Perhaps you were thinking of the word "broadcast"? Broadcast means to transmit over a wide area. Broadcast and transmit are different words because they have different meanings.
Reasoning skills and learning skills are certainly important. We could be teaching a lot of that long before people go to a university, but some people haven't learned it, so okay teach that. Through deliberate teaching, my four-year-old is better at critical thinking and asking "does this claim pass the sniff test?" than many adults I know.
Also, there is a TON of knowledge that doesn't change much. Another big stack of knowledge is about "standing on the shoulders of giants".
The maths are huge field where the things that are helpful to know don't change much, and what IS new in maths builds upon the old; algebra, calculus, and set theory haven't gone away. You might say "set theory? Who uses set theory in their job?" Ever heard of databases? SQL is a *direct* translation of set theory into convenient wording. It's not even *based* in set theory, it *is* set theory. Lots of different people use set theory for their job, and most don't even realize it, so they don't do their job as well as they could. They do better by being able to look at a problem and say "oh, this is just basic sets, I know sets".
Just the other day I was trying to show a co-worker how to do a job in a very simple way. He was getting all confused, making it super complicated and wrong. I drew some basic 8th grade sets on my whiteboard and he was completely lost. Okay, let's put aside the sets and view it as simple Boolean logic (and/or etc). Nope, he didn't know anything about a&b=true. This is maybe middle school math. It hasn't changed in the last hundred years.
How about some basic mechanics of how things work, leverage and things like that, weight? Ever needed to work with any of that? That's Newtonian physics. Hasn't changed for hundreds of years.
90% of the arguments we have on Slashdot wouldn't happen if we all remembered some basic history. We argue about what might happen if... whatever policy. That policy you're advocating trying has already been done a dozen times, in a dozen different places. We already know the results, if we know a bit of history. History doesn't change all that much in couple decades.
I work in computer engineering. That's a fast-moving field, right? Gotta be on the cutting edge, only stuff that came out in the last five years matters, right? Not so much. The old guy frequently amazes the newer guys who started with Ruby on Rails, because old dude has been doing the same things for years in other languages. He understands it conceptually, knows the principles it is based on, and understands what's going on under the covers. That's all knowledge stuff.
When JSON first came out, some people said "forget all that old stuff, we're doing everything in JSON now - and promptly created a bunch of critical security vulnerabilities. Some of us who had some knowledge about objects and what goes on under the covers saw the problems right away. We had knowledge of underlying principles and technologies. That can all be taught.
"call in air-strike support with a few simple screen taps"... "The two apps, KILSWITCH and APASS, were never meant or approved to be deployed in combat zones."
So it has an "airstrike" button, but it was never meant to be used in war zones. Where, exactly was it meant to be used? I suppose it would be useful for handling used car dealers and pay day lenders?
I too would like it to be easier. Unfortunately, I can't have a bureaucrat or politician deciding what is to be censored and what isn't. The phrase used in the most similar laws is "not appropriate for children". Well, Slashdot is often not appropriate for young children. In fact many of the posts are just simply inappropriate - for anyone. So the censor decides Slashdot goes on the bad list, on.xxx.
There were a couple of voluntary self-labeling efforts that got some traction, but there are so many amateur-made porn sites run by people who don't know what they're doing that coverage would never approach 100%.
Many years ago I started a project that would have had sites appropriately labeled as a side effect, but it got really big, with multiple multi-millionaires involved, and I chickened out. At the time, in the 1990s, there were perhaps a few hundred people who ran most of the porn sites. They were mostly hosted by about four hosting companies, and used one of three payment processors (two of which were called "AVS" systems).
Anyway the idea was if a site owner joined our club, they'd agree to follow the peofessional code of ethics and they get a small discount on web hosting, buying content, etc. Offering the discount would benefit hosting companies and others in two ways. First, we'd tell all of our members "buy from this hosting company and get a discount" - it's marketing. Secondly, hosting companies, programmers, and others spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with customers who send spam and otherwise cause problems. Guild members, who don't send spam and do pay their bills, would be good customers.
It would cost the web site owners nothing, or almost nothing, and they'd get benefits, so most would join. With most of the web sites being members, service companies such as hosting companies, designers, ans payment processors would want to be a part of it in order to market to the member web sites.
