Wouldn't it be more accurate to say there is zero corresponding change not "a small change in probability"? As long as it is non-zero there is some information transmitted and this clearly isn't the case.

I agree. The difference is in the meaning of "expect". The IRS is using it in a legal sense, and they are wrong here. From a practical sense, one should not expect email to be confidential. From a legal aspect we should have that expectation.

Do you thoroughly investigate every claim about perpetual motion machines and hope that some day, someone will figure out how to circumvent the laws of thermodynamics?

I certainly expect my email to be private. Okay, I expect it SHOULD be private. But the bottom line is if you are storing your data on other people's equipment, you have no guarantee of anything.

Quantum entanglement involves measuring current state not manipulating current state. If I manipulate either entity in the pair, I have broken entanglement. Yeah, I wish it weren't true either, but it is what it is.

Basically it is impossible to prove instantaneous travel because our most sensitive instruments will only go down to a certain value. Our most sensitive measurements demonstrate a minimum of 10k times speed of light. If our instruments become 10 times more accurate then they will likely be able to say that it is a minimum of 100k. Translation, error correcting and processing time have nothing to do with it.

You affect one, the other reacts without a particle or wave traveling between them,

And there is the absolute proof that you don't understand anything about quantum entanglement. You do not affect one in the slightest. You are only measuring the state of one the member pairs. You are not setting any kind of state, and attempting to do so would break the entanglement.

You have thrown out a lot of insults, and then when asked to provide links to your purported NASA information refuse to do so. Fact is, you haven't the faintest idea of what you are talking about.

Heh, many years ago I actually designed the theory for a FTL communication channel - all I needed was a way to use N remotely entangled particles to generate N+1 of them (or a serious boatload of particles to start with). The essential element being that, while random, the probability distribution can in fact be manipulated. It makes for a very "noisy" transmission medium, but with enough redundant bandwidth it should be possible to get a message through.

Essentially your design boils down to "I have a process which transmits zero information. If I multiply the process x times I will transmit a positive amount of information".

The sender is doing ZERO information transmittal. None. And no amount of handwaving will change that. This is the equivalent of perpetual motion machine designers arguing that they added the right combination of cogs and parts to violate the laws of thermodynamics. If you understand the underlying principle, you no longer need to try to understand how the perpetual motion machine is design to know that it impossible.

You still think you can transmit data faster than light. How cute.

Care to post a link?

Not yet. anyway. Someone will borrow another sci fi concept and magically make it work.

No they won't. There is a certain cult that treats science as a religion and refuses to understand that there are basic laws of physics that constrain us. FTL communication causes a litany of paradoxes and trying to turn quantum entanglement into a FTL communication device shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what is going on.

No, the article isn't suggesting this, but every time quantum entanglement gets brought up on Slashdot, someone suggests how we can use it to communicate FTL. Quantum entanglement is the equivalent of instantaneously sending a random message (more complicate than that, really). No information is actually transmitted. The first time I tried to wrap my head around Quantum Entanglement, I thought it could be used to communicate to far-away places (even other planets) with no latency, but as I understood more, my hopes were dashed.

In a former career, I had loaded idle-time cancer research software on our office machines. I had permission from the manager to do so. One of our employees was offended because she had a family friend die of cancer and she didn't want to be reminded of cancer. The app was only a tray icon to her. It made no sense that she wanted this removed from her computer but I complied. It also made no sense to me how the cigarette breaks she took every other hour didn't remind the bitch of cancer either. No, she wasn't a nice person and she did end up dying of cancer within 5 years herself.

Question since you seem knowledgeable on the subject: Can/have all Brown Dwarfs achieved fusion? I did more reading since I posted my response, and it seemed like smaller Brown dwarfs had never achieved fusion while larger ones had, and this is one distinction that some astronomers think should lead to a reclassification. Of course, i read it on the internet, so not sure how much validity there is in what I read.

I'm not sure why this is modded down. A brown dwarf never achieves sustained fusion and is not considered a full-fledged star, so i am also confused to why it is considered a star system.