Velocity_Boy

3 hours ago, sci-man said:

they cant control the release of their venom yet and they could

im just talking about how we are comparatively weak to other animals that can kill us in an instant we could have evolved with fangs and claws and things like that but instead we have intelligence on a planet where no other creature can do the things that we do it was a miracle evolution and i just want to understand why.

The evolution of us homo sapiens to the Pinnacle of this planets food chain probably falls just a tad short of being worthy of labeling it a miracle.

Yet....I think most evolutionary biologists and anthropologists would admit that a vast amount of luck was involved.

If you took 100 identical scenarios, of our planet in the exact form and with the exact numbers and types of Flora and fauna and climatalogical conditions as it had, say. 200 million years ago....and then set all those replica scenarios in motion again, there's every chance that not in one of those 100 replays would we again enjoy an ascendance to the top. Nor would we outlive and prevail over the two dozen other subspecies of primate bipedal hominids.

A full 99% of all the species that ever enjoyed a day of life on this planet are gone. For good.

One doesn't transcend all those long odds without a good dose of luck or fortuitous occurrences.

On 9/20/2013 at 8:03 AM, ydoaPs said:

The title is a common view among crackpots. They often think that the ability to imagine something means that the universe might actually be that way or could have been that way were things differently. To use philosophy words, they often think that conceivability means epistemic or metaphysical possibility. But, the question is, is that true?

 

To find that out, we need to find something that is conceivable but is impossible. For the first sense of possibility, (how things might actually be), that is incredibly easy. All we have to do is find something that is conceivable but not the case. Have you ever been wrong about something? If you have, you've shown that conceivability does not mean epistemic possibility.

 

The second one is a bit harder, since there's disagreement on the exact requirements of what makes something metaphysically possible, but we do know that for something to be metaphysically possible, it must also be logically possible. That is, were things different, an accurate description of the universe still wouldn't entail a contradiction.

 

So, we can knock this out by finding something which is conceivable, yet logically impossible. Can we imagine things which are contradictions? You might be tempted to say "No one can imagine a square circle!". But I'd like to talk about one which almost everyone intuitively conceives.

 

People intuitively like to group things. It's how we make sense of the world. We have apples, chairs, etc. All you have to do is put things together and you have a group. In mathematics, we call these kind of groupings 'sets'. The things in these groups are called "members". Any group of members of a set is called a "subset". This does mean that all sets are subsets of themselves, but that's not of interest to us here. What we're interested in is the idea that you can group whatever you want into a set. You can make sets of sets. You can take your set of cats and your set of dogs and put them together into a new set!

 

So, let's take a look at a specific set: the set of all sets which are not members of themselves. The set of all cats is not a member of the set of all cats-it's a set of cats, not of sets! So, it goes in! Likewise, any set consisting of no sets will go in this set of all sets which are not members of themselves.

 

So, we pose a question: Is this set of all sets which are not members of themselves (from here on out, we'll call it 'R') a member of itself? If R is a member of R, then it fails to meet the requirements to be in R, so it isn't a member of R. That's a contradiction, so that's no good. That means R must not be a member of itself. But what happens if R is a member of itself? If R is a member of itself, it meets the requirement to be in R. Since R is the set of ALL sets meeting this requirements, it goes in. Again we have R both being a member of itself and not being a member of itself. So, either way, we get a contradiction. This means something is logically impossible. But we got this result simply from the definitions of sets and members and from the very conceivable idea that you can group whatever you want together.

 

This is a situation in which something is conceivable, but logically impossible. This means it is not the case that whatever you can imagine is possible. Crackpots, take note: the fact that you can imagine something in no way implies that it is possible. It doesn't matter how clear your perpetual motion device/unified theory/God/electric universe is, imagining it doesn't cut the mustard. This is one of the reasons you NEED the math.

But you don't need the math. Or 500 words or more to prove that it's ludicrous to believe that imagining something is tantamount to conjuring it into reality.

I can clearly and concisely and irrefutably prove that claim wrong by asking the claimant one six word question.....

"Have you ever imagined flying unaided?"

Game...set...match.

LOL

And of course I could come up with three dozen equally brief and bulletproof questions that would equally damn this pipe dream of bringing vivid imaginings to reality.

Itd take about twelve minutes.

Or just mentioning past wild things I've imagined that are totally unfeasible.

I imagined I walked on to the Boston Red Sox spring training camp and made the team as a 33 year old rookie who never even played high School baseball.

I imagined I totally demolished a concrete and steel commercial building with my bare fists. Like the Hulk.

