1401

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: New titles

« on: July 26, 2015, 05:22:42 PM »

custom titles plz

1402

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: July 26, 2015, 03:55:19 PM »

Iran hates the West bucketloads more than they hate ISIS.

lol

srsly ur 2 funny

1403

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake

« on: July 26, 2015, 03:51:57 PM »

Can you be more specific about what the change is?  This looks like something I would expect to see from an object that is changing it orientation to two different light sources.  I see some shadows moving, and I see some bolt heads getting lighter or darker, but I don't see the color change Tom is referencing.

Ah, I do see what you're talking about now.  I was fixated on the hull, and I thought that that post from Tom was in reference to something else about demonstrating which part of the hull was in sunlight and when.

I took screencaps of the videos at the same time stamps as the OP.  I used the color dropper tool on that left lip part next to the arrow to produce this swatch.  I went out of my way to try and find the biggest difference that I could.



This just isn't a very compelling difference to me.  I think this is just an example of metamerism, which is a word I just learned exists.  http://www.wonderfulcolors.org/blog/metamerism-and-why-does-paint-color-shift/

The OP images are compressed copies of screencaps of a copy of a video taken by what is basically a GoPro camera strapped to a ballistic missile; and, none of us know the properties of that camera or camera sensor (super important), or the lighting conditions in which it took the images (super important), or anything at all about the paint and whatnot being photographed (super important).  Since one can easily demonstrate the various and significant ways in which lighting can affect the color and appearance of an object, and since the object in question is purported to be constantly altering its orientation to two very bright light sources, then it's hard to see how Tom's underlying argument that the video does not appear as it should has much warrant to it without more work on his part.

1404

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake

« on: July 25, 2015, 01:56:50 PM »

Can you point it out to me?

Yes. The gradual change begins at 1:27 and continues until around 1:50.

Can you be more specific about what the change is?  This looks like something I would expect to see from an object that is changing it orientation to two different light sources.  I see some shadows moving, and I see some bolt heads getting lighter or darker, but I don't see the color change Tom is referencing.

That footage is not continuous. The video cuts out many times through the scene.

Right, and I'm not saying that it counts of proof of NASA's legitimacy.  I'm only saying that it doesn't look fake to me.  I don't understand your stubborn refusal to even point out the specific change or explain your argument further.  Just take a screencap and draw an arrow to the part that you believe changes color.

I'm not even trying to be a dick here.  I don't see the color change beyond a gradual shift from lighter to darker as the craft moves away from the Earth and rotates with respect to both the Earth and the Sun.

1405

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake

« on: July 24, 2015, 01:56:48 PM »

Instead of using a video that cuts away from the onboard camera, here's a contiguous video of the onboard camera.  I don't see the color change.  Can you point it out to me?

1406

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake

« on: July 23, 2015, 03:11:57 PM »

The orange gets lighter and darker. But colors don't just disappear or pop out of nowhere. You're going to have to explain why the rocket would be completely white in the shade, hiding it's colors.

The whitest parts of the an object under varying light conditions are when the light is shining directly on it, and the white value in the photograph are very high. But this rocket ship is in the shade. You will have to explain how a body, in the shade, can be so blinded by the light around it that its colors are hidden by overexposure. The fact that it is in shade contradicts the idea that the object is receiving an intense amount of light from the environment. The white of the rocket ship is very dull, is obviously in shade, and does not scream overexposure from any environment sources at all.

The example of the orange does not get white washed when placed in the shade and, therefore, does not qualify as an example of this phenomena.

Other than that some of the bolts look lighter or darker in the second image, I still don't see this color change you're describing.  The Ares launch vehicle is mostly white, so it isn't surprising that it would appear to be white.  It looks slightly darker in the second image, I guess?  Please demonstrate on the image itself what you think has changed.

You talk a lot about what I have to explain, but you're oddly silent on the notion that you should have to explain anything more than "these two images look slightly different." 

1407

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: July 23, 2015, 02:30:59 PM »

I don't get how what I said could apply to Hilary at all.

That's fairly common for our discussions, isn't it?

I agree completely.

1408

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: July 23, 2015, 01:52:03 PM »

I sure hope our next president is some asshole who views the office as four years of free advertising for his shitty brand.

Yeah, I hate Hilary too.

