Jump to content

Outrider

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    284
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Outrider

  1. This is a simulation not an animation. In my opinion it is awesome. Before scientists had to chose between long, large scale simulations with little detail or short, fine detail simulations. But with the Hazel Hen supercomputer in Stuttgart, with16,000 cores running for over a year. A simulation of a cube of space measuring more than 230 million light-years in diameter and has 20 billion particles representing dark matter, stars, cosmic gas, magnetic fields, and supermassive black holes has been generated. The team was led by Dr. Annalisa Pillepich of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, and Dr. Dylan Nelson of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics. Two papers have been published and I will link those at the end. I read about this here. https://www.universetoday.com/143977/watch-a-simulation-of-a-galaxy-from-the-big-bang-until-the-present-day/ The papers are on the monthly notices of the Royal Astronomy Society and are linked below. https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/490/3/3234/5556547 And. https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/490/3/3196/5566345 Enjoy! I have only watched on my phone but am looking forward to watching on tv in just a bit. P.S. I hate that I never get on here to post anymore but I do read very interesting content almost daily. Keep up the good work!
  2. I agree with all that. I have been misunderstanding you quite a bit. Sorry about that. I think she used a slur to criticize policy and did it on purpose. AIPAC is a political action committee (PAC) which basically means they legally bribe politicians to vote in their interest. I am very much against PAC's on principle. In particular AIPAC is a bad one because the money comes from Israel. So we have other countrys bribing our politicians to influence our foreign policy with them. Ain't America great. So Omar has every right to criticize them. But Omar wasn't criticizing PAC's in general or even PAC's funded with foreign money. She was criticizing a Jewish sympathetic PAC and using an anti-Semitic trope to do it. I think the hatred on the Muslim side comes from them both regarding Jerusalem as holy land. And fighting over it. On the Christian side is quite a bit more complicated. Short version is Shakespeare wrote "neither a borrower nor a lender be" in one of his plays and somehow that got attributed to the Bible. So many Jews ended controlling the banks. I think there are still parts of the world where Christians think it is sin to lend money. Why so many American Christians hate them I have no idea but I grew up in the middle of KKK country and both them and the skinheads do hate Jews. But then again they hate pretty much everybody.
  3. The question can war be moral is philosophical. But the question should it be avoided if it is all possible is a practical one and the more important of the two. And on that we all agree. So here is a very hopeful 6 minute Kurzgesagt (german for "in a nutshell") video about how war may becoming (mostly) a thing of the past. Yeah I was lucky that way myself. I fell between Nam and Iraq. My grandaddy was on Omaha Beach on D-Day and somehow survived. Two uncles I never knew died in Vietnam while my dad served as a conscientious objector. I served during peacetime and my son son took part in the so called war on terror as an MP moving prisoners around. I would go, beecee if I felt my country needed me but how I would react I don't know. I don't think anybody that hasn't been does. I think us participating in WII was a good moral decision but dropping the bomb on Nagasaki was a horrible immoral decision. But in between that is the first bomb dropped on Hiroshima. I have struggled with that my whole life and I just don't have an answer for it. I am heavily emotionally invested in the answer to that question. Grandaddy was on a commandeered German luxury liner headed for Japan when they dropped it. I would have possibly never met him had they not dropped it. Yes it does indeed. Read up on the Navajo code talkers if you haven't heard of them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker
  4. Why else would she bring up the fact that what she said is a fairly well known anti-Semitic trope? I would think if she really had not known she would have just apologized for offending people. That is the part of her quote I'm referring to. To me she acknowledges she used one. You are one of the most moderate posters on this forum and I respect your opinion. But we have: She has used blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric in the past. She used a word for word anti-Semitic trope in this case. Leaders of the Jewish community met with her just last year about this very kind of thing. This leads me to believe she knew what she was doing when she did.
  5. Yeah pretty much what Charon said plus our funds are finite and Trump's pet project takes away from other worthy pursuits. A wall is an inanimate object and as such can be neither moral or immoral. OTOH China built one 2000 years ago and they have absolutely no problem with immigrants from Mexico. No, no thats a joke please don't take that seriously.
