Ah yes, Newton's famous quote: "if I have seen further than others, it was because I was using a telescope"
5 posts • joined 20 Mar 2018
Re: In Case of Emergency?
The film, Gravity, contained a crucial error of physics.
When Bullock and Clooney (can't remember the character names) are orbiting the Earth, holding on to each other by a rope, Bullock eventually lets go, dooming Clooney to oblivion. BUT, if they were in orbit together and one let go, their speeds would not change - so Clooney would have stayed exactly where he was relative to Bullock, instead of being whisked away like in the film.
Re: Curse you, Noah Webster!
Spelling should not be decided by IUPAC bureaucrats. How we (in Britain) arrived at 'sulphur' is a matter of history and culture - they do not have the right to tell us how the word is to be spelled.
To people who say 'What does it matter?', indeed - but then if it doesn't matter, why should the IUPAC decide?
Whether people spell it with an 'f' or 'ph', the meaning is unambiguous: it's quite clearly the element, S, with 16 protons in its nucleus - so why insist upon one spelling over another?
Also, with 'aluminum/aluminium', they at least said 'aluminum' was an accepted variant - why was this courtesy not also extended to 'sulphur'?
It may seem trivial, but it's depressing - a bunch of unelected, faceless managers trying to impose their pettiness onto a whole culture, just to make their mark and feel important. They are pathetic.
FB vs CA
Yes, the labels 'right' and 'left' are not satisfactory really. Very broadly (and not including the extremes of either), 'right' could be said to mean those in favour of not changing things too radically, and of letting people live with minimal interference from the state, while 'left' might mean those in favour of changing things in order to achieve a more equal society (eg through the redistribution of wealth).
The problem is that corporations have now have such a grip that whichever candidate ('left' or 'right') gets in, THEY remain in control.
For example, Tony Blair was supposedly on the 'left' but look at his record - hugely wasteful PFI schemes, pointless wars, privitisations - all put public money into the pockets of corporations and arms manufacturers. Then again, the privately-educated (psychopath?) Blair had no left-wing leanings whatsoever.
Margaret Thatcher did much the same and worse, but made no attempt to appeal to the 'left' or 'centre'.
In the US, the media is even worse than it is here, to such an extent that the word 'socialist' is only ever used perjoratively.
Many in the UK pinned their hopes on John Smith, a true 'lefty', who died before he could be elected. He would have probably won, such was the dissatisfaction with the Conservative government at the time.
For a clearer picture, I recommend John Carpenter's film, 'They Live'. Also the Adam Curtis film 'The Trap'.
I don't know, the rot may even have started with Edward Bernays...
FB vs CA
"FB [is a] left-wing company"? What a load of bollocks.
All FB cares about, like any mega-company, is making money and nothing else. Sure, they might appeal to prog-lite 'values' like diversity, caring etc. blah blah... It's all window-dressing, like with all corporations.
Monday night's C4 expose showed CA execs boasting about swinging foreign elections for their client candidates/regimes, using propaganda and lies.
CA scoring "huge victories for the anti-establishment right"? What planet are you on?
It's the 'right', ie the ultra-capitalists - ie the corporation owners - who CONTROL the politicians/democracy/media. The result is wall to wall advertising and marketing, brainwashing people to consume not co-operate. Wake up, you idiot.