Wow I'm amazed the parent can be modded interesting but in a way it is. Not because of its content but because people actually believe stuff like this, just like they believe Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11, or for that matter Rush Limbaug (he and Michael Moore are two of a kind imo).
Whether or not the parent author actually believes any of it or is just trolling is beyond me. If he believes it (and wants others to take him seriously) here's a few suggestions:
1. Caps Lock off, shouting doesn't enforce anything you say, quite the opposite.
2. Don't assume your internal interpretations and jumps in "logic/rationality" are available for all to see - it's a common mistake if you've spent too much time thinking about something but you need to spell it out; each and every step of reasoning (that seem logical, at least to you) - and especially when your opinion differs a lot from regular ones. Otherwise most people will just see it as a lot of "noise".
3. Your links aren't exactly self-explanatory.
4. Try to avoid blatant namecalling.
5. Try to avoid calling just about everyone but yourself stupid as it makes just about everyone else think you're stupid - unless they really are stupid of course; if so they'll agree with you unconditionally;)
6. "cranio-rectal inversion" is a nice colorful expression but if you want to seem like you have an objective truth and aren't just propagandizing then it's a good idea to aim for more neutral language.
I seriously don't mind if you disregard these suggestions, but don't think you'll have any real impact if you do (some say shit floats but over time it always sinks to the bottom):)
If you actually believe anything you wrote you probably don't like me/this reply much so here's some stuff about me to put your mind at rest and disregard me as just another "penny ante cranio-rectal inversed facist": I'm pro-republican, pro-neocon, pro-American, not a US or EU citizen, pro equal rights for all i.e. pro-individualist, support the current wars the US is involved in (and just about any they've been in ever), anti-socialist/communist/facist, pro-solidarity, pro-democracy & just about any form of freedom as long as it doesn't hurt others (including stupidity, I'm fairly liberalistic that way lol) & pro-OSS (of course)... I'm convinced this should be more than enough for you to disregard me:)
Oh and on the topic of censorship:
1. Who needs it? Let people say what they want, the ludicrous ones are best controlled by giving them ample opportunity to voice themselves.
2. If real censorship existed you yourself would be hunted down, jailed or killed (amazing how many have no clue how it was to live in Soviet Russia/Warsawa Pact countries, or how it is to have independent thoughts today in countries like China or North Korea).
And for all concerned about DU (depleted uranium) and the hype about how awful it is (it is not at all strange to me that said hype constantly reeemerges from the same kind of groups time and time again) these webpages and documents from the World Health Organisation of the United Nations should kill your hysteria:
i found the bbc article selfcontradictory or at best badly written as it says both "When physicists say "teleportation", they are describing the transfer of key properties from one particle to another without a physical link." as well as "...used an 800m-long optical fibre fed through a public sewer system tunnel to connect labs..." and "The link establishes a channel between the labs, dubbed Alice and Bob. This enables the properties, or "quantum states", of light particles to be transferred between the sender (Alice) and the receiver (Bob)"
isn't optical fibre a physical connection? i would say so... the article seems not to be so much about entanglement teleportation as it is about entanglement copying (imo the difference is that between modifying a quantum state in one half of the pair and detecting the changed state in the other pair (= teleportation) and detecting the quantum state then sending that information to modify another quantum state (= copying and what i think the bbc article describes)
anyway, from http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2003/47.cfm: Einstein thought this connection violated the relativity rule that information can't travel faster than the speed of light. Adami and Dr. Robert Gingrich, also of JPL, are the first to apply Einstein's relativity theory to quantum entanglement between particles. They compared the amount of entanglement when the particles were at rest to when they were given a boost. Their findings show that while speeding up ordinary entangled pairs would lead to a loss of the precious entanglement, certain special pairs can be created whose entanglement is increased instead. This increases the connection between them.
Understanding how some of the characteristics of a particle can become entangled through relative motion alone when they seemed to be unentangled or unconnected when at rest could have many applications. For example, entangled particles could be used to synchronize atomic clocks, which are essential for navigating spacecraft in deep space.
hmm so let's assume the spacecraft is travelling at close to the speed of light; if (maybe not such a big if considering the link above) an entaglement is possible in that situation wouldn't any communication (which might be something as "simple" as purposely breaking the entanglement in a way that makes if easily detectable that the break did occur) wouldn't that in effect be faster than light communication? (near lightspeed velocity of craft + instantaneous dis-entanglement)
Slashdot Mirror
Wow I'm amazed the parent can be modded interesting but in a way it is. Not because of its content but because people actually believe stuff like this, just like they believe Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11, or for that matter Rush Limbaug (he and Michael Moore are two of a kind imo).