One item in the professional ethics would have been using the appropriate machine-readable label that makes it easy for parents to control access to such sites.
I kick myself for bailing out on that because it likely would have made me rich. Membership might have saved webmasters 10% or more on their expenses vs non-members, so the club ownership (me) could have drawn off fees, advertising to member webmasters, or other revenue equal to 0.1% - 1% of the members expenses no problem. That's revenue for the club (me) equal to say 0.5% of the entire online adult industry. That industry is billions of dollars per year. Even 0.1% would be millions of dollars every year. I had it lined up, then got scared and ran away when big wigs I was working with starting talking about a million dollars here, a million dollars there.
> Even the porn industry couldn't make ".xxx" take off.
The porn industry fought against.xxx..xxx was a scumbag who bought the TLD, then lobbied government to *force* all adult sites to buy from him, and only him. Much like.net was originally for networks and.org was for non-profits, he wanted to legally force all adult sites to.xxx, while he rolled in the dough. The porn industry saw him for the scum bag he was, and also saw the writing all on the wall - after government forces any content that isn't kid-friendly onto.xxx, what would be the next step in censorship? Most didn't want to go down that path.
The scum bag would have happened better luck if he added another step to his plan. He should have first become a senator, then sponsored the bill to legally force everyone to buy carbon credits^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H domain names from him.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up religion. Murder isn't a religious issue.
On abortion, there are three groups of people:
People who think it's murder (and therefore very much should be illegal).
People who think it's not exactly murder. ("Not quite murder is still pretty bad, a heck of a lot worse than jaywalking, which is illegal).
People who think it's perfectly fine, because it's not quite murder. They can't explain why "almost murder" is okay, while slapping someone should be illegal).
Or maybe they'll fix it. A skimmer isn't exactly rocket science, much less science fiction. Dude tried something to solve a problem, rather than just demanding a new $10 billion from taxpayers to fly around in his private jet lecturing us. I give him credit for trying, and if it's needs some tweaks, that's to be expected.
A transit system based on tunnels won't have to worry about fire code in California. The fire code will be long forgotten centuries before he finishes the environmental impact studies. He'll need to make sure it's waterproof, because California will be underwater before they approve something that could effect the habitat of a pair of Palo Alto earthworms.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I really appreciate it. It sounds like you've thought about and you have good reasons you'd vote to allow abortion, though of course others may come to a different conclusion about when exactly human life begins.
I note with your latest post, we've switched to a different topic. You've very effectively expressed why you would vote for liberal abortion laws in your state, which is a very different question of whether the text of the US Constitution says you're not allowed to have a vote.
> I am also aware that pregnancy is too heavy a burden to be borne unconsenting.
This is the one statement I'd take issue with. Rarely are we talking about "unconsenting". In the vast majority of cases they copulated *on purpose*, not only with consent, but they took the guy home, took of their clothes, etc, in a deliberate effort to take the actions which they know will likely result in pregnancy after a few tries. So they didn't just consent to someone else doing it, they actively did it themselves.
I'm impressed. Your reasoning is better than the reasoning SCOTUS uses. It makes more sense, IMHO. I'm not being facetious, I think your ninth amendment argument is better than the fourth amendment reasoning (with either being applied to the states via the 14th).
However, the ninth begins "the enumeration of certain rights may not". One cannot Constitutionally say "because the Constitution affirms this right, it takes away this other right". The ninth would shoot down that argument. Nobody is making that argument, so the ninth has no effect. Nobody says "because you have the right to free speech, you don't have the right to kill babies". They say you don't have the right to kill babies simply because you don't, nothing in all of human history in any way suggests that's a right, until Roe v Wade magically appeared it. Obviously the pro-abortion people say that the offspring of two people isn't quite a person, so abortion isn't exactly "killing babies".
That's an argument they can make. The first question is whether abortion is "killing babies". The Constitution doesn't answer that question. It's not a question about the Constitution, it's an opinion question, a political question.
What few people think about is the obvious follow up to "is abortion killing babies?". Assume the answer is "no, not exactly, here's the difference between abortion and killing babies....". If we all agreed on that, we'd then have an agreement on why abortion isn't quite the same thing as killing babies. The state has a legitimate interest in making Jay walking illegal, they have the power to do that. Do they not have the power to make "not quite killing babies" illegal?
