You need math to see how it is "now" for us? Sure, some ideas of relativity are not exactly intuitive, but also not quite to such a point.
We can't even possibly know if 64 million years passed in the area of the supernova. Of course, it almost certainly did!...but there's no way to know, this "past" doesn't yet exist for us. Let us entertain a thought experiment with dramatic(*) differences in passage of time between "here" and the galaxy in question, after the photons were emitted. When did the event happen in such case?
Sure, how most people are quick to describe it in sort of Newtonian framework is quite practical. But it is not more correct than "Or even" variant, might even (evidently) muddle underlying principles.
(*)because at least some minuscule ones are certainly there...
But that becomes bordering on truisms, in best case, about human nature. In worst - is an expression of what McCarthyism represented; letting quite low impulses to dictate policies (what, McCarthy-like minded / any other crusaders didn't have their eyes set on whatever-their-scale domination?).
Not even true in the strictest sense, not when it comes to Stalinism (when, at least openly, "socialism in one country" was promoted). It even would seem quite hypocritical... (considering US intervention, presence of US armed forces on Russian soil mere 2+ decades earlier, during their Civil War - BTW, probably that's what the Russian mentality of, mostly, being sensitive with maintaining buffer states around them is largely about: during the course of history they were quite regularly ravaged by foreign armies. But at least in my post-communist country it's hard to see any real effort at real understanding, at dispelling myths(*))...and how can we forget about few events during times in question, events which reflect "staunch anti-communism" - Bodo League massacre, Jeju Uprising or No Gun Ri Massacre? (and remember, your place at many points in time was possibly better than South Korea or Taiwan up to the 80s; the later were mostly just on the "proper" side) This is your "make soviet propaganda/viewpoint unpopular". Or, broader, some later examples
If anything, McCarthyism didn't even particularly target communists, in practice - just political opponents. And certainly managed to alienate many "left" leaning people / made the rhetoric of the Soviets massively more believable (US political history is littered with blowbacks, it seems...)
(*)real dynamics of (virtually all) social movements are rarely realized. Consider one possibility(!!) - take a look at world map and visualize all the places where "old" Christianity historically dominates, and which also tended to be quite feudal. Now visualize all the places which had serious problems (not only actual takeovers) with "communists" - notice anything curious?:)
Hm, the topic of alcohol somewhat fits with a reply here, so why not...;p (nobody else will even notice such offtopic; slow Sunday morning / trying to find some absorbing distraction / also checking few "old" slashdot notifications in mailbox... and while submitting a reply to one - whoa, just in time for archival of the discussion; but since I already wrote it...)
So - yes, there are differences; but not huge. Speakers of most Romance languages (or indeed speakers of most languages which use Latin script) can be given some random Latin text and, perhaps with a few tips (C or V), will be able to "speak" in a moderately decent Latin. Clumsy, but perfectly understandable(*). The same is mostly true between those languages. EN...not really; already.
Anyway, it's a moot point / I misread your previous post, where Romance-speaking languages were clearly given as an example of what learning to write EN for EN speaker might become (are we certain it's not a bit like that already?), not as an analogy.
And hey, I have nearby one of the oldest unis in the world / it was certainly Latin all the way at some point. But I have to wonder if it didn't become a self-perpetrating myth much sooner than we like to believe. Not saying you couldn't find quite a few people proficient in Latin, no - only that many, many others knew it probably only nominally. Like one thing I've heard, said by somebody who teaches Latin now - admitting to being unable to speak it functionally, pointing out two old professors... about which there's a rumor that they use it in normal conversations. So (*)question is, understandable by whom?
Well, I meant something pretty straightforward... though with somewhat wrong term; vicious circles.
Somebody neglects himself (depression, cabin fever or whatever), the surroundings start to ostracize him a bit, which might easily deepen the causes of neglect, which in turn...
(sorry for late reply; slow morning, finding something to do via mail inbox)
How there's no privileged frame of reference, how all of them are equally valid, is the whole point. One which apparently you miss again, insisting on essentially Newtonian time tracking.
