I don't know about #3 and #4 but the answer to #1 and #2 is absolutely YES and those who are pessimistic about it or post long scientific sounding refutations of this will look ridiculous in the future.
Absolutely nothing in either the article you linked or the actual published paper the article links to [0] indicates that the experts think this points the way to FTL signalling of any type.
The article might have glossed over that, but the researchers wouldn't have. Anyone who thought they had a way to send information FTL would be heralding it from the rooftops, because that, and not quantum teleportation or quantum solid-state whatever, would be the main story.
Why? Because FTL signalling inherently means causality is broken. Effects can precede causes. You can send information back in time. This is inherent in the geometry of the Universe, as predicted by Special Relativity, one of the best-tested and most-validated theories we have to date. Special Relativity is validated every time anyone uses GPS, for example, and the prediction that FTL implies travel back in time is inherent to what Special Relativity is.
So I'm not going to take you at your word. The supposed FTL neutrinos which turned out to be some loose cables show what happens when the scientific world even thinks that Special Relativity might need to be modified.
Sure, Australian government will soon spy on you if you use Fastmail. But every other mail provider is spied on by US government at least. And Australia is an enlightened first world country so unless you're doing something illegal, you might as well consider it better than being spied on by US government.
I really think EU/NATO/US should step up covert and intelligence activities to overthrow the Hungarian government. A backwards and evil regime that has taken over Hungary should not be permitted to exist in the heart of Europe.
This is what the US did to Brazil (where I live) and, trust me, when it happens it's never to protect a democracy but rather to prevent losses to American economic interests. Also, if you live there, you really don't want it. Or shouldn't want it.
I don't think undemocratically overthrowing an elected government is a great idea, even if it's really unpopular. At least wait until they fail to run elections.
Dude, calm down. Human rights violations absolutely have to be sanctioned, sure, but transparently and above board. To be honest, at a certain point I'm fully in favor of tossing Hungary out of the EU (it's no place for authoritarian regimes), but covertly overthrowing governments? Not cool.
Well … I don’t think you can underestimate the threat of throwing Hungary out of the EU. But it’s also a politically risky move (there are large groups of people – maybe not majorities, but large groups – in many EU countries who do want out and any indication that that’s a realistic option politically, even if it’s throwing a member out, would provide lots of political cover for those groups), so ultimately unlikely to happen. Also, Russia would be more than happy to pick up any stragglers, and that can’t be good for anyone.
Honestly, I have no idea how the EU should deal with Hungary (or, if we generalise the problem, any member state getting an authoritarian government). I’m deeply, deeply uncomfortable with anything involving actual violence. That’s the Europe of that past and that Europe was a horrific place I never ever want to return to. The EU should be able to solve internal conflicts politically. That’s the issue here. And the EU can’t (and shouldn’t) force radical change inside countries – but it should be a vigilant watchdog for human rights. I’m just not sure exactly how to implement that in practice – but I’m certain I don’t want violence.
I live in Croatia, and it makes me uncomfortable there is a Pro-Russian and unusual regime popping up in Hungary. This thing needs to be acted upon and taken care of quickly.
so they can over-win the next elections by campaigning as the Proud Small Sovereign David against the Evil European Union Interference? That seems a rather stupid move.
I'm not sure what you mean by "evil". If you mean "corrupt", sure. But it has never been a reason to forcefully evict a government, as long as they behave. I'm not sure Orban is more corrupt than, say, Berlusconi was, your average Romanian official, or the Turkish government. He'll do some damage, his friends will get rich, and at some point he'll be be out of office. Unless he starts taking himself a bit too seriously and attempts to turn Hungary into a dictatorship. Then that's a whole different ball game, and the EU would most certainly not stand for it.
In 7 years on HN this is the first time I've wished I could downvote a comment. I dislike Orban's policies as much as anyone, but subverting the democratic process of another nation just because you don't agree with the results is plain evil. Unless of course crimes against humanity are committed, but so far I see no evidence of that. This voluntarist mindset is diseased and profoundly anti-democratic.
This seems like a politically motivated piece of nonsense to discredit individualism and to make one seem insignificant. It's not that consciousness doesn't exist. Consciousness is existence itself. Nothing other than consciousness can exist.
"Public interest" is mostly an excuse for unnecessary statism and senseless regulation of European bureaucrats. European economy is very weak compared to that of US, and proponents of regulations under the guise of "public interest" have zero legitimacy because the results are terrible.
Allowing corporations to free themselves from the shackles of regulation will benefit average citizen of both continents by increasing prosperity and choice. European economy has barely grown for 15 years and these agreements are a welcome development.
"European economy has barely grown for 15 years and these agreements are a welcome development."
Good, keep it this way. We don't need more economic growth because the 90% of it goes straight to billionaires and the average worker don't benefit from it anyways. What we really need is an economy that does not rely on growth and mass production of toxic waste.
Are you arguing the benefits of a stagnant economy? I don't understand how that could be a good thing. The economy needs to at least match growth of the population, or else that means you have unemployment or lower wages. But if that's what you want just to stick it to the billionaires...
Growth and more growth is only needed, because of our interest based money system.
Any gardener can tell you, that unlimited (and exponential) growth is not possible. But economists still believe in it.
