Its too late. Sure, you can regulate some things - like gambling and porn sites. But really, most kids live in low density neighborhoods - with very few children that they could ever meet spontaneously. Summer is a child desert on the streets. They are all in some full time summer camp so both parents can work. There's no house phones so the kids can call over and make their own play dates. If they don't have a cell phone, they are cut off. I say - introduce the phone earlier - and control it, and teach them how to control it. Teach them about scammers and the tricks that app makers use to make those stupid 'free' games addictive. Watch Youtube with them while you try to squeeze in another hour of work. Of course, try to arrange play and parties and give them the tools to arrange play with their over scheduled friends. Explain that homework really can be skipped sometimes or just do the minimum and get through it. And there's a lot of healing to do since COVID. The isolation and masks and remote school was so harmful even if it saved lives. The kids are gonna be alright - they just need a little help.

If all these companies did was some sort of public service recommendation without a profit motive, I would say they might have some reason to get special treatment. But they purposely write algorithms that spread the most incendiary (and often false) messages and hate speech all to drive advertising revenue. If a newspaper did that, they'd get sued. Why can Google and Facebook get away with it? Curating and recommending sites, whether its search or a playlist is not passive and those recommendations are what allow lunatics to spread their messages of hate. These giant companies should be at least as liable for their content as a newspaper is.

Double-blind means that the person administering the treatment or placebo does not know the difference (in addition to the patient). So if you are being poked in a place other than where the practitioner would plan, then you might have a problem being able to do a double-blind study. In general, if a procedure or theory is not falsifiable (testable) then its probably a sham.

How about 40,000 BC? What if we came from Mars?

I am actually really looking for an answer to the question posed. Not trolling. Though maybe you mean poetmatt? The question is, would this trial settle the issue for good, or are there other legal time-bombs awaiting developers?

If the APIs turn out to be non-copyrightable, does this mean we can really all enjoy/suffer Java for free?

I think I found a loop hole. They have to discard all the failed attempts of the entanglement swapping (75% of the time). Not to mention a 4.4% efficiency of even getting photons through the long fiber to Victor. I don't have Nature Physics, but from the preprint on arxiv.org:

"The probabilistic nature of the Bell-state projection with linear optics decreases the success probability to 1/4." page 15

Though a more honest way to say this might be, that only when Alice and Bob have correlated photons, would it be possible to get the entanglement swapping to work. If we tried to swap the entanglement based when Alice and Bob did not get correlations its clear it would never happen. Their interpretation relies on a strange post selection of the data. If their experiment checked to see if Alice and Bob first got a correlation, and only then tried to do entanglement swapping, I think the experiment would not appear to violate any sense of causality. Its only because they throw away 75% of the data (the failed attempts at entanglement swapping) that the experiment appears magic. I think those 75% contain most of the uncorrelated results from Alice and Bob as there is a reason those attempts failed. Ie. its not chance if Alice and Bob have already performed the measurement. Its only "chance" if we pretend that we don't know.

In the description, they write "by exploiting the corrosion-resistance of copper with the conductive properties of steel". But this is copper clad *telecom* wire, so at megahertz or higher frequencies there will be no current in the steel core. Its all in the skin (effect) and the wire will have just the same conductivity as copper wire, minus any magnetic losses. I assume that they have made nice controlled impedance telecom wire, which is, to my knowledge, something cool and new. Kudos to the company that made it!

While the supply of Bitcoins is limited. There is no reason I see, that someone else could not come up with another bitdollar, bitpeso, digifranc, or other such digital "money" with the same properties. In this sense, these digital monies are not unlimited, and I fail to see why they would have any inherent value. With raw metals, like gold there are alternatives too, paladium, platinum, silver... But the periodic table, chemistry and physics have assured us that there is a limit to the alternatives. The US dollar is backed by a giant military and the strategic resources it controls (also limited). What makes Bitcoins worth having, when tomorrow someone could invent another digital currency? Is this just a popularity contest? What value could you add to bitcoins to make them unique or worth having?

The study is highly suspect. Because it looks like the area they are referring to is the temporal lobe. This is the area involved with hearing and I would not be surprised if putting a muted telephone on one side of the head would increase my brain activity as I strain to hear something. They need to show that if they move the antenna, that the increased activity follows it. This would have been very easy to do, but was not done. Why?

from http://www.neuroskills.com/brain.shtml:
Temporal Lobes: Side of head above ears.
Functions:
        * Hearing ability. Memory acquisition. Some visual perceptions
        * Categorization of objects.

OK. I will bite even though I will most likely regret it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elemental_abundances.svg

Shows that lead (Pb) is roughly 10000 times more abundant than gold (Au) in the earth's crust.

What reference were you using? Trollpedia?