Several Slashdot commenters mentioned "global warming". I see eight responses (16%) which clearly suggest the respondent was thinking in terms of global warming:
The changing atmosphere
Changes in atmosphere on Saturn
There is an increase in carbon dioxide
the air in the ozone could be one of the reasons
The sun is burning hotter and as the sun orbits closer it could be causing the rings to fade.
The sun is causing the ice within the rings to melt and fall back down to the planet.
> I believe there has been rulings in the Supreme Court that privacy is somewhat protected (I think that was actually a major part of the Roe v Wade case surprisingly enough).....but really what protections do we US citizens have in law?
Yeah that's related to the government invading privacy, Constitutional rights. The Constitution says what the federal government is allowed to do and what it is not allowed to do. It doesn't say anything about Facebook.
The reasoning in Roe vs Wade is that because the fourth amendment says the federal government isn't allowed to do "unreasonable search and seizure", states can't regulate abortion. In other words, they wanted to prevent the states from regulating abortion, so they did - despite having absolutely no coherent line of reasoning why such laws could possibly be unconstitutional. The court jumped head first into a purely political issue rather than allowing voters and legislatures decide it through the political process. The court learned from this mistake, to some extent, and avoided decided some other political questions after Roe v Wade.
The justices discussed it for a while, trying to find some way to connect the issue to the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't mention abortion, the Constitution protects "life" in the 5th and 14th amendments, but that's the opposite of what they wanted. They wanted to make protecting life unconstitutional. In the winter of 1972 Justice Harry Blackmun, apparently very drunk, came up with the idea a state telling someone "you may not kill babies" is pretty much the same thing as searching their house, because abortion could occur in private and searches have something to do with privacy.
> They aren't disappearing it just appears they are due to Saturn's rings angle compared to the earth making most telescopes unable to see the rings.
In a few years, we won't be able to see the rings of Saturn because we'd be looking at them from the edge. if you want to see them, or want your kids to see them, now is the time to do so.
The sun is burning hotter and as the sun orbits closer it could be causing the rings to fade.
The sun is causing the ice within the rings to melt and fall back down to the planet.
energy burning out
dust disipates
Saturn's gravity is not enough to hold them
gas vapor
Probably global warming.
The chaging atmosphere
As the planet gets older and losses mass the gravitational pull is decreasing which is causing it to lose debris on the outer portion of it's rings and it's not able to be replaced with the decreased gravitational pull.
I do not know
I think that the dust and particles that the rings are made up of are slowly either drifting away into space, or disintegrating into nothing as the years go by.
I think it could have to do with having more space debris coming into the galaxy. This could be slowly taking out parts of the rings as time goes on.
New rings are forming making the current ones dissapear, eventualy the rings will be bigger.
gravity is making them spin away
The asteroids are slowly getting pulled away by the gravity of the sun
The planet is several billions of years old. That has to be some wear and tear on it. Planets do not have an indefinite lifespan.
Donald Trump's hair spray
The gravatational pull of Saturn is slowly drawing the material of the rings to the planets surface.
moisture or lack thereof
Changes in atmosphere on Saturn
It could be a natural process that is meant to happen and we just don't understand.
Maybe it is getting closer to the sun which is causing the rings to disintegrate. The rings are misty and not made of anything of substance so at any sign or resistance, they will falter.
The lost could be due to constant rotation of the ring itself.
My guess is that the rings are gas and the gas is burning off or dissipating, just as a natural process.
The sun is too powerful
The water in the rings are dissipating.
They aren't disappearing it just appears they are due to Saturn's rings angle compared to the earth making most telescopes unable to see the rings.
Globalization is only reason
What I think could be causing the rings to slowly be lost is due to gravity pulling the rings closer to Saturn and in turn, the rings are disappearing.
just a guess: i would say that the cause is explained by natural science; that they are disappearing as a natural act which has nothing to do with human activity. in other words, i don't think there is any "visible evidence" that could answer why the rings are disappearing. it's just part of nature.