Some (very soon) day, all the resources of this planet will be wasted -- and humanity will have destroyed itself -- just because of economic theories and to make billionaires from millionaires.
Growth is needed to lift people out of poverty, create jobs and opportunities and support wider range of social projects from infrastructure to space exploration.
The burden we're putting on the resources of this planet is indeed very high and we must work to reduce it. However, GDP growth with shrinking burden on the environment is achievable by generating more value on a smaller environmental footprint (see my other comment, in short: we can increase GDP by growing the relative aggregate value of services, software and products made of recycled materials).
That is just capitalistic propaganda that now runs the last decades over the world.
But it does not work any more. The "growth" of the last two decades did go 99% into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires.
Today is the situation, that new jobs in underdeveloped countries are at the existence minimum of that country or below -- meaning, those people work their ass of, just to survive and make the big bosses richer. And additionally, the environments of the countries are polluted, resources are depleted ...
> But it does not work any more. The "growth" of the last two decades did go 99% into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires.
According to the world bank, the number of people in poverty worldwide declined from about 1.9 billion in 1990 to about 1.2 billion in 2010. That is despite an increase in surveyed population of about 1.4 billion over the same period. ( http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm?1,0 )
Now, it is possible that economic growth over that period was so enormous that only 1% of it (or less, considering that there are more people in the world besides the very destitute, millionaires, and billionaires) was sufficient for that amazing reduction in poverty.
But it seems unlikely, so I would appreciate a source for the assertion "The 'growth' of the last two decades did go 99% into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires."
I don't know, where you live. But I guess, that you live in a country, where critics of the capitalistic system does not appear in the media.
I don't care, what the world bank says. It is statistics. For example: How do they define "poverty"? By manipulating the definitions, I can prove anything to you.
It is a fact (and in my country, you can see it in the media), that in the developed countries, the rich got far much richer than the other people got.
That maybe some people in lower developed countries are better of now (by the statistics), might be, but their income is so low, that they do not really count against the growth in income in the other countries.
Please, don't tell me about the world bank. I don't trust organisations, that are installed for one main reason: To sell capitalism to the world.
Of course, if you read the right (right-wing) media, they will try to discredit it, but I did not yet read any plausible critic -- only wild tries to protect capitalism from any thinking.
I am arguing that for an average person there is no difference between 3% growth and 15% growth, but for mother Earth there is and I don't care about corporate CEOs (less than 1% of the global population) and the Rokafela bros. Sorry for my ignorance but I think an average person and our planet is more important than few fat bankers and their CEO friends. I know, I am a bad person.
Economic growth does not necessarily imply destruction of the environment. The growth rate refers to the rate at which value of products and services in an economy grows. The aggregate environmental footprint may in fact shrink or grow slower than the GDP. I can think of three reasons why there could be a gap between GDP growth and environmental footprint growth:
Services. Most of the value in a modern economy lies in services whose footprint is a lot lower than manufacturing.
Software. Even in manufacturing increasing part of the value comes from non-material components like software and network services.
Recycling. Recycling and downcycling lower environmental footprint by reducing our need for raw materials.
That is just a theory. What do we have in practice:
- Some years ago, you could (yourself) exchange the battery of your mobile phone -- today, many mobile phones will be thrown away, when the battery is finished or any other part does not work any more. Todays "highest tech" industries are environmental nightmares. And now they even build tablet PCs that way, that should replace normal computers (see MS Surface).
- A lot more products are just build for fast consumption and recycling is still not in focus of most manufacturers. Instead, the waste from Europe is exported to Africa.
What I say: I am sure, that it would be possible, but with our todays ideology of growth for the sake of more and more profits and less and less regulation, that is just not "compatible".
It's actually more likely that your battery will be properly disposed of today than it was a decade ago. Its being integrated into the phone means it is handled in the entire "decommissioning" of the phone (when you recycle it, trade it in or even throw it away where it is fished out by garbage processing companies who make money by salvaging electronics out of garbage and preventing it from going to landfills.
The reality is, that very much (if not most) of our electronics garbage goes to Africa, where it goes to wild garbage dumps and young children are destroying their health by burning the valuable materials out of the garbage without any health or environmental measures.
Even when the phones are decomposed and parts are recycled, we are very far from recycling 100% of electronic gadgets. Maybe you could (with much effort, that is not cost effective) recycle 40% of the materials. The idiotic method of glueing all together makes things even more difficult!
What you tell here, is just science fiction, that is presented as facts from the media to give us better feelings.
I live in a country with very high standards for garbage recycling -- but even here, most of the stuff is either just dumped or burnt, since that is the most cost effective thing -- that is done, of course after the private households took much effort into waste separation -- it is just dumped/burnt together. I know that, because I brought my things separated to official recycling and was advised to dump it together into one big hole.
Don't believe, what media and press tells you, because governments want to shine a bright light on our industries! You are being just brain-washed.
You are welcome to move to Venezuela, Belarus or some other unlivable place. I'd prefer Europe to be economically free and in growing prosperity much like Singapore. Sadly most of EU citizens are overly brainwashed with statist propaganda from birth, and promoting degenerate policies which cause economic weakness.
If you look up their reviews by ex-employees you will find they are extremely negative, talk about lots of workplace bullying, insufficient resources and a vicious upper management that doesn't respect their workers.
