Leaderboard

This is certainly misinformation being pushed on us by you. There are two FB posts mentioned in this Wikipedia article, and one is allegedly fake. The translation doesn't mention "Russians" (but you know that better than I do), but instead it calls out the "inhumans" (or the perpetrators of observed attrocities). It can't be "murder", because this is a war, no matter what Putin says. Russia has been using foreign troops known for their inhumane approach to warfare. Given the overall hatchet-job look of that Wiki (more scandals space than bio space), I'd say this is more Russian propaganda. What makes it even more insulting is trying to hide obvious genocide (bombing maternity hospitals and train stations full of fleeing families) with your manufactured version. Fuck you, Putin!

But their visit here was not completely without friction, so the cycles may be slowing down and the motion eventually come to a halt?

No, it is the act of discriminating(a verb) based on inability. It's still discrimination in the objective sense of the word. Discriminate is a very neutral word, there are positive and negative uses of it. A good example of positive discrimination, would be discrimination based on competency. The blind being rejected from an airline pilot training program is also positive discrimination. By positive, we mean justified. An example of negative discrimination is when an employer decides not to hire a black person because he assumes they will rob him or because the owner is secretly a grand wizard of the kkk. For Biden to have exercised a form of negative discrimination, he would have had to have ignored ALL other selection criteria and nominated someone wholly on the colour of their skin, whether qualified or not. I do feel as if a great many number of my earlier points have not been properly acknowledged. Does any one else appreciate that someone with a background in public defense getting onto SCOTUS, is an historic achievement regardless of all other factors? Like it or not, race and racial inequality matters to the American voter. For any presidential candidate not to be aware of that and not acknowledging it, would amount to political suicide. Tbh, I thought that a politician campaigning for an election was meant to virtue signal? Isn't the whole point that we want the best people for the job? So why should we be shocked when they do something meant to influence people to think well of them? Both sides of the aisle virtue signal frequently, as they are nearly always playing for an audience of voters. So I just don't understand the outrage or offense caused here. None of us were up for a Supreme Court nomination and I've not heard of any eligible judges who lost out this time around crying foul.

The narrative is designed to make it look bad, but the narrative ignores certain facts. Biden promised to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court. The narrative that he somehow excluded others from consideration is premised on the notion that he didn’t already have candidate(s) in mind, and wasn’t aware of the top potential picks. Which is silly, since we know it to be false. “I will nominate a black woman” followed by searching for one, and running the risk that you don’t have highly-qualified candidates so you pick one because you’ve backed yourself into a corner is what looks bad. But it’s fiction. KBJ was on the previous shortlist (and Biden possibly being aware of other well-qualified WoC) and then saying “I will nominate a black woman” changes the scenario quite a bit. It has the benefit of being true, and not straining credulity. In addition I would suggest that all of those presidents had a candidate or two on a list before making the associated announcement

In the very recent textbook from the University of Pennsylvania, Physical Models of Living Systems: Probability, Simulation, Dynamics by Philip Nelson, November 2021, there is a little section in the introduction for students, which I have attached below. My questions for the discussions are: Do you agree with these limitations of computers? Are they temporary or fundamental?

With regards to the Taiwan part of the OP Stephen Sakur interviewed the Taipei representative to the EU on Hard Talk on the BBC last night. Quite pointed questions and relevant to this thread,which was started before the actual invasion. I imagine it can be found on satellite or the BBC player.(eventually youtube)

JamesL's trajectory on SFN is the closest to a perpetual motion I've seen here. Two cycles and counting... Plus perfect experiment on shooting yourself in the foot.

My first wife was a readhead, she couldn't tan, her skin turned red and her freckles turned green, I told her she looked like a christmas tree.

! Moderator Note So you've been banned before. Meaning this is a sockpuppet account, used to evade a ban, which violates the rules and calls for an immediate ban Irony here being that I might not have noticed this were is not for some bogus revisionist history and the mention of my user name in a thread where I had not been a participant.

That seems to be the common interpretation on this forum, but is it true? If so, you would have to exclude many belief systems that are generally called religions: Buddhism, Taoism even some forms of Hinduism and Neo-Paganism i've come across. Not all even make ontological claims. Buddhism, for instance, describes the Ten Indeterminate questions, such as whether the universe is finite or infinite, whether the soul and body are the same - these questions are considered irrelevant. Whether it's rational to believe in religion then may to a large extent depend on which religion (or set of beliefs within a religion). I would ask though why we value rationality so much. Many of the ethical decisions we make are not rational, or only rational once we might a value judgement of some sort. I do not believe our search for meaning, which is integral to being human, is ultimately one based in rationality.

Maybe to you, but a certain percentage of the male population happens to find males more attractive, regardless of hair color 😃 . We must have dated the same women, Moon 😃 . I'm sorry, I just can't take these kinds of threads seriously ...