I don't get how what I said could apply to Hilary at all.

1409

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: July 23, 2015, 03:46:28 AM »

I sure hope our next president is some asshole who views the office as four years of free advertising for his shitty brand.

1410

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake

« on: July 22, 2015, 05:43:57 PM »

Changes in lighting and atmospheric conditions will change how things look when you photograph them

Please explain what is happening then. The colors of the ship clearly are not being washed out by the sun, considering that it is in shadow.

Personally, my completely speculative guess is that something like this is happening.  The Earth is acting like the styrofoam.  The Earth and the atmosphere are reflecting and scattering lots of light; so, when Orion is nearer to the ground, it's being illuminated from many incident angles all around it.  Like the orange in my link, Orion gets dimmer as it moves away from a reflective light source: the Earth.  Since rockets kind of tend to move around a lot, those incident angles are probably constantly changing, much like the woman in the lighting video. 

I can't really know any of this for sure because I have so little information (not to mention virtually no expertise in photography).  Neither of us can do anything better than guess at where the sun is, how high the craft is, the properties of the camera, the properties of the material being photographed, etc.  That information is necessary to determining if the photograph is "correct" or not.

All of that said, I've already demonstrated my point: lighting changes how an object appears in a photograph, and the lighting in the OP images has certainly changed.  Rockets move around a lot, and they alter their orientation to the sun constantly.  By definition.  They wouldn't work as orbital rockets if they didn't.

Why do you not take seriously the onus to demonstrate and explain your argument?  The OP just posts two photos and says "Look at the paint job of the rocket when it is low to the ground...compared to what the rocket looks like when it is up in space around a round earth."  That's it.  I assume you're saying that it isn't possible for these two photos to look different in this way, but you never explain why that's the case.  You don't explain anything.  How similar should they appear?  How do you know?  How then was this scene made?  CGI, models, both, neither?  Can such a mistake be rationally explained?  Please explain what is happening.

1411

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake

« on: July 22, 2015, 04:15:23 PM »

Changes in lighting and atmospheric conditions will change how things look when you photograph them.

1412

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake

« on: July 22, 2015, 01:52:53 AM »

The video calls the Van Allen Radiation Belts a place of dangerous high radiation, a thing that we shouldn't be sending people though right now, when this is contradictory to the official story. The Apollo astronauts allegedly received a very minimal amount of radiation exposure when traveling through the radiation belt.

You're insisting that the video means somethings it doesn't say and doesn't mean what it says directly.  Kelly Smith says, "Before we can send astronauts into space on Orion, we have to test all of its systems, and there’s only one way to know if we got it right: fly it in space...Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion."

Yes, claiming that electronics need "further testing" is contradictory too. Your idea that NASA knows the belts are safe for humans but thinks it is not safe for computer chips is in opposition to NASA's previous claims of having sent many unmanned ships through the belts when conducing exploration of the solar system. They have been claiming to have developed the electronics shielding technologies to handle that for many years now.

NASA does not claim to have solved the problem of radiation effects on spacecraft.  NASA itself, in papers it publishes, says literally exactly the opposite.

http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/courses/aoe4065/NASADesignSPs/rp1390.pdf

Documented episodes of disrupted communications, major power losses, and satellite failures show that the natural space environment has caused adverse effects in orbiting spacecraft and ground operations. Major perturbations in the near-Earth space environment have adversely affected space and ground based systems for years. Substantial research into the consequences of the natural space environment on programs and numerous case histories, emphasize the importance of continuing the development of better design procedures and processes to ensure successful in-flight experiments and missions.

Also, it's new.  But don't take my word for it; here's an example from the dude in charge of Orion's avionics:

http://www.informationweek.com/government/leadership/nasa-orion-space-capsule-has-surprising-brain/d/d-id/1297427

"The spacecraft is capable of doing the mission itself," he added, "although of course once you add a crew, it becomes even more capable."

The avionics system has gone through extensive testing on the ground, but the test flight will show how all the components work together when integrated into a complete system and subjected to all the extremes of radiation and vibration that only a real space flight can provide, he said.

"Our vehicle master computer is from Honeywell and it's based on the 787 avionics they did for Boeing. So one new thing for NASA is we're not designing the computer from the ground up just for space, which is how we did shuttle. That was very, very expensive. Using commercial technology really reduced the cost of our flight computer. Then all we have to do is live with some disadvantages. The big one we have is radiation tolerance. A commercial airliner doesn't care about radiation -- it doesn't see very much. But we go up through the Van Allen Belt, farther into deep space, encountering heavy doses of radiation potentially. So we've done things to upgrade the computer. We've replaced individual piece parts with radiation-hardened components. Then we look at redundancy on the vehicle and say, "what if we allow radiation to happen to certain components" and [the flight computer] goes down. Well, we need another computer just in case. That's still a lot cheaper than trying to design one that is never going to have a problem."

It's not at all surprising for engineers to test a new machine that humans are going to fly into space to make sure that it won't kill the humans in it.  It's not at all surprising that new machines with never-before-flown parts would be tested to ensure that those parts won't fail before putting humans in it.  That's just sound engineering.  Machines don't automatically work simply because they're newer.

For good measure, here's another NASA paper on their continued research on radiation hardening.

And here's an article that talks about the booming business of rad-hard tech.

1413

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's Ares/Orion program is fake

« on: July 21, 2015, 02:51:38 PM »

They can't even get their story straight.

Listen carefully at around 3:36 to where the one of their engineers says: "We must solve this problem before we send people through this region of space” (the Van Allen radiation belt).

Cheery-picking quotes is not the same as reading carefully.  What the video actually says:

"My name is Kelly Smith, and I work on navigation and guidance for Orion...Before we can send astronauts into space on Orion, we have to test all of its systems, and there’s only one way to know if we got it right; fly it in space.
[...]
As we get further away from Earth, we’ll pass through the Vann Allan Belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back. But Orion has protection, shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of Space."

The video is clearly describing a danger to the onboard electronics and not to the astronauts themselves.

Didn't they already send six manned crews through this region on the way to the moon in the Apollo missions?

If NASA is still working on testing the Van Allen radiation belt in order to solve that problem before they can send the astronauts through this region of space, than it is really amazing what the 1960’s engineers have done to solve that problem, who apparently created long lost and forgotten technologies, leading to the first lunar landing in 69'.

It would be suspicious if NASA didn't claim to rigorously and exhaustively test new components and designs before putting astronauts in them.  I'm sure you're aware that there have been drastic changes in computer electronics and miniaturization since the 1960s.

1414

Arts & Entertainment / Re: FES Book Club

« on: July 20, 2015, 05:09:45 AM »

I've nearly completed my introductory Eastern Front Reading List.



Deathride is the only one of the five that I wouldn't recommend reading.  The author's argument is that it's nothing short of a miracle that the Wehrmacht was defeated by the Red Army, that Hitler's strategic assessment of the Eastern Front was entirely rational, and that the war didn't begin to turn against Germany until the 6th Army's surrender at Stalingrad.  His argument would be compelling if it didn't omit the most salient argument against Barbarossa: logistics.  He focuses far too much on raw casualty figures and fails to recognize the complete inability of the Wehrmacht to sustain those operations in Soviet territory.  Operation Barbarossa makes a much, much more compelling argument that Barbarossa was always a total fantasy.

Stalingrad and Leningrad are by far the most readable, and I would recommend them to anyone.  I think there's a real value to reading the firsthand experiences of people who suffered in the manner these folks did.  Leningrad was truly heartbreaking at times.  Like a mother describing in her journal how she killed her 1-year-old child to feed her 2-years-old child.  Also, apparently there is a level of hunger where you're totally willing to boil wallpaper to separate the glue and eat it.  No thanks; I'll just die.

Stalin is actually the first proper biography I've ever read.  I enjoyed it, but I enjoy memoirs more I think.  Stalin was an interesting figure.  Not what I expected.  The juxtaposition between total brilliance and completely irrational narcissism is something.

1415

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

« on: July 10, 2015, 07:09:08 PM »

I would be utterly shocked if Tom Bishop could, in his own words, accurately describe the majority's holding in this case.

1416

Arts & Entertainment / Re: The Witcher Series

« on: July 10, 2015, 04:39:55 PM »

Roos, you were right about the open world-ness.  At the particular spot I was at right after White Orchard, it didn't feel like I could roam much.  All the marked locations I kept finding had nothing but high level bros in red, and the story missions were marked red, too, so I wasn't really sure what to do next.  After I advanced a level or two, though, it was fine.

I think this game's best feature is the combat.  Combat felt clunky to me at first, but as I figured out some of the nuances I discovered that's it's really robust.  It rewards skill, and it allows the player to choose lots of different combat styles.  Neat.  I fucking love alchemy.

The game's worst feature to me is inventory management.  I wish it would give me more information about the various uses for the loot I collect.  Much of it is obvious, but I suspect that I'm hanging onto plenty of things I'll never use.  That's pretty common to fantasy RPGs, though.  Skyrim is the worst about it.  I don't understand the need for developers to simulate that kind of realism.  I don't actually need to collect every broken rake in Westeros or whatever.

Also please fucking stop it with placing candles on every fucking box that I'm trying to loot.  FFS.

1417

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: July 10, 2015, 03:13:48 PM »

So I'm worried that this post is going to seem like I'm trying to stick it to you after we had it out in IRC.  I'm genuinely not trying to at all.  But, you know, you attack my character a lot; I'm only trying to demonstrate that I'm absolutely having this conversation in good faith.  It's 100% possible that I'm the one responsible for the miscommunication and subsequent misunderstanding, and if it's on me, then by all means attack my intelligence, writing, whatever.  I can have a conversation with someone who thinks I'm stupid; but, I don't anymore want to have a conversation with someone who denies the possibility of my opinions even existing as anything other than a joke to affect anger.  And frankly, I enjoy arguing with you on (in?) the fora in literally every other aspect.

And, totally fair enough, I got it all started again with the gag about your response being "dishonest."  It wasn't dishonest, but that was meant to be the joke.  I really did mean it lightheartedly (same for the 'magnanimous' bit).  Interwebs humor failure.

PP's response is remarkably far afield from Tausami's question (was it...dare I say it...intellectually dishonest?!?!?!).  Precisely the thing Tausami and others are trying to understand is why y'all are conflating voluntary marketing practices with constitutional free speech issues.

SexWarrior: I wasn't particularly fussed if we're talking legal restrictions or companies hopping on the social justice bandwagon, because I think the negative effects are more or less the same (varying in extent, perhaps)

Also you are a dick and are stupider as fuck [this wasn't in the original IRC quote, obviously]

Here's how I think this conversation could have gone down, and it would have saved us both some time.  Your original post tells me that I'm inaccurately speaking for you, but it doesn't say how, so it just ends up confusing everything.  Most importantly, because I see those two particular issues as separate, it isn't obvious to me that you don't.  I probably should have surmised it from our previous argument about authoritarianism, but at the time it didn't occur to me.

And I'm asking why those two things are being conflated.

And I'm answering: They're not being conflated. You fabricated that.

Here you outright accuse me of making things up.  Compare your statement on the matter to the definition of conflate:

1.  SexWarrior: I wasn't particularly fussed if we're talking legal restrictions or companies hopping on the social justice bandwagon, because I think the negative effects are more or less the same

2.  con·flate: combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one.
"the urban crisis conflates a number of different economic and social issues"
synonyms:   mix, blend, fuse, unite, integrate

We don't have to agree on whether or not your conflation is legitimate.  Perhaps I'm wrong and it is.  But surely you can admit that you are taking two things that are different, at least superficially (a legal ban vs. what you describe as a de facto ban), and "combining them into one."  Be real with me now: what's the deception I'm pulling?  What am I fabricating?  How am I not accurately describing your argument?

Given that Confederate flag sales are soaring in response to the ban, and that they weren't low at all when the ban came into effect, your argument is based on an assumption that directly contradicts current events. People want to buy the flags. It's just that they can't, because there's a de facto ban in place.

But yes, in your hypothetical world, you would be correct. It's just that your hypothetical world is not this world.

They do, however, happily sell swastika cakes and ISIS flag cakes. Just not Confederate cakes.

This isn't part of the other stuff; it's just a regular argument: Yes, in your hypothetical world, you would be correct.  It's just at your hypothetical world in which one can't buy a confederate flag is not this world.  How can a world in which confederate flag sales are "soaring" represent a de facto ban?  I'm being totally genuine here: PM me a mailing address for you and I 100% promise to buy and ship a confederate flag to you ASAP. 

http://www.proudrebel.com/rebel/reblflag.htm
http://dixierepublic.com/  [this place has sold so many flags recently that they've stopping taking orders]

You get the idea.  Not to mention that you can have them made on demand by any print shop.  You can get shirts made online, bumper stickers, decals, anything.

It seems at least a little arrogant to suggest that you know how to maximize the revenue of their multi-billion dollar corporation more effectively than the executives of that corporation.

rofl. Look at yourself. This is how desperate you are right now.

ar·ro·gant: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.

I mean, unless Rooster has some experience managing a corporation, let alone a corporation the size of Apple, then yeah, it seems like she has an exaggerated sense of her own ability to effectively manage a corporation the size of Apple.  I'm only saying that it seems...possible, let's say...that Apple is making business decisions based on what it perceives to be in the best interests of Apple.  Omg so desperate.

1418

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: July 08, 2015, 06:37:51 PM »

No one other than you is saying anything about constitutional free speech issues, which should be quite telling.

Um...what?

I'd like to point out that banning symbols is a very ineffective and often counter-productive measure. Poland currently has a ban on the swastika and the hammer and sickle (except for justifiable uses, which are frankly sensible)...[Some] are given citations for wearing a hammer-and-sickle belt buckle (which I admittedly did/do to be w0w so edgy, so fair enough).

You're also supporting a decision made at the federal level overwriting the will of the people of the state. So yes, you quite directly are supporting an anti-free-speech measure.

The OP also talks about this issue in terms of political free speech: "As far as States Rights, one only has to see what the power-hungry Federal Government has managed to do, trampling all over the rights of the States in its quest for domination. Its a bloody disgrace."

You know, you're not making it easier on yourself. Your dishonesty is shining because you're trying so hard to tell people what they said. You enjoy telling people that you know what they think better than they themselves do. I'd add gaslighting to the list of your atrocities, but something tells me you're just a character troll.

How is it dishonest to quote you verbatim?  I didn't even quote you.  I asked a question, and then Rooster quoted you.  I only pointed out that your answer was irrelevant to my (and Tausami's) question.  I gather you think that it was.  That's actually just a disagreement, not dishonesty (hence the joke).

If you genuinely think I'm trolling you, then why not just add me to your ignore list?

Now, to address your question: Tausami asked for the evidence of there being a movement that tries to ban the flag. I pointed right in its directions. The businesses which make these decisions are part of said movement. Yes, it's not illegal for them to make this decision, nor is it illegal for them to be part of an obvious political pressure group.

And I'm asking why those two things are being conflated.  I believe that spending money counts as speech.  If a bunch of people don't want to spend their money on certain products or with certain firms, that's not a ban or oppression or authoritarianism or whatever.  That's the market.  If some firms want to adapt their sales to that market, that's not authoritarianism, and it isn't a ban on the products that they don't carry.  It's just a marketplace.  That's how they work.

Walmart also doesn't carry any swastika flags.  Swastika flags haven't been banned in America, but it's hard to find them at popular retailers because they're Nazi flags and pretty much everyone thinks that flying a swastika is fucked up.  That's really different from being fined by the government for flying a swastika.  They're worlds apart.  So, again, why are you conflating them?

Pardon me, if I think that major retailers shouldn't be so emotional and subject to whim.

It seems at least a little arrogant to suggest that you know how to maximize the revenue of their multi-billion dollar corporation more effectively than the executives of that corporation.

1419

Technology & Information / Re: Desktop/Homescreen Thread

« on: July 08, 2015, 03:02:42 AM »

1420

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: July 07, 2015, 08:59:06 PM »

In what sense is the Confederate Flag being banned?

If there is a real movement dedicated to making it illegal for individual citizens to fly the confederate flag, please show me evidence of their existence...

If you don't know about major retailers withdrawing the flag and prohibiting others from selling it via their platforms, as well as Apple removing any and all apps that feature the flag in any context, then...

I meant in the legal/first amendment sense of the term "ban."

Retailers choosing not to sell and distribute this or that product isn't a ban on a product; that's just a marketing decision.

e: I cut the quote down to better highlight the discrepancy.  PP's response is remarkably far afield from Tausami's question (was it...dare I say it...intellectually dishonest?!?!?!).  Precisely the thing Tausami and others are trying to understand is why y'all are conflating voluntary marketing practices with constitutional free speech issues.