And pardon me, but considering how pervasive it is, how deeply it's integrated into our lives, and how little protection there is for all of it... an international, clandestine spy program is far better, at least from a human rights standpoint.
It's so pervasive that we have someone on a website for geeks defending the practice as "it's OK if it is Opt in".
Can anyone actually be competitive in the marketplace without harnessing themselves to some datamining service or another? Anyone besides Ted Kazinski?
Actually you bring up a point that is the major flaw in this GOTCHA system; you aren't really trying to hack a random series of characters, you are hacking the "most likely" responses from people who see the images.
So if some enterprising criminal is looking at the system, they try and get a database or a survey of "most common responses" -- so you might find about 24 most frequent responses like "bat". The system for practical reasons, won't be too tight on how it accepts descriptions, as a user isn't going to always describe something the same way. So dog, wolf and puppy might be linked as "same response."
So given a series of 10 images, just hacking the responses by going with "common answers to blobby images" in a dictionary style attack on the back end of the system rather than the front end may be orders of magnitude easier a task than current passwords of 10 characters.
I'm back from using the GOTCHA system and I can tell you that it's easy to remember and use; Naked Lady, gazoongas, two naked ladies, more gazoongas, someone stabbing mommy, mommy gazoongas, more stabbing, a side-boob.
Someone else might call those six circle blobs and two triangles, but I'll remember! Now even though this system might not work for everyone, it will help identify people who don't like their mommies!
the Sapphire glass should go out and give them a few free Canopies. That's the same outfit that is building a facility for Apple in Arizona to produce iPhone and iPad "glass" faces. Of course,it's kind of cool that it's an actual artificial gem!!!
Next, some company could "Bedazzle" the jet aircraft, seeing as how it's . I see a "Bratz Girlz tie-in" as well. If allowing private companies to advertise to kids in our schools to subsidize things is OK... whatever is good for the goose is good for the gander at 800 mph.
I'd say that if we allow for the punishment of people for thought crimes based on their romantic intentions with a virtual girl, wouldn't it also be appropriate to arrest the investigators for pimping a virtual girl?
I know it's offensive to think about nasty old men taking advantage of little girls -- and I want a world where that doesn't happen. Why not just allow for virtual girls to fill the demand and no real person need be abused?
I don't want an internet full of "honey pots" where one wrong click leads people to commit a crime -- without real damages to real people. It's damage I'm worried about, not intent nor thoughts.
My first thought when hearing about Brazil spying is that some "pro Brazil" patriot would tell some citizen that "at least we don't spy AS MUCH as the NSA does on the USA."
Because Patriots in the USA compare us to China.
Are the Chinese patriots going to say all is well because of Brazil, or do they just scrape the bottom of the barrel to say "we are better than North Korea."
America with justice, liberty and freedom for all!* *NOTE: all results graded on a curve.
You mean the thing they've been trying to destroy they honestly wanted to work? They were just looking out for Obama's best interests?
You do understand that implementing it NOW is getting the website in working order and the delay would have pushed the non-working website issue down the line? A very complex system that didn't go right is a separate issue -- and since Republicans and Tea Party members have not created anything in recent memory, I'm wondering why they think anyone believes that they pretended to care when not blasting a program as the rot of Hell.
Yes, it is. You may have some moral justification, but it can still be a crime. In the US, telling the truth about intelligence techniques to real and potential enemies is a crime, even if you also tell the public. Snowden broke the law, and is now a criminal evading law enforcement, but he satisfied his own conscience.
Why is it that truth about a crime is a bigger crime than the original crime itself?
I wouldn't know for sure, but I suspect there are a lot of ID10-t errors of judgement and backbone in this country. This is a non-partisan "do you understand that transparency is required for a Democracy to function?" moment. It's really galling in that we've got countless examples of how an informed public responds well and delivers more bad guys than cover surveillance, and we've got numerous examples of intelligence failures DESPITE collecting everything along with the kitchen sync. Looking at everything, no matter how useless the information is a huge distraction.
These NSA fans and the people they support read too many spy novels and think that treating all humans as if they had rights with dignity and respect is a suspicious activity.
Even though the analogy is backwards, it highlights that the CEO of any company cannot contribute the lions share of work.
