Objective in as much as I and many people I know have had bad experiences with American made cars and don't like them.
To get a truly objective position, you find someone who has never seen a car and ask them what they think of both. But they they won't know what the hell they're talking about.
I'm not un-objective because I dislike American cars. I dislike American cars because, objectively, I don't find them to be as well made or designed as their Japanese and Korean competition. Not by a long shot.
Maybe you choose to like American cars out of a sense of patriotism. That makes you even less objective than me.
He is Boorish and bigoted against American vehicles.
Well, to be objective here (though you might disagree)... every time I get an American car as a rental I'm forced to conclude the people who design American cars are idiots.
From the ergonomics of the seating position, to the layout of the controls, to the steering and suspension I find myself thinking "why can't these people buy a Toyota or a Honda and find out how to do this properly".
I had a Dodge Avenger as a rental a few years back, and it was a terrible car; I hated everything about it. It kept finding ways to annoy me. I recently had a Camry as a rental, and it was exactly what I'd expected it to be.
I grew up in and live in North America. My father owned nothing but Chevys until he died.
But I sure as hell wouldn't own one. Because they often seem like they've been designed by a committee of chimps coming off a bender.
Maybe he's biased against American vehicles because many of them are rubbish.
I know many many North Americans who won't buy American cars.
I can guarantee you that any media which starts hosting their stuff in Facebook will be immediately deemed a useless source of information and blocked.
I have most of my browsers set to block anything from Facebook, because I'm tired of the sheer number of web pages which have their crap embedded.
Screw off and die, Zuckerfuck. I trust you and Facebook not at all.
How he's managed to convince actual news companies to let him in the door I have no idea. That just sounds like idiots being hoodwinked by assholes.
In fact, you are quite free to discriminate in your shopping habits based solely on the religious beliefs of the shopkeepers you choose not to visit.
No, you're an idiot.
It's one thing to say "get out of my store you Christian moron". Because that would be illegal.
It is entirely different level of bullshit to say that in retaliation these people are free not to patronize the businesses of someone who reserves the right to say "we don't serve you black/gay/Chinese/fat people".
That's a bit lopsided, don't you think? The Christians can discriminate legally, the rest of us can choose not to patronize your business?
There is no other scenario in which a shopkeeper is allowed to say "we don't serve your kind". None. Period. Nada.
But people who subscribe to religion want a special exemption to do exactly that. Which means the religious people feel they deserve a special place in the law, above and beyond that enjoyed by everybody, and in which they hold extra rights... all while enjoying legal protection from being discriminated against. Isn't that goddamned convenient.
The Taliban say the exact same crap.
So, I submit to you: either we pass a universal law saying we can all be assholes, up to an including the right of someone to refuse to serve religious people or hire them because they believe in god. Or we tell religious people to shut the fuck up, and stop acting like their fucking beliefs make them special in the eyes of the law.
You know, that whole fucking separation of church and state. You can believe whatever the fuck you want. That doesn't change your standing with regards to the law.
And it doesn't exempt you from the law. And there isn't a damned religious person who is going to accept themselves being discriminated against.
Which is just hypocrisy and bullshit from people who think the world revolved around them.
Fuck that. Either your laws are based on principle, or whatever asshole claims his god gives him permission to do as he pleases.
If religion wants an exemption to discriminate, there is absolutely no defensible position for not discriminating against religion.
But don't act like not going to the business of someone who wants the legal right to refuse to serve you is even remotely the same fucking thing unless you could legally refuse to serve them.
I don't think religion should be a part of this conversation.
How can it not be? This is about someone trying to pass a bill which enshrines in law the ability of religious people to exercise a form of discrimination which would be illegal if applied to them. In effect, giving religious people more rights than everyone else.
This whole fucking thing is about the religious people saying they should have an extra special class of being able to discriminate, while enjoying the legal protection of being discriminated against.
So, if you can convince the rest of society we should go to a system where anybody can discriminate against anybody else... congratulations, you'll gave achieved a massive step towards making society suck even more.
But you simply cannot rationally claim that you agree with most forms of preventing discrimination, while claiming there is a special case in which you're allowed to discriminate.
TFA only exists in the context of religion asking for a special set of rules to be applied to them. Without religion, there is nothing to be said here.
I'm saying either those people should accept the potential of being kicked of a business for their beliefs, or they should shut the hell up about being able to have the right to do the same thing.
