Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/04/20 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    Hillary called Trump to concede on the same night as their election and their race was FAR closer than this one with Biden. Barrack Obama invited Trump to the WH a day or 2 later and made his entire team available to the incoming Trump admin to maximize their chances of quick success. Essentially every democratic leader and person with a national profile acknowledged Trumps win and congratulated him on his victory both privately and publicly. Nothing anywhere even remotely close to this has ever once happened before since George Washington as our very first president ever transitioned power to John Addams. Let’s not pretend for even one second that this is somehow a both sides issue.
  2. 4 points
    Recognize anyone ?
  3. 4 points
  4. 4 points
    Salute to 2020 Ice Cream Flavour:
  5. 4 points
    Translated by me from https://www.socomic.gr/en/2018/01/kourafelkithra-socrates/
  6. 3 points
    He said on a computer plugged into the internet... 🙄 What happened, you run out of stones?
  7. 3 points
    ! Moderator Note Vague generalizations disguised as slurs towards a group of people are against our rules. This sort of thinking has been debunked MANY times over, much like creationism and phlogiston, so we don't waste our time wallowing in such ignorance. If you persist in this, you'll be required to leave. Nobody here is interested in going backwards; discussion should be meaningful, and promote learning. IOW, stop making moronic monkey noises.
  8. 3 points
    It is OK because it identifies those who are impacted. It makes no sense to say blacks were hurt but we cannot help them because they are black and therefore we cannot identify them. If only the black people in my neighborhood were exposed to a disease, do I also have to treat all of the white people just so that I'm not sorting according to race? If we applied your logic to tornados the insurance companies would not have to pay anyone with a claim because that would require us to sort based on the criterion of 'damage'. It is self evident that the criteria you use is the one that identifies who is impacted, whether that is damaged homes or race. You said previously that is was okay if it was used for good (see below). Now you are saying it is not okay. Did I miss something?
  9. 3 points
    Can I take offense to that? I'm in that last demographic. I don't feel offended at all really, but reductio ad absurdum is fun. That's exactly the sort of thing I'd expect to hear from one of you Z people, he said in mock offense. Yet actions are also based on morality. I'm glad you brought up antagonism. Let's say the killing of George Floyd was an antagonistic act, which it probably was whether racist intent comes into play or not. Were the protests and at times riots that happened afterward also antagonistic or were they reactionary to a prior antagonism? I actually much prefer talking about class but then maybe that is because talking about race makes us all feel uncomfortable. I think we can all acknowledge here that racism does in fact exist and it is a major problem and can be a barrier to education, for everyone. As it can be a barrier to financial security. When we are talking about discrimination, there are two kinds worth mentioning. Implicit and explicit. When we discuss racism, we are discussing racial in-group biases specifically. This I feel, is where a lot of misunderstanding and poor use of language on both sides can make things a lot worse. We as a species have a habit of forming a dynamic multiplicity of in-group biases, implicitly and explicitly. What this means in legal terms, is that bias is a cause of the act of discrimination. It can be implicit or explicit, direct or indirect. To me, this means that not all who are guilty of racial discrimination or any other form of discrimination, are guilty of malicious prejudice or racism. Every human has biases to overcome and it is no easy thing, as it means admitting that you are flawed. Some people would rather die than face the truth that they or someone they idolise, can in fact be flawed. The best way to think about affirmative action, is to consider the social model of disability, wherein people are viewed as disabled by external environment. This means that with reasonable adjustments, a disabled person can be made just as able as everyone else. Affirmative action is just recognising the disparities between social mobility between different groups and building a ramp to those that need a ramp instead of making them walk upstairs. At least that is what affirmative action should be like, the ramp comparison isn't meant to call anyone disabled because of their colour and is just a metaphor. Now, one concept that is often discussed within education is the idea of universally inclusive and beneficial, structural changes to the learning experience and environment. Universal enrichment. An example of this can be anything from a ramp, to an app that teaches kids facial expressions, originally designed for autistic children but found to also be a useful tool for teaching their peers about body language in universally inclusive classrooms. One of the current barriers where class is concerned, is internet access. Due to covid, online learning is completely inaccessible to the poorest households. So maybe we should move on from race and discuss the financial and logistical barriers that does not currently allow for their to be a good quality education for everyone who wants one. I think we can probably all agree, that a world where there is a good quality education, available to everyone who wants one, is something that would eliminate the need for affirmative action in the first place. Even where higher education is subsidised or "free" like in Scotland, there are only so many places on every course offered by colleges and universities. Of those courses, not all of them are universally inclusive in setting, format, method, philosophy or individual staffing choices. At this point I'm probably rambling but this is something that really matters to me. It's extremely important to have discussions like these where we state an ideal, and ask how we can achieve it. What does the ideal school system look like and how do we get closer to that ideal?
