Quantum entanglement is science. It's statistically falsifiable. Do the same experiment a bunch of times and keep track of the results.
For example, send two entangled particles out, and do the exact same measurement on both of them, and you get opposite results. There's no way to set that up normally. If you have two electrons, one measured with spin up and one measured with spin down, that are not entangled, measuring them for left-right spin will mean they're the same half the time and opposite half the time. If you measure one up-down and the other in an axis 45 degrees off, you'll get a certain number of same and a certain number of different matches, and this turns out to be very enlightening.
You're not going to prove anything with one entangled particle pair. You need lots of them.
Quantum teleportation of information works, and it's worthwhile trying to find out exactly how it works. That it works on a macroscopic scale (on a criterion like "can be seen by visible light") is interesting but expected. Quantum computers work, but right now we can't make them with enough qubits to do much that's interesting. People are trying to figure out how to make them bigger. Cold fusion does not appear to happen.
That's how science works. Somebody comes up with a theory, and other people make deductions from the theory and test them, typically hoping that they'll break the theory because that's more fun and gets a better reputation.
EPR doesn't allow instantaneous communication. If you measure your particle, you know (to a certain extent, depending on how the other guy measures) the other guy's particle measurement. One way to model a very small part of this is to think of two envelopes, one with a red card and one with a black. If you open your envelope and it's red, you know the other guy has the black card.
This being quantum mechanics, there's a lot more than that going on. The orientation of the envelope when you open it can change the color of the card inside, for example. If you open yours rightside up and find a red card, and you know the other guy is opening his upside down, you know he's got a red card. If you open yours rightside up and the other guy opens at a 45-degree angle, then you'll get more different-colored than same-colored cards. If you do the two-envelope thing a lot, you'll find that the stats get weird.
We know that there is no local determinism, from Bell's Theorem and subsequent experiments. Those sorts of theories are hidden-variable theories. It's possible that everything's determinate on a global scale, but that goes a bit too far for most physicists. If particles were multidmensional things that have apparently random behavior when projected into our spacetime, the multidimensional things themselves aren't deterministic.
There is no known way to use any of this for FTL communication, and good reasons to think it probably impossible. In addition, FTL and "retroactive" are the same thing, assuming that Special Relativity holds.
There are two things in TFS. One is that a company is raising the price on a service. Another is that one individual person doesn't consider the increased price worth it. In what way is this significant?
I'm assuming an unsecured access point, but it could conceivably have gone through the TV, which does have the password. I don't know if that's even possible, but I don't know it's impossible.
As I understand it, FISA judges are actual judges that are appointed in a nonpartisan process that doesn't involve the executive branch. It's not possible to completely insulate it from politics, but there is an effort made.
There are distinctions here. If there's probable cause, that's enough to issue a warrant, but it's going to require more than that to file criminal charges.
You don't know what the evidence was. We know the Steele dossier was part of it. Typically, as I understand it, these warrants are not issued with just one source of information, so there was something besides that dossier. The Nunes memo was carefully crafted to avoid actually saying there was anything wrong or improper, and the Democratic response lacked details (which is more appropriate in this case).
Law enforcement agencies deal with biased information all the time. Biased information can contain facts that can be important. As long as it's presented to the judge as biased, there's no problem. Steele did his research to find dirt on the Republicans. This happens. If there's legitimate (as opposed to fictional) dirt there, it can be acted on. For all I know, the dossier contained the truth and nothing but the truth, but it was clearly not going to be the whole truth.
Your question about sailing through the FISA court is pertinent. If the FISA judge didn't find the request objectionable, that's evidence that it wasn't, and that you are proceeding from incomplete information.
And, again, you're using "government" in the US sense. You might as well claim that cars don't have boots on their wheels, so speaking of a boot of a car is senseless. If you get to redefine words to be other than what the speaker meant, you can create contradictions, sure.
