EPTHere's my story; I`m working for Prosecutor's service as an investigator and sometimes there're complainants who only can speak English. Normally I say "G'day" to start a conversation with someone I do not know, but in this case this sounds ridiculous because anybody can see that this is definitely not a good day for him/her.
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 527
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Thouhastmail
Korea (North)876 Posts
Here's my story; I`m working for Prosecutor's service as an investigator and sometimes there're complainants who only can speak English. Normally I say "G'day" to start a conversation with someone I do not know, but in this case this sounds ridiculous because anybody can see that this is definitely not a good day for him/her. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11839 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
Maybe morning to you is another option. I think more than anything, it's the tone you say it in, than what you say. So in your case, I wouldn't be very upbeat when saying, just very formal and kind of robotic. Same idea when someone is sour after losing a sport but you shake hands for sportsmanship as a formality. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
It surprises me that so many people on the forum here are so ignorant to the perspective of pro-firearm people, to not see their argument for it. People imo make it all seem like a really black and white issue. I think that "freedom" is a tough thing to quantify.. Like not having a gun, you still have freedoms, just can't have a gun, so are you giving up your freedoms, idk. Some people on the forum get ticked off here and say muh freedoms to things I say sarcastically. I think that a big brother government would be more efficient when it comes to things like homicide rates, car fatalities, work place conditions, etc... sure. But enough people get pissed off, and it's tough to quantify exactly why people get pissed off, but they do, feeling like they are all little ants in an ant colony with everything setup to do what society wand them to do... and people don't like that, and they emotionally lash out. And hence you get things like Trump, who if you have a rational argument, most people wouldn't vote for. We try to maximize social happiness, but there's other things that satisfy human traits like jealousy, sense of power, and those things like the seven deadly sins or whatever, which imo we don't take into account well in our social cost benefit analysis. I did a few CBA in cooperation with the city government during my degree, and I wasn't happy with how it was done, it only took into account the tangible things, put them into dollar amounts. No mention of emotional factors, which agreeably are hard to quantify. Anyway, a bit of a rant, but I think instead of looking at 40% of people as crazies, it's maybe a good idea to try and understand their position more. We're all born the same, so taking the perspective that 40%+ of people are stupid in their opinions on this. My position is that some more regulation would be fine, but from taking looking at some of the arguments here, I'm not conviced that people have the view I have, and most would go too far, so halting progress in the front isn't a bad option for me compared to what it one day could be. Same idea as many Republicans denying global warming not because they don't believe it... But because it may be the most effective way to fight people who have the perspective of an environment vs economy balance that goes past your ideas. Written on phone, apologies for any poor grammar and structure. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5161 Posts
Is it different when you compare the lightest blackmail vs bribe and stack that up against the harshest blackmail vs bribe? Does it have to do with your own constitution? Is there a cutoff point where one overtakes the other if you slowly harshen the blackmail/bribe? | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
blackmail is when someone has your sister in a barn somewhere, threatening to kill her if you don't do what he says. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5161 Posts
| ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On November 10 2016 00:38 Uldridge wrote: Are you sure a bribe is a choice? What if you're given $10 000 000 to look the other way while a gang goes on a rape and killing spree, while you're the only one knowledgeable of the situation? There is still the implication that were you to tell anyone, you'd be subject to similar violence so it would be at least in part blackmail. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On November 10 2016 00:38 Uldridge wrote: Are you sure a bribe is a choice? What if you're given $10 000 000 to look the other way while a gang goes on a rape and killing spree, while you're the only one knowledgeable of the situation? now you're just trying to excuse your greed. to translate your question: how much, payed in human lives, is my happiness worth?. gl with justifying that but it's still not coercion. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
A new theory of gravity might explain the curious motions of stars in galaxies. Emergent gravity, as the new theory is called, predicts the exact same deviation of motions that is usually explained by invoking dark matter. Prof. Erik Verlinde, renowned expert in string theory at the University of Amsterdam and the Delta Institute for Theoretical Physics, published a new research paper today in which he expands his groundbreaking views on the nature of gravity. i love emergence as a thing.In 2010, Erik Verlinde surprised the world with a completely new theory of gravity. According to Verlinde, gravity is not a fundamental force of nature, but an emergent phenomenon. In the same way that temperature arises from the movement of microscopic particles, gravity emerges from the changes of fundamental bits of information, stored in the very structure of spacetime. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On November 10 2016 02:45 xM(Z wrote: fuck politics men, who knows something about http://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html i love emergence as a thing. It's an interesting alternative to both Lambda-CDM and MOND models. Glancing at the conclusions of the paper, they do acknowledge that work still needs to be done (namely addressing their use of the present day Hubble constant, and their assumption that dark energy dominates over matter in the early universe) before emergent gravity has a chance of replacing current models of dark matter. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11839 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On November 10 2016 03:21 ZigguratOfUr wrote: It's an interesting alternative to both Lambda-CDM and MOND models. Glancing at the conclusions of the paper, they do acknowledge that work still needs to be done (namely addressing their use of the present day Hubble constant, and their assumption that dark energy dominates over matter in the early universe) before emergent gravity has a chance of replacing current models of dark matter. Does it actually predict anything? Or is it just a parametrisation of observations? It does connect to measurements, right? | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On November 10 2016 08:42 Cascade wrote: Does it actually predict anything? Or is it just a parametrisation of observations? It does connect to measurements, right? It isn't predictive. It's basically an argument that the laws of gravity should change to these new emergent/entropic ones, instead of trying to preserve them by adding dark matter. The arguments themselves are based on "natural constants", and the results fit known facts such as Einstein Field Equations. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On November 10 2016 09:22 ZigguratOfUr wrote: It isn't predictive. It's basically an argument that the laws of gravity should change to these new emergent/entropic ones, instead of trying to preserve them by adding dark matter. The arguments themselves are based on "natural constants", and the results fit known facts such as Einstein Field Equations. Isn't predictive? What does that mean? So it doesn't connect with any measurements? Not falsifiable? | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On November 10 2016 11:54 Cascade wrote: Isn't predictive? What does that mean? So it doesn't connect with any measurements? Not falsifiable? It doesn't make any new physical predictions. It tries to explain the properties of the cosmos in ways that do not involve dark matter. It and the Lambda-CDM model both serve to explain stuff like CMB radiation, the accelerating expansion of the universe, the distribution of galaxies etc. Since they "fit existing facts" and don't make new predictions existing experiments won't falsify them. There may be new experiments that could be devised to distinguish between them, or objections based on theoretical grounds (like in 2010 after Verlinde's initial paper there were some criticism to it claiming it broke quantum coherence and stuff like that). | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_list_of_Nixon's_political_opponents | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On November 10 2016 13:57 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: I was messing around on wikipedia and found a list of Nixon's poltical opponents and for some reason Joe namath was on there. when I went to Namath's page it didn't mention a single thing about politics. so why in the world was he on the list? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_list_of_Nixon's_political_opponents A mistake apparently. http://www.enemieslist.info/enemy.php?ID=147 | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On November 10 2016 14:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote: A mistake apparently. http://www.enemieslist.info/enemy.php?ID=147 I don't know why but I find this slightly disappointing. I was hoping that Nixon was just really really mad after super bowl 3. still pretty entertaining though | ||
| ||