Is the job 1000 times more difficult than what the average worker does? Are they moving 1000 times faster? The delusion that says that some sort of fairness mechanism crept into a board meeting where executives decide compensation for other executives and for the average worker flies in the face of reality.
"Fairness" might be workers voting on the compensation of their leaders as the leaders decide what the workers get paid. Until that happens -- Government or Stockholder intervention is the only mechanism to provide checks and balances.
IF the internet had a "punch in face" button, I'd be pressing it a few times for the next person who tries to debate torture, spying and why we shouldn't be pushing green tech yesterday. There's debatable points, but some things aren't up for debate.
The NSA is doing the wrong thing, and it isn't even after bad guys -- it's clear they were on the path of control and a lot of their data was going to be used for Corporate Espionage. Stop pretending that the CIA and these other three-letter companies haven't gone well past their original purpose and into the deep end. The number of people doing the wrong thing doesn't justify doing the wrong thing -- they just have a lot of cover and finger pointing exercises.
The barriers to entry for whistleblowing are so great and self-selecting for GOOD PEOPLE that I think your point that "automagically" isn't good is moot.
Can you name any bad guy whisteblowers? I only know heroes. There are howwever, a boatload of cowards, nihilists and jackboots with the opinion "let's suspect they are bad until proven otherwise."
That was the same argument justifying the spying in the first place; "If you have nothing to hide, what do you have to fear?"
What about the poor Business that happens to be friends on Facebook with a corrupt Business? Or how about a company that legitimately owns and bribes a politician in the LEGAL way?
Even an honest, unassuming corporation has to fear whistleblowing, because they might lose a parent company -- and who wants to lose a mommy or a daddy? OF course, any honest and unassuming corporation in the USA is likely on the path to bankruptcy since we don't do that "regulate and make things fair" thing anymore. So I'm merely throwing out a hypothetical. No good company will hire Snowden because there is no good company. Nor any Good Scottsman for that matter...
I'm thinking of a round clear sphere of low reflectance material that's clear, and then a mirror that moves inside that. However, I'm sure I'm "under thinking" a solution here.
Likely this will take in-flight ultrasonic reconfiguration of a flight surface, or create a force field that distorts sub-space in order to be visible, but not to create wind shear.
And as long as you are doing that, why mess with these primitive lasers? You have force fields, and you usually have gate technology. Is this Slashdot or Introduction to Space/Time Manipulation 101 class? Did everyone audit that class when they majored in Psych 101 or something?
BTW, anyone have a pair of half Plank-length tweezers? I lost mine with my nano car keys...
The simple solution I would think would be to either coordinate a target laser with a mirror system to bounce the stronger beam from a ground or satellite source onto the target. Well, not that simple.
Better would be carrying a rail gun that turned a pellet into plasma to produce the "beam."
Third would be to use a Stage II tech quantum battery, which should be available at Target and Radio Shack in the year 2045.
Mr. Unimportant from the land of Do Not Disturb.... and that guy is hurt and offended.
*** Kidding aside, I can't imagine anyone in these governments being actually surprised -- what I figure is that the corporations NOT on the "Multinational Stranglehold of Governments" team is the group that is saying; "Hey, maybe we lost those trade negotiations while someone was spying on Al Qaeda, they were really doing corporate espionage."
And then the SHOCK once the American public realizes; wow, our military and intelligence companies don't work for our interests but for global oligarchies called Multinational Corporations. Wake up and smell the imported coffee people!
You are expecting journalists with a passing knowledge of technology to research things before they express opinions?
And why is Apple starting to copy Microsoft on using Locations to name the OS rather than Cats? We haven't run out of cat species have we? I was hoping for Ocelot or something for the next release.
God forbid we get Mac OS Longhorn -- no the animal, not the location!
And if you consider that anything like a light moving away from an object LOOKS like it is moving at 1C, regardless of the speed of the object, the closer the object is moving to the speed of light, the smaller this gap (but the greater the blue shift). So if both the object and the light are moving 1C they compression of the image would approach 0.
However this just seems to be "how things are seen" but not an actual state. The object could become more massive as the particles gain mass, which translates to size when approaching very high speeds.
To the outside observer, it contracts, to the person in the ship moving.5c it expands. To any observer outside the universe and "not entangled" -- nothing expands or contracts and likely they don't even recognize we exist. The expansion or contraction has to be a factor of TIME.
