If it is airborne, it would be the ultimate bioweapon.
The individuals, terrorists, or nations that launch the weapon would probably immunize themselves, and then spread it. By the time the virus is detected by the host nation, it would be too late.
Lets be real, theres not enough focus on preventing biological warfare, or bioterrorism, and we all know that it's possible. Just look at what happened in the recent Ricin scare.
Then that says a lot about the wikileaks system. Of course, it's crackable, thats not surprising. What is surprising is that the guy who helped design it, says he wouldn't use the system himself.
Wikileaks can be made a lot more secure than it currently is, but how can they hype it up throughout the article and then at the very end, tear it all down with a phrase like: Laurie cautions that Wikileaks' vaunted encryption is not completely unbreakable. Codebreakers such as the US National Security Agency could probably crack it, he says. "If my life was on the line, I would not be submitting [documents] to Wikileaks."
The founders of wikileaks are afraid to use the system themselves and claim it's crackable. So if it's crackable, who exactly do they expect to use it?
"Laurie cautions that Wikileaks' vaunted encryption is not completely unbreakable. Codebreakers such as the US National Security Agency could probably crack it, he says. "If my life was on the line, I would not be submitting [documents] to Wikileaks.""
If the NSA can crack wikileaks, chances are China, Russia, and many other intelligence agencies can crack wikileaks. They have super computers and quantum computers too. So if governments can crack it, and if the founders wouldn't us it, who is it being built for? I suppose it would be strong enough to withstand the cracking ability of African governments, and governments in the third world. However, then in these situations theres risk if the encryption scheme is crackable.
Brain development ultimately decides who is a child and who is an adult, it's not a matter of simply reproductive capability. Now, different peoples brain develop at different rate, and some people never reach mental maturity, but brain development is the ultimate standard.
We SHOULD be spying on our children. Thats a parents job. Children do not have civil rights, they do not have a right to privacy.
You cannot compare the government to your parent, your parent loves you, and you've known the parent your entire life. The government sees you as a social security number.
Parents should spy on their children. There, someone had to say it so I said it.
Why can't parents watch their child 24/7? We put cameras above babies cribs, these cameras can transmit data through the internet and beam it into your cellphone, now you can see your baby 24/7. Your child goes to school, you can buy sneakers for your child with RFID in it. Now you know where your child is 24/7. Your child is a teenager, you can give your child a cellphone with RFID and GPS in it, now you know where your child is 24/7.
The technology exists to watch your kids 24/7. The problem is, there are time constraints, and it probably makes more sense to pay other people to watch your kids 24/7, but if parents are willing to pay for community policing, and for the parenting technology, I see no reason why we cannot have technological control over our children.
The parent knew the psychological state of their child. They'd at least have seen hints that their child was capable of suicide, and was unstable. If a child psychologically unstable, you have to protect SOCIETY from the reckless behaviors of the child. You cannot tell people who aren't suicidal that they have to behave a certain way.
Lots of people on the internet and off the internet have psychological problems, and they should seek help, and if parents know about these psychological problems, they should have understood that someone on the internet could upset their child or cause all sorts of trauma.
But we should not try to police the entire internet just because some people on the internet are suicidal. There are suicidal cults and suicide websites all over the internet which promote and even describe how to commit suicide. Are these sites cyber-bullying people? Should these sites be banned?
Many people commit group suicide in Japan. Should the websites where these people meet up be banned? Are the people who discuss topics such as suicide cyber-bullies? is this a form of cyber-bullying? I'm sorry, but it's not my responsibility to concern myself with what children who aren't mine, are doing on the internet anymore than I should be concerned about what suicidal people want to do. I might advise them not to harm themselves, but it's truly not my problem legally, or ethically. These are not our kids, so stop trying to distribute your parenting responsibility onto the rest of us.
Sure, we will help you develop the technology to police your own kids, and we'll profit when we sell it to you, but it's your responsibility to buy and use it, and the child is your legal responsibility. And if your child runs away from home, and lives with a stranger, it's not kidnapping, and the stranger should not be charged with kidnapping.
