No, I'm not. I read the indicated section of code as follows: If your party files by the indicated deadline and meets all other requirements, the state must include your candidate's name on the ballot. That's what is meant by "entitled", which is a key word in the law as written.
It doesn't say squat about late filing. By missing the deadline, they missed the state's guarantee of their names appearing on the ballots. But failing to obtain that guarantee does not somehow imply that the state must prevent their names from appearing on the ballot. Lack of a guarantee is not a guarantee of the opposite thing. I'd expect that election officials can and will include the D and R candidates on the ticket, because there is no legal reason why they shouldn't!
Of course, it's possible that they could exclude them if they wanted to, because of the missed the deadline, but who would want to throw a monkey wrench that huge into the election process?
So Barr's making a mountain out of this molehill just makes Barr and Libertarians look bad.
Mountain out of a molehill. That was the point of my previous post. Tryin' to keep it real.
demanding Senators John McCain and Barack Obama be removed from the ballot after they missed the official filing deadline.
On account of some retarded technicality, we should fuck up another election for the whole nation? Sounds like just the perfect pick-me-up for the tired old US of A!
Hey, I got another one. Every time someone misses the April 15th tax filing deadline, we should send them to PMITA prison for being such a procrastinating douche. Hell, maybe the power company could just shut down power for your entire neighborhood if you're late paying your bill.
And fuck Barr for continuing the fine Libertarian Party tradition of coming across as a complete whackjob.
But more to the point, entanglement is like a pointer. If you have "p = q = &val" and send p to the space station and q on earth and measure *p and *q there are no superposition of states or multiple universes or faster than light travel. There is only the dereference.
No, that's not a correct analogy. You're basically just saying "it's hidden variables" in programmer speak. But Bell's Theorem proves that no theory of local hidden variables can explain all the things we observe.
Classical physics tells us that if you know the angle of polarization of a photon, then its chance of passing through a polarizer is the square of the cosine of the difference in angles between the photon and the polarizer. If you have a 45 degree photon, it will always pass a 45 degree polarizer, have a 50% chance of passing a 90 degree polarizer, and will never pass a 135 degree polarizer.
QM tells us that when you have two entangled photons and measure both of their polarizations, the chance the results will correlate is the square of the cosine of the difference in angles between the two polarizers. If you measure them at the same angle, the results always correlate. If you measure them at 45 degrees apart, the measurements correlate 50% of the time. If you measure them 90 degrees apart, the measurements never correlate (the results are always opposite). No matter how you look at it, this means either the results are predetermined at the time the photons are created based on the angles the polarizers will be at the time the measurements are taken, or that one measurement somehow influences the other later so the past isn't immutable.
Either way you look at it, it means the universe doesn't work the way we expect it to. If you're a glass-half-full person you want to believe in FTL and time travel, and if you're a glass-half-empty person then you think maybe the universe is deterministic.
That's why this stuff gets everyone who understands its implications all in a tizzy.
Once you observe or measure one particle in an entangled pair, you'll instantly know how the distant "partner" particle is going to look, but doing so breaks the link.
You're oversimplifying it a bit. There really is something spooky going on there. The full explanation is lengthy, but I'm going to give it a try anyway.
First off, consider the photon from a classical physics perspective. We know photons can be polarized to discreet angles, and we know how to compute the chances of a photon passing through a polarizer as a function of the difference in angles between the photon and the polarizer. Say you send a beam of incoherent light through a polarizer oriented at an arbitrarily selected 12.34 degrees. 50% of that light will pass through and the other 50% will be absorbed or deflected. But that 50% that passes through will now be oriented at 12.34 degrees. 100% of that beam of light will pass through through one or more polarizers oriented at 12.34 degrees, with no absorption.
If you pass your beam of 12.34-degree light through a polarizer oriented at 57.34 degrees, you'll find that 50% of that light will be absorbed and the other 50% will pass through, and the 50% that passes through will now be oriented at 57.34.
If you pass your beam of 12.34-degree light through a polarizer oriented at 102.34 degrees, you'll find that all of that light will be absorbed.
But, if pass some 12.34-degree light through a 57.34-degree polarizer, and then pass what makes it past that first filter through a 102.34-degree polarizer, you find that 25% of the original beam of 12.34-degree light makes it through. In other words, the light can't be twisted 90 degrees in one step, but it can be done in two steps.
