Leaderboard

US special forces staged a raid near the Syria/Turkey border and flushed out Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who then blew himself up with explosives when trapped. Apparently DNA confirmation of his identity is now possible 'in the field' and much quicker than the usual couple of weeks it takes for criminal cases. Obviously there is a need to be sure, as he has been 'reportedly' killed several times before. D Trump is either trying to draw attention from his escalating problems, or still trying to take wind from B Obama's sails ( the Osama bin-Laden takedown ), as apparently he posted a ( staged ) picture in the Situation Room from the wrong time; he was playing golf during the actual raid. Congratulations to American Special Forces and Intelligence Services. Also, our Allies in the area who supplied the intelligence; you know, those same people D Trump deserted and left to be slaughtered by the Turkish offensive two weeks ago.

As per your link the class is part of the ethnic studies curriculum, not for the math curriculum. You can also see it in the link as it refers to the social studies directory. Also the curriculum itself makes it rather obvious what the topic is, unless one has a rather weird view on what schools teach (though, to be fair, some states mandated teaching the controversy of evolution, so quite a bit may be projection).

Don't know what you're so happy about. You realize that's only 31 posts, don't you ?

Well, I see an arogant dismissal of the opinions you consider beneath you. I'll take that bet...

I was trying to leave no doubt...and making fun of the fact that Trump bypassed the protocol of informing Pelosi prior to the raid...claiming security reasons.

That is a base accusation.

Some people aren't happy unless they can find something to be unhappy about. You're killing me Smalls.

Yeah, I'll probably get flack for this... There must be a lot of SJW in Seattle. Next they'll be teaching about racism in Nuclear Physics classes because nuclear weapons were only ever used by whites against Orientals. Maybe they should stick to actually teaching mathematics. Then maybe Orientals wouldn't be kicking our 'educational butts' in the STEM fields.

So I'm either an intellectually incompetent clod, or a lying prick who is a waste of good oxygen. Welcome to the site. I'm sure we are going to get along swimmingly.

An object less than 1 tenth the mass of the Moon with a relative velocity of 50 km/sec would have about ~ 9e30 joules of KE, which is some 76 times the gravitational binding energy for the Moon. An extra-solar object would be moving at least 42 km/sec relative to the Sun at Earth orbit distance. At the right approach angle, a 50 km/sec relative velocity with respect to the Earth-Moon system is not unreasonable. The Gravitational sphere of influence( the distance at which its gravitational effect is significant compared to the Sun's) for a object 1/10 the mass of the Moon is actually quite a bit less than the Earth-Moon distance, so I don't see its hitting the Moon as having much of an effect on the Earth's orbit.

What is your list supposed to represent ? Number 1 is inadequate and untenable. Are you suggesting space ceases to exist when it is 'occupied' and suddenly spring back into existence when the occupying object moves away? What do you mean by continuous and why does it have to be continuous? What do you mean by occupied? Does this include say, light? What happens when a ray of light passes from a vacuum into a glass block? Hey I like this 11111 posts

The Moon already produces tides in both the Oceans and the Earth itself. If something with a significant amount of energy where to hit the Moon, there are a few possibilities: 1. Moon shatters, but the resultant pieces do not have enough energy to overcome the gravitational binding energy of the Moon. The pieces separate and the then fall back together to reform a moon-massed object. The Moon's orbit will likely be changed. 2. Moon shatters with enough energy to it from reforming but not enough for them to escape the Earth's gravity. The pieces end up forming a ring around the Earth. 3. Moon shatters with enough excess energy to knock the pieces completely free of the Earth entirely. The tidal effects caused by case 1 depends on the new orbit. If the collision alters the orbit so that on average it is closer to the Earth, we would get larger lunar tides, the closer to the Earth it gets, the stronger the tides. For them to be Armageddon scale would require it to get really close. Case two would have the tides caused by the Moon weakening as the ring formed. We'd still have solar tides. This could take a fare bit of time, so I don't see this as being a sudden change. The Earth is already used to being flexed on a 12 hr or so cycle, so I don't see it reacting violently to having this flexing weakening over time. With case three, the Lunar tides would weaken as the debris field gets further from the Earth. Again this will not be fast, and not cause much stress on the Earth. So really, only case 1, where the collision robs the Moon of enough orbital energy to give it a close perigee would produce greater tidal forces. I think it would be difficult for such an impact to have enough energy to lower the perigee significantly without imparting enough energy to shatter the Moon into a ring.

Yeah. To be precise, science can tell us all sorts of things about the FACTS of climate change (and evolution by natural selection and many other things) but it doesn't have anything to say about what we should DO about climate change. That doesn't mean you can't suggest whatever actions you'd like to take, based on those facts. You just can't call them "science". Or we could tell the speaker that their choice of words was rather sloppy and teach them how to think and speak better, rather than dumbing ourselves down to their level? Assuming we care about being less dumb (which is another choice that science can't make for us). That's actually an excellent point, too. Environmentalism is not science. That's not to say that it's a bad thing - I personally think it's one of the worst ideas we've ever had, but that's not the case I'm trying to make here. It is not a science but a philosophy. Science is about facts. When you call it a matter of "science" that we should do X you're trying to smuggle your own philosophical goals and values into the conversation without any discussion, which is not the right way to approach ANYTHING in life (let alone the kind of wide-ranging societal issues that environmentalists usually try to handle). In the very least it's a sign of clumsy, low-effort thinking, if you don't grasp what your own terminology is accomplishing and you're just imitating the way someone else once trained you to "speak". If you do grasp what you're doing then you're being an actively dishonest and a bad person. There is no case in which it represents anything useful or good. Do you see what I mean about dumbing ourselves down to the speaker's level instead of raising them up to ours? You first, tovarisch.

Don't worry; my money's on the former.