Oh dear, God, seriously? So we don't have access to the evidence at this point. Of course you don't. There is this thing called a trial where evidence gets presented. It isn't the government's job to give you all of the evidence in a made for TV movie.

Wait until the trial, then all of the evidence gets presented. Then make your judgement.

No evidence at all.

Just that they were seen on video dropping off a backpack at the scene of the bombing shortly before the bomb went off.
Seen not reacting to the bomb explosion itself when everyone around did.
Getting involved in a high speed chase where they threw explosives out of the car
Older brother had explosives strapped to his chest
Younger brother indicated that older brother was one who directed the plot.

Nope, no evidence at all. And this is all that has been sent to the media. There is likely more that we aren't aware of.

Here's a tip... let the trial actually begin before questioning the evidence.

Are you really the person behind the "host file" spam?

Spam Example

Hawking honed-in on the question “why something rather than nothing?” reasserting his point of view that a supernatural “god” is not needed to create the universe — quantum fluctuations helped shape our evolving universe at the Big Bang, adding the conditions were “just right” for life (and therefore us) to be asking these profound questions.

This is what I don't understand about these intelligent people. They answer why there is something rather than nothing by talking about how quantum fluctuations work. The existence of quantum fluctuations results from energy existing in the first place. So we have a rather circular argument being made. Essentially it boils down to "there is something because there was something".

There are only two possibilities: 1) there has always been something 2) there wasn't always something. Neither can be true, ergo we don't exist.

Oh, and in case you still think your article proves you right, you might want to read ALL of the article. The last paragraph states

"As always with entanglement, it's important to note that no information is passing between Alice, Bob, and Victor: the settings on the detectors and the BiSA are set independently, and there's no way to communicate faster than the speed of light. Nevertheless, this experiment provides a realization of one of the fundamental paradoxes of quantum mechanics: that measurements taken at different points in space and time appear to affect each other, even though there is no mechanism that allows information to travel between them."

So. while you may thing we are all "stupid" "ignorant" and "idiots", you cannot be arsed to read the entire article before forming an opinion based on nothing.

Actually, your link just shows you still don't understand what quantum entanglement is. In another post, you indicated that it was manipulating one entity in a pair and measuring it on the other pair. This is blatantly false.

Again, your article does nothing to indicate that data is transmitted. If it were, it would be an absolute stunner for the physics community, and you would see thousands of stories about science scrapping the theories that underlay everything we know about relativity.

No, I am not a physicist, but there was another physicist who called you out, and apparently you have at least one other person who thinks you are pretty offensive.

Thanks for providing the link. It proved that you are insulting without having a clue about what you are talking about.

Okay, I am self-taught in this area, so wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying. I think the crux of the matter is so many people WANT this FTL communication to be possible (like me) that they refuse to accept the underlying principle.

I think the two terms are being confused, and we are actually agreeing on our positions.

I agree there is a legal expectation of privacy.
I know that there is not practical expectation of privacy. That is why you should encrypt email if you care about privacy.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say there is zero corresponding change not "a small change in probability"? As long as it is non-zero there is some information transmitted and this clearly isn't the case.

I agree. The difference is in the meaning of "expect". The IRS is using it in a legal sense, and they are wrong here. From a practical sense, one should not expect email to be confidential. From a legal aspect we should have that expectation.

Do you thoroughly investigate every claim about perpetual motion machines and hope that some day, someone will figure out how to circumvent the laws of thermodynamics?

I certainly expect my email to be private. Okay, I expect it SHOULD be private. But the bottom line is if you are storing your data on other people's equipment, you have no guarantee of anything.

Quantum entanglement involves measuring current state not manipulating current state. If I manipulate either entity in the pair, I have broken entanglement. Yeah, I wish it weren't true either, but it is what it is.

Basically it is impossible to prove instantaneous travel because our most sensitive instruments will only go down to a certain value. Our most sensitive measurements demonstrate a minimum of 10k times speed of light. If our instruments become 10 times more accurate then they will likely be able to say that it is a minimum of 100k. Translation, error correcting and processing time have nothing to do with it.

You affect one, the other reacts without a particle or wave traveling between them,

And there is the absolute proof that you don't understand anything about quantum entanglement. You do not affect one in the slightest. You are only measuring the state of one the member pairs. You are not setting any kind of state, and attempting to do so would break the entanglement.

You have thrown out a lot of insults, and then when asked to provide links to your purported NASA information refuse to do so. Fact is, you haven't the faintest idea of what you are talking about.