It could be from the objects forming the rings breaking down into smaller pieces due to collisions with other objects thus causing the rings to become less significant over time. It could also be from those same objects exiting their orbit around Saturn caused by Saturn's gravitational pull, either pulling the objects inwards towards the planet or causing a bit of a boomerang effect if the orbit of the object is irregular.
Because of our thoughts
meteorites
dissipation of gases
The rings are being pulled into Saturn by gravity as a dusty rain of ice particles under the influence of Saturn's magnetic field
natural decay
the gravitational pull of Jupiter and Saturn
They are melting and leaving the gravitational pull of Saturn.
There is an increase in carbon dioxide
the air in the ozone could be one of the reasons
The vacuum of space is pulling it apart.
the innermost rings would disappear first as they rain onto the planet.... When this happens, the particles can feel the pull of Saturn's magnetic field, which curves inward toward the planet at Saturn's rings
The planet is drifting away from the sun and the gravity on the planet is going down.
> Breaking of entanglement, or any other spooking behaviour of entanglement is "transmitted" instantly.
There is a relationship between the local qubit and the the distant qubit such that a change to one seems to cause one of several changes to the other.
Unfortunately, to measure the change and find out exactly what happened to the distant qubit, one requires two classical bits of information about the distant qubit. You can easily find the protocol via Google.
Here's a fun game. Go out on the street and ask 30 random people what could be causing Saturn's rings to slowly dissapear. But first take a guess what the number one answer will be.
Cryptolocker (and probably 50,000 different vulnerabilities in my database) say I can hack shit you never transmit.
Also, by what definition of "transmit" do you figure you can share information at a distance, and magically know who you are sharing it with and who you aren't sharing it with? The bad guy can entangle as well or better than the good guy. Plus the bad knows what "man in the middle" means.
Showing ads doesn't require giving Microsoft data dumps of all the users' data. In fact, that's counter-productive to selling ads to Microsoft. Facebook could:
A) get Microsoft to pay every month to have Facebook run ads using the profile data that only Facebook has
B) Get one payment from Microsoft and hand over the data, the golden goose, allowing Microsoft to run and target their own ads without Facebook
It seems Facebook chose option B.
Google does option A. Google collects as much information as they can from you, because it's very valuable to them in order to be able to target ads for their customers. The data they have on users is their biggest asset, so they guard it. They don't hand out data dumps to competitors, as Facebook has been doing, and as many marketers used to do before Google took over the industry by keeping the valuable data in-house, secret.
The rule you may know as "nothing can go faster than light" is actually "information can't be transmitted at more than light speed". You can find ways of measuring "speed" that come out to a value greater than C, but in no case do those allow one to transmit information from here to there at a velocity greater than C. At least not if "here" and "there" are more than an atom apart.
In quantum theory specifically, there's something called the no-communication theorem.
One example of a tease is that it's believed using quantum entanglement, two observers at a distance can see the same effect at exactly the same time - as if they both had access to the two ends of a very long string (or cat), and both ends of the string do the same thing at the same time. However, neither end can *effect* the behavior, so they can't send information.
There are a lot of ways to get excited *thinking* something implies faster than light communication if you understand a little bit of quantum physics.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you were thinking of the word "broadcast"? Broadcast means to transmit over a wide area. Broadcast and transmit are different words because they have different meanings.
I guess you've never seen a satellite dish?
It actually matters where you point it.
Btw, I'm transmitting this message to Slashdot's server, with instructions to post it (htttp verb "POST").
Reasoning skills and learning skills are certainly important. We could be teaching a lot of that long before people go to a university, but some people haven't learned it, so okay teach that. Through deliberate teaching, my four-year-old is better at critical thinking and asking "does this claim pass the sniff test?" than many adults I know.
Also, there is a TON of knowledge that doesn't change much. Another big stack of knowledge is about "standing on the shoulders of giants".
The maths are huge field where the things that are helpful to know don't change much, and what IS new in maths builds upon the old; algebra, calculus, and set theory haven't gone away. You might say "set theory? Who uses set theory in their job?" Ever heard of databases? SQL is a *direct* translation of set theory into convenient wording. It's not even *based* in set theory, it *is* set theory. Lots of different people use set theory for their job, and most don't even realize it, so they don't do their job as well as they could. They do better by being able to look at a problem and say "oh, this is just basic sets, I know sets".
