Phi for All

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum, so presentations and lectures can be problematic. Our rules state that members need to be able to participate in conversations without clicking on links or watching videos. We're not here to promote your YT channel. If you want to discuss the science involved in astronomical instrumentation, we have several members who would be interested.

! Moderator Note Apparently the purpose of life is commercial spam. Posts have been removed via spammer bans.

! Moderator Note Not a Lounge question. There are multiple studies available. Moved to Anatomy, Physiology and Neuroscience.

! Moderator Note But it's not real, so we don't mention religion in the science sections, per the rules you agreed to when you joined. Do it again and the post will go to the Trash.

The trend with the GOP for the last several years has been to discourage compromise. In 2017, only 46% of Republicans polled like officials who compromise, while 69% of Democrats prefer them. This is part of the obstructionism that's been mentioned repeatedly. Most Republicans see Democrats as enemies rather than as political opposition (57%). Trump is the leader of the party, and his supporters clearly embrace anti-democratic ideals. How do you compromise with people who want the state to fail so they can replace it with...?

The Democratic President thinks you're right, and the Republicans kick him in the teeth every day to show him how wrong he is. GOPFOX propaganda aims to stymie anything everything that's trying to change the system. I think your POV is wrong because you still think the Republican leadership is interested in working together. Isn't it clear that the system is working for them, that this is EXACTLY what they've worked so hard for? Military/prison/industrial complex mentality won't let go of the guns until we have leaders who want government regulation, and Republicans won't let go of "small government" misconceptions.

Not sure what you mean. I point my finger at the GOP leadership that's been protecting a toxic system of oppression in my country for decades, and I vote against them, and try to reason with others to do the same.

Are you serious, seriously?! That was the first blame. The second blame goes against those who stand steadfast blocking legislation to address the first blame. This should be obvious.

I get it, word games, OK. All Americans are conservative comparatively, right? Except we're not. The Republicans who identify as conservative in the US are signaling that these school shooters have every right to prepare themselves for the mass murder of children. It's ALL on the Republicans, because those with brains have been pushing for common sense gun responsibility measures for a long time. The majority want these measures to stop the pointless killing, and the Republicans obviously believe strongly that killing certain Americans was the point all along. https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/npr-pbs-newshour-marist-national-poll-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-june-2022/ 92% of Democrats and 54% of Independents believe gun control is more important than gun rights. Only 20% of Republicans feel that way.

It's EXACTLY the factor I claimed, since arming the "deserving" is at the heart of the whole "control" problem. And I don't need to take a shot at conservatives as long as they're openly declaring that the Uvalde shooter was within his rights to make the purchases he did, and actively defend those rights into the future. Conservatives in the US are allowing shots to be taken at our children, FFS.

It might be low on the list... until the undeserving start buying legal guns at the same rate as the deserving. That's probably when you'll see some form of gun responsibility bill get passed.

Bad note? You're extremely angry about something I understand, but don't understand why you condemn my stance so much that you have to leave. I don't feel we're that far apart on this issue, and I've gone into some amount of depth on why I feel the way I do. I've also tried to draw a line between my personal feelings and the kind of evidence required in a court trial, and the legal differences between defamation and abuse. I'm sorry, but I recognize the process of the court system, even if I don't always agree with it. This is probably where the real problem is. The last several years have blurred the lines between factual and fake, and what you see as bias seems more to me like an effort to stick to the evidence. I'm sorry that's not how you perceive it. All those extremists you mention are still out there, and maybe we're wrong in this approach, but the only effective way to fight the fake is with facts and evidence and sound reasoning. But you make me question myself on this, and I'll take a step back to see if I'm being too subjective. It was a good thread idea, and I'm sorry it went in this direction.

! Moderator Note The claim made was about viruses evolving, which they do. The claim said nothing about viruses being alive. So no, this is NOT false information, but thank you for reporting it. In the future, this is the type of information you can verify online at reputable sites.

I agree.

I don't require a separate trial, but Depp isn't trying to prove anything to me.

I think that would support a physical abuse case against her. Verbal and psychological abuse are a lot harder to prove, but it sounds like her testimony in the defamation case might help Depp's abuse case... if he decides to pursue it.

I don't find it hard to accept that he speaks the truth, at least as he and the jury saw it. I think the court case was resolved well. I think it's abuse to treat people like a punching bag, or to make them miserable with your words. I think money and fame and publicity and privilege make it all worse. I'm not sure what you're accusing me of here. Depp won his case, but it was a case of defamation. That's the way the courts works (I guess, I've never been, even my jury duty gets cancelled). What more do you want? What does Depp want? Is he going to pursue a legal case of abuse? Without that, isn't it just our opinion that he was abused?

We're already used to the mechanics of it, so yes, it would be like flying ordinary space vehicles. If we're using Star Trek examples, and taking lots of people with us, we need the dampeners or whatever they use to keep from being squished against the bulkheads when the ship accelerates/decelerates to/from a fraction of c. Impulse and warp drive (and perhaps your FTL jump?) propel a vehicle through spacetime, but teleportation takes your molecules from one point and makes them appear (or recreates them) at another point (very limited in distance, iirc). And the stargate and portal are more like the folded space from Frank Herbert's Dune, where two points in space are basically joined (usually by a wormhole) so travel from one to the other is instantaneous. Why would these modes of travel necessarily lead to one another as in the diagram you've drawn? It's definitely hard to call it dumb when the premise is that it does work.

I now remember you from that grammar forum where you kept writing "affect" when you meant "effect".

Do you mean ordinary space vehicles? Because no space vehicle drives like an ordinary terrestrial vehicle. Space destinations move, so you have to predict where it's going to be and meet it there. Impulse power is kind of dumb. It's not that different from any other sub-light propulsion, so it would still take a long time to travel within a system, even if you went faster than the usual "one-quarter impulse". And the relativistic effects would be difficult to overcome. Time dilation effects are cumulative. I haven't watched much Stargate, but there's not that much difference between a Stargate and a "portal" from the way you describe them, except one is faster by being instantaneous (the Stargates aren't?). I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish with your diagram, but as Moontanman says, most of your list is fairly fanciful. And if we figure out teleportation, isn't that the same as a stargate or portal? I'm having a hard time seeing how one leads to the other as in your diagram. It would seem as though one makes the rest superfluous.

The verdict said that Heard defamed Depp in all the instances cited, and that Depp's lawyer defamed Heard in one instance. It's rock solid evidence of defamation of character, but they'd need to go through a different trial to make abuse charges stick, wouldn't they? I don't like that Depp drinks/drugs and then gets into situations like this, and I don't like that Heard thinks slapping and hitting are different things. They both seem culpable in this situation, and I wish we were talking about a better case to include in the public discourse regarding men who are victims of abuse. I think it's under reported because men aren't supposed to be that sensitive to emotional abuse (but we are!), and traditionally would be expected to stand up to physical abuse, but modern men are also more understanding than in the past, imo.

Not a fan of videos about science, especially with that host, but I would think any species that can leave it's own planet deserves some interest from any alien intelligence that can observe it. We may not notice ants much in their own environment, but when they enter ours, it's hard to ignore them.

Oh yeah, you're hooked. The crazy has you now. Congratulations! This is the start of your personal brand. You're a learner. With that basic template, you know generally what your response will be to any situation. You'll try to learn as much as you can, and relate it to your skillsets and what really interests you. Things should continue to seem so obvious as long as you stay on brand.

It's obvious that StringJunky is Sean Bean's handsomer little brother, and String Bean is what Sean affectionately calls him.

Hillbilly for mountain is... hill.