Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/25/21 in all areas

  1. That is to be expected. As I outlined in OP the vaccines do not fully protect from infection. As such, big unmasked gatherings without social distancing will further the spread of the virus even in a vaccinated population. They are, however, protecting from serious illness, which is the major goal of vaccines. A big issue is that for some folks this distinction is lost and sometimes poorly communicated. Immediately lifting restrictions once a certain vaccination threshold has been reached is, in my opinion, premature, as we do not have all the data in yet for proper risk assessment related to health burden in vaccinated folks. Fundamentally we are looking at balancing various risks and they require somewhat different approaches. The most critical one is reducing critical illness and death. For now, the mRNA vaccines seem to be the most effective measure to prevent these events. Challenges are unvaccinated folks who are at higher risk. Additional management is done by a variety of treatment options to reduce severity, though obviously those are less effective than vaccinations. A second challenge is to minimize infections (or conversely, thinking about how much infection we are comfortable with). The reason why we want that is to reduce the rate of new variants but also because even in a largely vaccinated population some folks may still become ill (though again, unvaccinated folks are at a vastly higher risk). This is much harder to achieve at this point, given that vaccinations are much less effective in preventing infections as they are in preventing disease. Here, additional measures, including isolation and masking are needed in addition to vaccines. Then there is the big unknown of long-term COVID-19 symptoms, and how protective vaccines are against them. At one point or another we need to figure out what the overall risks of opening, unmasking etc. are given a particular achievable vaccination rate (and potential availability of new, potential seasonal vaccines). But until then it is IMO a mistake to assume that we can just pretend that the virus is gone. Edit: that is actually also a very local perspective as globally we are still looking at a relatively poor vaccination rate, meaning we do have a large potential reservoir for the virus and the rise of new variants.
    1 point
  2. Silvanus' answer is correct and follows the standard rule for differentiation of a power. if [math]u = {t^p}[/math] then [math]\frac{{du}}{{dt}} = p{t^{\left( {p - 1} \right)}}[/math]
    1 point
  3. I see how these discussions start circling endlessly. Once we have humans reduced to terms like "monster" or "evil " or "animal," then many feel the work is done and there is no need to examine their nature further or try to understand what degree of choice they have or ask if they have any prospect of redemption. In the study of psychopaths, in behavioral science, it's usually discovered that the psychopathic actor is also a victim, someone subjected in early life to profound neglect, abuse, and the general withdrawal of love. When evil seems to overtake an entire group of people, as in Nazi Germany, there is what Hannah Arendt called "the banality of evil," where we see that no one sets out intending to do evil but rather curtails the process of thinking and awareness to uncritically and obediently follow the group ethos. I think endlessly citing awful deeds, provoking and stoking our emotions of repulsion, as if that's an argument in itself for retribution, is missing the process of understanding what sort of person we are dealing with, and if punishment, for its own sake, has value.
    1 point
  4. And Keith Richards still lives. Amazing.
    1 point
  5. Dig deeper. This is just the first level. Make a list of the owners of these companies. And the owners of the owners..
