Leaderboard

Thanks for the link! "In 2011...scientists began to study strategies that could deal with 200–1,600 ft objects when the time to Earth impact was less than one year. He concluded that to provide the required energy, a nuclear explosion or other event that could deliver the same power, are the only methods that can work against a very large asteroid within these time constraints." "A study published in 2020...researchers ran a model that suggested a nuclear detonation near the surface of an asteroid designed to cover one side of the asteroid with x-rays would be effective. When the x-rays cover one side of an asteroid in the program, they produce propulsion energy that would propel the asteroid in a preferred direction...a nuclear impact offered more flexibility than a non-nuclear approach, as the energy output can be adjusted specifically to the asteroid's size and location." Again, thanks. I had not even thought of searching Wiki for this.

Only if they agree with said 'free' speech.

Almost all our behaviour is a combination of a genetic basis, that kind of forms a certain baseline, but, especially when the brain is involved, environmental exposures, learning and other feedback modulates the outcome (after all, the brain requires input to develop). So the question of nature vs nurture is, based on what we now know, mostly nonsensical. There is no versus, there is an end. The only part that is often unknown is how much. Also note that many of these non-genetic exposures can happen before birth- exposure to hormones but also chemicals in the womb affect early neuronal development. And yes, homosexuality has been observed in at least 1,500 species, suggesting that it is a common, low-frequency outcome of how sexuality is wired https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1019-7. There have been quite a lot hypotheses why it may arise, and why genes favouring homosexuality persist. Note that genetics is not a 1:1 carbon copy of traits. Combination of genes can result in a wide diversity of traits which can be quite different from the parent. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be any benefit to sexual reproduction and we would more likely continue to procreate e.g. via parthenogenesis. What seems to be the case in humans is that the foundation of sexual orientation is laid early in childhood and, once developed, it is fairly stable. I think it is not yet known if and how much flexibility there is in the developmental path to sexual (and other) identity. There are suggestions that events in early fetal development already could be an important factor. One clue is the fact at least in men, the birth order sees to have a highly reproducible impact. Across many groups men with same-sex attraction have a greater number of older brothers, than heterosexual men. One hypothesis is that had a male child have some sort of immune response that creates antibodies specific to protein involved in male brain development. These antibodies increase with each male fetus and somehow increase the likelihood of developing same-sex preferences. There is some vague support for that (mostly the enrichment of antibodies against certain fetal proteins in mothers with multiple male children), but evidence remains at the correlation stage. So in short, it is complicated and not resolved yet.

Washington state has a law about felons running for office https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/plot-twist-for-trump-wa-has-a-law-against-felons-running-for-office/

@Airbrush Why do your posts often sound like sermons ?

Not just TFG. We’ve seen it over and over again: politicians who aren’t “for” something (or are actively against it) until they personally experience a situation that brings the idea into focus. They lack the empathy and broadness of mind to conceive of motivations that are not ingrained in them already. Trump has just distilled it to a somewhat purer form and in a more visible way.

It’s part of a broader global trend where individual values and principles get replaced with fear and simplistic answers to massively complex and existentially challenging questions. Monolithic bogeymen are easier than fluid dynamics The world is flatter and more interconnected than ever, and our collective daily experiences involve active war zones, rapidly spreading pandemics, Terminator style AI, and disastrous destructive climate change that is both worsening and driving drought and famine induced migration of whole swaths of the population. This is the threat and risk landscape in which we currently exist, one where the survival of our children and grandchildren is genuinely in question, and where for tens upon tens of millions even the availability of food to feed ourselves today is often uncertain. So, to overcome the natural human feelings of anxiety and fear this rightfully creates, many people turn to simple answers and, while it’s false, tend to find comfort in the authoritarian arms and words of hateful strongmen. We’re just apes with grocery stores and computers, basically, and the silver back quarterback still appeals to us more than the problem solving pencil geek. The right wing is rising on a current of fear, blaming “the other” to whip up frothy masses instead of driving solutions to the aforementioned disasters happening all around. It’s easier, and in a lot of ways we’re a mostly lazy species who prefers simplicity. I know I do.

