Interesting unconscious progression of Whoa-ness: He starts off "object oriented" (architecture & landmarks), and ends with more cultural and experiential shots.

The way some people have written about "destroying" North Korea, it would make you think that we haven't been talking about a weapon of mass destruction which would indiscriminately incinerate women, children, pets, and leave swathes of radioactive land uninhabitable which would then leak mutation/radioactivity into the rest of the world's ecosystem.

Western civilisation has surely succumbed to some kind of mental sickness, turning us all into mindless clones repeating "the greater good" when we get promised large, colourful explosions. When war after war ends in disaster and further misery, we continue to talk about "bringing an end to suffering" everywhere in the world as though it's both a duty, and something we haven't catastrophically screwed up time after time. Worse is the underlying pride in that perceived duty; "We're gonna make their lives better whether they want it or not! OORAHH!"

The moralising about whether or not they deserve it is an exercise in narcissistic god complexes, covered with a veneer of regret, "oh no, we should have gone to war years ago, now it's too late, should we? shouldn't we?" Like it's great fun to discuss whether or not people should burn and rot to death over the course of weeks, from the comfort of your breakfast table back in good ole metropolis.

And if you decide to bomb? Ah well, it had to be done. Yes, it's a terrible burden, the kind of pain that people burning to death will never understand or thank us for. But we'll continue, because we're the hero they need not the one they want.

Trump's handling of the NK situation is a perfect marriage of the worst elements of the usual neoliberal approach (pro- profit & power orientated) and the thuggish exaggerated threat approach favoured by teenagers in playgrounds.

Our own countries are in an absolute SHIT state. With our indifference towards global warming, the developed nations are the most dangerous threat to life on Earth for *every* country. Why do we still have the arrogance to go around discussing how to improve countries that we've never even fucking been to?

except google never forced you to use their products. You are free to boycott it and/or develop a better one (maybe more privacy oriented) if you don't like it.

government always forces you to do what they think is best for you without letting you the freedom to decline.

Jesus was pro-freedom, and he was anti-big-government. His principles are moral ones, and were never intended to be forced onto people. Charity stops being charity when the government forces people to give.

Diagram of re-entry for the Soyuz:
---------------------------------------------
http://spaceflight101.com/soyuz-tma-20m/wp-content/uploads/sites/77/2016/09/6618866_orig.jpg

Orbital Module:
---------------------
It houses all the equipment that will not be needed for reentry, such as experiments, cameras or cargo. The module also contains a toilet, docking avionics and communications gear. Internal volume is 6 m³, living space 5 m³. On the latest Soyuz versions (since Soyuz TM), a small window was introduced, providing the crew with a forward view.

Service Module:
---------------------
It has a pressurized container shaped like a bulging can that contains systems for temperature control, electric power supply, long-range radio communications, radio telemetry, and instruments for orientation and control. A non-pressurized part of the service module (Propulsion compartment, AO) contains the main engine and a liquid-fuelled propulsion system for maneuvering in orbit and initiating the descent back to Earth. The ship also has a system of low-thrust engines for orientation, attached to the Intermediate compartment. Outside the service module are the sensors for the orientation system and the solar array, which is oriented towards the sun by rotating the ship.


Consequences of bad jettisons:
------------------------------------------
The services modules are jettisoned before the spacecraft hits the atmosphere. A failure or partial jettison of the modules means that the capsule will not enter the atmosphere heat shield first which can lead to a number of scenarios:
- Capsule pushed off course (by hundreds of km)
- High sustained g-loads on reentry
- Plasma on reentry can burn through the craft if the heat shield is not exposed and oriented properly resulting in loss of crew.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-10

If Hinkley Point C is any indication, you're not going to find someone to finance/build a nuclear power plant, not in a capitalist society.

It's a massive upfront investment that private entities are basically allergic to; it cannot be insured due to the massive damage caused if things go south on you, so you need the government to act as a backstop; the price you'd have to charge per MWh is humongous compared to solar/wind, so you need massive subsidies, and that's without the ridiculous amount of rent-seeking corporations insist on nowadays.