Robots which can really replicate the abilities of human staff will be most likely quite a bit more expensive (unless you want to rebuild the hotels...oh, that's also expensive)
Generally, you can probably buy human for much less than even your low estimate...
It didn't exist for us, that changes quite a lot / just now observing something is simultaneity. But the point is ("Or even") - there is no difference, neither way of saying is particularly right or wrong (unless you insist on our locality / I would think we're past Newton by now)
Ahh, but the offspring (and its offspring...) can be bred even before some potential great news about one of its parents, or both (sometimes), are revealed! Allowing us to select promising existing lineages (there's our selective pressure), even with a possibility of immediate inter-generational comparison!;> (why would we want to rely on socialization?)
And once we'll accomplish the readiness of first divisio............
One could think a century is enough... (too bad it's apparently sufficient if something sounds convincing, reasonable; which doesn't really work in this particular field)
Neither way of saying is particularly right or wrong (unless you insist on our locality). Just now observing something is simultaneity / there is no difference / it didn't exist for us (BTW, there is hardly any "now" for a photon, that would need time
You very clearly displayed your utter contempt for accurately remembering dry historical facts about those monsters of history, called (or yelled...) it an "insanity" (maybe it's so horrible and deplorable due to some your internal struggle, hm?); that's an approach bordering on fundamentalism, blind adherence to simplistic "truth" - which either way is certainly followed only when you deem it convenient...
Here, just one absurdity to which your insanity leads: few lauded contemporaries of those who were mentioned earlier - Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower. Many heinous acts - city firestorms, JCS 1067 directive, wishing for half of Germans to starve to death (many thousands did, largely children), embargo of food relief, blocking economic reconstruction of the continent, stripping a million POWs of their status (to be used as forced labor). The last of the three - 1953 Iranian coup d'etat, destrying one of the most secular places in the region on its road to modernity.
That's not how we build airplanes. We just...don't. Most systems are changed gradually. Reliability, familiarity, retraining, etc. dictate it.
"Without looking" is a great recipe for being wrong (sure, advances in the style of what you describe are out there... but that's the thing, they are already there, in use)
Nothing is stopping you; the brace position is about using the seat in front, about placing your head on the surface you're most likely to impact. Oh, since up to now you apparently ignored every information card, sticker on the seat in front of you, or demonstration...
Yes, and unquoted part of my post was... about such inconsistencies (but I wouldn't call reading, of the kind possible during more dynamic parts of the flight, equally isolating from the sounds around)
How you are unable to grasp me considering somebody an unquestionable monster without the need of all actions of said individual rewritten in history books as monstrous, how you are unable to approach it similarly - that's a problem with you, not the reality.
It's uncannily similar to methods of people you supposedly condemn, BTW.
the government is a machine that transfers wealth from the young, working, relatively poor to the old, retired, relatively wealthy
...and to the really young, growing, dependable. Seriously, what does the word "government" even do there? That has always been the case - the community "benefits" most, at any given point, from those of productive age.
There are some hiccups now, here and there, when the systems (much more vast, out of necessity) didn't have the time to react to quite recent rapid increase in life expectancy and decline in fertility. That is the problem. But the "deal" is not new, "evil gov" or not.
I, as a citizen of a post-communist country, think they were useless witch hunt show (useless as far as their stated goal went at least; feeding Red Scare hysteria could be seen as a goal in itself)
Slashdot Mirror
You need math to see how it is "now" for us? Sure, some ideas of relativity are not exactly intuitive, but also not quite to such a point.
...but there's no way to know, this "past" doesn't yet exist for us. Let us entertain a thought experiment with dramatic(*) differences in passage of time between "here" and the galaxy in question, after the photons were emitted. When did the event happen in such case?
We can't even possibly know if 64 million years passed in the area of the supernova. Of course, it almost certainly did!
Sure, how most people are quick to describe it in sort of Newtonian framework is quite practical. But it is not more correct than "Or even" variant, might even (evidently) muddle underlying principles.
(*)because at least some minuscule ones are certainly there...