As it happens, the chance of a photon passing through a polarizer is the square of the cosine of the difference in angle between the photon and the polarizer. For easy remembering, it's 100% at the same angle, 75% at 30 degrees, 50% at 45 degrees, 25% at 60 degrees, and 0% at 90 degrees.
Now, let's go quantum. In the quantum world, "measuring" the polarization angle of an individual photon has different meaning. If the photon is randomly polarized, you have no way to pin its angle down to a particular value. The best you can do is pass the photon through a polarizer. This will either pass the photon through, aligning the photon's angle to match, or deflect the photon. All that you are allowed to say about the previous polarization angle of a photon that passes through the detector is "well, it wasn't 90 degrees apart from my detector, otherwise it wouldn't have passed through.".
Now, with entanglement, things become really strange, though. Based on a classical physics view, usinglaws of conservation of this and that you could deduce that a pair of photons created from one subatomic event would have zero net momentum and the same random angle of polarization. You would then go on to predict that if you measured both members of each pair with polarizers set at the same angle, there would be no correlation of results, because each photon would be its own entity with its own 50% chance to pass the deflector or be absorbed by it, each not influenced by the other.
But quantum mechanics predicts (and I'm actually not 100% clear on why or how) that with entangled photons, the rate of correlation of measurement of their polarization angles is the square of the cosine of the difference in angles between the two detectors. And these predictions are known to be true. There's even a name for them: Violations of Bell's Inequality.
So, the implications should be pretty clear. If both detectors are at the same angle, their results will correlate 100% of the time. So if Detector A registers a "pass" with one member of an entangled photon pair, Detector B either will have already registered the same result or will eventually register the same result. Note that this applies if you change the orientation of
While it has been a faithful companion, your companion cube cannot accompany you through the rest of the test. If it could talk - and the Enrichment Center takes this opportunity to remind you that it cannot - it would tell you to go on without it because it would rather die in a fire than become a burden to you.
The Enrichment Center is committed to the well being of all participants. Cake and grief counseling will be available at the conclusion of the test. Thank you for helping us help you help us all.
I came here to question how "objectivity" and "major networks" get put so close together in a for-real sentence. I mean, seriously. Even if you were to find that they report objectively on what they do report (which they don't), you'll find that they also slant the news by what they choose to report in the first place. I'm trying to figure out where Pentagon manipulation figures into it.
However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds.
Cute, but spurious. What is half of infinity? What is infinity minus a million? The argument falsely assumes that if X < Infinity that X as automatically finite, when it should be obvious that X < Y can be true while X and Y are both infinite. In other words, there is no single value for Infinity. There are an infinite number of infinite values.
FTA:That means any water in there atmospheres will condense into droplets of water vapor
Aside from the bad English, the quoted bit is actually the most interesting part of the article. Does that mean that a particularly low-temp one of this newly discovered kind of dwarf star could be a self-contained biosphere, with a source of heat in the center surrounded by a life-sustaining atmosphere with liquid water in it?
Dyson Sphere is to Ringworld as Cool Dwarf is to Smoke Ring!:)
The instruments certainly would have to be able to adjust for the doppler effect, or else those nice modern blue leds on the dashboard would become beams of UV light
If you are talking about a passenger in a starship seeing lights generated from instruments within the cabin of the same ship, then you don't understand special relativity very well. You wouldn't be able to tell how fast you're going based on anything in your own frame of reference. The blue dashboard LED would look the same to the passenger no matter how much the ship accelerated.
The faster you go the more dangerous the oncoming light would become.
This is true. If you accelerated long and hard enough, eventually the cosmic microwave background radiation would be shifted up into the visible spectrum.
Also, interstellar hydrogen would become cosmic rays to you.
I like kimchi along with a wide variety of other Korean food.
I tried a Vegemite sandwich once, and I don't care to repeat the experience.
But I'd rather have Vegemite again than try Yuk Hoi. The description on the menu shouldn't be translated to English. Hell, the "yuk" part sounds like what it must taste like, and "hoi" would be the sound you make as you fail to keep it down.
And then there's the stuff where they don't bother to put the English translation on the menu. I will be forever content to occasionally wonder what horrors they are hiding from my American eyes..
