[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
On the intelligence scale? Below the bottom.In our political landscape? I guess I would call it delusional land. Most every other political philosophy concedes the beyond obvious fact that big states are here to stay, no matter for what ends they are used. The establishment neocons want the big state for to be big brother, for imperialism, extractive capital enhancement, and ge
Yeah, we are very likely heading into a world where govt is going to play a bigger role in our lives. But do you want Larry Ellison and Mark Zuck changing job titles and setting the script for how you live in our new comfy commie regime because it's very likely still be the rich dictating your life.
Honestly, I think if I was in your shoes, I'd figure a way to solve that particular issue then fighting for a system that likely leads to the people I hate having more power over me than before.
the Trots are the perfect of example of what Deuces was describing. but I get it. they cant be discussed or criticized bc they are Jews? philosemitism is a helluva drug.
tbf, I should not have been lazy and used a google ai screenshot to get my point across bc bad faith people will always find ways to deliberately misinterpret things.
Trots are Jews? Didn’t know that. Please tell me more.
Yeah, we are very likely heading into a world where govt is going to play a bigger role in our lives. But do you want Larry Ellison and Mark Zuck changing job titles and setting the script for how you live in our new comfy commie regime because it's very likely still be the rich dictating your life.Honestly, I think if I was in your shoes, I'd figure a way to solve that partic
I don't want us to know who Larry Ellison and Zuckerberg are because in no political world I would create would there be anything close to a billionaire. That would be a world in which the ruling capitalist class has been defeated and deprived the means of reconstituting as a matter of constitutional law.
I don't want us to know who Larry Ellison and Zuckerberg are because in no political world I would create would there be anything close to a billionaire. That would be a world in which the ruling capitalist class has been defeated and deprived the means of reconstituting as a matter of constitutional law.
For sure, I mentioned that to Nut Nut who said the same thing. It would behoove you defeat the capitalist class BEFORE realigning power. The economic principles get put on the back burner until then.
Obviously, I don't want the communist regime for about 1,500 other reasons that we won't ever discuss but it's just a little pro tip for those who would want such an idiotic setup.
You obviously know little about Libertarianism. There are various degrees of libertarianism. Self-described libertarian Charles Murray in his book In Our Hands advocated for a UBI.
Even Milton Friedman advocated for a so-called Negative Income Tax.
I know enough. I've never seen a libertarian do anything other than embarrass themselves when they try to defend it. Libertarianism is a fantasy for the lesser endowed sons of middle to upper-middle class families who are seeking some explanation as to why, despite what mommy and daddy have told them from birth, they suck. That's why libertarians are always racists, because their whiteness is the only thing about them that has any value to society because they are worthless losers in spite of their privileged circumstances. They figure the system must be at fault, but then the system is rigged for them, so it can't be the system but actually all systems is why they suck at life. It can never be that they just came out a dud.
Conservative libertarianism belongs in the manual of psychological disorders, not in any survey of political philosophies.
For sure, I mentioned that to Nut Nut who said the same thing. It would behoove you defeat the capitalist class BEFORE realigning power. The economic principles get put on the back burner until then.Obviously, I don't want the communist regime for about 1,500 other reasons that we won't ever discuss but it's just a little pro tip for those who would want such an idiotic setup
One problem with discussing the merits of communism and socialism is that people comparing these systems to others have different conceptions of what they are. You probably think communism involves the authoritarian micromanagement of individuals. It doesn't. It involves the authoritarian micromanagement of the institutions of work, ensuring that they remain democratic.
Has it ever occurred to you that most people in this country spend a good half of their lives, their most capable and promising time, in institutions which are run like dictatorships? Do you really think that the government should not be allowed to intervene and say the rule is if you want to move this profitable company to China for cheap labor the workers have to vote on it first? Nobody, not even the deluded libertarians, are advocating for some dystopia. Ask yourself what socialists actually want.
Actually there is Lindsey Graham. Lady Lindsey definitely wants to get the world blown up before she dies.
