And a solar cell fixed to one spot on the moon is exposed to sunlight for more than a fraction of a day?

We're not talking orbital solar panels here.

soylentnews.org
pipedot.org

No under capitalism no one is exploited.

What colour is the sky on your planet?

Values exchanges for value and nobody does anything forcibly against their will.

Sure. And people can just decide not to eat for prolonged time whenever no acceptable way to generate income is available. </sarcasm>

It's only when you add government activity beyond the protection of private property that you get exportation.

You mean, government activity like protection of lives? Protection of freedom? Or protection of any other human rights?

Alienating your users seems to be all the rage lately.

Anyone who thinks all software has bugs has never written "Hello World" in assembly.

Or he has, and the resulting program crashed. ;-)

No, you misunderstood. After not finding the solution themselves, Toyota asked on Stack Overflow, and they could explain the problem to Toyota.

It's independent of whether you describe it graviton based or geometry-based. Indeed, the very same apparent problem also occurs in electrodynamics:

Assume you've got a charged particle orbiting a much heavier particle of opposite charge, and let's assume we can neglect the back-action of the radiation that orbiting particle inevitably emits. The orbiting particle feels an electrostatic force towards the central particle it orbits (which, due to its much larger mass, essentially is at rest).

Now look at the very same system in a frame of reference where the whole thing is moving perpendicular to the orbital plane. Now you would naively say that the electron should orbit a point slightly behind the central charge (because — and that has been experimentally verified — the electromagnetic field also propagates just with the speed of light, and until the field has reached the orbiting particle, the central particle has already moved on). However if you actually calculate the electric field, you'll find it points exactly to the point where the charge actually is — or more exactly, at the place at which the charge would have been predicted to be at the time when the current position of the orbiting particle could be reached with light speed if one assumed that the central particle continued to go with its current speed unchanged. That is, if the speed of the central charge changed afterwards (that is, the central charge was accelerated in the mean time), the orbiting particle will still orbit the point where the central charge would have been until the information of the change (the radiation from the accelerated central charge) arrives.

One could argue that the propagation of gravity reveals information about the mass in question.

Yes. And gravity propagates with the speed of light. If some alien would manage to kick the sun out of the solar system, the earth would continue to follow its orbit for another 8 minutes. Only then would it feel the changed movement of the sun (at the same time you'd also see that the sun suddenly starts to move) and change its orbit accordingly.

Entanglement is the same thing.

Not quite. I think it is best seen by the Mermin paradox:

Three particles are brought into a special shared quantum state (termed GHZ state) and then distributed to three parties, who each can then make, on their own choice, one of two measurements on the particles, X or Y. Either measurement can result either in the value 1, or the value -1.

Now it turns out that while the individual results are completely random, whenever any two of them choose the measurement Y and the third one chooses X, the product of all three measures values are 1, every time.

Now, so far there's no problem: This could easily be explained by the original procedure producing not really the same state, but randomly different states which determine all measurement results, and which all fulfil the condition. This would be the analogue to your coin: Every actual state (heads up or tails up in the case of the coin, the set of six potential measurement results in the case of the Mermin paradox) fixes every measurement result, and all states fulfil a certain condition (the opposite sides of the coin having different symbols, the products of XYY-type measurements being 1 for the Mermin paradox), but the states are otherwise chosen by random. Due to the restriction on the states, you can predict one measurement result if you know the other(s) (for the coin, the down-facing symbol if you know the up-facing, for the Mermin paradox the third measured value of an XYY-type measurement if you know the other two).

Assuming this explanation, let's figure out what the product of measurement results should be if all three people measure X. To this end, let's label as x1 the measurement result the first person got from measuring X, y1 the result the first person would have gotten if measuring Y (which, in the above scenario, would be well-defined, just as in the case of the coin the symbol facing up is well defined even if you don't look at it), x2 the second person's result from measuring X, and so on.

Now we already know that y1*y2*x3=1, y1*x2*y3=1 and x1*y2*y3=1. If we multiply those three values together, we get x1*y1^2*x2*y2^2*x3*y3^2=1. But since the measurement results are all either 1 or -1, their squares are always 1, and thus we end up with x1*x2*x3=1. So according the above explanation, when all three people measure X, the product of their measurement results should be 1, every single time.

Now for the specific quantum state quantum mechanics predicts something different (and experiments confirm it, of course only within measurement error): When all three people measure X, the product of their measurement results is -1, every single time.

Whether all light cones lead to the big bang is independent of whether you believe it.

Even if the universe is infinite, the observable part of it is finite, and there's evidence (the homogeneity of the cosmic microwave background) that all of it was once causally connected. A quasar that is outside the observable part of the universe won't help you because you can't use anything it emits — it doesn't reach you.

What if they seed the PRNG with cosmic ray data? And/or XOR the PRNG with cosmic ray data?
I think if that also shows Bell correlations, it would only leave two possibilities:
* Either there's a god-like entity determining the results and actively misleading us. In which case, no amount of experimenting would help.
* Or quantum mechanics is right.

OK, there's third one:
* Actually the correlations don't really exist, but due to an extremely unlikely sequence of events the data still looks like we have one (similar to how a fair coin can land on the same side a million times in a row; it's just that it is so unlikely that we'd not believe that the coin is really unbiased if it happened; obligatory link).

Well, there's also a fourth one:
* Quantum mechanics as such is wrong, but we have parallel universes with an analogue of quantum suicide, and some extraterrestrial race wants to prevent us from discovering the true laws (because those would lead us to powerful weapons and thus make us a threat to them), and immediately vaporizes the earth as soon as a measurement violates quantum mechanics. Therefore in all surviving copies of the earth, the laws of quantum mechanics seem to hold.

OK, I guess I should stop before my possibilities get even more silly. ;-)

No, what I'm describing there is a standard consumer router that implements NAT. The Address Translation step itself is what blocks access to the ports on my machine, not any kind of stateful firewall, so yes the address translation step helps me. It may look something like a stateful firewall, but that's not it's design goal nor it's intended function, so I certainly wouldn't rely on it to be a good one.

Sure it does. Does it provide perfect security? Nope. Are there better security solutions? Yup. Is it better than not using NAT? For most people, yup.

Example: I run a Windows box behind a Cable Modem and NAT router at home. Being a Windows user, I have no idea what ports are open for connections on my machine, and I don't care. You simply can't attack port 21, or 23, or 25, or 137, or 445, or whatever, on my Windows box unless I set up a mapping on my NAT router (which, being a Windows user, I don't know how to do). Any susceptibilities resulting from having those ports open simply aren't accessible to the broader internet.

So, yes, security is better with NAT than without. But, no, it won't prevent users from connecting to services you don't want it to. Neither, in general, will your solution, given a sufficiently determined user. So does that mean that your solution has no security?

Or, if we have a long period of peace?

That's easy to avoid. In all times those in power found a reason to go to war if they wanted to.