That, to me, sounds like private is out. Hinkley Point C is being built by EDF, aka the French state, and EDF is struggling not be dragged into the abys by Areva, after the EPR in Flamanville is nothing short of a financial disaster. And we're not even talking about the troubles they are in for having fudged the specifications on the pressure vessels of more than 20 French power plants. Cost-cutting measures, as always.

So, which capitalist state is going to pick up the tab? Any volunteers? Over here, we cannot even get bridges fixed before they collapse...

And to be honest, I'm not entirely sure I would want a profit-oriented enterprise or austerity-supporting government construct something like an NPP these days. Look at the construction sites at Flamanville and Olkiluoto, they are modern towers of Babylon, with subcontractors of subcontractors from 30 different countries working for povery wages. Anyone think either of these, should they ever be finished at all, will come even close to the safety standards layed out in their official plans?

But I've just developed the duck flipper 2240 that can flip up to 1120 ducks at one time with a rotational speed of 1440 degrees per second, and read the orientations of the same number of receiver ducks. This should allow at least AT&T level audio.

I think choosing who you want to make sweet love to is the one area where it's completely fine to discriminate in whatever way you want. Having a sexual orientation isn't sexism, not dating the elderly isn't ageism. Even more shallow things like preferring certain body types or certain races is fine, because the alternative is to lie about what attracts you, which is not actually a kind thing to do.

What really pisses me off is guys who somehow feel entitled to dates from women who aren't interested. Just find someone you're compatible with, there is no "correcting" people's sexual preferences.

As for the better point of women being hypocritical because they don't want to be judged on their weight, I think they're smart enough to know that happens, but it does seem crass to ask for exact measurements. The main difference is women believe most men don't mind being asked their height, and men know most women do mind being asked their weight.

So men, own up to your height insecurity whenever possible so that women will be more sensitive in the future.
( Γ˚Д˚)Γ

Thing that really sticks in my throat here.

The most generous current estimate of trans % by population is 0.6%.

The mother of the child here is a vehement and very pro-active trans rights campaigner.

I don't know the proportion of life long trans campaigners, but I'm pretty sure the odds of them having a trans kid are vanishingly small. Much more so for such an extreme and unusual case as this one.

We are both relegated to pure speculation here but, I know at least one example (my brothers partner) of a girl being raised by a lesbian mother, who had deep emotional problems instilled into her from a very early age. i.e. men are bad, she should be attracted to women etc.

Took her well into adulthood to get over that and she is still a mixed up person (mother is to put it politely; a bit mental)

This is a different example of course, but the underlying problem and how it messed her up for most of her childhood seems like it could be similar. We are so used to the prejudices against "normal" gender roles and sexual orientation that it is perhaps easy to forget that this can work just as easily in reverse.
The problem can essentially be asshole parents instilling a mixed up and narrow concept of what is normal. Which either restricts their existing exploration of identity, or actively coerces towards a particular outcome.

IDK, you may just be right and the kid manifested this underlying genetic problem at a very early age. Her mother may be a perfectly even handed and caring person etc. etc.

It just concerns me that it could so easily be the other way around. But you are right about many people simply adopting alternative gender roles rather than physically transitioning. But if this kid starts the hormone blockers, she is sterile for life and will undergo irreversible changes in her development.

If she were to change her mind later in life as she matures... that 40% suicide rate is no joke

& yeh there are certainly strong arguments from inside the trans community against ideas of non binary genders. Most trans people are one gender wishing to transition to, or be treated as the other gender.

I can see an argument for perhaps having a third intermediary gender, beyond that it seems more like lifestyle choices than actual gender issues. e.g. like you say a T.V. man who likes to dress as a woman isn't someone who wants to be a woman, or even gay. It's just a man who likes to feel beautiful in a dress and makeup (to quote Eddie Izzard "male lesbian").

Anyway I don't think you have said anything offensive. This is a mire of a subject and anyone reasonable is going to appreciate your (our) confusion & concerns.

