Leaderboard
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/18/23 in all areas
-
I think blaming Netanyahu is justified, just read through some international Israeli articles on that matter. He torpedoed paths to peace (regardless how strenuous they might have been ) and allowed money to flow to Hamas with the stated intention to weaken proponents of a two state solution. So at least factually there is some culpability, if folk co-developed a situation where terorists can thrive. So it does not seem one-sided, as I don't think anyone here is justifying Hamas. One could argue whether ge should be No1 or 2 or wherever, but faultless he and hardliners are not. The one-sided argument seems to me that it is all the Palestinians fault, without formulating what their alternatives were (beside thriving through blockades). If someone blamed all the Israeli as you did with Palestinians, you might have point, but I might have missed those, if they existed. And if you really want to narrow culpability to the direct actions only, then non combatant Palestinians should be equally excluded. Yet those are still dying. Finally, you seem to attribute intentions to posters. I am critiquing your arguments and extrapolated to what seemed to me the conclusions. I have made no assignment of guilt to posters, as that would be silly. Unless Netanyahu posted here or followers of Hamas. Palestinians and Israeli civilians are victims and it is hard for either group to take up responsibility either way. Both are not dying at the same rate historically, though. That is the issue with these actions and the seeming conclusion if executed unchecked. The US wars were a lesson I that regard.3 points
-
I think I might have addressed it here somewhere (or potentially elsewhere, I cannot really recall) but the 1-4% were based on earlier studies and hinges on comparison with sequences obtained from Neanderthal samples. Also, these are not genes (generally speaking, we all have the same genes, but what is relevant are Neanderthal specific variants, or alleles). These numbers, however are not exact calculations but rather rely on identification of matches with the Altai Neanderthal genome and then using existing modern human sequences to estimate the rate of introgression (i.e. how much genetic material was introduced). The 1-4% therefore represent the level of ancestry calculated by these comparative analyses. This is an interesting point and indeed having insufficient Neanderthal reference can lead to wrong calls in the process. I.e. sequences might be tagged as likely Neanderthal, while they actually aren't or vice versa. This is actually what some folks think what happened. Based on a fairly recent paper the assumption is now that the Altai Neanderthal might have picked up DNA form modern humans based on a failed migration from Africa to the middle yeast and this might have led to a misattribution of signals as Neanderthal, although they were actually from modern humans. This would explain the mystery that East Asian population were showing a higher Neanderthal signal, despite the fact that no fossils were found there. However, if those signals were actually modern human to begin with, that would perfectly explain the distribution.2 points
-
I knew people in grad school who studied adsorption on solid surfaces, and other surface effects. The forces are different than in the bulk solid, since you don’t have the interaction from all directions. The lack of symmetry makes for some interesting physics. Surfaces of the same material can have pretty strong attraction; the adhesion between metal surfaces is called galling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galling (I “discovered” this problem putting some bolts into a frame in a vacuum system and having one seize up. Right after, I was introduced to the anti-seizing compound molybdenum disulfide)2 points
-
I suspect the reason that blame keeps getting heaped on Israel more than Hamas is because Hamas is no longer rampaging through Israel, but Israel is still rampaging through Gaza. Every time someone kills a child they invite criticism. In the beginning of this most recent mess Hamas received the lion's share of rebuke. Now that Israel is on the offensive it is they who receive the lion's share of the rebuke. I personally don't find that surprising at all. Once the fighting dies down I suspect there will be a more even-keeled evaluation of who is to blame for what.1 point
-
My usage of the term is clear enough. You don't get to redefine it. Asking loaded questions ('have you stopped beating your wife?' being an infamous example) is not a mark of wisdom. It is a mark of petty spitefulness. As is having a dig at my age.1 point
-
The “Continuum” assumption in propulsion and fluid dynamics is that their atomic structure will be ignored and they will be considered as capable of being subdivided into infinitesimal pieces of identical structure. In this way it is legitimate to speak of the properties of a continuum – e.g., density, pressure, velocity – as point properties. Now, this assumption needs to be modified, for example if the “Non-Continuum” assumption is that the atoms/molecules/particles ( although fundamental particles are modernly understood as point masses, let’s ignore this issue for now because most of the reaction in propulsion and fluid dynamics is chemical and not Atomic/Nuclear) cannot be subdivided, How and where to start the math for this kind of assumption to speak of the properties like density, pressure and velocity?. Please go through the pictures/attachments for a little bit of math around this “continuum” assumption. If you don’t understand the question please ask. Thanks in Advance.1 point
-
Here is an example: a superposition of two Hamiltonian eigenstates, \(\psi_1\) and \(\psi_2\), with the energies \(E_1\) and \(E_2\): \(\frac 1 {\sqrt 2}(e^{-iE_1t}\psi_1+e^{-iE_2t}\psi_2)\). The probability is squared modulus of this function, which includes a time component, \((E_1-E_2)t\).1 point
-
