Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DanTrentfield

  1. 8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

    This attitude makes the error of ignoring degree. 

    Yes. It does. But it shows people that bigotry is universal, which was my point, and that so long as it has a universally positive affect it shouldn't be targeted. 

  2. 16 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Opposing Trump's brand of nationalism is being against his brand of nationalism. It would be incorrect and dishonest to extrapolate this.

    Are you familiar with the bigoted origins of "America First"?

    We have some legislators who sponsor bills that try to even the playing field. Power does not corrupt the same magnitude.

    Hahahahaha. Wait for 5 years until you find those legislators became congressmen who did a single term and took their salary and ran, or brokered a shady deal to line their pockets. It's best to believe good doesn't exist because then you plan for everything to be corrupt, and if it isn't you celebrate. 


    Look, I couldn't care less about it having origins in bigotry, I have no qualms about that unless it affects the way that it changes things. Why? Because everyone is a bigot and pretends they are not. I am a bigot because I am intolerant of indoctrination. Intolerance is looked upon as a bad thing, it can be, but it can also be a good thing, for example the intolerance of incompetence in technical fields like Chemical Engineering. Are they who prevent the idiot from designing our roads bigoted? Yes. Why? Because they don't want people to be killed by faulty engineering. So long as that bigotry affects the outcome positively I will tolerate it. Why? Because I've learned that the world is not equal and have given up the dream of that. It is a damned shame, I would love to see every single person who has no food be fed, but the greed of every single human and the limited supply deny them. It is not that I wish to see slaves and the starving exploited for profit, it is that it is inevitable. Much as we try to help them they will be exploited by someone. 


    Point to an example of the oppression of Trump's Nationalism from a non news source, I will examine that source's beliefs and stance and if they oppose him then it is most likely propaganda. Why? Because they are on a side that perpetuates lies and thus unless I myself verify that they are not lying with the greatest scrutiny their words cannot be trusted by me.

  3. On 1/29/2018 at 1:00 PM, swansont said:

    If? I think that one is settled.

    Such policies have an impact within the US. Trump's brand of nationalism is oppressive here, now. (i.e. Hitler did many objectionable, racist things before he invaded Poland. The outbreak of war is absolutely not the correct measuring stick regarding nationalism)


    Then what is? And why is everyone so against nationalism? You seem to forget that humanity, despite it's intelligence is a beast in disguise, if you lower your defense in good will someone who wants what you have will take it from you. That is why unless we assert we will be destroyed. We perpetuate the cycle yes, but unless you find a way to stop the natural competitiveness of humans and make them all saints then it will continue. The poor will always envy the rich, the rich will always ride on the backs of the poor. No institution in history has ever been able to curb this. Why? Because power corrupts universally. 


    Also, the correct measuring stick of nationalism and the correct measuring stick of tyranny are often confused. 


    And Trump's Nationalism is making people get jobs. No work, no food. Unless you physically cannot work this is how it should be. 

    On 1/29/2018 at 2:13 PM, Ten oz said:

    Having leaders who are liars, racists, and etc have bigger and more long term impacts than the apologists care admit. For the middle age and above voter who supports Trump some of it is just a bit of fun and way to thumb their nose as long standing political rivals. For younger people, those in their formative years, it leads to distrust in officials, society overall, and angst. Since Trump even began his campaign bullying of minorities and immigrants rose all across the country. The pain and anger caused as kids fight on playgrounds our political rhetoric they don't even understand will have negative impacts for generations. It is easy for adults to dismiss Trump lying about his weight, crowd sizes, paying off porn stars, and etc but for kids who are being taught at school  (and home hopefully) that lying is bad the contradiction has different psychological implications.

