..I would take it in the chin. It's true. I don't take it as alienating.
I don't really care about your state-v-state arguments - I just get annoyed when people on my favorite sci/tech website spout clearly false statements about my industry, whether it's getting basic facts blatantly wrong or anti-GMO conspiracy-theory style nonsense.
But I couldn't pass up the similarity to the main story - left-leaning CA wants to leave because of a single election where the left spent the entire time trying to insult people into voting their way, and even Obama-supporting gay-marrying Iowa went red. And two posts after someone states some facts about agriculture the whole region produces nothing but garbage unfit for human consumption that civilized nations won't buy. *shrug*
Same here. Won't eat anything GMO.. Unfit for human consumption. Pretty much everything produced from the midwest area parent is touting. Additionally, most civilized nations around the world won't buy any of the Monsanto GMO garbage either, produced from that same region as well.
I can understand believing the European protectionist/anti-capitalist propaganda, and it's fine if you want to make choices for yourself based on it. But when your response to someone pointing out facts about agriculture is rant about how much of the country "produces garbage" - that's how you alienate the people who live there and lose elections because of it.
Anyway, do you agree that California doesn't "grow 2/3 of the US crops"? 'Cause that was my entire point.
I'm just here to correct a statistic that was obviously wrong and the perception that California 'feeds the world'. If living somewhat close to other people who are successful makes you feel special I might be a little sad for you, but that's your business.
You're aware that California grows 2/3 of the US crops?
You must mean 2/3 of the crop species. California only produces about 11% of the food grown in the US (by value) and has more than 12% of the population. Iowa has less than a tenth as many people and produces more than 2/3 the crop value that Cali does. 'You', or rather the state you're in, produce a variety of fruits and veggies. But the grain and grain-fed meat that make up the bulk of what people in the US eat comes from the Midwest.
And caloric appears to account for the flow of heat--and a depletion of phlogiston is why burning wood results in ashes--and lumnifierous ether is the medium of for the propagation of light waves in interstellar space.
So dark matter is the best theory known given the data we have, and if it does get disproved the process of doing so will point us toward better theories? Sounds like science at its best.
But somehow I think you're just looking for a future 'told you so'.
Sci-fi and a lot of "geekdom" in general does have a misogyny problem.
No, "geekdom" has social-skills issues. A poorly done romantic overture isn't misogyny, it's just another clumsy social interaction. And it doesn't help the kind of people who take things literally that we have so many rules that are taboo to talk about - from "male sexuality is always seen as being dangerous, even if she has more control over the situation than you do" to "people will judge your behavior towards women more harshly".
If your book is about space marines and 90% of the characters are male, that's not misogyny... it's life. If the book were then to only refer to and treat women as sex objects, submissive servants, etc. That's misogyny.
No, that's also (in some cases) life. Or are we banning "The Stepford Wives" now? Or is it just positive or neutral portrayals of those subjects?
Too many people confuse omission for exclusion and both for derision and/or subjugation.
Exactly. Just like some people confuse portrayals or exploration of subjugation with endorsement of it. Or endorsement of ideas that they don't like with evil.
Regardless, you can write good sci-fi in the constraints laid out by the SJW.
You can write good sci-fi without aliens, too. The question should be "Why should fictional entertainment, especially a genre often used as an exploration of ideas, be forced to exclude ideas that one particular group has political issues with?". What's next, communism sucks therefore Star Trek shouldn't be allowed to show a money-free future?
So the government claims it owns the air. Thus no matter what you do, if you've used some of 'their' oxygen (or some of your employees used it, even during childhood), "you didn't build it" and it's not really yours.
imagine there was a pen injector device that cost $4 to make, but the people who needed it had to pay $600 for it..
And imagine that there are more than half-dozen competing devices available in Europe, but somehow they never show up in the US... I wonder how that could happen?
How would you make the uber drivers go into an area they don't want to go into, if it isn't by offering them more money?? Armed police?
You ask for volunteers just like we do for most disasters.
Are all the cops volunteers who work for free?
Are all the doctors volunteers who work for free?
Are all the funeral homes going to work for free?
Are all the people who clean up and fix things working for free?
He can come to the USA and face the charges, or he can flee.
