It's a juicier narrative to portray it in the way the summary did--that even though Microsoft once depicted Linux as a "cancer", Linux must now be so awesome that Microsoft is one of its key contributors. Providing context buffs out some of that luster.
Yeah, instead it's that Linux is so awesome Microsoft can't afford not to ensure it is compatible with their hypervisor. Of course it's no surprise that in the virtualization market being able to virtualize Linux is a key feature.
I find it far more intriguing that the key contributors to Linux are companies and not independent individuals, since the old storyline used to be that devoted hobbyists were gathering on the internet to do a better job than commercial companies, back when the "year of Linux on the desktop" was always right around the corner.
That hasn't been the case since Linux became Linus' job. Though those hobbyists -- including Linus -- did a good enough job that they companies took notice, now didn't they? For over a decade the many contributions of companies to Linux -- not least of which being distros like Red Hat -- have been used as proof that Free Software doesn't mean the death of the paid programmer.
Of course anyone who thought it did in the first place didn't understand the market for programmers. It's always been the case that the majority of programmers are employed solving the specific business needs of specific companies, not creating shrink-wrap per-license software.
Well, you're a basket case if you think anything resembling the "species" will still be around in cosmic time scales. There were no humans around a million years ago, what makes you think there will in a million?
You're right. So instead, let us not talk just about preserving the human species, but whatever species our descendants will become.
Yes it is. Orbits, unlike the weather, are not chaotic. For those who don't know, chaotic means "sensitively dependent on initial conditions", which in practice means that the error in your output calculation is not proportional to the error in your measurement of the initial state. This is why accurate, non-probabilistic weather predictions will never be possible beyond the very short term.
Orbits are not chaotic. The error in the calculation of the orbit is proportional to the error in our current measurements of its position and velocity, and any relevant masses that could affect its orbit. The more we study the object, the more precisely we know its orbit, and the more precisely and the farther into the future we can predict its orbit.
We don't need to solve the 3000-body problem, because the vast majority of bodies in the solar system have a completely negligible effect compared to the solar wind.
There is still uncertainty in the orbit of Apophis. That's why you still hear the odds of it passing through the 'keyhole' that will send it on a collision course with earth, rather than an explicit "yes" or "no". Yet with precise enough measurements, we could say that, and eventually will be able to.
So, yeah, the butterfly effect is just a joke in this context.
Measuring the amount of contaminants in the water and in the fish and finding very low amounts IS "evidence of absence" you tard-bucket! Argue that you don't find the evidence convincing if you want but to argue that it isn't evidence is just fucking idiotic.
In that regard, what is the exact harm in a "medicine" that works as long as you believe in it, and a belief system around it sufficient to maintain that reality?
Because people who believe in it are resorting to it instead of seeing a real doctor who can determine if real medicine can help them, or if a placebo is the best that can be done. And if that's the case, a placebo can be "prescribed" at a price appropriate for sugar pills instead of the ridiculous prices for homeopathic preparations.
However since lying to patients presents an ethical issue (something the socio- I mean homeopaths screwing over the gullible don't care about), you see studies like the one in the/. article linked.
There is no benefit to the scam that is homeopathy and whatever tiny benefit that can be imagined is both outweighed by the harm and can be done better.
They'll gladly suffer through free prostate exams if it means they can sit comfortably on the flight, believing they won't be one of the next set of 9/11 martyrs.
No, we suffer through it because we want to be able to visit our families and not spend most of what little vacation time we have travelling.
Obviously if my dislike of TSA policies doesn't overcome my love of my family, there must not be a real issue to begin with. That's logic.
Well, yes, but that's no worse than you forcing your own beliefs on them that they shouldn't be able to buy free prostate exams.
You mean my belief that we could have airline flights -- the thing everyone actually wants -- without the prostate exams?
Oh, and on the subject of prostate exams: they aren't that far yet. But after making you take off your shoes after the Shoe Bomber, and making you get your crotch photographed after the Underpants Bomber... You just wait until the Butthole Bomber shows up. Then it'll be put-up or shut-up time.
My understanding is that the recent experiment showed Neutrinos traveling at the exact same speed as light. That may not be faster, but wouldn't that still require an infinite amount of energy according to current models and therefore not be possible?
Neutrinos have such small mass (assuming all 3 types have mass) that their velocity is expected to be virtually indistinguishable from c.