Parents should be legally responsible. And I know, the technology currently sucks, but we can and should use all forms of technology to improve parenting. We can and SHOULD put child filters on TV and the internet, but we should also allow for secure encrypted logging of all internet traffic, and to allow a parent to examine the internet traffic in real time from their cellphone at work.
A parent should receive a cellphone alert whenever their child enters a restricted chatroom, or any chatroom for that matter. Children do not have a right to privacy, at all. Parents have the right to give privacy to a responsible child as a gift, or take it away from a child with a history of irresponsibility. And the technology should be designed and developed to make it trivially easy for parents to do this from a distance.
And as I see it, there is no excuse. And no, I'm not talking about 15 years and up, these kids are old enough to buy their own computer or figure out how to get around whatever the parents do. But 13 year olds? 13 year either shouldn't be online chatting at all, or should be monitored.
If a child is introduced to the internet by their parents, allowed to use the internet unsupervised, and then they can't handle it and something happens to them, you don't blame the internet, you don't try to pass new laws to destroy the foundation of the internet. In this situation the parents should have been parenting.
It's not OUR job to parent all the children who we might find on the internet. It's not your responsibility, or mine, to be legally liable for children on the internet. It's a parents job to protect their children from the internet PERIOD. Just like it's a parents job to protect their child from violent movies.
I'm tired of parents blaming the video games, the violent movies, the internet, for what their children do. If the technology does not exist for parents to monitor their children 24/7, stop making excuses and develop the technology so parents can know what their children are doing and where they are from their pda smartphone while at work.
If you criminalize it, and create software to lock the computer up, then this wont be a problem.
Yes, SOME kids will be able to access the internet unsupervised, but the legal liability should be on the parent who allows their CHILD to have UNRESTRICTED internet access. 13 is still a child. Why should we be allowing 13 year olds to go on the internet and chat? These are children we are talking about here.
Why should adults be forced to interact with children on the internet, because parents are too lazy or too busy to protect their kids from the dangers of the internet? If we want an internet for kids, we should design a seperate internet for children, and get rid of all the chatsites, fill it up with educational sites, and bring the.kids domain. Otherwise, we have to blame the parents who allow 13 year olds to go on the internet, and into chatrooms.
Do we allow 13 year olds to go into bars and nightclubs? Hell no. Why should 13 year olds be in chatrooms? Do we have to get to the point where adults have to password protect websites like slashdot to keep underaged children from reading our discussions complete with swearing and other adult topics? If we are in a situation like that, it's going to destroy the foundation of the internet.
The only solution I see, is to blame parents for any harm caused by the internet, if they were the ones to let their children on the internet unsupervised. I personally did not start chatting on the internet until I was 15. and did not have my own computer until I was 17. I think 15 is a good age to introduce a teenager to the internet unsupervised. 13 clearly is too young, and I think we can all agree on that.
I'm against bullying as much as anyone else, but I think making laws banning cyber-bullying is stupid. If someone is being cyber-bullied they can turn off their computer, to me it's not a big deal.
I think if we should pass any sorta anti-bullying laws, they should be for school bullying, and bullying in the workplace. Cyber-bullying laws will just be abused because you have no proof that someone is a cyber-bully just because they say words you don't like, or lie to you. I think on the internet it's a lot easier to simply block a person out of your life, unlike the workplace or schools, places that you have to be, the internet is a place people choose to be and therefore shouldn't be in the same category.
If someone is bullied in a chatroom they chose to go to, maybe they should stop choosing to go to that chatroom. It's not like cyber bullies are going to follow a user around all over the internet. I see cyber-bullying laws as another one of those victimless crimes. Why should 13 year olds be on the internet unsupervised? It should be illegal to allow unsupervised 13 year olds to access the internet. And under 15, chatsites should be restricted. This would solve the majority of the problems.
The best solution, STOP LETTING CHILDREN ACCESS THE INTERNET UNSUPERVISED. It's both dumb and unethical to do this.
If the government has it, the governments get it. If the governments get it, the corporations get it. If the corporations get it, the mafias get it. If the mafias get it, the rich and powerful own it.