So asserting rights in court (i.e. fighting extradition) counts as 'fleeing'? Does submitting a pretrial motion to suppress count as 'fleeing'? Turning down a plea deal? Pleading 'not guilty'? This seriously takes the legalistic redefinition of words to the next level.
Suppose he transfers $10000 into a USA account
Then those assets would be subject to US jurisdiction - it's the seizing of assets that are in other countries that's causing people the most concern. It suggests that I may be protected by extradition rules (e.g. dual criminality - I have free speech in the US, so they won't turn me over to Germany for mocking heads of state), but my assets are still fair game. Do I really have First Amendment rights in that situation?
Cancer is not something that can be cured. You can't cure "virus".
So say "No", but that is precisely what is meant by "overly rigid definition"
Again, no. It's clear from the original quote that they don't think that broad categories can be cured ('cancer', 'virus'), rather than (for example) thinking cancer can be 'treated' but not really 'cured'. Changing the definition of 'cure' wouldn't affect their critique, but saying "cure every kind of cancer" instead might.
The problem is I am not talking about gravity, I am talking about time.... What I am saying is that there is no such "thing" as gravity. e.g. we will never discover gravitons because there are no particles needed to explain gravity.
Ok then.
Gravity is an effect caused by spacetime.
Yes, spacetime is curved/warped/distorted by mass/energy and this results in things with mass/energy tending to head towards each other.
When you condense matter from energy, one of the byproducts is a spacetime field.
No. Spacetime isn't a byproduct of anything like that.
I am not talking about gravity being the reason the outside edge of the galaxies appear to be faster, it is because time is moving faster.
Great! If time is moving twice as fast for some of them then all the light from them will be blue-shifted to twice the frequency (or they'll be twice as bright), and that should be easy to detect! Cite me a paper, and we're good to go!
To take this to an extreme, there are areas within the universe where 30 trillion years have passed.
Yeah, the relativity of simultaneity is pretty interesting. But you do realize that those places are also trillions of lightyears away, right? Not a few thousand?
Because there are other star systems and a huge black hole making everything in the Solar system ROUGHLY homogenous.... The effects are extreme and easily noticeable at the edge of the galaxy where there are relatively few star systems and the effect of the black hole is weak.
A. Being 'homogeneous' would only affect the things within the bulk of the galaxy, while, as you pointed out, it's the farthest objects that have the most unexplained speed. (Just as things weigh slightly less in deep mines because there's less mass below them and more above, but outside the atmosphere it falls off almost exactly with r^2.)
B: You really think that every scientist studying the problem, every college student that takes astronomy or advanced physics, in every country on earth wouldn't come up with that if it were the correct solution? At least have the decency to phrase it as a suggestion.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that because the Solar system experiences a roughly homogenous spacetime field that everywhere else does too.
I'm pretty well convinced by the precession of the perihelion of Mercury that it isn't 'homogeneous' - if by that you mean that here's no significant space-time curvature.
The edge of the galaxy has no significant matter at all one one side and has an extremely limited distribution of matter on the other side.
As does, on a smaller scale, the solar system. Why are the results so different?
What we call gravity arises from spacetime.... The concept of time moves faster the further away it is from the matter that it is part of (e=mc^2 simplified).
*facepalm*
In summary, galactic rotation curves are flat because time is faster and space is smaller where there is less matter.
Then why doesn't the same thing happen in the solar system? If it did, we wouldn't have had a mystery in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
That seems to be at least as precise as Charles Darwin described evolution, how is that not a theory?
..I would take it in the chin. It's true. I don't take it as alienating.
I don't really care about your state-v-state arguments - I just get annoyed when people on my favorite sci/tech website spout clearly false statements about my industry, whether it's getting basic facts blatantly wrong or anti-GMO conspiracy-theory style nonsense.
But I couldn't pass up the similarity to the main story - left-leaning CA wants to leave because of a single election where the left spent the entire time trying to insult people into voting their way, and even Obama-supporting gay-marrying Iowa went red. And two posts after someone states some facts about agriculture the whole region produces nothing but garbage unfit for human consumption that civilized nations won't buy. *shrug*
Same here. Won't eat anything GMO .. Unfit for human consumption. Pretty much everything produced from the midwest area parent is touting. Additionally, most civilized nations around the world won't buy any of the Monsanto GMO garbage either, produced from that same region as well.
