I am only an English teacher, so if this is silly, please excuse.

Why can't Alice and Bob have a prior understanding about when to observe? Alice tells Bob, "I will take my measurement tomorrow at 4 pm, thereby collapsing the entanglement. You can make your measurement after that."

In this way, they can have FTL communication the next day, can they not?

Ok then, go ahead and tell us -- what is the proper way raping the Unix philosophy??

But you got modded 'informative', So now you know!

When you're quoting someone, does it hurt to acknowledge? Those who haven't read that book will think you came up with that on your own, and you don't want to be unduly credited, do you?

Or MAYBE, just maybe, those things don't exist except as concepts in the human mind.

It exists where?? To pursue your line of thinking, we have nothing but neurons and electricity. The human mind doesn't exist, except as a concept in the... hmmm, methinks we've fallen victim to circularity.

- t.

My toilet baroque; it's all Bach'd up despite jiggling the Handel.

are you trying to parody horridly unfunny sigs or something?

Sounds like they belong together.

you mean you have never seen an indian coder who wasn't dodgy? and you have never seen a dodgy non-indian coder? jeez, you're so frankly racist that you make it sound like it's nothing to be ashamed of.

1. to grow

or

2. to buy them something.

So when Page and Brin cash in on their stocks, they either

1. Want to buy something

or

2. Think that their money will grow better elsewhere.

Given Google's position in the market, 1 is more likely than 2, However, it is possible that they know something that we don't, which makes them think Google stock is about to lose some value.

Do you mean to say that historically, child-bearing has caused fewer deaths than the traditional 'male' occupations? Any study done on this? Do you have links?

If the ultimate goal of eugenics is a good life for everyone (the genetic strengthening of the race being just an intermediate step), then we're already doing that by helping the disabled lead better lives.

Or did you mean better lives only for those who have no perceptible genetic flaw, after eliminating those who do?

If we can use technology to improve the lives of everyone, and not only the fortunate, why is that not an acceptable solution to you?

By your logic, cancer research should stop, because all it does is improve the lives of those who will then pass on a dangerous gene to the next generation.

What about myopia? Hearing problems? Allergies?

In fact, isn't the whole of medical science a sheer waste, because in the absence of modern medicine, eugenics shall be vastly accelerated, and within a few generations we shall have the cream of the crop.

You see where your argument is going, and do you want to go there?

Life is vast and mysterious. Do not presume to know what should be. No one knows that.

Wow, negative information? Doesn't that somehow violate the second law of thermodynamics, or Shannon's theorems, or Hawking's postulates, or whatever?

That's a weird one. Visit any river bank or pond in India between 5 am and 2 pm, and you'll find dozens of locals swimming effortlessly. It's a hot country, and predominantly rural. Children learn to swim when they're 5 or 6. Banana trunks traditionally play the same role as rubber tubes do in the West. That is how I learned to swim, along with most people of my age.

I don't know who makes up these stories, or to what purpose.

It is a typical strategy of advanced capitalism to rationalise economic oppression by explaining the ethics in terms of personal/private preference, thus robbing it of any general significance.

There often is no real difference. Consider the 'contract' between the capitalist and the labourer. Is that a valid contract if the only real choice for the labourer is either to agree to unfair/exploitative terms of service or to starve?

The GP's analogy wasn't really bad.

Not monsters, but regular people like you and me (okay, may be a bit richer than us) once owned slaves and supported slavery.

Not monsters, but regular people like you and me support DRM today.

The two world-views are different not fundamentally, but in degree, because both entail curbing the freedom of others in order to maximise profit.

Given a choice, I wouldn't do business with a company that thought DRM was acceptable. Certain things really do have universal human significance.

Translation for those irrevocably sold to the capitalist trope of absolute ethical relativity: I believe that certain things really do have universal human significance.