Leaderboard

There is a way to address the fact that violence from anyone is inappropriate that does not ignore the fact that there was a major white supremacist rally during which someone who was protesting against them was killed by a white supremacist when he intentionally drove his car into a crowd, which Trump did in his initial remarks. He then made a statement addressing those concerns days later which it later came out he was essentially forced to do over his own protestations by his staff, complained when the press coverage of his handling remained negative even after he made the statement everyone said he should have made in the first place and then the day after that he effectively repudiated everything he'd said the day before and went back to "Both Sides Are Bad." Trump's statement that there was violence on both sides is true in the same way that it is true that there were Jews who committed crimes against Germans in the 1930s: It might technically be true, but completely irrelevant in light of the larger discussion of what was going on and useful only as a tool to draw false equivalencies and distract from larger problems. Even if there was no violence at all from anyone on either side, the rally that happened would not be ok. Legal, but not ok, and the fact that deadly violence was used by that side on top of it makes any attempt to draw an equivalence between the two morally bankrupt in the extreme. A statement being literally true does not mean that it is not also Trojan horsing a lie by implication nor does it render the statement immune from criticism.

I kind of suspected you were doing something like this, hence my trying to pin down what you were using as a definition of tolerance. The primary reason that I was and will continue arguing with you on this, unless you really were being entirely facetious, is that your characterization of what the rally was is off-base in a way that provides cover for white supremacists and Nazis. If the government were to ignore due process in arresting the Nazis, or were to arrest the Nazis without them having broken any laws, then I would criticize those actions. If some attacked a Nazi in a manner that was not immediate self-defense or defense of another, and that person was arrested for doing so, I'm not going to complain about the arrest just because the person they attacked is a Nazi. I don't think it has come up here, or if it has I don't think I participated in the conversation, but the ACLU has come under a bit of fire in the last week for stepping in to defend Jason Kessler, who was incidentally one of the people who organized the rally over the weekend. I agreed with their decision to do so for precisely the same reasons I have articulated in the past. Once again, in the same vein as has been covered in the past, I do not have to support what someone says or does in order to support the government sticking to upholding the rights that they are supposed to guarantee everyone under their purview. In this case, I do support the right to hold such a rally as the one that just occurred, but I very vehemently do not support the rally itself, and also do not think that you can draw a moral equivalence between the two sides in this case. Both may have done things that they should not have done, but one side was clearly and markedly worse both in their cause and in the outcomes that resulted from the actions of their supporters. Drawing such an equivalence is reprehensible and promoting the smoke-screen justification for the rally downplays what actually took place. That is something that can't be allowed to stand, especially not when it is being given cover by the highest ranks of government office rather than being defended by it. Had you stopped at the line of saying that the Unite the Right rally had the right to say the things they were saying, I would have agreed with you. You went quite a bit further than that, and I'm sorry, but acknowledgement of the existence of a particular right does not extend to accepting justifications for what is said during the exercise thereof. Also, incidentally, I don't believe that private citizens using violence to oppress speech is an example of a right being violated. That requires government action. It is, absent the above mentioned justification of defense, however, still a criminal act and I think should be treated as such where evidence exists for prosecution thereof. If that's all you wanted to hear, I, again, would have happily provided such a statement had you not wandered into the realm of justifying the rally itself.

A few things to consider. On of course being that Lee was on the the side opposing the Union and as such could be considered a traitor. A statue glorifying him uncritically (or at least not providing critical insights into his role) is problematic, and a removal of said statue is not the same as removing from history. Moreover the whole issue of "Confederacy Pride" is heavily soaked in resentments and, believe it or not, racism. Many of those monuments were created during the Jim Crow years and are strongly associated with efforts to subdue blacks. The not all protesters thing is a bit difficult when applied to this particular rally (unless you mean protests against statue removal in general). However if people are fine marching next to guys with Swastika flags and tattoos one should at least question one's company. Also note that the rally was organized by well-known supremacists. It is not to say that they have no right to protest, after all at least then they are all in the open. But I have a big problem with your characterization of that group and the comparison of e.g. Muslims. Where in the US have there been hundreds of Muslims on the street chanting Jihadists verses? MigL I generally like you posts and I understand that you sometimes like to get a rise out of folks, but really if you have people running around in Nazi paraphernalia chanting Nazi verses evoking all the images of Fackelzuege and then equivocate excusing them with the "not all Muslims trope?" These guys are just as far off as extremist Muslims and you cannot equivocate them with the average white guy nor the average Muslim. I would be terribly disappointed if you really want to make the point that an assembly of self-proclaimed supremacists requires should be compared to a mainstream religion rather than the fanatic fringes.

