Leaderboard

The overlap in this particular Venn diagram is significant, regardless of how hard or repeatedly you suggest we’re arguing slippery slopes. Want to fix homelessness? Offer homes. Want to address drug abuse? Great, use ideas that have been offered here and elsewhere. Forced imprisonment or forced relocation to distant camps away from civilization has precedent. Chinese Uighurs, Jews in ghettos, US Japanese citizens in WWII, Native American children being taken from parents for reeducation, European imperialists treatment of South Americans as savages, Putin throwing convicts at his illegal war of aggression to be used as cannon fodder… The list goes on and on. People without homes and with substance abuse issues deserve better than the dehumanizing paternalistic obtuse horseshit being proposed here. Where, indeed. But as that’s off topic here and also not a set of circumstances I’m here advocating it’s hard to see how this is anything more than a red herring.

Perhaps comparing your camps to the Jewish ghettos is more accurate at this early stage.

Charges in a penning trap show three separate motion contributions. Your configuration has a similar setup. The resulting ion motion in a Penning trap consists of three independent eigenmotions, two in the radial plane and one in the axial. https://groups.nscl.msu.edu/lebit/lebitfacility/penningtraps/index.html

If you live in a big city in North America these days, you probably encounter homeless drug addicts on a regular basis. Cities like Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Vancouver are dealing with escalating crimes waves due to policies that are soft on crime and drug addiction. Addicts shoot up in broad daylight, leave their needles on the sidewalk in public areas, treat public spaces as their own personal toilet, and assault citizens in brutal stranger attacks. Stranger attacks are becoming increasingly prevalent, jumping 39% in Vancouver, with a probability that 1 in 4 Vancouverites will be victimized by such attacks. So far the corrective approach has been sorely lacking - one of tolerance and non-intervention, to allow the homeless addiction issue to propagate and expand across the urban areas that it afflicts. I believe that some cities are fast reaching a breaking point, and will need to take more meaningful action with respect to this problem. The most effective solution I can see for this crisis, since it has gotten so out of hand, is to remove homeless drug addicts from cities and place them in rural, government supervised camps. These camps would be in rural areas where proper supervision and medical treatment could be administered to those with addiction issues. The camps would be made up of large portable dwellings with bunk beds, AC/heating units, with fully working toilets and sanitation facilities. On site medical and security personnel would supervise the day to day operations of the camps, with detox and recovery programs offered to help the addicts get clean. An addict would not be able to leave the camp until they get clean. My view is that drug addiction is a disease, and consequently widespread drug addiction is a public health emergency. Those with a contagious disease that threatens the health and wellbeing of society should be quarantined. There is already legal precedent for placing citizens in camps if there is a declared public health emergency. Covid quarantine camps are one example. I think there is a strong argument that the homeless addiction problem in major cities presents a public health emergency, regarding both the addicts and members of the public themselves. Is it really responsible and humane to let addicts kill themselves via drugs with no intervention or treatment? It is responsible or humane to the general public to let addicts leave diseased needles and human waste on public streets, or attack strangers in broad daylight? From a logistical and operational standpoint, government camps would be much cheaper than building bricks and mortar homeless shelters in downtown areas, which could be reserved for those who do not have addiction issues. The housing facilities in the camps would be cost effective to establish, and since they are on rural government land, the costs could be kept low. They would be scalable and portable; easy to establish, move, or expand. Homeless addicts would be transported in buses to the camps after a clearing operation of homeless affected areas is carried out by police. Ultimately the homeless addiction problem (which I believe is a disease) needs a concerted, government mandated solution, and shouldn't be allowed to escalate further, due to the threat to the health and safety of the public.

Been trying to get an answer to this for several pages. If the answer is enforcing nuisance laws (squatting, loitering, excretion) that are not presently enforced, then it does de facto become criminalizing homelessness. If the answer is drug law violations, then you have variation between states and cities, and any proposed rehabilitation facility would have to focus on chemical dependency, and the question of how long an addict would willingly stay if detox is involved. As for violent crime, I can't see how enforcement can really mean diversion from prosecution. Voluntary camps seem not a good fit for people who are a danger to others. The more I try to see the Sunbreak type idea, the less coherent it gets.

Reductionism has been very heavily criticised in science in the last decades. One good reason for this is that there are emergent aspects of natural laws that seem impossible to fathom by simply looking at the basic law and its constituent 'parts.' For example, in recent decades there's been a lot of discussion about universality of certain power laws, which would occur no matter what constituent elements make up the 'stuff.' If such were the case, reductionism would take a big blow. I would say the increasing relevance of this concept 'emergence' has a lot to do with why increasingly scientists are crossing out their names from the list of devotee reductionists.

I'm replying to several posts here, concerning taxation. We elect representatives in a democracy on the basis of what they do with tax revenue we pay in. It's generally understood in the social contract that some public benefits are general - i.e. while they don't directly benefit us personally, they help maintain a better social environment - more educated and healthier citizens, safer streets, cleaner food and water, better transit, innovation, jobs with better working conditions, etc. I find it amusing when people suggest in one breath that money towards homeless aid doesn't benefit them, and then in the next breath tell me how awful and dangerous homeless encampments are and how they fear to walk downtown. Now that @Alex_Krycek has somewhat modified his OP plan towards the most benign interpretation of the Sunbreaker system (how this works legally remains of interest, but I'm open to it), it's worth remembering that such systems cost money, so the public will have to see that the general benefit I described above is real and leads to permanent affordable housing and stable life situations. I'm glad others have pointed out how the especially dire housing shortage in USA (something like over 3 million units nationally) is at the core of the problem. And many are what we call "fitness club homeless," out here. They live in vehicles with a camper space or at least a cargo space which fits a bed, pay 25-50$ a month for the cheapest gym membership that gives you a locker, showers, and warm changing room. They tend to use public toilets, or use a bucket inside their camper (like Frances McDormand in "Nomadland") which is discreetly emptied down a storm drain. Such homeless (often employed) are less visible than the encampment homeless, but quite numerous.