I’ll keep asking: Why is Biden being treated different from D Trump, GHW Bush, R Regan, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, and other previous US Presidents who set precedents on this exact issue?

I'm sure everyone is waiting with baited breath for my opinion ... I'm sure KBJ will be an excellent Justice, and is extremely well quaified, but SCJustices are not supposed to represent specific groups of people; they are supposed to represent ALL people. And while a black woman is a welcome addition, why was there a need for J Biden, to announce beforehand, that the selection criteria would be based on skin tone ( not race ) and gender ? Bad optics. Unlike some of the others, I don't find it very offensive that this was a color/gender , for appearance, motivated selection. What is offensive, to me anyway, is the selection based on political leaning of the candidate. Whoever is in power tries to change the make-up of the SC, not necessarily for the good of the country, but for their own political party. As far as I'm concerned, the SC should not be politicized. Ken said it on the first page of this discussion ... Yes, of couse it's been done for a couple of hundred years, but tell me, how's that working out for you guys ? Maybe it's time to try a new approach ? And I'm still disappointed that some people choose to make their argument with demerit points, rather than reasoned thinking.

It's like a compass needle. The configuration it spontaneously takes up is the one aligned with the Earth's magnetic field because that is the state of lowest energy. The opposite orientation is the one with the highest energy. The lowest energy is when the N pole of the needle is facing the S pole from the surrounding field, i.e. you have N-(S-N)-S rather than N-(N-S)-S. That's what the animated diagram in the link is illustrating. However in the case of the electron or nucleus, the quantum-allowed orientations are only partially aligned with or against the prevailing field, hence the 2 diagonal orientations shown in the animation.

I don't think it is racism, what I think is making others perceive it that way, is an observation of a triggered inferiority complex. You pick a black female for SC, and all insecure white males take it as an implication that they aren't good enough. That they are in some way inferior to the black female. Even when no one is saying this. It's like when children are picking teams for a game. Everyone whom is picked last, believes that the people picked before them, were picked either because of nepotism or the perception they are the stronger players. Therefore to be picked last or not picked at all, feels like being told you are inferior. There are some facts that are being ignored here about the SC nomination process and who was left out. When Kavanaugh was nominated, he not only beat out all other demographics for the nomination, but people from his own demographic. Basically, other white males were passed over, to pick Kavanaugh. The same is true of KBJ. Her nomination, led to other black and/or female judges being passed over. What a lot of people here are overlooking, is the other first KBJ brings to the court by way of career demographic. Prior to being a judge, she was a criminal defense attorney. As far as I am aware, no criminal defense attorneys have ever made it onto SCOTUS. For that alone, she can bring a unique perspective to the SC that has long been absent. Most of the other candidates did not have that kind of legal background. I used to be Into the whole (I don't see colour) narrative. But it's bullshit. It's not reality. Unless you are blind/colour blind, you will never not see race. You can see for yourself when someone has skin that is different from yours. Whether they are very different in shade or just a little different in shade. The hard fact of the matter is that the voters put Biden into office, after he made a promise to appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court. It could be argued that if the voters did not want this, they would have not voted Biden into office. He in fact has a political mandate to keep that campaign promise. If we decide to actually view the court holistically, we might not find ourselves so unjustifiable annoyed that a white male didn't make it onto this position, when there are still plenty of white males on the court. That demographic is already represented. Acknowledging differences, taking turns and sharing power within our institutions is in no way racist. Perceiving it as such, is just an incorrect perception based on the fundamental underlying motivations in a truly racist act. All that happened, was that it was declared that a black woman would be the next Supreme Court justice. It was not said that a black woman was to be the next justice, because white people suck. Yknow some people would take a white male, picking a black woman, as a sign that progress is being made in the fight against racism. I wonder what people here would think if this had been Obamas nominee? Anybody else here notice that when the black man tries to nominate Supreme Court justices, of any demographic (white males included) they are completely blocked for 8 years. Every president is going to be criticized by somebody for EVERY decision they make. The accusation of racism, is politically motivated by some and just plain misguided by most. Each decision is going to have justified and unjustified criticism attached. The existence of said unjustified criticism, does not make the original decision unjustified. I'll end on a question; is anyone here implying that they cannot believe KBJ is the most qualified judge, in comparison to white male judges? Because if so, the very assumption that it must be white males who are the front runners at all times, is extremely biased. If you were expecting the most appropriate choice based solely on competency, to be a non-black person, you're part of the problem. I want it said, that I understand how incredibly complicated this bias stuff is, and that most of us here are speaking with the best of intentions. Rather than get into an offensive game of "oh but my black person said this" let's all just assume we all have racial biases that motivate our thoughts on the matter. It is a very fine line to toe, between bigotry and paternalism, but to me, Ketanjis appointment is still on that line. Motivations to her nomination aside; she seems like she will be a fine new addition to the higher offices of the judicial branch. All this talk of why she was picked, does in no way diminish her ability to execute the difficult job well. The Supreme Court needs justices to sit on it. An individuals motivations toward being on it, ought to be out of duty, not self-elevation. There will be dozens of potential candidates who will never sit on that court that will feel like they were robbed, when the very notion potentially makes them highly unsuitable and mainly in it for themselves. You can't force yourself into being a part of history, and if you do, it will more likely be in infamy rather than fame. All the questions in the OP aside; as an individual I am happy for KBJ and proud of her accomplishment. As a human, not as a white male or anyone or anything else. For an individual to achieve what she has, is a huge personal accomplishment and is a testament to her fortitude and perseverance. There are so many obstacles to black woman, that as a white male, I just do not have. Sure, there are obstacles I have that she does not, but it is not difficult for me to say that I do not envy her difference in obstacles at all. On an honest day, she may not envy some of mine either.