  6. Thanks Charon! I hope I am not coming across as thinking I know all the answers either because I certainly don't. I am interested in this in an intellectual way. But it is also an emotional issue for me because I know that most of the men and women doing the fighting would rather be doing anything else in the world. I hope I have mostly kept the emotion out of my replies and apologize if I haven't.
  7. Maybe it's me but why else would she bring it up? Can we accept that as evidence that "it's all about the benjamins" was referencing an anti-Semitic trope? I say yes we can. Keep in mind the exact words are used by some in describing Jews. As in "they are all about the benjamins".
  8. Well I served as a tele-type repairman and I took no such tests as mentioned on your quora link. I'll have to have something better than quora before I accept my memory is that bad. This was in 1986. I remember physical tests, physical examinations and a physc test. Also you had to tell the doctor what kinds and how much of certain drugs you had ingested in the past. Boy was he surprised.
  9. I did know that Australia participated but I did not know that your returning soldiers got the same treatment ours did.
  10. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-rep-omar-apologizes-for-israel-comments-calls-out-problematic-role-of-aipac-other-lobbyists Thing is she was educated last year.
  11. I just don't see the alternative. I agree that some situations can be murky even for impartial observers. But in the Korean War situation I gave it seems pretty plain to me. Your choices are kill innocent children or give ground and power to those who have no problem killing innocents or otherwise using them in any way that pops into their head. Which is the moral choice? Is the world a better place with a divided Korea or would it be better if Kim had control over more people? I can research it myself. I just thought you might have some online sources on hand. What is the alternative to the "just war" paradigm? Veterans did join the antiwar movement but I seriously doubt they ever questioned the morality of those doing the fighting except in the case of war crimes. Many times this is true but not always. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor what choice did the U.S. have? Agree. Wholeheartedly. Agree. I mostly agree but I do think our leaders had good intentions when we first got involved in Vietnam. But decisions were made, for political reasons, knowing more human suffering would result.
  12. Sorry for the very late reply to a well thought out post. 1) Thanks for clarifying and I do agree. 2) First soldiers are not authorized to do just anything they feel justified in doing. Although prosecutions are few and far between there have been some cases where charges have been leveled against rank and file soldiers. Second you seem to be suggesting that soldiers commit acts of terror and violence against civilians because they feel they are fighting a moral war. I have always thought they do these things because they are put in a hellish situation. The North Koreans marched children in front of their assaults to force the Americans to shoot them first. You go through that a few times and all kinds of lines can get really blurry. I think this also explains the paucity of convictions for soldiers obviously guilty of war crimes. It is simply not fair what we ask them to do. But there are situations were I see no alternative. Do you know of any studies done of why soldiers commit war crimes. 3) Can you point me to any literature on this? I agree it is quite a conundrum. But didn't we try this with Vietnam already? Didn't we tell them how gulity they were when they returned home? Remember that most of these men were drafted. They got to choose between baby killer or deserter of ones country. No really not fair at all. 4) I agree with all this and in particular your last sentence. It is dangerous ground for a soldier to think he has the moral high ground and thats not the way I was trained. I was taught to leave the morality up to others. I was simply there to do a job. The very best soldiers do the job with extreme regret confident that those who's job it is to decide these things were sure there was no alternative. This describes the vast majority of our fighting men and women of today. You will never see these on the front page of your newspaper. That is reserved for those who crack or are using the situation to engage in dark desires they already had. I agree the only way a war could be considered moral is if it was conducted out of absolute necessity. I think it does happen that way some times. I think we both know it when we see it. I respect your opinion beecee but I just can't agree with this. I don't see morality as something that can be put on hold. When you get to the point of where violence is the only means of protecting yourself or others then violence becomes moral. IMO
  13. True that. But there is some back history to suggest that "It's all about the benjamins" was meant to be anti-Semitic. Zap she has made blatantly anti-Semitic comments in the past. So much so that Jewish leaders met with her before she took office in hopes of educating her. I hope you will read the article below. https://www-twincities-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.twincities.com/2019/02/12/mn-jewish-leaders-talked-with-ilhan-omar-about-anti-semitism-last-year-why-they-remain-frustrated/amp/?usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D&amp_js_v=0.1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.twincities.com%2F2019%2F02%2F12%2Fmn-jewish-leaders-talked-with-ilhan-omar-about-anti-semitism-last-year-why-they-remain-frustrated%2F Back to Ten oz original question "should she be punished"? I agree with J. C. Not legally but yes politically. It has been explained to her why these types of comments are hurtful for some people but she continues to make them. Good for her to apologize but she should still pay a price.