    I have read many stories about kids at school using Trump quotes to bully students. White students chanting at minorities "build the wall". Trump's actually words and what he means by them are literally incendiary enough that kids can use his quotes to bully each other with. When I really stop to think about it, to compare it to my childhood, it is nuts!! No kids ran around chanting "Gorbichaf tear down this wall" or "read my lips no new taxes" as a means of attacking other each other. Kids didn't know or care about political slogans. I had no idea who my teachers had voted for, my friends parents had voted for, and didn't care. Today that has changed. Trump's divisiveness has separated the whole country into us vs them. It is negatively impacting the way we treat other. As if that weren't bad enough there is the attacks on science and media. If I were 12yrs old today I have know idea what I would be thinking. I have no idea what it means for the long term but I am worried.


    Right, children are in the end children. I threw pinecones at people I didn't like and so will these children use their verbal pinecones to bully other children, why? They're kids. If Trump didn't exist they would still find a way. 


    Gorbachev's day is very different from ours. I frankly like 99% of the Mexicans who come here, they're good hardworking people. But, when they come in illegally they hurt themselves more than us, why? If you're a landscaping company and you can get away with hiring an illegal immigrant and paying him $1.00 an hour who are you going to hire? Me or him? The issue isn't just the job competition alone, it's the wage issue. 


    Also, the reason for the construction of the wall in Germany was to keep the German people from running to the west. So we are on the completely opposite perspective because we actually want them to cross over, Granted legally which is the reason for the wall. Frankly I also support streamlining the immigration process so that if you accept an ankle tracking device for the first 2 years just to ensure you actually don't do anything illegal, learn how to fluently read write and speak English, and can pass a basic citizenship test and have papers showing that you have no criminal record in any country and no history with the DEA or Border Patrol you can come in legally immediately and become a citizen with every right except that of voting until you are in the United states for 5 years. 



  4. Okay look, I just don't even care anymore. Both sides have become so legitimately indoctrinated that at this point anyone who actually supports any side in politics is an indoctrinated blind fool who cannot even discern the true nature of a single politician. I hate the left, I hate the right, I hate any and all sides because they all line their pockets.

    Frankly I wouldn't care if Trump was racist so long as he did not do three things: 

    1. Did not enact laws giving rights to or taking rights away from any one particular race

    2. Promoted America First (Because nationalism is a good thing UNTIL it becomes oppressive of other nations at which point it should stop, i.e. don't invade Poland like Germany did) 

    3. Brought industry back to the states (Look people, too many people, not enough jobs)


    Let him line his pockets if he chooses, I don't care, all presidents are horrible if you actually look at them for more two seconds, we just need to become assertive again, Russia and China and the EU are assertive, why can't we be? There is no justice after all, only positive action and negative action and fighting for oneself is always positive as long as you show mercy to your opponent. 


    So if you were to call me a racist pig because I believe that all countries should assert their influence instead of babysitting the third world alone (Relief efforts are very good, but you can't provide relief if you don't have anything yourself) then I will be proud, because that is a complement because you're really the racist, you're really the person that believes that every race except whites should be able to have a nice life, that everybody has their turn to be rich and powerful, nobody has their turn, it's everyone's turn, the world is not fair, if it were we would all be drinking martinis and sitting in gold hot-tubs, but it is not, the fact of the matter is, the world is a place of equal opportunity, not equality, everyone regardless of race in this country gets the same basic opportunities, in some cases you get more or less but it all a game of chance. 


    Remember that King Louis XVI of France was also accused of many of the same things as Trump, taking from the common man, giving more power to the nobles (The 1%), and remember how he attempted to better their situation, but the velvet underground (Voltaire etc.) denied this and indoctrinated the masses into revolution, why? For many of the same reasons people riot today, redistribution of wealth, UBI, the 72 genders and like movements etc (It was mostly homosexual stuff and not the modern version of it). The French revolution is about to repeat itself, and when it does everyone will pay dearly on all sides, the mob knows no mercy. And remember that the intellectuals who popularized deliciously derisive barbs about Louis XVI being "obese" and came up with the Carmagnole were among those executed in the September Massacre because they realized too late that the revolutionary liberal ideas that they made widespread were going to be taken to the extreme. 


