Here is a simple solution to the problem which should keep Fox happy.

This is false. What you are describing is the linear no-threshold model which was proposed by rabid anti-nuke fanatics years ago and rejected by the industry and by regulators alike. The threshold below which radiation levels were considered to be safe has decreased by orders of magnitude as more information was gleaned about health effects of low level radiation. The assumption by the industry has almost always been that adverse health effects magically vanish unless there is scientific proof that they don't.

There has been a battle waged for many years trying to get the nuclear industry and government regulators to accept the linear no-threshold model as the best and safest way to extropolate from high dose health effects to low dose effects.

The 9 copied lines were in addition to re-implementing the APIs.

The author of the 9 lines testified that he copied them into Android after he switched from working at Sun to working at Google. A moral victory for Google but technically it was infringment unless it was de minimus or fair-use.

I think Oracle included the 9 lines in their complaint to demonstrate to the jury that Google's clean-room had been contaminated. The fact that they only found 9 infringing lines out of millions was actually proof that the clean-room was pretty damned good.

IMO the 9 lines demonstrated to the jury that Oracle is run by a bunch of petty pricks.

That was an arbitration in a different circuit so it does not provide a precendent for this case. That is the problem here which is actually quite ironic. Since everyone has assumed that APIs cannot be copyrighted, no one has raised the issue in court in the 9th circuit for decades so there is no clear precedent from the 9th or from the Supreme Court that applies to the current case.

This is the same BS from BS&F that we got in SCO vs. the world and her dog. They make up outrageous, fanciful, ridiculous claims and there is no precedent because no one was stupid enough to pour millions of dollars into a case base on such total BS before.

It is a bit more subtle than that. The higher courts do not rule on issues of fact. They only deal with matters of law. Juries are the opposite, they only deal with facts, not law. It would have been more correct for the grandparent post to have said that jury verdicts cannot be appealed directly. Oracle would have to say that the judge erred on a matter of law that led to the incorrect jury decision.

If that judge had just ruled that APIs cannot be copyrighted as a matter of law then a upper court could directly overturn that decision if they did not beleive it was true in all cases. The way it looks now, whoever loses will try to appeal. While it is possible for an upper court to remand a decision made by a jury, they try to avoid doing that unless there was a very clear and significant error made by the judge in the process that led to the jury verdict.

If you aren't then all your geek credentials will be revoked.

Some people have recommended a hinged rack that swings out. I would suggest a rack on wheels. IMO using a rack is not crucial. The only crucial thing is having easy access to all the connections and all the equipment.

When I worked with the military 15 years ago they had digital projectors out the wazoo. AFAIK, they did not have or use any 35 millimeter projectors. You may find this hard to believe but the US military is very advanced technically. They actually find it useful to use digital presentations to communicate with the troops.

In order to even detect this effect you need at least two things:

1. The experiment needs to be repeated many times.
2. Alice and Bob must communicate with each other.

Suggesting that Victor do something different depending on whether Alice and Bob detect correlated photons is nonsense because you can only detect the correlation in the statistics of many trials. It makes no sense to say a single event was correlated or uncorrelated. If you could that this would be a form FTL communication which it's not.

Like it or not, our intuition is based on classical mechanics. Human brains are very good at sticking new information into existing pigeon holes. Almost always, when someone is talking about "understanding" entanglement experiments such as this they mean creating a microscopic classic model in their heads that would explain these results. It's been proven mathematical that these classic models don't work.

One recurring problem is that many people (often, but not always people have not learned quantum mechanics) intuitively believe that there must be a classical model behind the results somehow. This is similar to the belief that there is always a logical explanation for a magician's trick. For the trick this intuition is great but for quantum mechanics it is lousy. You have to leave your classical intuition at the door when you enter the world of quantum mechanics. Unfortunately some people start with their erroneous classical intuition and then extrapolate to all sorts of nonsense. Since they are starting from a totally incorrect assumption, they are able to prove just about anything but it is all nonsense.

It's just a correlation. There is no FLT anything here. It is only FTL when you insist on the existence of an underlying classical model and we know that all such classical models are wrong.

... hacking.

Why, down and not across, of course.