Jump to content

altaylar2000

Senior Members
  • Posts

    163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by altaylar2000

  1. You said that any language will suit you

     

    Quote
    Ученые отмечают, что бабуины отличаются умом и сообразительностью. Они давно поняли, какую угрозу для них представляют львы и леопарды, которые периодически нападают на обезьян и безжалостно их убивают. Оказывается, сами жертвы могут представлять угрозу для хищников. Ведь бабуины, стараясь защитить своих сородичей, воруют совсем юных львят. Они так поступают с одной целью – убить животное

    Источник: https://fishki.net/3286394-pochemu-babuiny-vorujut-lyvjat.html © Fishki.net
    Ученые отмечают, что бабуины отличаются умом и сообразительностью. Они давно поняли, какую угрозу для них представляют львы и леопарды, которые периодически нападают на обезьян и безжалостно их убивают. Оказывается, сами жертвы могут представлять угрозу для хищников. Ведь бабуины, стараясь защитить своих сородичей, воруют совсем юных львят. Они так поступают с одной целью – убить животное

    Источник: https://fishki.net/3286394-pochemu-babuiny-vorujut-lyvjat.html © Fishki.net

     

    https://fishki.net/3286394-pochemu-babuiny-vorujut-lyvjat.html

    1580800350-b018af28049eb7995e5d6c9093bb7

    11 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

    disagree, you keep making these assertions you cannot justify, these might be the least of them but their ease of checking them calls all the rest of your baseless assertions into question. I am calling you out, please justify your assertions. 

    Is it enough?

  2. 1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

    I disagree, you keep making these assertions you cannot justify, these might be the least of them but their ease of checking them calls all the rest of your baseless assertions into question. I am calling you out, please justify your assertions. 

    what exactly? The fact that baboons kill lions but don't eat them? Even children know this, you should be ashamed

  3. 3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

    ou made a positive assertion, you are required to back this up or admit you have made an assertion that is not evidently true... Time to reread the rules dude.

    This is only for fundamental questions on the topic, but this is generally offtopic

  4. 3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

    Again, if it's chimps then a quick google search should turn up the link to the info as well as the baboon. I simply do not believe you, please provide proof. 

    this is not a fundamental question for this topic, I will not look for anything
    The pig eats meat, so what if the monkey eats it or not? By the way, it is also very close to humans, inside the human even closer to pigs  then to primates

  5. Just now, Moontanman said:

    Ok, which species of monkey kills lions but does not eat them? 

    It was about chimpanzees, but besides, I know that baboons constantly kill them, it seems they don't eat them either.

    You can search for it in a search engine, I think it's not hard to find

  6. Just now, Moontanman said:

    I'd like to see some confirmation on that assertion. 

    I read it in another language, and for a long time ago, you may not believe me, it makes no difference to me.
    They klled lions because they enimes for them, they clever enough to see danger and prevent it

    In general, all these nonsense about the predation of herbivorous delusions, because they are anatomically and physiologically arranged differently

    And it's not matter at all

  7. 5 minutes ago, Eise said:

    Janus is right, it was an argument from Galileo against the Aristotelian view on falling objects. In Aristotelian physics, an object twice as heavy as another, falls twice as fast. Galileo's argument works against that viewpoint, but not against Newton's, in which all objects fall with the same velocity (or better acceleration), independent on their mass, and therefore independent on their weight in the same gravitation field. So you are physically and historically wrong.

    Just to add, Galileo is the first person known, that all objects fall the same way, independent of their mass.

    Yes, maybe I was wrong about Galileo.
    The claim that objects fall at the same speed is absurd.
    From the point of view of Aristotle, this is generally impossible, because he has no emptiness. He's got a heavy substance with a light one always just swaps places

    Accordingly, the body always has some kind of resistance.

  8. 4 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Or possibly this is not the case, if we consider the folly of imposing human morality standards on non-human species.

    the cannibals also reasoned about the victims like that

     

    6 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Why?

    because it killer of innocent

    1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

    How do you know? 

    This well known, you need at least nerves to feel

  9. 11 minutes ago, Janus said:

    That was the argument put forth by Galileo against the Aristotelian model of gravity that posited that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones.   It was not meant an argument against gravity itself,  but against that particular model. He wasn't saying that gravity didn't exist, but that it didn't behave like Aristotle said it did.  The model for gravity that replaced the old one didn't suffer from this feature.

    As far as I remember, Aristotle did not say anything like that, he said that the heavy goes to the center, and the light materia goes from the center of the rectilinear movement

    Aristotle had no concept of gravity at all

  10. 15 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

    Are you referring to statically typed object oriented languages such as C++ and ADA vs dynamically typed languages? How has OOP become "more static"?

    Not necessarily, although that too. For example, usually dynamic binding is limited, they prefer to implement inheritance by copying rather than delegation

  11. 4 minutes ago, Sensei said:

    Countries are importing goods from 3rd party countries and exporting their goods instead. To import stuff you need to have worldwide accepted currency. Nobody is paying any tribute other party. Without export China could not import what they want from world. Search net "what China imports from world".

    e. g. 

    https://www.statista.com/topics/1471/imports-to-china/#dossierSummary

    They imported rice for 157 mln USD in February 2020.

    If they import such basic thing like rice, it means without it, somebody living in China, would be hungry..

    These are just explanations "for the people".

    The same Chinese could sell goods in their own currency, because everything changes freely, and they need the yuan inside, but then the United States cannot print money, but instead there will be an internal production for dollar support

  12. Just now, iNow said:

    What does this have to do with US response to humanitarian crises in China and elsewhere? 

    China pays the United States, so the United States has leverage, there are many of their puppets, otherwise they would not pay

    Just now, dimreepr said:

    Do you understand anything?

    What did you want to ask? Do I understand the mechanism for paying tribute through currency board?

    So if the United States can force 2 billion Chinese to work through its protégés for a beggarly salary, then why can't it force an end to the genocide of the Uyghurs?

×
×
  • 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.