  10. 3 points
  11. 3 points
    Oh absolutely I'd agree with that. I experienced it myself, except it was my mother that left. I was 5 and she walked out on us and was gone for awhile. That being said; she was still a lot more present and emotionally available than my father, who would essentially have arguments with my teachers using me as a proxy. It was like it didn't matter what I was taught, to him, he'd already decided that I was stupid and couldn't be right about anything. Kind of takes the genetic fallacy to a whole new meaning there. Irony. That's because I was working from memory and got a few details wrong. My bad. I've digged it up and attached it now. The subjective aspect of 'quality' would impact all demographics however. There is a strong likelihood that 1-5% of the present parents, from all backgrounds are abusers and I wouldn't even care to try and guess what percentage were avoidably negligent. I say avoidably as it has already been pointed out by others that it is much more difficult for working class parents to be able to spend quality time with their kids without sacrificing on their required time to earn enough for the basic needs of housing, energy, clothing and food on the table. Which I think brings us to the most important aspect of this debate. Class based demographics. I can accept that we might never have schools that don't unfairly discriminate, but I don't think I can accept a society where the ability to bring discriminating individuals to justice, is determined by how deep your pockets or your parents pockets are. Which bring us to something extremely important. Probably the barrier we should e focussing on most. Here is something that is definitely true; it is illegal to discriminate based on race, ethnicity, religion, marriage, sexual orientation, gender.. It is not currently illegal however, to discriminate based on class or caste. They are not protected characteristics. There would be little to stop me or anyone else from denying equality to people because of their socio-economic background. There are means tested scholarships available but it tends to go that either their aren't enough of them for everyone who wants one, or there is no guidance on how to apply for them when they are under applied for. It's why I really like the look of the University of Arizona in Tuscon. They are one of the few institutions that I know of that seem to go the extra mile and try their best to make sure your education is financially achievable and that funding is smooth and debtless. Sucks that it is so far away though. We'd have to uproot and move again and we are thinking of buying a house here in IL... Sorry, I'm rambling. Suffice it to say, I think this has been a constructive discussion for all involved. You know I study philosophy and ethics. So you must know by now that you've already opened up a whole can of worms in the subjects of power, control and responsibility, right? I think the stoics and taoists put it best with The Archer. You can draw the bow perfectly, do everything within your control to give yourself the best chance of hitting your mark, and still fail because you cannot control the wind. In this analogy, I see other people as wind. I know I can't control them, I don't want to control them. Yet I can't pretend it is raining when really people are pissing on all of our legs. nhsr071.pdf
  12. 3 points
    I agree with you, basically, that the Copenhagen interpretation is not satisfactory, and neither it is the many-worlds interpretation. But the Copenhagen interpretation works like a dream. That's the problem, actually. It works like a dream and mathematically, it cannot be the whole story. As Bell said, Copenhagen's interpretation is good FAPP (for all practical purposes.) As Bell also said, Mind you: He didn't mean classical-mechanical arguments; he meant quantum-mechanical arguments. I'm working on a miniature of explanation in 2-dimensional quantum mechanics, if you're interested. The many-worlds interpretation is not a corollary of the Copenhagen version. It's more like what @Sriman Dutta says: I totally agree with this. Conjugate variables are certainly peculiar. Their properties cannot be simulated by any finite-dimensional space of states and thereby cannot be completely understood with discrete mathematics. They are the domain of transcencental mathematics. Unlike the famous \( J_x \), \( J_y \), \( J_z \) that people use in all the completeness theorems, they always pair in couples, one of which is conserved, the other is not.