I reject your premise, as well as your font choice.

Exactly! Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani fleeing his country with a bag of cash is the real hero of our time.

Yes, we all know the history of when Galileo had a discussion thread closed. It's exactly like that. This board is not an agent of the government and we are not a democracy. We have rules that you need to follow. If a thread gets shut down no rights have been violated. We steer clear of rants and lecturing because we're a discussion board, and not your personal blog. We shut down threads where religions get bashed (any religions) because that doesn't foster discussion. We also ask that threads be posted in the appropriate section of the forums. (again, that's exactly like Galileo! /s) It's not just one moderator. Often mods act in response to complaints from other members, who can't really engage in discussion in these situations, and moderators might be having discussions before acting. One such discussion might be identifying a trend in a posting style, and deciding to give less leeway in posts to try and improve the quality of the threads.

Abso-effing-lutely not Actually, you’re on a private global discussion forum with clearly stated membership rules to which you agreed when joining. You are here voluntarily and can voluntarily leave any time you feel the culture here does not align with your personal preferences and desires, but if you break any rules you will leave involuntarily. Again, is someone forcing you to participate here against your will? Blink twice if there’s a gun to your head while reading this. We’ll send help!

! Moderator Note Moved to Suggestions, Comments, and Support. Asking questions to start a thread? Excellent idea! It engages others by signaling that you're encouraging conversation rather than standing on a corner shouting at passersby. Religion is treated differently here, I have to admit. We want a reasoned, critical look at any subject we discuss, including Politics and Religion. We don't want rants or opinion expressed as fact. If you have something to say about anything here, understand that the members will hold you to certain levels of rigor while the moderators will hold you to the rules. Other than that, there's no clampdown of rights or censorship going on here. The topics aren't the problem, and if you just want to bash religion, I understand, but please use language that makes it clear you're expressing opinions. Do you understand? You can talk all you want about reincarnation, but if you use it to support another idea, we're going to ask you for evidence of reincarnation first.

Again, are we in a communist forum? We are not We are in a democracy and should be freely get rid of rules that make no sense or at least discuss better ways of doing things We do it all the time! Try the mask mandate that is raging on right now in Canada and the US. I am in favor of Masks but if someone has a different idea they should be freely allowed to speak You are shutting down all discussion with "membership rules" - these rules can be changed, they are not set in stone Sorry, that is a cheap shot Again, do you not understand of democracy and free speech? Amazing!

Gotcha. I don’t know why I expected more than the ususal dishonesty when dealing with political subjects on this forum, I’m gullible in this case.

To have some fun with you guys, what the American Christian said, we must look at the written word. What does it tell us? You've been saying the same thing. Of course with Einstein's quote; https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/276428-einstein-was-once-asked-how-many-feet-are-in-a If I am successful then you'll know who I am. I will be the guy who read a biography of Einstein at 13 and found it interesting that his father owned a dyno factory and at 17 he wondered what propagated the motion of light. After all, dynos generate electricity but where does it come from? After all, it's motion is propagated by the rotating armature and it's being ground in some location that uses electricity. How bizarre. p.s., American Christians want to know where it is written in their book. It is not written in the "book" to pursue surgery you need. They say I don't need it because doctors say I don't need it. And this is where I'll offer Spain my science experiment for surgery I want. And possibly being able to create jobs won't matter because if I am not allowed to pursue my own life. They might consider because I overcame what "real" Americans that I might know something. And if my science experiment is successful then one day you'll probably be reading about my work which isn't in your book....yet.

On April 3, 2022, Filatov posted on the social network Facebook, where he published a call for the murder of Russians around the world: "Now we have the full moral right, calmly and with a completely clear mind, to kill these non-humans all over the world, an unlimited amount of time and in the largest possible quantities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borys_Filatov This is certainly not genocide, but it is a call for genocide