Leaderboard

There has been a big push lately to "defund the police". One problem that I see is that the police were never funded properly in the first place. Yes, they are given ridiculous and unnecessary amounts of military surplus vehicles (which they shouldn't have), but that actual salary for a full time officer is around 55,000 a year - quite low considering the cost of living these days and what their job demands. (Source:https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/police-officer/salary/) The issue I see is police are woefully undertrained. Jocko Willik, a retired Navy SEAL, was on a podcast recently and pointed out that for a 6 month deployment in Afghanistan, the Navy SEALs train for 18 months prior to starting their deployment. That is not 18 months of BUDS or initial qualification to be a SEAL, but 18 months specifically for that deployment after they have already become SEALs. So they train 3 times longer than they are actually deployed. So how much training do police get, on average, each year? According to Willik, the average police officer (after going through 3 month police academy) trains for just 5 hours per year. In the vast majority of departments there is no minimum physical or psychological standard like there is in the military, so there is zero accountability. The point is, everyone is clamoring to take resources away from the police. Who are you going to get then, as officers? Only the worst of the worst. In fact I think funding needs to be increased, so that becoming an officer is a highly sought after job, and police are given significantly more training to deal with the constant barrage of threatening situations they face each day. Take a look at State and Local spending on police over the decades (source: https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/police-and-corrections-expenditures#Question1Police) From a purely objective standpoint, if you pay someone a marginal salary, expect them to work long hours in an extremely high stress environment, give them little to no training to deal with that stressful, environment, what should you really expect as to the quality of the personnel who will emerge from those parameters? So what is the solution? To make police better we need: 1. Higher compensation. Make it a highly sought after job with excellent benefits. 2. Accountability. There should be federal standards in place for police training that are substantially higher than they are now. There should be intense focus on officer conduct and a national database to record excessive use of force or abuse of power. This would include strict physical and psychological evaluations. 3. Specialization. The police should be highly specialized. Police aren't dog catchers, EMTs, or therapists. They should have a limited role and train specifically for that role. 4. Community Interaction. Police should be required to interact with the community they serve on a regular basis, in a cooperative role. This would include meeting members of the community, spending time doing community service work with low income people, etc. This would be part of the overall job description and would serve to build trust and respect.

It is generally a immunological effect that is not due the disease per se (there are exceptions and certain diseases can effectively wipe out your adaptive memory, but this is not one of those). Roughly speaking it is the reaction of your body to the antigen that determines how long your body remembers it. However, there are a lot of unknowns regarding what precisely makes a response long-lasting. It is not my area of specialization so I cannot really say how far the research in the area has progressed, but from discussions it appears to me that the field is still wide open in that regard.

You should be able to get standard student note/handbooks very cheaply second hand. Look for Classical Mechanics B P Cowan Classical Mechanics J W Leech Statistical Physics F Mandl Statistical Thermodynamics Andrew Maczek All good intro notes for university

Okay, well the restriction on valid reference frames to v<c is a new one on me, however ... You agree that the spacetime seperation is zero in the direction of photon travel, which is my starting point. Does this mean that the emitter and absorber are physically adjacent (despite the huge separation in our own spatial and time reference frame), with a consequently strong electromagnetic coupling, and hence that the exchange of a photon between them reduces to a local event. I'm not looking for transfer of information from absorber to emitter as such, but whether the existence of an available absorber (removed in time) can be sensed by the emitter. Or does the emitter simply chuck out a photon irrespective of its ultimate destiny. No handshake in either direction.

How can you get thrust from a gravity wave when the oscillations are fluctuating from a background spacetime geometry in contraction and expansion. Ie the x and y axis for the H+ or h× axis ? There isn't an inherent single direction but a quadrupole change. This has differences compared to a water like Dipolar behavior.

