As far as the description of the theories, I read the blasted link you posted.
Where does your "blasted" hostility come from, David?
If you want people to think you have actual theories, post links to them, or at
least do some SEO so Google can point people to them.
My "home page" link takes you to one of my videos. In the comments section are my full name,
the name of my theory, the web page on my site related to each video.
At two points in our sub-thread I linked to articles on my web site.
Do you really want me to believe you were unable to find my web site?
I have not mentioned the name of my theory -- Spring-And-Loop Theory -- in this sub-thread with you, David.
What kind of SEO would be needed to help people find a theory they don't know the name of?
By the way, when you type "Spring-And-Loop Theory" into Google, every one of the first ten hits is to my web site.
Your more recent link was to something that had a handy link to a web page describing the speed of light,
and that made it perfectly clear that you are a crackpot, even without considering the tone of the writing.
And now my links are "handy"...
Wikipedia defines a crackpot as: a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her
contemporaries consider to be false. A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly
held as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which
contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task, and rendering
them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.
With "pejorative" wiki-defined as: A pejorative (also term of abuse, term of disparagement, or derogatory term) is a word or
grammatical form of expression that expresses contempt, criticism, hostility, disregard and/or disrespect.
So far I've enjoyed the challenge of maintaining a respectful dialogue with you, David,
despite your contempt, criticism, hostility, disregard and disrespect.
Getting back to your "crackpot" descriptor, I would not define my thoughts about my
theory as (1) unshakable, nor (2) a belief. In fact I accuse many physicists of
those two things. As to (3) what contemporaries consider of my theory, it would be
difficult for me to care less than I do. They have shown their cards, their
loyalties, their biases and their agendas. I have shown my theory. Let the better
theory decide. Nothing else matters. (4) "wildly at variance" is at times true
of my theory. Just as QM is at times "wildly at variance" with relativity, etc.
I don't for a second consider that a drawback. Rather than comparing only differences,
it is wiser to consider that I am proposing a model that works...unlike other
theories...when it comes to gravity. And the first completely unified theory.
And yet with a level of simplicity that puts the ludicrous hacks of other
theories to shame. If that makes me a "crackpot", I am quite comfortable
accepting that moniker.
You listed some things not known about light. We know why gravity bends light.
No. Since physicists don't know what gravity is, we can not possibly fully
understand how gravity bends light. You are confusing the ability to
calculate an effect and confirm the calculation with a measurement, with
an actual understanding of what is going on at the lowest level.
Einstein, Feynmann and countless others have tried to figure out what gravity
actually is. That quest continues today.
I think I have figured it out.
And where physicists today think they have light all figured out, I
think they do not. For starters, they have fixed the speed of light,
when I say it is in fact changing (i.e. decreasing) with time. Specifically,
at the present measured expansion rate of spa
(1) The facts that it has theories not well described,
I'm not sure what your definition of well defined is.
The original theory is 15,000 words of html.
The references section is 2,000 words of html.
The extensions (consequences) of that theory are another 40,000 words of html.
I do make the repeated point in, for example, this 25,000+ word document, that my theory needs to be developed through simulation. Each and every new theory of the Planck scale will need this, for what should be obvious reasons. Atom smashers can only take us so far -- we are already at the practical limit of those.
My Bachelor's Thesis in Chemical Engineering involved the ground-breaking for its time use of simulation to determine the feasiblity of a two-stage spouted-bed coal pyrolysis plant. The simulations needed for this theory are considerably beyond what I am able to do today. But there is always tomorrow.
(2) but apparently different from standard physics,
Absolutely right here.
But given the flaws in every major "standard" theory of physics, is it seriously a drawback that my theory is different?
Consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. - Margaret Thatcher
I don't believe that a house of anything but cards can be built on faulty foundations.
If I were advocating warp drives, 10^^500 universes, or an inflation miracle, I would concede point (2).
(3) with no obvious reason to believe them?
You are completely wrong here.
(a) numerous flaws & gaps in our present "understanding" are explained by my new theory -- your choosing to ignore those puts you in the flamebait category,
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding
because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single argument left. - Margaret Thatcher
(b) many people have had similar ideas in the past (e.g. particulary obvious regarding the ether) or wanted to achieve what my theory does (i.e. unification of the four forces, an actual explanation of how gravity works and of what exactly is the speed of light),
(c) predictions made by my theory alone (e.g. regarding the decreasing speed of light) would/will have profound consequences.