I can understand believing the European protectionist/anti-capitalist propaganda, and it's fine if you want to make choices for yourself based on it. But when your response to someone pointing out facts about agriculture is rant about how much of the country "produces garbage" - that's how you alienate the people who live there and lose elections because of it.
Anyway, do you agree that California doesn't "grow 2/3 of the US crops"? 'Cause that was my entire point.
I'm just here to correct a statistic that was obviously wrong and the perception that California 'feeds the world'. If living somewhat close to other people who are successful makes you feel special I might be a little sad for you, but that's your business.
You're aware that California grows 2/3 of the US crops?
You must mean 2/3 of the crop species. California only produces about 11% of the food grown in the US (by value) and has more than 12% of the population. Iowa has less than a tenth as many people and produces more than 2/3 the crop value that Cali does. 'You', or rather the state you're in, produce a variety of fruits and veggies. But the grain and grain-fed meat that make up the bulk of what people in the US eat comes from the Midwest.
And caloric appears to account for the flow of heat--and a depletion of phlogiston is why burning wood results in ashes--and lumnifierous ether is the medium of for the propagation of light waves in interstellar space.
So dark matter is the best theory known given the data we have, and if it does get disproved the process of doing so will point us toward better theories? Sounds like science at its best.
But somehow I think you're just looking for a future 'told you so'.
Markets are tanking.
And even according to your own link most of those indicators are back to normal or recovering about as quickly as they went down. *eyeroll*
And you have no argument whatsoever (useless), but can't restrain yourself from replying anyway (twit).
So we both think the other is a useless twit, but only one of us can back up their claim. :)
Sci-fi and a lot of "geekdom" in general does have a misogyny problem.
No, "geekdom" has social-skills issues. A poorly done romantic overture isn't misogyny, it's just another clumsy social interaction. And it doesn't help the kind of people who take things literally that we have so many rules that are taboo to talk about - from "male sexuality is always seen as being dangerous, even if she has more control over the situation than you do" to "people will judge your behavior towards women more harshly".
If your book is about space marines and 90% of the characters are male, that's not misogyny... it's life. If the book were then to only refer to and treat women as sex objects, submissive servants, etc. That's misogyny.
No, that's also (in some cases) life. Or are we banning "The Stepford Wives" now? Or is it just positive or neutral portrayals of those subjects?
Too many people confuse omission for exclusion and both for derision and/or subjugation.
Exactly. Just like some people confuse portrayals or exploration of subjugation with endorsement of it. Or endorsement of ideas that they don't like with evil.
Regardless, you can write good sci-fi in the constraints laid out by the SJW.
You can write good sci-fi without aliens, too. The question should be "Why should fictional entertainment, especially a genre often used as an exploration of ideas, be forced to exclude ideas that one particular group has political issues with?". What's next, communism sucks therefore Star Trek shouldn't be allowed to show a money-free future?
So the government claims it owns the air. Thus no matter what you do, if you've used some of 'their' oxygen (or some of your employees used it, even during childhood), "you didn't build it" and it's not really yours.
You are a slave.
"I don't like it" != "morally wrong"
Correction. It's an INSUFFICIENTLY SOPHISTICATED algorithm. Fixed that for you.
Correction. It's an algorithm that DOESN'T DO WHAT YOU WANT IT TO DO. Fixed that for you.
imagine there was a pen injector device that cost $4 to make, but the people who needed it had to pay $600 for it..
And imagine that there are more than half-dozen competing devices available in Europe, but somehow they never show up in the US ... I wonder how that could happen?
How would you make the uber drivers go into an area they don't want to go into, if it isn't by offering them more money?? Armed police?
You ask for volunteers just like we do for most disasters.
Are all the cops volunteers who work for free?
Are all the doctors volunteers who work for free?
Are all the funeral homes going to work for free?
Are all the people who clean up and fix things working for free?
Are there ever enough volunteers?
So why are you picking on Uber?
You really are a useless twit.
Absolutely correct, good on you for spotting the obvious. But then again, I'm not a cowardly useless twit, like some people.
He can come to the USA and face the charges, or he can flee.