I stated before that the assumption was that the suspect is already intent on violence. If the suspect isn't intent on violence, then of course, no physical force from the officer should be used. What I stated was, WHEN the suspect is already physically attacking the officers they need to be prepared to deal with it and control the situation. Your position is unrealistic. If someone is intent on violently attacking another person, asking them nicely to stop simply isn't going to work. I agree with most of this. Over-policing needs to stop. Mass incarceration needs to stop. Racial profiling and systematic targeting of the poor needs to stop. Policing for profit needs to stop. Police brutality and use of excessive force definitely needs to stop. Significantly more resources need to be allocated to social work, mental health facilities, and PERMANENT economic stimulus for chronically depressed areas to alleviate the vicious cycle of crime and poverty. 100% yes to all of that. However, at the present time there is still a need for police. So the question is, what kind of police do we want? Effective police require an investment. Right now society isn't investing in police in the way it should. Even the admirable Scandinavian nations with abundant social programs still have police - and as we've discussed, they pay for it. Like it or not, American society in its present form is still extremely violent. There are numerous mafias and street gangs that would love to have complete autonomy if police are defunded and restricted in their ability to exercise authority, not to mention every two bit criminal with a grudge against society. I'm simply saying that violent confrontation is a part of policing, and how officers respond to violent confrontation matters a great deal. If they're untrained, they'll reach for their gun at the slightest provocation. If they're trained well, they will have a range of other options at their disposal to successfully diffuse the encounter. Just trying to be realistic given the context of the situation, that's all. ------ Here is an excerpt from Norway's 2020 budget whitepaper: Security Security is a prerequisite for freedom. Crime breeds insecurity. The population therefore needs to be protected by the rule of law, a strong and effective police force and a credible defence capability. This is reflected in the budget for 2020 with a NOK 2.5 billion increase in defence sector appropriations for, inter alia, investments in new submarines, maritime patrol aircraft and artillery for the Norwegian Armed Forces. We are preparing for an increase in military activity and strengthened emergency response preparedness. This meets the targets the Government has set in the 2017-2020 long-term plan for the defence sector, and will expand the defence budget by more than NOK 8 billion in real terms over the period covered in the long-term plan. The Government is planning for a continued increase in police presence. The budget proposal allows for the recruitment of graduates from the Norwegian Police University College in 2020. In addition, appropriations are increased to cover the full-year effect of the recruitment of graduates in 2019. More funds for the police will strengthen the capacity of police districts to prevent, investigate and prosecute crime. It is proposed to provide the police and the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration with funds in order to enable the implementation of new Schengen systems for border control and monitoring. These systems will improve capacity for detecting and preventing crime, ID fraud and illegal migration. To facilitate follow-up of the Security Act, the Government is proposing to increase appropriations for the Norwegian National Security Authority (NSM). The proposal facilitates digitalisation and improved efficiency and quality in the security clearance of personnel. Moreover, the Government proposes initiatives to improve the ability to prevent, detect and manage security incidents in emergency preparedness communications. Source: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/09814fbc520946869d6eaa65099c2983/national_budget_2020.pdf Page 13. -------- Note: 2.5 billion Norwegian Kroner is approximately 262,000,000 USD ---- And from Sweden's 2020 budget whitepaper: The fight against crime and its causes will be intensified. Society must be strong enough to protect people from everything from petty crime to terrorism. The Swedish Police Service will be given additional resources. Work on employing 10 000 more people in the Police by 2024 will continue to strengthen the Police’s capacity to better fight serious organised crime, for instance. As the number of court cases is increasing and a larger number of criminals are being sentenced, the Swedish courts and the Swedish Prison and Probation Service will be allocated additional resources. The capacity to combat welfare crime and money laundering will be improved. The Swedish Prosecution Authority, the Swedish courts and Swedish Customs will be strengthened. Honour-related violence and oppression will be made visible, pre-empted, prevented and punished. The whole of society must play its part in combating and preventing crime. Source: https://www.government.se/4ad5f1/contentassets/e8bf49ea1bbe41fda780895657ae94e0/from-the-budget-bill-for-2020-budget-statement.pdf.pdf Page 5. ----- From the Finnish 2020 budget: PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY EUR 816 million is proposed to the police force. The appropriation is used to launch measures that aim at increasing the police officer person-years to the level determined in the Government Programme, 7,500 person-years, by the year 2023. To ensure the performance of the operators involved in preventing and solving criminal offenses and the implementation of prosecution services, additional funding amounting to EUR 5.2 million is allocated to the prosecution service, courts, legal aid, and the Criminal Sanctions Agency. A one-off addition of EUR 2 million is proposed to focusing evidence on the District Courts. Source: https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/161822/Budget review 2020 October 2019.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y Page 15. ------ The point is, even as safe and prosperous as these Scandinavian nations are, non of them are thinking about defunding their police forces. US police by comparison are already woefully underfunded by State and local governments and we want to take more money away from them? It's not logical.

