Art Man

Many generals sought the glory of winning for Rome or the glory of winning for themselves in the ancient world. To find out which ones you have to read what they said and judge for yourself because glory isn't a tangible thing nor given a medal. You could tell usually through the nature of the conflict, which was usually more hate fuelled than the product of meandering with pride over one's superior militaristic clout. Glory is a sort of righteous and haughty pride.

Modern generals aren't much of the glory seeking type and the closest thing to glory in modern battle that I could think of was Normandy beach as it was a hard brutal battle that took some real military muscle to overcome. Winning that battle must've filled the general and his soldiers with a sense of glory.

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

Wrong, when an authority has a reasonable cause to show a crime has been committed, they can access whatever information that's germane to prosecuting the case.

Hence warrants of search or subpoena to gain access to related documents or witnesses.

That would be legal search and seizure, given the correct warrants are issued through a proper court, but he cannot be forced to release financial records to the public for general scrutiny. No matter how badly the public wants to know something they cannot force disclosure. You have every right to refuse a search of your property short of a court order. If you refuse post court order then some real physical force will take place. To get such a court order the prying party must meet some prerequisites with their investigation, but disclosure of something like tax and financial records will most undoubtedly take place in private.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

What an ignorant whataboutism style position. 

I’m neither president of the United States nor running to become that. Suggesting my privacy is to be placed on equal footing as POTUS privacy is absurd, at best. 

Elected officials open themselves to scrutiny beyond what’s expected of everyday citizens. Presidential candidates and victors even more so. 

What’s merciless here is your obliviousness to how the system actually operates and is structured. Let me spell it out for you with small words and fat crayons to help you fill this painful gap in your understanding:

The IRS is controlled by the Department of Treasury. The treasury is controlled by the executive branch, not congress.

Said another way, the POTUS is their boss, and he appoints their cabinet level officials to do his bidding. 

We all have the same rights. Much like we all have freedom of speech but we don't have a freedom that permits us to force someone to listen. Protection against illegal search and seizure applies to all American citizens regardless of power or public disposition.

What you are suggesting is that once an American citizen reaches a certain point of noteriety or office that some of their rights are forfeit and that couldn't be more untrue.

You seem awfully short fused today and your harshness is quite upper end.

5 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m not sure. The IRS has his taxes. They’re just not sharing them, even with Congress.

Would you want your taxes released to the public? I mean, if its alright with you could you post scans here on this site for all of us? That's right, it's none of our business what taxes you pay.

We can trust the I.R.S. to audit him hard. They are merciless.

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Tell you what, you explain this sentence; and I'll explain why I'm lying.

It seems pretty self explanatory to me. Imagine a four legged animal with a brain the size of a human brain.

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's an interesting notion...

 

But I'm lying...

Well that doesn't contribute much as a response.

Wink.

I just got the notion that the answer is simply that as apes brains grew there was a higher need to protect those brains from low lying hazards.

7 hours ago, Strange said:

Another (slightly more detailed) article here: https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-finally-nail-the-protons-size-and-hope-dies-20190911/

Thanks.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

These measurements were in Hydrogen, so there's no way to interpret this as "depending on what elements they constitute"  which is a non-starter. Once you are in any element with multiple nucleons the mass of the nucleus decreases as compared to its constituents, so assigning a mass to any individual particle is nonsensical.

Hydrogen is the standard for atomic testing?

Science News webzine - "Physicists may be a step closer to solving the mystery of proton size"

Quote

By Emily Conover

SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 AT 8:00 AM

If protons wore clothing, the label might read “XXS.”

For nearly a decade, scientists have been arguing over the size of the puny subatomic particles: extra small, or extra extra small. A new measurement bolsters the case that protons are more petite than once thought, researchers report in the Sept. 6 Science.

Until 2010, the proton’s radius was measured at about 0.88 femtometers, or millionths of a billionth of a meter. But then a new type of measurement — based on exotic atoms made with muons, the heavy cousins of electrons — clashed with that figure, registering a proton size of about 0.84 femtometers (SN: 4/18/17).  

One way to test the proton’s radius is by measuring the separation between the energy levels in which hydrogen atoms can exist — different states in which the atom’s electron carries a certain amount of energy. That energy difference depends on the size of the proton.

By measuring the separation between two such energy levels, physicist Eric Hessels of York University in Toronto and colleagues have pegged the radius at about 0.83 femtometers, in good agreement with the 2010 value.