Whether or not the parent author actually believes any of it or is just trolling is beyond me. If he believes it (and wants others to take him seriously) here's a few suggestions: ;)
1. Caps Lock off, shouting doesn't enforce anything you say, quite the opposite.
2. Don't assume your internal interpretations and jumps in "logic/rationality" are available for all to see - it's a common mistake if you've spent too much time thinking about something but you need to spell it out; each and every step of reasoning (that seem logical, at least to you) - and especially when your opinion differs a lot from regular ones. Otherwise most people will just see it as a lot of "noise".
3. Your links aren't exactly self-explanatory.
4. Try to avoid blatant namecalling.
5. Try to avoid calling just about everyone but yourself stupid as it makes just about everyone else think you're stupid - unless they really are stupid of course; if so they'll agree with you unconditionally
6. "cranio-rectal inversion" is a nice colorful expression but if you want to seem like you have an objective truth and aren't just propagandizing then it's a good idea to aim for more neutral language.
I seriously don't mind if you disregard these suggestions, but don't think you'll have any real impact if you do (some say shit floats but over time it always sinks to the bottom) :)
If you actually believe anything you wrote you probably don't like me/this reply much so here's some stuff about me to put your mind at rest and disregard me as just another "penny ante cranio-rectal inversed facist": I'm pro-republican, pro-neocon, pro-American, not a US or EU citizen, pro equal rights for all i.e. pro-individualist, support the current wars the US is involved in (and just about any they've been in ever), anti-socialist/communist/facist, pro-solidarity, pro-democracy & just about any form of freedom as long as it doesn't hurt others (including stupidity, I'm fairly liberalistic that way lol) & pro-OSS (of course) ... I'm convinced this should be more than enough for you to disregard me :)
Oh and on the topic of censorship:
1. Who needs it? Let people say what they want, the ludicrous ones are best controlled by giving them ample opportunity to voice themselves.
2. If real censorship existed you yourself would be hunted down, jailed or killed (amazing how many have no clue how it was to live in Soviet Russia/Warsawa Pact countries, or how it is to have independent thoughts today in countries like China or North Korea).
And for all concerned about DU (depleted uranium) and the hype about how awful it is (it is not at all strange to me that said hype constantly reeemerges from the same kind of groups time and time again) these webpages and documents from the World Health Organisation of the United Nations should kill your hysteria:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/ehttp://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/du/en/ (links to more WHO DU documents inlcuding the following link)
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en
For the lazy the WHO/UN conclusion is that DU isn't that much of an issue, but I expect to see the DU fearmongering (DU FUD) to continue unabated...
If you find yourself realizing you're wearing a tinfoil hat just take it offi found the bbc article selfcontradictory or at best badly written as it says both "When physicists say "teleportation", they are describing the transfer of key properties from one particle to another without a physical link." as well as "...used an 800m-long optical fibre fed through a public sewer system tunnel to connect labs..." and "The link establishes a channel between the labs, dubbed Alice and Bob. This enables the properties, or "quantum states", of light particles to be transferred between the sender (Alice) and the receiver (Bob)"
:)
isn't optical fibre a physical connection? i would say so... the article seems not to be so much about entanglement teleportation as it is about entanglement copying (imo the difference is that between modifying a quantum state in one half of the pair and detecting the changed state in the other pair (= teleportation) and detecting the quantum state then sending that information to modify another quantum state (= copying and what i think the bbc article describes)
anyway, from http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2003/47.cfm:
Einstein thought this connection violated the relativity rule that information can't travel faster than the speed of light. Adami and Dr. Robert Gingrich, also of JPL, are the first to apply Einstein's relativity theory to quantum entanglement between particles. They compared the amount of entanglement when the particles were at rest to when they were given a boost. Their findings show that while speeding up ordinary entangled pairs would lead to a loss of the precious entanglement, certain special pairs can be created whose entanglement is increased instead. This increases the connection between them.
Understanding how some of the characteristics of a particle can become entangled through relative motion alone when they seemed to be unentangled or unconnected when at rest could have many applications. For example, entangled particles could be used to synchronize atomic clocks, which are essential for navigating spacecraft in deep space.
hmm so let's assume the spacecraft is travelling at close to the speed of light; if (maybe not such a big if considering the link above) an entaglement is possible in that situation wouldn't any communication (which might be something as "simple" as purposely breaking the entanglement in a way that makes if easily detectable that the break did occur) wouldn't that in effect be faster than light communication? (near lightspeed velocity of craft + instantaneous dis-entanglement)
just reacting to your "non-negotiables"