Not if you could get arrested just for parking your EV in a local school parking lot.
Uhhh...just FYI? Rohm and the SA leadership were pretty much ALL gay and Hitler and pals didn't have a problem with it until Rohm started talking about a "second revolution" because he thought "the little colonel" had betrayed the socialist part of national socialism, just FYI.
Hitler had a pretty firm "babies good, homosexuals bad" policy for the common folk. Rohm was a party insider long before Hitler was elected Chancellor; in general, Hitler was pretty willing to give special treatment to party insiders, even ones less senior than Rohm. Even so, I'm not aware of any other SA leaders who got a pass for the same reason; care to name names?
For that matter, Hitler's family doctor Eduard Bloch was Jewish, and he got special treatment too (only Jew in Linz with special protection from the Gestapo, notes Wikipedia). Adolf reportedly had quite the soft spot for him after he did everything he could to treat Klara Hitler's rather horrifically advanced breast cancer, despite her financial hardship. Basically, Hitler was a giant hypocrite who tried to ignore the brutality of his own policies by shielding only the people he cared about and could personally see suffering from them.
"iChat can be configured." But it isn't. "Bonjour can be relayed." But it isn't.
Sure it is, in thousands of places.
You said something didn't exist. I gave you an example of a very real system. QED.
The subject of this thread has become very ironic.
Caveat - I understand that the plural of anecdote is not data.
When I was in high school in the mid 80s I had male teachers actively discouraging me from pursuing STEM courses and even questioning why I was still in school when I should be learning to cook and clean. I was the top English student in the year, and 2 top student overall (physics, chemistry, pure and applied maths, english).
I got into IT because my friends at university who were doing science and engineering degrees wouldn't let me do my essays writing by hand, and forced me to type them on a computer in the lab at uni.
Someone beat you to it already.
I am not a physicist.
But I keep hearing that there is actually nothing mysterious about entanglement at all... Something along the lines of:
You post 2 envelopes containing cards in opposite directions, one with a printed letter A, the other card with the letter B.
At one destination, the envelope is opened to reveal the letter A.
And that's about all there is to entanglement....
Can any physicist confirm?
I'm not a physicist, just a well-read layman, but...
It is more mysterious than that, but if you go with the Many Worlds interpretation it's not much more mysterious.
Basically, if you entangle letters A and B and send them in opposite directions, you're really creating two universes corresponding to the two possibilities: universe P (A here, B there) and universe Q (B here, A there). If you open the envelope to reveal A, for instance, then that copy of you in universe P now knows they exists in universe P, and likewise for B and Q. But unlike in classical physics, universe P is not completely separated from universe Q. P and Q still exist as a single mathematical object, P-plus-Q, and you can manipulate that mathematical object in ways that don't make sense from a classical standpoint.
Basically, it all comes down to one small thing with big consequences. The real world is NOT described by classical probability (real numbers in the range [0,1]). Instead, the real world is described by quantum probability (complex numbers obeying Re[x]^2 + Im[x]^2 = 1).
As it turns out, "system P-plus-Q has a 50% chance of P and a 50% chance of Q" is really saying "system P-plus-Q lies at a 45deg angle between the P axis and the Q axis". Starting from P-plus-Q, you can rotate 45deg in one direction to get orthogonal P (A always here), or you can rotate 45deg in the opposite direction to get orthogonal Q (B always here), thus deleting the history of whether A or B was "originally" here. (If P and Q were independent universes, this would decrease entropy and thus break the laws of physics.) Even more counterintuitively, you can even rotate P-plus-Q by 15deg to get a 75% chance A is here and a 25% chance B is here (or vice versa, depending on which quadrant the starting angle was in). Circular rotations in 2-dimensional probability space are the thing that makes quantum probability different from classical probability, and thus the thing that makes quantum physics from classical physics.
Classically, A is either definitely here or definitely there, and until we open the envelope and look we are merely ignorant of which is the case. Classical physics is time-symmetric, and it therefore forbids randomness from being created or destroyed; classical probability actually measures ignorance of starting conditions. In a classical world obeying classical rules, you can't start from "50% A-here, 50% B-here" and transform it into "75% A-here, 25% B-here" without cheating. The required operation would be "flip a coin; if B is here and the coin lands heads, swap envelopes", and you can't carry that out without opening the envelope to check if B is here or not. Quantum physics is also time-symmetric and also forbids the creation and destruction of randomness, but quantum probability (also called "amplitude") is not a mere measure of ignorance. In the Many Worlds way of thinking, physics makes many copies of each possible universe, and the quantum amplitude determines how many copies of each universe to make. At 30deg off the P axis, cos(30deg)^2 = 75% of the copies are copies of universe P, and you experience this as a 75% probability of finding yourself in a universe with "A here, B there".
(Or something like that. It'll probably make more sense once we eliminate time from the equations. At the moment not even Many Worlds can help us wrap our heads around the fact that quantum entanglement works backward the same as it does forward. The equations as they stand today imply that many past-universes containing past-yous have precisely converged to become the present-universe containing present-you.)