    1 point
  6. Yes, I hit the limit! Thanks for sharing and the shout out. I've not read it all yet, but I remember the over / undershoot element from playing Frontier Elite on my Amiga 600 in the 90s 😂 The idea a body could pass through the atmosphere, collect some biological material, then land somewhere else is one mechanism proposed for panspermia - there was an article about it earlier this year or later last, particularly in reference to Venus, I recall. The answer to that is nuanced. I don't plan to name drop, but yes since very early on I've been liaising with a few retired Professors in the fields of panspermia, astro and microbiology, and based on: the circumstances of its arrival and that UK Mon also link 2 other fireball sightings to my report (so there is corroborating evidence that something fell from the sky that night) the unusual nature of the material (in particular its structure and low density) which is similar to material previously studied by those people and demonstrated (but not widely accepted) to be extraterrestrial, likely cometary, in nature surface features which could suggest 'collected' biological structures from the atmosphere, also previously studied by those people and what has been found inside, also similar to that studied previously by those people and demonstrated (but not widely accepted) to be extraterrestrial The suggestion has been that it's from out there somewhere, or at the very least has passed through the atmosphere. I've approached several currently active academic geologists/volcanic and many meteorite experts, and to date none have performed analytical analysis on the material, and only one (academic meteorite expert) has had a cursory glance at it under an optical microscope. Their replies, based usually on pictures only, are the material is probably slag or industrial waste, but I have it from numerous academic experts (currently active) in those fields that it's not and that particularly microbiology, like diatoms, would be destroyed in the production of such materials, and would not be present as they have been found. As I have gained more information through my own privately funded analyses, two things have happened: it's become more unusual, but also more unlike any existing meteorite, which has succeeded in strengthening the argument from the (many) meteorite experts I've approached, though a few do admit the material is unusual. One specifically commented that seeing Kyanite & Muscovite (metamorphic assemblies) on something with such low density (typ. <1 g/cm3) is certainly unusual. I've tried a few avenues for analysis that can confirm the origin, namely Triple oxygen isotope and Cosmic Ray Exposure but these are very specialised and the keys to those kingdoms are, it seems, held by the meteorite experts. I am also trying to source radiocarbon dating in parallel, I've tried a few places with little joy, anyone know a company, UK or US or anywhere? It being extraterrestrial (maybe cometary?) material is still my working hypothesis, primarily because it currently doesn't fit other boxes either - but I will follow the evidence. One suggestion, by the petrographic team, is that this could the burned/altered remains of part of an artificial satellite that re-entered, which might explain the 'collected' materials and lack of similarity to meteorites. They suggested it based on the very high carbon content and that it might have started life as something made from graphite. I am not sure if that explains the biological elements inside it, or the apparent metamorphic assemblies that have been observed, though. In any case all of the above is why I'm now looking at what information can be gained from the biological element(s).
    1 point
  7. Let's also not willfully ignore the principle driver of the war: profit. For the defense contractors who made billions during this crusade, the current result, shambolic as it may appear, is actually fairly promising for their industry. It means then can do it all again some time in the future. S&P 500 Total return: 516.67 percent Annualized return: 9.56 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase today: $61,613.06 Basket of Top Five Contractor Stocks Total return: 872.94 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase ($2,000 of each stock) today: $97,294.80 Boeing Total return: 974.97 percent Annualized return: 12.67 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase today: $107,588.47 Board includes: Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr. (former vice chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff), Stayce D. Harris (former inspector general, Air Force), John M. Richardson (former navy chief of Naval Operations) Raytheon Total return: 331.49 percent Annualized return: 7.62 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase today: $43,166.92 Board includes: Ellen Pawlikowski (retired Air Force general), James Winnefeld Jr. (retired Navy admiral), Robert Work (former deputy secretary of defense) Lockheed Martin Total return: 1,235.60 percent Annualized return: 13.90 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase today: $133,559.21 Board includes: Bruce Carlson (retired Air Force general), Joseph Dunford Jr. (retired Marine Corps general) General Dynamics Total return: 625.37 percent Annualized return: 10.46 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase today: $72,515.58 Board includes: Rudy deLeon (former deputy secretary of defense), Cecil Haney (retired Navy admiral), James Mattis (former secretary of defense and former Marine Corps general), Peter Wall (retired British general) Northrop Grumman Total return: 1,196.14 percent Annualized return: 13.73 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase today: $129,644.84 Board includes: Gary Roughead (retired Navy admiral), Mark Welsh III (retired Air Force general) https://theintercept.com/2021/08/16/afghanistan-war-defense-stocks/
    1 point
  8. The issue is that mainly all we have got is philosophically and/or politically [and possibly religious] motivated banter and grand plans and ideas, as opposed to a minute sample of actual cases of extreme crimes of violence, both here and in the torture thread. I reiterate a position I put previously, that was incrediously dismissed...a position imo of reality, sympathy, and logic...A perpetrator of any serious crime of violence, to expect sympathy, should at least show some remorse and/or regret for what he has done. That in no way though dismisses the necessity of appropriate punishment. How can any perpetrator of any serious crime of violence, expect for example, any consideration of parole, a suspended sentence, or house arrest? It is in a word, inconceivable to accept that.
