search results matching tag: fields

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds

    Videos (1000)     Sift Talk (77)     Blogs (61)     Comments (1000)   

Fox Is Right?!?

luxintenebris says...

yeah. fake.

fake like a 10-year-old rape victim.

must be exhausting. trying to shepherd one's own sheep of thoughts from straying into fields of lush reality. like the examples in this video, all those finely financed fabulists frantically deny the undeniable thus cringing from the credible. they hide from honesty like vampires from sunlight. vain vapid vampires.

'fake news' is Scientology's 'S.P.'; Amish's 'English'; JW's 'worldy'...it's an ever closing circle. like a garoutte.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Aaaaahahahahaha!! Trump is threatening to sue CNN for saying he’s a big liar spreading his big lie. His claim….it’s his “belief”, so when he says it he’s not lying…not that it’s true, not that he can prove it, just that he believes the lie and that magically makes it not a lie.
He will never sue because 1) he has no case at all 2) he’s terrified of discovery and they would gain access to all the Jan 6 documentation he’s hidden from the committee, and 3) it’s a slapp lawsuit, which he would lose badly and be forced to pay millions in restitution and punitive damages for a frivolous lawsuit designed to silence critics….to anyone he sues.

Derp! What a sad, powerless little bully, enraged that no one takes his threats seriously anymore.

Also, his Saudi Arabia PR golf tournament is losing him so much Republican support. The FBI has said definitively that the Saudi government was directly involved in 9/11…not just the 15/19 terrorists being Saudis, but Saudi intelligence agents supplied them with funding, lodging, and “travel assistance”.
Trump was well aware of this, but chose to keep it secret to protect the crown prince and billions in arms sales. Biden declassified this information and stopped protecting those that attacked America.
Birds of a feather….no wonder Trump likes the terroristic draconian Saudis. I wonder how 9/11 Rudy feels about it.

Side note, the sedition caucus voted against helping victims of human trafficking. Their press conference celebrating protecting perpetrators of human trafficking was disrupted when Gaetz was asked if he’s a pedophile and instead of answering “no” he and the rest literally ran away in fear.

Second side note- Republican senator Mike Braun has said the quiet part out loud and proclaimed the right’s next move is to make interracial marriage a state right, not federally guaranteed, so states whose legislature is controlled by Republicans who are against it can ban it, just like abortion. I’m sure you won’t admit you see that as racist, but everyone else does.
Next comes voting rights for non whites and women, they need to be barefoot in the field, or barefoot, pregnant, and always silent and submissive anyway, right?

The New MAGA Commercial For Greg Abbot- Whose Choice

luxintenebris says...

then you laugh from head to toe.

please try to define the 'unhinged' part? what is so funny about caring about others not in your family, in your Party, not in your field of ideology, or even in your state?

that's the separation. deep empathy versus emotional apathy.

the morality of putting an unattached stranger's judgment ahead of a woman and her doctors is more heinous than holy. the facts bear this out.

would spend more time 'enlighting' but doubt that's your gig: b/w. by-the-book. my way or the highway.

hard to grow flowers in a salt mine.

* * * *

also amazed by the amount of less-than-stellar perspicaciousness of people that use 'stupid' as a counterpoint.

B: "yer just stoopid."
L: "oh. that's why you don't make sense." {how does this guy find his ass to wipe? nope. doesn't have to. he laughed it off.}

* * * *

buy their albums. save them. support them. rescue dying fetus from annilation.

bobknight33 said:

I LMAO at the stupidity of this .


How unhinged the left is. That is the funny part.

New York Nuclear PSA what to do in case of an attack

SFOGuy says...

I immediately wondered that; a low yield dirty bomb, at say, the UN on the Upper East Side would be a different EMP profile, I presume, from a higher yielded ship born bomb inside, say, a container which had cleared customs in Pakistan, and that would be different from a high altitude air burst, right? So, and the physics seems calculable if annoyingly in my past--you should be able to calculate a range of EMP from various yields?

The "Quora" answers are: a ground-based (ship based?) lower yield weapon has EMP effects of note to the 3 mile range.

An airburst would be a different issue. "Starfish Prime”. In this high altitude nuclear test, carried out in 1962, a 1.44 Mt warhead was detonated at a height of 400 km. Electrical damage, including burning out hundreds of street lamps was caused in Hawaii - about 1500 km from the point of detonation.

By contrast there was no direct blast damage at all at that range.

The maximal electric fields induced in the Starfish Prime EMP in Hawaii were estimated at 6 kV/m. At high latitudes the value could easily be ten times higher.