So asserting rights in court (i.e. fighting extradition) counts as 'fleeing'? Does submitting a pretrial motion to suppress count as 'fleeing'? Turning down a plea deal? Pleading 'not guilty'? This seriously takes the legalistic redefinition of words to the next level.
Suppose he transfers $10000 into a USA account
Then those assets would be subject to US jurisdiction - it's the seizing of assets that are in other countries that's causing people the most concern. It suggests that I may be protected by extradition rules (e.g. dual criminality - I have free speech in the US, so they won't turn me over to Germany for mocking heads of state), but my assets are still fair game. Do I really have First Amendment rights in that situation?
Cancer is not something that can be cured. You can't cure "virus".
So say "No", but that is precisely what is meant by "overly rigid definition"
Again, no. It's clear from the original quote that they don't think that broad categories can be cured ('cancer', 'virus'), rather than (for example) thinking cancer can be 'treated' but not really 'cured'. Changing the definition of 'cure' wouldn't affect their critique, but saying "cure every kind of cancer" instead might.
No, he's nitpicking the difference between curing a type of cancer and curing cancer.
You can become immune to one strain of flu, but not every possible type that has or may eventually occur.
statistically speaking white people are more likely to get killed then black
Statistically unarmed, complying Black people are about 5 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a white person.
Wow, both of those pieces of information could be useful in trying to find a solution to our current issues. Let me just check the citations ... oh.
The problem is I am not talking about gravity, I am talking about time. ... What I am saying is that there is no such "thing" as gravity. e.g. we will never discover gravitons because there are no particles needed to explain gravity.
Ok then.
Gravity is an effect caused by spacetime.
Yes, spacetime is curved/warped/distorted by mass/energy and this results in things with mass/energy tending to head towards each other.
When you condense matter from energy, one of the byproducts is a spacetime field.
No. Spacetime isn't a byproduct of anything like that.
I am not talking about gravity being the reason the outside edge of the galaxies appear to be faster, it is because time is moving faster.
Great! If time is moving twice as fast for some of them then all the light from them will be blue-shifted to twice the frequency (or they'll be twice as bright), and that should be easy to detect! Cite me a paper, and we're good to go!
To take this to an extreme, there are areas within the universe where 30 trillion years have passed.
Yeah, the relativity of simultaneity is pretty interesting. But you do realize that those places are also trillions of lightyears away, right? Not a few thousand?
Because there are other star systems and a huge black hole making everything in the Solar system ROUGHLY homogenous. ... The effects are extreme and easily noticeable at the edge of the galaxy where there are relatively few star systems and the effect of the black hole is weak.
A. Being 'homogeneous' would only affect the things within the bulk of the galaxy, while, as you pointed out, it's the farthest objects that have the most unexplained speed. (Just as things weigh slightly less in deep mines because there's less mass below them and more above, but outside the atmosphere it falls off almost exactly with r^2.)
B: You really think that every scientist studying the problem, every college student that takes astronomy or advanced physics, in every country on earth wouldn't come up with that if it were the correct solution? At least have the decency to phrase it as a suggestion.
Why not start here.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that because the Solar system experiences a roughly homogenous spacetime field that everywhere else does too.
I'm pretty well convinced by the precession of the perihelion of Mercury that it isn't 'homogeneous' - if by that you mean that here's no significant space-time curvature.
The edge of the galaxy has no significant matter at all one one side and has an extremely limited distribution of matter on the other side.
As does, on a smaller scale, the solar system. Why are the results so different?
In summary, galactic rotation curves are flat because ...
Then why doesn't the same thing happen in the solar system?
*Article that doesn't mention rotation curves*
Does that summarize our discussion well enough?
Relativistic effects happen almost everywhere, but they can't explain galactic rotation curves.
What we call gravity arises from spacetime. ... The concept of time moves faster the further away it is from the matter that it is part of (e=mc^2 simplified).
*facepalm*
In summary, galactic rotation curves are flat because time is faster and space is smaller where there is less matter.
Then why doesn't the same thing happen in the solar system? If it did, we wouldn't have had a mystery in the first place.
MOND doesn't eliminate the "need" for Dark Matter, does it.
Still, it fails in situations that otherwise have a "dark matter" explanation, just slightly fewer of them. It's not a solution to the problem.
Dark matter itself is only a partial solution, so...
You seem to have some strong feeling on the subject - could you explain?