Leaderboard

You mean calling him a "racist"? That is no more "name calling" than referring to someone a "physicist" or a "plumber". Name calling implies an insult. "Racist" is a title he earned all by himself. I don't see what is to be gained by dancing around words to spare people's feelings. This place is not a quilting circle. So there is the "status quo" and there is "your way". Some people feel there are other means to change the status quo, and they don't involve allowing others a platform to share hatred and bigotry. I allow no room in my heart for showing understanding for racism. Hatred of others based on the color of their skin is never acceptable to me. I will not stand by while others spew hate without calling them out. There is a reason people lose sponsors, advertisers, and even jobs after making racist comments. It is not acceptable. I don't see why we should be an exception.

There are two somewhat different issues here: one is discussing racism in general, and another is discussing it on this site. As for the latter, as iNow and Phi (and possibly others) have pointed out, we want arguments to be in good faith. Disagreement must maintain a certain amount of civility. So if someone shows up dropping N-bombs, or disparaging religions, they will be shown the door. We are not obligated to make people suffer written abuse in an effort to change a bigot's mind. If that's the price of participation, for us it's too high.

Racism isn't about labels, it's about hate. Hate is an issue of emotion not intellect. As emotion, the afflicted may only be solved or remedied by therapy rather than by reasoned discussion as we may find in open forums like this. In this forum, we can intellectualize the causes and cures for hate but we can no more treat that condition via our online debates with racist than we can remotely remove a tumor. There's a reason why this science forum discourages visitors seeking medical advice. Similarly, there are reasons why hate filled sufferers are equally discouraged in this forum. They need help we can't render here.

Sorry, but like with most of life's subtleties, racists don't wear scarlet "R"'s on their sleeves. We are required to listen to their dog whistles and innuendo, what they complain about and what they don't, to understand them. For most of us, we do not need to hear a person say "black Americans are less than human" to know what they think about black Americans.

Maybe he's racist. He certainly likes to generalize and dislikes loud music. Maybe he finds it intimidating. Maybe he's not racist but an intolerant bigot. But at least there is this "because of the rude behavior/rap persona of a few." So maybe there is hope for him somewhere. I'm fine with banning him. We don't need that crap. And I understand the limits of patience to try to change him. I just don't see the need, or benefit, to insulting him as well, especially with all the neg reps on his posts (and positive ones for those insulting him) These people get to vote (and like everyone else, should be encouraged to do so). They may also come into position to influence others. Not my cup of tea either but one of my sons works out to it...hopefully not on his way to causing "psychological issues to society".

GUYTON is being referenced for phsiology (but more ,as I know for neurophysiology and biophysics. )

That is difficult to say. There are openstax books that you could check out first, as they are free. While I do use them occasionally for some topics (I do not teach human physiology) most I found not to be too much to my liking. But that does not mean that expensive books are automatically better, of course. My suggestion is to look into books that are for non-biology majors (e.g. for nursing) which tend to be written more fundamental and read some chapters if available. That alt east gives you a sense whether you would be interested in reading the rest.

We might all benefit from some therapy of sorts but not in this forum. Racism in America or anywhere for that matter isn't rooted in fact or reason. If I understand, you see essereio's ban as a stifling of meaningful discussions where opinions and ideas, regardless how heinous, are freely exchanged without rebuke. In this science forum, as I believe, our opinions and ideas should have some basis in reason or fact. If you read any of essereio's comments, you'd know they were based in neither. His "opinions" were clearly rooted in his dislike or hate for what he saw as the distasteful social proclivities of fellow human beings he appears to distinguish solely by skin color. This was not a expression of ideas but rather a spewing of hate. Although what happened to George Floyd has awakened our global consciousness to the hypocrisy of racism in America, America's racist and systemic racism won't be solved by therapy or discussion. Racism is a social disease that require social solutions and pressures to remove from our society as essereio has been removed from discussions in this forum.

