... the Indian equivalent to the U.S.'s GPS system are failing thus preventing their system from becoming functional. This will probably seriously further delay their system.
I believe that the system was limited (not for global use) to begin with, it was only meant to provide coverage for their part of the world (South Asia). Unfortunately this does not look good in comparison to the U.S.... systems. I have heard that the European system has also had problems...
I jest, but there's a grain of truth there too. I've noticed that of my friends, those who have had children do actually look older than those without (women especially - please don't shoot the messenger for what's essentially an anecdotal observation). I swear the little buggers literally age you! At least they'll be there to look after you in your early onset infirmity though.;-)
That being said, we all look older, and the sample set of "my long term friends" is probably far too small to eliminate any bias due to good / bad genes or environment.
I'd sit alone and watch your light My only friend through teenage nights And everything I had to know I heard it on my radio
You gave them all those old time stars Through wars of worlds invaded by Mars You made 'em laugh, you made 'em cry You made us feel like we could fly. Radio.
So don't become some background noise A backdrop for the girls and boys Who just don't know or just don't care And just complain when you're not there
You had your time, you had the power You've yet to have your finest hour Radio, Radio.
Definitely not my copyright! Radio Gaga, by Queen, off the album "The Works"
then when you hear "Free money for everyone" you have to think there is something wrong.
It has become my experience that people seem to hear what they want to hear, rather then what's been said.
That being said, when you hear social responsibility and think "fuck you, I've got mine, why should I support all those losers" there is something very wrong indeed!
If I'm a lineman busting my ass day in and day out risking my life and limb for your electricity to stay on, and I have the opportunity to work for $60k, but you're making 58k sitting on your ass collecting UBI, guess what I won't be doing for much longer
If someone is making 58k on UBI and you're making 60k as a lineman then, guess what, their take home is 58k and yours is 118k. Why ignore the fact that the U in UBI stands for universal?
If I make $50k and a loaf of bread costs $2 before the automation / AI schism, but I make $100k and a loaf of bread costs $4 after, nothing's changed, except the number on my income tax return looks more impressive.
One possible answer to this 'problem' is that there's only so much bread you can eat. If you spent, and still spend, 40% of your salary on bread (as a synonym for food) previously you had $30k left over whereas now you have 60k left to spend.
Oh wait, your argument is that everything will inflate. An 'interesting' hypothesis, albeit not one grounded in reality. Quite apart from the fact that introduction of UBI wouldn't double overall income / wages you're also completely ignoring the changes that are the reason for its suggested introduction in the first place. Now, while it is true that real wages in many western economies aren't keeping up with inflation, and haven't been for a while, a large part of the reason for this is what I think of as international rebalancing. If you take a look outside your relatively pampered life and get a bit of global socio-historical perspective you might start to see why it's happening, why it's necessary, and why it's 'right'.
If it costs $5 / $6 / $7 then I've lost out on buying power, and if that trend continues, it won't be long before I'm waiting in the bread line, burning $100 bills to stay warm; right along side the other 'millionaires'.
Sigh. And yet more FUD.
T-Shirt robots and other productive things won't be HERE, contributing to the GDP, paying into our tax base. They'll be in China and other countries where existing production lines are, because the supply chains are there to support it, because we friggin gutted ours. The engineering and design jobs may be here, for a little while. Until those are also taken to China, to be closer to the actual production.
From TFS: "Tianyuan Garments has invested $20 million in a 100,000-square foot factory in Little Rock, Arkansas, planned to open in 2018". Sure, in comparison to recent figures relating to investment in factory production in the US, $20 million is small beans but we are talking $5 T-Shirts here, not $500 phones.
I'd sat the author is basically right. While it is the 'big ideas' that inspire us, make us dare to dream, it's the 'little things' that conspire to change the world we live in while our attention is focused elsewhere.
While practically everyone posting so far has fixated on the Blade Runner part of his article (sci fi is... , film noir... , technological regression... , etc) in doing so you're essentially ignoring his point. It's not the big new things that change the world, it's a combination of little old things, things we no longer consider 'important' or earth shattering that, because of synergies (please excuse the buzzwords), suddenly come into their own, with unforeseen and potentially shocking consequences - well shocking in the sense of a radical social upheaval or, at least, a change in the social order.