More broadly, I'm hoping we can acknowledge the current framing of the situation is deeply flawed. You both continue thinking with a "police must be able to dominate any situation" mindset and keep suggesting we need to offer them additional tools to maintain that dominance. Sure... there will be examples of self-defense being needed, but in many/most cases it's simply not. The office could choose to walk away... re-engage another time in another way. We need to stop thinking of police as crowd control... stop thinking of control at all... and start thinking about creating a healthier society that helps people to find... well, to find... help. Not punishment, but assistance. Part of the issue IMO is the focus on dominance. Embedded in the culture of most police departments is a driving motivation to be always in control of any situation no matter what the cost, but look at the cost it's bringing us! People sworn to protect and serve are too often the ones doing the killing... the beating... the brutalization... and all in the name of dominating the streets and controlling the situation. Adding more physical control techniques and training itself based on being better at fighting is not a way out of a situation where there's already too much fighting and too much martial enforcement. We need to let it be okay for the police to sometimes walk away, or to bring in someone skilled in mental health issues, etc... after all, does it really matter that much if we don't catch the guy selling loose cigarettes for a buck a pop right there in that moment? Will society fail if we catch up to him later when moods have calmed? No, of course not. Years ago, cops were the primary people who brought hurt individuals to doctors and hospitals. Then, the decision was made to spend that same money instead on ambulances and paramedics, etc. and the system we have today is far better... even though it entailed defunding the police a bit. It's time to start thinking more like that (as continuing to dream up and offer new tools for dominating a free citizenry is part of what's allowing these problems to persist decade after decade after decade).

Well, I'm not too sure what 'mild' in this context really means, but I'm certainly high functioning, and require no intervention or assistance to live a normal life. This is mostly because I have learned since childhood to mask my autistic traits to such a degree that most people won't be able to tell at first glance that I'm neurodivergent. In my case, I find it easy to express myself in written form; however, if we were in the same room, and I was asked to explain some GR concept verbally, then that would be much harder for me, especially if I didn't have time to prepare beforehand. And the subtleties and complexities of casual social situations will forever remain a mystery to me, even though I can outwardly play certain roles if necessary. This is a difficult subject, because the spectrum is so wide. Personally, I never thought of myself as having a disorder of any kind - I think of myself as neurodivergent. As being differently abled, rather than disabled. I consider it a gift, and if I was being reincarnated, and somehow given the choice, I would without a shadow of a doubt choose to be on the spectrum again, since for me the positives greatly outweigh the (nonetheless very real) challenges. I do recognise though that many others on the spectrum would disagree, since their autistic traits are more challenging for them, and they suffer from various comorbidities, such as ADHD and SPDs.

AS far as I know Entropy is not commonly introduced in this way, although in my opinion it is a better way than the common stumbling explanation offered concerning Carnot cycles. I think Entropy is best introduced in relation to indicator diagrams as a natural progression from PV work rather than Carnot cycles, which are best delayed until after the Second Law is broached. Note since you have posted in Classical Physics I asssume you mean classical Thermodynamics?

A question about a sign convention that leads to a lot of confusion. This is not the only instance multiple sign conventions in Science. In this case it is a result of History. Thermodynamics was originally developed by physical scientists and engineers. They were concerned with making machines (steam engines) for the industrial revolution. Steam engines are heat engines. That is they thought in terms of input (heat in the form of fuel) and output (work). Both of these were thought of as 'naturally being' positive quantities. So they wrote their version of the Law of Conservation of Energy (The First Law of Thermodynamics) as ΔU = q - w. Chemists came to the scene from a different point of view. They wanted all forms of energy to have the same sign, whichever side of the conservation appearance they appeared so they could present the equation as a sum on both sides of the equation. So they wrote their equation as ΔU = q + w. By then it was also realised that, although all the terms are energies, there is a difference between ΔU , which is a state variable of the system, and q and w which are exchange variables of the energies crossing the system boundary. So they tidied up by stating that all energies crossing the boundary from the system to the surroundings are negative and all energies passing from the surroundings to the system are positive. Now they could add them up, move them about in equations and between equations in other parts of Science in a consistent manner. It is an improved system But it shows the importance of knowing the sign convention in use and the equations that go with it. This last remark also applies to other such instances of multiple conventions such as those in Electricity, Elasticity and elsewhere.