StringJunky

30 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Theere should be. I remember a study around 2000s that measures task switching as a measure of focus of around 2.5 mins. A recent follow up from same author measured around 0.5 mins or so.  I have the papers... somewhere.

Wow. They can't even listen to a 2.5 minute pop record, just the intro. 

12 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That is true and exactly the problem. For example,  attentionspan and  is going down everywhere, but it is not clear whether current tests account for them.

Is there documented inverse correlations on relative attention span between pre-internet use and present day?

edit: I should have added 'inverse' before correlations

56 minutes ago, CharonY said:

There is that, but I think with more data, we are starting to think a bit more about what is the range of normative behaviour? At which point does a certain behaviour cause dysfunctionality and requires additional treatment and how is what we should accept as normal range? One big issues is that in contrast to, say, infectious diseases we do not have causative agents, or even absolute clear targets. I am fairly sure that among experts, there is a more nuanced discussion about that, though.

Isn't the general definition of normal behaviour that behaviour which is neither pathological to the subject, nor those around them? Social/cultural expectations being accounted for and distinguished.

17 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

ADD and ADHD may have been previously underdiagnosed. Fortunately Big Pharm has been able to come up with the drugs necessary...

...to make themselves more money.

I used to think dyslexia was rather nebulous until I saw it with my own eyes.  I literally saw some letters change on the page to the correct ones after initially misreading it.

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

Looks like it’s gonna be closer to minus 3F and minus 30F windchill that evening. It’s nasty out. 

Effect: Older voters far more likely to stay home. Representation for the 30-50 something crowd gains higher per vote power / weighting in the totals.  More extreme voters more likely to show up than uninspired or lukewarm ones. 

Life in Iowa as I type this:

 

In the UK, I've only seen 0F twice that I'm aware of.

9 hours ago, iNow said:

No. US President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces and has implicit authority to strike, defend, and respond to attacks without express declaration of war from Congress. 

More broadly, perhaps that needs to change (see also: Iraq and Afghanistan), but Biden doesn't need to check with the right-wing MAGA extremists in Congress before tossing a missile toward those attacking us and our allies. 

OK.

7 hours ago, Carrock said:

Nor me.

However, hacking my email enough (more if competent) for my ISP to change my password and inconvenience me was a lot simpler/cheaper.

It's rather sad that mentioning public domain work by Frank Miller (1882) and Hedy Lamarr (1942 patent) is considered worth this response.

Is that principally by  social engineering methods?

Cheers Seth. It was hearing about the Patriot system taking out the Kinzal quite often that got me thinking about it. It was happening too often to just be luck.

On 12/26/2023 at 12:12 PM, dimreepr said:

So, your solution is to run away?

If only refugee's could think that clearly...

Some people don't have rubber spines, besides martyrdom is a laudable thing there.

UK/US are starting to make the Houthis look good, who are sticking up for allies. I smell a propaganda disaster just around the corner for us.

Is there substance to this comment by a Rep?:

Quote

These airstrikes have NOT been authorized by Congress. The Constitution is clear: Congress has the sole authority to authorize military involvement in overseas conflicts. Every president must first come to Congress and ask for military authorization, regardless of party. https://t.co/Yo4QOWfbgrOpens in a new tab

— Val Hoyle (@RepValHoyle) January 11, 2024

PaulsRocket. In QComs, entangled elements act as triggers to notify the sender and recipients that the entanglement has been broken, therefore the system has been interfered with. It is purely a cryptographic method and no data has been exchanged. It is sent classically. It's like sticking a piece of hair across a lid and a box to notify if somebody has been in it. Think of it as an alarm.

Quote

Quantum Communication
Quantum mechanics guarantee secure communication
Quantum communication is a field of applied quantum physics closely related to quantum information processing and quantum teleportation. Its most interesting application is protecting information channels against eavesdropping by means of quantum cryptography. The most well known and developed application of quantum cryptography is quantum key distribution (QKD). QKD describes the use of quantum mechanical effects to perform cryptographic tasks or to break cryptographic systems. The principle of operation of a QKD system is quite straightforward: two parties (Alice and Bob) use single photons that are randomly polarized to states representing ones and zeroes to transmit a series of random number sequences that are used as keys in cryptographic communications. Both stations are linked together with a quantum channel and a classical channel. Alice generates a random stream of qubits that are sent over the quantum channel. Upon reception of the stream Bob and Alice — using the classical channel — perform classical operations to check if an eavesdroper has tried to extract information on the qubits stream. The presence of an eavesdropper is revealed by the imperfect correlation between the two lists of bits obtained after the transmission of qubits between the emitter and the receiver. One important component of virtually all proper encryption schemes is true randomnessm which can elegantly be generated by means of quantum optics.

https://www.picoquant.com/applications/category/quantum-optics/quantum-communication#:~:text=Quantum communication is a field,by means of quantum cryptography.