Are you laboring under the delusion we're somehow talking about a law to allow everyone to be an asshole to the extent that it makes them happy?
The reality is this is trying to give religious people, and ONLY religious people, a special exemption to discriminate as they see fit.
I've had American cheddar. It's tasty stuff. That's not what I'm talking about.
But that "process cheese food" made from long-chain polymers which isn't legally cheese and comes in individual plastic is what I'm talking about. It's NOT actual cheese.
And the package on this stuff indicated it was an "immitation" version of the stuff which isn't legally cheese.
Basically it was a yellow goo made of soy oil and other crap.
Bullshit. I think your stance is one primarily of stupid.
If religions, who are legally protected from discrimination, want to use their religion to discriminate against other people an bear no consequences, then I believe religion should lose the legal protection from discrimination.
If you think your religion should allow you to discriminate against someone else... then you are a coward and fucking hypocrite if you wish to hide behind your religion and act like that is protected speech.
I will loudly say "fuck religion" if religion wants to enjoy a special class of protection while denying it to someone else.
So, either these religious people would support repealing religion as a protected status (thereby allowing people to say "sorry, we don't serve YOUR kind")... or they should shut the fuck up and stop pretending that their own fairy tales affords them a unique position in law.
That is a completely fucking irrational argument which claims special treatment -- fuck that.
Either you make it so it's illegal to discriminate against anybody, or you make it so it's legal to discriminate against anybody. We have already decided on this issue for pretty much everything else.
What religious people are asking for is a double-extra special standard, whereby the people they seek to be able to legally discriminate against are not legally allowed to respond in kind. Effectively, religious people get more fucking rights than the rest of us.
Again, fuck that.
That particular bit of bullshit is purely in the domain of people who think that logic and the law should bend over backwards to accommodate their moronic beliefs.
So, put up or shut up... either religions support themselves being discriminated against, or accept that they don't get some magic fucking exemption to do it to someone else.
There is no scenario in which it makes any sense to give them a right they would deny another.
Your god doesn't define MY rights.
I don't need to convince anybody of a thing, other than it is a foundation of law that we ALL are subject to the SAME laws.
But not this bullshit notion that what you believe gives you a special place in law the rest of us don't have.
Isn't it amazing how people who enjoy protection from being discriminated against want to use that same protection to allow them to discriminate against others?
Sorry, but if you think your religion should allow you to discriminate, you should be subject to the same thing.
Oh, what's that, your religion is a magic double standard which exempts you from logic and you are special? Go piss up a rope.
You're just as stupid as the people who want to force Sharia law on the rest of us. Stop pretending otherwise.
Your religion doesn't make you some special little flower who operates under a special set of rules.
"Asshole" is universal, no matter what you believe in.
Brace yourself, but most people who consume packaged food products have little concern over any chemicals in them.
The corollary to this is most people who consume packges chemicals have very little concern if there is any actual food products in them.
I recently saw "imitation American-style cheese food slices". Now, "American" "cheese" isn't legally cheese in most of the world. So what the fsck is imitation artificial cheese?
You turn it over, half the bottle dumps onto your food. You have to buy twice as much. Effectively they can increase food waste, and therefore sales, under the guise of environmentalism. Sure, we'll help you get every last drop... just all at once.
I know the last thing my wife wants is for me to have the mustard come out of the bottle any faster. I always end up with far too much as it is.;-)
The US has never, not once, invaded a country for oil and minerals. The idea that we have started a war for oil is just plain stupid.
No, but the reality was before you went into Iraq in 2003, against any sensible facts, and despite evidence that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11... your own government had people talking about how the oil you'd get from Iraq would pay for the war because they'd be so grateful. How did that work out for you?
And, further, how many places has America utterly failed to act when there was no oil?
America ignores what's happening in Africa because there's no oil for the most part. And yet claims loudly they must intercede in the middle east out of principle and on humanitarian grounds.
Has it occurred to you that the much vaunted "principles" America claims before going to war are entirely dependent on oil and/or your own economic benefit, and that your claims to do this out of a sense of right and wrong is bullshit?
Because it certainly has to the rest of the world.
How on earth does increased accuracy increase the temptation to use one?
Usually the ridiculous belief you could do a small scale strike to disable your opponent, or that there is a scenario in which nuclear war is "winnable".
