Suspects are not routinely thrown into jail, and a detective is not going to have more than a limited number of hot suspects. If the police track down someone on DNA evidence, they aren't going to just increase the suspect pool. The DNA evidence is neutral in that regard.
There's plenty of ways people on probation can get associated with a crime. It may not be a solved problem, but it's not a new one.
Companies will make their records available to law enforcement. Some will require a warrant.
This sort of genetic analysis is probably not enough to pass sentence on someone (and I hope it's not, since there are false positives). The prosecution will have to put together a case that will involve other evidence. I'd assume this is enough to get a search warrant.
So far, I haven't seen anything in this that's worth me worrying about, in comparison to other threats to privacy.
If I go somewhere and leave DNA, I can also be visually spotted. If someone is tracking me, they can use either or both methods. If nobody is tracking me, my DNA is going to go away pretty soon. Somebody will throw away the napkin or wash the flatware. I'm going to leave a more lasting trail from people seeing me or security camera footage.
If I'm asking for a loan from the bank, they're going to want assurance that I'm me, They're going to look at documents, not DNA. If they care where I've been, as I said, they're going to find it easier to get from eyewitnesses than DNA.
They can search my trash for my DNA, but only if they're actually suspicious of me.
There are serious threats to privacy in the modern world. I don't see that this is one of them.
Here it is:
1. Democrats control House in 2018 elections, so Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker in 2019. Democrats also get control of the Senate (much harder).
2. Trump and Pence are taken down by investigations somehow - resign, get convicted, whatever, without being able to nominate a new VP (or having the nominee stonewalled by the Democrat-controlled Senate).
3. President Pelosi nominates Hillary Clinton for VP, is confirmed by Senate.
4. Pelosi has a health issue or steps down or something.
5. Clinton becomes President.
6. ???
7. Profit!
Democrat control of the House is very likely, but the other necessities are a lot iffier. However, that gets her to be President without a coup.
Except that shareholders in large corporations tend to be other large corporations, executives and board members in large corporations, and mutual funds, all of which are likely to rubberstamp board recommendations.
It also has nothing to do with Tesla's future profitability. Right now, the stock is way overpriced. It's almost certain to go down a lot sometime. That doesn't mean it's a bad investment, it means it's a bad investment at the price it is now.
For a short investment in a growth company, the P/E ratio is even less relevant. You're buying and selling based partly on what the market expects the P/E ratio to get to when the company matures, not what it is.
It's a relatively good problem to have, particularly when it's fixable. Being able to produce maybe a third of the cars they can sell beats being able to sell maybe a third of the cars they produce.
Biology is a science. Mathematics isn't. A science is something where we find objective evidence of things, make theories, make tests and observations to try to falsify the theories, and repeat. Mathematics is something where we start with basic assumptions and make deductions from them. It's very useful as an assist in science, but it isn't science.
Physics doesn't have first principles. It has assumptions and theories. A little over a century ago, space and time were first principles. We now know there is no such thing; they're ways of looking at spacetime. Causality was a first principle. That doesn't turn out to be true on the quantum level.
Suppose we'd had incredibly powerful computers in 1900, and we programmed them to find physical laws. We wouldn't have relativity. We wouldn't have quantum mechanics. We know far more now, and physicists are still insisting on experiments, because we don't know enough.
Physics is far simpler than biology. We know a lot less about the fundamental principles of life, if they exist, than the fundamental principles of physics.
In short, the reason why biologists run experiments is that they have to, in order to learn new things..
While I can intellectually understand the argument that the people who voted for Trump got what they deserved, I don't see that those of us who didn't got what we deserved.
Humans have already mastered the art of keeping other humans in extreme distress for a long time. Heck, I've heard accounts from people who had large third-degree burns, and that sounds less comfortable than most torture devices.
It doesn't really matter, but Unit 731 "logs" were mostly Chinese. There are some differences, though.
We routinely kill pigs. My last ham and cheese omelette tasted fine, and I rather suspect it involved an untimely demise for a pig. We don't routinely kill humans, and generally don't eat them afterwards.
Also, neither the Nazis nor Unit 731 cared a bit about how the subjects felt. (One Unit 731 role was to let Japanese doctors practice battlefield operations, like say amputating a limb, and they thought anesthetic would be a waste of resources.) Modern animal experiments have ethical constraints on them.