Of course with eagle eye hindsight it's easy to see how all those threads have come together to create our existing social fabric, it's another thing entirely to predict the next big little thing.
My money (if I had any) is on floating farms, and a second wind for the gm 'revolution' alongside the already transitioning energy supply and nature of transportation. Oh, and more robotics - no great insight there - but to a certain degree that ship has already sailed. I can't imagine modern day manufacturing without robots, so I'm not sure how much influence 'more' is really going to have. Then again, if I had any gift at prognostication I'd probably have money, so you should take anything I say about the future with a large pinch of salt.;-)
False.... your vacation can very well be funded... by someone else.
Wouldn't that still potentially count as taxable though?
Certainly in the UK there's a limit on the size of gifts you can receive before they count as taxable. There are exceptions and riders, of course, but they only apply in very limited situations. Were a random someone to give me £10,000, for example, I would be liable to pay tax on it as though it were income.
If income tax is fair for people, it's even fairer for corporations, which don't have any natural right to exist.
I had started writing a reply to a post above
someone please explain to me why making "innovation" a tax-deductible is a good idea?
essentially describing the system as it currently exists, the difference between Net Profit and Gross Profit, economies of scale, how innovation a la research and development fits into the picture, and so on. Then I realised, just because that's the way it is doesn't mean it's the only way, or the best way, and I canceled out of it. Then I saw your post, and the line I quoted.
Honestly, I am no longer sure what I think.
In a sense you're right, but in a sense all you're doing is adding another layer of taxation - i.e. paying salaries that will be taxed with money left over from business revenues that have already been taxed (possibly generated selling goods made using raw materials that were taxed in various ways). In addition a tax on revenues as opposed to a tax on profits would vastly increase any financial uncertainties which would, in all likelihood increase the number of bankruptcies. The flip side, however, as we all know, is that under the current system companies try to 'game' their profits so as to pay as little tax as possible, which would clearly not be possible with a revenue tax.
Of course you are absolutely right that a business has no natural right to exist but, whilst (most people agree that) all people are born equal, companies are not equal, they have different requirements, economies of scale, break-even points, and so on. How might one even start to determine the (lower) tax threshold for different companies in different industrial sectors? And, even within the same sector I can see issues - an independent corner shop is a vastly different beast to an international supermarket with hundreds of stores. For companies that require vast capital investments to even produce a single item (think chip fabs as a classic example) the difficulties multiply.
Sometimes the simplest sounding ideas turn out to be the most complicated to fully define, let alone implement...
I'd suggest you take a look at this university's page before you make such categorically incorrect statements.
Just a sample quote: "In recent years, we have set up a group to explore the modes of action of psychedelic drugs on brain activity and connectivity and have performed some of the first human neuroscience studies ever with LSD and psilocybin."
I recently read an article based on an interview with one of their heads of research in which they also mentioned trials involving MDMA, and DMT, in addition to the two in the quote above.
But it was all lies. You don't have to hate Trump to see that.
I'm not sure if your problem is an inability to read, issues with comprehension, or just willful blindness based on political ideology. Regardless, I did not say or suggest the former, and the latter is patently false. I will not bother debating the issue with you further however as I don't see anything to be gained by doing so.
The lie about predators slipping in a dress and raping girls in the woman's room doesn't hold any water.
I never said it did, in fact I said I couldn't care less about shared restrooms. You're the one who seems to have a bee in your bonnet about the whole thing. The rest of your 'argument' is, based on my stated point of view, irrelevant, and seems to be far more illiberal than my live-and-let-live position if you ask me.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on your nomenclature however, unless you're going to insist that yours in the one the only true way, and anyone else thinking differently, saying differently is somehow infringing on your rights, or, because of the offence 'caused', should be silenced. In which case, well, I'll agree to disagree and you can take your intolerance and shove it somewhere the sun don't shine...