The current upper bound on neutrino mass is 0.28 eV combined for all three. For comparison an electron has a mass of ~510 keV -- over 10^6 times greater.
So, with the error bars on that measurement, there's no way we can say they were traveling exactly at the speed of light. For that matter, the upper bound of the error bars includes velocities greater than c so we can't strictly say they aren't going FTL. But since given the error bars the result is consistent with our expectation of neutrino velocity we say it's consistent with the nearly-but-not-quite-light-speed neutrino prediction.
What made OPERA's results different was that they had measured neutrinos going FTL and their error bars (as they had determined them) completely ruled out velocities c.
I have small hands, but I find the Dualshock uncomfortable. The original XBOX controller was literally impossible for me to use, but the S model was quite a nice controller. Look, hold up your hand and let it relax. See how the thumb is kinda aligned with your index finger up to the first knuckle? If you had your index finger wrapped around a controller, your thumb would naturally rest right about where the primary controls are -- the face buttons on the right, the analog stick on the left on most controllers and the d-pad on the dual shock.
Because originally the d-pad was the primary control for the dual shock. The analog stick was placed there *because* they didn't want to disturb the ideal placement of the d-pad since all the PSX games out so far used the d-pad. Sony new what they were doing back then, when they intentionally de-prioritized the location of the analog sticks.
So to reach the analog stick on the dual shock (or the d-pad on other controllers) requires extending the thumb outward. Uncomfortable.
The whole shape of it is bad, the split d-pad is lame, but the analog sticks are the worst: who the fuck thought it was a good idea to put them near the center of the damn thing?
Not the Sony engineers who originally designed it for the Playstation.
They understood that the primary controls should go where the thumb naturally rests, which is where the D-pad and the face buttons were on the original PSX controller.
But this was an add-on for an existing console with an extensive library of games designed around a digital pad, and they weren't sure if the analog stick would take off. So they kept the original controls in the ideal spot, for both familiarity and compatibility. The made the analog stick deliberately sub-optimal.
The problem was that they did not revisit this decision in developing the PS2, when it was obvious that the analog stick was far and away more used than the d-pad. Nor did they revisit it for the PS3. I guess it had become like a brand recognition thing. Mabye all the fanboys had already convinced themselves this was the bestest design ever for an analog-stick focused controller (even though it intentionally was not).
Everyone else who didn't have the PSX history to deal with put the left analog as the primary control, and kept face buttons as the right primary control since outside of FPS, the right analog is mostly for camera controls and the face buttons are more important. Of course for FPS the right analog where the face buttons are would be better, but better than that would be pretty much anything but a traditional console controller (wiimote >>> analog stick and mouse >> wiimote).
Anyway, people have gotten used to the deliberately misplaced analog stick and say it's their favorite. Hey, whatever floats your boat I say, but I think your boat would be floated differently if Sony had just redesigned their controller correctly and that was what you'd gotten used to.
Heh. I know, I felt the same way "I talk normal, everyone else has an accent." and pretty much everyone from the Midwest sounded like me, and like people on the news. Then I met someone who determined I was from Michigan just based on my accent (and I'm not a Yooper). Mind was *blown*.
They did it by tagging individual bees with transmitters and observing their habits outside the nest. Notice past tense as this is the research they already did. RTFA maybe?
The next step, which is what was under discussion in this thread, is associating this effect with colony collapse syndrome. And that you'd do by correlating collapses with the use of this pesticide, and by looking to see if the effects observed in these studies (less food coming into the nest, more bees dying while away from the nest) are correlated with colonies that subsequently collapse.
And I'm not even an entomologist! I think the entomologists who already did the research that you couldn't even fathom have an even better idea than I do of how to conduct the follow-on studies they say should be done.
Oh and if that "How in the world would you even do that?!" isn't your way of justifying "so therefore let's not", you really need to explain.
Of course if you follow your logic. We would ban everything until we can prove it is safe.
I love it when "by that logic..." statements don't even try to follow the logic that was presented, but this one is even better because there was no logic regarding banning products provided at all!
He said "it's not that simple" in response to "this should be investigated" (which does not imply the research itself would be simple), followed by a screed about how corporations would find it inconvenient to do so in the future. So... I inferred a meaning, and asked if this was what he meant. If that's not what he meant then "it's not that simple" in response to "this should be investigated" makes no sense. If he wants to clarify, he can feel free.