Anyone who makes decisions about care (or anything else) has to make decisions about whose opinions to listen to. I don't see how to do it any other way. This is not about money (even less about dollars), but rather what care is appropriate. The people who worry about the money (the executive branch) and the people who made the decision (the judicial) aren't that closely tied together. This was not a criminal case that requires a jury for due process. Not all cases in US courts require juries.
Revoking citizenship isn't a matter of whim. There are protections. This FindLaw article describes the process. It is carried out in federal court, with due process, and is not a decision of the executive branch. (It also applies only to naturalized citizens; there is no legal way I can be deprived of US citizenship.) Citizens do actually not have much more in the way of Constitutional rights than non-citizens.
Do you have any cases of drone strikes being applied in US territory? Or cases of drone strikes as retribution that are not aimed at legitimate military targets? If not, I'll have to conclude you're being paranoid.
In what way does that matter? A government is more oppressive or less oppressive. The exact reasons are important only in that some are more durable than others. A democratic government is not likely to become too oppressive, no matter what. The people running it will lose too many votes.
Everybody expects something back from society. Many people are vindictive when seeing someone get something back from society, most notably, currently, the right wing. The social score thing could be a product of either wing, regardless of the exact wording used by one person.
Sad to say, there were relatives of mine who didn't know who I.P. Daley was when he sent out an email about a family event. I knew immediately who it was.
If you call the police saying that your neighbor was involved in a drug ring with 12 other people in 14 other locations, and keeps talking about it, they'll ask you why you think that. If you go into a discussion about a symbol being displayed and oddities in emails, you're going to get brushed off, since the police have more to do than they can manage anyway.
GP didn't actually refer to the whole thing being wrong. GP referred to their being a complete lack of evidence, which was correct.
The story was in the armed response to the idea of a child smuggling ring in the basement., not in the weird allegations.
Or we could deduct points for stupidity and ignorance.
Politics and being head of a large organization is always a bit dicey. It's often better to keep one's politics private. Eich would have been seriously hampered as Mozilla's CEO because of his action.
You can get thrown out of a bar for not wearing a MAGA hat, as wearing hats is not a protected class anywhere I know. Go find another bar.
Fortunately, "public enemy #1" doesn't actually come with any penalties, other than having ticked off some people.
You're not a hateful bigot for thinking marriage should be between a man and a woman. You can become a hateful bigot based on pretty much any belief. There's a strong tendency on the political extremes to be assholes to people with other views, and to confuse holding views with being vicious and positively hateful. For example, there's a tendency currently on the right wing to behave obnoxiously and claim they're being punished for their views. See James Damore as an example (and read the findings of the labor relations board).
Nobody's going to call you a denier for not believing in climate change. You become a denier when you absolutely believe in no climate change and get sufficiently vocal and insistent on it.
Nobody gets a six-figure fine for not baking a cake. The bakery you're thinking of got it mostly for the internet harassment campaign they started. Read the legal finding of facts, which is the best source for finding why there was that six-figure award.
Startup founders work really hard. Some of them make a lot of money. Depending on how much money you think is "a lot", working hard in a company to become a high executive works for some.
Of course, none of this is nearly as effective as having the right parents.
Benevolent dictatorships are always tempting, along with extralegal ways to deal with people for the good of society. My problems with benevolent dictatorship as a system of government are, (a) who decides what's benevolent? (b) how do we select the benevolent dictator, (c) how do we insure that the dictator remains benevolent, and (d) how do we get any progress in a population that just accepts dictatorial rule?
It would collapse the US economy. According to Wikipedia, 55% of the US national debt is held by us. It would also mean that we could no longer borrow money at reasonable rates.
Let's get this right. Apologize in a way that other people think sincere, or go to bed without dinner. TFS said that the apology was not accepted. I don't know how you'd fake enough sincerity to avoid the consequences.
That isn't thought crime. There's no antisocial score that gets boosted by littering. It's horribly unjust and unproductive, but it's a crime based on actual things that are done, not opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
Quantum entanglement is science. It's statistically falsifiable. Do the same experiment a bunch of times and keep track of the results.