For electrical equipment to be damaged by an EMP from a nuclear detonation, the detonation point must be above the visual horizon.

A large yield weapon detonated 400 km above Kansas would have an EMP that extended across the entire continental US, but the ground intensity pattern of that EMP would be peaked towards the South of ground zero, it would not be symmetrical."

newtboy said:

Sad that the article and @StukaFox both forgot the emp, that kills all electronics, making your car your tomb if it was made after 1980.
A car is only a decent shelter if it’s at the bottom of an underground parking structure that doesn’t collapse in the blast.
Cars are not escape vehicles in this scenario. There won’t be many erratic drivers, like the article claimed, because any car with a computer chip will be dead.

Pilot Makes Emergency Landing on Busy Highway

luxintenebris says...

just seeing the plane pass under those lines produced a gasp.

rode with a crop-dusting pilot when they decided to 'buzz' fellow co-workers in a field. almost forgot about the wires at the end of the field.

the flashback was chilling.

but reading your story [damn shame] produced sweating to even things out.

jimnms said:

[edited for space] For one, power lines tend to cross paved roads and by the time you can see them, it's too late to avoid them.

The Image You Can Only See Once You’ve Seen It

BSR says...

I see Axl Rose leaning over on stage singing into a microphone with a big red arrow sticking him in the butt.

Anybody...?


Birds Aren't Real!
Strawberry Fields Forever

The Dutch Know How To Party

moonsammy says...

That's absolutely happening here - it's a really good practical example of the speed of sound. It doesn't really take much distance for the effect to be noticeable - I was in marching band in high school and when we were spread out across a football field it was *really* important we pay attention to the conductor, or everything would end up sounding super muddled to the audience.

psycop said:

Is it me or can you see the crowd father away from the stage lagging behind a bit?

If you have a venue sufficiently enormous the sound does take a little longer to travel back. I'd be super excited if that was the case!

Adam Neely: Anthem

luxintenebris jokingly says...

unopposed to adopting an unofficial anthem.

how 'bout "America Pie". everyone seems to know the words. or at least every single person that likes that song.

maybe set a new trend. start the song as the teams come out on the field and keep singing until someone scores.

and this would be a good match, since very little people could sing it*, but great for, at least, the start of the 2nd half, especially if you're down and behind...a real uplifter...



*unless we could get all the schoolchildren to learn how to belt it out...would humble all other anthems (and world citizens) at the olympics

The Best Female Swimmer in the World!

newtboy says...

They are real women, no matter how you wish otherwise.
Are men that take testosterone supplements not real males? Same for women taking estrogen, not real females? Women who’ve had a hysterectomy? Men who had penectomies or testicular removal?
Is this a “real woman” who should compete against women? https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/id/31662608/boxer-patricio-manuel-transgender-pioneer-looking-next-fight

What expertise in the fields of gender vs sex vs sexual orientation do you boast to contradict the actual experts with careers in those subjects?
A:None, you’re an alleged maintenance/service tech with embarrassing language skills, and apparently a total lack of scientific knowledge.

Where’s your evidence of that “disadvantage “? Where are the rest of the 2% of athletes that are top of their sport and trans? You make the claim, prove it (one example does not prove anything). Guess you failed math too.

That could be true if your loopy idea that men are pretending to be women to get an advantage in sports were in any way true, but it’s pure unadulterated nonsense.
Trans women must go through years of hormone therapy; supplements, hormone blockers, sometimes even surgery to be able to compete. In many leagues they must never go through male puberty. They cannot, as you clearly think is the norm, just put on a woman’s swimsuit and compete with women, then whip their dicks out after competition and go back to being macho men. Your insistence on keeping your head firmly encased in your lower intestine, in the dark, listening to yourself echo through your own fart chamber is what lets you believe such utterly ridiculous nonsense.

I think it’s abundantly clear to everyone which of us lives in an echo chamber of lies and nonsense and which of us thinks for themselves, and equally clear which prefers the light of knowledge and fact and which sticks to their dark cave of ignorance and misinformed opinion.

Er mer gerd…. ROTFLMFAHS!!! Mr cranial rectosis projects so freaking hard, yo.

bobknight33 said:

It puts real women at a true disadvantage.
Even a fruit loop like you should see this.

Guess your head still up you ass and you are living in the dark listening to your own echo chamber..

The $5BN Mega Resort in the Desert

newtboy says...