I'm going to guess my maths was right then, as no-one has since posted a correction.
My point was that death was not the likely result of such acceleration.
Having said that I still feel that you're exaggerating a little bit too:
Without a belt, you'll be squashed into the seat in front of you
Well, if done with no warning, absolutely. But, since most people can quite easily manage one push-up, you could simply put your arms out to hold yourself in your seat. Certainly not 'squashed', per se.
I tried braking at about that deceleration once (emergency stop in a high-performance sportscar).
For (slightly topical) comparison a Tesla model X P100D does 0-100 kph in 3 seconds. That's an acceleration of roughly 10 m/s^2, which is close enough to the number I arrived at in the previous post to make no real difference. While I'm sure we'd feel that accelerating, you're right, we'd feel it a lot more if we were decelerating at the same rate. Interestingly I arrived at a stopping distance of about 40 m from that speed, at that rate, which, while being roughly 2/3rds the recommended braking distance in the UK, is probably achievable in virtually any modern car.
All the loose shit in the cabin went flying. My passenger damn near ended up in the footwell.
And this is why seat belts are now a legal requirement in most countries. "Discomfort not death" the battle cry of the modern day road warrior...;-)
Completely off topic but, since you brought it up:
Here's a rather interesting take on the media portrayal of the Israeli / Palestinian situation.
TL:DR There are terrible things happening all over the world, some of them are seriously over-reported, some you could be excused for missing completely due to the fact the media (being edited for political reasons) 'ignores' them. Israel falls firmly into the first category, but probably isn't that 'important' in the overall scheme of 'history'.
The exit polls had hillary winning some of those. Historically, when the exit polls don't match the results, there was fraud.
Exit polls can be wrong, especially when there's 'guilt' associated with whatever the polls are asking about. Voting against a lifetime opinion, or simply going against the grain and not voting at all, would certainly qualify as something to feel guilty about for many people.
And it's hard to think Trump won anything. Most places have almost no public support for him now.
Then you're not thinking hard enough. The elections were not just about Dems vs Reps any more than the UK Brexit vote was just about the EU. You don't have to support Trump to not vote Clinton. You don't have to like Trump to see that some of what he was saying had merit.
And a pre-op transexual isn't a man in a dress.
Hmm, so what is he then? It's hard not to sound rude when asking this but, seriously, a pig in a dress is still a pig*.
*Don't get me wrong, what people choose to do or have done to themselves is their own business. I couldn't care less about shared restrooms (pretty sure they'll still have cubicles). I do care about bullshit. Every label we attach to someone 'different' is just a means of dividing us, and making us forget we're all human. I refuse to subscribe to that bullshit.
No. But neither can humans if they wish to remain humans.
Hmm, is there an error in my maths then? ignoring trivial rounding that is...
267 mph = 430 kph = 120 m/s
0.8 miles = 1.3 km
Assuming a constant acceleration, from rest, to peak speed, followed by constant deceleration, to standstill, pod will use half the track to reach peak speed.
i.e. distance to reach peak speed = 0.65 km = 650 m.
Using: v^2 = u^2 +2as gives: 'v' and 'u' are interchangeable, depending on whether we're accelerating or decelerating. 'a' will have the same magnitude in both cases...
120*120 = 0 + 2*a*650
=> a = 120*120/(2*650)
=> a = 11 m/s^2
Are you really trying to tell us that a human body can't accelerate at 11 m/s^2 without being 'smushed'? For reference acceleration due to gravity is roughly 9.8 m/s^2
Unless there's an error in my maths of course - it has been 30+ years since I studied these equations in school...
No. It was design to carry human passengers without killing them.
Hmm, is there an error in my maths then? ignoring trivial rounding that is...
267 mph = 430 kph = 120 m/s
0.8 miles = 1.3 km
Assuming a constant acceleration, from rest, to peak speed, followed by constant deceleration, to standstill, pod will use half the track to reach peak speed.
i.e. distance to reach peak speed = 0.65 km = 650 m.
Using: v^2 = u^2 +2as gives: 'v' and 'u' are interchangeable, depending on whether we're accelerating or decelerating. 'a' will have the same magnitude in both cases...