Those of us who remember when M.A.D (mutually assured destruction) as the awesome way we kept nuclear bombs in check have long since stopped expecting rational thought to play into the calculus of nukes.
The assumption that nobody would ever be idiotic enough to use them has always struck me as entirely unfounded.
I realize that global politics is a lot more subtle and complex than most folks realize, and maybe I'm wrong, but on this subject, it seems pretty damned cut and dried.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I do disagree that world leaders can be counted upon to act rationally, or make decisions supported by logic.
Or that they wouldn't simply do this crap out of ego or spite.
Look around at some of the piss-pot despots and ask yourself... would you trust this person to not be an idiot? Now, look at the leaders of some Western countries and ask yourself... my god, do we let this idiot control nukes?
As would I which is why I never used that phrase. Your quote is not my words.
"Except any half-decent Java developer uses Stringbuilder not + concat because everyone knows the latter is slower and causes more to be objects created"
Oh? Really? So you did not use the words "everyone knows"?
Exactly whose words were they inside of your post?
Sometime's it's tough to explain to the kids these days why they take too damned much for granted with their languages.
I knew a guy with a Masters in CS who loudly proclaimed optimizing was a pointless exercise.
He wrote some of the shittiest, slowest, and un-maintainable code I've ever seen because he was confusing "clever" with "smart" and often "clevered" himself into corners he couldn't get back out of.
Often he couldn't make minor changes to his own code because it was so "elegant" as to be brittle and impossible to change.
Very often the attitude of "the library does everything, let it deal with it" means you have no idea of how bad the code you're writing actually is.
Sorry, but when it lies to Congress about what it's doing... it's really out of control.
When it spies on the people who oversee it to influence the oversight, it's out of control.
When it formalizes a mechanism of perjury by law enforcement, it's out of control.
When it hides how it uses technologies to perform warrantless wiretaps, it's out of control.
I see no evidence that any has control over these clowns. And if anybody does, nobody knows who that is to have control over them.
So, to you I say, bullshit. The spying apparatus does whatever the fuck it wants, arbitrarily decides when/if the law applies, and keeps doing what they want no matter what they're told.
These people are now quite dangerous to our freedoms and our societies.
I think what they've proven is that there are so many layers in modern programming languages that most of what programmers do because it seems like a good idea probably generates terrible outcomes.
This actually explains a lot about modern programs, and how 5 years later a machine with twice the resources takes the same amount of time to do something as 5 year old software.
Because the bloat and inefficiencies added in those five years offset any other improvements.:-P
Many years ago, when I was doing my degree and computers were still steam powered, a friend and I were writing the same assignment.
He worked for the university, and had a privileged account on the VAX. I had the loan of a 286 from a prof who no longer needed it and took pity on me.
I, being constrained by physical memory, had to write a new kind of sparse array to hold my data. He, having access to lots more virtual memory heap than I, wrote a huge array which wasn't sparse to just brute force it, even though most of the array was useless.
At the end of the day, we both got the same results from our programs. The difference was, I got an A+, because the prof decided he'd steal my sparse array for his own research. My friend got an A, because he got the right outcome, but used a slightly less elegant solution.
Optimizing memory is a dying skill, and in the case of most high level languages, there's too many layers between you and the hardware to know what is actually happening.
But some of us still think back nostalgically to when having a 1MB string was simply not possible, and when we used to have to use our own voodoo to cram into the small amounts of memory we did have.:-P
Now get off my damned lawn with your big fancy strings.;-)
Will someone please tell me this gives us a basis for Heisenberg compensator?
Because that would be awesome.
I'm also hoping this whole thing "that, when unobserved, the photons exist in all possible states simultaneously" eventually goes away.
It has to be that we can't know what state it's in, not that it's actually in all of them. Can't it? Please? At some point, this quantum stuff should stop being magic.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you have another one in mind?
Of course the congress full of people on the payroll of everybody except the voting public.
That's what it's for.
Objective in as much as I and many people I know have had bad experiences with American made cars and don't like them.
To get a truly objective position, you find someone who has never seen a car and ask them what they think of both. But they they won't know what the hell they're talking about.
I'm not un-objective because I dislike American cars. I dislike American cars because, objectively, I don't find them to be as well made or designed as their Japanese and Korean competition. Not by a long shot.
Maybe you choose to like American cars out of a sense of patriotism. That makes you even less objective than me.