    Remember, history is like a pendulum, it goes from one extreme to the other until it finds balance, and history always repeats itself, so choose no extreme lest you merely prolong the balancing process. 


    This is why I classify as independent in thought, not an independent, but independent in thought, because I consider all sides before choosing, instead of merely backing one side all the time.

  5. 4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

    Trump is narcissistic enough to think that anything that threatens his God given presidency would

    "relate to ... the maintenance of good order in the armed forces."


    Because he has to preserve the office of the president, if anybody can threaten the office and not receive response then the president and by consequence America is a joke.


    1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

    FFS, Ten oz said OVER AND OVER AND OVER that the height (didn't mention weight AT ALL) was NOT the concern. The concern is why would the navy doctor lie about it, and what else was incorrectly reported?

    Don't make me bring out the stuffed animals.

    I realized that and addressed it. But I also addressed the idiotic reason for this coming up in the first place. The fact of the matter is: With the news not being news and being Journalism, (Which is opinion on news not straight news) If I was an editor wasn't patriotic and was being paid to do so I would totally put out that the doctor lied under oath from Trump. What I'm saying is that it has a 90% probability of being nothing more than propaganda which somebody edited in. As with all news. 


    Also I must ask, Stuffed animals?


  6. 2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    - Jeb Bush's height is listed as 6'3

    - Don King, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton are all listed as 6'2

    - Obama is listed as 6'1


    I understand that this is stupid and conspiratorial - to claim the Trump and his doctor are lying about Trump's height . I also understand that the above photos are not empirical proof of anything as camera angle, shoes, posture, and etc all impact how tall someone looks.  That said I am troubled by the idea that a military doctor would bold face lie to the public. It troubles me that I can't trust anything that comes from my govt. Even something silly as Trump's height. 

    Trump has been a public figure for decades. He has been photographed standing next to millions of people. If we look at any number of those photos over the decades it is plainly obvious Donald Trump is not 6'3. Jeb Bush is 6'3 and Jeb Bush has been next to Trump numerous at debates and is clearly taller. We all saw it time and time again. If the doctor lied about Trump's height can we trust anything the doctor said? Does it matter or should the Presidents doctor be able to just lie? Or do you guys believe Trump is 6'3?

    All I have to say is: Really? With near revolution being drummed up by people and mass murders you're concerned with the height and weight of a president. Who ever cared about Obama's height? Who ever cared about Bush's height? The fact of the matter is: Why should you care? 


    And while I share your concern with not trusting the government, I do trust the president specifically because he promotes America First. Not white America, not Black America, America. America is made up of both and all other races, which is why I simply love the man. And while people are saying "The wall is a symbol of hate and will do nothing" it will do this: It will make crossing the border illegally less feasible and so cause more people to immigrate legally, "But what if they dig tunnels?" Short of placing landmines on the border or building the wall from bedrock up we can't do anything about that but that is still a LOT of trouble to immigrate illegally, and makes it so that in most instances only the most hardened criminals with reasons to stay undocumented do it. You see the wall is not to stop people from coming in, rather it's to make them come in legally for two reasons: Firstly so that they are paid at least minimum wage instead of pennies on the dollar, (No documents means that if you go to court for this they just deport you) and secondly so that the wave of people coming in don't take jobs from citizens because who are you going to hire if you can get away with it and don't care, me working for minimum wage, or Jose who you cheat out of minimum wage and pay him $2.00 an hour instead? This helps both sides because while yes, it does make it so that immigration is harder and takes longer, it forces Mexico to keep it's people, who then while they are sitting there push to fix some of their own problems. 


    This is why Trump is actually being extremely intelligent in his decision, and why you should trust him.


    You can find the exact same problem of people just heading for the hills and letting drug rings and terrorists overtake their nations in the middle east. While I don't blame them for running frankly who is going to stop them if you don't? Which is why no matter what I am staying in my country, whether it be the French Revolution 2.0 or whether we get an oligarchy that is oppressive.

