7981

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 14, 2017, 02:40:33 AM »

I don't think anything you say here makes his comment any less insensitive.  I get the context but look at the exact quote - "You know, you had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons."  He is in fact ignoring one of Hitler's great atrocities with that comment.  If he had qualified by saying "in the course of warfare" it would have been more justified.  He didn't, and someone who's job it is to speak publicly should know better. 

I agree that the liberal media has blown it a bit out of proportion, and I agree that this is a persistent issue with the media.  But you can't really justify your statement that it wasn't an insensitive comment.

Look at the full quote. It is entirely clear that he is talking about warfare:

Spicer: I think a couple things. You, look — we didn't use chemical weapons in World War II. You know, you had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons. So you have to, if you're Russia, ask yourself, is this a country that you and a regime that you want to align yourself with? You have previously signed international agreements rightfully acknowledging that the use of chemical weapons should be out of bounds by every country. To not stand up to not only [inaudible] but your own word should be troubling. Russia put their name on the line. So it's not a question of how long that alliance has lasted. But at what point do they recognize that they are now getting on the wrong side of history in a really bad way really quickly? And again, look at the countries that are standing with them. Iran, Syria, North Korea. This is not a team that you want to be on. And I think that Russia has to recognize that, while they may have had an alliance with them, the lines that have been crossed are ones that no country should ever want to see another country cross.

7982

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Areas of daylight are impossible on a bipolar map

« on: April 14, 2017, 02:17:00 AM »

Two issues:

- No one has ever claimed that map was accurate or verified. It is just a representation that someone posted to illustrate the idea of a map with two poles. That picture is actually a well known map projection of the globe earth, although I forget what it is called offhand.

- There are no large scale records of sunrise and sunset across the world. You are assuming that daylight would reflect a globe earth when you make that circle, rather than basing the shape on observed reports of the sun.

7983

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 14, 2017, 02:08:25 AM »

It's actually pretty obvious what he was saying. Spicer said that even Hitler didn't use chemical weapons. He is saying that Hitler didn't use chemical weapons as a method of warfare like Syria is doing. Hitler didn't use chemical weapons in the battlefield against the Allies, or against their cities, which is a much discussed topic among military historians, as their use could have altered the outcome of the war. This is clearly what Spicer is referencing.

What Spicer said is not a gaffe at all. The gas used in the Holocaust is used under a different context to what Syria is doing; the execution of prisoners (however unjust), not a weapon of warfare. It is transparent and ignorant that liberals would nitpick to that level, asserting that  the comments are insensitive, some even comparing it to Holocaust denial.

That's the tactic: to create outrage where there is none, to take something entirely reasonable and innocuous and blow it out of proportion and give it hidden meanings. Pathetic.

7984

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Inside a Chinese iPhone factory

« on: April 12, 2017, 11:58:40 PM »

Oh. This was supposed to be an anti-Trump thread. I thought that you cared about the iPhone sweatshop workers. My mistake.

7985

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Inside a Chinese iPhone factory

« on: April 12, 2017, 09:49:26 PM »

Yeah.  No housing costs is nice and yes, cheap food.  And you're right, I forgot about the 5 yuan meals in the article.
Regardless, the food outside of that cafeteria is more expensive.  A big Mac at McDonalds is like 14 Yuan, I think.

I wish that I had 40% more discretionary income.

Live in a factory during the week, and live like a king on the weekends.  I don't see where the problem is.

Live like a king?
Did you read the article?

Yes.

7986

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Inside a Chinese iPhone factory

« on: April 12, 2017, 05:56:04 PM »

Yeah.  No housing costs is nice and yes, cheap food.  And you're right, I forgot about the 5 yuan meals in the article.
Regardless, the food outside of that cafeteria is more expensive.  A big Mac at McDonalds is like 14 Yuan, I think.

I wish that I had 40% more discretionary income.