No information is secure because powerful/rich individuals can access anything stored anywhere on earth. Just because the governments can hold the information, doesn't mean there aren't moles and terrorist cells in the US government who will sneak the information out and sell it to terrorist groups. And of course theres spies in every corporation, and of course both governments and mafias have spy networks everywhere.
It's far FAR more complicated, and cannot be solved by better laws when law enforcement is impossible. Theres too many breaches that go on, on a daily basis, to ever hope to secure the worlds information. And governments are too busy trying to protect nuclear secrets, they don't have the resources to care about your health information.
Look, you could store the information in encrypted form, and due to the flaw in the windows random number generator, it would still be accessed and sold by hackers. But to tell you the truth, the black market operators don't even have to go through the trouble of hiring hackers, they can just bribe the individuals who do have access to your medical records, or threaten to violently harm the children of these individuals, or use blackmail on these individuals by threatening to tell their wife what they've done, or to tell their parents that they are gay.
Do you see? The only way to secure information is to not tell anyone. Your information will be no more safe on Google than it already is, which means go ahead and put it on Google because if someone wants your medical records, they already have it. All the intelligence agencies in the world have your medical records, all the mafias have your medical records, and just powerful rich individuals who can hire private investigators can get these records by simply paying for it.
All information has a price. All information is datamined, stored in databases somewhere on the planet. Anyone who wants the information can pay for it, and whoever works in fields like data entry, or whoever maintains the databases, or whoever merely has access to the files, that individual can be pressured to copy and sell the information to whoever wants it. If you have to face the threat "Either you take our money, or we will kill someone you care about", what would you do? And telling the police might not work because they might own the chief of police too.
1. If the government has the information, the black market has it.
2. The black market can simply buy the information from the people who work in the hospital.
The lesson? No information which is stored in plaintext anywhere on earth is secure. As long as a pair of eyes can see it, whoever owns that pair of eyes, can capture and sell whatever information. It's already too late.
It's good for security technology for them to do this kinda stuff.
These types of attacks on the internet only make the internet less vulnerable to attack in the future. They are going to increase the security of the internet by doing this.
Currently most users don't know what encryption is, and most hackers are busy focused on other stuff. If AT&T does this, millions of hackers who are currently writing linux software or legit software, will start writing software designed to surpass the limits AT&T places on them.
Just look up the.p2p format. Look at Freenet. And that's just the beginning. Nothing stops the hardware companies from making hardware products. It's like when the cops started using lasers to track cars, and the car owners started buying the cop car detectors.
As I see it, AT&T is wasting their time. Nothing can stop people from sharing files. All this does is stop users from sharing unecrypted files. How will AT&T stop darknets, and encrypted p2p?
There is not much that AT&T can do about encryption. Support they do try to block or ban traffic which looks suspicious, well people will just respond by making the traffic look less suspicious. Suppose they try to decrypt? Then people will use better encryption schemes that they'll have a harder and harder time until it's impossible to decrypt it all.
How will they deal with packet encryption? What if a hardware device were to literally encrypt every single packet with a different key of 128bit length, on each end?
What they will do is create a market for hardware level encryption. They will also make it so encryption works on the packet level instead of just encrypted files, which would honestly be their worst nightmare because even with all the super computers in the world, they'll have a hard time decrypting every packet.
If AT&T does this, it's equal to declaring war on the entire internet. I think it's a crazy, a STUPID move. All it will do is make the security technology more sophisticated and increase privacy for all.
Shouldn't that information be encrypted?
If it isn't readable, downloading it from p2p wont help much unless hackers have a super computer built up of zombie machines to crack it.
You are right in saying nothing can be moved through space time faster than light.
However, because space time does not actually exist, and because on the quantum level everything is one thing, there is no such thing as distance when things are small enough, and therefore everything is everywhere all at once, all at the time, with no seperate, no distance, and so concepts like measuring and calculating the time etc etc are all worthless.
Electrons move faster than matter because electrons aren't matter, they are actually particles which are also waves. In one form, it's everywhere all the time, in another form, it's in one place as a particle, and the fact that we observe it changes it because our brains and our observation itself depends on electrons and atoms.