To be fair, you were taught this in school if you were taught wave particle duality and the double slit experiment. Look at this. Now imagine a particle bouncing along in very small steps (quantum leaps if you will), and the direction it goes depends on the strength and orientation of the wave where it lands. You may never have been told to think about it like that, but that's what makes physics so amazing that sometimes all it takes is for someone to think about it slightly differently. The information was there all along, but who would imagine the 'particle' bit of an electron interacting with the 'wave' bit - the electron interacts with itself?

I absolutely love it, it's amazing, and simple and beautiful. It may provide insights into new ways we can model quantum behaviour, it might open up new questions to ask.

There's things I'd like to know. First, if the standing waves generated at each step in the droplet's progression interact with each other, the droplet is reacting according to waves it made in the past - what implications does that have for the notion of real particles in a spacetime continuum? For the double slits experiment to work in that model - in the ball on a rubber sheet sense - the sheet would have to stay warped to some extent after the ball had passed. In the quantum sense of the real double slits experiment, we would say it IS a wave, passes through both slits and appears according to statistical probability (the diffraction pattern).

Presumably several droplets released along the same path would go on to take a different route through the slits, to create a diffraction pattern as it must. Perhaps because of fluctuations in the temperature or density of the water at different locations? Is that a limitation of the model or an indicator about the nature of the fabric of spacetime? Perhaps even due to quantum fluctuations in the water particles - the water is never the same twice even if its perfectly still each time - which would potentially mean we're cyclically using quantum mechanics to explain quantum mechanics and we actually haven't explained very much.

The philosophy bit: But this reaches to the heart of the issue with quantum mechanics and perhaps science in general. How accurately can we model reality? The reality is beyond our ability to see, so we can only recreate simpler versions that are always wrong in some way... our idea of what happens - our models - can never be 100% because only a particle in spacetime can perfectly represent a particle in spacetime.

Scientific results and definitions are always defined with limits - "it works like this, within these confines, under these conditions, with these assumptions." There are always error margins. We are always only ever communicating an idea between different consciousnesses, and that idea will never be as true to life as life itself.

Sorry for the wall of text, it's a great and provocative experiment.

Of course an electric car with instant torque will be quick off the line. The Tesla is only good off the line. It has a low top end, and it's heavy and handles like a boat. Any of these cars on a track (or a proper track oriented car) would blow its doors off while it slides into the crowd. This isn't particularly impressive, especially for a car that does all the driving. All he has to do is press the gas to the floor.

In a perfect world, or if average people were reasonable, yes, I would make it OK to decide for themselves. Sadly they aren't, so we've legislated what's unacceptable to discriminate over.
I do support the legal protections based on race, sex, sexual orientation, and/or religion (or lack thereof)...but I don't think there's protection against refusal of service based on one's political affiliation (maybe I'm wrong). I think it's stupid to do that....it harms the business and is not conducive to civilized behavior, but yes, I think business owners that don't contract with the government in any way, never take public money, and pay all their taxes should be able to refuse service for legitimate personal reasons that don't violate those protections.
Yes, I understand there would be abuses. That's part of the price of living in a "free" society.

EDIT: The alternative is, when a NAMBLA member comes to the shop and orders 100 shirts advocating adults having sex with children, they would have to make them because ADVOCATING for child sex is not illegal, just incredibly distasteful, right?

Your video, This is What Community Oriented Policing Looks Like, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 103 Badge!

Your rapist pedophile dreamer Democrat want a be president wrote it!
Guess his platform of openness to sexual orientation did not mention to allow pedophiles -- oops -- Guess we need to be a bit more open minded.


Blame the messenger and not the message. Typical.

Good to see the tolerant left accept damning truth.

I don't understand. What do you mean "they just disregard that"? EDIT: Oh, I guess I didn't watch to the end...my bad. I understand now.
The tell is both the 'closed end' of each space, and the moving exhaust of the car telling you the orientation. Spaces are painted so you see the number properly as you drive in, so it was obvious to me the moment the exhaust started (well, really, somewhat obvious before then when I noticed all their numbers in the thumbnail work in either orientation).

Car should have reversed out, just went smashing in to the wall or a bunch of other cars.

The tell of the closed end is to let you know what orientation the car is in and they just disregard that? Sloppy stuff.