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."

They should really test that out first. Like crowd control.

It was a mock American SAT exam (although I'm a Canadian, and I took the test in a Canadian boarding school right at a border town on Quebec/Maine named Stanstead College). My beef wasn't really with the teacher originally, I just thought the SAT was weird to have such a math question, so I justed wanted to point out there are 2 right answers, and 1 interesting philosophical argument to be had depending of how you look at d)... about how the question/answers were flawed. But with her answer, I couldn't but sneer and thought she was just clueless (instead of both of us had a laugh at the Q... while sipping tea? Stanstead College had a very British tradition).

As she was not the dunce who drafted that stupid question, I was not going to fight her for an inconsequential demerit (on my part or SAT?), nor find it worthwhile to pursuit the higher-ups for a correction.

During my flight training, I was always taught that a highway or paved road was the last place to land in an emergency. For one, power lines tend to cross paved roads and by the time you can see them, it's too late to avoid them. Another is that it endangers others on the ground. Many pilots lose their lives trying to save the plane in an emergency. The best advice I got during my training was that when the plane quits on you, it's now your life boat. Use it to save your life, don't risk yours to save it.

During my flight training I also worked at a small GA airport. I got to know a lot of the pilots there. One owned a construction company and would often fly over his construction sites to survey them from the air. He came out that morning, I filled up his plane and he never returned. I didn't think much of it, although he rented a hangar from us, he also had a private air strip too.

A few days later, I found out that he was killed making an emergency landing. While flying over the construction site, his engine quit and he tried to land on a road. A car pulled out from a side street and he pulled up to avoid it. The landing gear snagged a power line, which caused it to nose dive into the ground and rupture the fuel tanks. It caught fire, and people tried to get to him to pull him out. They said he appeared to be alive and trying to get out, but the fire spread too fast.

The way I found out was a bit shocking. Investigators from the NTSB showed up to review our fuel and maintenance logs. We have to perform daily tests on the fuel and equipment, and I was the one that did those tests the day he was killed. It wasn't the fuel that caused the engine to quit, but that thought that maybe I screwed up the test and caused it and knowing he probably burned alive haunted me. That's something I'll never forget.

Big dreams, but remember hyperloop, the amazing high speed public transportation Musk foresaw?
It was going to be autonomous pods driving hundreds of mph through multi tube vacuum tunnels, now it’s Tesla cars manually driven maybe 40mph through small one lane tunnels, with traffic jams already on the tiny test track ride in Vegas during the pandemic with riders limited to well under 1000 per hour (<1/4projected capacity) costing $52.5 million for 1.7 miles of inescapable death tube…. so underground death trap roads at only 8800 times the cost of above ground roads.
Remember the Tesla semi truck? Sounded great. Turned out it had less than 1/6 the cargo capacity of similarly size trucks because of battery weight and a 300 mile maximum range new (quickly dropping as batteries age) for the regular version, and unless you charge at Tesla with guaranteed discount electricity it’s not even cost effective against regular trucks per mile, much less per ton of freight….and still not any on the road, now estimated to start next year…maybe.

Notice the teslabot doesn’t list expected battery life, which is the big limitation on self powered robots. All the ability in the world is useless if they need to recharge every 10 minutes.

Elon’s ideas sound amazing until you look at them practically, and find that his projections are insanely unrealistic.

Edit: in his genius, Musk lobbied hard against the infrastructure bill that includes money to build the American chip manufacturing capacity…and now his plants are losing billions per year because they can’t get chips.

Republicans are perpetrators of near 100% of election fraud….and claim to be the only ones who care about it….what improvements to election systems or increased punishments for those committing vote fraud have they made to curb this anti democracy anti America issue with their party?

*crickets*

A: none, they’ve blocked any legislation proposed to secure elections and made them less secure by installing crazed partisan criminals as clerks who tamper with and steal voting machines making them invalid for use, costing millions and compromising what little election security existed.

Edit: The Republicans ACTUALLY control all three branches in multiple states, but haven’t done a thing to secure the election system (vote ID doesn’t address any of the fraud actually found, eliminating vote by mail might, but for the few (all Republican) fraudulent vote attempts it might stop it disenfranchises exponentially more legal voters…literally millions of legal voters.). No Republican state legislature has put a paper trail in place for electronic voting, nor have they increased the punishment for vote fraud. Why is that Bob?

*crickets*

Democrats have taken steps to curb mass shootings…limiting clip size, ammo purchasing, private gun sales, testing requirements to concealed carry, barring violent felons and violent mentally ill people and (temporarily) people with active restraining orders against them from gun ownership, etc on state levels, the only place Republicans can’t just block any attempted legislation without even reading it first.

I've seen this demonstrated before, but the individual finger / knuckle reflex testing was new, and damned interesting. I have a hard time making my individual fingers twitch on purpose, the instinctive response working that well is impressive.

Also, this guy seems high as *fuck* to me. Anyone else?