Oh, boy. I'm speechless, speechless I tell you. Nice touch. So do I. I'm going nowhere in no time.

This isn't a popularity contest. An argument lives or dies on its merits, and so far I have outlined clearly the merits of each premise of my argument. Historical comparisons to Nazi concentration camps, which are grandiose non-sequiturs in the context of what we're talking about. Equating remote treatment facilities for the homeless with Nazi death camps is the epitome of hubris. I'd align myself more as a Sanders Democrat actually.

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 😋

No I had simply forgotten all about it. David Kay has done a good job as a specialist in line with the Schaum philosophy. There is many wrinkles in that book and of course quite a few exercises. But these are scattered throughout the book, there is no specific section or chapter explicitly on your desired topic, you will find bits and pieces all over the place.

This is because the first and the second indices generally act on different indices irrespective of whether they are covariant --they transform with the same matrix as the basis members-- or contravariant --the transform with the inverse matrix. For the Euclidean case, this is of no importance, but as you well know, for Minkowski, it matters. Consider the Lorentz transformations, 1) Boost in the t-x plane: \[ B=\left(\begin{array}{cccc} \gamma & \beta\gamma & 0 & 0\\ \beta\gamma & \gamma & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array}\right) \] \[ \left.B_{\mu}\right.^{\nu}=\left.B_{\nu}\right.^{\mu} \] 2) Rotation in the x-y plane \[ R=\left(\begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & \cos\theta & -\sin\theta & 0\\ 0 & \sin\theta & \cos\theta & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array}\right) \] But, \[ \left.R_{\mu}\right.^{\nu}\neq\left.R_{\nu}\right.^{\mu} \] The way I do it in LaTeX is, \left.B_{\mu}\right.^{\nu} The Schaum series perhaps? PS: Sorry, Markus. I think I swapped co- and contravariant indices in my answer. Let me fix it. I meant, \[ \left.B_{\mu}\right.^{\nu}=\left.B^{\nu}\right._{\mu} \] for the boost, and, \[ \left.R_{\mu}\right.^{\nu}\neq\left.R^{\nu}\right._{\mu} \] for the rotation. I hope that helps.

The evidence for the existence of a gravitational attraction between masses is so overwhelming that it is entirely beyond any contention. Using the Cavendish setup, you can even perform experiments that show you this right at home in your living room. I recommend you give it a try - you can purchase DIY kits for this right off the Internet at a cheap price. Some of these come with spheres made of different materials - metal, stone, high-density plastics etc -, and some are even enclosed in vacuum chambers and Faraday cages, so that you can confirm yourself that these effects are not the result of any electromagnetic interactions, air movements etc. Gravity is very much real, and it is very easy to show that it is.

Is there a difference between these two definitions? "an atheist is someone who does not believe that God exists" and "An atheist is someone who believes that God does not exist" Ordinarily the statements are considered equivalent. But, by one definition a rock is an atheist. A rock doesn't believe anything, so it doesn't believe in God. A person who has never been told about God is in the same position as that rock. You can't believe in something that you don't know about. By that definition, they are an a atheist. But, by the other definition, a rock can't believe that God does not exist. The rock is not an atheist. A person who has never heard about God is, again, in the same position as that rock; they hold no opinion about the nonexistence of God and is therefore not an atheist. The OP's question talks about nature or nurture. Being told that God exists (or that some people think He exists) is part of nurture. By the first definition, if you do not receive that nurture you are an atheist. By the second definition, if you do not receive that nurture you are not an atheist. So the answer to the question depends very strongly on how you define atheism.

Happy Xmas, Festivus, Near Solstice, 7th day of Hannukah, and summertime in Australia to you all. And more snowcats and generators to Buffalo NY. if possible. https://www.npr.org/2022/12/25/1145468209/millions-in-the-u-s-are-hunkering-down-from-a-freezing-and-deadly-christmas-stor I remember what a pleasure it was replacing our metal-handled broom with a wooden one. The wooden handle, if it's not real cold out, you can sweep snow off the porch and not need to get gloves. IIRC wool fibers absorb water inside the fiber rather than let water permeate the spaces between the fibers, thus preserving the air pockets. The water inside each fiber then migrates to where it will most rapidly evaporate and not just drip/ooze into the spaces. The fibers are also more kinked than other fibers like cotton, which increases the total number of air spaces. Nature is amazing.

And I don't blame them. A lot of people work hard for long hours for the money they have. And would prefer to spend it on themselves and their families, which was the reason they did work hard for long hours. And of course, we all have the future of old age, when having some savings means you can pay people to do what you are no longer able to do. And often people like to help out kids and grand-kids. Taking tax money off people should be treated very seriously, because people spend their own money carefully, but others are inclined to chuck tax money about without a care in the world.

We have photons going 0m in 0s so their speed is: 0/0 = infinity = 300 000 000m/s.

Sorry, I can't tell, was that sarcasm, or baloney? I genuinely can't tell.