zapatos

Just read an article in Smithsonian magazine about the biggest slavery reparations verdict of its kind. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/henrietta-wood-sued-reparations-won-180972845/

Can you tell me how they keep one side of the ISS always facing the earth, but the solar panels always facing the sun? I assume that means that the solar panels make roughly one full rotation per day relative to the rest of the space station as that portion remains pointing at the earth.

Thanks. I appreciate the detailed explanation.

So the geometry of the ISS requires that all sides of the ISS be shielded while it is spinning. Got it.

You are pretty slippery. You said here that "it" is spinning and implied that "spinning" is the reason you could not have a shielded side face the sun. What is it about "spinning" that prevents having only a shielded side face the sun.

The OP specifically said: "I meant an 'end?' module at ISS, not the whole thing..." "Perhaps only a 10m diametre attached 'wheel'" Why would a 10m diameter attached wheel, rotating such that its axis of rotation faces the sun, need shielding on all sides?

Thank you. It was only an analogy. I didn't actually think the ISS was shaped like a fan. I was trying to point out that if the axis of rotation is pointing at the sun then you do not need to have shielding on all sides of the craft.

Imagine a fan spinning in space and blowing toward the sun. The sun facing side of the blades would need shielding while the other side would not.

Why can't you have the shielded side of a spinning ISS face the sun all the time?

The computers, electronics, etc. won't work if they are subjected to a 1g force?

How many times have you been on your phone while driving and lost the connection? How many times have the brakes on your car failed to stop the car? Because there will be more accidents than if a person in the car is driving.

And she's so damn cute!!

One reason we may not be coming to any kind of consensus is that we are not really getting specific on what reparations would look like. I doubt any kind of reparations could erase the problems caused by various levels of state and Federal governments over the years, but they could probably be used as a step in the right direction. Reparations does not necessarily mean cash to individuals. But if we started talking about a specific scenario we might be able to hash out what each of us objects to, and possibly find some common ground. Reparations could mean cash to individuals. It could be something like the Small Business Administration we have in the US that helps small businesses with loans and expertise, but be geared toward blacks in business, education, whatever. Perhaps it would involve funding of a lobbying organization for black causes. Also, just making the effort and acknowledging that past actions have affected people today, we may be able to generate some good will.

I didn't give the neg rep, but your comment prompted me to read the article at the end of your link. Hence my comment now. The description of 'equal opportunity' (EO) given in the article is not one I've ever considered, and I'm guessing many others have not viewed EO that way either. The article suggests that EO would mean that if one person received a million dollar inheritance then true EO would mean that all people would have to receive a million dollar inheritance. I've always viewed EO as "the policy of treating employees and others without discrimination, especially on the basis of their sex, race, or age." Given there exists the EEOC in the US, I suspect that is part of the reason for my view of EO. While full EO may cover all possible scenarios (like inheritances), I suspect most people aren't using such a robust definition when they hear 'equal opportunity'.

Not me. I favor equal opportunity for all. I also favor justice for all, which possibly you don't.

I may be wrong but I'm guessing the struggling/suffering African Americans are not going to prioritize the feelings of entitled whites over better economic opportunities. I think most whites are absolutely clueless when it comes to understanding the shit African Americans go through on a daily basis. If someone pisses on your leg every day you don't really give much thought to the health of their bladder when they are forced to quit.

Indian driver: It was the other car's fault! I was driving on the left side of the road like usual!!

Yeah, I got a chuckle out of it too! 😁

Indians are generally considered to be human.

Were you thinking that the individuals shouldn't also share responsibility? Again, I don't quite understand your point.

I expect the insurance to cover something like this will make the idea cost prohibitive.

Okay, I understand what you are saying but I don't understand why the Government should get a free pass in that instance. If the government goes to war, we have to pay. If the government spends money on a wall, we have to pay. If the government agrees to fund rebels in Nicaragua, we have to pay. If the government decides to fund Medicaid , we have to pay. But if the government steals from someone, we don't have to pay. In other words we have to pay for all the decisions, good or bad, except for this narrow and ill-defined version of misdeeds. Prosocuter conspires with the police to put an innocent man in jail for 20 years. Tough luck, no compensation. CIA assassinates some poor farmer in Central America because he saw their illegal activity. Too bad, no compensation for their family. Some cop beats you nearly to death because the department hired some psycho and covered up his previous misdeeds over the years. Hope you didn't think the government was going to help with the bills. The Canadian government lies about taxes you paid so they could seize your property and sell it to a developer. Guess you'll just have to start over. Seems like a scary world to me.

I might be missing your point, but are you saying that entities (such as governments) shouldn't be held liable for misdeeds if their funds come from people who have no choice but to contribute? But if you do have a choice whether or not to contribute to the entity, then the entity can be held liable?

So the profits don't come from their customers?

Using that argument no one should ever be held responsible for anything. Ford can say they shouldn't have to compensate for exploding gas tanks in Pintos because the money to pay compensation comes from customers.