Then there is that issue with particles expanding when you accelerate them,... I have a feeling that has a bit to do with how gravity relates to acceleration.
The problem here is that the ruler actually grows LARGER when you accelerate to.5C -- at least as far at outside observers are concerned. Particles accelerated to nearly the speed of light grow larger. Hence, all the particles in the Ruler object would grow larger.
And yes, TIME does explain the light moving at.5C away from you and the outside observer sees it moving at 1C. But if you point your flashlight behind you, then the light is "stretched" such that it moves away to an outside observer from that point at 1C -- but to your internal point of view?
Light DOES NOT move at.5C whether it is moving in front of you or behind you as you travel at.5C. What happens is that space stretches behind and compresses in front -- but in a complex system it would both stretch and shrink AT THE SAME TIME. So in a linear example -- Relativity is sound. To think of it in multiple vectors, it requires each object to have it's own "system" of relativity -- which the concept of Entanglement being discussed seems to do a better job of resolving for me.
Since you are accelerating to.5C the TIME for you is moving slower for you than it is for people not accelerated. Thus, when you turn on your flash light, you experience it traveling at 1C because you are moving slower (and aging at a lower rate). The outside world sees an object going.5C and a light beam going 1C -- the difference is all equivalent because of the time dilation.
However; what about the light you send behind you, and what about a complex system where objects within Galactic clusters that are moving at a high speed? When you add more vectors to the problem, it's hard to say WHAT acceleration actually is. The "energy" is accounted for because the light going behind you is Doppler shifted to a lower state (called red-shift). But the relative speed is maintained.
For instance; if I'm traveling up a fast river, in a motor boat -- I'm making slow progress versus going down stream relative to the land. But the amount of water rushing past me is the same or MORE when I'm going upstream. While there are quite a few people who don't "get" the basics of relativity, I'm not so sure that even more advanced people in Physics actually get how the model breaks down when you cannot define "acceleration." Because acceleration is relative, relativity is also relative -- but not in a way that is intuitive. Einstein talked of the fabric of space-time stretching but I don't think that actually deals with to objects with different relativistic speeds FROM different relative systems interacting. Space time needs to be curved in different amounts depending on the relativity of the objects within it.
The entanglement phenomena being discussed here I think isn't sufficient to prove time -- only that entanglement may show entropy and non-entanglement may not -- which has huge implications.
It solves the problem for non-rational relativity. Meaning; how can you have different effects based on an objects acceleration if they share the same "space/time" location?
This means that we may not "see" space itself because we are not entangled with it -- it's a solution for "dark matter" -- but really, Dark Matter is fudging with particles so that nobody has to admit that we have an Aether. A concept that Einstein destroyed but has created new phantom particles every year since. Electricity and Light have nearly the same speed under ideal conditions without resistance, so it stands to reason that the medium being "stretched" is the un-entangled observer effect of a medium that is involved in the transmission.
To put this another way; If I'm in a river that is so large I cannot see land, I don't "see" the current I'm in. No matter the direction I go, I expend the same energy, I can only SEE my progress relative to other objects -- and if all of these are on the same massive river, that becomes undefined. However, things "entangled" with the river (in the river itself) can see the affect of driving the boat in different directions.
I've thought for some time that future advances in FTL and quasi fantastic concepts like Force Fields will involve finding a way to entangle and manipulate space.
>> But I still don't see how this discovery necessarily means that Time results from entanglement.
More people are probably wrongfully accused and killed in prison than from "those bogie men we spend trillions on". So yes, unequivocally, I'd say the TSA security is more of a threat in existential and financial ways than what they are designed to prevent.
Do the protect the parking lot? So after we spent reasonable money putting on strong locking doors to cockpits -- got did 99% of the value -- does nobody think that the bad guys can just go for the next bit of low hanging fruit?
What are we actually securing on planes besides easily targeted people? The parking garage, the stadium, the big box shopping store... lot's of people.
For this money we could put up lighting rods every 100 meters across the country, and prevent lightning strikes. We'd save more people if we actually cared about human life. It seems we are just more offended if some alleged foreigner takes it. Poverty, poorly maintained bridges, soap and rubber duckies -- all a greater risk.
You probably would find a good job at the Heritage Foundation.
