swansont

It was being towed, and some time had passed, so probably not. But reports are that the Russians have moved their fleet away not closer than 80 nautical miles to Ukrainian territory. Presumably to prevent further "accidents"

Depends on whether we know you've investigated buying cars in the past, (and are likely to have done so recently) so that you are already familiar with the models.

I don't think that it's reasonable to expect anything to happen instantaneously, or nearly so. As Russia runs out of its stockpiled spare parts, things will get much worse. A war of attrition favored the Russians at the outset. But the asymmetric losses in the field and sanctions look to make that a non-viable strategy. The Kremlin no doubt will write this off as a routine oxidation evolution, and it is quite normal to evacuate the crew when this event is occurring.

Which is still off-topic for that discussion, since it didn’t center on black politicians

Amazon? Or elsewhere online with a simple search. 20 mW or 50 mW green lasers are easily obtained, and there are 1W handheld lasers out there

Whatever the potential danger is. That’s the function if the glasses - laser glasses are often OD5 or OD6 (optical density; the number indicates the number of orders of magnitude of attenuation)

A danger with NIR is that your body doesn’t detect it efficiently, so your pupils will not constrict in proportion to its brightness as it would for visible light. IR-blocking safety glasses would be prudent, but eyes shut should be fine.

ID is not falsifiable.

! Moderator Note We're not going to do this

When we ask for evidence, the implication is scientific evidence. That is, evidence that supports an hypothesis while excluding competing ones. Add to this the notion that science has to be, in principle, falsifiable. ID ticks off neither of these boxes. And it ignores the question of who designed the designer.

Shorter answer is: don't tell me what I find attractive or unattractive.

I think that there is a fairly wide spectrum of what people find attractive, and making general statements will always be weak to varying extents. The OP is wrong to insist that "red hair in men is regarded as unattractive" and by the same token "what men find attractive is the red hair" is also wrong. Both statements apply, at best, so some subset of the target audience. That subset might be large, and it might be small. As such, the statements are not particularly useful.

I will note that in the supreme court discussion you brought up the notion of some people being "race traitors". Which is not something that was under discussion at all in the thread. It's a dubious idea and you didn't do anything to support it with actual facts and data. It's off-topic for that thread, so it's a hijack, and unsupported, so contrary to the ideals of a science discussion site. It's something that adds to your reputation as one who engages in trolling. It's something that can easily be viewed as an attempt at provoking a contentious discussion. It certainly does not endear you to people who want to engage in discussion without such distractions. Just something to consider.

I think he might have been identified earlier if his material were more interesting, and garnered more attention. Perpetual motion claims are pretty boring, IMO. Anyway, nothing more to see here. We've captured the droids we were looking for. Move along...

I'm going to assume "quantum locking" is a pop-sci description of something with a more technical and probably accurate name. <pause to google> Ah, yes, flux pinning. How will something rotate (be omnidirectional) if system is "locked" into place? You can see here that it won't work in 3 dimensions

I'm sorry - are you claiming that facsimile has been expunged from the internet? Please clarify. If you did mean fascismile, then it hasn't been expunged; it's just a typo and would explain why you don't see it much as compared to the proper spelling

No. I provided a link that showed this was the case. You would have to be pretty naive to think that the VP during the Merrick Garland nomination, and someone who was previously chair of the senate judiciary committee for 8 years, was oblivious to the qualifications of numerous candidates for the job. So to be clear: I never claimed he stated this. Nor was I arguing about how he handled it. I was pointing out certain bad faith arguments made in opposition; ones that have been credulously repeated by others. Yes, I suppose you could say he could have handled it better, but IMO it would have made little difference, because the same people who voiced their objections would have just manufactured different ones, because this wasn't about the stated controversy, it was just about having some controversy to complain about. Because that's the M.O. of today's GOP. I don't think he dropped the ball. That's the spin of the GOP, and you, in making/parroting the bad-faith arguments. The person lacking the ability is not doing the discriminating. The discriminating is done by someone assessing the others' ability. And it happens all the time in the hiring process, and also in the appointment process. OK, let's put it this way: we require three years of experience in order to qualify for this position. Something like that is pretty much a boiler-plate statement for certain jobs. In this example, that experience is being homeless.

Some materials are polar - they have a charge distribution, even though they are neutral. There's no net effect if they are randomly oriented, but in a field, they tend to align. And most atoms will become dipoles (induced dipole) in the presence of an electric field. This charge distribution will affect the net electric field inside a material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_dipole_moment

JamesL has been banned as a sockpuppet of James.Lindgaard and jlindgaard

! Moderator Note So you've been banned before. Meaning this is a sockpuppet account, used to evade a ban, which violates the rules and calls for an immediate ban Irony here being that I might not have noticed this were is not for some bogus revisionist history and the mention of my user name in a thread where I had not been a participant.

He was campaigning. The people that are publicly upset about this seem to be strongly in the camp of "didn't vote for Biden" and as we saw in the confirmation hearings, qualifications were not the issue. The hand-wringing was manufactured. All theater. If they had substantive objections, they didn't seem to make an appearance in the hearings. A few senators even admitted she is well-qualified, but they were voting against her anyway.

Dipoles in the material will align with the electric field

The narrative is designed to make it look bad, but the narrative ignores certain facts. Biden promised to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court. The narrative that he somehow excluded others from consideration is premised on the notion that he didn’t already have candidate(s) in mind, and wasn’t aware of the top potential picks. Which is silly, since we know it to be false. “I will nominate a black woman” followed by searching for one, and running the risk that you don’t have highly-qualified candidates so you pick one because you’ve backed yourself into a corner is what looks bad. But it’s fiction. KBJ was on the previous shortlist (and Biden possibly being aware of other well-qualified WoC) and then saying “I will nominate a black woman” changes the scenario quite a bit. It has the benefit of being true, and not straining credulity. In addition I would suggest that all of those presidents had a candidate or two on a list before making the associated announcement

As I pointed out earlier, this is not an accurate account of the situation, and the “bad optics” is a bad faith talking point from the right, from the “be outraged, make up a reason why” playbook.

Sensei has been suspended for engaging in personal attacks.