When we beging inventing logic and math equations innorder to deal with absurd notions that are unworthy of the time it takes to formulate them, I feel we are giving undeserved consideration and possible credibility to the silly idea.

It's overkill.

It's a sort of Rube Goldberging, to use an advert I'm not sure exists.

Cheers.

1 hour ago, Spiceymonkey121 said:

I recently received a homework assignment to create an invention made of simple machines. The requirements are that it must be a compound machine (made up of two or more simple machines) and that it must make an everyday task easier. I have been racking my brain for the past week and everything I come up with does not fit the requirements. Could someone lead me on the right path? Please be expedient because it is due this Thursday (Thursday, May 17). Thanks!

I once had a similar school project and made this foot actuated lever that sat on the floor by your fridge. When you needed it you stepped on it and it opened and closed the door for you. Because we all know how physically demanding it is to have to both open AND close the door with your hands and arms! LOL

But check out these reminders of what constitutes a simple machine. As you peruse the list look around your house and think of your daily routines.

You'll come up with something.

Hint...can't go wrong with the old wheel and axle. Or...like mine, a lever activated mechanism.

Good luck.

https://www.livescience.com/49106-simple-machines.html

8 minutes ago, Janus said:

We don't have the luxury of waiting till the Sun begins to expand into a Red giant.  The Sun as it is now is warming at a rate of 10% per billion years, and  10% increase would raise the Temp on Earth enough to cause it to no longer be in the Goldilocks zone.

Wrong.

The recent climate change cycle has been going on for far too brief a time for one to extrapolate it into a one billion years formula! And climate change had zero to do with the OP red giant question.

Pretty comprehensive list, Swanny.

I especially am digging #14.

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

http://www.theangryufologist.us/dr-steven-greer-fraud-heres-proof/

 

Positive proof that Dr Stephen Greer, is a Fraud, Liar and Phychopath:

But that linked article offered no proof refuting anything in the documentary I'm speaking of. Indeed...the linked article was written before the doc.

The only damning incident mentioned in the article was a letter from Woolsey to Greer that said he embellished a dinner party convo. This is a typical defense response from a guy who has realized he said too much about what he shouldn't have. Or thought he was off record. Politicians do this all the time.

Not one of the dozens of testimonials for alien contact in the documentary was mentioned. Either was the doc!

Again...until you watch it....you'd do well not to just cut and paste a link from a topic you obviously aren't well informed on.

The angry ufologist? Really? 

One of the primary speakers on Unacknowledged was Richard Doty. His job for the air Force was discrediting legitimate UFO witnesses.

Seems the angry ufologist is doing the same.

This will be the final time I reply to somebody who had not watched the documentary in question. It's tedious trying to converse with the uninformed. Like asking about a book review from somebody veho hadn't read the book.

Useless.

On 4/26/2018 at 9:57 AM, tolluafolabi said:

Hello,

I recently tried to reset my PC but the PC started showing blue screen (Inaccessible boot device) after getting to 100%. It is also not showing the advanced repair option after trying so many solutions.

How can i fix this issue?

 

Hey tollua....

I used to have the same model. Or rather....DW did. 

What you wanna do is press down on and make sure  to hold down Power button three times to shut down the machine.

This should make the bootstrap program m direct you to the BOOT REPAIR page after 2-3 times of reboot. VB

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is a rule on the forums to allow discussion without actually full videos. As such it is requested that at least some of the points are summarized so that one could decide whether the time investment is worthwhile. Does the doc at least address some common criticism. I.e. how is it that apparently all countries are great in keeping this particular secret? Or is it because all aliens end up in the US exclusively? Are there any specific claims that could be discussed? I.e. anything more than e.g. uncorroborated witness accounts? The way OP is set up is quite defensive- if there is really world changing material in there, it should be easy to use them and set them as starting point of discussion. If one needs a full cinematic experience to make a point, then that point is not really strong to begin with. 

I believe the link I posted will answer some of your questions. If not....a mere twenty minutes googling reviews on the doc certainly will. As will viewing a couple YouTube clips. I disagree with your last point vehemently. Sometimes there is SO much compelling material in a given presentation that a full viewing IS required.

Other than that.....I must stand by my aforementioned policy of not defending Bor discussing Unacknowledged until the person I'm discussing with had viewed it. It's a waste of my time rehashing for somebody not interested enough to devote a mere ninety minutes for info that will likely change the way you view the universe and your place in it.