One problem with discussing the merits of communism and socialism is that people comparing these systems to others have different conceptions of what they are. You probably think communism involves the authoritarian micromanagement of individuals. It doesn't. It involves the authoritarian micromanagement of the institutions of work, ensuring that they remain democratic.
You mean like shifting work to cheap, exploitative labor in communist leaning regimes versus Starbucks or Google employees actually having meaningful votes on unionization is a bad thing? Yeah, I agree.
Communism looks wonderful on paper because it promises fairness and worker control over resources, as if no one would ever exploit the system for money or power as everyone has now magically become a perfect, selfless steward of society or something. But in practice, someone still has to organize and enforce these pipe dreams which inevitably concentrates power in the hands of a few. I know you don't want me to relitigate this, but you did mention that you wanted every anti-communist to kill themselves. Do I really want you to run this world with your ideas while you claim to be against Ellison and CO? Will your ideas get public support? If not, and since you should know that you won't, how will you personally go about forcing these decisions? Is that really the levelheadedness that we need that gets us to the promise land?
There are very good reasons to which we now understand why such a bitch is to find historical or modern examples of successful, large-scale worker-controlled economies, and why most economists advocate for the Nordic-style mixed capitalist model instead.
... but again, i don't think your being honest here with your attempt to think up a system that's most advantageous for the workers. I believe that there is an authoritarian desire that supersedes all of this because if we did solve that particular concern in question of yours, I don't think it would suffice.
I know enough. I've never seen a libertarian do anything other than embarrass themselves when they try to defend it. Libertarianism is a fantasy for the lesser endowed sons of middle to upper-middle class families who are seeking some explanation as to why, despite what mommy and daddy have told them from birth, they suck. That's why libertarians are always racists, because the
This answer confirms that you know almost nothing about libertarianism.
Of course, I'm not at all surprised that your post is 95% psychobabble/psychological-reductionism.
you saw exactly what I typed into the google machine. its not my fault that it mentioned Jews on it.
Here's an example that YOU have brought up about a half-dozen times: Gorgo quoted the ADL one time, and you concluded that proved he was pro-genocide.
the ADL is a propaganda outlet promoting genocide. thats the difference. and if he had just admitted that he was wrong and was ignorant then I would have let it go. but he stands by his citations and his thesis.
you saw exactly what I typed into the google machine. its not my fault that it mentioned Jews on it.
the ADL is a propaganda outlet promoting genocide. thats the difference. and if he had just admitted that he was wrong and was ignorant then I would have let it go. but he stands by his citations and his thesis.
I think you're the first I've seen playing 'the google machine made me do it!' card.
do what?
What the heck you kids been doing? Adult back in the room. Everything is ok now.
Was gonna do nice latex docs all nicely presented but after this behaviour you get back of a cigarette packet. Gorgo, see me after class.
Lesson 1: 8 inches per mile squared is a perfectly good approximation of vertical drop for small angles of theta (we can ignore small terms in the Taylor series etc, see attached).
Note, this does not include observer height. But then nobody said it did.
Attached 1/3.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Attached 2/3.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Attached 3/3.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
What the heck you kids been doing? Adult back in the room. Everything is ok now.Was gonna do nice latex docs all nicely presented but after this behaviour you get back of a cigarette packet. Gorgo, see me after class.Lesson 1: 8 inches per mile squared is a perfectly good approximation of vertical drop for small angles of theta (we can ignore small terms in the Taylor series et
Welcome back!
Looking forward to feedback on this. (I understand literally none of it myself.)
I didn't look at it line by line, but yes, 1/2r is in fact the best coefficient to make the parabola approximate the circle over short distances/small angles and it's a decent enough approximation, and that looks to be your coefficient at the end.
I'm a bit confused as to where the observer is. If we're saying the observer is at the apex which forms angle theta, aren't we saying that the observer is standing in the centre of the circle, i.e. at the centre of the Earth; or is the observer standing at the intersection of segment y and arc s.
My next question is how we are measuring distance across arc s and drop y in practice to arrive at the conclusion that it disagrees with these calculations.