14 minutes ago, Chris Sawatsky said:

I read every comment and all I get is "You're Wrong!" No one has the courage to share what they believe is the truth. I am not arguing or standing behind the standard explanation and theories. It's all just information as far as I am concerned and I won't consider any of it TRUTH until the day its proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you disagree with the current explanation of the beginning of the universe then publish your theory and set the record straight. I am simply cutting and pasting what is printed on the websites that belong to several of the major Universities and institutions that you and others received your degrees from. Anyone can disagree with anything but can you prove it is wrong or are you a contrarian like many of the people on this site? 

Truth is for bibles, and proof is for mathematics.

48 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Harder to pronounce, though.  Leeuwenhoek is never referenced in a Queen song.  

As long as the slower ground-based intercepting supersonic projectile is sufficiently forward of the incoming missile, it only needs to arrive at the same time, somewhere along the hypersonic missile's predicted trajectory.  Is that correct?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That’s just silly

Source: me, who worked for ~25 years at the US Naval Observatory in the precise time department 

Your explanations on time over the years has always been internally consistent, in my opinion.

3 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m grateful for the open exchange of ideas you shared with Phi and largely agree with you both.

I will just add that language itself also evolves, and here in my own posting behavior I become one of the selection mechanisms by which words and usages ultimately propagate.   ✌️

iNow is a forcing in the evolution of letters.  Alluding to another contentious conversation elsewhere: forcings are inherently the designers of what happens to mutations.

2 hours ago, chron44 said:

 

Excerpt:

"Note that while time is a fundamental concept in our understanding of the physical world, its nature is complex and interconnected with other aspects of physics, such as gravity, relativity, and quantum mechanics. The understanding of time has evolved with advancements in physics and continues to be an area of exploration and investigation."

-- End of excerpt. -- ChatGPT 3.5 updated January 2022

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And I'm just only trying to explore the concept of time especially with physics in mind.

Sigh..

Ask yourself: What is so special about time that we must agonize over it when every other measurement parameter never gets a second look?

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Being temporarily elected President of the US for a 4-year term is NOT equivalent to the divine right of kings who’s authority is said to be an unchallengeable gift from god. 

Yet… that’s precisely the argument moving through the US Justice system in context of Cheeto Mussolini seeking a 2nd term and evasion of 93 felony charges. 

I condensed my thoughts as a series of questions I would like to ask the court:

Quote

When America was in its infancy, do we think the founders of the Constitition wished to preserve the divine rights of Kings in its leaders, when it was trying to a create a democratic Republic, and not a Monarchy that it was contemporaneously seeking to divest itself from? 

The divine right and immunity of a King appears to be no less than what Donald Trump is seeking. 

Is it fair on the ordinary folk of the United States of America for the  Supreme Court to furnish his wishes to be universally unassailable and inherently superior to his peers?

Let us not forget the inscription on the Supreme Court of the United States:

‘EQUAL UNDER  THE LAW’

What does ‘equal’ mean if it doesn’t include everybody in the land of the United States

Surely, this is the Originalist’s interpretation and Donald Trump’s culpability has already been thoroughly answered by Court precedent, based on cases starting in 1891 when the Court unanimously ratified that legal concept at least twice. 

Do we think some people were intended by the Constitution’s framers to be more equal than others? The meaning of ‘Equal’ is essentially unequivocal, concise and succinct, as it only need only be described in three words: the same as.

Atop the SC building: 

I think the original framers meant everybody. Why have it chiselled on the highest court in the land otherwise?

That motto was meant to inspire confidence that everybody would be treated the same.  If the president is not explicitly excluded, one can reasonably conclude that 'everybody' meant every person in the land.

