Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/24/18 in all areas

  1. 6 points
    Implicit here is a false suggestion of equivalence. That’s not the case. If a kid walks down the hallway in school and gets punched in the face and has his lunch money stolen, is it his fault for carrying lunch money or walking freely down a public hallway? No, of course not, but if you think “both sides” need to compromise here then that’s precisely what you’re saying... that the kid is equally guilty as the bully. Trump last year said send a bill to my desk and I’ll sign it. Republicans were in control so drafted their version. Democrats agreed to vote for it and provide billions of dollars for this wall last year, and the compromise was that dreamers would get status. Trump backed out. He moved the goalposts. He said I want more. Funding ran out in December and Democrats said, fine... we’ll sign the republican bill yet again... we’ll compromise... but want money allocated to smarter enforcement options. A wall is not smart, and even countless republicans across the nation and some on Fox News itself agree. Trump said no. Eff you, a wall or nothing. Democrats said, Republicans still control all 3 branches of government. Since they’re in control, they need to get their president onboard. They couldn’t. President had a tantrum. Paper tiger in the Oval Office. Said he wants a shutdown. Shutdown began. Democrats took control of the house in January and on Day 1 passed a bill to reopen the government. Senate leader McConnell would not even bring it to the floor. Democrats later said they’d give more money for border protection, just not a wall. They compromised. President still refused. Wall or nothing. Eff the workers. Democrats passed multiple other bills to reopen parts of the government and agreed to negotiate terms on border security. They AGAIN voted for the previously passed republican funding bill from December. McConnel AGAIN wouldn’t bring it to the floor. Today Democrat senators continued to pressure McConnell to bring the bills up for a vote. He refused. He said it was pointless because the president won’t sign. Democratic Senators reminded him that they had the votes to override a presidential veto... that they are a co-equal branch of government and need to act like it. McConnell left. He just walked off the floor. Still no vote. Democrats will again pass a bill tomorrow to reopen the government. The bill will be the one drafted and previously agreed to by republicans. I agree there’s a lack of compromise here, but to say it’s equal across the aisle is absurd. The bully is trying to steal the lunch money. The other side has already offered to share their sandwich with him and are not at fault merely for having lunch money in their pocket.
  2. 4 points
    Thanks for that. Just received a reply via E-Mail on the Svidzinsky paper thus..... From: Brian Koberlein <brian.koberlein@gmail.com> Date: 1/9/2019 1:09:45 PM Subject: Re: General Relativity and Vector gravity Barry, If your forum member thinks this paper means GR is dead, they are either lying or don’t understand the paper. The paper presents an alternative gravity model known as a “background independent” model. These kinds of models have been studied for decades, usually in the hopes that they might provide some way to quantum theory. Nothing particularly new here. The author of the paper states explicitly that the gravity wave results are consistent with the predictions of GR, and points out that his model is also consistent with the data. He does this because background independent models have been known to disagree with GR in ways we can now prove experimentally. So basically, this is a “this alternative model isn’t dead yet!” He goes on to talk about dark energy as a way to argue that maybe we should look at the model further. Again, this is pretty standard for a speculative theoretical physics paper. It’s what we do. Come up with ideas to see if they work, because someday hopefully one of them will. There are literally thousands of papers like this out there, and none of them have disproved GR so far. In short, the paper doesn’t say GR is wrong. It actually says its right, and this model could also be right. It also doesn’t say black holes don’t exist, but instead claims that black holes wouldn’t have an event horizon. They would have an apparent horizon, which is basically an event horizon (except for really technical differences I won’t go into). The paper in no way makes GR dead, nor does it make the gravitational wave results invalid. Brian :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: On the reply, the claim re BH's that Brian detailed are exactly what I had in mind. I remember the sensationalist headlines a few years ago, re Hawking supposedly claiming BH's did not exist, based on similar quantum detail re the EH. from the previous reply E-Mail....."The paper presents an alternative gravity model known as a “background independent” model. These kinds of models have been studied for decades, usually in the hopes that they might provide some way to quantum theory. Nothing particularly new here". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_independence