  13. 3 points
    We don’t fully know since it’s not currently possible to keep a brain functioning and healthy once it’s fully severed from the body that grew it. Whether you put it in a vat or an entry bag of Cheetos, this is all hypothetical. Keep in mind, however, (no pun intended) that the brain doesn’t really care about the actual interaction of atoms (as you call it) that occurs when a touch happens between the body and something out in the world. All the brain cares about is what nervous signals are arriving to its various parts, how intense those signals are, the duration of the signals, and in what order those signals arrive. This information is then all combined to form a “narrative” describing the event in our conscious mind... the part we generally consider to be the self... the “me” behind the eyes. So something presses against our skin. This change in pressure causes certain receptors to activate, and those receptors trigger a cascade to the receptors around them (nerve cell 1 activates nerve cell 2, and nerve cell 2 then activates nerve cell 3, cell 3 activates cell4, and on and on all the way up the spine until the signal finally arrives to our brain...then some new signals cascade throughout the brain much like ripples travel across a pond after tossing in a stone). But that is all... the only thing the brain “sees” is that a specific change in voltage happened at a specific nerve cell or set of cells. It’s only later once those incoming signals have been put together that the brain concludes that this thing which just happened was a touch... it then compares it against previous touch experiences to determine specifically what touched us etc. Following this same logic, you could theoretically send a signal to your brain in a vat separately. So long as that signal being sent to your severed brain mimics the signals sent to the brain from the body, then we can likely assume it would be perceived as a touch no differently than touches get perceived today. You’d clearly need to tune the signals like musical instruments in a symphony to achieve the right “sound” and there are lots of assumptions embedded here (like the fact that we’re successfully keeping a functioning brain in a vat somehow), but that’s my take. Hopefully it gives you some food for thought.
  14. 3 points
    Many historical 'facts' are contested and debated by historians. Things like the cause of the fall of the Mycenaean civilization, which, along with Crete, comprised the 1st Greek empire, fought a war with Troy, and literally disappeared from the face of the Earth. Things like did the Roman Empire really fall, or did it just 'absorb' invaders and convert them to the Roman way of life and governance. Things like the cause and mistakes in execution of the 1st World War. And its contribution to the beginning of the 2nd World War. Things like Papal authority ( even over Emperors ) and the amassing of power and corruption by the Church, along with wars encouraged by the Church and the selling of 'Salvation' which led to splintering into differing 'sects'. Things like was the Vietnam War winnable, and more importantly, was winning necessary or of benefit. Things like the paradigm shift that brought about the Renaissance. How many did you want me to list ...
  15. 3 points
    You assume too much. Shi'a and Sunni Muslims disagree about 'the roots': Who are the rightful heirs of Mohammed, and whether Al Bukhari was right about him and his doings, and probably many more things. I'm sure you know much more about it than most of us here do. It's a 'sources' problem (both about the authenticity of books and/or translations, and about the line of authority) very much like what was for Christians several hundred years ago in Europe between the many Protestant offshoots, and Catholics, and Jews. That led to unimaginable bloodshed between Christians and Jews. We know. Actually, we know much better than you guys do. We've killed each other, we've hated each other for so many more years. Most of us seem to have taken home the lesson. You, unfortunately, haven't. That's a very big part of the problem, guys. A part of your community seems unable to take home some lessons from your brethren religions that are much older than yours. Jewish and Christians being at each other's throats for centuries. You're still obsessed with a couple of lines in a several-centuries-old book. That's, allow me to say, pathetic. Both in the most ludicrous sense, and in the most tragic one. Take a look at Mandaeans, Yasidis, etc., and how they've become victims of unspeakable violence in recent years in the Middle East, just because they follow the rituals that their ancestors did. Probably with the same amount of doubt that you do yours. But also take a look at how some Muslims brothers die at the hands of each other because of a difference of opinion. And ask yourself: Is the interpretation of some lines on an ancient book worth the suffering that we see in the world? The suffering of a child is not worth ten thousand lines of a holy book.