So basically, on the quantum level everything is one thing, and on the larger sizes, everything is seperate. The seperate is the illusion that creates distance, but distance does not actually exist quantumly, and once we start encoding information into the quantum, distance will begin to cease to exist for us.
Think of the potential of an internet where all questions are answers as soon as you think of them. Information at the speed of thought. Everything on demand. That's what we are talking about here.
Atoms are matter. Quantum entanglement does NOT transfer information across the universe. In reality there simply is no such thing as distance on the quantum level, therefore there is no such thing as space on the quantum level, therefore something can be in multiple places at a time on the quantum level. If atoms can be entangled and be in multiple places at a time, and matter is made up of atoms, then anything made up of atoms can be in multiple places at a time.
It's a scale and energy issue, not an issue with the physics itself. It's proven already that it can be done, as they've done experiments already that have proved that a material object can be in multiple places at once.
Teleportation is the wrong word, quantum non locality is the right word.If this can be scaled up, it will likely change physics as we know it because it breaks all the laws of physics, unless we view the laws of physivs from a completely different philosophical angle. Thus we have quantum philosophy.
So while information can be in multiple places at a time, in theory so can anything, including matter, we just don't have the equipment to entangle huge amounts of atoms.
In all likelyhood, the universe is non-local anywhere, which simply means everything comes from the same singularity on the quantum level and space, seperateness, and distance are all illusions of our mind. In reality everythings connected to a web or matrix, everything you do influences everything else because you are a part of the universe and thus a part of everything else.
The reason quantum entanglement works is because when things are small enough we can SEE everything is non local. This is also an issue of perception, and there are philosophical issues involving the role of the observer as well.
Slashdot Mirror
If it is airborne, it would be the ultimate bioweapon.
The individuals, terrorists, or nations that launch the weapon would probably immunize themselves, and then spread it. By the time the virus is detected by the host nation, it would be too late.
Lets be real, theres not enough focus on preventing biological warfare, or bioterrorism, and we all know that it's possible. Just look at what happened in the recent Ricin scare.
This sorta research is the exact sorta research one would expect to be conducted for the purposes of biological warfare.
What weapon could be better than a weapon which can infect a nations leaders and drive them all insane?
These insane leaders would still keep their power, and would pass laws which are less and less sane, and do things which are less and less sane.
How can you stop them from accessing the internet through radio?
Then that says a lot about the wikileaks system. Of course, it's crackable, thats not surprising. What is surprising is that the guy who helped design it, says he wouldn't use the system himself.
Wikileaks can be made a lot more secure than it currently is, but how can they hype it up throughout the article and then at the very end, tear it all down with a phrase like: Laurie cautions that Wikileaks' vaunted encryption is not completely unbreakable. Codebreakers such as the US National Security Agency could probably crack it, he says. "If my life was on the line, I would not be submitting [documents] to Wikileaks."
The founders of wikileaks are afraid to use the system themselves and claim it's crackable. So if it's crackable, who exactly do they expect to use it?
"Laurie cautions that Wikileaks' vaunted encryption is not completely unbreakable. Codebreakers such as the US National Security Agency could probably crack it, he says. "If my life was on the line, I would not be submitting [documents] to Wikileaks.""
If the NSA can crack wikileaks, chances are China, Russia, and many other intelligence agencies can crack wikileaks. They have super computers and quantum computers too. So if governments can crack it, and if the founders wouldn't us it, who is it being built for? I suppose it would be strong enough to withstand the cracking ability of African governments, and governments in the third world. However, then in these situations theres risk if the encryption scheme is crackable.
Brain development ultimately decides who is a child and who is an adult, it's not a matter of simply reproductive capability.
Now, different peoples brain develop at different rate, and some people never reach mental maturity, but brain development is the ultimate standard.
Why are there victimless crimes if civil society cares about protecting the weak and ending violence? A lot of laws exist merely to create victims.
IF someone commits suicide, even if they left a suicide note saying your words killed them, it's THEIR fault.
