Leaderboard

Alternative history and speculations are virtually the same thing. Events alone are not really historic sciences per se and biographies are a small specialization. The Schlieffenplan was an "Aufmarsch" (Deployment)- and not an operational plan. Van Moltke ran into operational and logistical challenges. The claim that von Moltke messed with a glorious plan costing certain victory was basically a myth or narrative created by German historians (and officers) to deflect blame. Only post WWII historians have started to revise that narrative, though it has stuck in high-school classes for a long time.

It’s a lightning rod to prevent religious discussion from littering up the other science based sections. When religion was removed as a subforum in the past, biology and cosmology became where these unavoidable conversations kept landing. Better to acknowledge these conversations will occur and given them a properly quarantined home. Also, like politics, the topic is inherently interesting to many of us and it’s nice being able to explore its various intricacies with other generally rational and intelligent members here.

I disagree that it wasn’t doing any harm, or at least that we can state such a thing with any certainty whatsoever. Neither you nor I can know that, but we have actual evidence that maybe it was, in fact, doing some harm. I’ve seen members get treated differently when other members found out they lacked a penis. Sad, but true. Examples of this are both recent and historically consistent. I also have to imagine that any LGBTQ individuals may have found the binary choice insulting and frustrating, as yet another example of a place in this world where there’s too much friction when trying to simply fit in and be ones authentic self. I believe this is what triggered the OP, which basically asked for 68 more gender choices (I’m paraphrasing). The intent was good and the hope was laudable; to be more inclusive, but following the original recommendation would’ve IMO actually added friction to the process, not reduced it. At SFN, when we submit posts, what matters is the structure of our argument and our ability to defend and support it; our ability to convince others of the veracity of our position and do so in a cordial manner. It doesn’t matter if I’m black or white, old or young, gay or straight, male or female, sick or healthy, rich or poor, fat or skinny, or anything in between. This is a merit based site, not a tribal one or one where phenotype or crotchal plumbing are in any way relevant . So, I’ll ask... if the gender option was as unimportant and harmless as you and others keep claiming, then why are so many of my fellow members getting their panties into such a twist now that the path of least resistance was chosen and gender was removed from profiles entirely? Help me understand... cuz I sure don’t get it.

I'm going to post this here, it is a short video about bacteria movement and super fluids but I have seen something similar in real life. I used to culture euglena as a food source for rotifers, in the culture barrels the euglena would swim around and round the barrels and almost always they would all go the same direction actually making a visible current that would carry small floating particles on the surface around visibly moving at several inches a minute. These microscopic protists creating this current as long as the sun shone on them I think was similar to what is being said here.

Hello guys, So, a lot of my time is spent reading about history, studying it, writing about it, etc. And I mean a vast majority of my time. And while I know this is a science forum, I feel that if we can have a politics section, which arguably has less to do with science and politics then it does with pure politics at this moment, it wouldn't overly hurt us to have a history section. Would anyone else agree that having a section open about history would be good as well? I mean the same basic rules could apply. You have to have evidence, you have to list sources, you can't preach, etc. Just my personal suggestion and I'm curious what other's on this forum think. I personally would love to start a discussion about Christopher Columbus.

sorry for annoying you. I apologize for coming across that way. It was a failed attempt to ease any anxiety that you may have. I was just saying that it's probably normal and nothing to worry about. See Phosphenes and CEV I'm glad you're going to the doctor tho. Hopefully it's nothing serious.

I don't think I should go on a rant with anyone. Frankly, I like myself better when I'm dealing with a woman than when dealing with other men. It isn't 'agreement' so much as a different approach. Men dealing with men invariably leads to a pi*sing contest, and no good ever comes of it. Other than Helen of Troy ( not really, just a plug for the History section ), how many wars have women started ?

Ad hominem isn't efficient nor effective, regardless of who it's used against. I don't see them really getting upset at it, rather than like me, simply being confused by it. If you want to do it, sure, go ahead. I just don't understand the motivation behind it. I could see it being changed if it was required, but it being an option didn't force anyone to reveal their gender. And now, if they want to reveal their gender, they simply go to the about me section and type it in, which is again an option. To me it seemed like: "We should probably remove the option to include your gender." "Why? What if I want to?" "Then you can put it in the about me section if you want." I can't help but see a certain inconsistency here. If that still doesn't clear it up, I can break it down into variables: Prior to this change: People have the option to include their gender. After this change: People have the option to include their gender. If that makes sense.

Gender information was always optional INow. I don't see the rush to remove it either, as it wasn't doing any harm. Sometimes the information adds depth to an opinion. Example... If I'm getting informed on women's reproductive rights, it would be nice to know that it is an opinion brought about by experience. Not what a man 'thinks' they should be. Simply my opinion. Information in itself is never bad; only its wrong use is. ( and that's why we have mods )

Hmm... I think something went wrong. I just glanced into my pants and suddenly I look like a Ken doll.

And this French show (called Taratata) that requires live performance without any soundtrack, playbacks, orchestra or any other support. Lady Gaga: Poker Face et "mon français est merdique (my french is shitty).

If the light is in the glass, then it's being a waveguide, and some light should couple out through the drops (so you need to be looking on the same side as the drops). That process is called frustrated total internal reflection or evanescent wave coupling (which can be used to couple light between optical fibers), and it depends on the index of refraction of the drops vs the glass. Possible modifications would be putting a third material in between the drop and the glass. (I've seen frustrated TIR with scotch tape on plexiglass) or use a different transparent material (e.g. plexiglass or other transparent plastic, or some other kind of glass with a different index)

I'm not sure what this last sentence means. But most people are of the view that there was some form of "chemical evolution" that eventually led to the components necessary for living cells. (Also not sure what IQ has to do with it. But welcome to the 50%!)

Here are some conclusions that ere drawn a long time ago (1923). Looking at a 2018 cosmology/relativity text they are still recognisable and current. As far as I can tell we still have not resolved the questions of alternatives, though I would welcome more information.

Hot water does not freeze