  16. 3 points
    I, for one, wish posts like these about god were less visible
  17. 3 points
    Infinity has an end? Infinity means many different things, depending on when it is used. The word is from a Latin word, which means "without end". Infinity goes on forever, so sometimes space, numbers, and other things are said to be 'infinite', because they never come to a stop. ... For example, adding 10 to a number repeatedly. Let me know when you reach the end...
  18. 3 points
    ...and after January 20... plus they have to get him out of there:
  19. 3 points
    Volcanic lightning is hard to beat. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_lightning Calbuco, The Awakening.” ... Calbuco Volcano is located in the lakes region south of Santiago, Chile’s capital city and is one of the 10 most dangerous volcanoes in the country. After more than 40 years of inactivity, the day April 23 the volcano erupts, spewing more than 200 million tons of ash https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/photos/national-geographic-photo-contest-2015/image-gallery/a2afa2087ecd4f4d62475d231b129e31
  20. 2 points
  21. 2 points
    Built a chessboard for my daughters. Walnut and maple. Half lap joints held by pegs for the corners. Pleased with how it’s turned out
  22. 2 points
    [irony] Thank you teacher for marking my homework correct [/irony] I didn't say any of that. That is all your conjecture. Further I have no idea whether you understood what I said. In particular note the examples you have provided in the other threads are 2 dimensional, in which case the physical dimension reduces to the reciprocal of length. This is a far cry from volume, and is usually called wave number when dealing with waves. By the way this jumping about between threads discussing essentially the same subject is very wearing. If you wish to communicate (your ideas) with physicists it would be a good idea to learn some of the basics of the subject and language. It has taken a lot of great minds over many thousands of year to reach the stage of technology we now enjoy. During that process many ideas have been proposed and worried over doglike with a bone. quite a few of these, at firts promising, were finally rejected as unworkable or not in conformity with observation. So it is pointless and futile to try to invent all your own Physics by yourself. Start with what is already known, tried and tested, and move outwards and onwards from there. A simple observation, but so true in this case and such a good example of what I mean by my advice. It also provides a reminder to me to be more specific and accurate. Thanks, swansont. +1
  23. 2 points
    You need to quit focusing on race. They are just fixing a problem they caused with a group of people. Could have been blacks, women, left handed people, or those whose first name begins with "M". Let's say your parents had four children, two boys and two girls, and only gave an allowance to the boys even though all did their chores. If the parents finally realized the error of their ways and decided to only give allowance to the girls until they are all caught up, would you call that sexism? You are forcing the situation into the definition of "racism" even though there is no discrimination, prejudice or antagonism directed at white people. Doing things based on race is not automatically racist. If you give a white person money one week, and a black person the next week, have you been a white racist and black racist on alternating weeks? Your argument is similar to the kid who kills his parents then demands pity because he is an orphan. You are setting up a situation where no one can ever be compensated for wrongs done to them because someone will always be hurt by the remedy. For example, let's say I own stock in Pfizer and Pfizer is sued because they don't properly test a drug and people die. By your argument, those victims should not be compensated because that compensation will depress the value of my stock holdings. It is you who are on a slippery slope.
  24. 2 points
    This discussion of affirmative action being a type of racism reminds me somewhat of the paradox of tolerance where ostracizing others for being intolerant is described as itself being a form of intolerance.
