MigL

OK, I'll go on... The petition urging "We demand the immediate release of Roman Polansky" was signed by over 100 filmmakers, actors and producers. Some of the more famous names include Woody Allen ( a fine moral example ) Asia Argento ( a Weinstein accuser who fees 13 yr olds don't need protection like she did ) Monica Bellucci Terry Gilliam Michael Mann Martin Scorsese Tilda Swinton Sam Mendes Steven Soderbergh Etc. Along with other beauties like Whoopy Goldberg saying he wasn't guilty of 'rape-rape', as if there's real rape and imaginary rape ( any relation to Tar ? ) And of course Jonathan Demme, Guillermo DelToro, Peter Fonda, David Lynch, Adrien Brody, John Landis, Debra Winger, and Kim Cattrall. How many more would you like ?

Well, off the top of my head, Merryl Streep for one. Google the YouTube video "Merryl Streep defends child rapist Roman Polansky". It has her saying that she's very sorry he's in jail, has her giving him a standing ovation ( along with all the others at the 2003 Academy awards ), when he won for 'the Pianist'. Does anyone one here ever envisage giving H Weinstein a standing ovation for anything, after the revelations of the past few weeks ? That is the hypocrisy I'm talking about.

Thanks Zap, You handled that much better and clearer than I would have. And right, this has nothing to do with political leanings.

Come on Swansont, where on this list are the BIG stars, the Hollywood royalty if you will. The big names missing from this list are the same ones who waited about two weeks, after the Weinstein scandal broke, before condemning H Weinsteins despicable actions. I find it really messed up that there's actually a petition 'discouraging' the attempt to extradite R Polansky, and that a counter-petition had to be circulated. Some of the people on the original petition, have changed their minds, and now support the counter-petition and the extradition. I guess they just realized now, that raping a 13 yr old is a crime. ( wanna supply me with more evidence that Hollywood is fu**ed up ? )

I told them to use a steam engine ( usually about 40 % with theoretical 63 % max efficiency, IIRC ), but they wouldn't listen to me. Seriously, propulsion efficiency is maximized when the exhausting mass has the same, but opposite, velocity as the vehicle. A rocket with extremely high exhaust velocity is very inefficient at low speed, but the best option to achieve escape velocity from the Earth. At subsonic speeds a propeller is way more efficient. Unfortunately, a propeller won't work on the moon.

Frequency is in cycles per second. As such you can have the same frequency in sound waves, electromagnetic waves, gravitational waves , or even sea waves. That does not mean they are all the same thing !

Actually CharonY, the 13 year old girl raped by Roman Polansky was not an actress, so her career did not depend on him. His charges, admission of guilt and conviction is well known to everyone, yet actors/actresses continue to work and laud him. Why doesn't anyone in Hollywood speak out against him ? But maybe things are starting to change. The Weinstein domino knocked over the J Toback domino. The originator of the Just-for-Laughs comedy festival in Montreal has had charges brought against him. I bet B Singer is more than a little worried. Not to mention all the News networks who have been pimping young women to some managers/broadcasters in exchange for money/fame through NDAs. We'll see how far it goes.

Oh, that was you in the elevator the other day ? edit; merged replies Just wondering, Outrider... You are reading Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn to a bunch of kids ( in a classroom , say ). Would you take the liberty of changing the way Joe and Jim are referred to in the stories ? Or read it as written ?

I don't think words should be banned either, DrP, as I previously said, context can dramatically change the intended meaning. However... As far as I know, there's no law against spitting, and the sidewalk surely can't be offended, but if I asked you not to spit in my presence because it offends me, what do you think would be the civil thing to do ?

I'm also of the opinion that insults of any kind , whether moron, idiot, stupid or even retard, don't belong in a discussion forum. If you need to stoop to insults in a discussion, it means you've run out of arguments for your position. Let's be civil people; And if someone asks you to stop using a word that offends them, concession is the civil thing to do.

Words have context; It is context that makes them offensive or not. You cannot say " this timing belt is chronologically challenged " when you mean the timing is retarded by so many degrees. Or are we getting so ridiculous that describing a timing belt scan be considered offensive ?

H Weinstein has fallen from favor, and everyone has a story about the things he did. Yet not one of these people ( who have suddenly found a conscience ) will speak badly about R Polansky. Remember him ? The self-admitted rapist of a 13 yr old girl ? Who served 42 days before he fled the country, never to return ? Many 'stars' gush about what a wonderful human being he is, and the great experiences they've had working with him over the years ( but in Europe ). He is still receiving awards from the Academy and other Actor's guilds. and may even be a member ( I don't recall ). It seems that for all its soul-searching over the last few weeks, hypocrisy and ass-kissing for career advancement are still alive and well in Hollywood.