    21 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

    If the senior brass isn't willing to refuse unlawful orders than we are all f@*&^%. He could have just said Trump's health is good but that he won't discuss specific details which aren't relevant to the public. Trump's height isn't actually important. The Doctors willingness to lie over something  so trivial is very disheartening. I also don't believe he would have gone to court martial for saying no as that would only create a public record of him stating under oath Trump ordered him to lie. At worst he'd be forced to retire at the end of his current tour which is likely to happen anyway given the attrition rates of senior commissioned personnel. Either way the Doctor had a duty to not lie. 

    Lie? What evidence? You do know anybody can just drum up a public record and release it right? Freedom of speech. While it is impersonation and is in some instances a crime, anybody can do it. It's called propaganda. 

    And to completely justify America First, Putin puts Russia first, as does every single functional nation in the world. Europe is not really functional unless you count Eastern Europe because they have massive debt and are generally broken. Nationalism is great until it becomes oppressive of other nations. But if those nations declare themselves our enemies then we have a right and duty to honorably fight them until we win or they win, and be fair to the people of the conquered nation as there is always a losing side and to lose is not to be weak or be immoral. While you may be punished for crimes you commit (Nazi Germany for example) you should not be oppressive to any nation (Look what the Weimar republic turned into....) 

  7. 23 hours ago, Arete said:

    While I am certainly not trying to disparage you or question your scientific knowledge, someone unaware that IRB approval is required for human subject research is not qualified to run a clinical trial. FWIW, if you've never been involved in a clinical trial before as a researcher, you're unlikely to be qualified to run one yourself. 

    Therefore, you'd need someone else to operate as the Principle Investigator both formally and practically - which means you will need convince an established scientist to invest time and energy (and money) into your idea. If you're fronting the cash, it will be easier to convince someone, but ultimately, the reality is that ideas are often the easiest part of the job. My lab does work on alternative antibiotic therapies, and me and my lab can up with 20 odd proposals in 30 minutes, but the reality is that we only have the capacity to actually pursue 2-3 at any given time - we have more ideas than we will ever be able to actually investigate 

    Having actually worked on a project arranged like this before, I personally would only consider it if:

    a) It fit well with my current research interests  

    b) Came with enough $$$ to cover a postdoc and data collection

    c) Had the freedom to design, conduct and publish research without interference. 

    Given your brief description in this thread unusual level of concern over IP, I already know I personally would not take this on, but best of luck with your project. 

    It is nothing illegal or immoral. It is merely a well backed hypothesis that I am surprised has not been proposed before. This is why I have been concerned over privacy, because people have stolen my ideas before, for example, https://www.google.com/search?q=Interlocking+pool+noodle&oq=Interlocking+pool+noodle&aqs=chrome..69i57.12591j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    I had an idea that was essentially the same when I was about 13 and I spoke with an engineer about making interlocking pool noodles that you could create rafts with and he turned me down then went on to make these. 

    So, yes, I have good reason to be private with my ideas.

  8. 5 minutes ago, Arete said:

    To legally do an animal experiment, you'll still need an IACUC approval from an institution with an animal ethics board, which would also require an institutional affiliation. 

    In reality, if you don't have any scientific training to perform the work yourself, you wouldn't have the knowledge to oversee the project either. Also, clinical trials cost a lot of money - hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. If you honestly have that kind of money to spend on testing a scientific hypothesis but no expertise in the field you want to investigate, you'd be best off pursuing it as a philanthropist. I worked as a postdoc on a project funded by a philanthropist in that kind of fashion.

    If you're putting up the cash, you can specify conditions of your funding (i.e. specify the hypothesis you want to investigate) and solicit applications from interested labs - or simply approach a scientist you would like to give the money to. Similar to how agencies like the Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ford Foundation etc operate. 

