store. Just because it's old doesn't make it bad.
If you won't, I will: they didn't succeed in building such a device. They can't, entanglement just doesn't work that way. See the no-communication theorem, which mathematically proves that entanglement is a no-go as far as FTL communication is concerned. Actually, it's worse than that: entanglement alone cannot send information, any information, ever (you can with quantum "teleportation", but that relies on using a classical channel as well as entanglement, and those always travel at or less than the speed of light).
No real coastline is infinite, because real coastlines are made up of matter which is made up of atoms, not mathematical idealizations. Only mathematically ideal coastlines are infinite. You can, of course, create many different measures for the length of the coastline, some of which will be much much longer than others (but also useless), but all of them will be longer than some number (a strict lower limit would be the size of the "rectangle" that contains the US minus the length of the box that crosses over dry land, but the minimum practical definition would be longer than that) and shorter than some other (much larger) number, which would be the length if you measured the distance between individual atoms along the coastline. Note that the latter definition is not only not practical but also difficult to define except in an instant of time, as what is "sea" and what is "shore" theoretically changes with tides and even waves, but it absolutely is a finite number.
No, and you won't, because Apple doesn't sell screens to end users (well, maybe there's an Apple logo on the connector for the screen, I have no idea, but probably not). If they did sell the screen to you directly, Apple screens would come in nice little boxes with the Apple logo on them, and 3rd party screens would come in boxes without an Apple logo. In fact, anyone who repairs iPhones does in fact buy iPhone screens, and screens made by Apple will be shipped in boxes with the Apple name on them (maybe the logo too, maybe not, bulk product often lacks such niceties), and screens not made by Apple will come in boxes without the Apple name on them. If non-Apple screens come in boxes with the Apple name on them, it's counterfeit. Apple seems to be claiming the latter happened, which is why they sued him for trademark violation.
It is, and that's exactly how Intel's hardware-based random number generator in their CPUs works (so, yes, we have used a truly provably random source of RNGs... that is, if Intel is telling the truth about how it works). Another source of RNG is radioactive decay, though that's not terribly commonly used thanks to the hardware requirements. In this case, the article doesn't describe the source of randomess (aside from "correlations in superpositions", which could be anything from completely random to completely unrandom). It might not even be as random as they think it is (just being quantum is very much not enough), especially because they "improved their data" by only looking at sequences where the bits were almost perfectly uniformly 50/50 1 and 0, which is precisely not the right way to ensure good randomness: true random sequences usually don't obey uniformity, except in the limit as the length of the sequence goes to infinity, and requiring uniformity (or near-uniformity) in a "random" sequence reduces the entropy. That tells me they don't really understand randomness, which does not bode well for their claims.
You send the spacecraft at night. I'm only kind of joking: you make a heat shield that creates an artificial "night" behind the shield. The only way for heat to transfer in space is radiation, so you just have to make sure that a) the more delicate components can't see the sun (so the sun can't heat them up directly), b) the shield doesn't transfer heat very well to the rest of the craft (it does have to be physically attached, but you can use very good insulators), and c) the shield poorly absorbs heat through radiation. a is easy, c is relatively easy (literally, you just paint it white), and b is tricky but very much possible. If the craft was an ideal black body, this wouldn't be possible, but fortunately it isn't.
No they haven't, because the freakin' thing hasn't been released yet (source, about halfway down). All that's come out is a media release summary. If you put out a media release without the accompanying scientific report to support it, it's probably bullshit you don't want people to be able to call you out on.
Not really. In Poisson statistics, the variance is the expected value, in the case of the both groups, 3. So the expected standard deviation is sqrt(3), or 1.7. That means in a population of 409, you expect 1.5+/-0.85 cases of cancer, purely by chance, based on their control group. They measured 3+/-1.7. Oh yes, you have to account for Poisson errors on that side as well (the former errors come because of statistical fluctuations on the control cancer rate, the latter on statistical fluctuations on your exposed cancer rate). 3+/-1.7 isn't inconsistent with 0 (at the 2 standard deviation level), much less with 1.5+/-0.8.
I'm calling bullshit: the study did absolutely no such thing. In fact, I'm just going to link to a screenshot of their results (can't link to the actual study as it's behind a paywall). First, a couple of things to note: while their underlying population is large, the number of cases of tumors and lesions is tiny, so any results are going to be highly subject to statistical fluctuations (if the rate for a rare disease is 1/1000, a sample of 1000 people could easily still have 2-4 people with the disease, or none, just by chance). Secondly, there is little or no correlation between exposure and tumors (I'm not actually going to try to fit a line, but by eye the correlation is not great: in some cases the control groups showed a higher rate than the exposure). Third, they subdivided by male/female into separate groups. While there's some justification for doing that, what it means is that they've essentially doubled the number of studies they're conduction (actually kinda tripled, since they take male+female as another group, but that's not independent, so it's a bit more complicated than that), so finding something statistically significant (by chance) is twice as likely. In fact, given they made tests for 4 different conditions, with 3 different exposures, all divided into 2+ groups, they essentially made 24 tests. If you set your statistical significance at 0.05, you'd expect\* (by chance) 1.2 statistically significant results. They found one.
\*I'm simplifying here, it's more precise to say that if you conducted an infinite number of identical studies the average one would produce 1.2 "statistically significant" (p less than 0.05) results by pure chance.
As opposed to Intel, whose chips are perfectly secure. Except Intel had ~5 months to fix the problem before public disclosure (longer than responsible disclosure standards required). AMD is somehow only given 24 hours? That's not just irresponsible disclosure, that's an indirect attack.