Cheers

On 12/20/2006 at 9:33 AM, SamDept said:

Hey

 

Is there any way (and i don't mean by exercise) to lower your heart beat Mentally or Psychologically?

For example; You want to try and get your heart beat to around 50BPM but not for a loong period of time, just for say a few minutes ?!

 

Thanks

I'm currently a Certified Fitness Trainer..and my degree is in psychology..so this baby is right up my alley.

As others have said,,,yeah...you CAN raise and lower your heart rate with your thoughts. As far as elevating the BPM...how high you get it really depends upon how adept you are at conjuring excitory thoughts. The trick is that you need to make yourself believe or at least feel as if what you're thinking about.....sex, fighting, being chased down by Freddy Kruger...is really happening. Obviously some of us are more proficient at this than are others. And again, practice will help.

Same Dynamics are at work for lowering your BPM. In this case, calm and relaxing thoughts. The old adage about...Going to your Happy Place. LOL. It's been widely reported and verified that Eastern holy men types...or anyone very practiced at sitting meditation...can lower their HR to about 10-15 BPM!

But I think there is a caveat to the notion of just becoming really good at calming meditation will drop your HR to half or even less of your normal resting HR. And that is......your overall physical fitness level. Especially your cardio or aerobic level. You probably know that the more elite endurance athletes such as swimmers, runners, cyclists, and triathletes have uber low resting HR s. I believe Michael Phelps s is around 50. So, yeah, like it or not your fit level is gonna play a significant role in how low you can get your HR. As for raising it....not so much. That's more mind dependant.

There's a genetic component as well. Done elite endurance athletes who are every bit as fit as a Phelps or a Scott Jurek just cannot get their resting HR below, say, the mid-60s. The heart had it's own organic bioelectric pacemakers that sit stop both upper Chambers. I think they're called AV nodes. Well, those apparently can be effected by good old DNA. In this case, no matter how fit and how good you get started meditation.... Michael Phelps crossed with the dalai llama!...you ain't gonna get down to those crazy low teens or twenty something numbers.

On 1/7/2018 at 6:43 PM, aiir said:

here they say after about a billion years the sun will become hot enough to boil our oceans, will this cause animals and humans any pain? and if not will a few billion years later, the sun will become a red giant so large that it will engulf our planet; will this cause a long painful death or a quick death?....

thanks.

Well..first off I believe you're short changing us earthlings a little with your time scale. Most cosmologists think it's gonna be closer to five to seven billion years before our sun begins expanding into a red giant on it's way to totally incinerating the inner four planets.

Unfortunately...it's not gonna be an immediate and painless process, like if you were caught at the epicenter of a nuclear explosion. Nope....any life on Earth during this event will die in inches. Or rather....a little at a time over a three or four decade time window.

As the sun's hydrogen nuclear fusion winds down and it's hydrogen fuel supply dwindles, we here on Earth will see the sun's luminosity increase by about 10% a decade. And the ambient temperature will also ramp up accordingly.

https://www.livescience.com/32879-what-happens-to-earth-when-sun-dies.html

Hey cats....I have a sort of off da wall, but I think fairly intriguing thought problem for you.

We were chatting a little Saturday about terrorists and potential terrorist actions occurring in the US. So maybe some residue from that was on my mind this morning while I was watching the new Netflix reboot of the old Lost In Space TV series. BTW....it's very well done, I think.

So....in that series, the Robinsons have this all terrain vehicle that's sorta like a Hummer on steroids. Thing can climb over just about anything. I was enjoying watching this thing do some impressive high speed off roading and thinking...Hey.... that's what I need for driving around here! The city I live in had a truly apocalyptic traffic problem. One of the worst in the entire country.

So yeah...just climb over those pesky cars that get in your way. LOL. Well...this in turn made me recall how awesome and adept a tank would be on city roads. Please continue to bear with me...I promise a point is on the horizon here! I drove a Abrams M1A2 for the Army...for 22 mos. in OIF. So I'm all too aware of the destructive capabilities of these wonderful machines of mass destruction that help keep Americans free and strong.

And....here's your thought exercise. You get to play Commander of our civil defenses here. Let's say a PTSD ravaged vet went rogue and took an Abrams off base and began raising havoc on the streets of a US city. How would local law enforcement cope? What measures would they take? Would they call the nearby army base for help? Obviously a typical big city police force doesn't posses the requisite fire power or weoponry to terminate the Abrams. Oh...I've seen how some SWAT teams have those little mini tanks....urban assault vehicles. But they're not up to the task, trust me.