    I have no background in medicine, I am a chemist, but I can attack this from a different avenue as well. I have a method of getting people interested that only needs my basic knowledge of medicine and my knowledge in chemistry. 


    Frankly, I do kind of have the knowledge to oversee the project based on a couple points which I will explain in a PM. 

  9. 7 hours ago, Strange said:

    I'm doing some background research for an article and came across a blog describing the USA's Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) as being "far right, alt-right". 

    I am not that familiar with PBS. I have listened occasionally when in the US and hadn't noticed any particular bias. So is this opinion justified, outrageous or just indicative of the blogger's own biases?


    p.s. just read through to the end of the blog post inquisition and it ends with a ridiculous (but presumably deliberately provocative) straw man.  Which, oddly, seems to be something someone on the far right would say. So I'm not inclined to take his opinion seriously.

    But I would still be interested in others' thoughts.

    The days of reporting died when opinion became news instead of news, such is journalism. 


    Typically when "Far-Right, or Alt-Right" pops up one of several scenarios is playing out: A European country is refusing immigrants over safety concerns and interest in preserving it's heritage, The President of the United States opens his mouth to speak, The U.N. is denouncing the U.S. because it's actually acting in it's own interest, Something about Trump's Wall pops up, or something about how a country isn't accepting enough "refugees" pops up. 


    Typically all of it is: A. Propaganda, B. An attempt to cover something up, or C. Fear mongering. 


    Sometimes, however, the "refugees" ("Refugees" implying they are hopping on that plane to a first world country to leave crazy people and cruel regimes behind) are really refugees like how a group of Muslims that now live in my area had to run for the hills because they were helping people of other religions leave the Jordan/Iran/Iraq area because they don't want them to be killed and truly are acting in interest of everyone, in which case the refugees are quite welcome. 


    And sometimes the "Far right, or Alt Right" truly are the bunch of Nazis they're sized up to be. But typically it's socialist agendas that push that title. 


    So my recommendation on all news: Take it with ten thousand grains of salt, remember it's an opinion, not what actually happened. 

  10. 16 minutes ago, Arete said:


    So I run a lab and have been involved in a phase I clinical trial. 

    1) Lab access. My lab is in a university and I have had visiting scholars work in there before. They generally have their own funding and I have been fully briefed on the work they are doing. I've signed NDA on patent sensitive work before. There's no way I would let someone in the lab without evidence of proper training, liability coverage and a good idea of exactly what they are doing in there. 

    If all you wanted to do was fractionate blood, all you really need is a centrifuge and fractionation tubes. 

    2) Human subject experiments would need coverage by an institutional review board (IRB) to be permitted in any lab in any university. Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations dictates that any human subject research in the US must legally be overseen by an IRB. IOW - to legally do any research on humans in the US you need IRB approval. To get an IRB approval, you need to be an affiliate of an institution with an IRB. 

    Deliberate infection of human subjects with live Streptococcus would be a non starter. You would need to conduct an animal trial to prove efficacy before anyone would let you near human subjects. Animal trials in the US would similarly need Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) approval.  

    Sounds reasonable. I can begin with animals that have a disease similar to Streptococcus, and prove or disprove the key "given" in my hypothesis. Upon it being explained to me that proper training is required I am sure that I can pay technicians with said training to perform experiments according to my hypothesis if the animal experiment proves the hypothesis. Then if everything goes according to plan I can then jump through the safety/regulation hoops and move on to the meat of the process. 

    I will also detail what I hope to do to you in a PM if you are interested if you can guarantee that you will not share the information or claim any work I perform as your own. 

  11. 31 minutes ago, Klaynos said:

    If you are concerned about IPR then it would be sensible to have an NDA in place. 