There is a percentage of Trump's supporters who have spent the last decade or longer being wrong about a lot. They have lost the debate on climate change, The Bush admin was a failure, GOP under Obama inept, and etc. There is baggage with that. Many of the same people who fiercely insisted we needed to invade Iraq also argued against the auto bail, against the ACA, against DACA, against gays serving openly, Gay Marriage, and etc. They found themselves defending people like George Zimmerman, Johannes Mehserle, and so on. On issue after issue the national view coming down against them. DACA, Gays Marriage, Obama, and etc are popular. Even with growing control over Congress and State Legislature they failed to develop policies which were useful or popular. Then Trump came along and gave they a win. A win most didn't think they wouldn't get. Now suddenly they can go back win all the debates they lost. The can say f#ck the Paris Agreement, bye bye to the ACA, go home dreamers, and etc. They can final win without the burden of being correct about anything. Of course managing a govt isn't about winning and losing. Retribution for past failed policy isn't useful. What makes since one year may not the following year as the world isn't a stagnate place. Political debate should always be based in the present with consideration for what can be learned from the past. Only way to preserve this is to fight. They don't have facts on there side. Trump pulling out of the Paris Agreement doesn't change climate science. So they must fight to stay above the wave of information and fact checking of their lies. Many people who never would have considered defending Nazis a year ago now find themselve on egg shell being careful to not condemn them too harshly because they know once the dam cracks on Trump it is over. People know Trump is bad but after a year of defending him on twitter, facebook, and etc many just don't have to read "I told you so". Pride over sense. It has created a palpable sense on pending collaspe. On both sides everyone nows this charade can't continue but the right doesn't want to blink. Like the final days of a ponzi scheme there is a frantic sense that one big infusion of cash can keep everything going another month and give them time to think of a new plan or the FBI could kick in the front door in the next 5 minutes and end it all.

Think about how this is dominating everyone's conversations everywhere. It's like he's hacked our social interactions. Whether we're on SFN, other forums, reading blogs, on FB, Twitter, watching television, sitting at the pub or cafe, walking in the grocery store... People like us who otherwise get along really very well are ALL arguing over things we largely agree about. If I weren't so vehemently against what he's doing and what this all stands for, I'd have to respect it. It's not easy to get an nation of people to all focus on one shiny object at the same time.

Isn't it obvious... we're dealing with Vanilla ISIS too soon?

You are passively defending the Nazis by pretending their were other groups on non-bigots there whose focus was preserving history and by insisting bothsides were violent. Only ONE SIDE brought torches, shields, and helmets. Only ONE SIDE drove a car into a crowd of people. Only ONE SIDE killed someone. Only ONE SIDE is recognized as a hate group and on DHS domestic terror watch lists.

I also have a serious problem believing that a stream of hundreds of people carrying torches and shouting "Jews will not replace us" and "Blood and soil" (a reference to the Nazi concept of Blut und Boden) are actually there primarily to preserve the historical importance of Confederate statuary.

Chanting Nazi slogans and giving the Sieg Heil salute are insufficient to determine intent?