  14. That was my original point so we agree it seems on that at least. But it's not only on the left. From Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to SNL I think many Americans get their political commentary from the worst places. I know RL and GB are not comedians but to me they act more like comics than pundits.
  15. Nothing. And thats to our shame IMO. If you are attacked and the only way you can see to defend yourself is to harm the attacker what will you do? It's not a particularly complicated question in my mind but YMMV. As for your last post you seem to be saying torture is an old joke but I somehow doubt that is the case.
  16. How they treat their own, their neighbors and the rest of the world. As our cultural views evolve even how they treat the environment. Obviously you understand it's not always simple but that doesn't mean it's particularly difficult either. No. Just for clarity I am a lifelong U.S. citizen. Very proud of my nation is some ways and ashamed of it in others both historically and currently. Dropping the one on Hiroshima maybe just maybe for the time was moral. Fair chance I would have never met my mom's dad if it hadn't been dropped. Dropping the one on Nagasaki was decidedly immoral. No. But they are (in my eyes) justified in killing enough to repel the attackers. I would have to look at specific cases to respond to that. We have seen many times "freedom fighters" turn into ruthless dictators after the coup. On their overall actions and on a case by case situation. For example even though we went to Kuwait for all the wrong reasons I still supported the action and considered it moral. I don't have a problem with us being the world police although I often have a problem with how we execute. I don't actually understand where you are going with "if we remove the morality of actions away from the individual," so sorry if that didn't answer your question. Not particularly and we do. Just answer Raider's questions please in the spirit they were asked. And I have no intention of clicking on your link to find out what you are on about. You can explain yourself or not.
  17. No I mean will you counterattack if you think that gives you best chance of not dying. For me immoral and evil just mean to do wrong to your fellow human beings for no just cause. In my scenario above you would IMO have just cause. A sovereign country defending its borders would also have just cause. Hence they would still be morally right in my eyes. No war is not synonymous with evil or immoral.
  18. Wikipedia has her listed as a "social commentator". Whatever that is. I guess I just think of her as a comic because the few times I've listened to her speak I couldn't take her seriously. FWIW I didn't find it all that humorous either. Perhaps I shouldn't have commented at all because its been years since I gave Bill or Ann any of my time. Ok maybe your right. I withdraw my claim that BM is a political hack. But I still think that AC and BM say many things just for shock value and I think its a shame when people shape their political values around these kinds of things.
  19. Yep my brother in law told me a couple years ago. It is a useful feature. My 2005 Chevy Colorado has one.
  20. So it is immoral to overthrow an evil regime? Will you attempt do defend yourself if attacked? If your answers are yes and no we just disagree.
  21. Thanks for the answers Strange. I gain new insights in the strangest of threads. But isn't this still up in the air? I suspect that time isn't quantitized but I was under the impression that the scientific consensus at the moment is we just don't know. BTW the third quote in your response isn't mine. I don't have the prerequisites to be making assertions on this subject.
  22. Not really. They are both hacks for their perspective "sides". Or more to the point they are comedians saying whatever they think "sells" at the moment. I think it would be a mistake to let your political views to be shaped by a comedian. Any comedian.
  23. But can we say all war is the result of an immoral action? I think yes we can. This does not mean all parties are behaving immorally.
  24. Alright I couldn't get it down to two lines. But I think this is Argo's hypothesis. That's as short as I could as I could make it. So my questions are directed not only towards Argo but all the thread participants. 1. Would it be better to say space-time overlays the other 3 spatial dimensions? 2. Assuming Argo's hypothesis is correct would it really change anything? Argo Could you please provide a peer reviewed paper claiming that "time flows" or drop your claim that the scientific community maintains that it does? Or better yet focus on supporting your idea!
×
×
  • 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.