We had a good friend of our family who was a multi billionaire, and he once showed me his "ATM Card" out of some offshore tax haven. Basically, he could buy stuff but never actually OWNED stuff. I'm sure Mitt Romney has the same kind of card. He's made over 1000% on his 401K because his private leveraged buyout company pays all it's profits into that. Then there are all these "profits" that show up on Wall Street but they have a different set of books for the IRS (that's legal BTW). So where are all these record profits?
Your model of "historical wealth" pre-supposes that the wealthy haven't advanced ways to hide assets. I would not be surprised if some of the wealthiest people in this country are not even on the radar. They realize profits offshore and their transactions are not in their name.
The stats you are using to analyze things are based on old assumptions and not the global electronic economy we have today. A lot of brain power is spent on ways to cheat.
So the actual argument is, how much is too much tax 15%, 12%, they pay nothing and we give them a t-shirt? You start at 70% in your example -- that probably is good enough. People making the equivalent of $9 Million a year paid 90% AFTER they hit that high level -- and all those deductions probably didn't lower it to the "15%" we have now.
This idea is that all tax is passed on -- brilliant, then no tax then? The wealthy are far from a punching bag. But when you've got the fate of 150 million people versus 4 WalMart kids -- we lose that many people accidentally on the freeway each day. Are you saying the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many... because they said so?
If the wealthy want to be deadbeats -- fine, let them go and take their toys. We'll raise tariffs. We've been catering to multinationals for far too long and having each state to compete to see who can low ball each other to win their favors means we've got a lot of companies getting free stuff, and a few politicians with really great 0 interest loans and discounts on car purchases, but really nothing to show for the effort in the grand scheme of things.
I was actually thinking about the lawsuits from Booth Babes getting probed by remove devices chanting; "Johnny Five is alive!"
The other thing is that I can imagine someone named "God Mode" is going to use a remote robot to hack a terminal that breaks into a laptop on the show "The Big Bang Theory" and uses that laptop to hack another drone. After that point, nobody is going to know who buzzed the tower at JFK airport.
Slashdot Mirror
And pardon me, but considering how pervasive it is, how deeply it's integrated into our lives, and how little protection there is for all of it... an international, clandestine spy program is far better, at least from a human rights standpoint.
It's so pervasive that we have someone on a website for geeks defending the practice as "it's OK if it is Opt in".
Can anyone actually be competitive in the marketplace without harnessing themselves to some datamining service or another? Anyone besides Ted Kazinski?
Do you really not see a difference between an experimental, opt-in location system and an international, clandestine spy program?
Yes, the first one you mentioned is "cake and doom" and the 2nd one is "no cake, just doom."
Actually you bring up a point that is the major flaw in this GOTCHA system; you aren't really trying to hack a random series of characters, you are hacking the "most likely" responses from people who see the images.
So if some enterprising criminal is looking at the system, they try and get a database or a survey of "most common responses" -- so you might find about 24 most frequent responses like "bat". The system for practical reasons, won't be too tight on how it accepts descriptions, as a user isn't going to always describe something the same way. So dog, wolf and puppy might be linked as "same response."
So given a series of 10 images, just hacking the responses by going with "common answers to blobby images" in a dictionary style attack on the back end of the system rather than the front end may be orders of magnitude easier a task than current passwords of 10 characters.
I'm back from using the GOTCHA system and I can tell you that it's easy to remember and use;
Naked Lady, gazoongas, two naked ladies, more gazoongas, someone stabbing mommy, mommy gazoongas, more stabbing, a side-boob.
Someone else might call those six circle blobs and two triangles, but I'll remember! Now even though this system might not work for everyone, it will help identify people who don't like their mommies!
the Sapphire glass should go out and give them a few free Canopies. That's the same outfit that is building a facility for Apple in Arizona to produce iPhone and iPad "glass" faces. Of course,it's kind of cool that it's an actual artificial gem!!!
Next, some company could "Bedazzle" the jet aircraft, seeing as how it's . I see a "Bratz Girlz tie-in" as well. If allowing private companies to advertise to kids in our schools to subsidize things is OK ... whatever is good for the goose is good for the gander at 800 mph.
I'd say that if we allow for the punishment of people for thought crimes based on their romantic intentions with a virtual girl, wouldn't it also be appropriate to arrest the investigators for pimping a virtual girl?
