altaylar2000

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Isn't your life more valuable than a stranger?

Depends on who is the stranger.

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Do you also get to decide who is and is not evil?

Yes

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Have you ever taken antibiotics? 

Yes

Parasites do not belong to the innocent, on the contrary, they must be killed

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Define "villains'"...

Who does evil. Predator, aferist, parasite and so on
Maybe the translator is cheating on me, I mean "evil doer" is it correct translate?

May be the word "evildoer" more correct for this case?

3 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I simply gave you a possible experiment to try to text your idea.  It is a simple experiment, why not try it?

I've tried this. Chain weapon strike is always stronger with the same trajectory

I think this is due to the difference in centrifugal force.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

As someone who has both delivered and received such strikes, I can promise you this is also untrue

In karate and taekwondo, this may be imperceptible due to the fact that they do not deal with blows but with effects and a set of points, but any boxer or thai boxer will confirm this.

1 minute ago, Bufofrog said:

Yes, it is about property because ethically a human life is much more important than a freaking chicken.  

Not in my ethics. I'll trade billions of villains' lives for one chicken

2 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

This is not convincing. Not the fact that straight-line movement cannot reach the same speed

I agree that the potential for speed there is greater due to the increased trajectory, but this does not prove that this is a general case

7 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Try throwing a ball with the 2 motions you describe and see which one send the ball farther.

according to your logic, if we take a stick equal in length to the nunchaku, then it will be equal in length to the nunchaku strike, but its strike will be weaker in reality

9 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I don't think this is a modern belief, its been around for quite a while.  Do you think if someone hits a chicken with there car they should be prosecuted for vehicular homicide?

This is manslaughter.
For this, by the way, and so in some places they can attract, but this does not apply to ethics, for damage to property

3 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Higher velocity.

This is not convincing. Not the fact that straight-line movement cannot reach the same speed

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Establish that it’s true, first. 

I did

Yes, question is "why"

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

was not wrong

I prefer experiential science, a positivist approach, rather than a scholastic approach.
The facts are given, and let if someone does not agree, reason in the context of the facts
If someone have another experience let's talk about

3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Can you provide a reference or enough context for a fruitful discussion to take place?

ok, I found it especially for you. Although what has been written is enough

page 9

https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1008/1008.1459v8.pdf

Carl Hewitt, in one of his papers, proved that the Turing Machine is incapable of full-fledged non-deterministic computation. I am too lazy now to look for this paper, I will retell this proof.

Suppose we need to get a random number.
The algorithm for a Turing machine will be as follows:

add 1
go to step 1 or 3 non-deterministically
stop

It may never stop.

For actors, the algorithm is as follows:

Send to yourself 2 messages "stop" and "+1"

The computation is guaranteed to stop.

What do you think about Carl Hewitt's model and about how far modern OOP from it's roots now

1 minute ago, studiot said:

When you are ready to learn some Physics we will explain it to you.

I will not need your(personnally)explanations even if I will be ready to become a Nobel laureate in physics

Is there the button "ignor" here?

Yes, I quickly found it. There is a wonderful interface, very user-friendly

Just now, studiot said:

he was certainly not stupid.

Of course, because his ideas in the progressive 19th century were not thrown into the dustbin of history, unlike Newtonian scholasticism

2 hours ago, Ericchiriboga said:

Humans have an intuitive idea of what nothingness means, so it makes sense it would show up in philosophies and explanations. And I think you're equating a lot of different kinds of "nothings." "Nothing" in the atomic sense is much different than "nothing" in a Buddhist sense. It feels like you're trying to cram a lot of differently shaped pegs into one single hole.

This "intuitive idea" arises from the erroneous everyday view of things, such as "an empty glass".
The main difference, despite all the particulars of the interpretation of emptiness, is whether philosophers recognize the existence of emptiness or not, and not how each individual school interprets it.

_________

Newton was a Christian preacher. Early Christianity was in many ways identical to Buddhism, they talked about samsara and about tolerance. The Christian cult of foolishness and monasticism is not much different from Buddhist and Jain ideas

6 hours ago, Ericchiriboga said:

Like it or not, countries generally have a fair amount of autonomy to terrorize their own people. The rest of the world is reluctant to get involved, for fear of creating a larger global conflict. It's only when countries start terrorizing people from other countries that swift action is taken. Otherwise, it's mostly trade embargoes and the like. 

