Show Posts

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.


Messages - junker

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 169  Next >
21
Flat Earth Theory / Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« on: July 24, 2019, 01:23:14 AM »
If you accelerated 5000 yrs at 32.17 ft/sec^2 how close would you be to c?
Close, but less than c. Let me know if you need help with this.

Others have said c in not an absolute limit
Who are 'others.'

I suggest you grab concepts instead of parsing minutia and missing the point
I suggest you take my earlier suggestion.

22
Flat Earth Theory / Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« on: July 23, 2019, 11:32:34 PM »
You would reach c in 353 days

No, you would not. I would suggest taking a minute to learn something new instead of just posting something incorrect over and over.

23
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elevator question
« on: July 23, 2019, 11:31:10 PM »
I have had grad level physics courses in relativity.
Doubtful.

If the earth is moving up as asserted at 32.17 ft/sec^2 you would reach c in 353 days. 
No, you would not.

So either you stop at c and lose gravity or exceed c.
No.

Anyway, with SR you can accelerate constantly forever and never reach c (you will asymptotically approach c). I am not sure why you would invoke Newtonian mechanics for this. Someone with grad-level knowledge of relativity would certainly understand.

24
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: July 21, 2019, 10:39:06 PM »
The Lion King (2019)

It was fine. If you love the original, you probably won't care for this one. My personal complaints, in order of of being problematic...

1) The music is roughly 69,420 times worse than the original. They include the original opening and closing, then everything in between is a worse version (especially 'Be Prepared...'). The recent Aladdin remake included some new girl power songs that were actually decent, this movie should have done the same. The exception is 'The Lions Sleeps Tonight,' which was great.

2) There is an awkward disconnect between the voices and the CG animals. I can't quite place it, but if you watch it you will understand what I am saying.

3) Jeremy Irons is a much more believable villain (did I mention how they ruined 'Be Prepared?'). In the remake it is hard to tell the male lions apart, which is dumb no offence.

4) Let's talk James Earl Jones, since he is back for the remake. In the original, he sounded incredibly passionate and his voice carried powerfully. Now, his voice is flat, and it borderlines on him sounding disinterested. The scene where he comes back to talk to Simba is probably the worst of it...

It is worth watching, but doesn't do anything better than the original (which I think Aladdin did in a few places). I'd still suggest watching it, but keep your expectations low.

25
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: July 21, 2019, 05:03:00 PM »
I have done many time thanks and found numerous points in it which are a little dubious to say the least. In fact the cosmology section is probably the part of FE Wiki where I have found the most holes if I'm honest. Any particular points that you have in mind?

I'm not sure where this stuff comes from.  But it certainly makes for interesting.. no that's the wrong word, entertaining reading.  The sections of the Moon and lunar phases for example.  Really?

I'd suggest you argue thos points you disagree with, then. Saying you won't explain why the sun and moon look the same size in the sky is pointless. The FE folks here have a good understanding of RE mechanics. They already know that in the RE model the sun has 400 times the diameter and is 400 times farther away, which is why they appear to be the same size.

Saying that it's "dubios" is a hollow, lazy statement. Address the points and make your arguments. Otherwise you'll end up warned again.

26
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 18, 2019, 10:50:40 PM »
I would say that's largely because of people like Trump pushing a false definition.
I absolutely agree.

You can't make this not about Trump no matter how you try.
I really don't understand what you mean here. I am doing nothing of the sort. I was saying a discussion/debate about socialism would be off-topic. Discussing what Trump says about socialism or who he thinks are socialists obviously isn't off-topic. But I am not overly interested in discussing how Trump is clueless about yet another topic.

27
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 18, 2019, 10:35:06 PM »
You say that as if this line of argument has nothing to do with Trump, even though he's the one most vocally crying that the progressives are trying to make this country socialist.   ::)

I meant an actual thread regarding socialism. If you want to talk about how Trump doesn't understand socialism and uses the term incorrectly, then sure. I was suggesting a thread to discuss and debate what socialism actually is based on definitions. It's obvious from this thread that even most of the anti-Trump folks don't understand what socialism is.

28
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 18, 2019, 10:20:44 PM »
Someone needs to get the word out!

I think anyone who understands the definition of words already knows!

Since it is clear you have no interest in discussing the topic, let me suggest the thread return to pointing out how awful Trump is. If you change your mind, let's take it to another thread like I suggested previously.

