Christopher Landry's Comments
Sounds reasonable. Seems like the best way to win that competition has always been money and/or power, and hasn't changed appreciably in three or four thousand years.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Egyptian men wear just as much makeup, just as often, as did the Egyptian women of 6000 years ago?
If anything, it seems the question should be "Why don't men feel it necessary to wear makeup all the time like they used to?"
All the cosmetics that are listed here, and their reasons for applying them, apply just as much to the men of that time and place as they do to the women. Unless we’re going to try to claim that men wore exactly the same cosmetics in exactly the same style, but for different reasons. That seems a bit of a stretch.
Now that I'm thinking along that line, when, and why, did men stop wearing makeup as much as women? Did the Roman Empire men wear makeup? The Egyptian cosmetic style is blaringly obvious in old paintings of the time, but maybe it was just more subtle yet still present in the male population of the Roman era.
If anything, it seems the question should be "Why don't men feel it necessary to wear makeup all the time like they used to?"
All the cosmetics that are listed here, and their reasons for applying them, apply just as much to the men of that time and place as they do to the women. Unless we’re going to try to claim that men wore exactly the same cosmetics in exactly the same style, but for different reasons. That seems a bit of a stretch.
Now that I'm thinking along that line, when, and why, did men stop wearing makeup as much as women? Did the Roman Empire men wear makeup? The Egyptian cosmetic style is blaringly obvious in old paintings of the time, but maybe it was just more subtle yet still present in the male population of the Roman era.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
On that question alone, I'd have to choose Luke, since he suffers very little with the injury itself and then gets a cool robot hand to replace it with. Jaime nearly dies from the initial wounding then goes handless the rest of his life, being treated as a cripple.
When you look at it like that, it isn't about how well each person can deal with the injury. It's a question of how well medical technology can handle the injury itself and then replace the lost limb afterward.
Reading the rest of the questions, I get that this isn't the point at all. The similarities between the two characters are kinda interesting.
When you look at it like that, it isn't about how well each person can deal with the injury. It's a question of how well medical technology can handle the injury itself and then replace the lost limb afterward.
Reading the rest of the questions, I get that this isn't the point at all. The similarities between the two characters are kinda interesting.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I'm guessing it's more specifically a raven, which as a species can imitate a wide variety of sounds such as speech as well as parrots are known to do. Ravens are in the crow family, though, so calling it a crow is still correct.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Did I miss something somewhere? What part of what they did was an detainable offense? Is it trespassing to stand around in the store and not buy anything or something?
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
HAHA, ok, joke's on me for not watching the last few seconds of the broadcast. Bravo.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Double apologies for implying the author is an idiot. I'm on a roll it seems.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Watch it again.
At about 6-7 sec, you can see the dog lie down in front of the car, and the car stops at that moment, still about 10 feet from the dog, unless this car has a 20 ft long hood we can't see.
This dog plays dead for a bit till the driver's back is turned and she's far from her car. Just far enough to be out of the path of the car if it were to start moving forward...
Then the dog gets up and runs into the vehicle. Then the car starts moving, which is nonsense, since the dog has no way to get the car out of park. The car starts moving before the dog gets completely behind the wheel, and definitely doesn't have the power to do anything like manipulating a gear shift out of park. Not having opposable thumbs is usually enough to prevent that.
Which means someone else is in the vehicle manipulating the situation in the dogs favor.
Which means this whole video is a prank.
Apologies if the author knew this was a prank before posting and I'm the idiot for not catching on to that.
At about 6-7 sec, you can see the dog lie down in front of the car, and the car stops at that moment, still about 10 feet from the dog, unless this car has a 20 ft long hood we can't see.
This dog plays dead for a bit till the driver's back is turned and she's far from her car. Just far enough to be out of the path of the car if it were to start moving forward...
Then the dog gets up and runs into the vehicle. Then the car starts moving, which is nonsense, since the dog has no way to get the car out of park. The car starts moving before the dog gets completely behind the wheel, and definitely doesn't have the power to do anything like manipulating a gear shift out of park. Not having opposable thumbs is usually enough to prevent that.
Which means someone else is in the vehicle manipulating the situation in the dogs favor.
Which means this whole video is a prank.
Apologies if the author knew this was a prank before posting and I'm the idiot for not catching on to that.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
True.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Somewhat minor semantic point:
"Can you drive fast enough..." A: No, it is not possible to drive any vehicle fast enough. Warp travel (folding space) would be the closest we'd get one day, and we haven't done the math to know how folding space would affect a speed camera.