Live in a factory during the week, and live like a king on the weekends.  I don't see where the problem is.

7987

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Inside a Chinese iPhone factory

« on: April 12, 2017, 03:58:44 PM »

How much is $450 a month compared to the local economy?

$450 is about 3,100 yuan.
Poor cafeteria food is 10 yuan.
At 10 yuan a day x3 a day its about 900 yuan a month or almost 1/3 their income.

But here.
https://www.priceoftravel.com/92/china/shanghai-prices?1492009971

In the article it says that there were two meals in the cafeteria, 5 yaun and 8 yaun meals. So living on the cheap, 5 yaun meals 3x a day, food would be 450 yaun a month, which is less than 1/6th --closer to 1/7th-- of their 3100 yaun income.

This site recommends budgeting 14% of your income to food. So it seems spot on.

It doesn't appear that those factories are charging for housing (which you should budget 25% - 30% for), and there are no transportation costs (12%). It might be that those people are doing pretty well living there, and actually have 37 - 42% more discretionary income than other unskilled labor jobs in China which pay a similar wage.

7988

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA is not fake.

« on: April 12, 2017, 03:03:20 PM »

The Space Race wasn't about science, it was about getting your missiles into earth orbit first and claiming military superiority.

If the Soviets lie and say "space travel is possible, and we were able to get rockets there," why would the Americans then admit "actually, we found out that space travel does not seem feasible" in contradiction to popular science which had been postulating that space travel should be possible for hundreds of years? That is tactically disadvantageous.

The Space Race started immediately after WWII.  The competition was raging for 12 years from 1945 to 1957, with many failed rocket launches on both sides. Is it a coincidence that the US happened to achieve success with the Explorer I within just three months after Sputnik?

7989

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Inside a Chinese iPhone factory

« on: April 12, 2017, 02:12:28 PM »

How much is $450 a month compared to the local economy?

7990

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 12, 2017, 04:43:49 AM »

In your hallway example, the arrow always points in a straight line to its destination. It's not pointing in a curved line, as is necessary for the video in the OP to make any sense.

In the Muddy Colors blog link the observation this blogger makes in the sky is as so:



The moon's phase is angled upwards, but the sun is not yet above the horizon. There is no straight line path to the sun. The only way it will work is if the line is curved.

In your hallway example, there is no curving. If you place the arrow pointing down or up the hallway it will always make a straight line path to its destination.

Flatout cannot simulate such a scene of the moon pointing above the sun in a standard geometric 3D model, and so he must change the FOV of the scene to create a fisheye lens effect.

7991

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 12, 2017, 02:30:49 AM »

You do realize that a "fisheye" FOV is the same thing as looking one way and then turning your head and looking in a different direction, correct?

By widening the field of view the author provided a fisheye effect like so:



That means lines around the line of sight are constantly warping around whatever you are looking. Alternatively, it may be a reverse fisheye FOV -- the author doesn't really say. None of this should be necessary to demonstrate the "celestial sphere". The effect of the "celestial sphere" needs to manifest from a natural consequence of geometry.

Did you gain access to a hallway yet?  When you see this same effect in that hallway, are you going to claim it isn't real?

What are you talking about? If you tape an arrow on a hallway ceiling, it points a straight line path to the end of the hallway. The lines aren't curved to produce an unnatural geometric result, as is with the "celestial sphere".

7992

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Letter from NYC Port Authority

« on: April 11, 2017, 07:38:02 PM »

http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Humber_Bridge

Are you talking about this?

7993

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 11, 2017, 06:16:59 PM »

Tom, when you zoom in or out in the perspective view you are changing the FOV.  It's nothing deceptive.  It puts your eye between and below the sun and moon.  It's how you move your point of view forward or backwards within the perspective view window.

Tom, your piece of software will do the same thing if you can place a light source at your cone. 

Putting a line in there will give you a spacial orientation and the brain will understand things for what they are.  This is why we have encouraged you to use a stick or string on the real moon.