29
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 18, 2019, 10:13:20 PM »
Then the argument can't be made that (say) Medicare For All is inherently socialist either. Nice that that's cleared up.

Correct.

30
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 18, 2019, 09:47:55 PM »
They most certainly are. Any system that involves redistribution of wealth is inherently socialist, because that's what socialism is.

Sigh... No, it isn't (by the literal definition). But this really isn't the thread for that topic.

edit: I wouldn't mind a dedicated topic on socialism. But redistribution of wealth occurs in most every economic system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_income_and_wealth#Role_in_economic_systems) and is in no way exclusive to socialism. If you want to go deeper into this, then let's fire up a new thread.

31
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 18, 2019, 08:34:47 PM »
Quote
1 main point of all 4 women:
1) AOC - socialist whack job who auditioned for the part...
Social security is socialist.  Public schools are socialist.  Ya know, fyi.

To be fair, none of those things or people are inherently socialist. Don't fall for the trap from republican brainlets who think socialism is the government doing stuff. If it doesn't involve advocating for the workers to control the means of production, it plainly is not socialism.

32
Technology & Information / Re: Need a pron machine
« on: July 18, 2019, 01:14:36 PM »
I got an adhesive sliding plastic door thingy from Linux Academy whilst at AWS Re:Invent a couple years back.

I wish I had gotten more since I have a few laptops.

33
Technology & Information / Re: Need a pron machine
« on: July 17, 2019, 02:25:40 AM »

34
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 08, 2019, 03:12:53 PM »
Serious expansion of court systems is required so that asylum cases can be processed in a matter of days or weeks instead of the current waiting time of several months or even years.
I believe this is the best solution as well.


If that is not possible, then the asylum process must be abandoned entirely. It is highly subjective and moralistic system which is a decadence that we may soon no longer be able to afford.
If a migrant crisis as a result of climate change unfolds, then I agree asylum may need to be suspended or abandoned while we figure our own problems out. In the meantime, I think the US does have a responsibility to the world to keep the process going and improve upon it. My position on this stems from US involvement in displacing not a small number of people from overthrowing governments, facilitating regime changes, etc. A fair number of these displaced people end up knocking on the US's (or other Western nations) door claiming asylum. Although if it weren't that, I still think we would have some responsibility being the leaders of the free world and all. But that is highly subjective.

35
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 08, 2019, 02:40:11 AM »
I would like to add that I am indeed against the core idea of these concentration camps on the border. Instead, all individuals should be turned back immediately at the border. The border must be reinforced to prevent any and all unauthorized entry. With the ongoing notion of climate change, the migrations are only going to get worse.

Seems we could have saved a page of nonsensical back and forth had you just presented this from the start. I think this is a reasonable position to take. Although I'd ask what should happen with the asylum process in this case.

36
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 08, 2019, 02:38:21 AM »
I still don't see the evidence for what you said on that page. You'll need to be more specific.
Actually, I won't need to be more specific. The evidence is there, you choosing to not read it falls squarely on you. If you want to refute the evidence, cool, but pretending you can't find it just makes it even more apparent that you are being disingenuous. If you don't want to continue this topic that you specifically brought up, then just say so. It is clear you aren't prepared or willing to discuss it.

Again, there's no need to be defensive. All that I ask is that you source your claims, which, coincidentally, you're incapable of doing.
Not defensive at all. I am merely suggestion that you partake in a discussion instead of troll and deflect and pretend like you don't even know who is being discussed. I have already stated my position, which is something you refuse to do up to this point. This makes it abundantly clear that you have no interest in discussion, especially when paired with your feigning ignorance about what is even being discussed.

You'll have to source "treating immigrants like garbage".
Already done.


Further, finding some bad social media posts isn't a very strong indicator of evidence in regards to an entire organization.
Good thing no one said the entire organization, then.

Recently, a top Democrat donor, Jeffrey Epstein, yet again has been indicted for being a pedophile. And yet, does that make the entire DNC pedophiles?
Probably, but I am not sure what this poor comparison of the DNC to an actual government authority like CBP is supposed to accomplish. Do you have an actual argument or position? Epstein is also chummy with Trump, a self-proclaimed womanizer, so I guess all Republicans are pedophiles too...


37
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 08, 2019, 01:53:49 AM »
It is probably best to refocus the discussion.

The US is running a system of camps that bear a resemblance to internment camps or concentration camps that have been seen in the past. These camps are objectively approved of by the current Republican President and his administration.

