It hasn't thrown a single plane even slightly off course for years, when predictions were it should have caused at least a few disasters by now
I think it's taken some time off interfering with planes to go after cars.
There are dozens of reasons to prefer Antarctica as a destination. Mars, in my opinion, has one big advantage: it would decouple the continued existence of humanity from the continued habitability of Earth.
Right now we could be destroyed completely by an asteroid impact, a supervolcano, anything that takes terrestrial conditions out of the relatively narrow band we can survive in. Getting off this rock would reduce the risk of something bad happening and wiping us out. Developing the technology to make a Martian colony self sustaining would widen the band of terrestrial conditions we can survive in.
If the sheer number of alternate universes is contributing to our survival
and each time we avoid destruction, the number of universes is reduced
then perhaps it would benefit us to seed the multiverse with more universes.
I'm going to be letting HotBits make my decisions for a while. They supply random numbers based on radioactive decay. I'm hoping my experiment will propagate superposition to the macro world and increasing the chance that some instance of me survives whatever nasty unexpected consequences the LHC's activation may have.
Of course one could argue that my our present existence proof that nothing happens in the future that destroys this universe's past.
Flagging sales at you local poolhall/pub? Keep the pool tables for your traditional customers, but have BilliadBots tournaments on tuesdays to attract a younger clientele.
I wonder, though, how hard the BilliardBots are on the soft, smooth, delicate felt surface of a pool table.
brute forcing balls with robots
... because it bears repeating.
Link to Original Source
1) We agree ahead of time that we use the x-axis spin of two atoms (each) for communication.
2) I only manipulate two atoms of my set of 4, and only observe the other two.
3) You only observe the pair entangled with my 'write' set, and only manipulate to the pair entangled with my 'read' set.
4) I continuously toggle the spin of one atom from my 'write' set back and forth between two previously agreed upon states, and change (or don't) the state of my other atom between two agreed upon states.
No. You measure the spin of one particle from your write set. The entangled particle from my read set silently agrees to return the complementary value when I measure it. The entanglement is now broken. You continue to "toggle" the spin on your particle, where "toggle" means "measure and receive non-deterministic, random, unpredictable results". I can measure my particle's spin at any time after your initial measurement and will find the random counterpart to your random first value. I have no way of knowing whether I've received the random result of your having measured, or if I've primed your first result by measuring before you did.
5) By continuously observing your 'read' pair of atoms (the pair entangled to my 'write' pair), you can see the one is constantly flipping states, and use that to determine the binary pattern I am sending. (1bit parity, 1bit data)
By continuously observing my read pair of particles, I can see that I get a stream of random results. Coincidentally, the first random value from each particle correlates with the first random value you get from each of your particles.
For instance "Millions of music" doesn't make sense.
"Hours of music"?
Link to Original Source