We SHOULD be spying on our children. Thats a parents job. Children do not have civil rights, they do not have a right to privacy.
You cannot compare the government to your parent, your parent loves you, and you've known the parent your entire life. The government sees you as a social security number.
Parents should spy on their children. There, someone had to say it so I said it.
Maybe the congress should be listening to people like you and funding parental technologies instead of this censorship filtering bullshit.
Why can't parents watch their child 24/7?
We put cameras above babies cribs, these cameras can transmit data through the internet and beam it into your cellphone, now you can see your baby 24/7. Your child goes to school, you can buy sneakers for your child with RFID in it. Now you know where your child is 24/7. Your child is a teenager, you can give your child a cellphone with RFID and GPS in it, now you know where your child is 24/7.
The technology exists to watch your kids 24/7. The problem is, there are time constraints, and it probably makes more sense to pay other people to watch your kids 24/7, but if parents are willing to pay for community policing, and for the parenting technology, I see no reason why we cannot have technological control over our children.
The parent knew the psychological state of their child. They'd at least have seen hints that their child was capable of suicide, and was unstable.
If a child psychologically unstable, you have to protect SOCIETY from the reckless behaviors of the child. You cannot tell people who aren't suicidal that they have to behave a certain way.
Lots of people on the internet and off the internet have psychological problems, and they should seek help, and if parents know about these psychological problems, they should have understood that someone on the internet could upset their child or cause all sorts of trauma.
But we should not try to police the entire internet just because some people on the internet are suicidal. There are suicidal cults and suicide websites all over the internet which promote and even describe how to commit suicide. Are these sites cyber-bullying people? Should these sites be banned?
Many people commit group suicide in Japan. Should the websites where these people meet up be banned? Are the people who discuss topics such as suicide cyber-bullies? is this a form of cyber-bullying? I'm sorry, but it's not my responsibility to concern myself with what children who aren't mine, are doing on the internet anymore than I should be concerned about what suicidal people want to do. I might advise them not to harm themselves, but it's truly not my problem legally, or ethically. These are not our kids, so stop trying to distribute your parenting responsibility onto the rest of us.
Sure, we will help you develop the technology to police your own kids, and we'll profit when we sell it to you, but it's your responsibility to buy and use it, and the child is your legal responsibility. And if your child runs away from home, and lives with a stranger, it's not kidnapping, and the stranger should not be charged with kidnapping.
Parents should be legally responsible. And I know, the technology currently sucks, but we can and should use all forms of technology to improve parenting. We can and SHOULD put child filters on TV and the internet, but we should also allow for secure encrypted logging of all internet traffic, and to allow a parent to examine the internet traffic in real time from their cellphone at work.
A parent should receive a cellphone alert whenever their child enters a restricted chatroom, or any chatroom for that matter. Children do not have a right to privacy, at all. Parents have the right to give privacy to a responsible child as a gift, or take it away from a child with a history of irresponsibility. And the technology should be designed and developed to make it trivially easy for parents to do this from a distance.
And as I see it, there is no excuse. And no, I'm not talking about 15 years and up, these kids are old enough to buy their own computer or figure out how to get around whatever the parents do. But 13 year olds? 13 year either shouldn't be online chatting at all, or should be monitored.
If a child is introduced to the internet by their parents, allowed to use the internet unsupervised, and then they can't handle it and something happens to them, you don't blame the internet, you don't try to pass new laws to destroy the foundation of the internet. In this situation the parents should have been parenting.
It's not OUR job to parent all the children who we might find on the internet. It's not your responsibility, or mine, to be legally liable for children on the internet. It's a parents job to protect their children from the internet PERIOD. Just like it's a parents job to protect their child from violent movies.
I'm tired of parents blaming the video games, the violent movies, the internet, for what their children do. If the technology does not exist for parents to monitor their children 24/7, stop making excuses and develop the technology so parents can know what their children are doing and where they are from their pda smartphone while at work.
If you criminalize it, and create software to lock the computer up, then this wont be a problem.