For example, send two entangled particles out, and do the exact same measurement on both of them, and you get opposite results. There's no way to set that up normally. If you have two electrons, one measured with spin up and one measured with spin down, that are not entangled, measuring them for left-right spin will mean they're the same half the time and opposite half the time. If you measure one up-down and the other in an axis 45 degrees off, you'll get a certain number of same and a certain number of different matches, and this turns out to be very enlightening.
You're not going to prove anything with one entangled particle pair. You need lots of them.
Quantum teleportation of information works, and it's worthwhile trying to find out exactly how it works. That it works on a macroscopic scale (on a criterion like "can be seen by visible light") is interesting but expected. Quantum computers work, but right now we can't make them with enough qubits to do much that's interesting. People are trying to figure out how to make them bigger. Cold fusion does not appear to happen.
That's how science works. Somebody comes up with a theory, and other people make deductions from the theory and test them, typically hoping that they'll break the theory because that's more fun and gets a better reputation.
EPR doesn't allow instantaneous communication. If you measure your particle, you know (to a certain extent, depending on how the other guy measures) the other guy's particle measurement. One way to model a very small part of this is to think of two envelopes, one with a red card and one with a black. If you open your envelope and it's red, you know the other guy has the black card.
This being quantum mechanics, there's a lot more than that going on. The orientation of the envelope when you open it can change the color of the card inside, for example. If you open yours rightside up and find a red card, and you know the other guy is opening his upside down, you know he's got a red card. If you open yours rightside up and the other guy opens at a 45-degree angle, then you'll get more different-colored than same-colored cards. If you do the two-envelope thing a lot, you'll find that the stats get weird.
I'm not an expert, but I won't let that stop me.
We know that there is no local determinism, from Bell's Theorem and subsequent experiments. Those sorts of theories are hidden-variable theories. It's possible that everything's determinate on a global scale, but that goes a bit too far for most physicists. If particles were multidmensional things that have apparently random behavior when projected into our spacetime, the multidimensional things themselves aren't deterministic.
There is no known way to use any of this for FTL communication, and good reasons to think it probably impossible. In addition, FTL and "retroactive" are the same thing, assuming that Special Relativity holds.
A silicon atom is about a quarter of a nanometer across. Aren't we getting into some physical limits?
There are two things in TFS. One is that a company is raising the price on a service. Another is that one individual person doesn't consider the increased price worth it. In what way is this significant?
I'm assuming an unsecured access point, but it could conceivably have gone through the TV, which does have the password. I don't know if that's even possible, but I don't know it's impossible.
As I understand it, FISA judges are actual judges that are appointed in a nonpartisan process that doesn't involve the executive branch. It's not possible to completely insulate it from politics, but there is an effort made.
There are distinctions here. If there's probable cause, that's enough to issue a warrant, but it's going to require more than that to file criminal charges.
You don't know what the evidence was. We know the Steele dossier was part of it. Typically, as I understand it, these warrants are not issued with just one source of information, so there was something besides that dossier. The Nunes memo was carefully crafted to avoid actually saying there was anything wrong or improper, and the Democratic response lacked details (which is more appropriate in this case).
Law enforcement agencies deal with biased information all the time. Biased information can contain facts that can be important. As long as it's presented to the judge as biased, there's no problem. Steele did his research to find dirt on the Republicans. This happens. If there's legitimate (as opposed to fictional) dirt there, it can be acted on. For all I know, the dossier contained the truth and nothing but the truth, but it was clearly not going to be the whole truth.
Your question about sailing through the FISA court is pertinent. If the FISA judge didn't find the request objectionable, that's evidence that it wasn't, and that you are proceeding from incomplete information.
And, again, you're using "government" in the US sense. You might as well claim that cars don't have boots on their wheels, so speaking of a boot of a car is senseless. If you get to redefine words to be other than what the speaker meant, you can create contradictions, sure.
