He also doesn't care enough about the universe to manually guide it every step of the way, so he tossed in a couple of self-maintaining features such as quantum mechanics, and is now mostly just observing. God is omnipotent from the perspective of anyone trapped in the universe he created. He's not omnipotent compared to others of his kind.

Serious attempts at debunking the concept of God will only ever convince those who didn't need convincing in the first place. And the (admittedly vast) majority of religious people who are religious simply because they're trying to fit in with some religious social context.
However, there's those of us with a well above average understanding of science, who realizes that it absolutely falls miles short of anything even remotely resembling a conclusive evidence against God, and instead see a world too beautiful and complex to be a product of chance.

To be honest, I'd be perfectly happy with that as well, if we can additionally tie Victors choice to the winner of a major sports event. I don't care whether I caused or predicted the result, as long as the bookies will take my wager.

I have a growing suspicion that familarizing yourself with quantum mechanics destroys your ability to solve logical puzzles. I base this on the fact that everyone who seems to know what they're talking about, is dodging the proposed exact method of using these findings to transmit information back in time, an on the subjective claim that there's nothing logical about quantum mechanics, and anyone claiming to actually understand it necessarily must be a total nutjob.

Anyway, if Alice and Bob compares their measurements of a particle pair, they will either find that the particles are most definitely NOT entangled, or that they might possible be entangled. Assuming we have a large batch of particles pairs - either the entire batch is entangled, or none of them are - when Alice and Bob compares measurements, they will either be able to say that the pairs are most definitely not entangled, or they'll be able to say with a certain amount of statistical certainty, proportional with the size of the batch, that the batch as a whole consists of individually entangled pairs.

Now, introduce Victor, who chooses whether or not to entangle entire batch of pairs, after the measurement has been made.

I realize this is not exactly what has been done, and would personally find it the whole experiment much more interesting if Victors random number generator had been replaced by a static "yes - DO entangle"-instruction stored in a system not accessible to Alice and Bob through conventional means, and check if Alice and Bob could confirm an entanglement which, although guaranteed to be about to take place, has not occured at their time of measurement.

However, assuming that the article and its findings are otherwise accurate, what's stopping one from sending information to the past using the method I just proposed?

tbh, sorting of search results, and which additional parameters may or may not be required to reach certain specifics... it seems entirely irrelevant for the case that camp owner is trying to make.
"The right to be forgotten". If the information is available one way or another, with any string of additional parameters attached or not, it was not forgotten. So either Google erases history, or they fail to comply.
As for finding relevant results and sorting them properly, it's in Google's best interest to do the best possible job at sorting by relevance. It's probably not an easy job, but I think it's pretty obvious that Google wants to rank campsites and maps higher than historical tragedies, if Google does in fact realize that you're looking for campsites and maps.

I'm not a Google fan, but forcing them by law to improve their already excellent search algorithms seems entirely unreasonable. I do however find it interesting to see the right to be forgotten being put to the test.
If Joe Average bangs a 50 year old woman at the age of 20, and this somehow ends up on the internet, it might unfairly prevent him from getting a job at a retirement home some 20 years later.
What obligations do Google have in preventing access to sex tapes of Paris Hilton, and pictues of Britney Spears' pussy? Is your right to be forgotten void when you're a celebrity, or only practically unenforceable?
What if Arnold Schwarzenegger wants the world to forget his part in Conan?

I'm thinking that the right to be forgotten is intended for personal matters, and although the line can sometimes get blurry, I'm pretty confident that the Alfaques disaster is to be considered a historical event.

Primer:
Men invents time machine.
Men create paradox.
Drama ensures.
Openended final leaves you to make your own conclusions.

Wow, you're absolutely right. And it's not even hard.

Men serve the exact same purpose as women - giving the counterpart something to breed with.

The similarities kind of end right there.

I define free will as "the ability to make decisions which is not a direct product of causality", and believe it doesn't exist.

I consider the human mind entirely capable of making long term plans and seeing them to fruition, which is the illusion of free will. If neuroscience questions this ability, then neuroscientists need to get out more.

I tried to read ACTA to have a clue what I was actually talking about. About half-way through, I decided it was a dull letter of intend to actually agree on taking minor, reasonable steps towards enforcing already-existing legislation. ACTA is littered with notes about how none of this should be allowed to affect law-abiding citizens.

Could one of you ACTA-opposers quote just a few of the paragraphs you find so horribly offensive? Trying to read it with an open mind gave me the clear impression that the opposition is composed of part ignorants, part people who want to keep on pirating.

It's Googles fault exactly because it's done to achieve the end result of ignoring user preferences.

Is it really that hard to understand? Are you really that blinded by your love for Google?

It might have been kinda funny some 5+ years ago when someone first told it. Maybe if I came across it less than once per week, I'd eventually find it kind of amusing again.

The logical conclusion based on no available evidence for or against is "I don't know. Maybe. It's possible".
This is not the perspective of an atheist. If you really want to defend you stance as "a product of common sense", pledge agnostic.

I think you're mistaking atheism for agnosticism.
Atheists believe in the absense of a divine power. They often believe that anyone religious is delusional, and that science will, ultimately, allow us to copy any phenomenon witnessed in nature.

You clearly don't know british politics.

Every piece of hardware can be reduced to formations of physical matter, which isn't patentable.

So, TFS should read something like:

"Located 22 light years from us, the best known candidate for supporting life is 4.5 times the mass of Earth, although that's probably wrong, and the chemical composition of the system does not support life as we know it."

That about right?