120*120 = 0 + 2*a*650
=> a = 120*120/(2*650)
=> a = 11 m/s^2
Are you really trying to tell us that a human body can't accelerate at 11 m/s^2? For reference acceleration due to gravity is roughly 9.8 m/s^2
Unless there's an error in my maths of course - it has been 30+ years since I studied these equations in school...
While I did only have time to skim a chunk of the website GP linked to, one clear difference between his EMRP theory and Le Sage's theory was the speed of the propagation of gravity (partly due to variation in 'c', if I read it right). So I'd hardly say his theory has been discredited, even if Le Sage's (and others') was... although I'm not convinced the author addressed the thermodynamic issues with Le Sage's theory - like I said, I only had time to skim it.
In essence it says there is a push everywhere, and that one atom/mass blocks another from this push, and this is what (somehow) attracts the two things together. Even intuitively this sounds bizarre/non-workable.
Well, it might sound bizarre and unworkable to you, but it does kind of make intuitive sense to me. Funny thing about intuition is we don't all intuit the same things. Besides, even 'regular' physics has the idea of a sea of virtual particles (with their anti-particle pair) continuously popping into existence and, in most cases, popping out again as they 'annihilate' each other. Vacuum energy? I'm not sure that the idea of a universal non-local EM radiation is any more bizarre than this.
Spring-And-Loop Theory also thinks gravity is a push, not a pull.
But there the similarities end. Perhaps the introduction is the best place to start.
There I shall start then.
And thanks for the input! I look forward to reading your papers.
I do intentionally write non-existing words like "unmotivatedly".
The other day I wrote the word "unprovable" in a post, and was puzzled at the red underlining. I checked elsewhere and apparently, while improvable was ok (though clearly meaning something completely different), "unprovable", up to that point, was not a word.
Well, it is now!
Moreover, like all the best new words its meaning is / was clear not just from the context in which it appeared but also by simply reading it.
Language is not some fixed unchanging thing, forever set in stone. There are over a million words in the English language, and someone had to 'invent' them. Might as well be you or I...
Some aspects of this new industry are commendable. Finding out what someone likes is a step towards showing them things that they want...
Indeed, that does, at first glance seem commendable. Who would argue against being shown things they want to see?
... and not showing them things they don't...
And thus choice, and more importantly open mindedness, died.
Now, before you argue "But you didn't want to see it anyway" ask yourself: who decided that?
And we're not just talking about 'stuff we'd like to buy' here, we're also talking about the news we see, general information about anything and everything, all pre-filtered before we get a chance to make up our minds based on just the facts. Worse, our viewpoint is no longer ours, we don't see all sides of any story, we see everything from a viewpoint these organisations 'think' we want to see it from. Unfortunately reinforcement is 'a thing'.
And then we find ourselves asking 'searching' questions like: is extremism on the rise?
You are. You receive free services on sites that offer social networks, search engines, and other value, in exchange for your participation.
The catch: you are the product that they sell.
In this however you are, in my opinion, absolutely correct. In and of itself I'm not sure this is a bad bargain either.
It's what various companies are doing with that information, the influences they are having on our lives, that's bad.
You're just noticing the Left more because the Right owns the media and is using it to push it's narrative. They're doing this so they can take more money from the working class for themselves. And that's sorta why I'm on the Left...
You must be watching different media coverage of the US to me, I think...
Slashdot Mirror
... the Indian equivalent to the U.S.'s GPS system are failing thus preventing their system from becoming functional. This will probably seriously further delay their system.
I believe that the system was limited (not for global use) to begin with, it was only meant to provide coverage for their part of the world (South Asia). Unfortunately this does not look good in comparison to the U.S. ... systems. I have heard that the European system has also had problems ...
I smell a conspiracy!!!
You look it too...
I jest, but there's a grain of truth there too. I've noticed that of my friends, those who have had children do actually look older than those without (women especially - please don't shoot the messenger for what's essentially an anecdotal observation). I swear the little buggers literally age you! At least they'll be there to look after you in your early onset infirmity though. ;-)
That being said, we all look older, and the sample set of "my long term friends" is probably far too small to eliminate any bias due to good / bad genes or environment.