(4) The opinions expressed on the only site referencing it I could find?
Einstein was so alone at the start that it took 30 years for his theory to be widely accepted.
If it is one again one against forty-eight,
then I am very sorry for the forty-eight.
- Margaret Thatcher
If you know a place, other than at the beginning, where a new theory can start, I'd be appreciative if you would share it.
- - - - -
By the way, isn't it interesting how you didn't point out a single flaw in my theory?
Wikipedia's definition of Pseudoscience as a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status...
appears to apply to your comments, David.
Since you are apparently fond of showing how Einstein's theory was different, let's point out another way he differed. Einstein decided to discard the ether. I suggest this will prove to be a major mistake, and that we must "get it back" for physics to continue to get better at describing our world.
science is trying to better understand the world, by making models predicting something. It isn't engineering.
I think you may have unintentionally identified our present scientific folly. Scientists are lost in engineering, and fantasizing. Everything but science.
It is exactly an engineering mindset that is needed to come up with a new theory. Why? Because engineering starts with a "what works?" mentality, then tries to define why it works, to quantify it and remove the uncertainty.
What works (i.e. is needed) today is (1) to discard relativity, field theories and the standard model due to their glaringly intractable failings (i.e. their bridges keep falling down), (2) start at the Planck scale (i.e. it should be empirically obvious that we need to start with the bottom level of the building) and (3) embrace the ether.
"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote."
- Michelson, 1903
The more dominanttheories trying to describe the fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been selected, and these are so firmly locked in that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote. Thank goodness.
Complete and utter wastes of time like string theory are useful at creating employment, while guaranteeing that nothing will ever be gained/learned/discovered.
Instead of resolving theory conflicts, or encouraging new theories, we have "status quo" stagnation. There is no money in a new theory, especially one that is better than the old ones.
Rather than costing $5B/year, like the LHC, a new theory could appear at zero cost. Luckily the pay-to-publish system should ensure its stillbirth.
Others did have "those insights". Poincare & Lorentz, for example. Einstein just never credited them. Prompting E.T. Whittaker to not give Einstein any credit.
Couldn't agree more, with your comment, and with the submitter's point.
Interesting that my non-patched XP system is and always has been clean, whereas the Win 7 systems I support...that receive all patches and have current & working A/V...get infected regularly.
Got live cricket on right now, on ESPN of all places.
TV is also my radio. Optional background "noise".
ESPN is my channel of choice because it is the real world, as opposed to fake sit-coms, even worse "dramas", hideously depressing CSI type shows, and trailer trash reality shows.
My father played cricket, so there is a back story that adds to this live event.
I've played numerous sports, and love a few of them enough to watch them on TV. For the rest, it is about the human spirt. Amazing feats of endurance, athleticism and will.
Besides, TV is part of our "bundle", coupled with two things we absolutely need -- iNet + WIRED phone service.
To each his own. TV is not needed by some (especially those who are not interested in sports). TV works for others who find something good in it.
This thread is really about Comcast, and Comcast is really about monopoly. If there wasn't one, Comcast wouldn't be playing billing games. They would be offering things customers want, in a bid to _earn_ customers.
I went through a phase where I would read a Scientific American magazine in bed. Put me right to sleep. But obviously not because it stopped me thinking.
I don't agree with your premise. For one thing, it would depend on what the podcast you are listening to is about.
You say "the only evidence is one flawed study". (1) not true, tons of evidence, (2) you can't prove something is the "only" by linking to a "study" that you say is the "only" one.
Regarding the movie I linked to, I happen to know more about that movie than I let on. Inside story type of info, but I want to preserve confidentiality.
In any event, it is not the movie but the information the movie reveals, that should be debated, attacked or learned from. Instead of doing this you ask if I am "for real".
Since this is a pressing question for you, I shall endeavour to reassure you by saying I am quite real, with the usual numbers of fingers and toes.
I await you actually talking about the three or four points I brought up in my original post...
Oh, thank goodness you quoted Wikipedia. That settles it.
To the grandparent poster, check out "The Greater Good". Will totally change your view of vaccinations. One of the most profound things I learned was that in "vaccine vs no vaccine" studies, the "no vaccine" people in some cases still received the mercury (!) and in other cases received a different vaccine (!). That's right, there was no "control" group so they compared the health effect of a mercury-containing vaccine with...a mercury-containing control and/or a different vaccine.