CBP staff are treating immigrants like garbage and Republicans couldn't care less. It is just a shame that some of CBP's best and brightest decided to make their sociopathy public by making a Facebook group where they openly mocked the plight of immigrants being separated from their children (https://kfoxtv.com/news/local/cbp-employees-placed-on-administrative-duties-amid-offensive-social-media-posts).

Make no mistake though, Republicans share the same mindset as these fine folks that were placed on "administrative duties." The only lesson they will take away from this is that maybe they shouldn't be so stupid to think that a private FB group is actually private.

38
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 08, 2019, 01:39:30 AM »
So your position now is that you don't actually know what is being discussed, very cool. You don't know the people being discussed or the context. Why on Earth would you continue to post if you are this clueless about an incredibly popular topic going on right now in the US?

Well I asked what is now a laundry list of questions you outright refuse to answer.

Are you actually aware of the immigration debate going on in the US? If not then just say so and we can start from the beginning. If you don't understand how immigration works I would be happy to hold your hand through it. Of course it is likely that you have no argument to make, and are now just feigning ignorance to cover for that. You have no evidence for whichever position you think you support.

Am I to start making assumptions about your opinion based on whatever happens to be running through the mainstream media at any given time? Which channel should I watch to acquire Junker's latest opinion feed?

Also, your very genuine interest about police can be addressed with the studies you'll find here: http://womenandpolicing.com
Go ahead and read through, and if you disagree then link to studies and evidence you have to support your position.

I don't understand your point here. You linked to an entire website. Would you like me to link you "wikipedia.com" whenever I make an argument about something? Am I to believe you even read that website yourself? You made a specific claim, I expect you to provide specific evidence of it.

I look forward to reviewing your arguments and the undoubtedly well-sourced evidence that supports those arguments. I'll be glad to be enlightened by you and have my position challenged.

I asked some simple questions about your opinions and the data behind them, there was never an argument here. That you feel there was an argument going on is certainly an interesting take on this discussion.

Another post without any substance. No argument, no position taken, no evidence.

You haven't asked a laundry list of things, and I haven't refused to answer anything, so I would appreciate if you wouldn't resort to outright lying. You have already said you don't even understand what is being discussed at this point, so it is probably best for you to bow out unless you decide to stop with the lazy, low-effort, low-energy posts. It is painfully obvious to everyone else that you have no argument and just want to deflect. I will continue to enable you to do that for as long as you want to continue to make a fool of yourself.

Also, what was the point of the false equivalence about not understanding how to read a website? You do know what wikipedia is, right? If so, then you can easily see how nonsensical your failed comparison was. But, since you are incapable of navigating an incredibly simple website, I will go ahead and provide the link that would have taken you two seconds to get to had you actually taken a moment to read the website: http://womenandpolicing.com/violenceFS.asp - Please note that even if you click that link, you will have to expend at least some energy reading and thinking, and possibly clicking a few more links. Also, a helpful tip for you since you seem to be unable to infer context from any discussion so far, it would probably be helpful for you to read the homepage of that website as well. That way, you won't pretend to be unaware that we are discussing police officers.

If you want to reboot and have an actual discussion, that would be great. If you want to ramble in some sort of stream of consciousness like you have been doing, then I think CN may be a better forum for you to post in. If you have any direct questions to ask, I will answer them and provide my position to you. You should probably do the same if you are going to engage in a good-faith discussion. If all you want to do is shitpost and nitpick, then I suggest you stick to CN or AR.


39
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 07, 2019, 10:57:47 PM »
So your position now is that you don't actually know what is being discussed, very cool. You don't know the people being discussed or the context. Why on Earth would you continue to post if you are this clueless about an incredibly popular topic going on right now in the US?

Are you actually aware of the immigration debate going on in the US? If not then just say so and we can start from the beginning. If you don't understand how immigration works I would be happy to hold your hand through it. Of course it is likely that you have no argument to make, and are now just feigning ignorance to cover for that. You have no evidence for whichever position you think you support.

Also, your very genuine interest about police can be addressed with the studies you'll find here: http://womenandpolicing.com
Go ahead and read through, and if you disagree then link to studies and evidence you have to support your position.

I look forward to reviewing your arguments and the undoubtedly well-sourced evidence that supports those arguments. I'll be glad to be enlightened by you and have my position challenged.

40
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 07, 2019, 10:10:46 AM »
No... I'm suggesting that racist, angry, violent, abusive people ARE the best they can get.
Apologies, I was memeing.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 169  Next >