Logic and reason say that bees are critical to agriculture and doing nothing about colony collapse, not investigating possible causes, could have dire consequences.
Is spelling out those possible consequences an appeal to emotion and fear? Maybe. If it wasn't needed then the plain and obvious logic would have already had the effect you desire.
I must have missed the part where the GP was laying responsibility at the corporations' feet for not figuring this out prior to putting the pesticide on the market.
What I read was the straightforward and common sense argument that once science discovers a negative side effect of this pesticide that was previously unknown, and could plausibly contribute to the serious problem of colony collapse, that we should investigate it.
Considering the importance of bees to agriculture, I think the potential of any link between pesticides and colony collapses warrants both extreme concern and funding.
What's not as simple about that as it was made out to be?
Are you saying maybe we shouldn't investigate the possible link between pesticides harming bee's ability to navigate and colony collapse? I guess because if a link was confirmed this could hypothetically mean we would want to make corporations have to be more thorough and test pesticides for non-lethal effects even though it is difficult and ? So to prevent that horrific future from coming about, we should refrain from figuring out of the link exists?
Well whatever, I don't care. The link should be investigated. When we know the truth then we can worry about the ramifications for future policy.
As a person of faith who values science, I find your conflation of the provisional trust in other humans and spiritual faith in a higher power to be stupid and offensive in both directions.
We don't measure the speed of terrestrial tornadoes or other cyclonic weather phenomenon with angular velocity. The angular velocity of a hurricane isn't that impressive either but the linear velocity of the wind surely is.
This, too, is extremely impressive speed even if the angular velocity is low. So what if it's rotating slowly, those winds still had to be accelerated to 300Mm/hr! That's impressive!
Yes, well this is why all of the top physicists in the world are still interested in the question of whether or not it's possible.
Yes, because SR might not be the last word on the subject and we all hope it ends up being wrong in a way that allows FTL or our Star Trek fantasies will never be possible.
But according to SR, FTL is impossible. Not only does trying to transform from a sub-luminal to an FTL reference frame give undefined answers, it also would result in violation of causality.
Since you're obviously unfamiliar with this idea and may not trust WP as an authority, you can find many such discussions. Einstein's own book "Relativity: The Special and General Theories" discusses the prohibition against FTL as one of the first corollaries of the theory.
As I said not *all* models predict it as a possibility, however most of the current ones (as in, the ones since we've had particle accelerators that actually give us some meaningful information about these things) leave it as a possibility.
Most of the models you're talking about make no statement on the subject except in so far as they're based in part on Special Relativity which does.
No particle accelerator experiment so far has given any indication that SR is wrong. The one possibility for an experiment that did, OPERA, and which physicists correctly deduced threatened SR and possibly one of its underlying assumptions, such as causality, turned out to be a mistake. Their result could not be reproduced.
You're carrying around a popular misconception of Special Relativity. That's okay, I once too mistakenly thought SR did not really prohibit FTL, just doing it with a rocket or some such. Then I learned what the theory really said and what this really implied about causality, which SR assumes. You should do the same.
You can call Einstein's interpretation of his own theory "broken" if you want but nevertheless it is clear that SR expressly prohibits FTL and positing it's existence in an SR framework leads to causality violation.
QM is fully compatible with SR, and FTL communication is just as impossible there. In fact in the cases where things appear to occur FTL (entanglement), no information transfer (in the QM/information theory sense) is possible.
FTL travel and communication is expressly forbidden by SR. Sorry, but it is you who are mistaken.
However they say so in sort of the same way that they say travelling faster than light is possible (in that they don't expressly forbid it, but generally require infinite energy to actually get there).
FTL is expressly forbidden by SR, not by the energy requirements for accelerating an object to that speed, but by the nature of simultaneity and causality within the SR framework. You can't have FTL and SR in the same universe. If you want to modify SR to allow FTL then you have to give up one of the base assumptions that makes SR what it is: constant c, relativity, or causality.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a juicier narrative to portray it in the way the summary did--that even though Microsoft once depicted Linux as a "cancer", Linux must now be so awesome that Microsoft is one of its key contributors. Providing context buffs out some of that luster.