I'm a materialist, and I would never volunteer to be copied by any destructive process. I would be dead.
To me, Quantum No Cloning and the Teleportation phenomenon makes this philosophically interesting. Suppose that consciousness or soul is some actual thing, tied up in the quantum processes taking place in and between our neurons; that our selves are part of the continuous interactions and entanglements going on in our brains.
No Cloning and Teleportation would mean that I couldn't really be copied, but I could be teleported. If "I" am actually the entanglement in my own neural system, it seems like it wouldn't matter if I were suddenly made out of different particles in some other location, if my entanglement is preserved while being teleported to my new body. The particles themselves aren't special, but their quantum states and entanglements between them are unique!
is your conceptual problem with gravity vs. electromagnetism
I think the confusion is over the difference between virtual and non-virtual particles.
If you put a thick enough sheet of lead between two masses, the sheet will block photons emitted from one mass from reaching the other. But that sheet of lead can't block the exchange of virtual photons, so the two masses can still exert force on each other through electric or magnetic fields.
A gravity field is analogous to a magnetic field. Assuming gravitons exist, typical gravitic interactions between masses would be mediated by virtual gravitons.
Of course I have a limited layman's understanding of this and am probably talking out my ass.
In the Final Fantasy games, you have to complete each piece of the game in order before you can move on to the next. They are linear. The game is all about the story, and that fact is thrown in your face with every non-skippable ten-minute cutscene. This is what is meant by rails.
But something like Crackdown is not on rails. You can go anywhere in the city you want. You can turn on your own faction, just to see how many hit squads it takes for them to kill you. You can kill the enemy bosses in whatever order you want. You can pick and choose what side-activities you want. Don't like driving? The game is winnable without it. Basically the game will be fun whether you take the structure it provides or instead just use it as a sandbox and entertain yourself with it.
In a game-on-rails, you either "play" the game exactly how the designer intended it or you hit a solid wall and can't do anything else. You go forward, replaying when you fail, or you quit playing.
Heh. My 360 looks freaking gorgeous on my 56" 1080p DLP. It's very nice to play with the screen across the room, not right up in my face like my computer monitor.
Oh, and my PC display looks nice hooked up to it as well.
It should also be noteworthy that another fairly well-known act sold their latest album online. It was for a fixed price, true, but they offered FLAC files of the song -- DRM-free and of the highest possible quality. I'm talking about the Barenaked Ladies and Barenaked Ladies Are Me. According to this blogger, their gross sales during the first week were close to $1 million.
If the Federal Gov't is even allowed to legislate it (i.e. sign a treaty about it) is to me, questionable.
They are not:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to control the legality of gambling. That's a power reserved by the states. But that doesn't stop them; they just try to use their power to regulate interstate and international commerce.
The Wire Act of 1961 made it illegal to place an interstate or international wager:
Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
And more recently they passed the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act" as a rider to a must-pass spending bill, which makes financial institutions responsible for policing online wagering:
(a) FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Internet gambling is primarily funded through personal use of payment system instruments, credit cards, and wire transfers.
(2) The National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1999 recommended the passage of legislation to prohibit wire transfers to Internet gambling sites or the banks which represent such sites.
(3) Internet gambling is a growing cause of debt collection problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer credit industry.
(4) New mechanisms for enforcing gambling laws on the Internet are necessary because traditional law enforcement mechanisms are often inadequate for enforcing gambling prohibitions or regulations on the Internet, especially where such gambling crosses State or national borders.
(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
NO provision of this subchapter shall be construed as altering, limiting, or extending any Federal or State law or Tribal-State compact prohibiting, permitting, or regulating gambling within the United States.
The UIGEA is at the heart of the WTO dispute. The bill is intended to illegalize gambling, not by making gambling illegal (something they cannot do) but my making it illegal to transfer money to and from gambling sites and the banks they work with.
Basically, our goddamned government insists on sticking its nose in a place where it doesn't belong.
A superposition of states simply means that that the particle has an unknown value for the property being discussed. If you pick any random electron up off the street, its spin along any axis you choose to measure is in a superposition of states such that it might be up or down with equal probability. You can't measure this condition of being in a superposition of states because it is not a property of the electron. Rather, it is a condition of the information that you know about the electron. To use a bad coin flipping analogy, if you flip a coin and cover it before looking, you can say it is in a superposition of states between heads and tails with equal probability of each, not because there is anything special about the coin but because you simply don't know the definite answer.