    1 point
  9. Not much has changed in this thread from page 1, so I thought I would check it out again...generally a lot of political/philosophical banter as has continued. My position, based on facts, has not changed from my first post near the bottom of page 1... Justice for all! particularly including justice for victims and criminal justice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice Justice, in its broadest sense, is the principle that people receive that which they deserve, with the interpretation of what then constitutes "deserving" being impacted upon by numerous fields, with many differing viewpoints and perspectives, including the concepts of moral correctness based on ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and fairness.
    1 point
  10. Right. Okay. I thought maybe you wanted to have an intelligent conversation about this, but you’re contenting yourself with platitudes and flowery language. “Be better” and “be more awesome” isn’t a plan. It can’t be actioned. We share many of the same desires. I’m asking you how you wish to make them a reality, not convince me that we should.
    1 point
  11. Agreed, but you said we must prevent kids from turning bad. I asked how, and found the following bits too far removed to enable us to achieve that: Uhmmm… sure. Okay, but how does this prevent individual kids from turning bad? These too: How does that prevent kids from turning bad? I’m not following. Sounds like a bumper sticker. This last bit was the closest you came to giving a direct answer: Totally agree, but I can’t do anything with that, can we? Assume we have a magic wand / a blank check to prevent kids from turning bad. Gonna need much more detail than “put more effort and thought into their welfare” when asking the genie for those wishes or writing those checks. “Be more awesome” is a rallying cry, not a metric against which we can measure ourselves nor a plan to get there. Prevent kids from turning bad is a laudable goal, but is a complex and extremely nuanced objective.
    1 point
  12. Quite admirable and like religion, probably could give one a nice warm inner glow of contentment. And if you or dimreeper can ever show me that such a philosophical stance will ever have 100% success rate, or even close to it, you may even get me to support such a philosophy. And effectively, both of you have agreed that it will not and cannot ever be achieved. That's why we have a justice system...that's why we have the necessary evil orginizations such as Police forces Armies, etc...that's why we have prisons. There will always be incorridgible criminals and violent people within society, just as there will always be victims of crime and violence. My sympathy first and foremost, goes with the vicitm and society of crime and violence.
    1 point
  13. ! Moderator Note As per the rules. This science discussion forum has them so we don't waste time on WAGs, and they specifically require you to support your assertions and give meaning and clarity to your arguments, yet you continue to post vague guesswork with no evidence. There are other forums where they don't care that you simply wave your hands instead of supporting your science. You should check them out, because if you continue to post here, we will continue to enforce the rules the site's owners have asked us to. Thread closed.
    1 point
  14. ! Moderator Note When a thread is closed for a lack of rigor, it is not an invitation to open a new thread on a similar topic which is equally lacking in rigor.
    1 point
  15. ! Moderator Note If you don’t offer a conjecture that’s supported with some amount of rigor (model, prediction, or evidence) then this does not rise to the level required in speculations. We don’t have a WAG forum. You are freeto ask questions and learn science, but this isn’t how we do things
    1 point
  16. Agreed. I suppose what you wanna do here, @NTuft, is something like considering a complex variable, \( z \), differentiating by it, \[ \frac{d}{dz}\left(\frac{1}{2}z^{-1/2}\right)=-\frac{1}{4}z^{-3/2} \] and then substituting, \[ \left.\frac{d}{dz}\left(\frac{1}{2}z^{-1/2}\right)\right|_{z=i}=\left.-\frac{1}{4}z^{-3/2}\right|_{z=i}=-\frac{1}{4}i^{-3/2} \] But be careful; you may be re-discovering complex calculus. The connection to number theory is something I'm missing. I'm very skeptic to there being a connection between physics/chemistry and number theory. There is a connection between physics and complex calculus, provided by harmonic functions in two-dimensional problems.
    1 point
×
×
  • 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.