This is where I feel you're wrong-wrong-wrong, and it's a fundamental mistake that's polluting your whole outlook on this issue. Calling out reprehensible behavior is NOT meant to hurt anybody, it's meant to STOP THE HURT. Once again, you're making the wrong person the victim. Perhaps you should decide on a definition of racism that allows no equivocation. For me, anybody who considers any group of humans to be less than human is a flat-out racist. And you know what? If that's truly the way they feel, if they think they're better because of the color of their skin, I want this divide you're talking about to be spotlighted. I want to know who persecutes other humans in this way, and I want the whole world to know I disagree with them completely. I have no problem spotting racism, and I feel racists can't be trusted to live among others in a gun culture with a lack of informative media like the US. They undermine the very meaning of living together in a society. I'm more concerned with racism's true victims than with alienating obvious racist assholes.

This thread has drifted quite a bit away from the killing of George Floyd, but it's a good discussion and can maybe be split? There are a few issues here. One is how "racist" has become such a charged and loaded term. Even some people who are very obviously racist will say, "I'm not racist!" simply because they know it's seen as unacceptable to society as a whole. They know it's viewed as bad, and even though they meet the definition, they don't want to be ostracized or seen as not conforming with group norms and expectations. They often don't want to see themselves that way... "I'm not racist, I just speak my mind and tell it how it is!" We also can always be better about applying these labels to specific statements or actions, instead of applying them to the person as a whole. It's one thing to say something racist or make a comment that is racially insensitive, but it's quite another to BE a racist. Often, these areas get conflated. Also, anytime we try to distill a human being down to a flat one-dimensional label, we're dehumanizing them a bit. Instead of recognizing them as a complex being with many different components... different colors on the palette... different instruments in the band... a tapestry of personality traits and characteristics... the moment we use a single word like "racist" (or liberal or leftie or commie or snowflake or whatever), we immediately reduce them down to that one single word... They're no longer a person, but instead become a caricature. We're talking to the map, and not the territory... It's helpful to focus on individual statements and behaviors. I think we can all agree, but let's also be honest... if there are enough of those racist statements and behaviors, eventually a threshold gets crossed and it's simpler to just acknowledge... yep, that person is a racist. Where that threshold exists will differ for all of us, and likely from one person or situation to the next... but there's always a threshold between racist and not. Finally, we could also use more precise terms like jingoistic or xenophobic or segregationist, but alas... most people in racist discussions aren't educated enough to grasp those bigger words.

Or perhaps they didn't have the code at all. From "Assessment of different MCNP Monte Carlo codes in electron absorbed dose" https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82699541.pdf "We are grateful to Jon Cox, who ran the MCNP-5 simulations in Los Alamos National Laboratory" Meaning it's possible to collaborate with someone who has legitimate access to the code.

Nope. Anyone who has someone come round and do some plumbing (or, less frequently, some physics) can call that person a plumber. You just have to see them engaged in the act of plumbing. They can then be called a plumber. There are certainly edge cases. It is not always, if you'll excuse the phrase, back and white. I would be suspicious of someone's motives who voted against something like this if the RCMP is systemically racist (and I have no idea if they are or not). However, that is not the sort of possibly implied racism we are discussing here. So both your analogy and your example fail to hit the spot, I'm afraid.

thank you for your suitable reply. lets see what I have been doing. (but for the quotation I won't use the original tags ,I shall use [/ instead [ and /] to help you better understand what I have been doing. for instance assume please I am quoting on this text. then I do [/quote/] for instance assume please I am quoting on this text [/quote/] and where is my failure? it includes my own comment ,too ,into the quotation. I think I do this. oh, okkkkk!!! I newly realised haha when I pass over the text the option appears ,presumably it has been resolved! I am feeling myself way more carismatic than before pahah

You have to tick out of the Quote Window before writing your comment. Right click the text you want to quote and a "Quote Selection" window will pop up.