You’ve been offered this feedback many times before, but this tone and approach needlessly tangles and derails already hard complex conversations. Not always, but often when you comment it is bitingly personal, regularly besmirching of the character and intentions of fellow forum members, and consistently needling toward them with an undercurrent of bile. I know I’ve felt it toward you, and readily acknowledge that I’m hardly some angel here leading by example, but please maybe… in the holiday spirit… try focusing on the argument instead of the personal making it. More than anything the existing approach is unproductive and amplifies animus, but more broadly it makes it more difficult to nourish allyship and come together on what are your otherwise extremely well informed and consistently valid points. It makes it harder to agree with you among those who want to. tl;dr? Be more ambassador than curmudgeon, old man. The attacks cascading across the world need not so easily find refuge among what I hope are your friends here at SFN. ✌🏼1 point
-
According to my recollection from the lubricants industry this phenomenon applies to sliding surfaces, rather than just a static contact. It leads to what is known as adhesive wear (as opposed to abrasive or corrosive wear). With sliding surfaces, microscopic asperities come into contact, causing very high pressures and temperatures at the contact zone which leads to microscopic welding of the surfaces at these points. As the sliding continues, these microscopically welded areas are torn asunder. Often this does not occur at the point where the weld formed, so that material is torn out of one or both surfaces. It is often the practice to use dissimilar metals in bearings, chosen so that the welds are weaker than the parent metals. This encourages the adhesions to break without tearing lumps out and thus preserving the surface. (One example is in worm gears, where the worm is usually steel and the gear wheel is bronze. Worm gears have an extremely high rate of sliding relative to rotation, so the issue can be quite acute in such gears.) The purpose of lubricants of course is to keep the surfaces apart and prevent this from happening. It is common practice to add anti-wear or extreme pressure agents - often sulphur/phosphorus containing organic molecules - to lubricants where the nature of the motion does not ensure a constant pressurised film of lubricant to do this, another classic example being the cam followers in an engine. The anti-wear agents decompose under local temperature, adsorb on the surface and form a protective but weak layer, that easily breaks without damaging the parent surface. However one does also get "cold welding" of clean flat metal surfaces brought into static contact. This occurs especially with surfaces exposed under vacuum, so that no oxide layer has a chance to form: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_welding.1 point
-
I think you might overthink it. What folks basically do is look at a locus I.e. a given stretch of DNA and check what variability is there in a population. These variations are not entirely random and by having sufficiently distant members of a species, we can infer or estimate what their ancestors might had. Of course there is always the chance that we miss variations that somehow have vanished from extant populations or misjudge the gene flow. But you are correct that limited data might impact interpretation and an lead to false assumptions.1 point
-
I think the scientist’s view determines rather he proves if God does or does not exist to himself. Before the 20th century science and religion were on the same page. Scientists were only explaining what God created for us. Some scientists see the work of God in a mathematical series. Other scientists need more evidence. In fact they dedicate their lives to it. Why do we want more knowledge and discoveries? It is to create and unlock mysteries. But for what reason are we doing this? Technology doesn’t always equal improvement. And what are we doing with all this knowledge? Finding better ways to kill each other? Whatever you believe is a personal choice. Science can’t answer such questions. That is why we seek God.0 points
-
When i say religion, i mean religion. For me religion is manifested connection between a man and God. Or spiritual world. Buddhism is atheistic doctrine, there's no God in this teaching. That's why there's no concept of a soul. Some Buddhist traditions have concept of atman, self. Though i think it was derived from Hinduism.-1 points
-
-1 points
-
On the contrary, it means that in war , mistakes and accidents do happen. The 'fog' and all that ... But, if you don't have an open mind, and have already convinced yourself of someone's guilt, it is easy to assume the worst about them.-1 points
-
It's not sincere. If you don't believe and write God with a small letter, it won't "hurt my feelings", because i respect you free choice and mine. My vocabulary tells me to write "i" with a capital letter, and i correct it every time. Because don't like to emphasize myself among others. Though this is a ruler in English.-1 points
-
Sincerity toward another person in expressing your belief system. Would it be convenient to you if wrote god with a small letter? Would you be so kind to point out that comment?-1 points
-
No, it's not a grammar. Once i read that this is the only word you are free to write according to your belief system-1 points
-
I found such opinion As atheists, we can remove all capitalization or the common noun usage since that is only being done out of reverence. We should still capitalize proper noun usage. “The Christian god” is common noun usage. Other example: * Jesus spoke to God. * Jesus spoke to his god. * I do not believe in any gods. * I do not believe in a god. * I do no... I thought atheists don't believe in any god. If I'm confident that there's no place for God in my life, no grammar would stop me from writing in my own manner. If disrespect someone's name i write it with a small letter.-1 points
-
When it's convenient you follow the rules, and when inconvenient - you don't. It's not honest. Face it. There are various names of God, many of which enumerate the various qualities of a Supreme Being. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God-1 points