MigL

Lasers are fine; but there's no way I'm stepping into a teleporter. ( a fly might be in there with me )

Post something controversial. That always seems to bring everyone out to play.

Sometimes I feel your Government/President has a larger effect on my life than my own Government/Prime Minister. Most of the World breathed a sigh of relief when D Trump was defeated. ( although he doesn't seem to have realized it yet )

If time is the result of geometry, then it ceases to make sense below a certain scale. The 'quantum foam' is postulated to be composed of tiny wormholes, bubbling in and out of existence, connecting different regions and different tmes, such that distance and time don't exist as we know them anymore. The original inflationary model, proposed by A Guth, involved the drop in vacuum energy from the symmetry break of electroweak dissociation. Many other, competing models have since been proposed, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to find evidence supporting a specific model.

Current theories of gravity don't need a graviton as they are classical theories. However we know these theories are not applicable at high energies and small separations. Much like electromagnetic and chromdynamic theories, what seems to work out better at high energies and small separations are quantized field theories, which, because of quantum uncertainty, can produce excitations of those fields. These excitations can be virtual, if below a certain threshold, or real, if above that threshold. What we call 'particles' are manifestations of these vrtual or real excitations, and the graviton is essentially an excitation of the gravity field. Gravitons are simply a requirement of a quantized field theory. ( which we hope to eventually have )

@MSC I apologize for my posting behaviour also. I felt I was being unfairly attacked, with insinuations about my character, and I responded in kind. I think we both want a more inclusive society, and we both agree that KBJ was a good choice. Hopefully, you also realize that J Biden can make mistakes, and it is our duty ( the American populace ) to call him out on those mistakes. Even if the populace don't all agree they are mistakes. Hope there are no hard feelings.

Actually, I was purposefully trying to be disrespectful ( not too much so ) with the term 'gay Oriental', hoping someone would call me out on it, and I could use it to make my point. However I thought the disrespectful term was the 'gay' part. I stand corrected. But is homosexual Asian specific enough ? After all. Asia stretches East from the Urals to the Pacific Ocean, and from the Arctic Ocean to the Indian Ocean. Oriental specifies South-East Asia. Interesting, but I would appreciate further explanation. India had,still has an active 'caste' system in many areas, where opportunities, and terms of addressing, are reserved for spcific groups. Am I to assume you think specific 'caste' groups are deserving of those opportunities, and of the honorific terms, simply because of the lottery of birth ? Or do you think everyone is deserving of the same opportunities, and to be addressed, or not, with the same terms ? Maybe I'm just on the wrong side of 'contemporary' thinking, because the first case smells of discrimination to me, while the second, which you mentioned and called wrong, does not.

Again, my gripe is NOT with his selection, rather the fact that his pre-announcement could be seen as discriminatory. Things will be different when I'm President ! And J Biden most likely said the exact same as above, when he ran for President against the previous orange haired buffoon. So we all expected different. And better. Yet you say he should do the EXACT SAME THING as his predecessors ? ( people tend to focus on the actions of current Presidents, and direct criticism at them ) Sorry, it's a full time job keeping up with politically correct language. But words either hurt people, or they don't. Don't make the argument that my words hurt homosexual Asians, then excuse J Biden for saying he will "pick a black woman", and possibly hurt other groups/skin colors and gender identities.

I am of the opinion that he got more 'push back' on his choice than he would have otherwise gotten had he not made the pre-announcement of the selection criteria. You seem to think he would have gotten the same, from the usual suspects. I guess we'll never know which of us is rght, because he can't take back the pre-announcement. The biggest strawman going on here is that, although a few of us have said there is no problem with the selection of KBJ, but there could be a problem with the announcing that he would "pick a black woman', as that gives the imopression of discrimination based on skin color and gender, some others are still arguing that we think the selection is discriminatory. Some have gone as far as throwing out the 'walks like a duck' line to insinuate we might be racist. For pointing out what could be considered racism ! Then he goes on to claim that my ( and JC's ) argument is simplistic and esy to understand. Meanwhile we cannot possibly understand his argument because it is complex and nuanced ( and we are after all, just racist simpletons, who need to have prejudicial discrimination explaine with an out-of-context dictionary definition ) We now have white, blacks and a latino on the SC, but orientals are catching up fast with 7 % of US population. Based on some of the justifications presented in defence of Biden's pre-announcement, should we expect an announcement for his next pick of a 'gay oriental' ? I, myself, don't think skin color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. should ever be a criteria for selection. But according to some people, that makes me a racist. That person, and he knows who he is, needs to give his head a shake. ( unless he can't because it is firmly wedged up his ass ) Rant completed; carry on.

Russian Intelligence ??? Bit of an Oxymoron, ain't it ? The way most all Russians have been easily duped by propaganda, and swindled by their President and his band of oligarchs. you included.

Easy, JC. You might give MSC a coronary.

I don't think their forces can actually take Mariupol conventionally. The steel mill where the Ukrainian resistance is making their stand is very large and criss-crossed with underground concrete tunnels. They are well sheltered against mortar/bombardment. The only option for the Russian forces is to starve the resistance of food/water or ammunition. This might be a good time for the Ukrainians to use those extra 22 MiG-29s that they have salvaged with Slovakian parts, to bomb open a corridor so as to resupply the resistance fighters. First wave to drop bombs and clear out Russian forces; second wave for close air support of the trucks bringing in supplies.

Unlike you I don't need to consult dictionaries to know what a word means, or who's full of shit. Any way you slice it, it means a bias, or preconceived notion, idea, or opinion about someone/thing. The active word, in this particular context, being preconceived, as in preannouncing your selection before actually making it. No I admitted to being less sensible than JC. Why don't you look up 'sensible' in the dictionary. @MigLignoring this are we? Not at all. I see no difference. Both are filling a vacancy, and preannouncing your selection is a preconceived notion about who you will rent to, or, who you will nominate to the SC. He did do the right thing. Did he 'improve things by the pre-annoucement about 'picking a black woman', or did he make things slightly worse ? That is what i have a dim view of; the pre-announcement. He eventually picked the candidate he wanted ( and we need ), but the pre-announcement of the selection criteria, involving skin color and gender, did not improve things but made things slightly worse and gave people the excuse to gripe about the selection process. I think the pre-announcement did not need to be made. If anyone can point out any benefit arising from it, I will stop getting MSC all worked up.

Except that INow has been throwing around the "butt-hurt" comment far longer than I have. To say nothing of the insinuations of racism, from you. Exactly. And "prejudice' Means to judge beforehand, since you like definitions. As in J Biden 'judging beforehand' That his pick would be a black woman. Is there anything else I need to explain to you ? Or am I just being vitriolic ? I'm sure he would have, or at least come by to tell me to settle down because it's not that big an issue ( he's a lot more sensible than I ), but he lives too far away.

What does any of this have to do with the fact that J Biden said he would pick a black woman for SC Justice ? He effectively said he would discriminate on the basis of skin color and gender. So did he lie and consider other factors, or did he discriminate ? How much longer will you guys twist, contort and do other gymnastics to try to prove J Biden is infallible ? He is human, and I think he made a small mistake; not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, and I'm sure he'll make many more. But lets stop pretending he's above criticism because he's so much better than his predecessor. Lets please stick to the OP. And really INow, after all the snide comments and insinuations you make about other poster's motives, you call mine needless vitriolic ? I could reply that I didn't say any of that, as you then do,but I will stand by what I said, and throw one of your lines back at you. Don't play the butt-hurt snowflake !

You are pretty full of ... yourself.

Couldn't care less; I got my point across to at least one person. But that's not what this thread is about. I think the only person to have understood the point JC and I are making is Zapatos. The choice was right; the way he went about could have been handled differently.

Soooooo We should all be V Putins ? I thought we expected better from 'our' side.

And INow provides a perfect example of 'optics', because he perceives a lot of things that are absent from my post ... I wasn't strictly Godwin; I also included references to American history, and Russian History ( thanks for the gulag correction ), besides Nazi history. The difference being you love your children; I don't see much love directed at your Republican fellow citizens. Correct. I agree with what he did; selecting KBJ. I disagree with how he went about it; pre-announcing he would pick a black woman. And again you are correct that what is done, is done. Maybe, after all the drama, he'll have learned for next time.

So, if you don't want to educate your fellow citizens as to the 'better' way, what do you propose to do with them ? Start another civil war ? Fire up the gas chambers for a 'final solution' ? Send them all to goulags in Alaska ( more likely Florida and Texas ) ? How long can you guys keep butting heads with the opposition ? Until another Jan 6 incident finally works, and destroys your democracy ? I don't think the horse story is actually true 😄 . (

You guys are still arguing the point that the selection wasn't racist; and I agree, it wasn't. What was racist was the pre-announcement. It is exactly the same. You have a vacancy, whether an apartment or a SC seat. You announce beforehand that you will select a white male for the apartment, or a black female for the SC. Please, point out the difference. So, is the purpose to simply stay in power, or to actually fix what you yourself aknowledge is wrong with America ? Not appeasement, but showing them the 'better'way. By setting an example that unites instead of further polarizing. America has shown the world the 'better way' of democracy, and more and more countries are starting to recognize that, and follow suit. How sad that that the political parties of this great democracyhave to polarize, and get the voters to hate each other, so as to retain power and the Presidency.

Maybe this is a difference between Canadian law and American law ... Are you saying I could run an ad that says "Apartment for rent. Only white males will be considered." That is the 'optics' ( Peterkin's favorite word ) of J Biden's pre-announcement, to a lot of his constituents. Regardless of who he actually, eventually, apointed. So you don't look confused, and out of your depth.

Yes we have. But apparently you and Peterkin don't read my posts. And you, re-stating YOUR opinion doesn't negate MY opinion.

This was already addressed, here ... The appointment of KBJ is not discriminatory; announcing beforehand that he would choose a back female does fit your crteria for discrimination. Quote : "If only one group is considered, it's certainly discrimination." Do try to keep up. ( or maybe read other people's posts, and remember what you yourself wrote ) Isn't it about time to start changing things ? Or do you think the Republicans are going to do it ? Whatever happened to we, progressive Democrats, are the sensible party, that cares for the country and ALL its people ?

And nobody has shown that only one group was considered. One can reach this conclusion (some because it's the conclusion they want to reach) by assuming that this was the beginning of the process, rather than the middle of the process. Anybody not applying tunnel vision (i.e. excluding easily-discovered truths) can see that it wasn't the beginning of the process. Just in case anyone wants to know where that quote came from, because Peterkin seems to be in denial, and wants to go around 28 times ... I find it amusing that people are saying how refreshing it is to have a President who does what he said he was going to do, yet you claim that when he said he would "pick a black female" for SCJ, that wasn't really true, and all sorts of other criteria were considered. Could he not have told them that with his actual selection, instead of announcing he would "pick a black female" beforehand, and alienating the other half of voters ?