Other juicy bits from that documentary:
- The number of vaccines given to kids these days is TEN times what was given 30 or 40 years ago.
- some vaccines still use mercury.
- some autistic individuals became so at the same time they (1) got a bunch of vaccinations and (2) were then tested and found to have toxic levels of mercury in their system, prompting (3) a successful lawsuit, and resulting compensation.
I have extensive experience caring for and living with them.
At this point I agree with Dr. Robert Melillo, as I posted above. With TAS individual I live with, I have seen considerable improvement but it has come through repeatedly teaching new/better behaviors, not through letting the individual become more and more shut off.
FWIW, I think armchair experts are the biggest problem. Try living with one, or caring for many of them for many years. You'll change your tune.
The reason many call it a craze or a fad, is that it deflects attention away from the real cause(s).
I like the book "Disconnected Kids" because it points the finger at developmental imbalance in the brain. This makes the most sense to me because (1) when you've met one autistic person, you've met one autistic person, (2) many things can throw off development (especially with the dozens and dozens of vaccines now given to infants, and fluoridation, and microwave radiation broadcasters...I mean, baby monitors), (3) the guy offers techniques to re-balance one's brain that I think makes sense and work to at least an extent, (4) he has opened dozens of clinics to help treat people, etc.
"It's a fad" is the 21st century equivalent of "You're a racist!" Quick and easy deflection. The real fad is corporations having armies of minions who reverse-troll for their clients by the hour on social media and places like/. and Ars.
I'm not sure why you think security cameras are a problem.
Let's study the behavior of a customer called Nefarious. He opens packages in the store, pocketing a handful of delicious Lindt chocolates here, and pouring half a pound of Starbucks beans into his other pocket over there. A quick checkout for his case of Bud and then he breezes through the exit doors.
Retail has slim profit margins. Grocery stores, it is like 1 or 2%. At Costco let's say it is 5%. But the cost of Nefarious's visit is beyond what he took out. He left a $9.89 bag of Lindt that is fit only for the break room. Same for the Starbucks bag -- all 5 pounds of it. That case of Bud only cost...I have no idea, not having consumed alcohol for 30 years, but let's say $18. Rough calculation, the store made a buck on the Bud, and lost $20 or $30 on the other two items. How long can they sustain that?
A big part of store security is deterence. You won't stop everyone, but cameras, or store walkers, or receipt checkers will discourage many from abusing the system.
I want to shop at a place that deters cheat, crooks and scumbags. This is definitely a case where, if you are not breaking the law what do you have to be concerned about?
Getting back to your camera concerns...When you were going through the checkout, the cashier was watching you. If you pocketed something, or tried to slip something past them in the bottom of your shopping cart, they would catch it. Cameras "see" more but notice a hundred times less. IOW, on average no one ever looks at you on tape. It is there to settle the question of did someone put something in their pocket (or what did the guy with the cap gun look like)?
If you really want to be creeped out, go to a clothing store. The level of security and inconvenience there is very off-putting (to me anyway). Stuff is cabled together. Huge dongles hang off that T-shirt you wanted to try on. There is a limit on how many things you can try on in the change stall with 2 foot tall saloon doors. Etc.
Still, the only camera that would bother me is one (1) in a change room, or (2) in a toilet stall. I'm not aware of any of those...
I question the sincerity of your response, but can agree with the point that different inspections have different levels of gain for both parties.
Parents checking the texts on their kid's phone can learn quite a bit, and this is a good thing, even if the child would freak if she found out.
Your local auto repair shop is probably looking for extra work when they tell you your radiator could use a flush. But this is a relationship, that can work both ways. If they report stuff as broken that ain't, you find some other repair shop. If they are right about the radiator flush, you thank them (at least to yourself) and the relationship improves.
Your employer checking what you say on Facebook is not a bad thing. Them requiring you hand over your password is beyond a bad thing. Still, it also serves to tell you that you don't want to work for this company...and that is a good thing.
That "inspection at the door" works both ways. On several occasions, Costco inspectors have noticed I forgot to pick up my Forever stamps, etc. Two of them are among the friendliest staff in the whole store, and if they catch someone taking stuff then that translates into them keeping MY prices down. Everything about Costco comes across as "a great and fair deal for all", and yet that is the only store I exit that checks my receipt.
First few seasons were quite lame, I'll give you that. But this is true of many ultimately good shows.
Luckily for me I had avoided STTNG until the STTNG pinball game came out. That hooked me. By then I think there were 5 or more seasons in the can.
