Leaderboard

Trump has relentlessly insisted for 3 and a half years that Mexico would pay for a border wall. No nuance, no doubts, no maybes, Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall. He held rallies a;; over the country leading people in chants where he'd say "who's going the pay for the wall" and stadiums full of supporters when yell "MEXICO". Trump has given interviews and briefings where he'd cut reporters off and insult those who challenged how he'd get Mexico to pay. Now here we are with the govt shutdown as Trump demands a newly elected House majority give him the money tax payer money for his wall......and some people are actually trying to launch arguments blaming Democrats .

These types of things tend to work both ways. When women try to convey to you a lifetime of frustration that comes with being treated as "less", asking that you PLEASE stop using language that they feel continues the legacy of discrimination against them, and you respond with words like "weirdo", "revolutionary", "non-issue", and "stopped listening", they realize you are not on their side and they then act and vote accordingly. By complaining about things like this, they are asking you to convey whatever message you'd like, but to simply use different words. But when you ask them to stop complaining about such language, you are essentially asking them to limit their fight for equality. You are being asked by them to choose sides, and the message you are sending is that you'd rather oppose them than support them. You've made clear your position on this and I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just telling you how many women view this, and why I've chosen to modify my language accordingly.

Yes, if it means the death of millions, they should limit their fight. If it means dropping one word from my statement that in no way changes the meaning of what I am saying, then "no" they should continue the fight. I have no idea why you keep throwing up obstacles. If you don't want to help, then don't. But please don't act as if the lack of a perfect solution is the only thing holding you back.

Any variation between them is purely statistical. If you took half of the Caucasian population and compared it to the other half of the Caucasian population. Then the average makeup of the "brain genes" would be different between the two groups. Likewise, if you compared two different "races" like Asians and Caucasians. This is because of genetic differences between basically every human on earth. Yes, it really can be true. No, it's really not that remarkable. This fact was established by simply studying the brains of a multitude of different people and finding no significant difference between them other than individual ones(I.E. some are larger, some are denser, etc)

Recommendation: JCMacSwell you should report a post if you think there are ad homs being leveled and everyone should stop talking about it here within thread and derailing everything. Focus on the topic... not on each other. This is not hard. It’s only hard if you force it to be. Don’t go out of your way trying to find things offensive. Don’t go out of your way trying to offend. Let it go and move forward. Treating and viewing people as individuals instead of as members of a gender seems like a good plan. It has the peripheral benefit of all of us agreeing about it.

Possibly because the display elements in OLEDs are active light -emitting components and can act as sensors. While the display elements in LED/LCD panels are liquid crystal 'shutters' with either LED or fluorescent backlighting. I'll have to look into it.

No there is two detectors in the Bell experiment. when you measure one particle at spin up you know the other particle MUST be spin down. There is no time reversal involved. The muon decay is a different thread see my answer there

I have a very high confidence that the possibility of a faster than light interaction is not the correct answer. Let me explain a few details not mentioned thus far. First off the entangled particles have already interacted with each other prior to being measured. They did so the instance they became entangled. This entanglement determines the probability of possible outcomes which is a correlation function ( another statistical term.) In the case of spin 1/2 particles such as electrons there is only two possible states spin up or spin down. However there is also a process called conservation of isospin and charge that is involved ( though all conservation laws apply in any particle interaction). All conservation laws must be obeyed on any particle interaction. This determines that the entangled pairs must be of opposite polarity. So when you measure one you automatically know the result of the other. The particles do not need to communicate or have any cause and effect at the time of the measurement. The initial interaction when they initially got entangled is sufficient. The other probability functions relate to how often a stream of entangled particles on multiple sampling will align with a given detector. So different detector apparatus will have their own probabilities according to the individual experiment set up. Once again no FTL is required or needed. Neither is a hidden variable required to make accurate probability predictions

I like how you characterize the GOP effort as "willing to do something", and the Democratic effort as "push something they know will not pass once again". Given that you could just as easily have switched the parties that you made those characterizations about, I'm afraid your bias is shining through.

Completely right. +1 for encouragement. More later.

I haven't much time now so I will just answer this one and offer some encouragement. These lines are part of the same sentence so the question mark goes at the end. Perhaps I should have put better punctuation. Sorry. Try this What is the meaning (ie how do you interpret) of the statement: "Event A has a probability of 1"? I think you have a better thought capacity than you give yourself credit for, even in maths. You just need to find what others have done before you. :)

They are siblings?