25 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Atop the SC building: 

I think the original framers meant everybody. Why have it chiselled on the highest court in the land otherwise?

That motto was meant to inspire confidence that everybody would be treated the same.  If the president is not explicitly excluded, one can reasonably conclude that 'everybody' meant every person in the land.

It was put up in 1912, but derives from an 1891 case:

"The words "equal justice under law" paraphrase an earlier expression coined in 1891 by the Supreme Court.[7][8] In the case of Caldwell v. Texas, Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote on behalf of a unanimous Court as follows, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment: "the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law."[9] The last seven words are summarized by the inscription on the U.S. Supreme Court building.[7]" - wiki

Just in:

WASHINGTON (AP) — With Donald Trump listening intently in the courtroom, federal appeals court judges in Washington expressed deep skepticism Tuesday that the former president was immune from prosecution on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The panel of three judges, two of whom were appointed by President Joe Biden, also questioned whether they had jurisdiction to consider the appeal at this point in the case, raising the prospect that Trump’s appeal could be dispensed with on more procedural grounds.

During lengthy arguments, the judges repeatedly pressed Trump’s lawyer to defend claims that Trump was shielded from criminal charges for acts that he says fell within his official duties as president. That argument was rejected last month by the lower-court judge overseeing the case against Trump, and the appeals judges suggested through their questions that they, too, were dubious that the Founding Fathers envisioned absolute immunity for presidents after they leave office.

“I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law,” said Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-jan-6-special-counsel-immunity-appeal-64eec975e6a602949eb4b90315239318

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 

Never could make much sense of this oft-quoted Biblical definition, in how it worked evidence in there.

Many hoped for the 5 sigma results on the Higgs boson at the LHC, which were evidence of things not seen.  Hmm. 

In the context of religion, a demand for faith is a demand for ideological tunnel vision.

34 minutes ago, ttelect said:

Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek was misjudged the same way you are wrongly judging me.

Makes a change from citing Galileo, I suppose.

Science cannot argue against faith. Faith, after all, is about commitment to a particular cause, regardless of evidence that may contradict its existence.

1 minute ago, TheVat said:

I saw a Homo Erectus drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's.  His hair was perfect.

Looking at human development is like looking at rainbows; you can only see the 'separations' from a distance. In this case temporal.

36 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/rich-untaxed-wealth

Imagine what could be done with even a 10% tax on that kind of wealth. 

It seems the EU is trying to force all the various arms of Apple Corp. into one taxable entity.... as it should be. A current example:

Apple disputes EU rules labelling its 5 App Stores as one service

Just think, when quantum computing becomes the norm it'll see accounting anomalies' faster than we can blink. I'd be straightening out my accounts and processes to a more transparent position if I was in the FAANG group. QC seems the right tool for handling global financial data when it's running as intended. 

Quote

Quantum computing can revolutionize tax modeling, audit resolution and fraud detection.
In brief
Quantum computing has the potential to dramatically impact tax policy and administration.
Tax practitioners can expect many use cases including real-time audits, granular tax modeling and exponentially better anomaly detection to help combat fraud.
Tax teams should take steps now to prepare for the coming era of quantum-powered tax.

.....Channing Flynn, EY Global Technology Tax Sector Leader, says tax audits are currently conducted on a historical basis, looking back over the past 12 months or more of legacy transactions. Quantum could change that. “Once adopted,” he says, “quantum audit technologies will likely not only simultaneously verify audits but also assess any deficiencies instantly. Disputes are also likely to be resolved much more quickly.”
Fraud detection is another use case with great potential for financial institutions and tax administrations, who hope quantum computing will one day help them identify the tell-tale signs of tax fraud, which are hidden within terabytes of data.

https://www.ey.com/en_no/tax/three-steps-tax-teams-should-take-to-prepare-for-quantum-computing#:~:text=Quantum computing has the potential,detection to help combat fraud.

In Evolution, when something happens is purely  stochastic/random... the molecules are milling about subject to thermodynamic and other forces in a random manner. When an oxygen meets a hydrogen, under the right conditions, randomness disappears and the outcome is determined because the molecules interactive behaviour is predictable i.e determined. One should be able see that evolutionary outcomes are both deterministic and stochastic.