Since it's a longer video and we're supposed to be able to discuss without watching, I transcribed a couple of interviews from it with relevant material below. There is more in the actual video than what is below, including some near the end where Cantwell explains why the car attack was justified, but this should be enough to cover the above point, I think. Ellen Reece (VICE News): So when did you get into, as you said, the racial stuff? Chris Cantwell: When the Trayvon Martin case happened, you know, Michael Brown and Tamir Rice and all these different things happened, every single case it's some little black asshole behaving like a savage, and he gets himself in trouble shockingly enough. Whatever problems I might have with my fellow white people they generally are not inclined to such behavior and you gotta kinda take that into consideration when you're thinking about how to organize your society. Ellen Reece: I mean, Oklahoma City. Chris Cantwell: Ok, so exactly, you have to go back to Oklahoma City to talk about a white act of terrorism- Ellen Reece: Elliot Rodger, Dylan Roof Chris Cantwell: Ok, so now you've managed to name three people, and I'm pretty sure Elliot Rodger wasn't explicitly white by the way. But the thing is you remember the names of white bombers and mass shooters, ok. Can you tell me the name of all nineteen hijackers on 9/11? Off the top of your head? You can remember Dylan Roof's name- Ellen Reece: You were asking if there were white people who were capable of violence. Chris Cantwell: I didn't say capable. Of course we're capable. I'm carrying a pistol. I go to the gym all the time. I'm trying to make myself more capable of violence. I'm here to spread ideas, talk in the hopes that somebody more capable will come along and do that. Somebody like Donald Trump, who does not give his daughter to a Jew. Ellen Reece: So Donald Trump, but like, more racist. Chris Cantwell: A lot more racist than Donald Trump. I don't think you could feel about race the way I do and watch that Kushner bastard walk around with that beautiful girl, ok. -Later- Chris Cantwell: We're here obeying the law. We're doing everything that we're supposed to do, trying to express opinions, and the criminals are over there getting their way, and that is a foundational problem with our society. And whatever you think of my opinions, that's gonna be something that puts you in danger. Robert Ray: Yeah, and that is because this city is run by Jewish communists and criminal n*****s. That's exactly what it is. Chris Cantwell: That's true by the way. Ellen Reece: So you're the true non-violent protesters? Chris Cantwell: I'm not even saying we're non-violent. I'm saying that fucking we didn't aggress. We did not initiate force against anybody. We're not non-violent. We'll fucking kill these people if we have to. -Later- Ellen Reece: Why don't you tell me what you think? Robert Ray: Huh? Ellen Reece: What do you do for the Daily Stormer? Robert Ray: I am a feature writer. I do crypto-report, and I'm generally their man on the ground at events. Ellen Reece: So what do you hope to get out of today? Like, what does it mean to you? Robert Ray: Well, for one thing it means that we're showing to this parasitic class of anti-white vermin that this is our country. This country was built by our forefathers. It's sustained by us. It's going to remain our country. I believe, as you can see, we are stepping off the Internet in a big way. For instance, last night at the torch walk, there were hundreds and hundreds of us. People realize they're not atomized individuals they're part of a larger whole because we have been spreading our memes. We've been organizing on the Internet, and so now they're coming out. And now, as you can see today, we greatly outnumbered the anti-white, anti-American filth. And at some point, we will have enough power that we will clear them from the streets forever. That which is degenerate in white countries will be removed Ellen Reece: So you're saying showing up in physical space let's people know that there are more like them. Robert Ray: We're starting to slowly unveil a little bit of our power level. You ain't seen nothing yet. -Later- Matthew Heimbach: The Governor is declaring a state of emergency, so any assemblies are now unlawful. So, the Left wasn't able to beat us. The Left who were the boot boys of the capitalist class and the bourgeoisie and the status quo. So they weren't able to beat us with their armed militant left-wing radicals so they had to turn to the state. And if that doesn't go to show that the radical Left, the corporations, the state are all on the same Jewish side, a moment like this proves it. Ellen Reece: Can you tell us a little bit about the organizing tactics you guys used? Matthew Heimbach: Sure, primarily following the European example of Golden Dawn, Nordic Resistance Movement and other organizations that really are the vanguard of nationalists organized in the world. Be able to coordinate over a large area to bring our people together. This is the largest nationalist rally in over two decades here in the United States. It's incredibly exciting and if you look at what's happened they've had to bring in leftists from around the entire country to try and stop us, and now we're continuing. We're gonna keep having a great time and we're gonna keep fighting.

It was LightWave 3D. It's destructive workflow, which means there is no easy way to modify it after it's done. Unlike non-destructive workflow, i.e. modifier stack and history stack, in which you can modify parameters of applied modifiers after the fact (and the rest of 3D object is automatically regenerated, as it's procedural object). Download some 3D app, or use Blender or SketchUp. Take my 3D object as starting point, and boolean subtract one cylinder from my cylinder to make walls thinner. Blender boolean subtraction of one 3d object from other 3d object:

Ah, i'll use any excuse to get this out:

Today I learned about the Scanning Tunneling Microscope. A scanning tunneling microscope (STM) is an instrument for imaging surfaces at the atomic level. Its development in 1981 earned its inventors, Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer (at IBM Zürich), the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1986. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope

Speak for yourself, there are many paths to contentment/enlightenment, judging people isn't one of them; which leads me to suspect that you don't understand what you profess to. If you can't explain it, then how do you know it's truthfulness?