Let's assume we're measuring electron spin, just to be specific. You can measure electron spin around any axis you like. If you have entangled electrons, you don't have to measure them with the same axis. However, you've just determined the spin.
Take a spin-measuring device and sort electrons into an up stream and a down stream. Now, take the up stream and sort it left-right. Now, sort the left stream and you'll find it's half up and half down.
Now, if you could read the up-down spin and the left-right spin independently, and with all other orientations, you could find the exact spin axis of an electron - except we know it doesn't have one. We can take entangled electrons, and measure their spins with respect to axes 45 degrees apart, and find the number of same and opposite results. Statistically, we'd get a certain ratio if electrons had an actual spin, and we don't get that.
Also, there's no "the spin". If an electron had a certain given spin, and we were just limited in how we could measure it, we'd get significantly different results sending entangled particles through spin measuring devices oriented 45 degrees apart.
Determining the polarization of one particle gives you information about what the guy with the other particle is likely to find. It doesn't change what the other guy is likely to find.
The answers to your two questions are "no" and "no", according to quantum mechanics. If you set one property, you change the property and break entanglement. If you measure one property, you change it. Assume you have an electron scheme, and you divide the stream into electrons with up and down spin. Now, take one of those streams, with uniform vertical spin, and measure their left-and-right spin. Take one of those streams and measure up and down spin, and it'll be 50-50. People have done this sort of experiment. It's not that difficult.
I mean, it's conceivable that there could be some such effect, but it completely disagrees with everything we know about quantum entanglement. It would be entirely new and unsuspected science.
Slashdot Mirror
Suspects are not routinely thrown into jail, and a detective is not going to have more than a limited number of hot suspects. If the police track down someone on DNA evidence, they aren't going to just increase the suspect pool. The DNA evidence is neutral in that regard.
There's plenty of ways people on probation can get associated with a crime. It may not be a solved problem, but it's not a new one.
Companies will make their records available to law enforcement. Some will require a warrant.
This sort of genetic analysis is probably not enough to pass sentence on someone (and I hope it's not, since there are false positives). The prosecution will have to put together a case that will involve other evidence. I'd assume this is enough to get a search warrant.
So far, I haven't seen anything in this that's worth me worrying about, in comparison to other threats to privacy.
If I go somewhere and leave DNA, I can also be visually spotted. If someone is tracking me, they can use either or both methods. If nobody is tracking me, my DNA is going to go away pretty soon. Somebody will throw away the napkin or wash the flatware. I'm going to leave a more lasting trail from people seeing me or security camera footage.
If I'm asking for a loan from the bank, they're going to want assurance that I'm me, They're going to look at documents, not DNA. If they care where I've been, as I said, they're going to find it easier to get from eyewitnesses than DNA.
They can search my trash for my DNA, but only if they're actually suspicious of me.
There are serious threats to privacy in the modern world. I don't see that this is one of them.
Here it is:
1. Democrats control House in 2018 elections, so Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker in 2019. Democrats also get control of the Senate (much harder).
2. Trump and Pence are taken down by investigations somehow - resign, get convicted, whatever, without being able to nominate a new VP (or having the nominee stonewalled by the Democrat-controlled Senate).
3. President Pelosi nominates Hillary Clinton for VP, is confirmed by Senate.
4. Pelosi has a health issue or steps down or something.
5. Clinton becomes President.
6. ???
7. Profit!
Democrat control of the House is very likely, but the other necessities are a lot iffier. However, that gets her to be President without a coup.
Except that shareholders in large corporations tend to be other large corporations, executives and board members in large corporations, and mutual funds, all of which are likely to rubberstamp board recommendations.
So you'd be perfectly happy having the option of buying precisely one type of car or none at all? One type of TV? One type of table?
None of these are necessities, so if you'd rather have a choice of, say, backyard grills, it does matter.
It also has nothing to do with Tesla's future profitability. Right now, the stock is way overpriced. It's almost certain to go down a lot sometime. That doesn't mean it's a bad investment, it means it's a bad investment at the price it is now.
For a short investment in a growth company, the P/E ratio is even less relevant. You're buying and selling based partly on what the market expects the P/E ratio to get to when the company matures, not what it is.