Anyone who makes decisions about care (or anything else) has to make decisions about whose opinions to listen to. I don't see how to do it any other way. This is not about money (even less about dollars), but rather what care is appropriate. The people who worry about the money (the executive branch) and the people who made the decision (the judicial) aren't that closely tied together. This was not a criminal case that requires a jury for due process. Not all cases in US courts require juries.
Revoking citizenship isn't a matter of whim. There are protections. This FindLaw article describes the process. It is carried out in federal court, with due process, and is not a decision of the executive branch. (It also applies only to naturalized citizens; there is no legal way I can be deprived of US citizenship.) Citizens do actually not have much more in the way of Constitutional rights than non-citizens.
Do you have any cases of drone strikes being applied in US territory? Or cases of drone strikes as retribution that are not aimed at legitimate military targets? If not, I'll have to conclude you're being paranoid.
There's bits of actual insurance in there, but they aren't the main point.
In what way does that matter? A government is more oppressive or less oppressive. The exact reasons are important only in that some are more durable than others. A democratic government is not likely to become too oppressive, no matter what. The people running it will lose too many votes.
Everybody expects something back from society. Many people are vindictive when seeing someone get something back from society, most notably, currently, the right wing. The social score thing could be a product of either wing, regardless of the exact wording used by one person.
However, you can blame an entire political wing for things a small number of them do, so there's that.
Sad to say, there were relatives of mine who didn't know who I.P. Daley was when he sent out an email about a family event. I knew immediately who it was.
If you call the police saying that your neighbor was involved in a drug ring with 12 other people in 14 other locations, and keeps talking about it, they'll ask you why you think that. If you go into a discussion about a symbol being displayed and oddities in emails, you're going to get brushed off, since the police have more to do than they can manage anyway.
GP didn't actually refer to the whole thing being wrong. GP referred to their being a complete lack of evidence, which was correct.
The story was in the armed response to the idea of a child smuggling ring in the basement., not in the weird allegations.
Or we could deduct points for stupidity and ignorance.
Politics and being head of a large organization is always a bit dicey. It's often better to keep one's politics private. Eich would have been seriously hampered as Mozilla's CEO because of his action.
You can get thrown out of a bar for not wearing a MAGA hat, as wearing hats is not a protected class anywhere I know. Go find another bar.
Fortunately, "public enemy #1" doesn't actually come with any penalties, other than having ticked off some people.
You're not a hateful bigot for thinking marriage should be between a man and a woman. You can become a hateful bigot based on pretty much any belief. There's a strong tendency on the political extremes to be assholes to people with other views, and to confuse holding views with being vicious and positively hateful. For example, there's a tendency currently on the right wing to behave obnoxiously and claim they're being punished for their views. See James Damore as an example (and read the findings of the labor relations board).
Nobody's going to call you a denier for not believing in climate change. You become a denier when you absolutely believe in no climate change and get sufficiently vocal and insistent on it.
Nobody gets a six-figure fine for not baking a cake. The bakery you're thinking of got it mostly for the internet harassment campaign they started. Read the legal finding of facts, which is the best source for finding why there was that six-figure award.
Startup founders work really hard. Some of them make a lot of money. Depending on how much money you think is "a lot", working hard in a company to become a high executive works for some.
Of course, none of this is nearly as effective as having the right parents.
Benevolent dictatorships are always tempting, along with extralegal ways to deal with people for the good of society. My problems with benevolent dictatorship as a system of government are, (a) who decides what's benevolent? (b) how do we select the benevolent dictator, (c) how do we insure that the dictator remains benevolent, and (d) how do we get any progress in a population that just accepts dictatorial rule?
It would collapse the US economy. According to Wikipedia, 55% of the US national debt is held by us. It would also mean that we could no longer borrow money at reasonable rates.
Let's get this right. Apologize in a way that other people think sincere, or go to bed without dinner. TFS said that the apology was not accepted. I don't know how you'd fake enough sincerity to avoid the consequences.
That isn't thought crime. There's no antisocial score that gets boosted by littering. It's horribly unjust and unproductive, but it's a crime based on actual things that are done, not opinions.