Jump to content
Science Forums

Buffy

Administrators
  • Content Count

    8,913
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    207

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Buffy got a reaction from Thoth101 in What You Might Need To Know About Politics In United States Of America   
    The original poster will think this is a good thing, but the cited web site, circa.com is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which has been buying up local TV stations in the US, and has been most recently in the news for starting to force their stations local news operations to air pro-Trump propaganda by Boris Epshteyn.
     
    So you can pretty much discount most things published on circa as propaganda.
     
    As to the specific allegations, there is a kernel of truth there: the NSA under Obama has done surveillance that they should not do, but the NSA has been doing that for ages and it was at the very least no worse under Obama than it was under Bush or Clinton or especially GHW Bush, who some may remember was Director of the CIA. It also brings up the tired "unmasking" accusation which Republican intelligence appointees have resoundingly rejected.
     
    The irony of the "unmasking" story that Republican congresscritter Devin Nunes pushed so hard is that the only thing it "unmasked" was the importance of communications between Trump officials and the Russians between the election and inauguration.
     
    The whole article is quite simply a great example of right-wing hyperventilating selection bias. TL;DR, both the article and probably this thread.
     
    If you'd like unbiased coverage of the NSA, DoD intelligence and the CIA, I recommend Marcy Wheeler and Spencer Ackerman who are both career specialists in the intelligence community, have the best sources and do not pull punches for either conservative or liberal politicians.
     
     
    Military Intelligence is an oxymoron, :phones:
    Buffy
  2. Like
    Buffy got a reaction from Thoth101 in Is armageddon going to happen?   
    Having had to prevent the world from ending a couple of times, I think I'm an authority here....I actually think the world is getting better, all we gotta do is get these religious fanatics to stop trying to kill everyone they think is an infidel/apostate/godless humanist/mechanical materialist/etc.
     
    ...and therefore, deficits *do* matter!
     
    Cheerily,
    Buffy
  3. Like
    Buffy got a reaction from exchemist in The Revolution In Science. The Biggest Ever Discoveries In Physics. The New Inexhaustible Energy Source.   
    Moderator's note: If you don't back up these claims pretty darn quick, it will be demoted from even Strange Claims....
     
    Welcome to Hypography!
     
     
    But I’ll tell you a secret. All the best people are, :phones:
    Buffy
  4. Like
    Buffy got a reaction from hazelm in Taking The Smartphone Back To The Past   
    This reminds me of the story about the guy who was disturbed about the fact that telegraphs delivered news so quickly.
     
    "Think of the disruption to commerce and mental disturbance caused by so many learning of the assassination of President Lincoln!" he proclaimed. "We should force telegraph offices to be placed only far outside of cities so that such catastrophic news is disseminated gradually."
     
    Seriously, the described cell phone does nothing about it's main problem: that the boss thinks you're available 24x7 and also on vacation.
     
    I've also noticed that families or couples who spend dinner staring at their phones is the symptom, not the cause, of relationship and discipline problems, but people who are not good at dealing with each other love this as an excuse for why.
     
     
    So that's the telephone? They ring, and you run. :phones:
    Buffy 
  5. Like
    Buffy reacted to Deepwater6 in New Space Station   
    I have been a big fan of the space stations growth over the years, but it's become a monstrosity at this point. I believe I read somewhere that the Russians were pulling out in the early 2020's and by the mid 2020's the space station would be near the end of it's projected life span. Instead of updating and remodeling the present station does anyone agree it's time to build something more futuristic?
     
    Judging by the pace of JW telescope project, my faith in mankind's ability to build a new one is shaken. Even so I think we should build something that can be useful and multi-purpose for the future.
     
    I'm not asking for the Starship Enterprise with solar panels hanging all over it, but there are plenty of designs that could accommodate many future space planes now on the books. Thoughts?
     
    https://www.google.com/search?q=future+space+station+pictures&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHg8ug543cAhVHON8KHc61CUAQsAQIJg
  6. Like
    Buffy reacted to GAHD in New Space Station   
    like this? https://www.dezeen.com/2018/04/11/orion-span-space-hotel-aurora-station-architecture-news/
    or this? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5416975/Robert-Bigelow-plans-inflatable-hotels-2021.html

     
  7. Like
    Buffy reacted to A-wal in The World Cup   
    This has to be the only times USians aren't louder than us. :)
     
    Yea I know, my comment was meant as a response to that quote. There is one objective difference going on right now, the world cup. There's no other game that can bring the world together like that, because there's no other game the world as a whole cares about 1% as much as football. The only thing that's comparable is the Olympics but that doesn't count because it's a whole load of separate things.