One last complication. If the information of A's location spreads to more particles than A and B, then P and Q become more and more different, and as a consequence the quantum probability rules become harder and harder to distinguish from the classical ones. If you open the envelope and learn "A is here", for instance, then P now contains billions of particles that are different from Q (at the very least, the particles in your brain that make up your memory) and it now becomes impossible-ish to perform rotations on P-plus-Q, because you would need to find each particle that changed and rotate it individually. (Not truly impossible, but staggeringly impractical in the same sense that freezing a glass of room-temperature water by gripping each molecule individually to make it sit still is staggeringly impractical. And both are impractical for the same reason: entropy.)
When so many particles are involved that we can't merge the universes back together, we call the situation "decoherence", but it's really just "entanglement of too many things to keep track of". Entanglement itself isn't really that special; what's special is limiting the entanglement to a small group of particles that we can keep track of and manipulate as a group.
Your post doesn't really seem to make sense. If you've got JS turned off then yes, it's quite reasonable that if a web app wants to run the browser says "turn JS back on, here's how, or use the clunky non-JS interface". If a web app wants to install itself onto my computer it's quite reasonable (very highly desirable, actually) that the browser ask me if it's okay first.
Numbers, and damn good ones, or it didn't happen. If you want to argue that auto-installation is a good idea because Google is so good at catching and eliminating malicious software (and that includes software that does things like track my web browsing, location, whatever I might not want installed) then you'd better be able to show that they're essentially perfect at it. They're not.
Google isn't Microsoft? That's your argument? It's a poor one. Google is pulling a very Microsoft-in-the-90s move here. Convenience over security, taken to excess. It's likely to bite them in the ass, just like it did MS.
iChat can be set up with bridges between networks. If you know the address of the person you want to talk to, you can talk to them. If you know the address of the subnet of the person you want to talk to, you can set up a bonjour relay or VPN that will list accessible people on the subnet for you. This stuff isn't iChat specific either. The UNIX "write" command lets you send messages to users on any system you know the address of, and have an account on. Every web server implements bidirectional communication with anybody who knows the address of the server.
Are you complaining that there isn't a way to look up addresses? There is. It's called DNS, and it is decentralized although, for efficiency, most of us don't run our own DNS server.
You know the phone company compiles phone books right? If you want to talk to someone on the POTS network you need to know their number or use that centrally compiled phone book. There is no POTS equivalent to DNS.
In the context of local communication during an emergency, a zeroconf type system is probably exactly what you want. Local nodes advertising themselves completely autonomously. If connectivity outside your area is available you can talk to the gateway and get outside address and routing information (this is the way DNS is usually set up). If you get disconnected from that gateway by the zombie apocalypse you can still talk to anybody you are still connected to.
You don't seem to have very deep knowledge of how the Internet, or the protocols its based on, work. You keep insisting that solutions are hard and don't exist when they were first implemented decades ago.
I'm a PhD with experience in clinical trial design and analysis. I have no money (I said I'm a PhD, right?) but I'll happily help start and work for a company that wants to do productive medical research. A friend of mine picked out a perfect spot in Puerto Rico for the headquarters. Does that count?
There are lots of governments in the world that are entrusted with things like public health, and do a lot better job than your corporations. Perhaps you should think about trying a new government?
My point is, that asymmetry has affected the thinking of every programmer since the beginning of the commercial Internet. The "all nodes are peers" architecture of DARPANet fell by the wayside, despite its genius, because manifestly, not all nodes were peers. Most nodes had nearly no bandwidth in either direction (POTS modems), while a few nodes had an embarrassment of bandwidth. Most nodes had ephemeral connectivity (those same POTS modems), while a few nodes were online all the time. That asymmetry persists to this day, and while the absolute numbers are higher, the relative ratios haven't changed all that much.
You're conflating all sorts of things. It's GOOD that the Internet is structured to deal with heterogenous nodes, with differing capabilities. Otherwise you end up with a network where you have to have certain capabilities to play, and everyone is limited by the lowest common denominator. The basic Internet protocols were in fact designed with heterogeneity in mind: the Internet connects heterogeneous networks together. You're a node on your ISP's network. My ISP can implement things the same way, or differently. The university network I'm currently connected to can again do things however they like.
DNS is decentralized, again by design long before significant numbers of home users were connected. Yes, there are some authoritative servers, but it's highly unlikely you've ever connected to one. They provide only an authoritative record. The actual working data is distributed to thousands of more local machines. It's not dissimilar to bittorrent, actually. You can run your own DNS system if you want, and some people do (a lot of people run their own DNS internally to their own network). It's just more useful to use the one that everyone else does.
Decentralized VOIP is not a hard problem, and it most certainly has been done. Most, if not all, of the Internet VOIP software does it. Skype (Sky-Peer), for example. Skype uses a centralized phone book server to tell you who's online and what their address is, but when you actually talk to someone you're talking peer-to-peer, direct. If you want an example of fully decentralized, there's Apple's iChat. You can set up an iChat server that provides a central phone book but without one it uses bonjour/zeroconf to advertise itself and populate your contact list.
Exactly. You can't make a sandbox foolproof. Even if your "sandbox" is hardware. There were lots of exploits proposed for the execute bit as well. If you're relying on your sandbox, whatever it is, to be foolproof, you're a fool.
Good security is always multilayered. Yes, sandboxing, possibly at multiple levels, improves security. So does not being able to install things just by clicking on a link.