At some point, science just got too weird. We had this nice model of the universe with atoms, some laws of motion and thermodynamics. The universe was basically a giant billiards match. It made sense. It was easy to explain. Then we get into quantum mechanics and everything is crap shoot. Multiple universes. Particles that behave differently when being observed. Spooky action at a distance.

Let's all pretend the last 80+ years of science didn't happen and we live under Newton's ideas of how everything behaved. Who's in?

You can listen to an NPR piece where the dolphin are interviewed.

Gotta love how libertarians keep blabbing about "fiat currencies" and how the currencies can collapse "at any time". While technically true, currencies collapsed under gold standards, and probably at a rate faster than what you see in today's economy. What folks don't seem to understand is that money has no value in and of itself, but is based on a population's ability to produce goods and services. Whether you use bitcoins, greenbacks, electrons on a hard drive or gold doesn't change this truth.

By definition, money is simply a means of exchange... tying it to an arbitrary material is silly. In the old days, countries manipulated currencies through artificial means and like today when those means run their course, bad things happen.

So, gold, paper or electrons, a country's prosperity is tied to the competence of its government. While this is a scary fact, it is the truth.

I am amazed at how many Slashdotters fell for this story. The part that made it obviously fake was when the patent office rejected an application.Try to be a bit more discerning Slashdot.

Same reason you did. No life and nothing better to do. Thanks for asking.

You realize that this is a non-paid advertisement for Netflix and 'Arrested Development', right? This is in no way news. It is in no way for nerds. The nominal tie-in to "cloud computing" doesn't change that.

I don't see where the articles address the "reversing of losses" that the GGP cited. HFT may be flawed, but I don't see the items I questioned being addressed.

Can you please cite a source?

Here's the rub. For someone like me, I couldn't care less about HFT. I am in it for the long haul. I've invested for almost all of my adult life. I don't invest on hunches, instead I buy broadly and then hold for a long time. My investments do about as well as the broad market and I have almost no trading costs. Even if some doofus thinks he can beat the market (no, they can't), he'll eat up 1-2% of his money on fees.

So let folks be stupid and market time and talk about dead cat bounces and triple witching hours and other mumbo jumbo. In the long-run I will beat the vast majority and I will do so with very little effort on my part.

The reality is the only investors who can beat my strategy are active investors who are involved in the management of the assets they own (like Buffett) and those with insider information (real insidr info, not what your brother in law told you at the cocktail party). So, let the market tank for a couple hours, a couple days or even a couple years. I couldn't care less.

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.