This guy actually says they had communion,knowing they would get sick. Then this pos says,hey ,we don’t wanna get tested,because that would make the numbers go up and that would be bad for business… we may never know how many of these idiots got killed by the other idiots. But nobodies god protected them from covid. And neither did theirs. They knowingly and willfully spread a pandemic across their community and state. Fuck them.

You might notice they compare apples to oranges…
Different time periods, different shot levels, grouping mixtures, no clue which vaccine or which strain of covid they looked at, they all vary widely…I would prefer more standardized methods if I’m to make sense out of their data.

I’ve read studies that had similar results, and those with completely contradictory results. Some say natural immunity is better, longer lasting, some say the exact opposite. You can prove anything with statistics….forfty percent of all people know that.

It’s better off the bat because you don’t have to get the disease for the immunity…better again because with boosters it’s better than without them, double boostered likely being better than natural immunity in the same timeframes, or if not, close….also better because you KNOW you got the shots and have a widely accepted record of them, unless you get repeatedly tested you don’t KNOW you had covid…false positives happen…and you don’t get a record to show (for travel, etc).

The science isn’t clear, but it is clear that no immunity is permanent and none is total protection. Because all immunity fades rapidly, herd immunity is a myth.

So, someplace, somewhere, SEAL teams are testing this tech. It's just gotta have a single, special use scenario...

I like the joke, but the premise is faulty. I had heard the same things about some psychological test, but I got fixed with no children in my mid 20’s…the only “test” my doctor required was answering the question “are you sure?”

You don’t need to be a lawyer to know that if you lie or intentionally mislead under oath, even to congress, it’s perjury.
You also don’t need to be a lawyer to know that 99.9% of undeniably proven perjury isn’t prosecuted.
I’m not a lawyer, but I grew up surrounded by lawyers and judges in the immediate family. Grandfather, uncle, and 3 cousins were lawyers, 2 of them judges….all Republicans btw. I’m no stranger to the law, thanks.
Trump lied on every question he answered under oath and nothing….but justices are SUPPOSED to be above reproach, no longer true.


(Edit; it bears noting, the petitioners claimed “ The legislature (not scientists or doctors) then found that at five or six weeks’ gestational age an unborn human beings heart begins beating“. But reality and science say “ the heart has four clearly defined chambers in the eighth week of pregnancy, but does not have fully organized muscle tissue until the 20th week” meaning it’s not a heart until 20 weeks in, so can’t possibly be a heart beating 14 weeks before there’s a heart…it’s a muscle cluster pulse, not a heartbeat anymore than a spark plug test firing is a running car.)

Did every justice in that 1954 Supreme Court say in their confirmation hearings under oath that Plessy was settled, reaffirmed precedent they respected? Was Plessy repeatedly challenged and upheld by multiple supreme courts? If not, I call red herring.

Your intentional pedantry is tiresome and uninteresting. Enjoy your beliefs. Bye Felicia.

The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender. The 14th amendment “due process clause” has been interpreted to also affirm a right to privacy.

https://www.aclu.org/other/students-your-right-privacy

Sure sounds like rights to privacy are right there in the bill of rights though, an addendum to the constitution, as explained in numerous Supreme Court rulings.

<SIGH>. I thought you said “Pedantry is tiresome. Tell your friends.” Maybe take your own advice?

Some light reading…. In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. It also ruled that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against governments' interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.[4][5] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.[5] The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States.

There has been no new evidence.
None whatsoever, only religious nut jobs put in office that rule based on what isn’t even religious doctrine and certainly is not US law, which is clear that embryos aren’t people, and women aren’t slaves nor incubators without rights over their own bodies.

It’s no surprise whatsoever that you’re fine with eradicating rights for women, or removing any rights you dislike others enjoying.

Of course you have no problem that each one intentionally perjured themselves during confirmation, because you don’t care one whit about crime if your team commits it, nor lies if they suit you. You’ve been abundantly clear about that, consistently.

Will you be fine when they reinterpret the second amendment to require strict regulations on militias, and they are the only non government entity with a right to OWN firearms, which can only be lent to licensed members that pass stringent testing bi yearly and screening and licensing at extremely high costs? Of course not, you’re a hypocrite.
Will you be fine when that new court declares flying a confederate flag is seditious treason and it’s retroactive, so old photos are enough to convict and execute?

You’ve had a conservative court for decades. Now you have one not interested in the law or science but only politics.

Of course, you’ll have no problem with Democrats adding 6 seats, ignoring all Republican whining and filling them with hyper liberal activist judges, and writing the law in a way that no more seats can be added without a constitutional amendment, then revisiting the issue in 6 months to get it right permanently. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

Way to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia despite all studies showing the opposite is true.

https://lgbpsychology.org/html/facts_molestation.html
https://psmag.com/social-justice/do-gay-men-have-more-sexual-interest-in-children-than-straight-men-do-62127

Because I know you won't read either study, let me quote....
"Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1." If homosexuals were even equal in child molesting, that would be closer to 9:1.
I guess you now agree that heterosexual teachers shouldn't be in the classroom because they are more likely to be child molesters, because scientific fact overrides prejudicial opinion.