Yeah, instead it's that Linux is so awesome Microsoft can't afford not to ensure it is compatible with their hypervisor. Of course it's no surprise that in the virtualization market being able to virtualize Linux is a key feature.
I find it far more intriguing that the key contributors to Linux are companies and not independent individuals, since the old storyline used to be that devoted hobbyists were gathering on the internet to do a better job than commercial companies, back when the "year of Linux on the desktop" was always right around the corner.
That hasn't been the case since Linux became Linus' job. Though those hobbyists -- including Linus -- did a good enough job that they companies took notice, now didn't they? For over a decade the many contributions of companies to Linux -- not least of which being distros like Red Hat -- have been used as proof that Free Software doesn't mean the death of the paid programmer.
Of course anyone who thought it did in the first place didn't understand the market for programmers. It's always been the case that the majority of programmers are employed solving the specific business needs of specific companies, not creating shrink-wrap per-license software.
After reading Apophis' furious blog post over the demotion of Pluto, I think he's only made the problem worse!
That's not what my new paleontology textbook says.
Derpa derp, I am teh smart.
Well, you're a basket case if you think anything resembling the "species" will still be around in cosmic time scales. There were no humans around a million years ago, what makes you think there will in a million?
You're right. So instead, let us not talk just about preserving the human species, but whatever species our descendants will become.
This is no joke.
Yes it is. Orbits, unlike the weather, are not chaotic. For those who don't know, chaotic means "sensitively dependent on initial conditions", which in practice means that the error in your output calculation is not proportional to the error in your measurement of the initial state. This is why accurate, non-probabilistic weather predictions will never be possible beyond the very short term.
Orbits are not chaotic. The error in the calculation of the orbit is proportional to the error in our current measurements of its position and velocity, and any relevant masses that could affect its orbit. The more we study the object, the more precisely we know its orbit, and the more precisely and the farther into the future we can predict its orbit.
We don't need to solve the 3000-body problem, because the vast majority of bodies in the solar system have a completely negligible effect compared to the solar wind.
There is still uncertainty in the orbit of Apophis. That's why you still hear the odds of it passing through the 'keyhole' that will send it on a collision course with earth, rather than an explicit "yes" or "no". Yet with precise enough measurements, we could say that, and eventually will be able to.
So, yeah, the butterfly effect is just a joke in this context.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Measuring the amount of contaminants in the water and in the fish and finding very low amounts IS "evidence of absence" you tard-bucket! Argue that you don't find the evidence convincing if you want but to argue that it isn't evidence is just fucking idiotic.
"Absence of evidence" is what you have.
Let's be honest, placebos are effective (to a certain extent) so long as they are believed in.
Actually, that's not so clear.
In that regard, what is the exact harm in a "medicine" that works as long as you believe in it, and a belief system around it sufficient to maintain that reality?
Because people who believe in it are resorting to it instead of seeing a real doctor who can determine if real medicine can help them, or if a placebo is the best that can be done. And if that's the case, a placebo can be "prescribed" at a price appropriate for sugar pills instead of the ridiculous prices for homeopathic preparations.
However since lying to patients presents an ethical issue (something the socio- I mean homeopaths screwing over the gullible don't care about), you see studies like the one in the /. article linked.
There is no benefit to the scam that is homeopathy and whatever tiny benefit that can be imagined is both outweighed by the harm and can be done better.
Don't forget they assumed that the universe obeys consistent, causal rules.
I once forgot to assume causality and man was my research a mess!
They'll gladly suffer through free prostate exams if it means they can sit comfortably on the flight, believing they won't be one of the next set of 9/11 martyrs.
No, we suffer through it because we want to be able to visit our families and not spend most of what little vacation time we have travelling.
Obviously if my dislike of TSA policies doesn't overcome my love of my family, there must not be a real issue to begin with. That's logic.
Well, yes, but that's no worse than you forcing your own beliefs on them that they shouldn't be able to buy free prostate exams.
You mean my belief that we could have airline flights -- the thing everyone actually wants -- without the prostate exams?
Oh, and on the subject of prostate exams: they aren't that far yet. But after making you take off your shoes after the Shoe Bomber, and making you get your crotch photographed after the Underpants Bomber... You just wait until the Butthole Bomber shows up. Then it'll be put-up or shut-up time.
My understanding is that the recent experiment showed Neutrinos traveling at the exact same speed as light. That may not be faster, but wouldn't that still require an infinite amount of energy according to current models and therefore not be possible?