So what do you do, Commander? Air strike? But remember we're in a US city. The Abrams is now approximately ten miles away from the base. Rolling down a major artery going the wrong way.  Rolling over unfortunate cars. And once in awhile loosing a shell from the main gun, or firing off bursts from the sixty Cal. Cannon. Oh...it's Two soldiers in the tank, the dtivervand the loader/gunner. Usually we had a guy for each of those jobs, but let's say in this scenario one soldier is performing both tasks. I think it makes my story a tad more believable if two guys instead of three went postal here.

They've taken on some extra ammo, as well. Though local law enforcement probably wouldn't know this. Not at first, anyway.

So far...the tank had been rogue for about forty five minutes. We estimate about twenty casualties thus far, with a couple dozen cars crushed, as well as some property damage. A couple roadside structures took fire. A convenience store with gas pumps out front...still on fire... BTW. And a Compass Bank outlet. Both dwellings totaled.

So...you pick up your red phone and call......

10 minutes ago, Vril said:

That is your opinion . 

Quite obvious you do not understand what you were taught.  Space-time occupies space. 

Yes....it is my own personal opinion. Hey! Congrats....you finally got something right on this forum. Keep it up, Charm School.

Cheers.

4 hours ago, smokequitterv2 said:

Not too dark , But just a bit more darker color themes like the simple machine forum default ?

Oh....ya mean theme as in screen settings and the forum's template appearance!

When I initially read your OP title I thought you were advocating that we begin addressing darker issues, as in more edgy, controversial, and potentially depressing. Gothic? Maybe like supernatural or paranormal stuff. LOL. Can't see any o' dat woo flying here. But I reckon we do have the Lounge, eh?

My wife is on a couple of those paranormal sites. I checked em out once in awhile. Decent entertainment at times. And I can't explain why but it's somehow refreshing to read all these believers in that stuff. They're a friendly bunch. And no unremitting thread of arrogance as I see here. It's the first part of this site. The unrelenting propensity of some of these cats to let you know they know more than you. But I digress.

Cheers.

On 5/11/2018 at 2:17 PM, Ten oz said:

Kids are taught the math skills to balance a checkbook, but have never been taught to actually balance their checkbooks. Schools don't teach the best ways to find an apartment, or write an ad for a roommate, or even how to look for a better job while doing their best and maintaining a good relationship at your current job. Why isn't more curriculum aimed at practical applications? Do lobbyists for religious and financial entities play a role because it best suits their interests?

*Edited and added to a Phi for All post from another thread to use as the OP. 

Just so. And the sort of all but useless and low level of application in real world education our kids are getting has worsened since the whole state and federal requirements standards tests were intituted. Talk to any Grade 3 to 12 teacher. They spend virtually all their class time prepping their little darlings for the year end exams. These exams are the determinates for future funding and accreditation. Thus....sort of an important deal! LOL. In a way the teacher's very livelihoods depend on good or at least adequate test scores. To quote my teacher ex-wife.....the whole freaking year is pretty much a prep course for those tests. If we go outside the box from the three Rs we're taking a big risk.

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It seems that 9/11 has  made people forget that many, perhaps most, terrorists are "home grown" and don't need to ship internationally.

Who's forgetting? We all know about the possible Timothy McVeighs of the world. But last I checked, Al Quaeda and ISIL and Taliban, Hezbollah, et al were not homegrown.

You also might wanna read this, Hydra man. 

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/10560/

11 minutes ago, Velocity_Boy said:

Who said anything about Hydra? Don't be naive. A state or terrorist faction sponsored actor will one day pull off the event we're speaking of. Mark it. The fact it hadn't occurred yet is both lucky and fortunate for us. And as I told Junky...a nuke device is not required. Also don't put words in my mouth or straw man me, bro. I never hypothesised anything vthat is the sole province of a fictional super villain clan. Grow up.

Infrastructure? What are you talking about?

 

https://secure.ucsusa.org/onlineactions/qwrm-C-G0kylfhrYozBh1w2?MS=topnav&_ga=2.239874947.1257589020.1526153112-1318249074.1526153112

I'll see that link and raise you!

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/10560/

1 hour ago, Bender said:

Because Hydra only exists in movies and comic books.

Excluding the billions you need for the required infrastructure. 

Who said anything about Hydra? Don't be naive. A state or terrorist faction sponsored actor will one day pull off the event we're speaking of. Mark it. The fact it hadn't occurred yet is both lucky and fortunate for us. And as I told Junky...a nuke device is not required. Also don't put words in my mouth or straw man me, bro. I never hypothesised anything vthat is the sole province of a fictional super villain clan. Grow up.