It's a relatively good problem to have, particularly when it's fixable. Being able to produce maybe a third of the cars they can sell beats being able to sell maybe a third of the cars they produce.
And, fortunately, cars never go off the road into a ditch.
Biology is a science. Mathematics isn't. A science is something where we find objective evidence of things, make theories, make tests and observations to try to falsify the theories, and repeat. Mathematics is something where we start with basic assumptions and make deductions from them. It's very useful as an assist in science, but it isn't science.
Physics doesn't have first principles. It has assumptions and theories. A little over a century ago, space and time were first principles. We now know there is no such thing; they're ways of looking at spacetime. Causality was a first principle. That doesn't turn out to be true on the quantum level.
Suppose we'd had incredibly powerful computers in 1900, and we programmed them to find physical laws. We wouldn't have relativity. We wouldn't have quantum mechanics. We know far more now, and physicists are still insisting on experiments, because we don't know enough.
Physics is far simpler than biology. We know a lot less about the fundamental principles of life, if they exist, than the fundamental principles of physics.
In short, the reason why biologists run experiments is that they have to, in order to learn new things..
Brains are, in fact, biological, and it isn't clear to me that they'd be immortal if properly taken care of outside the body.
While I can intellectually understand the argument that the people who voted for Trump got what they deserved, I don't see that those of us who didn't got what we deserved.
Humans have already mastered the art of keeping other humans in extreme distress for a long time. Heck, I've heard accounts from people who had large third-degree burns, and that sounds less comfortable than most torture devices.
Is the pig brain conscious? I got the impression that the researchers were preventing that, and were verifying with the brain waves.
Feel free to look through my posting history. You'll notice that I'm not, in fact, right-wing. I find the Democrats as a party to be too right-wing.
Veganism as a moral stance is stupid. That said, I really don't care in general what other people do to themselves, so I'm not upset with them.
Not to mention their pets. The only way to get healthy cats on a vegan diet is to use all parts of the vegan.
It doesn't really matter, but Unit 731 "logs" were mostly Chinese. There are some differences, though.
We routinely kill pigs. My last ham and cheese omelette tasted fine, and I rather suspect it involved an untimely demise for a pig. We don't routinely kill humans, and generally don't eat them afterwards.
Also, neither the Nazis nor Unit 731 cared a bit about how the subjects felt. (One Unit 731 role was to let Japanese doctors practice battlefield operations, like say amputating a limb, and they thought anesthetic would be a waste of resources.) Modern animal experiments have ethical constraints on them.
Yup. A scientist can come up with a momentous result that's not what the scientist expected or wanted.
There are no local hidden variables. There may be global hidden variables, but most physicists don't think so.
Let's assume we're measuring electron spin, just to be specific. You can measure electron spin around any axis you like. If you have entangled electrons, you don't have to measure them with the same axis. However, you've just determined the spin.
Take a spin-measuring device and sort electrons into an up stream and a down stream. Now, take the up stream and sort it left-right. Now, sort the left stream and you'll find it's half up and half down.
Now, if you could read the up-down spin and the left-right spin independently, and with all other orientations, you could find the exact spin axis of an electron - except we know it doesn't have one. We can take entangled electrons, and measure their spins with respect to axes 45 degrees apart, and find the number of same and opposite results. Statistically, we'd get a certain ratio if electrons had an actual spin, and we don't get that.
Also, there's no "the spin". If an electron had a certain given spin, and we were just limited in how we could measure it, we'd get significantly different results sending entangled particles through spin measuring devices oriented 45 degrees apart.
Determining the polarization of one particle gives you information about what the guy with the other particle is likely to find. It doesn't change what the other guy is likely to find.
In fact, "incorrect" is 77% "correct"!
The answers to your two questions are "no" and "no", according to quantum mechanics. If you set one property, you change the property and break entanglement. If you measure one property, you change it. Assume you have an electron scheme, and you divide the stream into electrons with up and down spin. Now, take one of those streams, with uniform vertical spin, and measure their left-and-right spin. Take one of those streams and measure up and down spin, and it'll be 50-50. People have done this sort of experiment. It's not that difficult.
I mean, it's conceivable that there could be some such effect, but it completely disagrees with everything we know about quantum entanglement. It would be entirely new and unsuspected science.