Entanglement does not allow you to control anything at all about a distant particle. When particles are entangled, that means that measurements taken on both members of an entangled pair will correlate more often than our current understanding of the universe says should be possible. The measuring is a passive thing -- it gets information about the state of the particle. The correlations imply that somehow the entangled particles are linked over distance, or that the future of the pair of particles was predetermined at the time the entangled particles were created.
It cannot be exploited for communication because in order to even detect the strange correlations, you have to compare measurements, which requires getting information about those measurements to a common location. Suppose I'm doing an experiment with entangled photon polarization, and Alice is trying to send a message by modulating the angle of her polarizer. At Bob's detector, he's getting a 50% hit/miss with each photon that comes his way, no matter what angle Alice sets her polarizer to, and his measurement results are completely random.In order for Bob to decode the message, he has to know what Alice's measurements were. This is actually why photon entanglement is useful for encryption -- but it ain't gonna let us talk faster than light.
However, the more I read, the more I am convinced the universe makes no sense.
It all comes down to what entanglement demonstrates about the nature of reality. In order for it to fit into a consistent framework, you have to choose between a deterministic universe or a universe full of temporal paradoxes. This is why you get quasi-religious philosophical crap like Many Worlds (Seriously -- there are entire other universes constantly splitting off from "this" one that we'll never be able to interact with in any way, ever? And this is different from flying spaghetti monsters how, exactly?).
As for me, I'm pretty sure that the universe is deterministic and so I must simply try to enjoy my illusion of free will.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm not. I read the indicated section of code as follows: If your party files by the indicated deadline and meets all other requirements, the state must include your candidate's name on the ballot. That's what is meant by "entitled", which is a key word in the law as written.
It doesn't say squat about late filing. By missing the deadline, they missed the state's guarantee of their names appearing on the ballots. But failing to obtain that guarantee does not somehow imply that the state must prevent their names from appearing on the ballot. Lack of a guarantee is not a guarantee of the opposite thing. I'd expect that election officials can and will include the D and R candidates on the ticket, because there is no legal reason why they shouldn't!
Of course, it's possible that they could exclude them if they wanted to, because of the missed the deadline, but who would want to throw a monkey wrench that huge into the election process?
So Barr's making a mountain out of this molehill just makes Barr and Libertarians look bad.
Mountain out of a molehill. That was the point of my previous post. Tryin' to keep it real.
On account of some retarded technicality, we should fuck up another election for the whole nation? Sounds like just the perfect pick-me-up for the tired old US of A!
Hey, I got another one. Every time someone misses the April 15th tax filing deadline, we should send them to PMITA prison for being such a procrastinating douche. Hell, maybe the power company could just shut down power for your entire neighborhood if you're late paying your bill.
And fuck Barr for continuing the fine Libertarian Party tradition of coming across as a complete whackjob.
But you are also using twice the light to begin with.
Classical physics tells us that if you know the angle of polarization of a photon, then its chance of passing through a polarizer is the square of the cosine of the difference in angles between the photon and the polarizer. If you have a 45 degree photon, it will always pass a 45 degree polarizer, have a 50% chance of passing a 90 degree polarizer, and will never pass a 135 degree polarizer.
QM tells us that when you have two entangled photons and measure both of their polarizations, the chance the results will correlate is the square of the cosine of the difference in angles between the two polarizers . If you measure them at the same angle, the results always correlate. If you measure them at 45 degrees apart, the measurements correlate 50% of the time. If you measure them 90 degrees apart, the measurements never correlate (the results are always opposite). No matter how you look at it, this means either the results are predetermined at the time the photons are created based on the angles the polarizers will be at the time the measurements are taken, or that one measurement somehow influences the other later so the past isn't immutable.
Either way you look at it, it means the universe doesn't work the way we expect it to. If you're a glass-half-full person you want to believe in FTL and time travel, and if you're a glass-half-empty person then you think maybe the universe is deterministic.
That's why this stuff gets everyone who understands its implications all in a tizzy.
You're oversimplifying it a bit. There really is something spooky going on there. The full explanation is lengthy, but I'm going to give it a try anyway.
