Leaderboard

Unfortunately, those of us in the US weren’t able to dismiss him out of hand. And yet his administration’s response seems to not have much to do with the information he got, since he largely ignored it and did almost nothing. Which is one reason I want to know why it would have mattered knowing the details of how the virus originally spread. Would Trump have done a different kind of nothing? Would governors have changed their push to repeatedly reopen too soon? Would they have done something different in avoiding mask mandates? How were these decisions based on the WHO's investigation?

Starlings, a new state of matter? (lots of minutes, I've cut the last video.) How do they do that? Remind me of cellular automata. But far more amazing.

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap210328.html SuitSat-1: A Spacesuit Floats Free Image Credit: ISS Expedition 12 Crew, NASA Explanation: A spacesuit floated away from the International Space Station 15 years ago, but no investigation was conducted. Everyone knew that it was pushed by the space station crew. Dubbed Suitsat-1, the unneeded Russian Orlan spacesuit filled mostly with old clothes was fitted with a faint radio transmitter and released to orbit the Earth. The suit circled the Earth twice before its radio signal became unexpectedly weak. Suitsat-1 continued to orbit every 90 minutes until it burned up in the Earth's atmosphere after a few weeks. Pictured, the lifeless spacesuit was photographed in 2006 just as it drifted away from space station. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Am I right having a bit of a giggle, or is this setting a bad example about useless space debris albeit for a few weeks?

Yes, it is. It really is. If the World Health Organization keeps making the same mistakes (at best) over and over again, that reflects poorly on their credibility, while reflecting relatively better on those with the more accurate predictions early on about what the World Health Organization was getting right or wrong.

Here is where most of my problems with the status quo come in. There have been some private studies by scientists but since the two main ones I am aware of suggested there is something to study at least but were dismissed out of hand by many in the scientific community due to the conclusion. Not as far as I or others have been able to show due to the evidence or lack thereof. J. Allen Hynek is probably the most famous scientist who supported the idea of extraordinary technology from place else. He started out as a debunker for the USAF but ended up, if not a believer, at least thinking something extraordinary was going on. Some members of the science community pretty much poo pooed the entire idea out of hand which I always thought was somewhat less than scientific. Many scientists from this group participated in ridiculing anyone who suggested otherwise. One study, The Condon Report, is thought by some to be the definitive study on UFOs but others cite problems with the methodology of the people involved, see Low Memo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condon_Committee Low memo controversy[edit] In July 1967, James E. McDonald, a confirmed believer in the validity of UFO sightings, learned from a Committee member about a memo Low had written on August 9, 1966, in which he reassured two University of Colorado administrators that they could expect the study to demonstrate that UFO observations had no basis in reality.[15] McDonald, after locating a copy of the memo in the project's open files, wrote to Condon, quoting a few lines from it.[2] In response to the memo, on April 30, 1968, NICAP severed its ties with the Committee and Keyhoe circulated copies of Low's memo. Press coverage included an article in the May 1968 issue of Look, "Flying Saucer Fiasco", that presented interviews with Saunders and Levine, detailed the controversy, and described the project as a "$500,000 trick."[16] Condon responded that the article contained "falsehoods and misrepresentations."[17] Scientific and technical journals reported the controversy.[18] Representative J. Edward Roush said the Look article raised "grave doubts as to the scientific profundity and objectivity of the project."[19] He held a hearing dominated by critics of the Project.[20] Low resigned from the Project in May 1968.[21] Some later critics of the Committee's work saw little reason to make much of the memo. Committee member David Saunders wrote that "to present Low as a plotter or conspirator is unfair and hardly accurate."[22] Project investigator Roy Craig's later wrote that the memo did not trouble him because Condon had not known of the Low memo for eighteen months and it did not reflect his views.[23] Condon wrote in the Project's Final Report that the memo's description of the Project as emphasizing the "psychology and sociology" of those who report UFO sightings showed how completely Low misunderstood the Project when he wrote the memo.[24] There have been scientists who supported the idea of UFOs as extraordinary and others who do not. My own take on this is that a unbiased scientific study has yet to be done.

No. But being in different geographical areas does make for different markets for that food, and along with other factors the ability to pay for that labour. If you're paying attention, it does and it doesn't. Even "successful" unions, that allow the company to remain competitive, can limit available jobs to some extent to the advantage of their members. Good luck unionizing a company that doesn't have a natural (or otherwise) advantage to exploit, and then maximizing wages.

Is the anger you feel something that can be used to make the situation better? If so, then there’s no need for anger. Focus on making things better. If not, then your anger is only distracting you from finding those things that can help. Anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die. Try exercise and meditation instead, or whatever brings you joy.

