zapatos

4 hours ago, Paulsrocket said:

Black holes contain mass and energy, the Earth is in orbit around one as is our Sun

"One" what? A black hole?

16 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Their 'naughty step' can be denial of cell phone privileges for some specified period. They will be fitted with an ankle-worn phone jammer,, so that nobody's phone can work them within 10m of them. They'll  be a social pariah jamming peoples phones.  No phone is a state of death for a millennial and younger.

🤣

9 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said:

Universal enigma

Sorry I missed it, but what is the "Universal enigma" you are talking about?

3 hours ago, WhatsThat said:

It does seem to follow a sense of involvement in community.

In wealthier and more educated areas, there is less litter. In fact, a stray can will be removed from the street quickly in a more affluent area. In poorer and less educated communities, litter is rife. A stray can will rust and decay before anyone lifts it from the ground.

Maybe if normal people could adopt patches of areas instead of big corporations? If somehow average people could feel an attachment and investment in their own little space? I bet there would be a host of creative and beautiful settings if we could somehow get everyone to see Nature as part of a whole. After all, birds and trees and grass don't care how much someone makes......

I get so tired of people who blame the poor for their lot in life. If only they went to  college and earned more money they would be the better kind of person who quickly picks up trash, instead of letting it rust on the ground along with every other single person in the neighborhood, none of whom give a shit.

2 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Why don't scientists just accept creation? And accept existence of God, because the science doesn't have proper instruments to prove. Too many questions, too many white spots. And people think, you know, people have capacity to think.

You've been holding that in for so long it must be a tremendous release to finally say it out loud! Feel better now that you've quit pretending you are actually interested in what the science says?

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

This is where our heart lives.

No, your heart is in your chest.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I do not know if there is an "end game", but there is at least an immediate purpose.  In many cases, its' about finding food to stay alive, and this is best done with a bit of intelligence on your side, because doing it only by trial and error is costly in the survival game. 

 

So you don't agree with your opening post?!?!

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Well, I am scratching my head. Where those new evolved homo sapiens????

 

Seems like you are scratching something else. What new evolved homo sapiens are you talking about?

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Doesn't offspring=intelligence?

No. Check your dictionary for the meaning of those words.

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

I see. Life emerged by it's own.

Yes.

5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

there is only one kind of evolution; guided evolution;

How do you suppose slime molds came up with an "end goal". And what is its end goal? Does evolution simply stop once the end goal is met? What evidence do you have?

52 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations

heritable /ˈhɛrɪtəbl/ adjective      (of a characteristic) transmissible from parent to offspring.

So. Who is the "parent" of intelligence?

Well, based on your first two lines, there is no "parent" of intelligence. There is a parent of an offspring who inherited the intelligence.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

No. It’s largely a relic term absent in peer reviewed literature and used only to discuss topics with lay people and bait clicks. 

Is there a replacement term, or is the 'subconscious' no longer considered a valid concept?

19 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Does science operate with such term as sub_conscious?

Psychology does. Not sure that would be considered "science".

47 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

I understand that, you, like most others unfamiliar with ballot access requirements, feel that this is a way bigger deal than the many times similar ballot denial cases have been brought up.

So you are saying I would not think this is a big deal if only I better knew ballot access requirements. I would counter that you are ignoring the candidate that this issue is about.

Similarly a little old lady with advanced cancer would not be as big a deal as advanced cancer in a person who has the potential in the future to impact the lives of hundreds of millions of people. Context matters. Again, it is a bit shocking that you cannot see that.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I’m saying AFAICT they won’t decide an issue of fact, that TFG did or did not engage in an insurrection, that a lower court decided. As I stated.

 

So if while reviewing the Colorado SC decision in the ballot case, the US Supreme Court rules that the 14th Amendment is not relevant to the particular set of facts regarding Trump's actions, and that the Colorado SC made a mistake, isn't that deciding an issue of fact? That Trump DID NOT engage in an insurrection as described in the Constitution?