  25. 2 points
    I think you misunderstand AA. The government actively established and promoted a system where whites were favored over blacks. This resulted in a society where (generally speaking) whites have the money and the power, in a self-sustaining system that perpetuates a society where (generally speaking) whites have the money and the power. (i.e. Whites have the money and power to ensure their children get a better education and more opportunities than blacks, and therefore get the better jobs, more money, more power, able to pass that privilege on to their children, and on and on.) Unless there is some sort of change, this will continue indefinitely or only be changed at a very slow pace. So what to do? The government decided that they needed to start ensuring that minorities were able to get past the white privilege of money/education/power by ensuring they got a seat at the table, and were able to begin competing on an equal basis in society by getting the same education and opportunities (and thus power and money) and the whites have been getting all along. Once blacks are able to compete with whites on an equal basis to get their kids in the better schools, etc., this self sustaining system will then include whites AND blacks. Unfortunately as there are a limited number of opportunities, if you guarantee a spot for a black person, then someone who may be more qualified (or at least equally qualified) has to suffer. Is that fair to the white person who gets passed over? No, it is just as unfair as it was for the black person who used to get passed over. But this is not about individuals, it is about what is best for society. Basically the government said, "we screwed up society for minorities and are choosing a less than perfect option for righting the ship". So "In what world, then, does it make sense, that in the case of two equally qualified individuals the tie-breaker is determined by 'features' of whatever group is needed to fill a quota ?" Answer: In a world that screwed up society by favoring the "white" feature, and are trying to make amends by favoring the "black" feature for a while until things are the way they should have been without our interference way back when.
  26. 2 points
    Coming back from death used to be fiction. It still is.
  27. 2 points
    Tonight after our thanksgiving meal, we flipped through the channels and the scheduled American football game had been cancelled... replaced by a dog show which our 3-year old cleverly called a “dog Talent show.” That made us chuckle... how does a 3-year old know WTF a talent show even is, and how cute is it to label a dog show as one? But that was nowhere near as cute as how during dinner a few weeks back when speaking and searching for the word for “watch” this same 3-year old described it as a “clock bracelet.” My pride regarding these self-directed still forming descriptions of the cosmos around us is boundless.
  28. 2 points
    Most groups enjoy testing the newbie. Not putting them down. I was the newbie here a few months ago and had similar feelings as yourself then. I took a hiatus and asked the moderators to suspend my account for a month. Which meant I could just be a fly on the wall and observe how people interact and engage on here. For example; me and INow butted heads and I even told them to "fuck off" at one point. Since being able to observe their responses without any bias of them being directed at me, while I can recognise that me and INow both have conversation styles that can be construed as abrasive to some, I've come to be appreciative of their responses in my own AOE and recognise we aren't nearly as different as I first thought we were. Admittedly aided by another member here who did a good job of helping me reach a different and fairer perspective of the other users here, including INow. What do you mean by not shoving it in your face? Shoving what in your face exactly? Disagreement with you? I really would not take anything too personally or seriously here, including yourself. I say that as someone who already made the mistake of doing just that. It only leads to stress and it isn't even constructive stress at that. Keep in mind that what good and bad manners are, tend to vary between cultures. This forum has it's own culture. If someone on here is genuinely being unhelpfully rude to you, the mods will deal with it. If they don't, it's probably because it wasn't rude by this forums standards. I think what INow was getting at, is that although it's a nice thing to try and say, it's off topic for this thread somewhat. It also comes across as virtue signalling since you are aware that you are preaching to the choir. I wouldn't feel upset about INows criticism as you yourself said you should probably delete it, so you yourself weren't even sure if it was appropriate to this thread. You are absolutely allowed to have an opinion and I commend you for being brave enough to voice it. Just save it for the appropriate threads is all. If you want to talk about how this relates to Trump stealing the election, be our guest.
  29. 2 points
    Out there, just out there...