I know it's offensive to think about nasty old men taking advantage of little girls -- and I want a world where that doesn't happen. Why not just allow for virtual girls to fill the demand and no real person need be abused?
I don't want an internet full of "honey pots" where one wrong click leads people to commit a crime -- without real damages to real people. It's damage I'm worried about, not intent nor thoughts.
My first thought when hearing about Brazil spying is that some "pro Brazil" patriot would tell some citizen that "at least we don't spy AS MUCH as the NSA does on the USA."
Because Patriots in the USA compare us to China.
Are the Chinese patriots going to say all is well because of Brazil, or do they just scrape the bottom of the barrel to say "we are better than North Korea."
America with justice, liberty and freedom for all!*
*NOTE: all results graded on a curve.
You mean the thing they've been trying to destroy they honestly wanted to work? They were just looking out for Obama's best interests?
You do understand that implementing it NOW is getting the website in working order and the delay would have pushed the non-working website issue down the line? A very complex system that didn't go right is a separate issue -- and since Republicans and Tea Party members have not created anything in recent memory, I'm wondering why they think anyone believes that they pretended to care when not blasting a program as the rot of Hell.
To tell the truth is not a crime.
Yes, it is. You may have some moral justification, but it can still be a crime. In the US, telling the truth about intelligence techniques to real and potential enemies is a crime, even if you also tell the public. Snowden broke the law, and is now a criminal evading law enforcement, but he satisfied his own conscience.
Why is it that truth about a crime is a bigger crime than the original crime itself?
I wouldn't know for sure, but I suspect there are a lot of ID10-t errors of judgement and backbone in this country. This is a non-partisan "do you understand that transparency is required for a Democracy to function?" moment. It's really galling in that we've got countless examples of how an informed public responds well and delivers more bad guys than cover surveillance, and we've got numerous examples of intelligence failures DESPITE collecting everything along with the kitchen sync. Looking at everything, no matter how useless the information is a huge distraction.
These NSA fans and the people they support read too many spy novels and think that treating all humans as if they had rights with dignity and respect is a suspicious activity.
Even though the analogy is backwards, it highlights that the CEO of any company cannot contribute the lions share of work.
Is the job 1000 times more difficult than what the average worker does? Are they moving 1000 times faster? The delusion that says that some sort of fairness mechanism crept into a board meeting where executives decide compensation for other executives and for the average worker flies in the face of reality.
"Fairness" might be workers voting on the compensation of their leaders as the leaders decide what the workers get paid. Until that happens -- Government or Stockholder intervention is the only mechanism to provide checks and balances.
THIS a thousand times.
IF the internet had a "punch in face" button, I'd be pressing it a few times for the next person who tries to debate torture, spying and why we shouldn't be pushing green tech yesterday. There's debatable points, but some things aren't up for debate.
The NSA is doing the wrong thing, and it isn't even after bad guys -- it's clear they were on the path of control and a lot of their data was going to be used for Corporate Espionage. Stop pretending that the CIA and these other three-letter companies haven't gone well past their original purpose and into the deep end. The number of people doing the wrong thing doesn't justify doing the wrong thing -- they just have a lot of cover and finger pointing exercises.
The barriers to entry for whistleblowing are so great and self-selecting for GOOD PEOPLE that I think your point that "automagically" isn't good is moot.
Can you name any bad guy whisteblowers? I only know heroes. There are howwever, a boatload of cowards, nihilists and jackboots with the opinion "let's suspect they are bad until proven otherwise."
That was the same argument justifying the spying in the first place; "If you have nothing to hide, what do you have to fear?"
What about the poor Business that happens to be friends on Facebook with a corrupt Business? Or how about a company that legitimately owns and bribes a politician in the LEGAL way?
Even an honest, unassuming corporation has to fear whistleblowing, because they might lose a parent company -- and who wants to lose a mommy or a daddy? OF course, any honest and unassuming corporation in the USA is likely on the path to bankruptcy since we don't do that "regulate and make things fair" thing anymore. So I'm merely throwing out a hypothetical. No good company will hire Snowden because there is no good company. Nor any Good Scottsman for that matter...
I'm thinking of a round clear sphere of low reflectance material that's clear, and then a mirror that moves inside that. However, I'm sure I'm "under thinking" a solution here.