There is no mechanism where that is possible.

So if the set of outcomes is infinite and the set of all events, A (to give them a name) are both infinite do they have the same 'amount' (to use your words) of members? Not necessarily. And now my words will really hold me back.... urm, they may both have an infinite "amount" after infinite iterations.... but the frequencies of positive outcomes differs.... (Well outside my comfort zone) -------------------------------- An unknown quantity is not necessarily a variable in my book. Agreed, i was wrong. A hidden variable is an unknown quantity. An unknown quantity is 'possibly' a variable, (possibly hidden) ------------------------------------ As for "inappropriate pronouncements", I can only word things in terms of the definitions i have. I can learn alternative definitions, and am trying. Seems my assumption was with the word "Hidden". I shall look into it. But i think "Badly Hidden" will do for now :p I think i need a disclaimer at the bottom of me boxes :/

That would put the impact at about the equivalent of ~1/3 of a kiloton. This is roughly 1/40 as much as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, or 30 times greater than the GBU-43/B "Mother of all bombs", the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in US arsenal.

Not according to QM. If you e.g. have three spin-1/2 particles, two of them will have to be in an identical spin state, since you don't have any other options. There are only two spin states available. If you have an alternative theory, let's see it. What predictions does it make and how do we test it?

Hi, I've heard that under-display fingerprint sensors require OLED panels. Why is this?

The should call it Bonaquafaucet then.

Tossing a coin is a probabilistic event, yet we know whether the result is heads or tails.

That limit only applies to the first day. (it's an anti-spam measure)

What are races?

What are the 'brain genes'?

! Moderator Note Interesting question. I am going to move it to Engineering as it might get some more attention there...

Your hair should be OK, but I think you have a drinking problem.

For my part it has nothing to do with anonymity. I agree that most here would likely apologise and move on including myself. Its obviously a sensible choice to avoid conflict, and make clear your intent is not antagonistic. I disagree with assuming offence on the behalf of others because they are women. Has T May commented? If not she has my utmost respect for acting in her capacity as P.M, not as woman. That is her role in this instance. I would also respect her decision to challenge it on her own behalf, and could still see a P.Ms strength in that. There would have been no offence given or taken if someone hadn't assumed it, and made it public. Most women I speak to see it as sexist to assume offence on their behalf and make allowances for language based on nuance they feel has no place in our language. So who is right? Thats for women to work out as people. Not us to decide for women. In the meantime, if we stop giving recognition to concepts that don't belong with the word, we can still respect the wishes of individuals, as individuals. You think Corbyn should have acknowledged it and moved on. Its still his decision and without knowing the conditions from his reality perspective with absolute certainty, we can't be sure what he should have done either. Because some people see bifurcation of the sexes as recognition of a diversity. Based on sex. Nothing else. Who says different means unequal? Or that we should see it as unequal?

Quite advanced for an 8th grader. Anyways, considering you're advanced, I'm sure you'll have relatively little trouble understanding this video by PBS Spacetime. It's a bit more complicated than the initial two videos, but it definitely explains it better and goes further into detail, which is absolutely crucial to writing any good essay(as I'm sure you know.) If you have any questions about it, just let me know. Glad to help, and I hope you have a nice long stay here at Science Forums.

FWIW, it's comments like these that tend to lead to neg reps, not you "defending yourself." If I've misunderstood you, then do a better job of explaining yourself. Also, your tone. There's no need to be so aggro all the time I now return you to your regularly scheduled program...

These threads with you guys are getting silly. JCM made a non-apology. I linked sharing a description of what that is. He said he does this all the time and offered a different example that clearly wasn't a non-apology apology like the first one. I corrected it to make the point clear. Now you're telling me I don't read. Let's just stop for a while, join one another for a meal... tuck in a bit and share a few laughs, shall we?

Again Zap, we all agree that offending anyone should be avoided, and I'm sure everyone here will modify their language to avoid it. But is the comment sexist ? Everyone seems to forget that the purpose of calling someone 'stupid' IS to be offensive. The 'woman' part of the original comment being simply an identifier in the already offensive comment.