I've witnessed this type of thing before. Years ago, I had a boss that was obsessed with security. Everything had be be locked up and secured against theft at all times. He was later dismissed for misappropriation of funds. He was dishonest, and assumed that everyone else was also. Trump displayed this behavior a while back when he admonished Taylor Swift for not supporting him, claiming that his policies helped her financially. In his mind, this should be enough, and the idea that Swift might find other issues rather than her own personal wealth more important was inconceivable to him.

! Moderator Note “I will explain why in my opinion” That’s a big NOPE, (this is not about opinion) along with our rule about not posting videos by themselves I think we’ve had enough here.

No. They tend to be female. Can you be constantly wrong in a little less inflammatory way?

It's commentary on the subject, bias isn't a rational process, my context is inherent in the topic we're discussing and your response was symptomatic of the in group out group theory ; bc I was trying to explain to @Luc Turpin how science 'the process' tries to reduce the irrational bias that our dominant handedness produces, means were more likely to chose in that direction. "it’s still just commentary, doesn’t address the topic, and as far as I can see there was only one quote provided, which was on-topic, though did not constitute evidence." Evidence of what, that scientist's are immune to bias bc of the rational nature of the process they follow? There's studies that show that even when interviewing is ridigly structured, the time of day often dictates the type of interview conducted and the outcome.

Quite. It was a jury trial so pretty hard to see how the decision can have been "rigged". The tragedy of this is that Trump has succeeded in making it normal now in the US to regard its justice system as politically motivated. That indicates a potentially catastrophic loss of trust in one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic state. This may have huge and deeply malign consequences for the country.

As a newly convicted felon, Donald Trump can no longer travel abroad to at least 37 foreign countries - according to a recent Newsweek report based on data from the World Population Review: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-travel-ban-1906686 These countries include Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and Australia. A number of other countries also reserve the right to refuse entry pending border checks on criminal records: these include Israel, Mexico, Turkey, Ukraine, South Africa, South Korea, and the Philippines. The good news for Trump is that Russia and North Korea aren’t currently on the ‘no-fly’ list. He can always potter off to either the Kremlin or Pyongyang, and hang out with his best mates Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un.

Just out of interest, is there anybody here who voted for Trump previously and will be voting in November, who will actually change their vote due due to this?

And it also should be added that these markers are usually linked to location and time. So for example a dark skinned person in the caribbean will more likely to share those markers with a light-skinned person in that region (assuming their ancestors lived there for an extended time) than with a random dark-skinned person in, say, Madagaskar. And to add a cherry on top, the group with the largest genetic diversity are groups in Africa. So putting all dark skinned folks into single group is utterly nonsensical. But then coherence is probably too much to expect from someone who on the one hand emphasizes a soul over the physical body but then two paragraphs further forgets all about it and then overemphasizes superficial features. "We are all souls! Except when you got curly hair!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance#:~:text=In addition%2C an asteroid may,to gravity after being disrupted.

We have a lot of technology that we use where we don’t understand why it works - we just know that it does. I’m pretty sure they had e.g. siphons back in the day, before anyone understood air pressure. We don’t notice the ~1 atm of pressure on us, after all. People had barometers and noticed the correlation with the weather without understanding the details. They had evaporative cooling structures in ancient times without knowing exactly how they worked. They just knew that wind passing by something wet cooled the air.

The most basic equation of gravity does not require any significant knowledge, except the ability to think, measure and calculate. i.e., drop an object from a height d and measure the time it spent flying toward the ground. You get a few samples and derive the equation d=1/2 a t^2. The problem with people is that 1) there was no free public education for all people until the end of the 19th century 2) only a fraction of rich aristocrats (later also rich townsfolks) (a few who could read, write and count) were interested in science. Because of this, for centuries and millennia, there was slow development because they were more interested in their daily lives, and increase of their personal assets, not in the development of science. Nowadays, too, only a small fraction of the population is engaged in science. But because the population is huge, there is the largest absolute number of scientists in the world.