Likely this will take in-flight ultrasonic reconfiguration of a flight surface, or create a force field that distorts sub-space in order to be visible, but not to create wind shear.
And as long as you are doing that, why mess with these primitive lasers? You have force fields, and you usually have gate technology. Is this Slashdot or Introduction to Space/Time Manipulation 101 class? Did everyone audit that class when they majored in Psych 101 or something?
BTW, anyone have a pair of half Plank-length tweezers? I lost mine with my nano car keys...
The simple solution I would think would be to either coordinate a target laser with a mirror system to bounce the stronger beam from a ground or satellite source onto the target. Well, not that simple.
Better would be carrying a rail gun that turned a pellet into plasma to produce the "beam."
Third would be to use a Stage II tech quantum battery, which should be available at Target and Radio Shack in the year 2045.
Mr. Unimportant from the land of Do Not Disturb. ... and that guy is hurt and offended.
***
Kidding aside, I can't imagine anyone in these governments being actually surprised -- what I figure is that the corporations NOT on the "Multinational Stranglehold of Governments" team is the group that is saying; "Hey, maybe we lost those trade negotiations while someone was spying on Al Qaeda, they were really doing corporate espionage."
And then the SHOCK once the American public realizes; wow, our military and intelligence companies don't work for our interests but for global oligarchies called Multinational Corporations. Wake up and smell the imported coffee people!
You are expecting journalists with a passing knowledge of technology to research things before they express opinions?
And why is Apple starting to copy Microsoft on using Locations to name the OS rather than Cats? We haven't run out of cat species have we? I was hoping for Ocelot or something for the next release.
God forbid we get Mac OS Longhorn -- no the animal, not the location!
And if you consider that anything like a light moving away from an object LOOKS like it is moving at 1C, regardless of the speed of the object, the closer the object is moving to the speed of light, the smaller this gap (but the greater the blue shift). So if both the object and the light are moving 1C they compression of the image would approach 0.
However this just seems to be "how things are seen" but not an actual state. The object could become more massive as the particles gain mass, which translates to size when approaching very high speeds.
To the outside observer, it contracts, to the person in the ship moving .5c it expands. To any observer outside the universe and "not entangled" -- nothing expands or contracts and likely they don't even recognize we exist. The expansion or contraction has to be a factor of TIME.
Then there is that issue with particles expanding when you accelerate them,... I have a feeling that has a bit to do with how gravity relates to acceleration.
The problem here is that the ruler actually grows LARGER when you accelerate to .5C -- at least as far at outside observers are concerned. Particles accelerated to nearly the speed of light grow larger. Hence, all the particles in the Ruler object would grow larger.
And yes, TIME does explain the light moving at .5C away from you and the outside observer sees it moving at 1C. But if you point your flashlight behind you, then the light is "stretched" such that it moves away to an outside observer from that point at 1C -- but to your internal point of view?
Light DOES NOT move at .5C whether it is moving in front of you or behind you as you travel at .5C. What happens is that space stretches behind and compresses in front -- but in a complex system it would both stretch and shrink AT THE SAME TIME. So in a linear example -- Relativity is sound. To think of it in multiple vectors, it requires each object to have it's own "system" of relativity -- which the concept of Entanglement being discussed seems to do a better job of resolving for me.
Since you are accelerating to .5C the TIME for you is moving slower for you than it is for people not accelerated. .5C and a light beam going 1C -- the difference is all equivalent because of the time dilation.
Thus, when you turn on your flash light, you experience it traveling at 1C because you are moving slower (and aging at a lower rate). The outside world sees an object going
However; what about the light you send behind you, and what about a complex system where objects within Galactic clusters that are moving at a high speed? When you add more vectors to the problem, it's hard to say WHAT acceleration actually is. The "energy" is accounted for because the light going behind you is Doppler shifted to a lower state (called red-shift). But the relative speed is maintained.
For instance; if I'm traveling up a fast river, in a motor boat -- I'm making slow progress versus going down stream relative to the land. But the amount of water rushing past me is the same or MORE when I'm going upstream. While there are quite a few people who don't "get" the basics of relativity, I'm not so sure that even more advanced people in Physics actually get how the model breaks down when you cannot define "acceleration." Because acceleration is relative, relativity is also relative -- but not in a way that is intuitive. Einstein talked of the fabric of space-time stretching but I don't think that actually deals with to objects with different relativistic speeds FROM different relative systems interacting. Space time needs to be curved in different amounts depending on the relativity of the objects within it.