  30. 2 points
    Biggest problem with all versions of cyclic cosmologies is the fact that entropy has to be 'reset' to the low initial state. One mechanism proposed by R Penrose with Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is that all particles have to eventually decay. And while a proton decay is possible ( even with other theories ) after more than 1032 years, the decay of fundamental fermions is a lot tougher to come to grips with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology
  31. 2 points
    Get a ball'n'stick box and remake two compounds with different chirality. It will visualize you the difference. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/organic-chemistry/stereochemistry-topic/chirality-r-s-system/v/chiral-achiral-jay
  32. 2 points
    The many world interpretation is not pecular to QM. It can be seen as an interpretation of probability itself (although I don't like it). If you toss a coin, it can be either head or tail. Suppose you get head. There was an equal probability of getting tail before the start of the experiment. Thus, why one event is partially favoured when tossed randomly ? This might raise the thought that there exists another world( read universe), where you tossed the coin and got a tail. Since QM is all about probabilistic nature of the world, people interpret it using this argument. Such theories naturally go to multi-verse concepts and scifi. . . But I don't consider this uncertainty in QM to be a source of theorising multiverse. Rather it is a fundamental property of the Fourier transform! Take an example of a signal. If you squeeze its time period, it's frequency curve is flattened. The Fourier transform has a remarkable property. If you try to squeeze or localise a signal( or a wve or any function) in one domain, it will not be localised in its conjugate domain (not a good terminiology, but I am using it to illustrate the property). Conjugate domains or variables simply mean two domains or variables whose functions form a Fourier transform pair. For example, take time and frequency. The uncertainty in QM comes from the fact that position x and its associated conjugate variable wavenumber k form a Fourier pair. By de Brogile's hypothesis, you have p=hk/2pi, or the momentum is directly proportional to k. This thus clearly forms another pair of conjugate variables, with just another constant in the exponentials. Indeed I actually kind of believe that the entire mysteries of QM can be dragged down to this fact that p and x are conjugate pairs. If you want maths, just google about it and there's plenty of lecture notes. If you are a beginner, I would suggest get a good textbook or try an online course. Hope I cleared your doubts .
  33. 2 points
    While this "Wall of Fire: has a high temp, you have to understand the difference between temperature and heat content. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles. Heat content is the total of the KE of the particles in a given volume. Thus a volume that contains a lot of low temp particles can have a larger heat content than an equal volume with higher temp, but fewer particles. Now while articles have described this wall as being of a "high density", this is meant relative to the normal solar wind density of a few particles per cubic centimeter. This a much better vacuum that can be achieved by man on Earth by several magnitudes. This "thick wall" off plasma is a not that much less of a vacuum. To melt a comet you need to add a fair amount of heat energy to it, and even at such a high temperature, this plasma has nowhere near the total heat content per cubic meter to do this.
  34. 2 points
  35. 2 points
    That could work, if you use the right primers, of course. There are multiple ways to approach this issue all with different advantages and disadvantages. It also depends a bit on the subject. But given the details you have provided I would not see why a PCR would not work. Edit: It would not work if you for some reasons a mixed sample, for instance.