To what end? Do yo want build mathematical models for medical/physiological applications? Do you want to keep doors open so that later you could move into a medical career? Are you just inherently interested in the subject but don't plan on applying any knowledge? Knowing your goal should help you focus on what you need.

the things you are able to do are that : 1) you could enroll biophysics or physiology (MSc) at medical science institutions. (but I do not recommend this in general if you are not so much eager and ...something more (more talents required because this way is a bit containing some significant risks )) 2) you could read articles/thesis in medical science. it either cases, your opportunities will be limited. according to modern guidance/educational system you will select all of your options/preferences by your own. I was also mathematician , but do not prefer to describe myself as a mathematician anymore. TIPS THAT I CAN SHOW YOU (based on my experiences): 1) you might try to change your work style. (remember, you have been working by writing almost everything you hear and you say but as of now,...) 2) you might consider to learn something else (that contains applications) rather than reading useless theoretic papers 3) you might need to stop your sentences starting with "if ..." 4) you should not leave the reality / real life. 5) you may need to be patient.

1) The best thing to read are entry level textbooks. They provide a broader overview but more importantly, also provide context which you generally do not find from from short videos. I generally found that the latter make you feel that you understand a topic, but they usually do not convey actual understanding. 2) Typical websites to use are Pubmed. Web of science is also good for specific searches, but you generally need to access them from the uni. Google scholar also works but if you are not sure with the keywords can take a while to look through.

Agreed but let's ask a question. Where is the null surface located ? Under one coordinate choice its r_s= 2GM. However this isn't true for the Kruskal. Now ask yourself is it the spacelike or the time like that are invariant under the Lorentz transforms ? This question becomes important to understand the region's of the Penrose diagrams. Here is an examination of different causal connections in different coordinate systems the article is specifically dealing with Penrose diagrams. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://people.uncw.edu/hermanr/GRcosmo/penrose.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwixr5mr7IzqAhWHvZ4KHZhcA44QFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0E2LE-32F7TxpcK6vXujWN

Sorry to disappoint you but the speed limit c applies to all forms of information exchange regardless of what you believe.

Hi Joigus: Based on your previous posts, I suspect that the arguments you present will fail to strike at the heart of Eise’s position. I believe you two will remain at an impasse. I’m going to take John Searle’s position as an example because I think his to some degree reflects yours (and also those of many other posters who’ve contributed here over the past few pages). Searle considers the compatibilist view a cop out1. He thinks its advocates avoid “the problem” which he defines in the form of a question: “Is it the case for every decision I make that the antecedent causes were sufficient to determine that very decision?” 1) If yes, then no free will. 2) If there is a decision where the antecedent causes were not sufficient to determine the outcome, then, he says, “there is a possibility of free will”. For 2) to be the case, according to Searle, there would have to be a gap of sorts between antecedent events and the act of deciding; one wherein you/I/we could participate (I can already hear Eise crying: “Dualist trap!”). Searle does acknowledge that there can be an experiential gap during which the higher level reasoning takes place, but then he adds, “If the neurobiological level is causally sufficient to determine your behaviour, then the fact that you have the experience of freedom at the higher level is…irrelevant.” And of course Searle points to the evidence of neurobiology as highly suggestive that it is sufficient cause. Eise seems to be saying the opposite: “…the 'determining relation' between us and our constituents is an emergence relationship, not a causal relationship” (my emphasis). Not only is the neurological level not “causally sufficient” to determine the decision, it is not even causally related to it! (And this sends many of us reeling!)2 Although Dennett thinks we should focus on the biological level (and not that of physics), here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joCOWaaTj4A he appears to care little about the relationship between the neurobiological level and our decisions. He says what matters is making a distinction between “determined” and “inevitable” which, upon first hearing, is also enough to send one reeling (or worse, provoke one to slap him in the face!). Of course he does go on to elaborate: “To be clear on this we have to see what “inevitable” means—it means unavoidable. So then we have to get clear on what avoiding is, and then we can begin to see the biological dimension.” He then characterizes evolution over earth history as “an explosion of avoidance”—everything from dissolution, to being eaten, to starving to death. Avoidance is the result of “anticipating and taking corrective measures”; the ability to project possible futures (or at least those we think are possible) and avoid them. To me this seems to run roughshod over everything Searle says: Whether there was something (an agent?) intervening somewhere along the way doesn’t seem to strike at the core (spirit?) of the idea. And so I think any arguments about causality across the levels, whether below governs above, etc will experience a similar fate vis-à-vis what it is Dennett and Eise point to. Simply put: One either does or does not agree that such avoidance abilities render determinism and free will compatible. It’s either “good enough for you” or it isn’t. And that is pretty much the end of it. 1 The view which he encapsulates here as: “…you are determined by certain sorts of causes such as your desires instead of somebody putting a gun at your head”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rZfSTpjGl8 2 Perhaps I will later try to defend this position in some shape or form even if it is not Eise’s.