There are some soap opera episodes, I will give you that. I constantly cherry-pick from the rebroadcasts. But then who doesn't do this?
I thoroughly enjoy the Data character (in addition to Picard) but I also like many "design" aspects of the series. Resolution usually happens at the end of an episode, "good guys win" (otherwise, what's the point?), intelligent use of special effects.
Actually, aluminum corrodes (i.e. oxidizes) very readily. It just so happens that the coating -- a mix of Al & O atoms -- takes up the same space as pure Al atoms. So the surface Al oxidizes to Al2O3, and once the surface is covered with the oxide, O can not get through to react with the Al. End of "corrosion" but very much an oxide surface. Oxide surface = not attractive in jewelry (just like what happens to silver). Also, absorbing Al through the skin contact is not a good idea.
You forgot to mention gold's inertness. Yes, copper and silver conduct better than gold but both of them corrode like fiends. To combat this you have to alloy, or coat. You don't need this with gold, and combined with its "softness" (better described as extreme ductility), you can lay down a very thin layer indeed. "Atoms" thick, vs "fractions of an inch" thick. Ask someone designing a satellite which is more valuable. Or a jeweler. Or a circuit board maker.
Probably a reason for it. I imagine they don't want people endlessly scanning and scrolling around a video. Massive files. Thrashing around them and serving random chunks not something they want to do endlessly.
YouTube does something similar, in that if you pause your video for too long you then have to refresh the tab to resume it later. Maybe they assign a machine to deliver the 'tube. You walk away and they reassign the machine. Firing off the cryptic "Error processing this directive", or running the endless buffering ruse, are just the kind of things that will make people stop doing what the big streaming companies don't want them to do.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as the description of the theories, I read the blasted link you posted.
Where does your "blasted" hostility come from, David?
If you want people to think you have actual theories, post links to them, or at least do some SEO so Google can point people to them.
My "home page" link takes you to one of my videos. In the comments section are my full name, the name of my theory, the web page on my site related to each video.
At two points in our sub-thread I linked to articles on my web site.
Do you really want me to believe you were unable to find my web site?
I have not mentioned the name of my theory -- Spring-And-Loop Theory -- in this sub-thread with you, David. What kind of SEO would be needed to help people find a theory they don't know the name of?
By the way, when you type "Spring-And-Loop Theory" into Google, every one of the first ten hits is to my web site.
Your more recent link was to something that had a handy link to a web page describing the speed of light, and that made it perfectly clear that you are a crackpot, even without considering the tone of the writing.
And now my links are "handy"...
Wikipedia defines a crackpot as:
a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false. A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task, and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.
With "pejorative" wiki-defined as:
A pejorative (also term of abuse, term of disparagement, or derogatory term) is a word or grammatical form of expression that expresses contempt, criticism, hostility, disregard and/or disrespect.
So far I've enjoyed the challenge of maintaining a respectful dialogue with you, David, despite your contempt, criticism, hostility, disregard and disrespect.
Getting back to your "crackpot" descriptor, I would not define my thoughts about my theory as (1) unshakable, nor (2) a belief. In fact I accuse many physicists of those two things. As to (3) what contemporaries consider of my theory, it would be difficult for me to care less than I do. They have shown their cards, their loyalties, their biases and their agendas. I have shown my theory. Let the better theory decide. Nothing else matters. (4) "wildly at variance" is at times true of my theory. Just as QM is at times "wildly at variance" with relativity, etc. I don't for a second consider that a drawback. Rather than comparing only differences, it is wiser to consider that I am proposing a model that works...unlike other theories...when it comes to gravity. And the first completely unified theory. And yet with a level of simplicity that puts the ludicrous hacks of other theories to shame. If that makes me a "crackpot", I am quite comfortable accepting that moniker.
You listed some things not known about light. We know why gravity bends light.
No. Since physicists don't know what gravity is, we can not possibly fully understand how gravity bends light. You are confusing the ability to calculate an effect and confirm the calculation with a measurement, with an actual understanding of what is going on at the lowest level.
Einstein, Feynmann and countless others have tried to figure out what gravity actually is. That quest continues today.
I think I have figured it out.
And where physicists today think they have light all figured out, I think they do not. For starters, they have fixed the speed of light, when I say it is in fact changing (i.e. decreasing) with time. Specifically, at the present measured expansion rate of spa
I'm not sure what your definition of well defined is.