I'm not going to quote snipe back and forth. I'll just post my thoughts in hopes of finding places we agree again. When we discuss topics like healthcare, everyone always trots out the "how are we going to pay for it" canard. Some people object to this seemingly reflexive response because it never seems like we have that same response when discussing military spending, going to war, cutting taxes, etc. There is always room for spending. There are tools we can use to account for it. The government budget is not like a household budget. Taxes can be increased. Money can be printed and borrowed. There's always a need to be vigilant and not do these things in excess, and there's always room for discussion around what the threshold should be for what IS excessive and what is NOT excessive, but to boldly proclaim it all to be impossible then drop the mic and walk away is what is truly absurd here. I'm not arguing for pure spending or permanent spending. I'm saying we can shift money from place A to place B, and that we also need to account for future returns. After all, that's what the GOP does when arguing for tax cuts on the rich... I have seen many people (most often conservatives) frame government spending as a pure cost, and I personally feel that's a mistake... a completely unrealistic perspective on how economies operate. Now... This is my opinion, and it's perfectly okay to hold a different one, but I frame these issues instead as investments. What is the expected return? Will this increase jobs? Will this reduce poverty? Will this enhance wellbeing? How will these affects impact revenues and growth? What are the costs of inaction (this last one is especially relevant when rebuilding after hurricanes for not proactively addressing climate change). It's just that this constant and immediate shitting on ideas is so one-sided and so hypocritical from one topic to the next. These calls for detailed payment plans when the topic relates to healthcare or green jobs programs... these defeatist attacks that suggest forcefully that "WE JUST CAN'T DO IT!!1!!2!one!!"... yet at the same time and from the exact same people deafening silence when it comes to giving massive handouts to corporations or adding a few hundred billion for the military or lobbing a few multi-million dollar missiles into the desert overseas somewhere... Nope, not a peep! Nothing. Nada. Zilch... Crickets in an amphitheater. And don't even get me started about when actual payment plans are shared and just get swept aside in strawmen and scaremongering... The core issue here is about what we choose to value. It's the politics that are hard, not the economics, yet it's always the economics used to short-circuit the conversation and prevent us from even talking about these ideas or creatively finding ways to achieve them. Seriously... You're going on about how we cannot afford healthcare, yet today already we pay something like 3x what most other civilized nations do, and we have generally worse outcomes, lower quality care, and we don't even manage to cover everyone. We don't need to invent this from scratch, we just need to look at what's working elsewhere, claim it for our own, and stand up to fight for it in good faith. This is not a problem of budgeting, it's a problem of priorities. Now... AOC is just the newest foil for the right. She's the new bogeyman being used to get people all lathered up and wetting their pants and distracted from reasonable dialogue, but no matter how many times you repeat the word math or call her arrogant or pretend you're taking some arbitrary high-ground... no matter how many times you call her a liar for using poetic license on a single news article and no matter how much you get yourself all worked up into a tizzy and tell us all you're taking your ball and going home... there is just nothing about what she's suggesting that is either impossible or unworkable.

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but do want to be clear. I'm NOT offended. I'm saying we can do better and should try. At least 42. Bring you towel.

As they 'evaporate', and increase in temperature, they emit more and more energetic particles. These carry more and more mass-energy away at faster and faster rates. Eventually the micro ( by now ) BH, loses enough mass-energy that it can shed its event horizon. At this point it 'explodes' back into normal space-time with a massive gamma ray burst. This scenario, though, involves the 'loss of information', which is a paradox according to QM. This might explain why we've never seen gamma bursts from evaporating primordial BHs, left over from the Big Bang. ( maybe it just doesn't happen in this manner )

I'll add my own understanding of the broader point. We always find money for things. Every day. Money for weapons. Money for tax cuts. Money for disaster relief. Money for the presidents golf trips and secret service rentals of golf carts from clubs he owns... There's always money to be found, reallocated, borrowed, collected, etc. By referencing the Pentagon budget, and how much money gets completely hidden and vanished there, she was pointing out that we can do anything when we make it a priority. National defense is a priority so we allocate funds even when we're deficit spending. The point is that we could equally make national health a priority or climate change a priority and allocate funds for those in the same way. "Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I'll tell YOU what you value." ~ Joe Biden Given this response, I'll put you squarely in the "pure cost" category. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not trying to misrepresent you, but you clearly evaded my question. We can fund anything we want. We can literally print money and insert trillions at any time into the market. There are sometimes consequences (like inflation or a drop in the value of the dollar, for example), but we can fund anything whatsoever and essentially all other nations on the planet are willing to lend us money to do so, when needed. So, I've answered your question. Yes, we CAN fund it. The conversation then logically turns to the potential downstream consequences of doing so and whether the return on our investment is worth the cost. These are mutually exclusive. If you agree it's an investment, then it's not a pure cost (unless a negative return is later realized on that investment). Of course you can, especially if you're a government who can literally create currency and raise taxes. I know this SEEMS like a common sense position, and to be clear I'm not arguing that we do this, but we really don't have to pay for it. There's a cool concept we came up with thousands of years ago to enable commerce and increased trading. It's known as debt. It has obvious benefits and downsides, but it's a pretty remarkable system. In short: We agree to pay you in the future for something we need today, generally with some interest. You should read up on it sometime. I'd not be a homeowner or car owner myself without it (and it feels REALLY great when you pay it off!!).