The entanglement phenomena being discussed here I think isn't sufficient to prove time -- only that entanglement may show entropy and non-entanglement may not -- which has huge implications.
It solves the problem for non-rational relativity. Meaning; how can you have different effects based on an objects acceleration if they share the same "space/time" location?
This means that we may not "see" space itself because we are not entangled with it -- it's a solution for "dark matter" -- but really, Dark Matter is fudging with particles so that nobody has to admit that we have an Aether. A concept that Einstein destroyed but has created new phantom particles every year since. Electricity and Light have nearly the same speed under ideal conditions without resistance, so it stands to reason that the medium being "stretched" is the un-entangled observer effect of a medium that is involved in the transmission.
To put this another way; If I'm in a river that is so large I cannot see land, I don't "see" the current I'm in. No matter the direction I go, I expend the same energy, I can only SEE my progress relative to other objects -- and if all of these are on the same massive river, that becomes undefined. However, things "entangled" with the river (in the river itself) can see the affect of driving the boat in different directions.
I've thought for some time that future advances in FTL and quasi fantastic concepts like Force Fields will involve finding a way to entangle and manipulate space.
>> But I still don't see how this discovery necessarily means that Time results from entanglement.
More people are probably wrongfully accused and killed in prison than from "those bogie men we spend trillions on". So yes, unequivocally, I'd say the TSA security is more of a threat in existential and financial ways than what they are designed to prevent.
Do the protect the parking lot? So after we spent reasonable money putting on strong locking doors to cockpits -- got did 99% of the value -- does nobody think that the bad guys can just go for the next bit of low hanging fruit?
What are we actually securing on planes besides easily targeted people? The parking garage, the stadium, the big box shopping store... lot's of people.
For this money we could put up lighting rods every 100 meters across the country, and prevent lightning strikes. We'd save more people if we actually cared about human life. It seems we are just more offended if some alleged foreigner takes it. Poverty, poorly maintained bridges, soap and rubber duckies -- all a greater risk.
You probably would find a good job at the Heritage Foundation.
We had a good friend of our family who was a multi billionaire, and he once showed me his "ATM Card" out of some offshore tax haven. Basically, he could buy stuff but never actually OWNED stuff. I'm sure Mitt Romney has the same kind of card. He's made over 1000% on his 401K because his private leveraged buyout company pays all it's profits into that. Then there are all these "profits" that show up on Wall Street but they have a different set of books for the IRS (that's legal BTW). So where are all these record profits?
Your model of "historical wealth" pre-supposes that the wealthy haven't advanced ways to hide assets. I would not be surprised if some of the wealthiest people in this country are not even on the radar. They realize profits offshore and their transactions are not in their name.
The stats you are using to analyze things are based on old assumptions and not the global electronic economy we have today. A lot of brain power is spent on ways to cheat.
So the actual argument is, how much is too much tax 15%, 12%, they pay nothing and we give them a t-shirt? You start at 70% in your example -- that probably is good enough. People making the equivalent of $9 Million a year paid 90% AFTER they hit that high level -- and all those deductions probably didn't lower it to the "15%" we have now.
This idea is that all tax is passed on -- brilliant, then no tax then? The wealthy are far from a punching bag. But when you've got the fate of 150 million people versus 4 WalMart kids -- we lose that many people accidentally on the freeway each day. Are you saying the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many ... because they said so?
If the wealthy want to be deadbeats -- fine, let them go and take their toys. We'll raise tariffs. We've been catering to multinationals for far too long and having each state to compete to see who can low ball each other to win their favors means we've got a lot of companies getting free stuff, and a few politicians with really great 0 interest loans and discounts on car purchases, but really nothing to show for the effort in the grand scheme of things.
I was actually thinking about the lawsuits from Booth Babes getting probed by remove devices chanting; "Johnny Five is alive!"
The other thing is that I can imagine someone named "God Mode" is going to use a remote robot to hack a terminal that breaks into a laptop on the show "The Big Bang Theory" and uses that laptop to hack another drone. After that point, nobody is going to know who buzzed the tower at JFK airport.