I hope this monument to opulence fails miserably and the developers lose their shirts.
There’s no way they won’t damage or destroy that reef.
The first big storm is going to destroy much of the sand island.
But, 10% are special protection zones! Won’t matter, they can’t survive if huge amounts of the non protected reef are destroyed.

Not to mention sea level rise will put it underwater quickly, it’s barely above current sea level in the plans.

Look at Mexico, dozens of comparatively tiny resorts not even on the reefs, but on land, and that reef is not 10% what it was in the mid 80’s. Building ON the reef is guaranteed to destroy it, as is tourism.

I hate when companies are allowed to build on natural wonders to exploit the beauty, they invariably destroy that beauty within decades. That entire reef/coastline should be off limits to construction so the two desert properties have an attraction. When the reefs die from sun tan lotion poisoning, bleaching, sand displacement, accidents with supply ships, the first major fuel spill, etc, that place will be a $5 billion waste, abandoned to the desert.

Remember the “islands of the world” project in Dubai? This sounds even less thought out than they were, more ecologically disastrous, needing more infrastructure to be built, requiring ships to bring fuel as there’s no nearby port to run pipelines from (guaranteeing oil spills). All for what? So billionaires can get off their yachts for a while in luxury?

Wiki-Significant changes in the maritime environment [of Dubai]. As a result of the dredging and redepositing of sand for the construction of the islands, the typically crystalline waters of the Persian Gulf at Dubai have become severely clouded with silt. Construction activity is damaging the marine habitat, burying coral reefs, oyster beds and subterranean fields of sea grass, threatening local marine species as well as other species dependent on them for food. Oyster beds have been covered in as much as two inches of sediment, while above the water, beaches are eroding with the disruption of natural currents.

That was a $12 billion project to exploit the pristine coast and beautiful waters that no longer exist, the islands themselves are sinking and eroding, most were evacuated or never used at all, the water is now mud colored, the reefs are gone. An unmitigated disaster. This sounds extremely similar.

Oppose this and similar projects.

Missouri tries to legislate reality away

newtboy says...

If you are talking policies that govern individuals, average is meaningless, you need to include the outliers. What I really said was, on average it’s somewhat true a bit more than half the time….with many exceptions, so incredibly far from a rule…far from “I can agree”.

You said “ Are you saying you do not believe that people who are biologically male(By which I mean XY) have an advantage in athletics over people who are biologically female(by which I mean XX)?”.
I pointed to one instance where (I assume) chromosomal males do not have an advantage over a chromosomal female in an athletic field….just an example of why I don’t believe it’s always true that people who are biologically male(By which I mean XY) have an advantage in athletics over people who are biologically female(by which I mean XX)..one you can’t contradict.

People are never equally gifted or talented, not even with themselves yesterday or tomorrow. I find the premise faulty.

Appears to, so far, in most but not all categories.
In many, the difference is minimal and an exceptional female will surpass males one day in most. Top ranked Kenyan woman already routinely beat top ranked non Kenyan males in long distance running, for one example.

I won’t extrapolate from a temporary skewed position, it leads to ridiculous conclusions….so I won’t be able to agree.
I can agree people believe that.

It’s not just sexual biology. It has nothing to do with genitals. It’s hormones, dna, rna, mental toughness, upbringing, training, health, environment, opportunity, etc. if someone born a woman wants to compete with men, and your position is correct, what’s the harm? If a trans woman, born male but never going through male puberty or taking estrogen and hormone blockers to reverse the effects wants to compete against women, what proof do you have to show any advantage? Two athletes excelling? Out of how many?

Now how expert are you in this field? Expert enough to define the exact point where each person has an advantage vs a disadvantage? I doubt it. But you think it’s fine to deny them the right to participate based on your ignorant assumptions. Do you accept such ignorant, biased assumptions to determine what you may do, how much you may participate in public events? I doubt you would accept it for a second. Think about that.

You want to equate them to non trans people while trying to prove how they’re so different. Pick a lane please.

No matter what your opinion, denying a citizen a chance to compete in public sports is totally unAmerican. I notice how you ignore that, as if to concede it under your breath. It doesn’t go unnoticed that you can’t address that. It IS the point.

Edit : as to the olympics, they have allowed trans gender athletes since 2004. If trans women are really men, why haven’t those records become equal between men and women?

bcglorf said:

@newtboy,

On average you can agree…

I never said anything against any given pro/competitive female athlete probably beating out plenty of biologically male folks.

I was only pointing to advantages between equally gifted/talented and trained people.