  36. 2 points
    The connection comes from the Robertson version of the uncertainty relations. The one you can find on Wikipedia is the Robertson-Schrödinger version. I will give you a proof of the Robertson version which does not involve the anti-commutator. Say you have any two operators \( A \) and \( B \), which in general do not commute. Say your system is in a pure quantum state \( \left|\psi\right\rangle \). The mean square deviation is defined as, \[\left(\triangle_{\left|\psi\right\rangle }A\right)^{2}=\left\langle A^{2}\right\rangle _{\left|\psi\right\rangle }-\left\langle A\right\rangle _{\left|\psi\right\rangle }^{2}=\left\langle \psi\left|A^{2}\right|\psi\right\rangle -\left\langle \psi\left|A\right|\psi\right\rangle ^{2}\] and similarly for \( B \). Now define operators \( A' \) and \( B' \) centred on their respective average values: \[A'=A-\left\langle A\right\rangle _{\left|\psi\right\rangle }\] \[B'=B-\left\langle B\right\rangle _{\left|\psi\right\rangle }\] It's easy to see that, \[\left[A',B'\right]=\left[A,B\right]\] Now you formally build the 1-parameter family of operators: \[C=A'+i\lambda B'\] This operator is not Hermitian, but it is always true that, \[\left\Vert C\left|\psi\right\rangle \right\Vert ^{2}=\left\langle \psi\left|C^{\dagger}C\right|\psi\right\rangle \geq0\] This gives you a polynomial condition in \( \lambda \): \[\left(\triangle_{\left|\psi\right\rangle }A\right)^{2}+\left(\triangle_{\left|\psi\right\rangle }B\right)^{2}\lambda^{2}+i\lambda\left\langle \left[A,B\right]\right\rangle _{\left|\psi\right\rangle }\geq0\] If this polynomial must always be above the real axis, the discriminant must be negative or zero: \[\left(\left\langle i\left[A,B\right]\right\rangle _{\left|\psi\right\rangle }\right)^{2}-4\left(\triangle_{\left|\psi\right\rangle }A\right)^{2}\left(\triangle_{\left|\psi\right\rangle }B\right)^{2}\leq0\] Keep in mind that if \( A \) and \( B \) are Hermitian, so is \( i\left[A,B\right] \). This immediately gives you the Robertson version of the uncertainty relations for arbitrary operators \( A \) and \( B \): \[\triangle_{\left|\psi\right\rangle }A\triangle_{\left|\psi\right\rangle }B\geq\left|\left\langle \frac{i}{2}\left[A,B\right]\right\rangle _{\left|\psi\right\rangle }\right|\] So when two operators do not commute, you cannot define "dispersions" or "precisions" (mean square deviations) better than those given by the above. I hope that helped. It's the simplest demonstration I know of the more general Robertson version for arbitrary operators.
  37. 2 points
    The closest, Hipparcos 43587, is about 41 light years away, so we still have a number of years before the aliens come and eat us.
  38. 2 points
    My feelings on this topic are volatile and made harder by the way covid is moving though my community, but my take after a few days goes something like this: Trump knows he’s lost. He’s dragging things out as an act of theater for those who love him... like he’s fighting for them until the very end. Those supporters will reward him and continue giving money to “stop the steal” and this rage which he so expertly stokes will help them drive turnout in the Georgia runoffs in January. Keeping the embers of that rage hot also allows these individuals who dismiss all facts as fake news to be controlled by Trump and his allies for whatever other purposes they may wind up deeming helpful or fruitful to them later. As a possible side benefit, this obvious erosion of trust in the Democratic process itself that Trump keeps amplifying may inspire Russian oligarchs to thank him later by helping payoff or forgive his existing debts to them... he’s likely to gain lots of new friends offering him money in exchange for state secrets and insider information about US methods and sources, too. Republicans mostly know he’s leaving as well, but see no political benefit to themselves for pushing him out of the chair or speaking out... so they are silent and spineless. They can’t risk being considered anti-Trump by the base so waffle on about the right of candidates to challenge issues in the voting process and keep prattling about this all being normal... which it’s really not. Unless they’re already retired or about to retire from politics, they can’t afford to anger the base they’ve been enraging for over a decade if they hope to have any chance at a political career in the future of what is now Trumps Republican Party. ... but Trump will leave and he will likely start a new “news” network farther to the right of even Fox... propaganda undiluted and constrained will be piped into the fertile minds of willing and thirsty audiences. After all, his supporters are already lumping in Fox News with the rest of mainstream media and calling them a bunch of traitorous turncoats for simple things like calling the state or Arizona for Biden. They’re heeding the call of extreme right personalities and fleeing platforms Twitter and Facebook instead for far right “hate and bullshit are a-okay here!!” platforms like Parlor, and the information bubble is just getting thicker and more immune from piercing. Trump wants a larger share of the control of that walled off information ecosystem and more influence on this hardening bubble, and by refusing to acknowledge his loss to Biden he helps to further enable that. It helps keep him in the headlines, keeps people questioning news that doesn’t agree with their preferences, keeps them angry and donating money and showing up to vote, but it’s all just for show... catnip for the media... much like his recent leadership changes around national defense and justice. He knew it would deflect news attention away from him being a loser. I need to tighten up these thoughts a bit, but believe the outline above is pretty close to accurate.
  39. 2 points
  40. 2 points
    But since the OP specifically used "BC" and "AD", which are not used in the Hindu calendar, that is not relevant here.
  41. 2 points
    Maybe it's just the timing, but I don't remember being this disgusted by a religious assertion before. It shows a myopic and desperate need for privilege that ignores reality. This is the stance that can justify wiping out species wholesale, because they were only put there "for us to enjoy". It's also intellectually dishonest to misuse scientific claims to bolster your shaky belief system. Please stick to your Iron Age sky spirit worship.
  42. 2 points
    Reporting suggests it was just another publicity stunt to help launch his own television network farther to the right than Fox News. He never expected to win or even go ice farther than the primary. We all apparently underestimated the stupidity and gullibility of the American voters.
  43. 2 points
    That's a great answer. I remember when I was a kid my summer holidays felt like an alternative life. Full of experiences that seemed like brought from another world.
  44. 2 points
    So many misconceptions. So many wrong assertions. Remember what I said about looking stuff up, before putting your ignorance on display ? Ask one question at a time, and don't go jumping to conclusions. The only gravity there is, is classical, whether Newtonian or GR. Yes, atomic particles interact gravitationally. For an atomic particle, the Electromagnetic interaction is approx. a billion, billion, billion, billion times stronger than the Gravitational interaction. The Strong interaction, mediated by gluons and binding quarks below its asymptotic limit, is 137 times stronger than the Electromagnetic interaction, but only 'residual' force binds nucleons inside the nucleus, and quickly drops off after that. So why would you conflate the two, and go on to make all the other ignorant assertions ???
  45. 2 points
    Has it ever occurred to you that the inherent paradoxes involved in time travel, such as any causality breaking or 'grandfather' paradox, suggest time travel is unreal ???
  46. 2 points
    Trump would have been a shoo-in if he had simply acted like a normal human being: Don't criticize gold star families. Don't criticize dead men (e.g. McCain). Don't call Hispanics 'rapists'. Don't be a misogynist in public. Don't be a racist in public. Don't steal children and put them in cages. Or the one that would have been enough all by itself: admit that a virus can make people sick and act accordingly. I"m sure there are many I didn't mention, but my point is that Trump has been shooting himself in the foot for years and if he would have paused just a bit he may have been able to start celebrating his next term late last night. I can't really convey how disappointed and embarrassed I am that so many of my fellow citizens accept, and even celebrate, his behavior.
  47. 2 points
    When a grid's misaligned with another behind, that's a Moiré https://xkcd.com/1814/
  48. 2 points
  49. 2 points
    This is one of the weirdest definitions of free will I've ever heard. Without external factors there is not even a reason to act. What you want is always in a field of possibilities from which you can choose. Using a more direct, less controversial definition of free will your problem does not even arise.If you can act according your own wishes and beliefs, then you acted freely. If you can act freely, you have free will. Or let it put a little differently: given your wishes and beliefs, if you can act according to them, you have free will. The idea that you can choose what preferences you have (before you are born???) is an absurd idea. 'You' were not there, so who is doing the choosing of your preferences? And what are the preferences used to choose your preferences? Using a definition that implies an infinite regress from the beginning is a very poor move, and leads inherently to absurdities. You do not choose who or what you self are. But you can choose how to act. That is the touchstone for the question if you act freely: if you act according your own (given!) preferences, you act freely. If you are coerced, i.e. act according the preferences of somebody else, against your own preferences is a 'none-free' action.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.