Just the other day I was trying to show a co-worker how to do a job in a very simple way. He was getting all confused, making it super complicated and wrong. I drew some basic 8th grade sets on my whiteboard and he was completely lost. Okay, let's put aside the sets and view it as simple Boolean logic (and/or etc). Nope, he didn't know anything about a&b=true. This is maybe middle school math. It hasn't changed in the last hundred years.
How about some basic mechanics of how things work, leverage and things like that, weight? Ever needed to work with any of that? That's Newtonian physics. Hasn't changed for hundreds of years.
90% of the arguments we have on Slashdot wouldn't happen if we all remembered some basic history. We argue about what might happen if ... whatever policy. That policy you're advocating trying has already been done a dozen times, in a dozen different places. We already know the results, if we know a bit of history. History doesn't change all that much in couple decades.
I work in computer engineering. That's a fast-moving field, right? Gotta be on the cutting edge, only stuff that came out in the last five years matters, right? Not so much. The old guy frequently amazes the newer guys who started with Ruby on Rails, because old dude has been doing the same things for years in other languages. He understands it conceptually, knows the principles it is based on, and understands what's going on under the covers. That's all knowledge stuff.
When JSON first came out, some people said "forget all that old stuff, we're doing everything in JSON now - and promptly created a bunch of critical security vulnerabilities. Some of us who had some knowledge about objects and what goes on under the covers saw the problems right away. We had knowledge of underlying principles and technologies. That can all be taught.
"call in air-strike support with a few simple screen taps" ...
"The two apps, KILSWITCH and APASS, were never meant or approved to be deployed in combat zones."
So it has an "airstrike" button, but it was never meant to be used in war zones. Where, exactly was it meant to be used? I suppose it would be useful for handling used car dealers and pay day lenders?
I too would like it to be easier. Unfortunately, I can't have a bureaucrat or politician deciding what is to be censored and what isn't. The phrase used in the most similar laws is "not appropriate for children". Well, Slashdot is often not appropriate for young children. In fact many of the posts are just simply inappropriate - for anyone. So the censor decides Slashdot goes on the bad list, on .xxx.
There were a couple of voluntary self-labeling efforts that got some traction, but there are so many amateur-made porn sites run by people who don't know what they're doing that coverage would never approach 100%.
Many years ago I started a project that would have had sites appropriately labeled as a side effect, but it got really big, with multiple multi-millionaires involved, and I chickened out. At the time, in the 1990s, there were perhaps a few hundred people who ran most of the porn sites. They were mostly hosted by about four hosting companies, and used one of three payment processors (two of which were called "AVS" systems).
Anyway the idea was if a site owner joined our club, they'd agree to follow the peofessional code of ethics and they get a small discount on web hosting, buying content, etc. Offering the discount would benefit hosting companies and others in two ways. First, we'd tell all of our members "buy from this hosting company and get a discount" - it's marketing. Secondly, hosting companies, programmers, and others spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with customers who send spam and otherwise cause problems. Guild members, who don't send spam and do pay their bills, would be good customers.
It would cost the web site owners nothing, or almost nothing, and they'd get benefits, so most would join. With most of the web sites being members, service companies such as hosting companies, designers, ans payment processors would want to be a part of it in order to market to the member web sites.
One item in the professional ethics would have been using the appropriate machine-readable label that makes it easy for parents to control access to such sites.
I kick myself for bailing out on that because it likely would have made me rich. Membership might have saved webmasters 10% or more on their expenses vs non-members, so the club ownership (me) could have drawn off fees, advertising to member webmasters, or other revenue equal to 0.1% - 1% of the members expenses no problem. That's revenue for the club (me) equal to say 0.5% of the entire online adult industry. That industry is billions of dollars per year. Even 0.1% would be millions of dollars every year. I had it lined up, then got scared and ran away when big wigs I was working with starting talking about a million dollars here, a million dollars there.
Your point is valid. Just FYI:
> Even the porn industry couldn't make ".xxx" take off.
The porn industry fought against .xxx. .xxx was a scumbag who bought the TLD, then lobbied government to *force* all adult sites to buy from him, and only him. Much like .net was originally for networks and .org was for non-profits, he wanted to legally force all adult sites to .xxx, while he rolled in the dough. The porn industry saw him for the scum bag he was, and also saw the writing all on the wall - after government forces any content that isn't kid-friendly onto .xxx, what would be the next step in censorship? Most didn't want to go down that path.