To that point, can you agree that most standing olympic records as currently separated into mens and womens records, indicate that the historical separation based on XX and XY certainly appears to show an advantage. Would you be able to agree following from that, the existence of distinct mens and womens records is because without it, women would be “unfairly” left almost entirely unrepresented in every sprint distance, every lifting record and most other records.

For instance, the Olympic qualifying standard for the mens 100m was 10.05s, while the standing Olympic womens record time for 100m is 10.49s. AKA in absence of a separate competition for biologically female athletes, even the standing Olympic record holding female wouldn’t pass the bar to qualify to compete in the Olympics.

That is the advantage I am stating exists, and matters and I am asking if you acknowledge that distinction existing as a result of biology or not?

Missouri tries to legislate reality away

newtboy says...

100%.
Rhonda Rousey could kick my, or your, ass.
Her 23 & 24th chromosomes being different from ours doesn’t negate that.

On average is what you said somewhat true….mostly (there are athletic disciplines that benefit female physique strongly, and there are exceptions to every “rule”)…. but sports are played by the exceptional, and a shitload more than chromosomal arrangement and genital assignment determines how exceptional a person is in a given field.

It is possible that the best woman in a sport is better than the best man, true in almost all sports, equally possible a man born a girl could be better, or a woman born a boy…If you can’t accept that, then yes, we must live in two separate realities.

What about hermaphrodites? Can they play for either team, or none at all?

Again, denying a citizen their right to participate in publicly funded sports is pretty damn unAmerican. If your not American and your culture differs, that’s on you and not my business.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Mr engineer, when there are two parties, sentence structure demands you use plurals….both sides have THEIR share of undesirables. An engineer should see grammar as a clearly defined structure that follows simple rules and just get it. Spelling is different, but grammar should be a no brainer….why is it so hard for you? Have you never seen it that way, or was engineering incredibly difficult for you too?

The difference being one side is all undesirables, and the level of undesirability. One side openly calls for an end to American democracy, death for their political rivals, death for anyone who disagrees with today’s talking point. One side has no party platform, no stated goals, and exists solely to stop any legislation the other side puts forth, even when it was something they want or that would benefit them. They are the same side.

We found another point of agreement.

Term limits are a must, and will never happen because our system does put the regulatory onus on those who need regulating….absolute insanity. It also lets them set their own salaries, ethics, and benefits.

Divestment is another must. Perhaps a bigger must. Total divestment across the board. Not just blind trusts that aren’t really blind, and absolutely not what we have now…the “honor” system run by the honorless. Allowing legislatures to write horrific laws because they can personally financially benefit is a recipe for disaster. That should (but never will) change.

Campaign finance is a third must. Corporations should have the same donation limits individuals have, which should be more like $100 each so every person can afford to have a voice, and we should return to an equal time on broadcast tv for free situation and deny the media as a political platform to give candidates a boost….no more Fox News interviews indistinguishable from campaign commercials, no more media smear campaigns, with severe penalties for violations, like $10 mil the first time, $25 mil the second, loss of fcc license the third. Another non starter….but needed badly.

PACs should be outlawed, or regulated into obscurity.

Some reasons often brought up in opposition to term limits can be traced back to Maddison who wrote "[A] few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them,"

I think we have proven at this point the cons of self serving representatives legislating for personal gains outweigh the benefits of professional legislators, especially seeing as we have the internet and huge staffs to ostensibly level the playing field of knowledge.

One fix would be the creation of an ethics branch, completely non partisan, not self regulatory, with rules against former candidates (winners and losers) and lobbyists too from serving and strict rules about how they operate, and bans from running for office or being a lobbyist afterwards so it doesn’t become a campaign platform or tool for industry. Maybe even ban close family members from the same. Won’t happen, only the best people intentionally limit their powers, and they are few and far between in Congress….all but absent on your side.

bobknight33 said:

Cheney is 1 of the "others"

Both sides have its share of undesirables.

Term limits should be a must, but we have "the fox watching the hen house" so this will never happen.

Meanwhile In Germany

Disagreement About Masks at Christmas 2021 in Math Class

newtboy says...

Hey! No proselytizing in the classroom! 😉

Besides, the passage he read indicates that Christ’s birth would not be mid winter or the shepherds would likely not have been in the fields at night, it’s pretty cold and wet in Bethlehem (a 1/2 mile high city) in late December.
Any professor should know December 25th was Mithra’s birthday, a popular religious holiday, and emperor Constantine usurped it for Christianity as a way to consolidate religions to make it easier to use against the masses as a political tool.
You’re celebrating a dishonest political plot and an Iranian/Roman Pagan God’s birth, not the birth of Jesus.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon