Leaderboard

Moreno has been banned for the rather insistent tendency towards racist rhetoric.

Of course if one focuses solely on the bumper sticker version of this point it’s hard to disagree. But there’s a deeper meaning to this simplistic chant and a far more rational desire. Summarized: Like the US military, funding for police departments bloated and excessive. Money is used to buy former combat and heavy equipment from the department of defense and to continue the “dominate the streets” mentality. The ROI would be higher, however, if we focused those same tax dollars k stead into public schools and mental health clinics, and even increasing availability of social workers dealing with the mental health problems police seem so often to be on the front lines of. Putting a person with mental health issues into jail (or into a grave as so often happens after interactions with police) wastes money and that money can be spent far more intelligently... but that doesn’t package itself well when walking among crowds in the streets to improve justice so it gets distilled to “defund the police.” Cory Booker was on Meet the Press this morning and laid it out well (the entire 8 minute interview is worth the watch, the defund the police comments begin at 4:50):

Issac Asimov wrote an article about this called The Relativity of Wrong We once thought the world was round, and then we corrected that to it being a sphere. That was further corrected to being an oblate spheroid, and later, further refinements were made. The point is that this represents a series of refinements, each step being a smaller adjustment to the previous. When it comes to the Earth's shape, we will never again see such a large shift as between flat Earth and round Earth. Just because we once thought it was flat and now believe it to be round doesn't mean that some day we will conclude that is is shaped like a tetrahedron. Likewise, any correction to Relativity would still need to fit our present observations of the universe, which do indicate that c is a natural speed limit built into the universe. While we can never absolutely be sure that there might not be a way around this, there is no reason to believe that this will ever be the case. It is entirely possible( maybe even likely) that c is an insurmountable barrier. It is important not to let what you would prefer to be true to influence what you believe to the be true. As pleased as I would be if it turned out that the universe was populated with advanced civilizations and that FTL travel between star systems was practical, I can't bring myself to believe it to be true given the lack of any credible evidence for it.

Take a universe uniformly filled with hot plasma(*), with just tiny random variations in temperature and pressure. Allow it to expand and cool. See what marvels crystallise out. (*) Autocorrect made that "hot llama". A universe full of hot llamas?

Very good advice IMO you're getting here. Just for completeness and to add to what @iNow is providing: https://philosophy.hku.hk/think/fallacy/list.php Very intelligent people have made very silly mistakes by not taking them into account. My favourite example is Enrico Fermi, who once said extraterrestrial life must not exist because, otherwise, we would have noticed already. I'm not saying extraterrestrial life must exist (which I think it does,) I'm just saying Fermi's argument is not valid. That's argument from silence (argumento ex silentio,) very well known to historians and archaeologists. Marco Polo didn't mention the Great Wall of China. Should we assume it doesn't exist?

I am wondering what an expert's interpretation of the double slit experiment means for free will. Does the ability of an observer to affect an outcome simply by choosing to observe it mean that the choice had to have been made outside of all universal conditions? I have no belief one way or another, I would just like to ask people more knowledgeable about this stuff than me what they think.

That is not very clear or helpful. I'll try again: can you post a reference to a credible source that supports your claim that such a phenomenon exists and how that phenomenon is defined? From there we could discuss the possible causes. A telescope? Do you believe there are massive objects between us and the planets?

And journalists, also exercising their constitutionally protected rights Maybe Trump needs to send in the army to bring the police under control.

Hey all, So I'm doing an assignment on swimsuits and their effect on performance, and I decided to make one of the factors I consider buoyancy. This was because numerous sites talked about how buoyancy is vital, and how FINA has even imposed regulations on it to keep the playing field fair. They say that this is achieved by using lighter foam-like materials, for example polyurethane, to increase buoyancy, but there's one problem. After some extra research, I can find no articles that say that buoyancy is depended on the object's weight or density at all. Buoyancy appears to be a single force that pushes upwards, and is dependent on the object's volume, the liquid's density and the force of gravity, and not the object's weight. What I think has happened is that the articles have misused the word buoyancy, instead of net upward force (or its equivalent), as the object's weight only seems to comes into play when you balance its weight in newtons against the buoyant force and come up with its net upward force. So in essence, my question is this. Are all of the websites wrong, or do I just have a incomplete definition of buoyancy? If so, could you point me to a reliable source which holds the correct one? And I also wanted to make sure that there isn't another word for an object's net upward force in water, as that would be cumbersome to say all of the time in my report. Thanks in advance, Dan

Can we please acknowledge that increased availability of guns in the US does add risk to officers during every police interaction, but that being black also adds risk to ones life during every police interaction, and that neither of these things justify the way police are treating suspects after they’re already in custody or the way they’re marching on and being violent with peaceful protesters exercising their constitutionally protected rights? Surely, we can move on now... Please don’t make me write another horrible run-on sentence one that

It would justify an emotional state. Training would hopefully mitigate an emotionally driven response. But I think MigL's point is that American cops require a more defensive/adversarial attitude generally to survive. Assuming that's true you will likely have more outliers like Derek Chauvin than you would expect in a country with less guns.

OK so studying Thermodynamics is like watching a good play, film or reading a good book. The actors are introduced and a lttle bit of information is given about them. Enough to know who they are some of their relationship to the other actors and why the audience should be interested in them. As the play unfolds more information is revealed. In the same way, in Thermodynamics we first learn about the main quantities, their relationship to the other main quantities and why we might be interested in them. Now sonmeone who is just starting Thermodynamics is at the beginning of the play. He has learned about Boyle's Law P1V1 = P2 V2 (1662) Charles Law V1T2 =V2T1 (1780) Avogadros Gas Law PV = nRT (1812) Something about energy (Young 1802) Something about 'work' as the force times distance Something about 'heat' being mass times specific heat So he is in the same position of scientists in the first half of the 19th century that is 50 years before the first version of the First Law of Thermodynamics. So to get to the First Law some study needs to be carried out filling in the gaps and strengthening the definitions of these variables. Additionally he will need to learn some of the structure of Thermodynamics. In particular what is a system and what is a process and what is a state and a state variable. Once these ideas have been absorbed (they are all important) additional details can be studied and understood. Such the meaning of isolated, open, closed and flow systems. The difference between reversible and irreversible processes The difference between intensive and extensive variables and so on. So our student learns about different types of energy, including something called internal energy (symbol here U) and arrives at the First Law This connects the State Variable: Internal Energy to two variables heat and work. These are not system properties but variables that connect the system to its surroundings. U2 - U1 = q + w But he notices that whilst q and w can easily be measured or directly calculated from measurable variables , U cannot be directly measured. Furthermore the other state variables already mentioned P, V and T can also be easily measured and the equations stated allow calculation of w. So Internal Energy is the first quantity he has come across that he cannot directly measure. However he realises that it is a very important quantity since it is like a bank balance which = money in - money out. This was so important to early engineers in the development of steam engines that they invented a special diagram called an indicator diagram to show the work part - w. This work is the area under a P - V graph or plot And they even invented a mechanism to fix to steam engines called an 'indicator', which is where the name came from. Now you will have noticed by now that there are three measurable connected variables, P, V and T and that we have only used one of them. So guess what? Someone said, "Wouldn't it be nice if we had another variable we could plot against temperature (the unused variable) to calculate q in the same way ?" Bingo there you have it Entropy as Clausius named it. I have drawn the indicator diagram for Temperature v Entropy side by side with the one for Pressure v Volume so you it can be seen that they have the same format. Entropy is not some mystical property. It is simply the thing we need to multiply temperature by to get a particular energy in this case the heat exchanged across the system boundary. Again we cannot directly measure entropy, but simple equations exist to calculate it from easily measurable ones. Now that we are not frightened of it we can study more details and proceed to the next level of the development of Thermodynamics. Also if there are any details in the foregoing that are unclear please ask.

I could say you are ignorant, as you don't live in the US, Curious Layman. ( inside joke, you had to be here a few pages ago ) There are 120 guns foor every hundred persons living in the US. That is for 100 men, women, children, old people ... There are about 4.5 guns per 100 persons in England and Wales. If you don't think that makes a difference, I'm sorry my friend, but you are delusional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country Of those American guns, Just over 1 million are registered, so that police know about them. Over 390 million are unregistered, and the next guy you pull over ( if you're a cop ) could be carrying half a dozen of them. Good luck to you !

Your advocacy for police brutality suggest your statement here is unequivocally disingenuous. You've touted your belief in police brutality and, thereby, confirm you do believe it exist. It's hardly convincing that a person who holds such beliefs is in anyway sincerely or slightly interested in humans rights protection whatsoever. As decent human beings raised with a modicum of morals, they should have innately known to weigh "following training/orders" against the loss of common decency. "I was just following training/orders" is not an excuse for crimes committed while doing so.

Were they? If so, then training/orders is the problem. Who fell to the ground and cracked his skull. The team then just kept walking past him. I imagine if he had not fallen we wouldn't know anything about this incident, but if training/orders involves indiscriminate use of force then the problem is bigger than I thought. I think we have a perfect storm of training police to aggressively take control, a heavily armed public, along with an underlying current of racism. Bad combination. I believe until police are trained more like they are in other countries, where the goal seems to be to 'deescalate' rather than 'take control', and are HELD RESPONSIBLE for their actions, this will not end anytime soon. The protests and riots we are experiencing now are another drop in the bucket of moving us toward a more tolerant society. It's a terribly slow process but I believe that is inevitable.

After you make a good connection between cables and posts, coat them liberally with petroleum jelly, and you won't need to worry about corrosive build up. The build up is mostly a surface effect, but it is acidic/corrosive. I don't recommend spraying large amounts of water on your battery ( although little doesn't hurt ). And if you're concerned about getting the stuff on you, or in your eyes, a small steel brush is probably not a good idea either ( although that is what I do ) The baking soda will neutralize the acid, making it safer to handle, but it still needs to be scraped off. The vinegar or lemon juice will actually help it dissolve better with a little water ( never actually done this; just guessing ).

In 3D computer graphics, we have couple typical transformations that can be performed using a matrix: translation, rotation, scaling, and projection from 3D to 2D, and eventually inversed projection from 2D to 3D. Conversion from object-space to world-space and reverse operation. How to construct transformation matrix you can find in e.g. OpenGL and Direct3D tutorials and manuals. There is often explained entire math used to get said matrices. e.g. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/direct3d9/transforms https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/direct3d9/viewports-and-clipping How to make example 3D to 2D projection matrix in OpenGL: http://www.songho.ca/opengl/gl_projectionmatrix.html (OpenGL/Direct3D use 4x4 matrices with 4d vectors) Even if someone is not interested in 3D computer graphics, but is a novice in matrices, should read these articles, because they are better (more clearly) written than by mathematicians.

I would be glad to know your opinion on possibility to use an airborne substance which is capable to reduce fertility rates in those countries where people cannot find a balance with surrounding environment and stabilize their population on their own. Such vaccine wouldn't be able to cause any harm to humans or even their purely sexual functions, but just make them infertile. I don't propose to use such a vaccine, of course, but would be glad to know an opinions on ethical and practical side of the question. There are predictions that all the tropical rainforests soon will gone forever, as well as majority of leaving species on Earth with them. Also there is a threat that weapon of mass destruction will get in hands of unstable regimes. There are a huge problems with migration/refugees. Fertility rates by country: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/356rank.html#AM

How about like this. Nikolas Cruz, murdered 17 people George Floyd, suspect in a forgery. Notice the difference? The argument about the amount of guns and open carry being a problem is a load of crap.

I'm not being delusional. The fact of the matter is, George Floyd was unarmed, he wasn't being aggressive nor was he suspected of a violent crime. There were more than enough officers to arrest him without incident. This 'yes, but look at the amount of guns in America' argument doesn't hold up. It's nothing more than a poor excuse for police brutality.

I can... But what will I get. Will my calculations get published? Are u sure about that? It certainly not. U will slip. I have but i can post it now. Yes... Neutron star for example. I know... We call it dark because we don't know what it is.

Sorry... I read it wrong. I donno what to say. But I prefer this way... So... Asking people to provide mathematical evidence isn't right because some of it worth million dollars... At least people get paid or their papers get published. Sorry... I read it wrong. No... We call dark DNA not because it doesn't interact with light.