! Moderator Note While the human population certainly has an impact on the environment, most solutions are political in nature. Moved. Born in the US. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Eyes_Cody

Surely, there are even some male only-child homosexuals or bisexuals. There is a gay young man on some chat room claiming to have two older sisters and no brothers. The gene thing might just be part of the equation. The protein thing might be another part. Children are also a product of their environment. Sons abused by mothers in childhood may feel uncomfortable around women. Life experiences may play some part. Sometimes a same-sex partner is just a matter of what is available or handy at the time. I think humans, not inhibited by any social taboos, are largely naturally attracted to whatever looks good to their own eyes or sounds good to their own ears like, for instance, a nice face, sexy hair, pretty white teeth, tan skin, puppy-dog eyes, a smooth, soft voice and a slender body. Most humans, male, female, straight, bi or gay, are averse to the sight of obese or old people.

My notions of racial divisions come from studying my dictionary: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/negro Negro Anthropology. (no longer in technical use) of, relating to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, generally marked by brown to black skin pigmentation, dark eyes, and tightly curled hair and including especially the Indigenous peoples of Africa south of the Sahara. Older dictionaries often incuded large lips and flat noses in the above definition. Bulging eyeballs also seem common as well as small, round heads like cantaloupes. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/Mongoloid Mongoloid Anthropology. (no longer in technical use) of, relating to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by prominent cheekbones, epicanthic folds about the eyes, and straight black hair, and including the Mongols, Manchus, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Annamese, Siamese, Burmese, Tibetans, and, to some extent, the Inuits and the American Indians. In my observations, small somewhat upturned flat noses seem common on such peoples as above. Their skin tone varies from pale as a ghost to yellow to red to brown. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/caucasian Caucasian Anthropology. (no longer in technical use) of, relating to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by fair to dark skin, straight to tightly curled hair, and light to very dark eyes, and originally inhabiting Europe, parts of North Africa, western Asia, and India. In my observations, large and/or hooked noses (beezers as my grandmother called them or beaks) are common among such peoples of the Mediterranian or Middle East. North Germanics/Scandinavians have long heads and faces and/or prominent chins. It seems as Slavics, particularly Russians, have distinctive facial features. The subspecies (or breed, variety, cultivar) notion is more in the facial features (for animal kingdom members). Persian cats seem to have particularly flat faces while Siamese cats have a particular head and ear shape. Their ears seem sharply pointed and their muzzles seem prominent. Calico, black and white/gray cats tend to be alley cats or mongrels.

Anyway, this is all trivial stuff. I'm personally trying do my part to make this world as least crappy as possible whether the hand of fate ever brings me back here or not in some future lifetime. I drive an Earth-friendly 1995 Toyota Corolla: 31 MPG highway, 10% Ethanol grade gasoline is what I use. I don't understand all the hostility here. Has modern science gone "woke"? Dictionary authors seem to have gone woke these days by omitting flat noses and large lips from how NEGRO is defined. Can't we say that black people and white people are as anatomically different as Dromedary camels and Bactrian camels? Might African and Asian elephant differences be a better analogy? The contours and proportions of human and animal faces and heads are measureable. And calling cats mongrel hurts some feelings here too?

Get in trouble even here in First Amendement America? Boy! I'm hopelessly shivering in my sandals with socks! My overpopulation thread was not such a big hit here. Might have offended the "be fruitful and multiply" crowd which might also be homophobic. However, Mig (as in Soviet jet?), you failed to answer any of my questions.

You probably don't think of YOU as an eternal soul. I don't think of that physical terminal body wrapped around my natural eternal soul as ME. The SOUL is ME. Some man met some woman to fabricate a temporary body for my soul in 1963 according to what I believe. To reject all notions of possible life hereafter is about as naive as to reject all possibilties of intelligent life beyond planet Earth. I see Man as a member of the animal kingdom. I think of Homo sapiens sapiens as being three subspecies: Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid. This has to do with skin/hair/eye pigment, hair textures, skull shapes and facial features. Comparing white people, black people and yellow/red/brown people is about like comparing bulldogs, German shepherds, chihuahuas and American foxhounds.