And in response...
I'd sit alone and watch your light
My only friend through teenage nights
And everything I had to know
I heard it on my radio
You gave them all those old time stars
Through wars of worlds invaded by Mars
You made 'em laugh, you made 'em cry
You made us feel like we could fly.
Radio.
So don't become some background noise
A backdrop for the girls and boys
Who just don't know or just don't care
And just complain when you're not there
You had your time, you had the power
You've yet to have your finest hour
Radio, Radio.
Definitely not my copyright! Radio Gaga, by Queen, off the album "The Works"
then when you hear "Free money for everyone" you have to think there is something wrong.
It has become my experience that people seem to hear what they want to hear, rather then what's been said.
That being said, when you hear social responsibility and think "fuck you, I've got mine, why should I support all those losers" there is something very wrong indeed!
If I'm a lineman busting my ass day in and day out risking my life and limb for your electricity to stay on, and I have the opportunity to work for $60k, but you're making 58k sitting on your ass collecting UBI, guess what I won't be doing for much longer
If someone is making 58k on UBI and you're making 60k as a lineman then, guess what, their take home is 58k and yours is 118k. Why ignore the fact that the U in UBI stands for universal?
If I make $50k and a loaf of bread costs $2 before the automation / AI schism, but I make $100k and a loaf of bread costs $4 after, nothing's changed, except the number on my income tax return looks more impressive.
One possible answer to this 'problem' is that there's only so much bread you can eat. If you spent, and still spend, 40% of your salary on bread (as a synonym for food) previously you had $30k left over whereas now you have 60k left to spend.
Oh wait, your argument is that everything will inflate. An 'interesting' hypothesis, albeit not one grounded in reality. Quite apart from the fact that introduction of UBI wouldn't double overall income / wages you're also completely ignoring the changes that are the reason for its suggested introduction in the first place. Now, while it is true that real wages in many western economies aren't keeping up with inflation, and haven't been for a while, a large part of the reason for this is what I think of as international rebalancing. If you take a look outside your relatively pampered life and get a bit of global socio-historical perspective you might start to see why it's happening, why it's necessary, and why it's 'right'.
If it costs $5 / $6 / $7 then I've lost out on buying power, and if that trend continues, it won't be long before I'm waiting in the bread line, burning $100 bills to stay warm; right along side the other 'millionaires'.
Sigh. And yet more FUD.
T-Shirt robots and other productive things won't be HERE, contributing to the GDP, paying into our tax base. They'll be in China and other countries where existing production lines are, because the supply chains are there to support it, because we friggin gutted ours. The engineering and design jobs may be here, for a little while. Until those are also taken to China, to be closer to the actual production.
From TFS: "Tianyuan Garments has invested $20 million in a 100,000-square foot factory in Little Rock, Arkansas, planned to open in 2018". Sure, in comparison to recent figures relating to investment in factory production in the US, $20 million is small beans but we are talking $5 T-Shirts here, not $500 phones.
While I'm not a proponent of the free market, if anything quite the reverse - free market capitalism as it is currently being practiced particularly:
I find it funny that so many proponents of the free market are incapable of even acknowledging that there are serious flaws in the theory.
I'm not sure there are any flaws in the theory. It's simply that reality doesn't match the theory! ;-)
I hate the movie Blade Runner. There, I said it.
Which version?
US theatrical cut?
International cut?
Director's cut?
Final cut?
(Feel free to name any of the other versions you hated too) ;-)
I'd sat the author is basically right. While it is the 'big ideas' that inspire us, make us dare to dream, it's the 'little things' that conspire to change the world we live in while our attention is focused elsewhere.
While practically everyone posting so far has fixated on the Blade Runner part of his article (sci fi is... , film noir... , technological regression... , etc) in doing so you're essentially ignoring his point. It's not the big new things that change the world, it's a combination of little old things, things we no longer consider 'important' or earth shattering that, because of synergies (please excuse the buzzwords), suddenly come into their own, with unforeseen and potentially shocking consequences - well shocking in the sense of a radical social upheaval or, at least, a change in the social order.
