The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

StackOverflow is not a good source, especially that thread, it is full of bad answers. I've read all of them. The first poster said: "Those quantum states may encode classical information." The poster of the question has obviously no clue about physics and nobody in there mentioned teleportation of quantum entangled states, which you should know, is instant.

Here's a more detailed explanation, if you prefer that:

If you have a particle (such as a photons, electrons, or molecule) and have it physically interact with another particle, and then separate them, the result is that they can then both be described as being in the same quantum mechanical state. Basically, they are now the same, in factors such as position, momentum, spin, polarization, etc.

However, because we are dealing with quantum mechanics, the state of those particles remains undefined until measured (because it would then be forced to assume a specific state).

Now, how does this relate to instant data teleportation, you say? That’s the interesting part. You see, quantum entanglement is a form of quantum superposition (which I talked about in the aforementioned post about some quantum mechanics). This means that each particle that you have can be in any state. (Remember: observing a particle will force it to become a specific state). However, when you observe one of the particles, it will become a certain state, while the other particle becomes the opposite state. The change is completely instantaneous, and the particles can be anywhere — you could have your second particle on the other side of the planet and it would assume an equal and opposite state of it’s entangled counterpart. Instant data transfer.

Say you had a binary bit you wanted to transfer. First, you must entangle the bits. Then, put one of them on the other side of the globe. Observe one of them, forcing it to assume a certain state, and the other will instantly change. Like magic. Source: [1]

Ask me about latency here… However, you drifted the discussion to QT. My initial post was originally trying to say that data can be transfered wirelessly faster than with a cable, or at least as fast. Latency cannot in such a system cannot be generalized, because it is dependant on the technology in the receiving side. If the receiving side uses optical fiber, you would need an architecture as described in [2].

---

[1] http://programmingantics.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/quantum-en...

[2] http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=5...

We don't ban whole works. Australia does.

> Hell, even movie ratings are a form of censorship,

Nonsense. Self-imposed rating systems are in no way comparable to governmental censorship.

> Some US states prevent atheists from holding political office

Wrong. Those laws may be on the books, but they could never be enforced, due to the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

> Your wikipedia link has little that Australia has banned in the past couple of decades

It's the principle of the thing.

> Idealism is nice... until it's tested, then pragmatism needs to have a voice.

Wrong. Utterly wrong. If you abandon your principles the moment they're tested, they were never your fucking principles at all.

> But the pragmatism of legislating against holocaust denial or sporting the swastika is basically the same as anti-defamation legislation: it's saying 'don't diminish this'.

By making it seem that it can't fight deniers on an equal footing, that it needs laws to bolster its argument.

> those laws are very specific in terms of what they ban

So? That doesn't make it better.

> US free speech also does nothing to solve any of the real problems modern America has with anti-Mexican and anti-Muslim racism.

We don't ban face veils. Talk to me about racism when you've stopped banning veils.

> They're there to stem violent nationalism, the European forms of which don't exist in the US.

We had the KKK, which was just as violent and just as nationalistic as European forms of it. We were able to destroy it (twice!) without resorting to the destruction of fundamental freedoms.

Ah, but it bans something that it just so happens only Muslims would wear. Suspicious, no?

> Also accusations of Big Brother coming from Americans at this point is rather hilarious.

Irrelevant. If you think the NSA is alone, you're delusional.

Name some that have happened in the past couple of decades, given that this was your initial point of note. Then explain to me how those particular selected works are anything but a narrow gap between the US and Australia, in real terms rather than purity of ideology.

And need I remind you again about IP laws? Lifetime of author plus 70 years is a very real ban on associated works by other people. Something can enter the public mindspace and yet be forbidden for people to freely reimagine for around a century? Yeah, that's not a 'ban', because in principle, your grandchildren could publicly release your writings, right? US IP laws are particularly onerous and reduce the freedom of expression of people in other countries through treaty obligations, yet apparently the US principles of free speech remains clean as a whistle to you?

-- Your wikipedia link has little that Australia has banned in the past couple of decades > It's the principle of the thing.

So, Australia has the principle of being able to ban entire works and yet doesn't ban anything. This to you is insane totalitarianism. (conveniently you think that partial censorship is okay, it's just total bans that are so outrageously offensive)

On the other hand, states in the US have laws stating that you can't take office if you are an atheist. You state that this is fine and dandy, despite the inherent requirement for someone to challenge those laws to engage in a lengthy and costly court engagement, with plenty of social fallout. This to you is fine principle.

So, a 'bad' law seldom enforced = terrible, while a 'bad' law that can be overcome only through heavy investment of resources (ie: limited to the very wealthy) = awesomesauce. There is a world of difference between idealistic principle and how things work pragmatically.

-- If you abandon your principles the moment they're tested, they were never your fucking principles at all.

I didn't say anything about principles. I was talking about idealism being tested. These are not the same thing.

-- We don't ban face veils. Talk to me about racism when you've stopped banning veils.

You have a pretty tortured definition of racism, if it requires the banning of face veils before it's a problem.

How about the US's problem with 9% of black men currently being either in jail or on parole? Can we talk about that as a problem of racism, or is it off the cards because US muslims can wear face veils, unlike a couple of selected European countries?

And, once again, I'd like to point out that despite your lauding of how free speech is in the US, the US press is still less free than the Australian press - actual implementation of speech is curtailed in the US more than it is in Australia when it comes to the press. All your pontificating about one particular ideal means little in terms of how things are actually done pragmatically. I mean hell, in the US, despite your puritanical ideal of free speech, you have a whole selection of two political parties to vote for. What a range of expression available for your political voice! Here in Australia, there were so many parties available for the last federal election, that the ballot paper was over a meter long. Yeah, you're right, Australia has such a limited freedom of expression, because one book on euthanasia was banned in the past 20 years. That single point completely trumps all other freedoms a country has, and means that there is a vast gulf in comparison to the US.

Get over your puritanical idealism and have a look at how things are actually run - this is what affects peoples' lives, not the nominal principle they say they adhere to. There are plenty of avowed christians who behave in a very non-christian manner, for example. In real terms, there really isn't that much difference in free speech between the US and Australia.