Yes, SOME kids will be able to access the internet unsupervised, but the legal liability should be on the parent who allows their CHILD to have UNRESTRICTED internet access. 13 is still a child. Why should we be allowing 13 year olds to go on the internet and chat? These are children we are talking about here.
Why should adults be forced to interact with children on the internet, because parents are too lazy or too busy to protect their kids from the dangers of the internet? If we want an internet for kids, we should design a seperate internet for children, and get rid of all the chatsites, fill it up with educational sites, and bring the
Do we allow 13 year olds to go into bars and nightclubs? Hell no. Why should 13 year olds be in chatrooms? Do we have to get to the point where adults have to password protect websites like slashdot to keep underaged children from reading our discussions complete with swearing and other adult topics? If we are in a situation like that, it's going to destroy the foundation of the internet.
The only solution I see, is to blame parents for any harm caused by the internet, if they were the ones to let their children on the internet unsupervised. I personally did not start chatting on the internet until I was 15. and did not have my own computer until I was 17. I think 15 is a good age to introduce a teenager to the internet unsupervised. 13 clearly is too young, and I think we can all agree on that.
I'm against bullying as much as anyone else, but I think making laws banning cyber-bullying is stupid. If someone is being cyber-bullied they can turn off their computer, to me it's not a big deal.
I think if we should pass any sorta anti-bullying laws, they should be for school bullying, and bullying in the workplace. Cyber-bullying laws will just be abused because you have no proof that someone is a cyber-bully just because they say words you don't like, or lie to you. I think on the internet it's a lot easier to simply block a person out of your life, unlike the workplace or schools, places that you have to be, the internet is a place people choose to be and therefore shouldn't be in the same category.
If someone is bullied in a chatroom they chose to go to, maybe they should stop choosing to go to that chatroom. It's not like cyber bullies are going to follow a user around all over the internet. I see cyber-bullying laws as another one of those victimless crimes. Why should 13 year olds be on the internet unsupervised? It should be illegal to allow unsupervised 13 year olds to access the internet. And under 15, chatsites should be restricted. This would solve the majority of the problems.
The best solution, STOP LETTING CHILDREN ACCESS THE INTERNET UNSUPERVISED. It's both dumb and unethical to do this.
If the government has it, the governments get it.
If the governments get it, the corporations get it.
If the corporations get it, the mafias get it.
If the mafias get it, the rich and powerful own it.
No information is secure because powerful/rich individuals can access anything stored anywhere on earth. Just because the governments can hold the information, doesn't mean there aren't moles and terrorist cells in the US government who will sneak the information out and sell it to terrorist groups. And of course theres spies in every corporation, and of course both governments and mafias have spy networks everywhere.
It's far FAR more complicated, and cannot be solved by better laws when law enforcement is impossible. Theres too many breaches that go on, on a daily basis, to ever hope to secure the worlds information. And governments are too busy trying to protect nuclear secrets, they don't have the resources to care about your health information.
Look, you could store the information in encrypted form, and due to the flaw in the windows random number generator, it would still be accessed and sold by hackers. But to tell you the truth, the black market operators don't even have to go through the trouble of hiring hackers, they can just bribe the individuals who do have access to your medical records, or threaten to violently harm the children of these individuals, or use blackmail on these individuals by threatening to tell their wife what they've done, or to tell their parents that they are gay.
Do you see? The only way to secure information is to not tell anyone. Your information will be no more safe on Google than it already is, which means go ahead and put it on Google because if someone wants your medical records, they already have it. All the intelligence agencies in the world have your medical records, all the mafias have your medical records, and just powerful rich individuals who can hire private investigators can get these records by simply paying for it.
All information has a price. All information is datamined, stored in databases somewhere on the planet. Anyone who wants the information can pay for it, and whoever works in fields like data entry, or whoever maintains the databases, or whoever merely has access to the files, that individual can be pressured to copy and sell the information to whoever wants it. If you have to face the threat "Either you take our money, or we will kill someone you care about", what would you do? And telling the police might not work because they might own the chief of police too.