  3. 4 points
    You’re making a fundamental attribution error. You worked for ONE corporation that had ONE type of culture, and you mistakenly assume ALL corporations behave that way and it’s just how business is done. That’s not the case at all. There is some overlap in needs, but culture matters most in large enterprises and that culture is set by leaders. Those leaders succeed by setting a vision and getting people to collectively strive toward it. Those leaders succeed by being competent, strategic, and not petty. Childish leaders, however, tend to be more like turtles on top of a fence post. You know they didn’t get there by themselves and only reason they’re there is because someone put them there. Vision. Competence. Strategy. An ability to recruit the very best people on to your team. Trump is none of those things. He isn’t visionary. He isn’t competent. He’s not good at developing relationships to accomplish big things. He can’t recruit even mediocre people to his team, let alone the absolute best. He’s had more bankruptcies than I can recall, and the suggestion you’re making is that he is good at business... which IMO is silly. While he is a poor businessman and while he is extremely childish and laughably incompetent, he very much IS extremely good at branding and steering the social conversation. Unfortunately, he’s not selling a visionary future. He’s selling flimflam and graft much like a modern day PT Barnum. He’s the snake oil salesman that rode into western towns and bilked people from their money, just on a bigger more modern scale. So, at the core of your question IMO rests a bigger question... What does it mean to be a GOOD businessman? Does it mean having an ability to successfully rob from the most vulnerable and navigate corrupt systems, or does it mean having the ability to grow something from the ground up, something that enhances the community, and to gain mass support by recruiting people to step up and help execute on and achieve your vision?
  4. 3 points
    I think it definitely goes too far. Especially the way you put it here, it makes it seem like you hate the folks on the other side. Or is this more abogado del diablo? Especially because Trump is ignorant of key foreign policies and immigration's effect on societies Especially because he's being investigated for corruption and/or treason. Especially because this administration has a history of abusing tax-funded contracts. Especially because Trump hires private contractors who physically and sexually abuse immigrant detainees. Especially because border crossings have been dropping steadily for the last 20 years. Especially because you can't secure our southern border with a wall without dispossessing some Americans of their land with protracted court battles. Especially because the Trump administration cares fuck-all about the environmental concerns of this wall, and refuses to address them adequately. And most especially because the easiest, most comprehensive fix is to overhaul our immigration system, which is something Trump isn't interested in, mostly because he's a moronic, ignorant fascist at the head of the most shambolic administration the US has EVER known.
  5. 3 points
    Yes. It was factual. You are correct, though this is less about the accuracy of the comment itself and is more about why he felt the need to insert an adjective that is already itself self-evident. Let me lay this out and set a bit more context: "Stupid woman." We already know she's a women, so why include it? What's the point? That's ultimately what I'm trying to sort through here... Maybe let's look at other self-evident adjectives and how we might respond had those been used instead: "Stupid black." Hmm... Now that feels a bit different... a bit harder to accept as legitimate, yeah... don't you agree? The color of their skin is both self-evident and also irrelevant. It seems clearly included to suggest "blackness" makes their stupidity even worse. It seems meant to further saturate their "stupid," because they're also "black." Continuing this theme, let's maybe try another one: "Stupid blonde." Hmm... Yet again, how is hair color relevant? We don't have the same history of discrimination against blondes, but clearly there's a generalization being made and one that rests in old stereotypes about blonde people. How is including hair color in the comment needed? What value does it bring? It is, after all, self-evident what color their hair is to everyone with normal vision. Perhaps you disagree, but it seems obvious to me that they're generalizing about blonde haired people as a whole... trying to magnify this idea that the individual is of poor intelligence by including them in a broader group that is ALSO supposed to be less intelligent. The inclusion of this hair color "fact" is to further exaggerate the claim of stupidity. Now, if they'd said, "Stupid red shirted person," that would just be weird. We would never expect to hear such a thing, yet when it comes to being "factual," the red shirt isn't much different from the blonde hair, the skin color, or the gender... The red shirt is equally self-evident to us, however it instead rings hollow in our ears because we KNOW it's both unhelpful and irrelevant and not a useful variable when commenting negatively on ones overall intelligence. It's just a shirt color... Less irrelevant than hair or shirt color, however, I think we can all agree... The comment would have felt FAR different and FAR more negative had he instead said, "Stupid Jew." He didn't, of course, but let's use it to explore our own reactions to the words used by others. How would we have reacted had he said, "Stupid Jew?" I'm fairly sure we'd be like, "Whoa there, buddy! Back the eff up... that's totally NOT acceptable, not at all!! This isn't 1930s Germany you ignorant twat!" Amiright? We'd quite rightly and without hesitation recoil at the tone deafness and ignorance embedded in such a comment, right? But why? While the religious ideology or cultural heritage as a "Jew" is not quite as self-evident as the above referenced physical traits (unless perhaps they're Hasidic or wearing a yamaka / kippah, etc.), it still stands out as unnecessarily biased, unhelpful, and likely even rooted in a broader discriminatory attitude. It clearly is intended to magnify the attack on the individual by including them in a larger group that is also "less than" or inferior in some way. It's still factual, but suggests something much more than an innocent comment on one lone persons intelligence. So... stupid black? Yeah, that sounds different. That sounds like it should be avoided. Stupid blonde? Well, maybe not as big of a deal, perhaps a bit more playful at least, but still would've been better to leave it out. Stupid Jew? Well, no... Not at all. That's a line being crossed right there and we're clearly better to avoid that as a culture. So, that leaves me with this one question: Why should we consider "Stupid woman" to be any different?
  6. 3 points
    You and StringJunky and DrP seem to be of the opinion that women don't need to be singled out for special consideration in this context. Many people take this stance on affirmative action issues. Some feel it's unfair to the present to redress inequalities of the past. You probably feel you treat women just fine (maybe MORE than fine), so affirmative action on your part seems superfluous. That's why you mistakenly think this horse is dead, and we should stop flogging it. You're being subjective in this. Personally, I think modern attitudes about women are still heavily tainted by our past, and they need to be addressed just as much as any other sort of discrimination. I think Jeremy Corbyn used "woman" as a negative epithet in this situation, I think he was wrong to do so even if it was an aside, and I think people who try to justify his remarks aren't being objective. As a society, we need to reverse our unequal and unfair treatment of women, and we should start by not making them synonymous with negative feelings and traits. Along the way, I'd also like a word for women who like sex that's as cool as "stud" or "Romeo" or "wolf". Again, all the words for women who like sex are heavily negative.
  7. 3 points
    Maybe I should have been clearer, INow… By continuing to flog this dead horse we are not addressing the issue of inequality of the sexes. The OP is about whether J Corbyn's whispered comment was sexist or not. Let's not jump to the conclusion that, because sexism does exists, the comment must have been sexist.
  8. 3 points
    We have cultural problems with inequality for women. We have bigger problems with violence and safety, too, and all of these stem from individual reactions and expectations We have become so used to it that we often don’t see it happening. We have become so used to it that we often rationalize it or dismiss it as PC or being too sensitive. We have a hard time seeing it because it doesn’t happen every single day to us. It’s not as salient. So... We have some people trying to improve the situation and talking openly about different ways to interpret these events. We have some people trying to increase awareness and open doors. We have other people saying those folks are extremist idiots with their heads up their butts. Does that about sum things up? Don’t we ALL want to find ways to be better and help the women around us continue to breakdown cultural limits and inequalities? Don’t we all agree things are still in need of improvement and that improvement often comes from discussions like this?
  9. 3 points
    I do not think that that would be necessary the case. Social norms were enacted by both genders and most likely he would be mostly judged by progressive women rather than the average ones. It is important to recognize that even unequal treatment is often perpetuated by society as whole and not necessarily only by one group. Rather, progressive subsets form that oppose standing norms, which may or may not get sufficient traction to become the new norm. That being said, in his memoirs in his memoirs his description of women tend to be one of an object of pursuit including using pick-up artist techniques, so womanizer does not seem to be far off. Sure, it is not really predatory behaviour in the strictest sense and may not even be that out of the ordinary for today's times. Nonetheless, even though they were consensual acts, it does show a certain attitude towards women that were generally accepted or perhaps not entirely unusual for young men. There is also the issue that he was fairly young as a professor and did mingle with grad/undergrad students at dances at similar events which some folks nowadays are a bit more critical than they used to be (though it still happens and it still gets yucky, especially at conferences). Whether one likes it or not, they are part of his legacy and I do think that having a three-dimensional view on folks, even if one deeply admires them for certain aspects, is much better than putting than on a pedestal. After all, they were all human like you and me. And I think that part is crucial to inspire. If they were faultless, how can anyone even imagine to follow in their footsteps? Edit: I should add that it is not meant that one should try to emulate even the bad parts, rather be cognizant of them, in case that was not clear.
  10. 3 points
    It seems you have wax in your ears. Laws of nature are not enforced. They are the regularities we see in how nature behaves. 'Laws of nature' are not like human laws, that must be enforced. They are more like the old Greek 'logos': the way nature behaves. An electron is an electron because the ways in which it causally connects to other objects. What do you think, that an electron without laws of nature would decide to increase its mass by 10%, but happily enough the laws of nature are enforced on the electron so it must stick to its mass? If you, accidentally, would have a solution, it would just be abstracter levels of laws of nature.
  11. 3 points
    I especially like the part where you state that being gay is a natural thing, because many species do it in nature. And the extrapolation you make from this, is that it is OK, since it is 'natural'. And I won't argue with that; it doesn't affect me and provides fulfillment in other people's lives. Live and let live ( that is MY justification ). Yet you fail to mention that in nature, all species reproduce as fast as they can, until they outstrip the ability of their environment to supply them ( food, water, predators, etc. ). Then 'nature' steps in and kills off a whole lot o them, until their population can be provided for again. You fail to mention the predator/prey relation that most species have in nature. How compassionate is the predator to the prey ? Sometimes even within the same specie, there is 'warfare' even more terrible than between humans ( at least we have some rules for military engagements ), and sometimes the sick and infirm ( or even the young ) are sacrificed to predators, to save the healthy herd. All of this is 'natural', and done by countless species. So, I don't understand, why aren't you using the same argument that you used for homosexuality, to justify selfish, predatory, self serving behavior . You instead condemn this behavior in humans, even though it is as 'natural' as homosexuality. I think you need a better argument. ( and to speak for yourself )
  12. 3 points
    If he has nerve-based deafness, cochlear to brain, there is as yet no on-stream surgical solution. Connecting individual nerves is still some way off. If it's the hearing bones, that can sometimes be fixed. Assuming he's getting the necessary medical attention, I would be paying particular attention to his communication and reading skills... help him find the best way that suits him to learn things and interact. Reading is very important because it may be his richest and most easily accessible resource for learning things throughout his life. Encourage him and get him comfortable with it; patient persistence. The internet is a godsend for deaf people, so teach him to use it to his best advantage.
  13. 2 points
    I will study the math directly from Svidzinsky's articles on my own thank you very much. Everything I have stated is implicit in his equations. I will use my own chosen methodology of researching his views and sharing my understanding of such. The equations are there... The words used to describe how a theory works in an interpretation of what can be mathematically supported. Far too often they distract from the inner workings of a theory and can lead to garden paths.
  14. 2 points
    I'll be very disappointed in the Democrats if they agree to spend $5.6 billion simply because it is politically advantageous. I'm disappointed that anyone thinks this is a good idea. We need better government, not more of the same crap we've got now. Democrats need to base their decision on what they deem to be best for Americans, not what is best for them.