    I've never done medical or human trials but my understanding is that your injection of humans would be unlikely to get past an ethics committee and may well be illegal. Some have even turned to testing on themselves... http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/07-dr-drank-broth-gave-ulcer-solved-medical-mystery (not recommended)

    I don't so much care about an ethics committee so much as guarantee I cannot be legally punished for the experiment. Due to the nature of what I hope to accomplish we cannot use animals as the cells I hope to experiment with are different in animals, and the way in which they communicate is different. While it is a good introductory test to use lab rats or rabbits it would be much work and expense for small results. I have several potential candidates who stated they will consent and I will contact a lawyer for consulting on the issue and have him compose a legal document which the candidates can sign if he finds no law prohibiting introduction of non life altering/threatening diseases into consenting candidates with full knowledge of the experiment. 


    After all it only strep and I would guarantee full disclosure and compensation for any damage or loss that would occur as a result of said introduction of disease. And it would not be painful beyond normal strep and a blood infusion after the strep has subsided. 

  12. I have a general hypothesis on something in the field of medical research that I decline to share due to it's promise, but I must ask how does one gain access to a lab with a blood separation apparatus? It is needed for an experiment to test the feasibility of my hypothesis. While this has been said many times before by many prospective medicine researchers this has the potential to cure all diseases if my hypothesis is correct.

    Also, would injecting test subjects with their own consent and full knowledge of the strep throat strain they are being injected with be legal? I would need to collect and separate a small portion of their blood and would need to inject it into a second test subject to test part of the hypothesis. 

  13. 4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    Laws do not fall from the sky. Often those in power attempt to deify laws in an attempt to maintain the status quo. The Constitution for example gets treated with religious scale reverence and our founding fathers are view as perfection incarnate. Reality is laws are made by humans. Laws are can be poorly designed, ill conceived, burdensome, or cruel. Society should always be willing to reconsider and change laws. None should ever be deified. 


     This may have made more sense in philosophy. There is not a pointed political position here. Perhaps something in the subtext be nothing clear. 


    Philosophical I think retribution, revenge, punishment,  justice, and etc are all selfishly flawed ways at finding catharsis following victimization. Justice is impossible. In WW2 the Nazi's were stopped but was that just for all those who had been killed? Did the Emancipation  Proclamation provide justice for all those who had already died? Wrongs never can be reversed. Arresting a rapists and imprisoning them doesn't repair the emotional and physical damages imposed on their victims.  In my opinion viewing the execution of law as means of dulling out justice is an error. At best laws simply protect us. When evaluating crime protecting society should be the primary focus and not avenging those who have been wrong. Only people who pose a threat to society should be placed in jail and only those things which endanger society should be outlawed. 


    One can seldom ever be compensate for damages. My stolen car can be returned but the psychological impact of it being stolen in the first place will always remain. Tit for tat punishments resolve nothing. 


    Things like free speech at worst are only an inconvenience to those who disagree with the speech. If we exclusively view law through the filter of safety physical (person/environment/property) speech does threaten anything and no law should restrict it. Things like protests potentially could damage the environment or property by overwhelming infrastructure so it makes sense laws would restrict them.

    But firmly enforcing laws allows for harmony. Any real justice is truly impossible, but we can discourage wrongdoing through firm enforcement of laws and making laws based on the principles I stated. 

  14. 19 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    All the individual rants aside, I'm not sure you can fairly redefine justice until you have a system that defends human rights equitably. Why start with justice when there might be a way to remove the need for many crimes in the first place? If the US took better care of it's citizens through effective social programs, a lot of the justice system becomes unnecessary.

    You also have to define what a human right is. Personally, I think the accumulated human knowledge taught in schools and universities should be everyone's by right. This honors the efforts of those who came before us to help benefit mankind using the resources for research provided by all of us. If we all have free access to education, it then seems more reasonable to hold all of us accountable to a redefined system of justice. 