Of course with eagle eye hindsight it's easy to see how all those threads have come together to create our existing social fabric, it's another thing entirely to predict the next big little thing.
My money (if I had any) is on floating farms, and a second wind for the gm 'revolution' alongside the already transitioning energy supply and nature of transportation. Oh, and more robotics - no great insight there - but to a certain degree that ship has already sailed. I can't imagine modern day manufacturing without robots, so I'm not sure how much influence 'more' is really going to have. Then again, if I had any gift at prognostication I'd probably have money, so you should take anything I say about the future with a large pinch of salt. ;-)
False.... your vacation can very well be funded ... by someone else.
Wouldn't that still potentially count as taxable though?
Certainly in the UK there's a limit on the size of gifts you can receive before they count as taxable. There are exceptions and riders, of course, but they only apply in very limited situations. Were a random someone to give me £10,000, for example, I would be liable to pay tax on it as though it were income.
If income tax is fair for people, it's even fairer for corporations, which don't have any natural right to exist.
I had started writing a reply to a post above
someone please explain to me why making "innovation" a tax-deductible is a good idea?
essentially describing the system as it currently exists, the difference between Net Profit and Gross Profit, economies of scale, how innovation a la research and development fits into the picture, and so on. Then I realised, just because that's the way it is doesn't mean it's the only way, or the best way, and I canceled out of it. Then I saw your post, and the line I quoted.
Honestly, I am no longer sure what I think.
In a sense you're right, but in a sense all you're doing is adding another layer of taxation - i.e. paying salaries that will be taxed with money left over from business revenues that have already been taxed (possibly generated selling goods made using raw materials that were taxed in various ways). In addition a tax on revenues as opposed to a tax on profits would vastly increase any financial uncertainties which would, in all likelihood increase the number of bankruptcies. The flip side, however, as we all know, is that under the current system companies try to 'game' their profits so as to pay as little tax as possible, which would clearly not be possible with a revenue tax.
Of course you are absolutely right that a business has no natural right to exist but, whilst (most people agree that) all people are born equal, companies are not equal, they have different requirements, economies of scale, break-even points, and so on. How might one even start to determine the (lower) tax threshold for different companies in different industrial sectors? And, even within the same sector I can see issues - an independent corner shop is a vastly different beast to an international supermarket with hundreds of stores. For companies that require vast capital investments to even produce a single item (think chip fabs as a classic example) the difficulties multiply.
Sometimes the simplest sounding ideas turn out to be the most complicated to fully define, let alone implement...
Even something simple as a banana can be a major problem
I think the problem here was misrepresentation of the regulation, not the regulation itself.
I'm not sure however what your actual point is in relation to GP or the topic in hand...
I'd suggest you take a look at this university's page before you make such categorically incorrect statements.
Just a sample quote: "In recent years, we have set up a group to explore the modes of action of psychedelic drugs on brain activity and connectivity and have performed some of the first human neuroscience studies ever with LSD and psilocybin."
I recently read an article based on an interview with one of their heads of research in which they also mentioned trials involving MDMA, and DMT, in addition to the two in the quote above.
I think you only start liking country if you do a lot of meth.
That's ok, we play both types of music here, Country and Western!
So everyone voting for Trump felt dirty after...
But it was all lies. You don't have to hate Trump to see that.
I'm not sure if your problem is an inability to read, issues with comprehension, or just willful blindness based on political ideology. Regardless, I did not say or suggest the former, and the latter is patently false. I will not bother debating the issue with you further however as I don't see anything to be gained by doing so.
The lie about predators slipping in a dress and raping girls in the woman's room doesn't hold any water.