But that becomes bordering on truisms, in best case, about human nature. In worst - is an expression of what McCarthyism represented; letting quite low impulses to dictate policies (what, McCarthy-like minded / any other crusaders didn't have their eyes set on whatever-their-scale domination?).
...and how can we forget about few events during times in question, events which reflect "staunch anti-communism" - Bodo League massacre, Jeju Uprising or No Gun Ri Massacre? (and remember, your place at many points in time was possibly better than South Korea or Taiwan up to the 80s; the later were mostly just on the "proper" side) This is your "make soviet propaganda/viewpoint unpopular". Or, broader, some later examples
:)
Not even true in the strictest sense, not when it comes to Stalinism (when, at least openly, "socialism in one country" was promoted). It even would seem quite hypocritical... (considering US intervention, presence of US armed forces on Russian soil mere 2+ decades earlier, during their Civil War - BTW, probably that's what the Russian mentality of, mostly, being sensitive with maintaining buffer states around them is largely about: during the course of history they were quite regularly ravaged by foreign armies. But at least in my post-communist country it's hard to see any real effort at real understanding, at dispelling myths(*))
If anything, McCarthyism didn't even particularly target communists, in practice - just political opponents. And certainly managed to alienate many "left" leaning people / made the rhetoric of the Soviets massively more believable (US political history is littered with blowbacks, it seems...)
(*)real dynamics of (virtually all) social movements are rarely realized. Consider one possibility(!!) - take a look at world map and visualize all the places where "old" Christianity historically dominates, and which also tended to be quite feudal. Now visualize all the places which had serious problems (not only actual takeovers) with "communists" - notice anything curious?
Hm, the topic of alcohol somewhat fits with a reply here, so why not... ;p (nobody else will even notice such offtopic; slow Sunday morning / trying to find some absorbing distraction / also checking few "old" slashdot notifications in mailbox ... and while submitting a reply to one - whoa, just in time for archival of the discussion; but since I already wrote it...)
... about which there's a rumor that they use it in normal conversations. So (*)question is, understandable by whom?
So - yes, there are differences; but not huge. Speakers of most Romance languages (or indeed speakers of most languages which use Latin script) can be given some random Latin text and, perhaps with a few tips (C or V), will be able to "speak" in a moderately decent Latin. Clumsy, but perfectly understandable(*). The same is mostly true between those languages. EN...not really; already.
Anyway, it's a moot point / I misread your previous post, where Romance-speaking languages were clearly given as an example of what learning to write EN for EN speaker might become (are we certain it's not a bit like that already?), not as an analogy.
And hey, I have nearby one of the oldest unis in the world / it was certainly Latin all the way at some point. But I have to wonder if it didn't become a self-perpetrating myth much sooner than we like to believe. Not saying you couldn't find quite a few people proficient in Latin, no - only that many, many others knew it probably only nominally. Like one thing I've heard, said by somebody who teaches Latin now - admitting to being unable to speak it functionally, pointing out two old professors
Well, I meant something pretty straightforward... though with somewhat wrong term; vicious circles.
Somebody neglects himself (depression, cabin fever or whatever), the surroundings start to ostracize him a bit, which might easily deepen the causes of neglect, which in turn...
(sorry for late reply; slow morning, finding something to do via mail inbox)
Ekhem, if you're starved for English in some random place, you listen BBC World Service ;p
But generally, isn't the story about... mailing list software?
Yup, luckily we have Free Speech Zones / cages!
How there's no privileged frame of reference, how all of them are equally valid, is the whole point. One which apparently you miss again, insisting on essentially Newtonian time tracking.
Putin will be probably dead by then; ahain, he / them don't need such "stunts", Russia has plenty impressive real space program as is.
Robots which can really replicate the abilities of human staff will be most likely quite a bit more expensive (unless you want to rebuild the hotels...oh, that's also expensive)
Generally, you can probably buy human for much less than even your low estimate...