Economically it is a circus measure. It is clear from the economy that China is completely subordinate to the United States; it is the main sponsor of the American government. If China was not a US colony, it would have invested in his own economy

On 4/1/2021 at 9:59 PM, Ericchiriboga said:

I thought it was a fairly commonly held belief that HIIT leads to faster weight loss results. I think it's just boils down to the fact that it's more demanding on your body. Sure, it makes your body dip into fermentation, but it taps out the oxygen first.

it generally requires much less oxygen than aerobic sports

aerobics lasts 1-2 hours, or even more(breathing is required, not hipoxia, but still intensive), while high-intensity sets maximum 10-20 minutes in total, not counting rest

_____________

What if we assume that this is due to the death of mitochondria (and there is such information that mitochondria die from increased blood acidification). Mitochondria stop turning on signaling pathways for fat storage, and less fat is stored.

Wrong, but this is the fault of society and the government, not of those who doing it

I think that in Abrahamic morality, the blame for the suicide on the victim arose because the reduction in the number of slaves was not beneficial to the "elites"

Lying never generates good, except in cases of self-defense. Lies are a tool of predators, villains and cheaters in order to use the deceived victim for their dirty needs.

In ancient times, people ascended to the heights of military skill and shed tons of blood to defeat a liar

but evil still won

If we had a clear ethical boundary: not to destroy the life of another creature that feels, for food, this would be out of the question.
But here, in modern ethics, everything is based on the ephemeral assumption that human life is more valuable than the life of an animal. It is a stone's throw from such a postulate to cannibalism, if it is recognized that the lives of some people are more valuable than the lives of others.
Moreover, the statement about the a priori higher value of a person's life is not substantiated by anything. On the contrary, from the point of view of traditional morality, man is mired in sin, and animals are cleaner, at least herbivores

This principle has not yet been officially recognized, but in fact that it is already being implemented, in particular, there is information that there is a semi-legal sale of organs in Uyghur concentration camps.
It's not exactly the same, but it's from the same category.

Moreover, a human consumes meat not even out of necessity, but only for pleasure, since it is possible to provide complete protein nutrition on the basis of dairy products and eggs.

In fact, oxygen is the main destroyer of life. Oxygen leads to aging and cancer in humans, it destroys cells, it leads to decay in the plant kingdom, it is a toxic substance, and a decrease in its concentration in the mountains has a beneficial effect on life expectancy and on athletic performance.
In eukaryotes, the native mode of energy consumption is fermentation, not oxidation. Oxidation is only native to bacteria, and humans do not consume oxygen themselves, they feed them to mitochondria, a type of bacteria in cells.

By the way, I am not good at chemistry, but I think it would be reasonable to ask whether the effect of oxygen is reduced to the leaching of carbon from biomass, given that we inhale oxygen and exhale its bunch with carbon.
This is very significant against the background of the fact that carbon is the basis of life and organics.

In fact, gravity an anti-scientific hypothesis, since action at a distance is rejected by true science

There is still evidence of the falsity of gravity, it seems this antithesis was put forward by Galileo. If there was gravity, then 2 objects of different gravity, connected between them, would fall more slowly, because a lighter object would slow down a heavier one. Consequently, an increase in mass both accelerates and slows the fall. This is contradiction.

On 4/1/2021 at 7:49 PM, John Cuthber said:

OK, imagine I get some sort of electrical generator- perhaps a Wilmshurst machine, and I put it on an insulating slab like a thick sheet of polythene or something.

And I set it running (let's say it has a battery drive motor, and a remote control- so I can do that without anything being connected to Earth). such that it charges the two spheres - one positive and the other negative with respect to eachother.

 

And then imagine that I bring an earthed wire near to one of the spheres.

 

What do you think will happen?

Typically a comb and hair is used for this example.
If the discharge is with the ground, does this mean that it will not be with other objects?

On 4/1/2021 at 7:49 PM, John Cuthber said:

Not very, and not for long. It is generally quite conductive.

a lot and a little is relative

always

On 4/1/2021 at 7:49 PM, John Cuthber said:

It doesn't need to be.

Usually it is in real systems

Not sure, but it's probably sweeping under the rug the question of energy transfer with radiation, I think termodinamics always do it, by this reason there are always very very confusing explanations

Practice shows that circular movements always give a more powerful blow. For example, a mangual(the type weapons such as a load on a chain, this word seems absent in eng? How it correctly?)  beats more powerful than a hammer. In martial arts, circular strikes are always more powerful than straight ones. There is a feeling that the centrifugal force gives additional energy to the impulse