BTW, none of this really is revealing the shape of the earth. The exact same effect would be seen on a flat earth with a closer sun.  It's not a proof for either.

That fisheye effect is curlinear perspective.  It's why both corners of your living room ceiling appear to rise up when you look at them individually.  You can only interpreted them as straight when stand back and see both simultaneously.

By increasing the wide angle FOV of a scene you are saying that straight lines above our line of sight are convex, and straight lines below our line of sight are concave. This is not reality. We are not looking through a fisheye lens when we look at two simple bodies in the universe. Straight lines do not curve around our vision depending on how we look at them.

Your simulation of a "celestial sphere" by giving the scene a fish-eye effect is entirely without merit.

7994

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 11, 2017, 12:19:33 PM »

It appears that when the author zooms in he is not merely enlarging the image, but is actually changing the Field of View in his settings. This is deceptive, as this is applying a fisheye effect.

If we were to apply a simple zoom enlargement in on the moon in my image and then pan to the sun, it would make a simple straight line path to the sun.

The only way to make this work in favor of the Round Earth Theory is by changing the FOV, which applies a wide angle fisheye lens effect to the scene. Again, we are left with the ridiculous claim that when we look out at the universe we are inexplicably looking through a fisheye lens and all straight lines are curved.

7995

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 11, 2017, 11:58:05 AM »

It looks like the moon phase is pointing directly at the sun to me.



The next step you perform after this scene is to zoom in on the moon. The moon still looks the same as in the above image, except bigger since you have zoomed in. If we were to then pan to the sun we would be making a straight line path along the red line I have included.

7996

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 11, 2017, 12:20:13 AM »

You keep asking for an explanation without first showing us the proof that a 3d modeling program cannot replicate the effect.

I opened a 3D modeling program and placed a cone pointing at a sphere. No matter where I placed them, no matter how far apart I put them, and no matter where I oriented the camera, I couldn't get the cone to NOT make a straight line path to the sphere. Please help!

7997

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 10, 2017, 03:13:12 PM »

Can you guys please attempt an explanation for why a 3D modeling program cannot replicate this effect? Every time I bring it up we get embarrassing silence. We just need an arrow (moon) pointing at a ball (sun), and there should be some position of the objects or camera we can look where the arrow is not pointing at the ball.

7998

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 10, 2017, 02:57:11 PM »

What nonsense. The celestial bodies are not painted on a curved sphere of glass surrounding the earth.

Who said that? You make up stuff as you go, or refuse to actually try and understand what's being said in our replies, and they are really straight forward answers, Tom.

Just get a string and try for yourself, damnit!

A string? 

Why would I use something can bend to demonstrate a straight line? The most appropriate tool would be something that is a straight line and does not bend. The person in the video in the OP clearly shows the straight line path does not lead to the sun. He makes it very clear.

The person in this link we were talking also admits that the straight line path does not lead to the sun. In his case the phase of the moon was pointing upwards and the sun was not even yet above the horizon.

Why don't you just boot up a 3D modeling program and put an arrow pointing at a ball and show us that there can be a position where the arrow is not pointing at the ball. What is so challenging about that?

7999

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 10, 2017, 02:53:40 PM »

Buy some string, Tom.  Starting on the 12th sun will be visible in the western horizon in the morning.  Best to wait until the 16th so you don't have to buy such a long piece.

Why should I buy a string rather than a ruler? Are you trying to deceive us by using an instrument that can bend when forcefully held between two points?

8000

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 10, 2017, 07:14:00 AM »

What nonsense. The celestial bodies are not painted on a curved sphere of glass surrounding the earth.

The person in the video in the OP made a straight line path away from the moon. It did not lead to the sun.

Since you have a 3D modeling program available, perhaps you can put an arrow in the sky pointing at a ball and show us how we can look at it in a way that the arrow does not point at the ball.