Thank you for the upvote, whoever. Some additional comment or question would have been nice. So here is one. In a truly infinite series of trials, how many times will a specific event occur, given that the event has a non zero probability, however small ?

[continued] Here a multiplication from Eutocius manuscript. Left in Greek, right in today's numerals. Don't ask me what's about...(it is 3013.75^2) https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ελληνικό_σύστημα_αρίθμησης#/media/File:Multiplication_Eutocius.jpg And for once, the wikipedia pages for Greek numerals are different in English, Greek & French (interestingly it is not the usual copy-paste).

If it would be possible, it would be stupid movement, because diversity in genes is good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding Genetic drift in small populations quickly leads to inbreeding.

John Harmonic has been banned for an egregiously inappropriate response to moderator feedback, on top of his failure to embrace the concept of this site.

Zephir been suspended again, so we're going to make it permanent. This should give him more time to devote towards learning actual science. Best of luck, Z. Aether you're a genius or you're an idiot (had to be done). _____________________________________________________________________ alanejackson has been suspended for three days, for a combination of Flaming, Trolling and Hijacking. Let's hope he can get it together and stop whining about Galileo persecution, but let's not hold our breath, either. Even money says we'll see him listed here again in a few days.

No. And I never said they were. But that being said, I do think they're similar. But regardless, are they both, not shitty things to do? Refusing to pay them at all. Shitty. Refusing to pay them later because it'd hurt your political position. Not as shitty. Do you want a half shit sandwich or a fully shit sandwich? Preferably, I'd rather neither. If the Democrats proposed a measure to pay government workers in spite of the shutdown, and Republicans refused to let it pass, would you consider it nonsense? I'm sure we both agree. Paying federal workers is a step in the right direction, correct? Then why give up the good in pursuit of the perfect?

We've covered this before. If someone makes an insinuation against someone, whether it is on topic or not, we all have a right to reply to it. You certainly do. Stop being hypocritical.

Hello i am smokequitterv2 , my main aim in life is to never touch the smoking habits ever .I am planning to do everything else . No smoke of any kind , no drugs of any kind . I am planning to stick to Vodka only if i ever feel like drinking

Except, we DO have the receipt. We also know how much was initially invested in that area. We also know where the money changed to. But again. We don't know why it changed. We don't know who changed it(or who authorized it). We don't know when it was changed. We just know that it was. And that's not enough for an audit. Nice straw man. Again. Nice straw man. I mean, I literally said the exact opposite of this. Now I suspect I'll get a negative rep and I'll be accused of gish galloping around for saying that now. I mean. Dare I defend myself? @iNow I'm tired of you taking what I say and twisting it around. This thread and others. Perhaps you view it as some kind of tactic to "win" or something. I could care less. I want to have a discussion, not win some debate. So it's alright to lie off the record? Again. I'm under the assumption she just made a mistake. Which is what she said later. But if you want to go down the road that she's lying, go ahead. I don't care. I don't hold her to a different standard. I hold her to the same standard I hold any other politician. And quite frankly that standard indicates to me most of them are lying crooks. In her case, she's simply bold and arrogant, and it's showing in the types of statements she makes. She's a politician. Do we really need to manufacture a reason not to like her? Give me an example of Trump making a mistake, where he was not accused of lying. Because at the moment it seems you hold AOC to a different standard then Trump. Should all politicians not be held to the standard of being factually correct and telling the truth? What's different about AOC that it's a different standard to hold her to what she says? From the people I'm interacting with, it's usually laughter.

OK. You persist with ad hominem arguments. That's fine. I will do the same.