It didn't exist for us, that changes quite a lot / just now observing something is simultaneity. But the point is ("Or even") - there is no difference, neither way of saying is particularly right or wrong (unless you insist on our locality / I would think we're past Newton by now)
Ahh, but the offspring (and its offspring...) can be bred even before some potential great news about one of its parents, or both (sometimes), are revealed! Allowing us to select promising existing lineages (there's our selective pressure), even with a possibility of immediate inter-generational comparison! ;> (why would we want to rely on socialization?)
And once we'll accomplish the readiness of first divisio............
One could think a century is enough... (too bad it's apparently sufficient if something sounds convincing, reasonable; which doesn't really work in this particular field)
Neither way of saying is particularly right or wrong (unless you insist on our locality). Just now observing something is simultaneity / there is no difference / it didn't exist for us (BTW, there is hardly any "now" for a photon, that would need time
You very clearly displayed your utter contempt for accurately remembering dry historical facts about those monsters of history, called (or yelled...) it an "insanity" (maybe it's so horrible and deplorable due to some your internal struggle, hm?); that's an approach bordering on fundamentalism, blind adherence to simplistic "truth" - which either way is certainly followed only when you deem it convenient...
Here, just one absurdity to which your insanity leads: few lauded contemporaries of those who were mentioned earlier - Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower. Many heinous acts - city firestorms, JCS 1067 directive, wishing for half of Germans to starve to death (many thousands did, largely children), embargo of food relief, blocking economic reconstruction of the continent, stripping a million POWs of their status (to be used as forced labor). The last of the three - 1953 Iranian coup d'etat, destrying one of the most secular places in the region on its road to modernity.
More examples, in case you missed.
According to your approach, also those men are... monsters unworthy of mention, and their deeds would be best forgotten.
Hey, if your approach deems them clearly subhuman, it must be true... but, again, uncannily similar to some people you supposedly condemn.
(BTW, you might enjoy going out to some desolated place and screaming for some time; might even help...)
The explosion as well as didn't exist for us until now.
That's not how we build airplanes. We just...don't. Most systems are changed gradually. Reliability, familiarity, retraining, etc. dictate it.
"Without looking" is a great recipe for being wrong (sure, advances in the style of what you describe are out there... but that's the thing, they are already there, in use)
Nothing is stopping you; the brace position is about using the seat in front, about placing your head on the surface you're most likely to impact. Oh, since up to now you apparently ignored every information card, sticker on the seat in front of you, or demonstration...
How curious of you to, for starters, completely ignore two big crashes mentioned there...
Really, it's so distracting to you? (especially in a plane) Anyway, I didn't say the rules are consistent. What I said was far from it, actually.
Yes, and unquoted part of my post was... about such inconsistencies (but I wouldn't call reading, of the kind possible during more dynamic parts of the flight, equally isolating from the sounds around)
Or even: the supernova happened now (well, a month ago) - as far as our frame of reference (and of dinosaurs, or what's left of them) is concerned.
How you are unable to grasp me considering somebody an unquestionable monster without the need of all actions of said individual rewritten in history books as monstrous, how you are unable to approach it similarly - that's a problem with you, not the reality.
It's uncannily similar to methods of people you supposedly condemn, BTW.
So you wish for falsification of history, got it.
Hm, who else did that... Maybe a bit of book burning won't harm, too. Can't know that "insane" history!
the government is a machine that transfers wealth from the young, working, relatively poor to the old, retired, relatively wealthy
...and to the really young, growing, dependable. Seriously, what does the word "government" even do there? That has always been the case - the community "benefits" most, at any given point, from those of productive age.
There are some hiccups now, here and there, when the systems (much more vast, out of necessity) didn't have the time to react to quite recent rapid increase in life expectancy and decline in fertility. That is the problem. But the "deal" is not new, "evil gov" or not.
The second doesn't help with fertility, look at Russia (one of the main problems there is the cost of of contraceptives)
I, as a citizen of a post-communist country, think they were useless witch hunt show (useless as far as their stated goal went at least; feeding Red Scare hysteria could be seen as a goal in itself)
They didn't even really root much of any spies.