1 hour ago, Bender said:

Because Hydra only exists in movies and comic books.

Excluding the billions you need for the required infrastructure. 

Infrastructure? What are you talking about?

https://secure.ucsusa.org/onlineactions/qwrm-C-G0kylfhrYozBh1w2?MS=topnav&_ga=2.239874947.1257589020.1526153112-1318249074.1526153112

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

It's many times harder to make a mini-nuclear bomb with a non-critical mass  than it is to make one with a citical mass and the latter requires about 50Kgs of fissible material, which is going to cost you over $50m just for that. Only a state actor can make a nuclear bomb.

Bin laden had that type of money, however. I'm sure ISIS does as well. And as for my football game or Subway scenarios....a nuclear device is not required. A hundred lbs of Semtex or the like would wreak havoc. 

On 5/10/2018 at 9:09 AM, Airbrush said:

Don't you think in this modern age if some country decides to attack another nation with nuclear weapons they would NOT use ICBMs?  With so many satellites in space watching every country, would it not be easy to determine the source of a nuclear missile launch?  The source would be promptly punished.  For that reason, to maintain anonymity, I would suspect that IF it ever happens, the nuclear weapon would be discreetly delivered to it's destination by a boat, small plane, truck, or even inside a car.  Then nobody can tell where it came from.

Well... yeah, of course.

The scenario you described, in which a possible terrorist nuclear attack is carried out on a smaller scale and far less identifiable method....like a suitcase sitting on an NYC subway platform....is what keeps all of our NSA and CIA and Homeland security counter-terrorism guys up at night. And I think most CT guys agree that an ISIS sort of faction would almost certainly have to employ a tactic like that.

I've always feared your above mentioned scenario.....small boat, plane...suitcase at an NFL game...way way way (!) More than I have a Putin or a Jong Un unleashing an ICBM. And for the reasons you mentioned. Even someone as batshit crazy as Kim Jong knows that he is not long for this world if he attacks us. He'd be dead with hours.

I'm also continually amazed..... flabbergasted, really...that we the US have not been attacked in that manner.....truck nuke bomb, boat, luggage....since 9/11! I recall the following months after 911... I'd be watching the NFL on TV just thinking what a perfect and likely place for some Al quaeda dipshit to place a mini nuke device! I remember thinking how horrific it'd be to see that happen on live TV.

And yet,..........here we are some 17 years later. And nothing.

Why?

An homage to our splendid CT industry? Our vigilant government?

Or maybe more fodder for the 911 Insider theorists?

36 minutes ago, Vril said:

I do not believe I ever said Einstein was wrong ,  I did state Einsteins opinion, that which it is.  You claim there is no universal now, you have proof of this or is this just speculation by yourself? 

 

 

 

 

Reasons?

Supporting evidence contrary ? 

But you did...and rather smugly, I felt....say that Einstein's opus of work and thus his Laws and Theories were merely one guy's opinion. And that for whatever reason, science just decided to jump on his bandwagon. This claim hints that much if not all of science is on a tenuous and maybe even biased...or just plain wrong...footing. 

Reasons that also explain why what you think about the nature of the universe and its center and outer edges are wrong can be found by anyone with moderate Google skills in about five minutes.

Take it from a relative newcomer here, as well as one of the less-hard science savvy guys on this forum...you ain't gonna get far or learn much from these people by strolling in with a chip on your shoulder and immediately denigrating past science greats. Like another member suggested, it's prolly best for all if you just say from the gitgo what you don't like about the current state of science. Or where you think current theories are wrong. Then let them retort and explain. Then digest their answers and try to disprove if you can. And just tell us how you debunked them.

That right there is pretty much science.

Cheers.

19 hours ago, iNow said:

Science is a method of exploring the universe in a manner that minimizes the influence of our own biases.

Hey iNow!

I like your answer best of all of these. Mainly because it's not just a boring dictionary paste up or memorization. And two, cuz it admits that science and more accurately scientists are usually biased to some degree. Thus, the best science is done with the least degree of bias, assumptions, or personal agenda. Every scientist, since he is a flawed human being, is best with emotions, likes, dislikes, as well as a real....if perhaps covert or subconscious.... preference in his mind how he WANTS the experiment or observation to turn out. Thus....the best of them recognize this and don't let it affect their work. 

Again...great answer! Thanks. I might use it in the future, giving you full credit!

