Amentep Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Well aliens are one cool explanation. But it seems most scientists are taking a "well it can't be ruled out at this time". I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blarghagh Posted October 15, 2015 Author Share Posted October 15, 2015 Indeed, but as the article points out some of the alien explanations are generally more likely than most of the non-alien one's, so that's cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gfted1 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I think I saw some random calculation that it would take all the matter in our solar system (planets, asteroids, comets, etc.) to construct a Dyson Sphere around our sun. "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcador Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6X82g2UZOs Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raithe Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Chivalry isn't dead, you just don't know what the F**k it is So Chivalry. I’ve heard a lot of people say it’s dead. It used to be a lament, and then it turned into a joke, and now it’s just a fact that almost everybody accepts. Chivalry is dead, because it’s 2015 and nobody wants to suck your **** for holding the door open for them. And it’s true, nobody wants to do that to your hog in exchange for that minor favor. But that’s not what the **** chivalry is. Chivalry is a complicated, difficult, and ultimately good code of ethics that you probably have a fundamental misunderstanding of. So let me set some things straight: 1. CHIVALRY IS NOT ABOUT TREATING WOMEN LIKE DELICATE FLOWERS This is probably the main thing people **** up about chivalry. The truth is, chivalry has basically **** all to do with women, and everything to do with horses. See, the word “chivalry” comes from the French word “chevalier,” which comes from “cheval,” which means “horse.” Chivalry is literally just “rules for if you have a horse.” This was an important set of rules to have in chivalry times. Horses were the Blackhawk Helicopters of the Middle Ages; if you had a horse, you could absolutely kill anybody who didn’t have a horse and nobody was going to say a god damn thing. The only thing stopping you was chivalry. That’s what chivalry was for. Chivalry was – and still is – basically a way of saying, “okay, I have an optimized death machine between my legs, maybe I should look out for people who don’t have one of these.” So it’s not that chivalry is specifically about defending women because women are weak. It’s that chivalry is about defending people who don’t own horses, and in the middle ages women didn’t own ****. It’s 2015 now. Women can own as many horses as they want. But there are still power structures built into society that put some people in metaphorical Blackhawk helicopters, and other people underneath those helicopters (sometimes the Blackhawk Helicopters are also literal). Real chivalry is about noticing when you have a horse and somebody else doesn’t. It’s about being careful not to trample people just because you can. It’s about holding the door for a dude in a wheelchair. It’s about actively trying to recruit more people of color in your workplace. Sometimes it really is about sticking up for women, but only if your help is wanted. And even then … 2. CHIVALRY IS NOT A POINTS SYSTEM REDEEMABLE FOR FREE SEX There are no prizes for being chivalrous, other than the prize of being a decent god damn human. This is because the people who chivalry was invented for were so ****ing rich that prizes were totally meaningless to them. In addition to horses, knights also owned fancy armor, sick weapons, and huge tracts of land. They were powerful, exciting people relatively free of disease. They weren’t exactly hard up for sex opportunities, is what I’m trying to say. They didn’t need to invent a complex code of ethics to justify getting **** for free, because they already had all the ****. What do you get for the man who has everything? How about some ****ing morals. Anyway, if you’re desperate for booty, tales of chivalry aren’t the best place to go for inspiration. King Arthur’s court is basically one endless sex disaster, what with Arthur’s accidental incest and Lancelot’s righteous wangfoolery. Tristram and Isolde is a bonerific nightmare that borders on farce. Sir Galahad, the Greatest Knight Ever, is also the biggest virgin in the universe, and he is thrilled about it. It turns out you’re not even allowed to see the grail if you thought about a boob once. The chivalric canon is not overly sex positive, you guys. In fact the only problem-free sex I can recall from my chivalric reading is the story of Sir Gawaine and Lady Ragnell, in which everything turns out for the best because – spoiler alert – Gawaine leaves the decision up to his wife. Funny how that works out, huh? 3. CHIVALRY IS NOT PERFECT, AND NEITHER ARE WE Like most things invented in the past, chivalry has some problems. One of the problems with chivalry is that horses are no longer the height of technology. The main problem with chivalry, though, is that it can very easily cross over into paternalism, and nobody likes to be treated like a child. It is important to remember that just because you have a horse and somebody else does not have a horse, that does not make you their dad. Even if you have the best intentions, chivalry isn’t a code you can blindly follow for A+ results. Even if chivalry was perfect, which no moral code is, it’s impossible to be a non-****ty person absolutely all the time. Like, the Knights of the Round Table were probably the most