    There's a reason why it's the global sport, the same reason it's called the beautiful game. I get your point about needing to understand the game to appreciate it. I can see that it could seem boring if you just don't get it, and of course there are some genuinely boring games. Although that's subjective, Italians love those kinds of games.

    The US women's team is quite good. Our team and women's football in general is improving and people have starting caring about it more. If they played at the same level as the men it would be as popular. The gap is closing but it's still a chasm.

    Watching the Belgium game was a strange atmosphere. People were wanting to see England play well but we needed to lose, losing 1-0 was a great result. That's why I actually really like the new format, with three teams in a group they play two group games each so the last game will always matter.
  8. Like
    Buffy reacted to A-wal in The World Cup   
    I wonder if things will be different by the time the US hosts it again, it's eight years away. This is a funny video that I think sums up the difference.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sQDb_EE0Wo

    I think it makes the best tele there is, you don't get any context with the highlights. Obviously it's different when it's your own team, last night was one of the most emotional nights of my life.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA6dDvinOrU
    It's basically like this through the whole of England. Crap game though from a neutral perspective but this world cup has been the best in my life time, three (at least) all time classics Argentina Vs France, Belgium Vs Japan, Spain Vs Portugal and quite a few other really good matches.

    I don't think it's fair to compare it other sports, it's on it's own level.

  9. Like
    Buffy got a reaction from A-wal in The World Cup   
    Only ex-pats, world travelers (e.g. me), and the Latino community are watching much here, but at least every game is on teevee (although those of us on the West Coast have to get up at 3AM for the early rounds).
     
    Futbol is actually very big here across all cultural and ethnic groups except for the rural midwest, but it makes for lousy teevee, so it's not a popular *spectator* sport. The pro teams here can barely survive in urban areas (again, where the Latino community making it happen), but "youth soccer" is huge in the white suburbs: it's virtually a rite of passage for both boys and girls.
     
    But by high school, most kids go off to the traditional "American" sports of football, basketball, baseball, etc.
     
    I find that my enjoyment of it only occurred once I realized it's like auto racing: unless you really know the details of what is going on, it's *incredibly* boring. As much as I like it, I'm fine just watching the 2 minute highlights of a match because there's only 2 minutes out of 90 where anything actually happens that affects the outcome. The rest is just style.
     
     
    Every sport pretends to a literature, but people don't believe it of any other sport but their own, :phones:
    Buffy
  10. Like
    Buffy reacted to OceanBreeze in Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light   
    Yes, exactly! Two objects moving in opposite directions as seen from an observer in the middle may have closing speed greater than c but a closing speed is not a velocity therefore it does not violate SR. To get the relative velocity between the two objects the observer at B must use the velocity addition formula and the result will always be less than c.
     
    Thank you for your input!
  11. Like
    Buffy reacted to VictorMedvil in Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light   
    The point of special relativity is that you cannot move faster than C away from a rest frame with velocity you could argue that two objects are moving opposite directions at greater than C are moving faster than the speed of light but from the rest frame's view they are not, you can never move a object with mass at the speed of light from a rest frame's view. Final Verdict unfortunately. Note how in the equations that the REST frame is always the variable to take in account, it is all about moving from a rest frame's view in special relativity. If two objects are moving relative from each other faster than C in different directions that is irrelevant it only matters what a rest frame view of the situation which is both are moving less than C away from the rest frame.
  12. Like
    Buffy reacted to OceanBreeze in Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light   
    Velocity is always a vector while speed is a scalar. That is not a distinction that I am "trying to make" it is a distinction that exists in the correct precise usage of language! Being  sloppy and imprecise is what leads to confusion and needless arguments.
     
    These three relative velocities are what are actually seen by the respective observers:
     
    The relative velocity between A and C is 0.9c, as seen by A and C with respect to each other
     
    The relative velocity between A and B is 0.45c, as seen by A and B with respect to each other
     
    The relative velocity between B and C is 0.756c, as seen by B and C with respect to each other
     
    Now, B sees A moving away at a velocity of 0.45c to the East and B also sees C moving away with a velocity of 0.756c to the West, so in opposite directions. He cannot assign one direction to the simple sum of this motion. Can you see that? Since he cannot assign one direction, the simple sum of 1.206 c is not a velocity. It is an opening speed (usually referred to as a closing speed)
     
    If B wants to know the relative velocity between A and C he uses the velocity addition formula as follows:
     
    [math]{ V }_{ AC }\quad =\quad \frac { { V }_{ AB }\quad +\quad { V }_{ BC } }{ 1\quad +\quad \frac { ({ V }_{ AB })\quad ({ V }_{ BC }) }{ { c }^{ 2 } }  }[/math]
     
     
    Punching in the numbers:
     
    [math]{ V }_{ AC }\quad =\quad \frac { { 0.45c }\quad +\quad { 0.756c } }{ 1\quad +\quad \frac { ({ 0.45c })\quad ({ 0.756c }) }{ { c }^{ 2 } }  }[/math]
     
    You get VAC = 0.9c  calculated by B using the velocity addition formula.
     
    Does that answer all your questions?
  13. Like
    Buffy reacted to Maine farmer in Overly Aggressive Auto Correct.   
    Thanks for the explanation, Buffy.  I have learned to always read and reread my writing before clicking "post" or "send".  It isn't just swearing that it corrects, but several other random words as well.  What gets me is how persistent it is, and how many times I have to rewrite my words.  It initially felt like the software thought me an idiot, or was trying to make me look like one.
  14. Like
    Buffy got a reaction from Maine farmer in Overly Aggressive Auto Correct.   
    Well, many of them will "learn" so if you correct "he'll" back to "hell" enough, it will leave it as "hell" all the time, and you'll have to be sure to put that apostrophe in manually when you *do* want it.
     
    Note that it's embedded in iOS, whereas on your Windows or Mac system, it's usually the app/browser that's doing the correcting. I've gotten my iPhone pretty well trained into letting me swear all the time.
     
    Do what I mean, not what I say, :phones:
    Buffy
  15. Like
    Buffy got a reaction from LaurieAG in Overly Aggressive Auto Correct.   
    Well, many of them will "learn" so if you correct "he'll" back to "hell" enough, it will leave it as "hell" all the time, and you'll have to be sure to put that apostrophe in manually when you *do* want it.
     
    Note that it's embedded in iOS, whereas on your Windows or Mac system, it's usually the app/browser that's doing the correcting. I've gotten my iPhone pretty well trained into letting me swear all the time.
     
    Do what I mean, not what I say, :phones:
    Buffy
  16. Like
    Buffy reacted to hazelm in Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light   
    I confess to twisting the title, yes.  And I did it deliberately because of things I'd read earlier about whether or not you can.  Einstein is alleged to have said (in my words) "well, you can but you'd have a hard time getting back'.  And that is covered in this article. - Well covered. 
     
    Shall we not disparage what helps the less-educated understand?  :-)
  17. Like
    Buffy reacted to Doctordick in Understanding Reality   
    What you did was demonstrate that you totally failed to comprehend what I was trying to express.  
     
    We both agree that language is absolutely necessary to any discussion of any subject. Your position (and that of Wittgenstein's) is to proceed under the presumption that you understand a known language. What you totally fail to comprehend is that the first step (of avoiding all presumptions) is to find a way of avoiding that presumption.  
     
    I googled Wittgenstein and found not a mention of that issue.
     
    In fact, I have never met a person who has not made many presumptions as to what is meant by a given word. It is the single most prevalent source of confusion in any body of communications.
     
    Have fun -- Dick
  18. Like
    Buffy got a reaction from A-wal in What If Artificial Brain Was Possible Before 2020   
    "AI" does not have any generally accepted definition, in fact much work in "AI" is going on where the participants are actually actively avoiding using the term, most notably autonomous weapons systems. People are scared to death of that (given our popular culture/movies), so the projects avoid anything that sounds like "AI Killer Robot."
     
    I mention that, because there is some "AI" that does just "follow its program," but this is getting rarer as those of us who work with the technology realize that learning systems utilizing feedback loops are far more effective in practice. With a neural network, I can tell you the methodology of the basic software, and how to go about training it, but it's virtually impossible to describe why it ends up doing what it does. This drives theoretical computer scientists nuts, because they can't come up with a proof for the software. This has many implications for reliability in the normal "mechanical" sense, but also in the cybernetic notion of the behavior going completely non-linear: that is, there ends up being no way of knowing how the system will behave.
     
    This gets even dicier when you not only have a feedback loop while in "training mode" but where the feedback loop is part of "operating mode." Siri and Alexa and other such service bots do exactly this, not only insofar as learning your voice better over time, but keeping track of what you ask for and knowing what you like, and then using that knowledge in conjunction with what it can access on the net to guess at things you *might* like.
     
    This just scratches the surface, but once you get very sophisticated feedback/learning systems, there's no telling what "AI" will do, or even if it's going to get to a point where it becomes "self-aware" or "has a "consciousness."
     
    The problem with those words is that yes, most people will say "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it," which means that it may be very difficult to perceive things that are just like "consciousness" but aren't the kind you recognize.
     
    I'd even make an argument that "consciousness" isn't a very useful term if we can't define it's attributes and behavior strictly.
     
    When you're close to the development, the magic that is appearing at the superficial level is somewhat disappointing, and predictions that "AI" will be just like Fusion--forever 20 years in the future--are pretty common. 
     
    But we still work on it, because even the incremental improvements are pretty interesting and useful.
     
    Will it ever be "conscious?" Heck, I don't know, but my guess is actually "sure, why not?"
     
    Good luck kids! Your parents are playing with high explosives...
     
     
    There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact, :phones:
    Buffy
  19. Like
    Buffy got a reaction from LaurieAG in Islam With Human Face   
    How would you feel about a Muslim insisting that Judaism be "reformed," indeed requiring all Orthodox to adopt the position of the Reform movement?
     
    Heck, how would you feel about the URJ insisting on this "for the good of Jews" and the survival of the religion in the face of hostile reactions to the policies the Orthodox?
     
     
    Reform and Conservative Jews are responsible for the assimilation of American Jews, :phones:
    Buffy
  20. Like
    Buffy got a reaction from DaveC426913 in My Thread Just Disappeared. Anyone Know Why?   
    Sigh.
     
    It's not my job to educate you, dear. I do give you credit for reading the paper which I picked precisely to see if you'd attack it out of hand or find that it "agreed" with your position.
     
    Unfortunately, you've just kind of shown that you latch on to "inconsistencies" for which SR must totally be to blame, and at the same time dismiss any proof of SR as not being relevant.
     
    That's the crux of people's annoyance with you. 
     
    Are there "inconsistencies" from what is "expected" in tests that *interpret* SR? You betcha. Are we learning more and coming up with more refined theories like "frame-dragging" to explain what we see? Of course.
     
    Do such refinements constitute "abandon(ing) it as a model?" Most assuredly not.
     
    And that's your problem. 
     
    Now, I'm buried in getting a new release out the door and don't have time to play with you, but honestly, even if I did, your annoying, haughty and dismissive attitude is the real problem here. Along with not being able to see the forest for the trees.
     
    An official reminder that one of our top rules is against "annoying our members." So, a reminder not to be a Noying. It will not serve you well here or in real life.
     
     
    Some people are immune to good advice, :phones:Buffy 
  21. Like
    Buffy got a reaction from JMJones0424 in Capitalized Initialisms Ftw Or F T W Or F-T-W Or F.t.w. Or F_T_W   
    As i noted in the thread that prompted this, the forum software enforces "Title Case" in topic titles. Spaces, periods, dots, dashes, will all work.
     
    Why, then I will do what your grace commands, :phones:
    Buffy
  22. Like
    Buffy got a reaction from Dubbelosix in My Thread Just Disappeared. Anyone Know Why?   
    Sigh.
     
    It's not my job to educate you, dear. I do give you credit for reading the paper which I picked precisely to see if you'd attack it out of hand or find that it "agreed" with your position.
     
    Unfortunately, you've just kind of shown that you latch on to "inconsistencies" for which SR must totally be to blame, and at the same time dismiss any proof of SR as not being relevant.
     
    That's the crux of people's annoyance with you. 
     
    Are there "inconsistencies" from what is "expected" in tests that *interpret* SR? You betcha. Are we learning more and coming up with more refined theories like "frame-dragging" to explain what we see? Of course.
     
    Do such refinements constitute "abandon(ing) it as a model?" Most assuredly not.
     
    And that's your problem. 
     
    Now, I'm buried in getting a new release out the door and don't have time to play with you, but honestly, even if I did, your annoying, haughty and dismissive attitude is the real problem here. Along with not being able to see the forest for the trees.
     
    An official reminder that one of our top rules is against "annoying our members." So, a reminder not to be a Noying. It will not serve you well here or in real life.
     
     
    Some people are immune to good advice, :phones:Buffy 
  23. Like
    Buffy got a reaction from exchemist in My Thread Just Disappeared. Anyone Know Why?   
    Honestly, You're kinda lucky we've only moved it to Alternative Theories.
     
     

    As stated previously SR is well tested and yes, time dilation is a key prediction, and thus such tests are indeed confirmatory, regardless of whether you think so or not. 
     

    Actually, if you'd Google a little harder, you'd find that these "disproofs" of SR, have, themselves, been disproven. It's unfortunately easy to find sites with such "scientific conspiracy" arguments, and at the same time, a little harder to find the explanation of their weaknesses, not to speak of the effort and motivation to avoid the easy Confirmation Bias trap if you're predisposed to liking such things.
     

    We know you deny it, but in the referenced thread (and others I haven't all tracked down yet), you seem to rely heavily on repeating something to the effect that it's obvious that it doesn't make sense, and referencing sites that present arguments in isolation that as I say, have been extensively debunked.
     
    Now *all* of us believe that science is dynamic, and all these theories are works in progress, and if you'd like to read up on a more recent argument about how SR is "wrong"--really, that it's totally right, but adding a few postulates makes it even *more* right--check out this very interesting paper on GPS Evidence and Quantum Gravity Architecture of the Discrete Field Model.
     
    One of the annoying aspects of science is that yes, there is a hegemony of the conventional wisdom that comes from years of the weight of confirmatory evidence, along with far too many ill-educated charlatans with wild and poorly thought out "new theories" that wear out folks who know a bit about what they're talking about.
     
    So to be clear, no implication here that you're one of those people, but as we say in our rules "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." You're welcome to present proof of your ideas here, but it's important to realize that none of us are under the obligation to educate you, and we're not really even a debating society. You'll notice there are a lot of threads here with claims of all types and kinds that don't have responses, because people get tired of teaching Physics 101 to people, especially those who are starting out with a very strong bias that "everything the physicists say is wrong!"
     
    It's really tiresome.
     
    So I'd suggest you are on a horse that is at least 25 hands tall, and you might want to start with something smaller.
     
    Enjoy your stay.
     
     
    For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill, :phones:
    Buffy
  24. Like
    Buffy got a reaction from pzkpfw in My Thread Just Disappeared. Anyone Know Why?   
    Honestly, You're kinda lucky we've only moved it to Alternative Theories.
     
     

    As stated previously SR is well tested and yes, time dilation is a key prediction, and thus such tests are indeed confirmatory, regardless of whether you think so or not. 
     

    Actually, if you'd Google a little harder, you'd find that these "disproofs" of SR, have, themselves, been disproven. It's unfortunately easy to find sites with such "scientific conspiracy" arguments, and at the same time, a little harder to find the explanation of their weaknesses, not to speak of the effort and motivation to avoid the easy Confirmation Bias trap if you're predisposed to liking such things.
     

    We know you deny it, but in the referenced thread (and others I haven't all tracked down yet), you seem to rely heavily on repeating something to the effect that it's obvious that it doesn't make sense, and referencing sites that present arguments in isolation that as I say, have been extensively debunked.
     
    Now *all* of us believe that science is dynamic, and all these theories are works in progress, and if you'd like to read up on a more recent argument about how SR is "wrong"--really, that it's totally right, but adding a few postulates makes it even *more* right--check out this very interesting paper on GPS Evidence and Quantum Gravity Architecture of the Discrete Field Model.
     
    One of the annoying aspects of science is that yes, there is a hegemony of the conventional wisdom that comes from years of the weight of confirmatory evidence, along with far too many ill-educated charlatans with wild and poorly thought out "new theories" that wear out folks who know a bit about what they're talking about.
     
    So to be clear, no implication here that you're one of those people, but as we say in our rules "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." You're welcome to present proof of your ideas here, but it's important to realize that none of us are under the obligation to educate you, and we're not really even a debating society. You'll notice there are a lot of threads here with claims of all types and kinds that don't have responses, because people get tired of teaching Physics 101 to people, especially those who are starting out with a very strong bias that "everything the physicists say is wrong!"
     
    It's really tiresome.
     
    So I'd suggest you are on a horse that is at least 25 hands tall, and you might want to start with something smaller.
     
    Enjoy your stay.
     
     
    For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill, :phones:
    Buffy
  25. Like
    Buffy got a reaction from JMJones0424 in How Should I Respond To Those Like Kakakaoo?   
    Easiest thing to do is just report the latest one, indicating that the same account posted many others, and leave it at that.
     
    What we do is to simply ban them and that deletes all their spam in one click (warning to persistent spammers like this one: don't waste your time, it's easy to clean up after you).
     
     
    Ours is a culture and a time immensely rich in trash as it is in treasures, :phones:
    Buffy
×
×
  • Create New...