The scum bag would have happened better luck if he added another step to his plan. He should have first become a senator, then sponsored the bill to legally force everyone to buy carbon credits^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H domain names from him.
The Dyson company agrees. They say their vacuums suck.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up religion. Murder isn't a religious issue.
On abortion, there are three groups of people:
People who think it's murder (and therefore very much should be illegal).
People who think it's not exactly murder. ("Not quite murder is still pretty bad, a heck of a lot worse than jaywalking, which is illegal).
People who think it's perfectly fine, because it's not quite murder. They can't explain why "almost murder" is okay, while slapping someone should be illegal).
James Dyson has pretty pretty successful with his cyclonic vacuum. He says he made 5,127 different prototypes before getting it right.
I suspect he's being liberal in his counting for hype purposes, but it's also clear that he didn't nail it on the first try.
Or maybe they'll fix it. A skimmer isn't exactly rocket science, much less science fiction. Dude tried something to solve a problem, rather than just demanding a new $10 billion from taxpayers to fly around in his private jet lecturing us. I give him credit for trying, and if it's needs some tweaks, that's to be expected.
A transit system based on tunnels won't have to worry about fire code in California. The fire code will be long forgotten centuries before he finishes the environmental impact studies. He'll need to make sure it's waterproof, because California will be underwater before they approve something that could effect the habitat of a pair of Palo Alto earthworms.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I really appreciate it. It sounds like you've thought about and you have good reasons you'd vote to allow abortion, though of course others may come to a different conclusion about when exactly human life begins.
I note with your latest post, we've switched to a different topic. You've very effectively expressed why you would vote for liberal abortion laws in your state, which is a very different question of whether the text of the US Constitution says you're not allowed to have a vote.
> I am also aware that pregnancy is too heavy a burden to be borne unconsenting.
This is the one statement I'd take issue with. Rarely are we talking about "unconsenting". In the vast majority of cases they copulated *on purpose*, not only with consent, but they took the guy home, took of their clothes, etc, in a deliberate effort to take the actions which they know will likely result in pregnancy after a few tries. So they didn't just consent to someone else doing it, they actively did it themselves.
I'm impressed. Your reasoning is better than the reasoning SCOTUS uses. It makes more sense, IMHO. I'm not being facetious, I think your ninth amendment argument is better than the fourth amendment reasoning (with either being applied to the states via the 14th).
However, the ninth begins "the enumeration of certain rights may not". One cannot Constitutionally say "because the Constitution affirms this right, it takes away this other right". The ninth would shoot down that argument. Nobody is making that argument, so the ninth has no effect. Nobody says "because you have the right to free speech, you don't have the right to kill babies". They say you don't have the right to kill babies simply because you don't, nothing in all of human history in any way suggests that's a right, until Roe v Wade magically appeared it. Obviously the pro-abortion people say that the offspring of two people isn't quite a person, so abortion isn't exactly "killing babies".
That's an argument they can make. The first question is whether abortion is "killing babies". The Constitution doesn't answer that question. It's not a question about the Constitution, it's an opinion question, a political question.
What few people think about is the obvious follow up to "is abortion killing babies?". Assume the answer is "no, not exactly, here's the difference between abortion and killing babies ....". If we all agreed on that, we'd then have an agreement on why abortion isn't quite the same thing as killing babies. The state has a legitimate interest in making Jay walking illegal, they have the power to do that. Do they not have the power to make "not quite killing babies" illegal?
Several Slashdot commenters mentioned "global warming".
I see eight responses (16%) which clearly suggest the respondent was thinking in terms of global warming:
The changing atmosphere
Changes in atmosphere on Saturn
There is an increase in carbon dioxide
the air in the ozone could be one of the reasons
The sun is burning hotter and as the sun orbits closer it could be causing the rings to fade.
The sun is causing the ice within the rings to melt and fall back down to the planet.
Probably global warming.
The planet may be heating up
> I believe there has been rulings in the Supreme Court that privacy is somewhat protected (I think that was actually a major part of the Roe v Wade case surprisingly enough).....but really what protections do we US citizens have in law?
Yeah that's related to the government invading privacy, Constitutional rights. The Constitution says what the federal government is allowed to do and what it is not allowed to do. It doesn't say anything about Facebook.
The reasoning in Roe vs Wade is that because the fourth amendment says the federal government isn't allowed to do "unreasonable search and seizure", states can't regulate abortion. In other words, they wanted to prevent the states from regulating abortion, so they did - despite having absolutely no coherent line of reasoning why such laws could possibly be unconstitutional. The court jumped head first into a purely political issue rather than allowing voters and legislatures decide it through the political process. The court learned from this mistake, to some extent, and avoided decided some other political questions after Roe v Wade.
The justices discussed it for a while, trying to find some way to connect the issue to the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't mention abortion, the Constitution protects "life" in the 5th and 14th amendments, but that's the opposite of what they wanted. They wanted to make protecting life unconstitutional. In the winter of 1972 Justice Harry Blackmun, apparently very drunk, came up with the idea a state telling someone "you may not kill babies" is pretty much the same thing as searching their house, because abortion could occur in private and searches have something to do with privacy.
By the way, this person's answer is also correct:
> They aren't disappearing it just appears they are due to Saturn's rings angle compared to the earth making most telescopes unable to see the rings.
In a few years, we won't be able to see the rings of Saturn because we'd be looking at them from the edge. if you want to see them, or want your kids to see them, now is the time to do so.
That's funny.
It *is* an apt analogy, however.
> Breaking of entanglement, or any other spooking behaviour of entanglement is "transmitted" instantly.
There is a relationship between the local qubit and the the distant qubit such that a change to one seems to cause one of several changes to the other.
Unfortunately, to measure the change and find out exactly what happened to the distant qubit, one requires two classical bits of information about the distant qubit. You can easily find the protocol via Google.
Here's a fun game. Go out on the street and ask 30 random people what could be causing Saturn's rings to slowly dissapear. But first take a guess what the number one answer will be.
> You can't hack what isn't transmitted
Wanna bet? :)
Cryptolocker (and probably 50,000 different vulnerabilities in my database) say I can hack shit you never transmit.
Also, by what definition of "transmit" do you figure you can share information at a distance, and magically know who you are sharing it with and who you aren't sharing it with? The bad guy can entangle as well or better than the good guy. Plus the bad knows what "man in the middle" means.
Showing ads doesn't require giving Microsoft data dumps of all the users' data. In fact, that's counter-productive to selling ads to Microsoft. Facebook could:
A) get Microsoft to pay every month to have Facebook run ads using the profile data that only Facebook has
B) Get one payment from Microsoft and hand over the data, the golden goose, allowing Microsoft to run and target their own ads without Facebook
It seems Facebook chose option B.
Google does option A. Google collects as much information as they can from you, because it's very valuable to them in order to be able to target ads for their customers. The data they have on users is their biggest asset, so they guard it. They don't hand out data dumps to competitors, as Facebook has been doing, and as many marketers used to do before Google took over the industry by keeping the valuable data in-house, secret.
> and bullet proof against hacking the key generation.
Several times a year there's a new exploit against yet another "bullet proof" encryption method.
In theory, entanglement might make wiretapping harder. Once upon a time, fiber optic was impossible to wiretap. Now it's pretty easy.
There IS a single encryption method that has remained secure for thousands of years, but it's damn inconvenient.
If it tastes like that, it's not the real thing. It's feaux pho. :)
The rule you may know as "nothing can go faster than light" is actually "information can't be transmitted at more than light speed". You can find ways of measuring "speed" that come out to a value greater than C, but in no case do those allow one to transmit information from here to there at a velocity greater than C. At least not if "here" and "there" are more than an atom apart.
In quantum theory specifically, there's something called the no-communication theorem.
One example of a tease is that it's believed using quantum entanglement, two observers at a distance can see the same effect at exactly the same time - as if they both had access to the two ends of a very long string (or cat), and both ends of the string do the same thing at the same time. However, neither end can *effect* the behavior, so they can't send information.
There are a lot of ways to get excited *thinking* something implies faster than light communication if you understand a little bit of quantum physics.