righteous group of horse-havers ever to have horses, but Gawaine chopped a lady’s head off, Lancelot ****ed his boss’s wife, and Percival was the biggest idiot ever to hold a sword. Galahad was perfect I guess, but Galahad also had a magic chair with his name written on it in fire and ascended to heaven because he found a neat cup. Galahad was a fake person. All of those dudes were fake ****ing people. We made them up. The people we made up to be the ideals of chivalry were still remarkably ****ty. Back here on earth, nobody is chivalrous all the time, and that’s not sufficient reason to write anybody off. We are all ****ty sometimes. Also Galahad is a ****. OKAY SO WHAT IS CHIVALRY THEN?Chivalry boils down to three things: mercy, charity, and humility. Mercy means being conscious of your advantages, and treating other humans gently. Charity means giving without expecting anything in return. Humility means accepting your mistakes, and recognizing that those who don’t have your advantages aren’t your inferiors. Anybody can embody these traits – woman, man, or even horse. At this point, you may be thinking “hey, this is bull****, these are just basic guidelines for not being an ****!” and congratulations, you’re right. That’s all chivalry is: basic guidelines for how not to be a sack of ****. And as long as a sack of **** is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die. 1 "Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Huh, I'd argue that doesn't really fit either the historical or modern context of the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raithe Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 2 "Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raithe Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 (edited) Isao Machii, a Japanese master swordsman, recently stepped into a batting cage and sliced a 100 mph fastball in half. He literally stepped into the box with his sword in its holster, waited for the pitch, and the cut the damn thing in half. The radar gun confirms the pitch traveled 100 mph (or 161 kmph). He cut that sucker right in half in the blink of an eye. Ridiculous. Machii, as you're probably not surprised to learn, has set all sorts of world records for his work with a sword. In fact, the internet tells me he once cut a tennis ball traveling 440 mph (!) in half. A 100 mph fastball must have looked like a slow pitch softball toss by comparison. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSvrIZKI8mk Edited October 15, 2015 by Raithe "Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromnir Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Isao Machii, a Japanese master swordsman, recently stepped into a batting cage and sliced a 100 mph fastball in half. He literally stepped into the box with his sword in its holster, waited for the pitch, and the cut the damn thing in half. The radar gun confirms the pitch traveled 100 mph (or 161 kmph). He cut that sucker right in half in the blink of an eye. Ridiculous. Machii, as you're probably not surprised to learn, has set all sorts of world records for his work with a sword. In fact, the internet tells me he once cut a tennis ball traveling 440 mph (!) in half. A 100 mph fastball must have looked like a slow pitch softball toss by comparison. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSvrIZKI8mk why is this particular impressive? solid hit with a wood baseball bat o' a +90 mph curveball from a human pitcher when you don't know what pitch is coming is far more impressive to us. batting cage fastballs is perfect strikes that come at predictable intervals. these staged bits o' silliness impress us very little, particularly as we not see all the fails. HA! Good Fun! 1 "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I would imagine hitting it at the perfect angle to cut through it cleanly would be the tough part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromnir Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I would imagine hitting it at the perfect angle to cut through it cleanly would be the tough part. it's a tennis ball traveling at 100mph. am suspecting that given force involved and assuming that the sword is sharp, he need only be certain o' hitting edge first to cut the damn thing. again, the ball is coming at predictable intervals and is having exact same delivery each time. the sword guy can practice thousands o' times... hundreds of thousands of times. train so that your draw-cut is consistent, and then hard part is actual getting the damn batting cage operator to calibrate the machine to match. to get the "perfect angle" on a curve ball to result in a hit with a heavy wooden bat, when you don't know what pitch is coming, seems far more impressive to us. HA! Good Fun! "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcador Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Someone being impressed by anything in baseball is impressive. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blarghagh Posted October 15, 2015 Author Share Posted October 15, 2015 I dunno, I'd say Baseball would be much improved by the addition of Katanas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadySands Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 As someone who finds watching baseball to be incredibly boring, I still find the act of hitting the ball to be pretty amazing https://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/biobaseball.html 2 Free games updated 3/4/21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartimaeus Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 There were seven no-hitters this season. Seven baseball games where a team literally went the entire game without hitting the ball even once. Football seems terrible when the teams stall over and over and can't get first downs...imagine a game where a team goes literally the entire game without one, or without a reception or meaningful rush... Quote How I have existed fills me with horror. For I have failed in everything - spelling, arithmetic, riding, tennis, golf; dancing, singing, acting; wife, mistress, whore, friend. Even cooking. And I do not excuse myself with the usual escape of 'not trying'. I tried with all my heart. In my dreams, I am not crippled. In my dreams, I dance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 It's pretty exciting to watch a pitcher during a no-hitter though. The tension ramps up with every pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agiel Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineth Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) One chart that puts mass incarceration in historical context Edited October 17, 2015 by Ineth 1 "Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them." -- attributed to George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Largely because of drugs and drug related charges. Yet, people are still dead set at treating steroid users like they are worse than nazis. Make it legal. It is a chocie to use them. And, no, it doesn't make one a better baseball player. Proven by the many athletes who have taken them and still utterly failed to accomplish anything in their chosen sport. For every athlete like Armstrong where it 'works' (nah not really) there are hundreds if not 1000s of athletes including cyclists who couldn't come close to his success. Why? Because he is just that damn good. Steroids or no steroids. PERIOD. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 So...I'm not really sure how many people are behind bars for using steroids, but I'm guessing it's fairly small. But I'm right with you on the drug charges. It is out of control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromnir Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 (edited) the number o' folks incarcerated for drug offense stuff is a bit misleading. yeah, mandatory sentencing guidelines does result in folks getting ridiculous prison terms for mere possession. however, keep in mind that the guy who has drugs on possession while committing a home invasion or carjacking gets drug offense as well as the theft/assault/whatever. should come as no surprise that people who commit crimes is frequent under the influence o' drugs or in possession o' such. the number o' folks in prison when the only charge is marijuana possession, for example, is relative small. in 2010 there were between 63 and 73 people serving time in fed prison on noting save a marijuana possession charge. the reason why is a range is that we can't get details on 10 o' the marijuana sentences. HA! Good Fun! ps we do agree that the drug war has put too many folks in prison, though problem is more complex than is often described. Edited October 18, 2015 by Gromnir "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineth Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 the number o' folks in prison when the only charge is marijuana possession, for example, is relative small. Let me guess, because most also got bogus stacked charges like "Resisting arrest"? "Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them." -- attributed to George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadySands Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Wouldn't the mandatory minimum sentencing and three strike laws add a lot to the numbers simply by keeping people in prison longer? If you keep adding inmates at a much higher rate than you release them? Doesn't explain why it's plateaued somewhat though Free games updated 3/4/21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromnir Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 the number o' folks in prison when the only charge is marijuana possession, for example, is relative small. Let me guess, because most also got bogus stacked charges like "Resisting arrest"? bad guess. am only considering felony charges, and oddly enough, resist arrest is simple misdemeanor 'ccording to fed. individual states do distinguish misdemeanor and felony resisting arrest, but felony requires violence. run from cop or pull away from cop to avoid drug possession charge? no biggie. folks have been watching too much tv. there is a growing assumption that cops is bad. there is bad cops. the thing is, there ain't enough bad cops to explain the numbers. speaking o' tv, that is why we got the terrible minimum sentence and three strikes nonsense. all it takes is a handful o' publicized stories o' felons who get probation and then commit heinous and violent crimes for the public to be demanding minimum sentences. is not that the media is creating the problem, but the public reacts more to images o' dead children on the 5 o'clock news than it does to reasoned discourse. HA! Good Fun! "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 The problem with 3 strikes law is that it equalifies heinous crimes like murder to minor 'crimes' like drug possession or some small town crook who stole food or some other such nonsense. On the other hand, it shouldn't take 3 murders for one to lose their freedom permenately. I can understand give the eprson a second chance but a 3rd? Nah. if you kill someone, serve your time, get released, and kill again? NO MERCY. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts