1401
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: New titles
« on: July 26, 2015, 05:22:42 PM »
custom titles plz
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Iran hates the West bucketloads more than they hate ISIS.
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.
Can you point it out to me?Yes. The gradual change begins at 1:27 and continues until around 1:50.
That footage is not continuous. The video cuts out many times through the scene.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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).
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'.
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]
And I'm asking why those two things are being conflated.And I'm answering: They're not being conflated. You fabricated that.
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.
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.
No one other than you is saying anything about constitutional free speech issues, which should be quite telling.
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.
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.
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.
Pardon me, if I think that major retailers shouldn't be so emotional and subject to whim.
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...