Comments

In the experiment, both sets had the same level of brain activity as each other while simply reading the book on-screen, but showed a mark difference in brain activity when tasked to find information via information search. Since the first half of the experiment showed a lack of difference between the two sets while performing an activity that did not require familiarity, there is a very good chance that the results in the second half are the results of familiarity and not a difference in intelligence between the two groups. Really, is anyone surprised that the human brain can perform a task more efficiently if it has performed it many times before? The study needs to perform a similar experiment with a completely different task: say a group of experienced artists asked to sketch an image from a photo compared to an inexperienced group. I would wager the experienced artists would show much higher brain activity than the inexperienced, simply because they are drawing on their knowledge and past experience concerning that particular medium. So yes, sellassie, bdhoro87 is correct; this is an experiment in familiarity, being used to jump to a conclusion about the medium that happened to be used to perform the experiment.

"Anything that goes faster than the speed of light means the the consequence of an action could occur before the action" Granted, I'm no expert in quantum physics, but this statement seems to break the laws of cause and effect more than the one you're using it as a counter-argument against. If it were possible to launch an object at twice the speed of light, and send it to a location two light years in the distance, common sense would dictate that the object will arrive at its destination in one year. One year later does not mean the consequences are occurring before the action... they are occurring one year later. Now, the observable effect from the point of the destination would *appear* to happen in reverse, since from that perspective visible light from the object's arrival would reach the destination sooner than visible light from an earlier point in its travel. but that would be an observable effect, and not the actual events. Granted, if light is indeed the barrier for velocity, this example could never occur to begin with... Either way, in a quantum entanglement example, it seems to me like this would be a moot point; even if the effect is instantaneous over a large distance, there are no particles, be they mater or energy, traveling faster than the speed of light. All particles involved stay in relatively fixed locations. These are just my thoughts as best as I understand the theory. I think one of the two of us is confused about something, so I'd appreciate it if you could clarify your stance, maybe with source information... interesting discussion, though.

Well... the theory is that two entangled particles affect one another instantaneously, regardless of distance. That is, the time between an action performed on one particle and its effect being measured on the other is zero. I can't for the life of me imagine how you could jump to the conclusion that that would allow you to communicate into the past. Instantaneous is instantaneous... you can't pass information through time when the total time involved is zero.

In theory, a more efficient weapon allows us to spend less time killing and more time building. Of course, that only really applies if the weapons are being used in a defensive capacity, and if everyone did that we wouldn't need them to begin with.

"Hey google is trying to steal some of the internet browser market from microsoft, but when microsoft gets into the search market its seen as hostile?" I'm going to have to agree with you on that one, except to point out the fact that Microsoft has already been in the search market for a very long time, so they're not really "getting into" the market as much as flailing their arms for attention. I think people have reached the point where we assume any act by Microsoft to encroach on a market is a hostile act. Really, unless either company thinks they can do the same task spectacularly better than the other, all they're doing is throwing money down the drain. Why would I bother switching to another search engine, when Google already does exactly what I need? And why would I bother switching to a new browser, when I already have one that does everything I want it to? Granted, that browser is Firefox, so I guess Microsoft is 0 for 2...