Neutrinos have such small mass (assuming all 3 types have mass) that their velocity is expected to be virtually indistinguishable from c.
The current upper bound on neutrino mass is 0.28 eV combined for all three. For comparison an electron has a mass of ~510 keV -- over 10^6 times greater.
So, with the error bars on that measurement, there's no way we can say they were traveling exactly at the speed of light. For that matter, the upper bound of the error bars includes velocities greater than c so we can't strictly say they aren't going FTL. But since given the error bars the result is consistent with our expectation of neutrino velocity we say it's consistent with the nearly-but-not-quite-light-speed neutrino prediction.
What made OPERA's results different was that they had measured neutrinos going FTL and their error bars (as they had determined them) completely ruled out velocities c.
I have small hands, but I find the Dualshock uncomfortable. The original XBOX controller was literally impossible for me to use, but the S model was quite a nice controller. Look, hold up your hand and let it relax. See how the thumb is kinda aligned with your index finger up to the first knuckle? If you had your index finger wrapped around a controller, your thumb would naturally rest right about where the primary controls are -- the face buttons on the right, the analog stick on the left on most controllers and the d-pad on the dual shock.
Because originally the d-pad was the primary control for the dual shock. The analog stick was placed there *because* they didn't want to disturb the ideal placement of the d-pad since all the PSX games out so far used the d-pad. Sony new what they were doing back then, when they intentionally de-prioritized the location of the analog sticks.
So to reach the analog stick on the dual shock (or the d-pad on other controllers) requires extending the thumb outward. Uncomfortable.
The whole shape of it is bad, the split d-pad is lame, but the analog sticks are the worst: who the fuck thought it was a good idea to put them near the center of the damn thing?
Not the Sony engineers who originally designed it for the Playstation.
They understood that the primary controls should go where the thumb naturally rests, which is where the D-pad and the face buttons were on the original PSX controller.
But this was an add-on for an existing console with an extensive library of games designed around a digital pad, and they weren't sure if the analog stick would take off. So they kept the original controls in the ideal spot, for both familiarity and compatibility. The made the analog stick deliberately sub-optimal.
The problem was that they did not revisit this decision in developing the PS2, when it was obvious that the analog stick was far and away more used than the d-pad. Nor did they revisit it for the PS3. I guess it had become like a brand recognition thing. Mabye all the fanboys had already convinced themselves this was the bestest design ever for an analog-stick focused controller (even though it intentionally was not).
Everyone else who didn't have the PSX history to deal with put the left analog as the primary control, and kept face buttons as the right primary control since outside of FPS, the right analog is mostly for camera controls and the face buttons are more important. Of course for FPS the right analog where the face buttons are would be better, but better than that would be pretty much anything but a traditional console controller (wiimote >>> analog stick and mouse >> wiimote).
Anyway, people have gotten used to the deliberately misplaced analog stick and say it's their favorite. Hey, whatever floats your boat I say, but I think your boat would be floated differently if Sony had just redesigned their controller correctly and that was what you'd gotten used to.
Heh. I know, I felt the same way "I talk normal, everyone else has an accent." and pretty much everyone from the Midwest sounded like me, and like people on the news. Then I met someone who determined I was from Michigan just based on my accent (and I'm not a Yooper). Mind was *blown*.
They did it by tagging individual bees with transmitters and observing their habits outside the nest. Notice past tense as this is the research they already did. RTFA maybe?
The next step, which is what was under discussion in this thread, is associating this effect with colony collapse syndrome. And that you'd do by correlating collapses with the use of this pesticide, and by looking to see if the effects observed in these studies (less food coming into the nest, more bees dying while away from the nest) are correlated with colonies that subsequently collapse.
And I'm not even an entomologist! I think the entomologists who already did the research that you couldn't even fathom have an even better idea than I do of how to conduct the follow-on studies they say should be done.
Oh and if that "How in the world would you even do that?!" isn't your way of justifying "so therefore let's not", you really need to explain.
Of course if you follow your logic. We would ban everything until we can prove it is safe.
I love it when "by that logic..." statements don't even try to follow the logic that was presented, but this one is even better because there was no logic regarding banning products provided at all!