I never said it did, in fact I said I couldn't care less about shared restrooms. You're the one who seems to have a bee in your bonnet about the whole thing. The rest of your 'argument' is, based on my stated point of view, irrelevant, and seems to be far more illiberal than my live-and-let-live position if you ask me.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on your nomenclature however, unless you're going to insist that yours in the one the only true way, and anyone else thinking differently, saying differently is somehow infringing on your rights, or, because of the offence 'caused', should be silenced. In which case, well, I'll agree to disagree and you can take your intolerance and shove it somewhere the sun don't shine...
I'm going to guess my maths was right then, as no-one has since posted a correction.
My point was that death was not the likely result of such acceleration.
Having said that I still feel that you're exaggerating a little bit too:
Without a belt, you'll be squashed into the seat in front of you
Well, if done with no warning, absolutely. But, since most people can quite easily manage one push-up, you could simply put your arms out to hold yourself in your seat. Certainly not 'squashed', per se.
I tried braking at about that deceleration once (emergency stop in a high-performance sportscar).
For (slightly topical) comparison a Tesla model X P100D does 0-100 kph in 3 seconds. That's an acceleration of roughly 10 m/s^2, which is close enough to the number I arrived at in the previous post to make no real difference. While I'm sure we'd feel that accelerating, you're right, we'd feel it a lot more if we were decelerating at the same rate. Interestingly I arrived at a stopping distance of about 40 m from that speed, at that rate, which, while being roughly 2/3rds the recommended braking distance in the UK, is probably achievable in virtually any modern car.
All the loose shit in the cabin went flying. My passenger damn near ended up in the footwell.
And this is why seat belts are now a legal requirement in most countries. "Discomfort not death" the battle cry of the modern day road warrior... ;-)
Completely off topic but, since you brought it up:
Here's a rather interesting take on the media portrayal of the Israeli / Palestinian situation.
TL:DR There are terrible things happening all over the world, some of them are seriously over-reported, some you could be excused for missing completely due to the fact the media (being edited for political reasons) 'ignores' them. Israel falls firmly into the first category, but probably isn't that 'important' in the overall scheme of 'history'.
The exit polls had hillary winning some of those. Historically, when the exit polls don't match the results, there was fraud.
Exit polls can be wrong, especially when there's 'guilt' associated with whatever the polls are asking about. Voting against a lifetime opinion, or simply going against the grain and not voting at all, would certainly qualify as something to feel guilty about for many people.
And it's hard to think Trump won anything. Most places have almost no public support for him now.
Then you're not thinking hard enough. The elections were not just about Dems vs Reps any more than the UK Brexit vote was just about the EU. You don't have to support Trump to not vote Clinton. You don't have to like Trump to see that some of what he was saying had merit.
And a pre-op transexual isn't a man in a dress.
Hmm, so what is he then? It's hard not to sound rude when asking this but, seriously, a pig in a dress is still a pig*.
*Don't get me wrong, what people choose to do or have done to themselves is their own business. I couldn't care less about shared restrooms (pretty sure they'll still have cubicles). I do care about bullshit. Every label we attach to someone 'different' is just a means of dividing us, and making us forget we're all human. I refuse to subscribe to that bullshit.
No. But neither can humans if they wish to remain humans.
Hmm, is there an error in my maths then?
ignoring trivial rounding that is...
267 mph = 430 kph = 120 m/s
0.8 miles = 1.3 km
Assuming a constant acceleration, from rest, to peak speed, followed by constant deceleration, to standstill, pod will use half the track to reach peak speed.
i.e. distance to reach peak speed = 0.65 km = 650 m.
Using: v^2 = u^2 +2as gives:
'v' and 'u' are interchangeable, depending on whether we're accelerating or decelerating. 'a' will have the same magnitude in both cases...
120*120 = 0 + 2*a*650
=> a = 120*120/(2*650)
=> a = 11 m/s^2
Are you really trying to tell us that a human body can't accelerate at 11 m/s^2 without being 'smushed'?
For reference acceleration due to gravity is roughly 9.8 m/s^2
Unless there's an error in my maths of course - it has been 30+ years since I studied these equations in school...
Can that maglev do 0-267-0 in 0.8 miles?
No. It was design to carry human passengers without killing them.
Hmm, is there an error in my maths then?
ignoring trivial rounding that is...