1 hour ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Knock this crap off right now. It's off-topic and more so because you were not involved in the discussion and the comment was not directed at you. Post to discuss the topic of the thread or not at all.

 

Yes sir...sorry.

On 4/23/2018 at 8:00 AM, Strange said:

That is not what I said, and not what I intended. Pursuing a theory of everything is (for suitable definitions of "everything") a reasonable pursuit.

I said that trying to distinguish "reality" from a simulation is impossible. We can only build models (i.e. do science) based on what we observe. There is no way of distinguishing between simulation, solpsism, naive realism, or any other philosophical stance. So I suggested that arguing for a simulated universe is a quasi-religious belief.

The only things I have read by him are when he gets quoted on science forums by people promoting crackpot ideas. I get the impression he is one of those people more interested in making impressive sounding statements than communicating science accurately. (Michio Kaku appears to be similar.)

How you can claim Tyson isn't interested in, or even highly adept at communicating science accurately is beyond me. I think he's the best out there for relating cosmological facts and theories to the general public since Carl Sagan. Whom he was mentored by, in fact. His Netflix docs are outstanding. He's a smart man and a skilled speaker, with a great voice to boot. And to me, he never comes across as overly arrogant to where he tends to turn people off, right out of the box, like Kaku or Dawkins.

By contrast, a poor communicator or person who cannot or won't explain things but just pastes links all the time would be, in my opinion, a poor communicator as well as someone who just wants to be seen as being right.

Just my dos centavos.

On 4/23/2018 at 12:21 PM, koti said:

I was about to respond to you something along the lines of maybe trying to start over after your unfortunate entrance to the forum but then I saw your response to Phi above...Jack, you’re obviously a smart and knowledgeable guy but you need to cut down on the condenscending tone. You’re going to drive people nuts with this regardless of how well educated and knowledgeable you are. Take that as the second thing you learned on this forum.

Wow.

You're really lecturing someone on being condescending?

Pot.......meet kettle.

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

So if you read up on folks that study him the consensus seems to be that at least within his context he is considered to be a rational actor.  Even the purges and assassinations he ordered could be seen as steps to secure his position. The most positive speculation I have seen is that by playing up Trump as the madman he is able to push through changes in the relationship with SK that he would not be able to do without risking loss of power. 

Rational?

Uh-huh.

Ya mean like this batshit crazy stuff?

http://www.businessinsider.com/kim-jong-un-quotes-2018-1

On 3/13/2017 at 12:47 AM, Airbrush said:

Although I haven't heard this in the news, I am making the educated guess that North Korea has had all the time they need to set up thousands of artillery pieces all along their side of the border pointed directly at Seoul. If we do anything to destroy their nuclear program or long-range missiles, they can press a button that will rain down total ruin on the city of Seoul, completely destroying it a few minutes. Am I wrong? Anti-missile batteries can't do anything against artillery shells.

 

Maybe it's time to relocate Seoul and its occupants to the southern tip of the peninsula.

Meh...no need to relocate Seoul or take any preemptive protective measures in South Korea.

Why?

Well.... Kim Jong Un is certainly a bit crazy, but not to the extent where he doesn't know that an artillery barrage on his neighbors and our allies to his south would not spell immediate doom for him and all he holds dear. Such as most of the infrastructure of his shite hole capital city. As well as the lives of at least a few thousand of his country men.

All this would happen of course courtesy of massive retaliatory air strikes from us as well as most likely a couple allies. We might even put boots on the ground in the form of a couple special ops teams to make sure we terminate his command. With, yep....extreme prejudice.

He's just like his daddy. A hopeless and childish sabre rattler. Whenever he feels he's not getting enough attention or respect. So he sets off a couple test bombs. Or plays war games out where everyone can see him and his braindead automatons.

But at heart he's gutless and inept. And I'll never make his country more than it is now. He will forever remain third rate. And also will always be a cartoonish caricature of a hopelessly deluded sociopathic puppet master.

I learned that the Earth's actual magnetic North Pole is located at the southern extremis of our planet in Antarctica. And that..... yeah....the true magnetic South Pole is up very near the geographic North Pole.

WTF? I knew the poles flip every few hundred thousand years or so, and even how we discern this fact. And that the Pole flips are not even that high a deal. Other than remaking all those compasses. But how I never knew the noth-pole-is-magnetic south thing is kinda humbling. I learned this from a book I'm reading about our solar system when it mentioned Jupiter having it's magnetic and geographic poles at the same locus. Then the author mentioned us. Wow.