First off, consider the photon from a classical physics perspective. We know photons can be polarized to discreet angles, and we know how to compute the chances of a photon passing through a polarizer as a function of the difference in angles between the photon and the polarizer. Say you send a beam of incoherent light through a polarizer oriented at an arbitrarily selected 12.34 degrees. 50% of that light will pass through and the other 50% will be absorbed or deflected. But that 50% that passes through will now be oriented at 12.34 degrees. 100% of that beam of light will pass through through one or more polarizers oriented at 12.34 degrees, with no absorption.
If you pass your beam of 12.34-degree light through a polarizer oriented at 57.34 degrees, you'll find that 50% of that light will be absorbed and the other 50% will pass through, and the 50% that passes through will now be oriented at 57.34.
If you pass your beam of 12.34-degree light through a polarizer oriented at 102.34 degrees, you'll find that all of that light will be absorbed.
But, if pass some 12.34-degree light through a 57.34-degree polarizer, and then pass what makes it past that first filter through a 102.34-degree polarizer, you find that 25% of the original beam of 12.34-degree light makes it through. In other words, the light can't be twisted 90 degrees in one step, but it can be done in two steps.
As it happens, the chance of a photon passing through a polarizer is the square of the cosine of the difference in angle between the photon and the polarizer. For easy remembering, it's 100% at the same angle, 75% at 30 degrees, 50% at 45 degrees, 25% at 60 degrees, and 0% at 90 degrees.
Now, let's go quantum. In the quantum world, "measuring" the polarization angle of an individual photon has different meaning. If the photon is randomly polarized, you have no way to pin its angle down to a particular value. The best you can do is pass the photon through a polarizer. This will either pass the photon through, aligning the photon's angle to match, or deflect the photon. All that you are allowed to say about the previous polarization angle of a photon that passes through the detector is "well, it wasn't 90 degrees apart from my detector, otherwise it wouldn't have passed through.".
Now, with entanglement, things become really strange, though. Based on a classical physics view, usinglaws of conservation of this and that you could deduce that a pair of photons created from one subatomic event would have zero net momentum and the same random angle of polarization. You would then go on to predict that if you measured both members of each pair with polarizers set at the same angle, there would be no correlation of results, because each photon would be its own entity with its own 50% chance to pass the deflector or be absorbed by it, each not influenced by the other.
But quantum mechanics predicts (and I'm actually not 100% clear on why or how) that with entangled photons, the rate of correlation of measurement of their polarization angles is the square of the cosine of the difference in angles between the two detectors. And these predictions are known to be true. There's even a name for them: Violations of Bell's Inequality.
So, the implications should be pretty clear. If both detectors are at the same angle, their results will correlate 100% of the time. So if Detector A registers a "pass" with one member of an entangled photon pair, Detector B either will have already registered the same result or will eventually register the same result. Note that this applies if you change the orientation of
While it has been a faithful companion, your companion cube cannot accompany you through the rest of the test. If it could talk - and the Enrichment Center takes this opportunity to remind you that it cannot - it would tell you to go on without it because it would rather die in a fire than become a burden to you.
The Enrichment Center is committed to the well being of all participants. Cake and grief counseling will be available at the conclusion of the test. Thank you for helping us help you help us all.
Heinlein wrote a short story about this very thing way back when, so it's not even a novel idea.
Thank you, I'm here all week.
I came here to question how "objectivity" and "major networks" get put so close together in a for-real sentence. I mean, seriously. Even if you were to find that they report objectively on what they do report (which they don't), you'll find that they also slant the news by what they choose to report in the first place. I'm trying to figure out where Pentagon manipulation figures into it.
FTA: That means any water in there atmospheres will condense into droplets of water vapor
:)
Aside from the bad English, the quoted bit is actually the most interesting part of the article. Does that mean that a particularly low-temp one of this newly discovered kind of dwarf star could be a self-contained biosphere, with a source of heat in the center surrounded by a life-sustaining atmosphere with liquid water in it?
Dyson Sphere is to Ringworld as Cool Dwarf is to Smoke Ring!
Also, interstellar hydrogen would become cosmic rays to you.