The result adds to a small heap of recent studies that have claimed a slightly slimmer proton physique, including a 2017 measurement, made by considering a different set of energy levels in hydrogen atoms (SN: 10/5/17), and an estimate reported in October 2018, based on scattering electrons off of protons (SN: 11/2/18). However, a study published in May 2018 went against the slim-proton trend, falling in line with the original, larger value of the radius.

The inability to settle on a size is impeding researchers’ ability to test essential tenets of physics, like quantum electrodynamics, the theory that describes interactions of electrically charged particles. But resolving the debate is likely to be no small feat.

Questions or comments on this article? E-mail us at feedback@sciencenews.org

I know there's a lot of physics smart users on this board. Are there any theories in physics circles about why these differing measurements are happening? Could it be the equipment isn't a accurate enough or that protons can be different weights and sizes depending on what elements they constitute?

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

A) that is not a think tank but brain storming. B) Please take a look at the rules in the Speculations sections C) Most importantly, that is not what you have been doing. 

You have stated a series of specific assumption as facts in OP, then you speculated on possible connections. When challenged regarding these assumptions, you introduced the nebulous concept of atheist products which you claim that a) they cannot be quantified but b) they certainly have increased in abundance and declared that c) those are apparently better measures than polls on people's beliefs. In other words, you obfuscate matters by making claims that are unsubstantiated. For a proper brain storm (we are not even on the level of hypotheses) these would have to be dismissed first.

Since the only data point I have seen so far is the timeline of late 60s increase, stagnation in the 90s and then increase again, I think so far swansont's initial assumption of the action of specific movements that broadened acceptance of non-religiosity is so far the best explanation.

So you are saying that I shouldn't have brought up this topic to begin with because you don't like the questions that I bring up or you don't the subject matter? If I had all the answers then there would be nothing to speculate about.

I'm not the one here playing tricky worded maneuvers, I think I've been pretty straight forward and understandable about my speculations.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What's your point?

I'm not proving a point, I'm answering the questions

Could this concept be applied to people's 'moral compass'? Why does it matter in judging other people's choices or the direction they take if our destination is the same?

With

Morality isn't a location so much as a record of actions on a linear path. You do something good or bad and it can't be undone.

There is no argument to prove a point against.

15 hours ago, Hamsundan said:

Is death not our shared fate? Right now is all ... simulation. Do actions have any significance if there is no record of them?

I don't know what you're implying with the simulation comment but actions are actions and whether they are significant or not and whether they are noted and recorded or not doesn't change whether they happened or not. If you are measuring emotional significance rather than physical effect then your question might have different answers.

Emotions are subjective and can be manipulated. Actions happen and are immediately relegated to the past and cannot be manipulated once acted out.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

So if you think that it is difficult to measure how can you be certain that the numbers have increased.

I can be sure because I can observe and note the difference. And that is partially why I created this thread in the speculation chapter because I don't have the information, but I can observe changes and be certain that what people do now isn't what people did in 1989.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

See, you are asking a question based on certain premises and if those are not valid, one has to step back and figure out what the real situation is.

Isn't that what creating this thread does? There isn't information readily available to me but that doesn't mean that those observations haven't been measured and noted. And if they haven't well then perhaps this thread would show us what those things are that need measurement.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Thus, as long as we do not define what we take as a premise and make vague assertions, I doubt that a meaningful discussion is to be had

Speculation is like a think tank, you got an idea, not a prepared hypothesis, could be a partial idea, it could go somewhere, maybe someone else has some input to expand the idea or specialize it or give it life, maybe it was a dead end hunch, either way to make an idea grow into a hypothesis you'd need to discuss it.

If I was required to bring the information and the information would take me two years to research well then should an idea or observance be thrown out and forgotten or should you throw the idea out there first and make sure that two years of research is going to be worth the effort to make a message board topic.

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

LOL

 

anyway, re.

"what root psychological cause is there in the rise of atheism in the 20th century free world?"

Why assume it is psychological?
Why couldn't it be as simple as 

The more things we find a real explanation for, the less we need a sky fairy to explain.

Well, at some point people were more comfortable with being secular and atheist or simply far less religiously involved and there is a psychological value there that was pre-empted with an event or a large scale change that made that psychological comfort possible. Like said earlier in this thread there was less oppression.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

 

That does not answer my question at all. Besides, with such a vague description, how would you determine quantity?  Just to make it clear what I am talking about here the US data for percentage of folks claiming no religious affiliation in the US. And again, this if for the question of being unaffiliated. If you really ask about being an atheist, the rate is still around 3% (perhaps a bit surprisingly).