  15. 2 points
    Why you just don't lookup the quote in the context? I think it is very clear then: In short: it is the faith that certain basic beliefs must be true when a scientist actually does science.
  16. 2 points
    You are free not to be offended and we are free to have a discussion. However you are taking things further than that by demagoguing those who are or might be offended by "stupid woman" calling them not smart oversensitive butthurt ridiculous people. Your passing judgement on and complaining about what offends other people.
  17. 2 points
    Wait a minute. Are you actually implying that hearing how others think and feel might actually impact our own psychology? Huh, what a unique idea (sarcasm). At the very least hearing others out might help navigate the minefield MigL referenced.
  18. 2 points
    @MigL you are setting a rather ridiculously high standard for opinion forming. Whether or not an individual approves or disapproves of a comment is not equal to a formal judgement in a court of law. Everyone I speak to or that over hears me speak on a daily basis form opinions about me. People who dislike things I say are under no obligation to withhold their judgement. One doesn't have to read my mind or have a list of facts on the ready to make up their own minds about how they feel.The burden of maintaining my reputation and image is on me and no one else. People do not view everything I say favorably by default. Regardless of my true intentions I must be aware of my environment and audience when opening my mouth. How I represent myself to others matters. Making sexist comments isn't a crime and Corbyn is not facing formal charges. The legal standard for evidence doesn't apply. We all have the right to feel however we want about what was said.
  19. 2 points
    What you are doing here is acting like you accept the idea of people being informed about the appropriate use of language, but then undercutting that effort in the same sentence by misrepresenting the conversation as being equivalent to "shooting people". There will be no "official change" or "acceptance by all". What we are doing here, and in all similar conversations about this matter in forums or in the press, is teaching people that this type of language is inappropriate. Let's not hinder that effort through misrepresentation or the setting of unrealistic goals.
  20. 2 points
    Thank you for the encouragement. C P & C is a superb book, but I had not come across the wheel one. I must look it out. This is how Science Forums forums discussion site is meant to operate. Exchanging information.
  21. 2 points
  22. 2 points
    to try to describe consumption (dimreepr style answerTM)
  23. 2 points
    You'd better open those damn boxes and feed the poor cat. No cats were harmed, my a*s ! ( I'm a cat lover; what can I say )
  24. 2 points
    Of course I agree. That was kind of my point. The chances of you and me being here are astronomically small. If your mother chased a butterfly on the day you were conceived and she and your father delayed sex that afternoon by one minute because your mother happened to see that butterfly, you wouldn't be here talking to me. The sperm that was "you" would have likely ended up wasted. So don't get hung up on the idea that the chance of YOU being here is significant in some way. If you weren't here, I'd be talking to someone else this morning. The way chemistry works, and the chances that a planet ends up in a goldilocks zone, and all of the other factors you mentioned, are all but guaranteed. Don't think yourself so special, you are just the result of the conditions around you.
  25. 2 points
    I am not sure that saying that all the mistakes are just "innocent typos" gives evidence in favor of the article likely having been reviewed. And we can throw in that the author's name is duplicate. No journal would allow that. The first line of the abstract states that we can "view gravity as the de Broglie wavelength of quantum mechanics". A few problems here. Gravity is not a physical quantity, and certainly not a length. And QM does not possess a de Broglie wavelength. The second to third line of the abstract is just nonsense as well. But you want equations. Equation (1) is nonsense. The LHS is a number, and the RHS is either undefined or a binary operator, which is anyone's guess so long as it is not defined. Thereafter, the quaternions do not have the properties that are claimed here. There is no "familiar Clifford space" either. The concept that is familiar is Clifford algebra. Equation (2) makes no sense unless p is identically zero. In the subsequent displayed equation, the "p_i" is not even defined. In the next displayed equation, there is no referent to the symbol "n". Right after that, there is division by zero; N=1/p. After that everything is mostly word salad and nosensical expressions. But tell me one single thing, somewhere in this paper, that you are convinced that it is actually correct, please?