1. If the government has the information, the black market has it.
2. The black market can simply buy the information from the people who work in the hospital.
The lesson? No information which is stored in plaintext anywhere on earth is secure. As long as a pair of eyes can see it, whoever owns that pair of eyes, can capture and sell whatever information. It's already too late.
It's good for security technology for them to do this kinda stuff.
.p2p format. Look at Freenet. And that's just the beginning. Nothing stops the hardware companies from making hardware products. It's like when the cops started using lasers to track cars, and the car owners started buying the cop car detectors.
These types of attacks on the internet only make the internet less vulnerable to attack in the future. They are going to increase the security of the internet by doing this.
Currently most users don't know what encryption is, and most hackers are busy focused on other stuff. If AT&T does this, millions of hackers who are currently writing linux software or legit software, will start writing software designed to surpass the limits AT&T places on them.
Just look up the
As I see it, AT&T is wasting their time. Nothing can stop people from sharing files. All this does is stop users from sharing unecrypted files. How will AT&T stop darknets, and encrypted p2p?
There is not much that AT&T can do about encryption. Support they do try to block or ban traffic which looks suspicious, well people will just respond by making the traffic look less suspicious. Suppose they try to decrypt? Then people will use better encryption schemes that they'll have a harder and harder time until it's impossible to decrypt it all.
How will they deal with packet encryption? What if a hardware device were to literally encrypt every single packet with a different key of 128bit length, on each end?
What they will do is create a market for hardware level encryption. They will also make it so encryption works on the packet level instead of just encrypted files, which would honestly be their worst nightmare because even with all the super computers in the world, they'll have a hard time decrypting every packet.
If AT&T does this, it's equal to declaring war on the entire internet. I think it's a crazy, a STUPID move. All it will do is make the security technology more sophisticated and increase privacy for all.
AT&T, please do this.
Shouldn't that information be encrypted? If it isn't readable, downloading it from p2p wont help much unless hackers have a super computer built up of zombie machines to crack it.
You are right in saying nothing can be moved through space time faster than light.
However, because space time does not actually exist, and because on the quantum level everything is one thing, there is no such thing as distance when things are small enough, and therefore everything is everywhere all at once, all at the time, with no seperate, no distance, and so concepts like measuring and calculating the time etc etc are all worthless.
Electrons move faster than matter because electrons aren't matter, they are actually particles which are also waves. In one form, it's everywhere all the time, in another form, it's in one place as a particle, and the fact that we observe it changes it because our brains and our observation itself depends on electrons and atoms.
So basically, on the quantum level everything is one thing, and on the larger sizes, everything is seperate. The seperate is the illusion that creates distance, but distance does not actually exist quantumly, and once we start encoding information into the quantum, distance will begin to cease to exist for us.
Think of the potential of an internet where all questions are answers as soon as you think of them. Information at the speed of thought. Everything on demand. That's what we are talking about here.
Atoms are matter. Quantum entanglement does NOT transfer information across the universe. In reality there simply is no such thing as distance on the quantum level, therefore there is no such thing as space on the quantum level, therefore something can be in multiple places at a time on the quantum level. If atoms can be entangled and be in multiple places at a time, and matter is made up of atoms, then anything made up of atoms can be in multiple places at a time.
It's a scale and energy issue, not an issue with the physics itself. It's proven already that it can be done, as they've done experiments already that have proved that a material object can be in multiple places at once.
Teleportation is the wrong word, quantum non locality is the right word.If this can be scaled up, it will likely change physics as we know it because it breaks all the laws of physics, unless we view the laws of physivs from a completely different philosophical angle. Thus we have quantum philosophy.
So while information can be in multiple places at a time, in theory so can anything, including matter, we just don't have the equipment to entangle huge amounts of atoms.
In all likelyhood, the universe is non-local anywhere, which simply means everything comes from the same singularity on the quantum level and space, seperateness, and distance are all illusions of our mind. In reality everythings connected to a web or matrix, everything you do influences everything else because you are a part of the universe and thus a part of everything else.
The reason quantum entanglement works is because when things are small enough we can SEE everything is non local. This is also an issue of perception, and there are philosophical issues involving the role of the observer as well.