 

 

What I meant with "product" is anything for consumption, which would include television broadcasts, lectures, books, movies, science papers, really anything that can be "consumed" (either purchased as an item or absorbed or experienced through watching and listening). So, to measure such a thing would be a large task and would need more defined parameters, probably easier to do with just counting purchasable items but that wouldn't be representative of the degree that an idea such as atheism can penetrate a society. Many people don't care to share and don't base their consumption choices on the atheism/religion mindset. Christianity will always be prominent within our lifetimes but how deep a hold Christianity or any other religion has on a single society these days is far weaker than it use to be. Your chart here is a great example. 3% identify as atheists but the behaviour measured up to a much greater number. 

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

What exactly is an atheist product and what are the quantities? 

Besides that  I mentioned, that irreligiosity increased over time  but flattened out in the 90s. I.e. higher in the nineties but not increasing much  until way into the 2000s.  It is mostly a rebuttal to the claim that there was an exponential trend since the second half of the 20th century.

An atheist product would be something prepared for secular consumption and doesn't contain the products of religion.

Morality isn't a location so much as a record of actions on a linear path. You do something good or bad and it can't be undone.

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

If we only look at self-declared atheists pew data from 2014 only show 3% being atheists, 4% agnostic. That is hardly  an explosion of any sort.

That is a limited sample of people but if you look at the tolerance level of religious people in regards to atheism and the amount of atheist product available for purchase in both the secular and the entertainment worlds you will find a lot more to choose from in 1990 than in 1950, and in some cases atheist product far outsells religious product and dictates the direction of pop culture.

I think that ww2 had a lot to do with the tolerance of atheism, especially in free countries.

Just a second ago this novelty of a thought suddenly struck me.  I was thinking that, in the history of atheism, this posture of disbelief exploded exponentially in the latter half of the 20th century in free countries such a the U.S.A. and Scandinavia. Freedom of religion has existed in the U.S.A. since the 1700s, so why hadnt atheism taken off much sooner? What fundamental change in how people lived or how they thought brought this explosion in atheism on? 

On 8/31/2019 at 1:32 PM, studiot said:

I wasn't aware that there is currently an EU tariff of up to £60 per kilogramme on US cheese.

I really would like to taste some of the good stuff-  any recommendations?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48915578

I recommend that you do not eat Easy Cheez American cheese, I tried it yesterday and gagged on the taste of paint can flavor mixed with a hint of construction site stale sawdust flavor. Worst cheese experience of my life. It didn't taste like cheese and wasn't a dairy product in the least.

8 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Good points. Two more that I see as separate cases: Is it completely transparent? Is it camouflaged so that it is indistinguishable from it's surroundings? 
 

Is it tiny like an atom? Is it only visible at infra red?

On 12/30/2018 at 11:32 AM, Itoero said:

What's your favorite invention and/or discovery in human history and why?

Man, if I had to pick one thing it would have to be basic and valuable so I would choose Henry Ford and his automobile.

Invisibility has two explanations. Is it visible to your eyes? Does light slip around it without reflection?

Far looks small, close looks big. An illusion of depth would be use of other objects in front of or behind the main object.

Perhaps the person wasnt the same person in the picture but was someone who looked like him, 99% identicle.

The chances are still phenomenal as pure coincidence. Then you must wonder what caused this coincidence? Did the person plan to go there and somehow manifested the picture in advamce like some sort of spooky telepathy/telephony thing, or did the picture manifest the person, or was there no connection at all and somehow and someway both things appeared to the same person completely out of random chance, like hitting 7 7 7 on a slot machine?

To reduce the chances to something believable and likely, both the picture and the person would need to be connected to the same source.

Okay, this topic is pretty broad, but given how invasive technology has become and the number of hackers there are (more every day) and how easy it has become to hack phones and computers (just about anyone can do it these days) there is an increasing chance that this could happen to you. Also, remember that hackers tend to associate with each other and create groups to protect themselves from revenge.

Say you found out you were being stalked by people who traced you through either your phone or computer.

You know these things about them:

1. There is more than one person involved.

2. They know where you live. They know where you work. They hacked your phone. They hacked your computer.

3. They found you on social media like twitter facebook or a message board.

You dont have tangible evidence, but you suspect who some of them are. What do you do?

Remember:

1. You don't have the resources to investigate or take counter measures.

2. The government isnt going to help you, the police arent going to help you.

3. The stalkers are getting increasingly threatening.