I find attempts to rationalize the purpose of such protests to be a passive defense for neo-Nazis white supremacists. As we have seen in recent years from the protests over the Confederate flag in South Carolina to what we saw over the weekend it is Nazi hate groups that show up in solidarity with Confederate history. There are not large groups of non-extremists out protesting to keep Confederate monuments. It is repeatedly hate groups carrying swastikas. Many people attempt to side with the group of sensible protesters who aren't bigots and just want to preserve history. Problem is that group of protesters doesn't exist. By making them up are a device one can defend the monuments behind all one is doing is passively saying the Nazis have a point. Free speech is free speech. Nazis can protest. If one agrees with the point Nazi protesters are making they should have the courage to say so and not pretend they agree with some non-Nazi pro Confederate protesters which don't actually exist.

How can someone who commits treason be considered a hero? Article III section 3 Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

He is responsible for his own actions. Send him to Guantanomo with the rest. See how he makes out.

Donald Trump is who we thought he was. Those who defend him are deplorable as accurately labeled during the campaign. This is the same guy who had a "team of investigators" in Hawaii uncovering things about where Obama was born. All attempts to rationalize supporting Trump are exercises in cognitive dissonance. Amongst those who continue to support the GOP overall are standing shoulder to shoulder with racist hate groups and are in bed with a lying snake oil salesmen. As for Confederate monuments being part of our history; where are all the monuments celebrating English royalty? We were a colony after all. That is our history. Post the war for Independence why didn't we erect monuments to King Philip? It is usual to erect monuments, name schools & parks, and create museums to mark our wars. It is unusual for our (USA) foes to be venerated. Yes it is part of our history but the execution of it is not consistent with our values or treatment of other historical times.

Randolpin, can you point me to the portion of the quoted paper that deals with simulation? (Spoiler Alert: You can't. It doesn't.) Edit: Cross posted with Strange

Memory and I/O access (where done directly by the CPU, rather than DMA) are normally done sequentially, so the order the requests are sent is the same as the order in which the data are returned. That is how the CPU knows what instruction each access is associated with - just the next one in the queue. To allow multiple asynchronous transfers then techniques like DMA are used, as Sensei says. In this case, it is the interrupt that is triggered at the end of the transfer which identifies the task that the data is for. There are architectures that allow the CPU to make asynchronous memory and I/O accesses. In this case, the data can return out of order. This is handled by associating a "tag" value with each access that identifies where that data is supposed to go (e.g. which instruction or thread of processing).

In the case of I/O, currently are used techniques such as DMA (Direct memory access): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_memory_access f.e. hardware driver is setting address, length of buffer and other properties, operation is started and it's working parallel to CPU (transfer does not block CPU, like in old techniques) At the end of data transfer CPU is informed about it, by special interrupt request IRQ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrupt_request_(PC_architecture)

Funny (not ha-ha funny) how such curiosity about parenting/upbringing and possible fragility of psyche is investigated for white terrorists, but nobody else gets the same level of apologetics.

That is an extremely speculative concept that is just based on an apparent mathematical similarity. It is not yet established to be the case. The standard, and very simple, explanation is just that quantum effects are non-local (in both time and space).

Your rejection of belief seems to be based upon a belief.

So I know Trump has been pretty much teflon throughout his political career, but surely, no one comes back from this... Yeah, so one wants to say it Donald, because it equates being a Nazi/White Supremacist, with violently opposing a Nazi/White Supremacist. Over 400,000 Americans DIED violently opposing Nazis, and the majority of the country considers them heroes. The "quiet protest" involved a predominately white male crowd marching through a largely liberal college campus, carrying torches and swastikas, chanting "blood and soil" and "Jews will not replace us." I mean... seriously? Seriously? Holy shit. The icing on the whole shit show is the President of the United States is openly sympathising with the fricken White supremacists, and equating the Founding Fathers with Confederate Generals.

He knows who his base is and he's clearly pandering to it. He knows you gotta dance with the one that brought you. Bigger challenge: He's using this to distract us from his teams work dismantling the EPA, rolling back financial regulations, ignoring election tampering, and... of course... campaign shenanigans with Russia (which, have you noticed, has dropped completely out of the news cycle)? My prediction: The next big act to distract us / pretend to be resetting race relations will be the firing of Steve Bannon.

Something like this? Aquarium 3.lwo

The non bolded points have conveniently been dealt with while I took a break. The finite observable universe originated (probably) in a volume smaller than a proton but because of the lack of observable edge effects the big bang is either spatially infinite or too large to measure. 'Originates' here really means 'this is the earliest time when plausible physics can be invoked.' Inflation is an explanation of why the observable universe is so smooth but I doubt anyone will ever come up with a remotely plausible smoothing mechanism to ensure the big bang was of infinite extent. So while the universe may or may not be infinite in time and/or space I believe the big bang was finite in space. If the universe is spatially infinite I'd expect an infinite number of big bangs.