267 mph = 430 kph = 120 m/s
0.8 miles = 1.3 km
Assuming a constant acceleration, from rest, to peak speed, followed by constant deceleration, to standstill, pod will use half the track to reach peak speed.
i.e. distance to reach peak speed = 0.65 km = 650 m.
Using: v^2 = u^2 +2as gives:
'v' and 'u' are interchangeable, depending on whether we're accelerating or decelerating. 'a' will have the same magnitude in both cases...
120*120 = 0 + 2*a*650
=> a = 120*120/(2*650)
=> a = 11 m/s^2
Are you really trying to tell us that a human body can't accelerate at 11 m/s^2?
For reference acceleration due to gravity is roughly 9.8 m/s^2
Unless there's an error in my maths of course - it has been 30+ years since I studied these equations in school...
The theory GP linked to has been discredited.
While I did only have time to skim a chunk of the website GP linked to, one clear difference between his EMRP theory and Le Sage's theory was the speed of the propagation of gravity (partly due to variation in 'c', if I read it right). So I'd hardly say his theory has been discredited, even if Le Sage's (and others') was ... although I'm not convinced the author addressed the thermodynamic issues with Le Sage's theory - like I said, I only had time to skim it.
In essence it says there is a push everywhere, and that one atom/mass blocks another from this push, and this is what (somehow) attracts the two things together. Even intuitively this sounds bizarre/non-workable.
Well, it might sound bizarre and unworkable to you, but it does kind of make intuitive sense to me. Funny thing about intuition is we don't all intuit the same things. Besides, even 'regular' physics has the idea of a sea of virtual particles (with their anti-particle pair) continuously popping into existence and, in most cases, popping out again as they 'annihilate' each other. Vacuum energy? I'm not sure that the idea of a universal non-local EM radiation is any more bizarre than this.
Spring-And-Loop Theory also thinks gravity is a push, not a pull.
But there the similarities end. Perhaps the introduction is the best place to start.
There I shall start then.
And thanks for the input! I look forward to reading your papers.
I do intentionally write non-existing words like "unmotivatedly".
The other day I wrote the word "unprovable" in a post, and was puzzled at the red underlining. I checked elsewhere and apparently, while improvable was ok (though clearly meaning something completely different), "unprovable", up to that point, was not a word.
Well, it is now!
Moreover, like all the best new words its meaning is / was clear not just from the context in which it appeared but also by simply reading it.
Language is not some fixed unchanging thing, forever set in stone. There are over a million words in the English language, and someone had to 'invent' them. Might as well be you or I...
Ohm my god, that was a terrible pun!
Watt is the world coming to?
(And before you all start, I'm just lightning the mood...)
I had not seen that before.
That was a fascinating read.
Thanks.
Some aspects of this new industry are commendable. Finding out what someone likes is a step towards showing them things that they want...
Indeed, that does, at first glance seem commendable. Who would argue against being shown things they want to see?
... and not showing them things they don't...
And thus choice, and more importantly open mindedness, died.
Now, before you argue "But you didn't want to see it anyway" ask yourself: who decided that?
And we're not just talking about 'stuff we'd like to buy' here, we're also talking about the news we see, general information about anything and everything, all pre-filtered before we get a chance to make up our minds based on just the facts. Worse, our viewpoint is no longer ours, we don't see all sides of any story, we see everything from a viewpoint these organisations 'think' we want to see it from. Unfortunately reinforcement is 'a thing'.
And then we find ourselves asking 'searching' questions like: is extremism on the rise?
You are. You receive free services on sites that offer social networks, search engines, and other value, in exchange for your participation.
The catch: you are the product that they sell.
In this however you are, in my opinion, absolutely correct. In and of itself I'm not sure this is a bad bargain either.
It's what various companies are doing with that information, the influences they are having on our lives, that's bad.
You're just noticing the Left more because the Right owns the media and is using it to push it's narrative. They're doing this so they can take more money from the working class for themselves. And that's sorta why I'm on the Left...
You must be watching different media coverage of the US to me, I think...