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

“Although the Supreme Court may hear an appeal on any question of law provided it has jurisdiction, it usually does not hold trials. Instead, the Court’s task is to interpret the meaning of a law, to decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to rule on how a law should be applied”

 

You seem to be saying that "holding a trial" is the same as "adjudicate". I don't think that is correct, per my previous link to Wikipedia:

Quote

Adjudication may be defined as "the legal process of resolving a dispute. The formal giving or pronouncing of a judgment or decree in a court proceeding; also the judgment or decision given. 

SCOTUS does indeed resolve disputes and give formal judgements in court proceedings.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

AFAICT (IANAL) they will not adjudicate whether or not TFG engaged in an insurrection. They are not trial judges. 

 

Perhaps I don't understand the term well. This from Wikipedia makes it sound like SCOTUS adjudicates. That is, they will make a formal judgement about whether or not he violated the 14h Amendment.

Quote

Adjudication may be defined as "the legal process of resolving a dispute. The formal giving or pronouncing of a judgment or decree in a court proceeding; also the judgment or decision given. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjudication

On a side note, I thought the Supreme Court acted as trial judges when litigation begins at the Supreme Court level.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

People have been denied public office without having been convicted of engaging in an insurrection.

Yes, I didn't say they had to be convicted of an insurrection. I said in the case of being too young or not a natural born citizen, there had to be some legally recognized documentation (or lack thereof) to support denying someone public office. A birth certificate indicating the candidate is too young for example.

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Alleged?

Yes, until SCOTUS adjudicates one way or the other. Until then it is simply opinion by people who don't have the final say.

If you are declaring someone is under 35 or not a natural born citizen, presumably it is because of the existence of legally recognized documentation. If you have no such documentation, it is "alleged".

9 hours ago, npts2020 said:

How big of a deal was made of and how much press has ANY of the previous attempts at removing names from ballots received? AFAIK cancer has always been a big deal.

Trump is the leading Republican candidate for President and an ex-president himself. His name is being removed for (alleged) violation of the Constitution regarding insurrection. He has 90 something criminal charges outstanding. He is trying to win the presidency in part to shut down cases that may send him to jail. This is unprecedented. Even my young grandkids realize this is a big deal.

30 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

The whole point is that Donald Trump is FAR from the first person this has happened to.

So why does that make it "not a big deal"?

Lots of things are a big deal even if they've happened to a lot of people already. Cancer for example.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

It is harder to win elections when you are not on the ballot. If your goal is to win elections, or to help a person win elections, then getting kicked off is a big deal.

How did you get that ⬇️ from this ⬆️?

55 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

I see, so third parties aren't trying to win elections?

9 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

I don't see why being kicked off the ballot should be such a big deal.

It is harder to win elections when you are not on the ballot. If your goal is to win elections, or to help a person win elections, then getting kicked off is a big deal.

2 hours ago, joigus said:

The Bongo Song

Author: Safri Duo

Drum cover: El Estepario Siberiano

Last 1.5 min are promotional material

Wow!! That was awesome!! 😃

9 hours ago, Sensei said:

These volunteers are seeking contact with politician-to-be.. if he or she succeeds, they hope to be remembered, when it comes to the ministerial table layout and in hope to get lucrative job, worth to have in their CV..

 

No, they are typically retirees looking for something that lets them stay engaged in a meaningful way. The next week they'll be volunteering at the local St. Vincent DePaul Society food bank.

1 hour ago, Genady said:

The reply was:

It does not actually answer the question, "how fast". To answer this question, one needs to take the derivative, (11−t)′=t(1−t)2 .

This grows infinitely when t→1 .

Thus, the answer to the question "how fast is 'fast enough'?" is, "infinitely fast".

Thanks!

2 hours ago, William.Walker39 said:

Here is a very simple logical proof that I have just come up with that proves conclusively Relativity is just an optical illusion. It shows that Relativity has a built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical falicy can be correct no matter how many experiments claim to prove it.

 

In other words, "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

On 12/18/2023 at 11:25 AM, Boltzmannbrain said:

Yes, if it expands fast enough.

Precisely how fast is 'fast enough'?

8 hours ago, mar_mar said:

I assume, you mean some connection there, but, definitely, it is well hidden.

 

It is obvious unless you are purposely obtuse. You don't seem to be able to handle the level of discussion around here.