    Justice is an illusion when it's so contaminated by profit interests. The whole bail system seems more designed to make money off the most desperate citizens than to dispense justice. Read about the practices of private prisons and you can plainly see it's about keeping as many quiet guests as the state can pay for (at higher expense), for as long as you can get away with it. Worse, they funnel millions into political campaigns (like Marco Rubio's) seeking to increase sentence lengths, implement three strike laws, and other legislation which hasn't proven to deter crime or help the legal system; it simply makes more money.

    Yes, but cut it down to it's base form: A system of standards established by a society for the benefit of all, and include in that wording the inclusion of education and basic human rights.

  15. Let's face it, our world today is flooded by a generation of people that put justice before anything in their lives and are allergic to any sense of normalcy, but the fact of the matter is the 'justice' they seek is an illusion. Justice is an abstract concept conceived by man to judge what is right and what is wrong, however justice in this sense always harms someone somewhere because they did nothing wrong but they are not in accordance of what the group that has the most power in society thinks. This is exactly why the power to make and levy laws based on 'right, and wrong according to justice' needs to be destroyed, and why justice itself needs to be redefined entirely. So to start this process lets begin defining what the legal version of justice is: Fair settlement based on the standards of society with the intention of attempting to compensate for damage of some form. Why does this need to be the way that things work? Because it functions. If we're debating every day whether inmate 04071 is guilty or innocent of his crime because he was crying when arrested and picked up the toy rabbit of the girl he molested and gave it back to her instead of giving him the legally agreed sentence we open ourselves to influence from any single group that wants to push any agenda. For example, because I decry the illusion of 'justice' as it is I should be hanged and quartered  according to some groups, and if they held power to change these laws I would be. 


    So lets change how the word justice is defined: A fair settlement in attempt to compensate for damages done by any single one party, with punishment carried out to discourage any other party from committing the same crime. 


    If this is the definition of justice then we are protected from groups that wish to eliminate free speech and other basic rights in order to promote 'justice' because their justice is: A not a fair settlement as it is to push an agenda, B does damage, does not compensate for it, C carries out a punishment based on accusation rather than crime. 


    So if we redefine justice as this then it is what it should be: A standard by which all are held based on the dream a society wishes to realize, with said standard being set by the first people of a society who found it.


    And to top off the cake let me compare the heated climate of today to a statement made by the notorious minister of propaganda of the Nazi Party, Joseph Goebbels: "Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty." 


    On 1/12/2018 at 8:59 PM, swansont said:

    Treason has a specific definition in the Constitution, and that ain't it.

    Context. "In the people's interest" is for the general benefit of society in one way or another. Not in the people's interest is signing backroom deals to line your own pockets. 


    I Guess I shouldn't have defined it improperly as "treason" but rather "misappropriation of power" which is defined as anything that is wholeheartedly in the interest of a company or business magnate, and not in any way an effort to better the nation as a whole. Course I see why this charge doesn't exist because then people point fingers and abuse the charge. 

  17. I stand corrected. She is. Well I'm not exactly in a rush for a president from either party. I want one that wishes to remove power from government not give the government more. I think basic things like the FBI and state governments and a congress and senate in addition to judicial branch is more than enough with two presidents being elected and given emergency powers when under serious threat of war or other crisis. Basically drum down power to no big fast decisions, and make it so that if anyone in the government practices anything other than what is in the people's interest they are arrested and charged with high treason, the two options if convicted being death or life in prison.

  18. On 8/1/2017 at 11:54 AM, swansont said:

    Teleportation is information transfer, not like Star Trek, where matter is teleported and is fictional.

    There is no evidence of information being transferred. Whatever effect is happening, it is instantaneous (as far as we can tell), but there is no way to exploit this to communicate with anyone. Think of this example: you flip a coin. As soon as you see what one side it (heads) you instantly know what the other side is (tails). Does that require the transfer of information? Now imagine the coin is 1 light-second wide.  

    Entanglement lasts until some interaction removes it, called decoherence. Anything that measures the state that's entangled removes it. 

    Well you can 'teleport it Star Trek style' if you have something like 800TW or so to waste then you can totally demolish that 1 ton steel container over there with 1 ton of anti-matter and materialize that steel container again on the surface when you figure out how to condense energy into iron atoms and modify their structure and insert carbon to produce steel, You can open it up, get what you want, then beam it back up when you have 1 ton of anti-matter again, that's a 56 septillion dollar price tag per trip not to mention energy costs.

  19. 43 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

    Winfrey is the wealthiest, non-heiress, female in the world. She own television, film, publishing, and online companies well has ventures into radio. Oprah is a wildly successful entrepreneur head and toes above any comparison. Dwayne Rock is just an entertainer. Dwayne Johnson isn't even the most successful entertainer among his peers. Comparing Winfrey to Johnson is like comparing George Lucas to someone with a very successful YouTube channel. It seriously under appreciate the scale and multifaceted nature of her successes and enterprizes.

    Riiiigth, No Republican or Democrat support, and that's all that gets elected these days. Sorry, I just don't see it happening. 

  20. 13 minutes ago, Strange said:

    That is due to the initial conditions of the universe - hot, dense and expanding (and therefore cooling). Why was the universe in that initial state? No one knows.

    The description of space-time in GR shows that space-time containing a (roughly) homogeneous distribution of mass must either expand or contract - it isn't stable. The initial conditions caused to to expand. It used to be thought that gravity would slow it down and lead to it contracting, but the (unexplained) acceleration makes that look unlikely.

    Oooh. Careful. That doesn't mean that each type of force must have an opposite, but that the forces on a body must be equal and opposite. So, for example, gravity is a force pushing you down into your chair while the (electromagnetic) forces  in the material of the chair push back the same amount (and, therefore, you don't move).

    Whoops :doh: Even people with degrees in science still make silly makes like this from time to time because they are focused on the big picture instead of nuances, which is why peer review is so damn important, because imagine how many brilliant scientists that win Nobel prizes would appear like babbling buffoons that forget that acceleration due to gravity is equal to g=GM/r2 because they are looking at why two planets are in a position in the sky instead of focusing on little nuances like that. 

    11 minutes ago, beecee said:

    I think the answer to that is the same as the answer to what caused the BB. We don't know.

    The way I view the whole picture [I may stand to be corrected on this issue] is that just after the initial BB or a part of it, Inflation took part. The density of the universe at that time saw the incredible rate of inflation gradually slowed to a more sedate pace, until a period was reached where due to the continued, albeit slowing expanding rate, the density eventually dropped to such a figure, that the large scale expansion rate again took over and we observed an acceleration. This is where we find ourselves now.

    I think you'd be correct, because it appears the amount of energy put into the expansion was initially constant in the first few moments (or millions of years, lack of evidence) and then a runaway effect happened. Kind of like you start a diesel engine and it has a runaway and continues until it destroys itself. This runaway effect could be a result of early effects of the big rip which caused the universe to behave like a balloon that is popping but retains it's shape and keeps expanding faster and faster.

  21. I almost never venture into politics, and I have nothing against her (Even though I don't like her shows and think she is kind of misinformed), but I can't take her as a serious candidate. In the same way I can't take Dwayne Johnson seriously as a candidate for president. Nothing to do with who they are, but rather what they do: Entertainers traditionally do not enter or speak about politics because they want the widest range of people to enjoy their entertainment, I am a musician and that is how I know this. So sure, they may run, and they have every right to do so, but I wouldn't expect to see either of them in the oval office. 

  22. 1 minute ago, beecee said:

    The expansion of the universe is only evident over larger scales. Over smaller scales, say our local group of galaxies, the gravity of the mass energy within such regions, overcome the expansion we observe over the larger scales. And even smaller scales will see the EMFs and strong and weak nuclear forces overcome the observed large scale expansion. That explains why planets, stars, us etc are not affected by the expansion of spacetime over larger scales.

    This is why we have peer review! :ph34r: You see I missed that. 

  • 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.