"Can an object travel fast enough..." A: Yes, at greater than 1/6th the speed of light...
"Can you drive fast enough..." A: No, it is not possible to drive any vehicle fast enough. Warp travel (folding space) would be the closest we'd get one day, and we haven't done the math to know how folding space would affect a speed camera.
"Can an object travel fast enough..." A: Yes, at greater than 1/6th the speed of light...
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I have to agree with Feodor's assessment. The "copy" on display is a copy of the original performance. As soon as it is recorded to any media, it is a copy of the original. Only a live performance can be considered the original.
The only exception to this would be purely digital works that only ever exist as digital works. In the case of purely digital works, I would argue that there is no original, all versions are copies. This logic is based on the inherent natural usage of digital media: multiple copy processes moving data around from one place to another, reformatting and regrouping it with other media on occasion along the way. Remixing falls into this as well.
Oh, I thought of one exception to that, too: A live, composed-on-site, all digital performance of original work would not automatically be a copy, though any record of such would be. Any live performance can be considered an original, I suppose, since a recording of such could be labelled very specifically as to the Performer, Location, and Date of the performance.
The only exception to this would be purely digital works that only ever exist as digital works. In the case of purely digital works, I would argue that there is no original, all versions are copies. This logic is based on the inherent natural usage of digital media: multiple copy processes moving data around from one place to another, reformatting and regrouping it with other media on occasion along the way. Remixing falls into this as well.
Oh, I thought of one exception to that, too: A live, composed-on-site, all digital performance of original work would not automatically be a copy, though any record of such would be. Any live performance can be considered an original, I suppose, since a recording of such could be labelled very specifically as to the Performer, Location, and Date of the performance.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I have to wonder if this is a real life SCP... A mystery anachronistic soda machine that's perpetually stocked with strange flavors of soda...
Totally sounds like an SCP.
Totally sounds like an SCP.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Looking at the chart in comparison to the strength of the flavor of each condiment, it seems like the order is right on par.
- Mayo has the weakest flavor by a large margin
- Ketchup, Soy Sauce, and BBQ are about equal to one another (BBQ varies a little depending on style).
- Hot sauce, Mustard , and Steak Sauce are very strong flavors.
Looking at it that way, we would expect a regular person to go through a jar of mayo faster than they go through an equal size jar of mustard, simply because it takes a lot less mustard to blend with the various flavors in a sandwich. The chart looks like about 4x as much mayo is consumed, and tbh, I would readily say that mustard's flavor is easily 4x stronger than mayo, so 1/4 of it is necessary to be enough for balance of flavors in a dish that has both.
- Mayo has the weakest flavor by a large margin
- Ketchup, Soy Sauce, and BBQ are about equal to one another (BBQ varies a little depending on style).
- Hot sauce, Mustard , and Steak Sauce are very strong flavors.
Looking at it that way, we would expect a regular person to go through a jar of mayo faster than they go through an equal size jar of mustard, simply because it takes a lot less mustard to blend with the various flavors in a sandwich. The chart looks like about 4x as much mayo is consumed, and tbh, I would readily say that mustard's flavor is easily 4x stronger than mayo, so 1/4 of it is necessary to be enough for balance of flavors in a dish that has both.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
@ JoeD: I'm not sure I'd ever heard that Lincoln believed it was going to die out on its own. That's very interesting, so I will try to find a copy of those letters you mentioned.
@ John Farrier: What if, as part of my overall alternate timeline, Lincoln decided that he wasn't going to be so gung-ho about keeping the Union together in the short term. So, instead of going to war over it, the South is given what they want: their own country. And that country slowly suffocates and dies out bit by bit due to its continued use of slavery. Other anti-slavery countries won't do business with them as much anymore, and any farmer that chooses machines over slaves can manage more crops for less cost, so they underbid the slave-owners in every market.
As the CSA dies out over the next several decades, the USA re-acquires whichever territories willingly come back to the fold. Of course, in the intervening time period, the USA would have passed anti-slavery laws, as well as establishing citizenship and voting rights, which the prodigal states must agree to before being readmitted. Imagine the welcome home celebration as each state returned!