The original theory is 15,000 words of html.
The references section is 2,000 words of html.
The extensions (consequences) of that theory are another 40,000 words of html.
I do make the repeated point in, for example, this 25,000+ word document, that my theory needs to be developed through simulation. Each and every new theory of the Planck scale will need this, for what should be obvious reasons. Atom smashers can only take us so far -- we are already at the practical limit of those.
My Bachelor's Thesis in Chemical Engineering involved the ground-breaking for its time use of simulation to determine the feasiblity of a two-stage spouted-bed coal pyrolysis plant. The simulations needed for this theory are considerably beyond what I am able to do today. But there is always tomorrow.
(2) but apparently different from standard physics,
Absolutely right here.
But given the flaws in every major "standard" theory of physics, is it seriously a drawback that my theory is different?
I don't believe that a house of anything but cards can be built on faulty foundations.
If I were advocating warp drives, 10^^500 universes, or an inflation miracle, I would concede point (2).
(3) with no obvious reason to believe them?
You are completely wrong here.
(a) numerous flaws & gaps in our present "understanding" are explained by my new theory -- your choosing to ignore those puts you in the flamebait category,
(b) many people have had similar ideas in the past (e.g. particulary obvious regarding the ether) or wanted to achieve what my theory does (i.e. unification of the four forces, an actual explanation of how gravity works and of what exactly is the speed of light),
(c) predictions made by my theory alone (e.g. regarding the decreasing speed of light) would/will have profound consequences.
(4) The opinions expressed on the only site referencing it I could find?
Einstein was so alone at the start that it took 30 years for his theory to be widely accepted.
If you know a place, other than at the beginning, where a new theory can start, I'd be appreciative if you would share it.
- - - - -
By the way, isn't it interesting how you didn't point out a single flaw in my theory?
Wikipedia's definition of Pseudoscience as
a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status...
appears to apply to your comments, David.
What makes it a "crackpot" physics web site? The fact that it has a theory different than your own?
One of the greatest pains to human nature
is the pain of a new idea.
- Walter Bagehot
ShanghaBill's original point was that "if Einstein had not had these insights, someone would have, probably within a decade of 1905."
You point out one of the differences between Einstein's theory, and those he liberally "borrowed" from. You ignore that others had insights, in the same field, at the same time and even before Einstein's relativity was published. Poincare was the giant of his day, and published within a year of Einstein.
Since you are apparently fond of showing how Einstein's theory was different, let's point out another way he differed. Einstein decided to discard the ether. I suggest this will prove to be a major mistake, and that we must "get it back" for physics to continue to get better at describing our world.
I think you may have unintentionally identified our present scientific folly. Scientists are lost in engineering, and fantasizing. Everything but science.
It is exactly an engineering mindset that is needed to come up with a new theory. Why? Because engineering starts with a "what works?" mentality, then tries to define why it works, to quantify it and remove the uncertainty.
What works (i.e. is needed) today is (1) to discard relativity, field theories and the standard model due to their glaringly intractable failings (i.e. their bridges keep falling down), (2) start at the Planck scale (i.e. it should be empirically obvious that we need to start with the bottom level of the building) and (3) embrace the ether.
The more dominant theories trying to describe the fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been selected, and these are so firmly locked in that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote. Thank goodness.
Complete and utter wastes of time like string theory are useful at creating employment, while guaranteeing that nothing will ever be gained/learned/discovered.
Instead of resolving theory conflicts, or encouraging new theories, we have "status quo" stagnation. There is no money in a new theory, especially one that is better than the old ones.
Rather than costing $5B/year, like the LHC, a new theory could appear at zero cost. Luckily the pay-to-publish system should ensure its stillbirth.
Others did have "those insights". Poincare & Lorentz, for example. Einstein just never credited them. Prompting E.T. Whittaker to not give Einstein any credit.
Smart puts up 3 cars to get tipped over. Gets ten or a hundred times that money back in free advertising. Smart.
32-bit Windows -- chrome taking 256MB...at first. Has shrunk down to 165MB a few minutes later. Not my idea of acceptable memory usage.
Opera, with 17 tabs, and it has been running for a few days, is only using 323MB
Couldn't agree more, with your comment, and with the submitter's point.
Interesting that my non-patched XP system is and always has been clean, whereas the Win 7 systems I support...that receive all patches and have current & working A/V...get infected regularly.
PIBKAC.
Got live cricket on right now, on ESPN of all places.
TV is also my radio. Optional background "noise".
ESPN is my channel of choice because it is the real world, as opposed to fake sit-coms, even worse "dramas", hideously depressing CSI type shows, and trailer trash reality shows.
My father played cricket, so there is a back story that adds to this live event.
I've played numerous sports, and love a few of them enough to watch them on TV. For the rest, it is about the human spirt. Amazing feats of endurance, athleticism and will.
Besides, TV is part of our "bundle", coupled with two things we absolutely need -- iNet + WIRED phone service.
To each his own. TV is not needed by some (especially those who are not interested in sports). TV works for others who find something good in it.
This thread is really about Comcast, and Comcast is really about monopoly. If there wasn't one, Comcast wouldn't be playing billing games. They would be offering things customers want, in a bid to _earn_ customers.
I went through a phase where I would read a Scientific American magazine in bed. Put me right to sleep. But obviously not because it stopped me thinking.
I don't agree with your premise. For one thing, it would depend on what the podcast you are listening to is about.
You say "the only evidence is one flawed study". (1) not true, tons of evidence, (2) you can't prove something is the "only" by linking to a "study" that you say is the "only" one.
Regarding the movie I linked to, I happen to know more about that movie than I let on. Inside story type of info, but I want to preserve confidentiality.
In any event, it is not the movie but the information the movie reveals, that should be debated, attacked or learned from. Instead of doing this you ask if I am "for real". Since this is a pressing question for you, I shall endeavour to reassure you by saying I am quite real, with the usual numbers of fingers and toes.
I await you actually talking about the three or four points I brought up in my original post...
Oh, thank goodness you quoted Wikipedia. That settles it.
To the grandparent poster, check out "The Greater Good". Will totally change your view of vaccinations. One of the most profound things I learned was that in "vaccine vs no vaccine" studies, the "no vaccine" people in some cases still received the mercury (!) and in other cases received a different vaccine (!). That's right, there was no "control" group so they compared the health effect of a mercury-containing vaccine with...a mercury-containing control and/or a different vaccine.
Other juicy bits from that documentary:
- The number of vaccines given to kids these days is TEN times what was given 30 or 40 years ago.
- some vaccines still use mercury.
- some autistic individuals became so at the same time they (1) got a bunch of vaccinations and (2) were then tested and found to have toxic levels of mercury in their system, prompting (3) a successful lawsuit, and resulting compensation.
Best comment I've ever seen on autistic people.
I have extensive experience caring for and living with them.
At this point I agree with Dr. Robert Melillo, as I posted above. With TAS individual I live with, I have seen considerable improvement but it has come through repeatedly teaching new/better behaviors, not through letting the individual become more and more shut off.
FWIW, I think armchair experts are the biggest problem. Try living with one, or caring for many of them for many years. You'll change your tune.
The reason many call it a craze or a fad, is that it deflects attention away from the real cause(s).
/. and Ars.
I like the book "Disconnected Kids" because it points the finger at developmental imbalance in the brain. This makes the most sense to me because (1) when you've met one autistic person, you've met one autistic person, (2) many things can throw off development (especially with the dozens and dozens of vaccines now given to infants, and fluoridation, and microwave radiation broadcasters...I mean, baby monitors), (3) the guy offers techniques to re-balance one's brain that I think makes sense and work to at least an extent, (4) he has opened dozens of clinics to help treat people, etc.
"It's a fad" is the 21st century equivalent of "You're a racist!" Quick and easy deflection. The real fad is corporations having armies of minions who reverse-troll for their clients by the hour on social media and places like
I'm not sure why you think security cameras are a problem.
...I have no idea, not having consumed alcohol for 30 years, but let's say $18. Rough calculation, the store made a buck on the Bud, and lost $20 or $30 on the other two items. How long can they sustain that?
Let's study the behavior of a customer called Nefarious. He opens packages in the store, pocketing a handful of delicious Lindt chocolates here, and pouring half a pound of Starbucks beans into his other pocket over there. A quick checkout for his case of Bud and then he breezes through the exit doors.
Retail has slim profit margins. Grocery stores, it is like 1 or 2%. At Costco let's say it is 5%. But the cost of Nefarious's visit is beyond what he took out. He left a $9.89 bag of Lindt that is fit only for the break room. Same for the Starbucks bag -- all 5 pounds of it. That case of Bud only cost
A big part of store security is deterence. You won't stop everyone, but cameras, or store walkers, or receipt checkers will discourage many from abusing the system.
I want to shop at a place that deters cheat, crooks and scumbags. This is definitely a case where, if you are not breaking the law what do you have to be concerned about?
Getting back to your camera concerns...When you were going through the checkout, the cashier was watching you. If you pocketed something, or tried to slip something past them in the bottom of your shopping cart, they would catch it. Cameras "see" more but notice a hundred times less. IOW, on average no one ever looks at you on tape. It is there to settle the question of did someone put something in their pocket (or what did the guy with the cap gun look like)?
If you really want to be creeped out, go to a clothing store. The level of security and inconvenience there is very off-putting (to me anyway). Stuff is cabled together. Huge dongles hang off that T-shirt you wanted to try on. There is a limit on how many things you can try on in the change stall with 2 foot tall saloon doors. Etc.
Still, the only camera that would bother me is one (1) in a change room, or (2) in a toilet stall. I'm not aware of any of those...
I question the sincerity of your response, but can agree with the point that different inspections have different levels of gain for both parties.
Parents checking the texts on their kid's phone can learn quite a bit, and this is a good thing, even if the child would freak if she found out.
Your local auto repair shop is probably looking for extra work when they tell you your radiator could use a flush. But this is a relationship, that can work both ways. If they report stuff as broken that ain't, you find some other repair shop. If they are right about the radiator flush, you thank them (at least to yourself) and the relationship improves.
Your employer checking what you say on Facebook is not a bad thing. Them requiring you hand over your password is beyond a bad thing. Still, it also serves to tell you that you don't want to work for this company...and that is a good thing.
Not everything is a zero sum gain, denzacar.
That "inspection at the door" works both ways. On several occasions, Costco inspectors have noticed I forgot to pick up my Forever stamps, etc. Two of them are among the friendliest staff in the whole store, and if they catch someone taking stuff then that translates into them keeping MY prices down. Everything about Costco comes across as "a great and fair deal for all", and yet that is the only store I exit that checks my receipt.
First few seasons were quite lame, I'll give you that. But this is true of many ultimately good shows.
Luckily for me I had avoided STTNG until the STTNG pinball game came out. That hooked me. By then I think there were 5 or more seasons in the can.
There are some soap opera episodes, I will give you that. I constantly cherry-pick from the rebroadcasts. But then who doesn't do this?
I thoroughly enjoy the Data character (in addition to Picard) but I also like many "design" aspects of the series. Resolution usually happens at the end of an episode, "good guys win" (otherwise, what's the point?), intelligent use of special effects.
Best of all the ST series, to me.
Actually, aluminum corrodes (i.e. oxidizes) very readily. It just so happens that the coating -- a mix of Al & O atoms -- takes up the same space as pure Al atoms. So the surface Al oxidizes to Al2O3, and once the surface is covered with the oxide, O can not get through to react with the Al. End of "corrosion" but very much an oxide surface. Oxide surface = not attractive in jewelry (just like what happens to silver). Also, absorbing Al through the skin contact is not a good idea.
You forgot to mention gold's inertness. Yes, copper and silver conduct better than gold but both of them corrode like fiends. To combat this you have to alloy, or coat. You don't need this with gold, and combined with its "softness" (better described as extreme ductility), you can lay down a very thin layer indeed. "Atoms" thick, vs "fractions of an inch" thick. Ask someone designing a satellite which is more valuable. Or a jeweler. Or a circuit board maker.
Crude becomes gasoline (and other stuff) in two stages.
(1) Fractional distillation does the initial bulk separation
(2) Catalytic cracking of longer chain hydrocarbons into gasoline (i.e. octane).
I think that cat cracking is much more energy intensive, so some (probably most) octane comes from a more energy intensive method.
I'll bite. Are you considering wireless radiation as the cause of "metabolic syndrome"?
And more on topic:
The perpetual motion machine of modern physics is a great provider for those who get paid to speculate.
Probably a reason for it. I imagine they don't want people endlessly scanning and scrolling around a video. Massive files. Thrashing around them and serving random chunks not something they want to do endlessly.
YouTube does something similar, in that if you pause your video for too long you then have to refresh the tab to resume it later. Maybe they assign a machine to deliver the 'tube. You walk away and they reassign the machine. Firing off the cryptic "Error processing this directive", or running the endless buffering ruse, are just the kind of things that will make people stop doing what the big streaming companies don't want them to do.