The follow up questions would be how we are controlling for other variables, the main ones being observer height and atmospheric refraction, I'd assume.
Oh, and also, why the fuck are we working in imperial units, seems like if we are big boys enough now to use radians, we shouldn't be using miles and fucking inches.
While you can categorize things to any degree you want, I think the lines have been drawn and there is no one on the side of the popular majority actually in congress. And if they aren't on the popular majority, then what are they doing? They are doing the will of their sponsors, the oligarchs, and the oligarchs are neocons. Why else would AOC flagrantly betray her stated polic
First of all I don’t know what you’re calling popular policies. It’s pretty popular to have some form of immigration and border enforcement but far leftists act like you’re a white supremacist for thinking criminals should be deported. So I don’t think at all that AOC and Bernie are eschewing popular policies.
Secondly, even if I grant you that they don’t pursue popular policies, it doesn’t follow that because they don’t pursue popular policies they must be pursuing policies that billionaire/upper class/oligarchical donors want. That’s a non-sequitor, and you would need a further argument that anytime someone doesn’t pursue policies that are popular that they are beheld to that group of people.
I didn't look at it line by line, but yes, 1/2r is in fact the best coefficient to make the parabola approximate the circle over short distances/small angles and it's a decent enough approximation, and that looks to be your coefficient at the end.I'm a bit confused as to where the observer is. If we're saying the observer is at the apex which forms angle theta, aren't we saying
An observer can be positioned anywhere, at arbitrary height.
For an observer at 6 feet elevation, the formula predicts the horizon will be 3 miles away. His line of sight is tangential to the ball edge. Imagine 2 observers of height 6 feet each standing 6 miles separation. They will be just concealed from one another's view. The Bedford canal test shows this is not the case.
Feet and inches are nasty but we still (UK) use them for heights and distances hence they are more intuitive. Feel free to convert. Obviously radians are superior for arc length. You would be surprised how many people claim some kind of post 16 maths education and think the SI unit for angle is degrees.
How to account for refraction will be dealt with next.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Oh, and also, why the **** are we working in imperial units, seems like if we are big boys enough now to use radians, we shouldn't be using miles and ****ing inches.
In 1943 the RAF's Oboe radar-ranging system, used by high-flying Pathfinder Mosquito bombers for blind target-marking, was limited to 270 miles from the ground stations at Cromer and Dover, on the Norfolk and Kent coasts. This restricted the system to Ruhr targets until Continental stations were established after D-Day. The range was greater than pure line-of-sight would allow (with a laser, for instance), because radio beams bend with the upper atmosphere to an extent. As is well known, the radar horizon exceeds the visual horizon. But the limiting factor was of course the curvature of the Earth. Everyone knows about that. Some people strangely pretend not to.
I never stood by that, I withdrew it immediately, for the record. What would victor do if he couldn't lie? He says that stuff because HE can't let it go. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.
What the heck you kids been doing? Adult back in the room. Everything is ok now.Was gonna do nice latex docs all nicely presented but after this behaviour you get back of a cigarette packet. Gorgo, see me after class.Lesson 1: 8 inches per mile squared is a perfectly good approximation of vertical drop for small angles of theta (we can ignore small terms in the Taylor series et
1: no it isn't "perfectly" good.
2: I asked you why you chose an approximation instead of the actual formula - you have yet to answer. I don't care about ANYTHING but the answer to that question - so until you answer that, I'm not reading another word of yours.
An observer can be positioned anywhere, at arbitrary height.For an observer at 6 feet elevation, the formula predicts the horizon will be 3 miles away. His line of sight is tangential to the ball edge. Imagine 2 observers of height 6 feet each standing 6 miles separation. They will be just concealed from one another's view. The Bedford canal test shows this is not the case.Feet
Of course observer height matters. An observer that's far enough above the surface won't see any horizon at all, for example. They'll just see the surface of a quarter sphere and the space it's in (assuming their field of view allows them to see only everything directly in front and below them).
You also haven't answered the main question, which is how we've ascertained that this calculation disagrees with empirical observations.