I like kimchi along with a wide variety of other Korean food. I tried a Vegemite sandwich once, and I don't care to repeat the experience. But I'd rather have Vegemite again than try Yuk Hoi. The description on the menu shouldn't be translated to English. Hell, the "yuk" part sounds like what it must taste like, and "hoi" would be the sound you make as you fail to keep it down. And then there's the stuff where they don't bother to put the English translation on the menu. I will be forever content to occasionally wonder what horrors they are hiding from my American eyes..
No Cloning and Teleportation would mean that I couldn't really be copied, but I could be teleported. If "I" am actually the entanglement in my own neural system, it seems like it wouldn't matter if I were suddenly made out of different particles in some other location, if my entanglement is preserved while being teleported to my new body. The particles themselves aren't special, but their quantum states and entanglements between them are unique!
If you put a thick enough sheet of lead between two masses, the sheet will block photons emitted from one mass from reaching the other. But that sheet of lead can't block the exchange of virtual photons, so the two masses can still exert force on each other through electric or magnetic fields.
A gravity field is analogous to a magnetic field. Assuming gravitons exist, typical gravitic interactions between masses would be mediated by virtual gravitons.
Of course I have a limited layman's understanding of this and am probably talking out my ass.
Don't confuse "rails" with "constraints".
In the Final Fantasy games, you have to complete each piece of the game in order before you can move on to the next. They are linear. The game is all about the story, and that fact is thrown in your face with every non-skippable ten-minute cutscene. This is what is meant by rails.
But something like Crackdown is not on rails. You can go anywhere in the city you want. You can turn on your own faction, just to see how many hit squads it takes for them to kill you. You can kill the enemy bosses in whatever order you want. You can pick and choose what side-activities you want. Don't like driving? The game is winnable without it. Basically the game will be fun whether you take the structure it provides or instead just use it as a sandbox and entertain yourself with it.
In a game-on-rails, you either "play" the game exactly how the designer intended it or you hit a solid wall and can't do anything else. You go forward, replaying when you fail, or you quit playing.
Oh, and my PC display looks nice hooked up to it as well.
It should also be noteworthy that another fairly well-known act sold their latest album online. It was for a fixed price, true, but they offered FLAC files of the song -- DRM-free and of the highest possible quality. I'm talking about the Barenaked Ladies and Barenaked Ladies Are Me . According to this blogger, their gross sales during the first week were close to $1 million.
The Wire Act of 1961 made it illegal to place an interstate or international wager: And more recently they passed the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act" as a rider to a must-pass spending bill, which makes financial institutions responsible for policing online wagering: The UIGEA is at the heart of the WTO dispute. The bill is intended to illegalize gambling, not by making gambling illegal (something they cannot do) but my making it illegal to transfer money to and from gambling sites and the banks they work with.
Basically, our goddamned government insists on sticking its nose in a place where it doesn't belong.
A superposition of states simply means that that the particle has an unknown value for the property being discussed. If you pick any random electron up off the street, its spin along any axis you choose to measure is in a superposition of states such that it might be up or down with equal probability. You can't measure this condition of being in a superposition of states because it is not a property of the electron. Rather, it is a condition of the information that you know about the electron. To use a bad coin flipping analogy, if you flip a coin and cover it before looking, you can say it is in a superposition of states between heads and tails with equal probability of each, not because there is anything special about the coin but because you simply don't know the definite answer.
Entanglement does not allow you to control anything at all about a distant particle. When particles are entangled, that means that measurements taken on both members of an entangled pair will correlate more often than our current understanding of the universe says should be possible. The measuring is a passive thing -- it gets information about the state of the particle. The correlations imply that somehow the entangled particles are linked over distance, or that the future of the pair of particles was predetermined at the time the entangled particles were created.
It cannot be exploited for communication because in order to even detect the strange correlations, you have to compare measurements, which requires getting information about those measurements to a common location. Suppose I'm doing an experiment with entangled photon polarization, and Alice is trying to send a message by modulating the angle of her polarizer. At Bob's detector, he's getting a 50% hit/miss with each photon that comes his way, no matter what angle Alice sets her polarizer to, and his measurement results are completely random.In order for Bob to decode the message, he has to know what Alice's measurements were. This is actually why photon entanglement is useful for encryption -- but it ain't gonna let us talk faster than light.
As for me, I'm pretty sure that the universe is deterministic and so I must simply try to enjoy my illusion of free will.