Well, to be objective here (though you might disagree) ... every time I get an American car as a rental I'm forced to conclude the people who design American cars are idiots.
From the ergonomics of the seating position, to the layout of the controls, to the steering and suspension I find myself thinking "why can't these people buy a Toyota or a Honda and find out how to do this properly".
I had a Dodge Avenger as a rental a few years back, and it was a terrible car; I hated everything about it. It kept finding ways to annoy me. I recently had a Camry as a rental, and it was exactly what I'd expected it to be.
I grew up in and live in North America. My father owned nothing but Chevys until he died.
But I sure as hell wouldn't own one. Because they often seem like they've been designed by a committee of chimps coming off a bender.
Maybe he's biased against American vehicles because many of them are rubbish.
I know many many North Americans who won't buy American cars.
I can guarantee you that any media which starts hosting their stuff in Facebook will be immediately deemed a useless source of information and blocked.
I have most of my browsers set to block anything from Facebook, because I'm tired of the sheer number of web pages which have their crap embedded.
Screw off and die, Zuckerfuck. I trust you and Facebook not at all.
How he's managed to convince actual news companies to let him in the door I have no idea. That just sounds like idiots being hoodwinked by assholes.
No, you're an idiot.
It's one thing to say "get out of my store you Christian moron". Because that would be illegal.
It is entirely different level of bullshit to say that in retaliation these people are free not to patronize the businesses of someone who reserves the right to say "we don't serve you black/gay/Chinese/fat people".
That's a bit lopsided, don't you think? The Christians can discriminate legally, the rest of us can choose not to patronize your business?
There is no other scenario in which a shopkeeper is allowed to say "we don't serve your kind". None. Period. Nada.
But people who subscribe to religion want a special exemption to do exactly that. Which means the religious people feel they deserve a special place in the law, above and beyond that enjoyed by everybody, and in which they hold extra rights ... all while enjoying legal protection from being discriminated against. Isn't that goddamned convenient.
The Taliban say the exact same crap.
So, I submit to you: either we pass a universal law saying we can all be assholes, up to an including the right of someone to refuse to serve religious people or hire them because they believe in god. Or we tell religious people to shut the fuck up, and stop acting like their fucking beliefs make them special in the eyes of the law.
You know, that whole fucking separation of church and state. You can believe whatever the fuck you want. That doesn't change your standing with regards to the law.
And it doesn't exempt you from the law. And there isn't a damned religious person who is going to accept themselves being discriminated against.
Which is just hypocrisy and bullshit from people who think the world revolved around them.
Fuck that. Either your laws are based on principle, or whatever asshole claims his god gives him permission to do as he pleases.
If religion wants an exemption to discriminate, there is absolutely no defensible position for not discriminating against religion.
But don't act like not going to the business of someone who wants the legal right to refuse to serve you is even remotely the same fucking thing unless you could legally refuse to serve them.
Anything else is just self entitled crap.
How can it not be? This is about someone trying to pass a bill which enshrines in law the ability of religious people to exercise a form of discrimination which would be illegal if applied to them. In effect, giving religious people more rights than everyone else.
This whole fucking thing is about the religious people saying they should have an extra special class of being able to discriminate, while enjoying the legal protection of being discriminated against.
So, if you can convince the rest of society we should go to a system where anybody can discriminate against anybody else ... congratulations, you'll gave achieved a massive step towards making society suck even more.
But you simply cannot rationally claim that you agree with most forms of preventing discrimination, while claiming there is a special case in which you're allowed to discriminate.
TFA only exists in the context of religion asking for a special set of rules to be applied to them. Without religion, there is nothing to be said here.
I'm saying either those people should accept the potential of being kicked of a business for their beliefs, or they should shut the hell up about being able to have the right to do the same thing.
Are you laboring under the delusion we're somehow talking about a law to allow everyone to be an asshole to the extent that it makes them happy?
The reality is this is trying to give religious people, and ONLY religious people, a special exemption to discriminate as they see fit.
I've had American cheddar. It's tasty stuff. That's not what I'm talking about.
But that "process cheese food" made from long-chain polymers which isn't legally cheese and comes in individual plastic is what I'm talking about. It's NOT actual cheese.
And the package on this stuff indicated it was an "immitation" version of the stuff which isn't legally cheese.
Basically it was a yellow goo made of soy oil and other crap.
Bullshit. I think your stance is one primarily of stupid.
If religions, who are legally protected from discrimination, want to use their religion to discriminate against other people an bear no consequences, then I believe religion should lose the legal protection from discrimination.
If you think your religion should allow you to discriminate against someone else ... then you are a coward and fucking hypocrite if you wish to hide behind your religion and act like that is protected speech.
I will loudly say "fuck religion" if religion wants to enjoy a special class of protection while denying it to someone else.
So, either these religious people would support repealing religion as a protected status (thereby allowing people to say "sorry, we don't serve YOUR kind") ... or they should shut the fuck up and stop pretending that their own fairy tales affords them a unique position in law.
That is a completely fucking irrational argument which claims special treatment -- fuck that.
Either you make it so it's illegal to discriminate against anybody, or you make it so it's legal to discriminate against anybody. We have already decided on this issue for pretty much everything else.
What religious people are asking for is a double-extra special standard, whereby the people they seek to be able to legally discriminate against are not legally allowed to respond in kind. Effectively, religious people get more fucking rights than the rest of us.
Again, fuck that.
That particular bit of bullshit is purely in the domain of people who think that logic and the law should bend over backwards to accommodate their moronic beliefs.
So, put up or shut up ... either religions support themselves being discriminated against, or accept that they don't get some magic fucking exemption to do it to someone else.
There is no scenario in which it makes any sense to give them a right they would deny another.
Your god doesn't define MY rights.
I don't need to convince anybody of a thing, other than it is a foundation of law that we ALL are subject to the SAME laws.
But not this bullshit notion that what you believe gives you a special place in law the rest of us don't have.
Isn't it amazing how people who enjoy protection from being discriminated against want to use that same protection to allow them to discriminate against others?
Sorry, but if you think your religion should allow you to discriminate, you should be subject to the same thing.
Oh, what's that, your religion is a magic double standard which exempts you from logic and you are special? Go piss up a rope.
You're just as stupid as the people who want to force Sharia law on the rest of us. Stop pretending otherwise.
Your religion doesn't make you some special little flower who operates under a special set of rules.
"Asshole" is universal, no matter what you believe in.
Great, then you'd have an artificial version of hemophilia, wouldn't you? The slightest nick and you'd bleed out?
Reminds me of some diet product from years ago that got pulled due to excessive rectal seepage.
The corollary to this is most people who consume packges chemicals have very little concern if there is any actual food products in them.
I recently saw "imitation American-style cheese food slices". Now, "American" "cheese" isn't legally cheese in most of the world. So what the fsck is imitation artificial cheese?
I'm not even sure it had any dairy in it.
You're thinking about it all wrong.
You turn it over, half the bottle dumps onto your food. You have to buy twice as much. Effectively they can increase food waste, and therefore sales, under the guise of environmentalism. Sure, we'll help you get every last drop ... just all at once.
I know the last thing my wife wants is for me to have the mustard come out of the bottle any faster. I always end up with far too much as it is. ;-)
If the ketchup came out faster we'd be doomed.
So, if you could do this on the outside of condoms you'd put Wet and Astroglide out of business. ;-)
Introducing, everslide ... our slipperiest condoms evar.
Yes, that was 20 years ago.
And America is doing, what, exactly, in Africa now besides insisting foreign aid be tied to no contraception?
No, but the reality was before you went into Iraq in 2003, against any sensible facts, and despite evidence that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 ... your own government had people talking about how the oil you'd get from Iraq would pay for the war because they'd be so grateful. How did that work out for you?
And, further, how many places has America utterly failed to act when there was no oil?
America ignores what's happening in Africa because there's no oil for the most part. And yet claims loudly they must intercede in the middle east out of principle and on humanitarian grounds.
Has it occurred to you that the much vaunted "principles" America claims before going to war are entirely dependent on oil and/or your own economic benefit, and that your claims to do this out of a sense of right and wrong is bullshit?
Because it certainly has to the rest of the world.
Usually the ridiculous belief you could do a small scale strike to disable your opponent, or that there is a scenario in which nuclear war is "winnable".
Those of us who remember when M.A.D (mutually assured destruction) as the awesome way we kept nuclear bombs in check have long since stopped expecting rational thought to play into the calculus of nukes.