He said "it's not that simple" in response to "this should be investigated" (which does not imply the research itself would be simple), followed by a screed about how corporations would find it inconvenient to do so in the future. So... I inferred a meaning, and asked if this was what he meant. If that's not what he meant then "it's not that simple" in response to "this should be investigated" makes no sense. If he wants to clarify, he can feel free.
Logic and reason say that bees are critical to agriculture and doing nothing about colony collapse, not investigating possible causes, could have dire consequences.
Is spelling out those possible consequences an appeal to emotion and fear? Maybe. If it wasn't needed then the plain and obvious logic would have already had the effect you desire.
I must have missed the part where the GP was laying responsibility at the corporations' feet for not figuring this out prior to putting the pesticide on the market.
What I read was the straightforward and common sense argument that once science discovers a negative side effect of this pesticide that was previously unknown, and could plausibly contribute to the serious problem of colony collapse, that we should investigate it.
Considering the importance of bees to agriculture, I think the potential of any link between pesticides and colony collapses warrants both extreme concern and funding.
What's not as simple about that as it was made out to be?
Are you saying maybe we shouldn't investigate the possible link between pesticides harming bee's ability to navigate and colony collapse? I guess because if a link was confirmed this could hypothetically mean we would want to make corporations have to be more thorough and test pesticides for non-lethal effects even though it is difficult and ? So to prevent that horrific future from coming about, we should refrain from figuring out of the link exists?
Well whatever, I don't care. The link should be investigated. When we know the truth then we can worry about the ramifications for future policy.
As a person of faith who values science, I find your conflation of the provisional trust in other humans and spiritual faith in a higher power to be stupid and offensive in both directions.
We don't measure the speed of terrestrial tornadoes or other cyclonic weather phenomenon with angular velocity. The angular velocity of a hurricane isn't that impressive either but the linear velocity of the wind surely is.
This, too, is extremely impressive speed even if the angular velocity is low. So what if it's rotating slowly, those winds still had to be accelerated to 300Mm/hr! That's impressive!
Yes, well this is why all of the top physicists in the world are still interested in the question of whether or not it's possible.
Yes, because SR might not be the last word on the subject and we all hope it ends up being wrong in a way that allows FTL or our Star Trek fantasies will never be possible.
But according to SR, FTL is impossible. Not only does trying to transform from a sub-luminal to an FTL reference frame give undefined answers, it also would result in violation of causality.
Since you're obviously unfamiliar with this idea and may not trust WP as an authority, you can find many such discussions. Einstein's own book "Relativity: The Special and General Theories" discusses the prohibition against FTL as one of the first corollaries of the theory.
As I said not *all* models predict it as a possibility, however most of the current ones (as in, the ones since we've had particle accelerators that actually give us some meaningful information about these things) leave it as a possibility.
Most of the models you're talking about make no statement on the subject except in so far as they're based in part on Special Relativity which does.
No particle accelerator experiment so far has given any indication that SR is wrong. The one possibility for an experiment that did, OPERA, and which physicists correctly deduced threatened SR and possibly one of its underlying assumptions, such as causality, turned out to be a mistake. Their result could not be reproduced.
You're carrying around a popular misconception of Special Relativity. That's okay, I once too mistakenly thought SR did not really prohibit FTL, just doing it with a rocket or some such. Then I learned what the theory really said and what this really implied about causality, which SR assumes. You should do the same.
Having options is good.
True dat. And if we're ever attacked by the armies of King Koopa we'll be damn glad we have this hopping robot!
You can call Einstein's interpretation of his own theory "broken" if you want but nevertheless it is clear that SR expressly prohibits FTL and positing it's existence in an SR framework leads to causality violation.
QM is fully compatible with SR, and FTL communication is just as impossible there. In fact in the cases where things appear to occur FTL (entanglement), no information transfer (in the QM/information theory sense) is possible.
FTL travel and communication is expressly forbidden by SR. Sorry, but it is you who are mistaken.
However they say so in sort of the same way that they say travelling faster than light is possible (in that they don't expressly forbid it, but generally require infinite energy to actually get there).
FTL is expressly forbidden by SR, not by the energy requirements for accelerating an object to that speed, but by the nature of simultaneity and causality within the SR framework. You can't have FTL and SR in the same universe. If you want to modify SR to allow FTL then you have to give up one of the base assumptions that makes SR what it is: constant c, relativity, or causality.