Under these circumstances, I could envision a situation where, by about 1900, half the CSA seceded from itself and re-joined the USA. What's left of the CSA would be dying, as the cancer eats away, as you put it. That means mass emigration, as we have seen from Mexico for many years. Since I haven't heard anyone suggest that we forcibly take over Mexico just because many of their people are suffering, I don't see why we would forcibly rescue the CSA over many people suffering. We tend to have a National Security/Defense of the Nation reason to invade another country, like Bush did with the WMD's in Iraq (whether you believe he told the truth is irrelevant to this point).
It's also possible that if Mexico decided to allow slavery, part of the CSA would go that way. Or maybe they'd join Mexico, stay for a few decades, finally realize the grass is just brown and dying there, and secede their way back to the USA the long way.
We didn't have 50 states till Hawaii in August of 1959. I cannot bring myself to think that it is a bad thing to allow that to occur in a slightly different manner. I believe most, if not all, of the CSA would have come back to the fold by 1960.
Yes, that's 100 years later, but I think that would be an interesting alternate history, if nothing else.
IMO, allowing at least some of the southern states to break away without conflict would result, in the long run, in exactly what Lincoln said he wanted, "...a more perfect Union..."
@ John Farrier: What if, as part of my overall alternate timeline, Lincoln decided that he wasn't going to be so gung-ho about keeping the Union together in the short term. So, instead of going to war over it, the South is given what they want: their own country. And that country slowly suffocates and dies out bit by bit due to its continued use of slavery. Other anti-slavery countries won't do business with them as much anymore, and any farmer that chooses machines over slaves can manage more crops for less cost, so they underbid the slave-owners in every market.
As the CSA dies out over the next several decades, the USA re-acquires whichever territories willingly come back to the fold. Of course, in the intervening time period, the USA would have passed anti-slavery laws, as well as establishing citizenship and voting rights, which the prodigal states must agree to before being readmitted. Imagine the welcome home celebration as each state returned!
Under these circumstances, I could envision a situation where, by about 1900, half the CSA seceded from itself and re-joined the USA. What's left of the CSA would be dying, as the cancer eats away, as you put it. That means mass emigration, as we have seen from Mexico for many years. Since I haven't heard anyone suggest that we forcibly take over Mexico just because many of their people are suffering, I don't see why we would forcibly rescue the CSA over many people suffering. We tend to have a National Security/Defense of the Nation reason to invade another country, like Bush did with the WMD's in Iraq (whether you believe he told the truth is irrelevant to this point).
It's also possible that if Mexico decided to allow slavery, part of the CSA would go that way. Or maybe they'd join Mexico, stay for a few decades, finally realize the grass is just brown and dying there, and secede their way back to the USA the long way.
We didn't have 50 states till Hawaii in August of 1959. I cannot bring myself to think that it is a bad thing to allow that to occur in a slightly different manner. I believe most, if not all, of the CSA would have come back to the fold by 1960.
Yes, that's 100 years later, but I think that would be an interesting alternate history, if nothing else.
IMO, allowing at least some of the southern states to break away without conflict would result, in the long run, in exactly what Lincoln said he wanted, "...a more perfect Union..."
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I looked at your websites, the Skeptics Society is worthless for SHC articles. The CSI is more useful by comparison, but it doesn't really debunk the myth as a whole, only discusses how particular cases occurred.
"A Case of ‘SHC’ Demystified" - written in 1998 about a single case that occurred 18 years previously. Why so much time between the article and the case? No clues are given in the short article.
"Fiery Tales That Spontaneously Destruct" - this one includes very short references to (not analysis of) two cases, then spends 80% of the article debunking a third case. Once again, debunking a single case does not a scientific method make. Also, written 16 years after the event in question.
"A Fiery Death: Murder or ‘Spontaneous Combustion’?" Didn't read past the first line, discusses a cold case from... 1847. Single instance, old data, same story. One cannot conduct a scientific investigation on something this old outside of basic archaeology (aka guessing for best fit given certain assumptions).
"Spontaneous Human Nonsense" - This guy is advertising his book, not trying to debunk a myth. Although the book he's advertising claims to debunk the myth, what it really does is debunk certain cases described in another book. It's an anti-claims book book.
"Not-So-Spontaneous Human Combustion" - Same author as the last articile referenced here, same month and year of publishing, referencing the same books. More advertising to sell his books, basically.
That there are cases that are called SHC that can be explained by science does not mean that all cases of SHC can be explained. Further, if every case of SHC does get an explanation at some future time, that simply means that SHC has no spiritual component, and allows us to scientifically classify certain types of events as SHC with an official description of how they occur. Basically, SHC moves from Pseudoscience into the realm of accepted scientific designation for a legitimate event.