The assumption that nobody would ever be idiotic enough to use them has always struck me as entirely unfounded.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I do disagree that world leaders can be counted upon to act rationally, or make decisions supported by logic.
Or that they wouldn't simply do this crap out of ego or spite.
Look around at some of the piss-pot despots and ask yourself ... would you trust this person to not be an idiot? Now, look at the leaders of some Western countries and ask yourself ... my god, do we let this idiot control nukes?
LOL, thanks ... that's actually somewhat reassuring. :-P
"Except any half-decent Java developer uses Stringbuilder not + concat because everyone knows the latter is slower and causes more to be objects created"
Oh? Really? So you did not use the words "everyone knows"?
Exactly whose words were they inside of your post?
You know, I would argue that saying "everyone knows" is overly optimistic, bordering on naive.
Because I've seen many programmers who simply don't know, and just assume they're all equal and magic.
This was true in C 25 years ago, Java 15 years ago, and probably every other language now.
Do not underestimate the capacity of humans to be clueless and assume they know what they are doing.
My guess, audit a sufficiently large amount of code, and you'll quickly realize people simple do NOT actually know what you think everyone does.
I'm betting there's a lot of crappy code in the world which neither knows nor cares what actually happens.
My personal experience tells me there are more mediocre coders than actual good ones.
No, but suddenly I'm intrigued.
Sometime's it's tough to explain to the kids these days why they take too damned much for granted with their languages.
I knew a guy with a Masters in CS who loudly proclaimed optimizing was a pointless exercise.
He wrote some of the shittiest, slowest, and un-maintainable code I've ever seen because he was confusing "clever" with "smart" and often "clevered" himself into corners he couldn't get back out of.
Often he couldn't make minor changes to his own code because it was so "elegant" as to be brittle and impossible to change.
Very often the attitude of "the library does everything, let it deal with it" means you have no idea of how bad the code you're writing actually is.
Sorry, but when it lies to Congress about what it's doing ... it's really out of control.
When it spies on the people who oversee it to influence the oversight, it's out of control.
When it formalizes a mechanism of perjury by law enforcement, it's out of control.
When it hides how it uses technologies to perform warrantless wiretaps, it's out of control.
I see no evidence that any has control over these clowns. And if anybody does, nobody knows who that is to have control over them.
So, to you I say, bullshit. The spying apparatus does whatever the fuck it wants, arbitrarily decides when/if the law applies, and keeps doing what they want no matter what they're told.
These people are now quite dangerous to our freedoms and our societies.
I think what they've proven is that there are so many layers in modern programming languages that most of what programmers do because it seems like a good idea probably generates terrible outcomes.
This actually explains a lot about modern programs, and how 5 years later a machine with twice the resources takes the same amount of time to do something as 5 year old software.
Because the bloat and inefficiencies added in those five years offset any other improvements. :-P
Somewhat off-topic, but somewhat related:
Many years ago, when I was doing my degree and computers were still steam powered, a friend and I were writing the same assignment.
He worked for the university, and had a privileged account on the VAX. I had the loan of a 286 from a prof who no longer needed it and took pity on me.
I, being constrained by physical memory, had to write a new kind of sparse array to hold my data. He, having access to lots more virtual memory heap than I, wrote a huge array which wasn't sparse to just brute force it, even though most of the array was useless.
At the end of the day, we both got the same results from our programs. The difference was, I got an A+, because the prof decided he'd steal my sparse array for his own research. My friend got an A, because he got the right outcome, but used a slightly less elegant solution.
Optimizing memory is a dying skill, and in the case of most high level languages, there's too many layers between you and the hardware to know what is actually happening.
But some of us still think back nostalgically to when having a 1MB string was simply not possible, and when we used to have to use our own voodoo to cram into the small amounts of memory we did have. :-P
Now get off my damned lawn with your big fancy strings. ;-)
*sigh* The more people try to explain it to me, the more it sounds like voodoo.
I understand the whole "measuring it changes it" thing ... but the rest of it? The whole "simultanously everything" thing just hurts my head.
It just sounds barking mad to a layman.
Will someone please tell me this gives us a basis for Heisenberg compensator?
Because that would be awesome.
I'm also hoping this whole thing "that, when unobserved, the photons exist in all possible states simultaneously" eventually goes away.
It has to be that we can't know what state it's in, not that it's actually in all of them. Can't it? Please? At some point, this quantum stuff should stop being magic.