That is a pretty enormous straw man you have constructed there. Possibly the biggest I have ever seen. Do you need a hand with it? 🙂 You are (I think) Canadian/Italian. I have grey hair. He is a racist. It is just a statement of fact. I'm not sure why it is considered offensive or problematic to say that someone who plainly and openly espouses racist opinions is a racist. (Bizarrely, the BBC's code of conduct seems to say that it is OK to say that the British PM or US President "deliberately said something untrue" or "made a racist statement" but it is not OK to call them a liar or a racist. That makes zero sense. That is like insisting that I must be described as "a man who has been known to have some hairs that are of the greyish persuasion".) I'm sure you are right that it is not going to change their opinions. But I'm not sure what is. Certainly not rational argument. Maybe accidentally falling in love with someone of the race they despise? But outside of rom-coms, I don't see much hope for people like that.

I am assuming it is the tutorial to ping google and get the interfaces shown, you didn't apply the filter for google. It is highly unlikely to be the same as what is in the tutorial but you look to be doing the correct thing.

This is the sort of question that might be better for StackOverflow or similar, where you might find more people who have actually used the tool. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/wireshark

Which of the pictures is the tutorial and which picture is from the Wireshark you are trying to use? What is the operating system? Interface names may differ. What type of interface will be captured? For example wireless have different names than ehternet. Are all the correct libraries installed for the operating system? Example: Wireshark on windows requires npcap as far as I know What did you find in the documentation for Wireshark? For instance in the resources provided at https://www.wireshark.org/#learnWS ?

No. Re-read Janus' post. Gravitational waves are real ( not just a term we use ), and carry information about the changes of the gravitational field. "The only reason we even know these gravitational waves exist is the ability to see how the local environment ( space-time ) reacts to them." Took the liberty of fixing your sentence. Gravity, as compared to other fundamental forces, is exceedingly weak. The whole planet Earth is pulling down on that rock at your feet, yet you can pick it up with only one hand. ( the example I always like to use )

The assumption is probably invalid. After all, humans have so little hair that having it kinky is not going to provide enough protection from UV. UV breaks down folate (a B vitamin) and the result of too little folate is neural tube defects during embryogenesis -- babies are born with seriously impaired CNS. We don't know the adaptive advantage (if there is one) of kinky hair. Since humans went thru a severe bottleneck in population about 150,000 years ago, this may simply be a result of genetic drift and a feature getting fixed by accident in a small population.

Do you see the hate and victim mentality? No prejudice. Simply an aversion to obnoxious loudmouths regardless of skin color who expect their bad behavior rewarded. This includes my younger white brother who I can tell to shut up without being accused of being racist. Police brutality will stop when people stop being loudmouths and breaking the law. Like I said... people want their bad behavior rewarded. Malton, Ontario, Canada. This is a place where police is required to keep the peace. They tried removing the police station after renovating the whole place with new stores and streets but crime rate including killings went up. Without great power comes great irresponsibility.