It all depends on how one views the Drake equation. Originally Carl Sagan cast aspersions on the idea that any two intelligent civilizations could exist simultaneously. However, with SETI estimating the current number of habitable planets in our galaxy at 300 million, I think the odds of intelligent civilizations existing simultaneously are much higher than Sagan predicted. Regarding near speed of light travel or unknown physics, nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman demonstrated that practical interstellar travel can be accomplished using known physics, primarily a nuclear fusion reactor. Of course that wouldn't be "near speed of light" but it would get us from point A to point B. Yes, here it is: https://www.amazon.com/Phenomenon-John-Podesta/dp/B08HR9BVNM/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+phenomenon&qid=1618328526&sr=8-1

Was supply and demand not considered? How many farming jobs are involved here?

I'm not entirely sure I follow all this. But as a rule city housing is expensive because the land it stands on is expensive, due to its location - in the city. People want to live in cities, so demand is high and prices rise in response. What your question comes down to, it seems to me, is why it is that people want so much to live in cities. It is partly the variety of jobs available - many of them well-paid - and partly the amenities of cities, I guess: the bars, cafes and restaurants, the entertainment, the night life, the culture (theatres, concert halls, museums, art galleries) etc. Small town and rural life is often thought dull by comparison, especially to the young - who may also be looking for partners and therefore want to be where there are lots of similar aged people in the same position. People have tended to move to the cites for such reasons for centuries. (The story of Dick Whittington relates to a mayor of London from the c.14th, I gather.) There are many newspaper articles at the moment speculating whether the advent of the internet and the pandemic may have changed the attractiveness of cities, since desk workers have learned how to work effectively remotely. But it seems to me that most of the reasons I have listed will still apply, even post-pandemic.

Lol. Oh my. Like magic! Pseudoscience or Trash Can are much better fits.

To maneuver it needs propulsion and control surfaces. Even active homing ( with built in terminal guidance radar ) were notoriously ineffective, because the rocket fuel was usually spent getting the missile to a high enough speed which the target could not evade. Newer missiles, like the MBDA Meteor, use a rocket to get up to speed, and then a ramjet to sustain and maneuver to the target. So it is not a 'ballistic' missile any longer, and could probably be shot down, or defeated by countermeasures ( simple as turning off your radar ), at the much lower terminal speed.

Try reading more reputable material. The Internet is full of junk waiting for impressionable people to start ooohing and ahhhing, Here's one...

My proof contained a big error. Nevermind.

Please, @porton, do not embed your own words in a quote by other user. It's very confusing.

The term 'ballistic' implies little, or no, terminal guidance. That makes them very ineffective against targets that can move. Even at Mach 12, the missile would need 15 min to reach the target ( M 3 is approx 2000 mph ). Which at 20 mph, would be 5 miles away from its original position.

You are assuming P=NP . It is equally valid* to assume that P≠NP . How does the proof handle that? *) Or even better, according to a majority of researchers in a poll: https://mags.acm.org/communications/201205?pg=12#pg12

Alternatively, perhaps the currently available explanation is the correct one and people just refuse to accept it as valid for various reasons.

The most reasonable explanation is the US military making it all up in order to keep appropriations focused on support against this potential threat. It would also explain how this technology is supposed to exist but nobody has used it to gain the upper hand in the last several decades. Maybe the technology is more about making radar see things that aren't true. But then you have those pesky eyewitnesses.

Nobody here gives a shit what you believe, Jay Tony. This is a topic where facts both exist and matter. https://www.statista.com/topics/5920/minimum-wage-in-the-united-states/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/03/15-minimum-wage-black-hispanic-women/

Comments like these suggest you haven’t been paying attention to the dysfunction of the US Congress these last several years It’s more than covid relief. It’s economic stimulus. If equity were the benchmark, we’d be talking about far more than the minimum wage. Inequality has become far worse this last year. Last year alone, people who were already billionaires added a total of a trillion more dollars to their net worths

Quite a lot. The WHO has played a leading role in several public health achievements, most notably the eradication of smallpox, the near-eradication of polio, and the development of an Ebola vaccine. Its current priorities include communicable diseases, particularly HIV/AIDS, Ebola, COVID-19, malaria and tuberculosis; non-communicable diseases such as heart disease and cancer; healthy diet, nutrition, and food security; occupational health; and substance abuse. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization You seem to be confusing the World Health Organisation for the US Marines.

You’re ignoring the context of the post, which was paraphrasing what the article was saying. And I conclusively stated the article is saying that nobody was asserting they were aliens And if you admit you don’t know, you can’t conclude they are aliens. And yet that wasn’t accepted as being true earlier in the thread. If you pursue it here, however, you don’t get a pass on scientific rigor.

! Moderator Note Posting to advertise your site is a violation of rule 2.7.

A. The FFs aren't constrained by what anyone else meant by the phrase, only what they meant by the phrase and B. What the FFs meant by the phrase is not the final metric, as the right has been shaped by court decisions; the phrase is vague and also the context for it is shaped by society as it changes. Does freedom of speech as defined ca 1791 include this conversation, seeing as electronic communication of any type wasn't yet invented? There's a whole host of kinds of speech that have come into existence, or at least been acknowledged as speech, since that time. For instance, I wonder what the FFs would think about "money is speech" (also, "the left" is not a monolithic group and you would do well to actually show who holds the views you are so cavalierly assigning here) Pretty weak tea