A pair of entangled particles are effectively a single entity so, when an observation is made of one particle (e.g. measuring its spin) then the measurement is made of the whole system and so the spin of both particles is determined at that instant. (Note that in quantum theory, the spins are not just unknown until they are measured, they don't have a specific value until measured.) From that moment, there are two separate particles with different spins. However, if Alice has one of he entangled particles and Bob has the other, there is no way that one of them can tell if the other has made a measurement of the spin (other than through traditional light-speed communication). So the measurement of one particle does not communicate any information to the observer of the other particle. But an entangled pair of particles does/can carry information. I don't know anything much about how quantum computers work, but entangled particles are used in several other contexts. For example, measuring "which slit" a photon went through in a double-slit experiment without interacting with the particle that actually went through the slit - you measure an entangled partner and use that information to deduce which slit the other one went through.

While I already know I have Asperger's, out of curiosity I took the test koti provided a link to and got a score of 38. I didn't know while growing up though and it made things challenging but also gave me tools and insights I doubt I would have had if I had been neurotypical. Not being able to read facial expressions and body language means taking people at their word until you get to know the person. And by "taking people at their word" means taking everything they say literally (as in genuinely, accurately, etc - yes, I know the correct meaning of the word). I've learned to deal with neurotypicals by analyzing the way people speak: what they say, how they say it and even what they don't say. I also endeavor to say what I mean and mean what I say. I'm not good at relationships. With that caveat, take your partner at their word and don't bring up past fights at all. Your only reference to them should be that they were based on potentially wrong information so they are moot and won't ever be brought up again - assuming you can actually stick to that pledge. And this would only be your pledge to them. Clarity is excellent. Emotions are fine but they need to be expressed verbally. A "meaningful" look isn't meaningful. Looking with "love" in your eyes is just looking. Honest words are needed. Meaningful deeds are needed. Ask questions and take the answer literally. Always be honest. If you aren't sure about something then ask for clarification. There was a period of a few years where I couldn't tell my mother that I loved her - I didn't feel it so I couldn't say it. When I was again able to say it, she understood that I meant it. I can't tell you that everyone with Asperger's is like that. Your partner might not be able to tell you that they love you right now. But they could like you enough to be with you. I'm not sure how you should broach the subject of Asperger's/autism with your partner. I keep coming back to something you said: "I truly love this person, and am willing to try what I can to give it a second chance." If you have not actually said this, it might be a good start. They might not be able to accept the idea that they have Asperger's/autism - it took me a few years. But I was also working through it alone. If they can't deal with it and you do love them then agree to not pursue it but ask if you can try to follow guidelines as if that were the case so you can try to be a better partner. In other words, you won't talk about it but will act as if they can't read expressions or body language. Above all, temper my attempts at advice with what others say and with reason. You know this person far better than I do so if something I said doesn't ring true, don't do it.

"I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express." https://xkcd.com/1357/

They don't behave as separate particles until you measure them, they are described by a wavefunction. The degree of freedom depends on the properties of the entangled particles..

Right. 99+ % of the time the old paradigm is more correct than what may or may not emerge to replace it. So it's like "don't quit your day job" while you invest in something new, you try to keep an open mind but stay with what has proven to work in the interim. You build on the past.

I was asking/suggesting he /anyone was dumb enough to believe those Neo Nazi groups came to protest against the removal of the statue .It was and is a pretext to find an issue to rally around and show their brute force (as they admit) Still ,if the cap fits. btw to be biased against neo Nazi groups is not a characterization that offends me.

And that Delta, is an opinion. Some of those people had differing opinions, and are most certainly allowed to voice that opinion vithout the fear of violence. Violence which was apparent on both sides. Not ALL protesters were Nazis, and it is wrong to characterize them as such because of the reprehensible actions of a few. ( and I addressed that in my first post on the matter ) @ geordief It already is apparent. Unfortunately it makes YOU look bad. (no-one has had to 'rescue' my rep points )

I don't think they came to protest (unless one is naive). They came as a show of strength and find support in numbers. (are you so dumb?) Apparently they had metal under their gloves and we all saw the heavy weaponry they were carrying as their latest fashion statement. Their slogans were incitements to violence which decent people hoped never to hear again. And by the way do we not know who the Nazis were?What they have done in recent history.? Oh ,not to forget that they support Trump which on its own is hardly a character reference. Someone downvoted me .I wonder why.