Very true iNow, that's the way the world SHOULD be. But it isn't. If that idiot on the street-corner is throwing mud at passersby, someone SHOULD say "Get that idiot somewhere where he can't throw mud at people". ( right out of the article ) If no-one says anything, he goes on to throw mud at people for 30 yrs, and only when someone who had mud thrown on them, grows a set, and starts yelling about the mud-tosser ( is this a bad pun ? ), do the rest of the people who witnessed him doing this for 30 yrs, voice their disapproval. Did I get the gist of the article right ? And, on a related note. We had a police officer giving a talk in the Toronto area schools about rape/assault prevention, and he mentioned that young girls should not wear revealing clothing. Well all hell broke loose, the cop had to apologize profusely, and we had the first of our annual 'Slut' March ( who picks these names ? ). Now, we know that it isn't the clothing that sets these people off, nor can it be anything the victim says or does, but is advice meant to minimize the chance of being assaulted, ever a bad thing ? It shouldn't be that way, it is totally on the assailant and no fault of the victim, but... Would you tell me to go ahead and walk through Central park at night, because I SHOULD not be mugged ? Would you tell me I don't need to look both ways before crossing the street, because cars SHOULD obey the rules of the road ? Would you tell Americans we don't need Armed Forces, because other nations SHOULD act civil towards all others ? And many other examples, where the world would be a better place if it was that way, but it isn't, so you had better be careful.

Well now that Tar has excused himself, I can return to the discussion... I'm glad you agree, iNow, that some of what waitforufo says has merit. ( its not always about right vs left, sometimes left is right, and sometimes right is also right ) Lets be honest, there will always be scumbags like H Weinstein, that's human nature. So how do we change it ? We can't change the scumbags, but we can change the attitude of their victims. And that's what waitforufo is proposing Look out for your fellow human beings, report any harassment/assaults immediately, without shame, and deprive the scumbags of their power. I don't go as far as waitforufo in blaming A Judd, R McGowan, and others who contributed to the articles that exposed H Weinstein, even if it was up to 20 yrs late. I think they did show courage. All the other established 'stars', such as M Streep, N Kidman, B Afflek, and yes, even H Clinton, who were not themselves assaulted, but by all indications, knew of H Weinstein's conduct for the last 30 yrs, SHOULD be ashamed, as they were the enablers that allowed for these assaults to keep happening. And coming out with their condemnations after H Weinstein was exposed by the victims, showed no intestinal fortitude or character at all. There will always be power disparity and scumbags in our society. But Laws are there to address the power inbalance and get rid of scumbags. If you don't avail yourself of these laws, are you not contributing to your continued victimization ? ( my apologies for overusing the term 'scumbag' )

I've often seen the description " Energy is the ability to do work ", and I know Mordred is fond of that description. However, every time we make use of this energy to do work, some of this property of the system is converted to a non-useable form of energy. This entropy, although still there, is no longer able to do work. So I don't know either if the ability to do work is an apt ( or total ) description. Any insights, Swans ?

Seriously Swansont ? You never made a clumsy pass at a girl/woman when you were younger ? You've never put your foot in your mouth in mixed company ? Never had to apologize to a woman for using inappropriate language ? Should any of those actions have made you a criminal ? I think you were young like the rest of us and you're lying now. It would be really sad if someone's perception of our immature discovering of our sexuality made criminals of us all. And no, the article wasn't specific to employer/employee, or power disparity.; it generalized to all women, and all men. Should women be afraid of all men, because harassment happens so frequently, that even the smallest comment is perceived in a sexually threatening manner ? Should I be afraid of any black man following me down the street at night because of my misguided perception ? Or any muslim boarding the same plane as me ? ( that is what I was getting at ) Of course not. H Weinstein chose NOT to stop when he was told to. And because these were young girls just getting into the business, no-one cared. The older, established actors and actresses, who had power and could have stood up to him, chose not to although they knew what was going on. The ones who could have done something about it, yet chose not to do so, should be ashamed of themselves.

To be fair iNow, that article makes the perception of the victim the criteria for whether a crime has been committed, not the intent of the accused. And the same justification could be used to generalize, and accuse all black people , because some have mugged, or all Muslims because some are terrorists. And that would be just as wrong. The standard procedure, because men ( and women ) are human, and are prone to saying or acting inappropriately, is to let them know that they are acting inappropriately, and if the speech/acts continue, then there is intent. And then it becomes harassment, or criminal; prior to that it is just stupidity ( I know I say stupid things from time to time ). The problem with the Weinstein situation, is that no-one, other than the young, starting out, starlets that he targeted, seem to have told him that he was acting inappropriately, or criminally. From all the jokes at awards shows ( S Mcfarlane ), and interviews from 20 yrs ago ( C Love ), a lot of Hollywood seemed to know about 'Harvey's problem', yet all of them stayed silent till after the 'dam burst', and they were called to account for their silence. That bothers me; not as much as H Weinstein's repulsive actions, but surely the established 'stars' that knew of his habit were enablers.

Is this thread about H Weinstein, or is it becoming about D Trump ? ( we have other threads for that ) And if the argument is that H Weinstein is a 'symptom' of the malady that affects ALL of society, exemplified by the fact that D Trump, a self-confessed abuser, is President, then the past history of Hollywood ( and its abuses ) and the past history of the Presidency ( and the abuses of B Clinton, J F Kennedy, etc. ) are fair game.

A BH has entropy related to the surface area of its event horizon. Anything that can be assigned an entropy, can be assigned a temperature.

Consider the Earth/Moon system, and assume the orbit is stable and unchanging. Both bodies are moving away from each other as fast as gravity is pulling them together, or in your thought experiment, as fast as space is falling 'into' each body. We can go to a stable point between the two bodies, where you feel neither gravity, nor are constrained by 'in-falling' space to move towards either body; Yet if you move in one direction or the other, you begin falling in that direction towards that body. Or in your version, you follow space in the in-fall. That suggests there is a 'source' of space at that stable point, which then falls, from that point, in both directions. That is not the only issue; If a sink is an attraction, then a source is anti-gravity. Yet , because of the inverse square dependency, you can have two smaller masses on either side of that stable point attract each other. Even though they surround an anti-gravity source. Any thought experiment that relies on anti-gravity effects is a non-starter, as it doesn't match observation.

I'm sorry if this confuses you further but... "the deeper in the gravity well you are, the slower YOUR clock is running" is incorrect. Your clock never runs slower ( or faster ). It is only in comparison to another clock ( or an observer ) at a different height in the potential well, that a difference is noted. The timing signal ( or frequency of light ) will decrease as it expends energy to climb to a higher position, or increase as it gains energy falling to a lower one. ( and I apologize if this is actually what you meant )

I miss the post numbering also. I don't like quoting because I don't like re-reading posts ( sometimes several times over and over for a contentious post ). And sometimes huge posts are wholly quoted for a one word answer. Give us back the choice.

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that, in the film industry, these bastards have gotten away with this sort of behavior for years. And I provided examples where they got away with it even though everyone knew it was happening; simply because no charges were ever made and it was just 'hearsay'. H Weinstein is simply going to a $40 000 per month re-hab facility in Europe ( sounds like a vacation ), then he'll come back, and these Hollywood 'stars' will be fawning all over him again. And things just go on as before. In B Cosby's case, charges have been brought up against him, so he, for one, can't simply go to re-hab. Hopefully he'll do time. But the chances of a conviction would have been much greater if the complainants hadn't taken so long to come forward. After so long, statute of limitations kick in, pay-outs and NDAs are greed upon, and no proper investigation can be carried out. The only way this behavior stops, is if these people start doing jail time. edit: Sorry that should have been ' pay-outs and NDAs are agreed upon', but 'greed upon ' could also fit.

Every major corporation has the equivalent training these days. It just makes sense. However, this kind of behavior has been going on since the beginning of the film industry. Remember 'Fatty" Arbuckle, or how about L B Mayer ( and his associates ) and how he treated J Garland when she was just a teenager ? And it will keep going on until the complaints are made, not through the media ( other than allegations, no charges have been brought against H Weinstein ), but through the criminal justice system, and, as soon as they happen. Hollywood people seem to think they can do whatever they want, and just go to re-hab to get a second chance. It doesn't, and shouldn't, work that way in the real world. The 'Harvey Weinstein' predators who abuse their power for their own twisted ends, need to go to jail. ( is that on point Swansont , he asks, rhetorically ?!? )

Even scumbags deserve their day in court, Swansont, so they are 'alleged' victims, so far. ( and I do hope there are charges coming so the seedy underbelly of Hollywood is exposed for all to see ) Don't have a problem with A Judd, or R McGowan; they came forward and were brave. And they have the most to lose as their careers are not huge. M Streep ( and some other huge stars like N Kidman, A Jolie, etc ), who spoke out about D Trump at an awards show, remained silent for almost a week. I guess she didn't want to put her career on the line for the 'right thing to do'. But then again, I stopped considering 'Hollywood types' as normal people, a long time ago. How many of these 'stars' still support R Polansky so many years after the statutory rape ? ( maybe they think society's rules don't apply to them )