ballzac
-
Content count
4,109 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
23
Posts posted by ballzac
-
-
[ It would be the first time (that I'm aware of anyway) that any organisation has secretly made such significant advancements in any technology. ]
I would imagine that secrecy would keep you from being aware of it??
Except that, at some stage, any secret technological program becomes public knowledge when the technology is actually used.
[ This would be more significant than the Manhattan project, and that was instigated by Albert Einstein and required the cooperation of several other leading physicists. ]
Technology that doesn't kill en masse? I would think they would classify such research as less significant.
I meant significant in terms of the cooperation of top-level physicists required. And yes, I would think they would classify this research as less significant in terms of military value than weapons of mass desstruction, which is why I feel it's unlikely that they could pull it off.
-
1
-
-
I'm highly skeptical. It would be the first time (that I'm aware of anyway) that any organisation has secretly made such significant advancements in any technology. This would be more significant than the Manhattan project, and that was instigated by Albert Einstein and required the cooperation of several other leading physicists.
-
1
-
-
Awesome idea Ceres. I've been planning on learning cross-stitch or something similar. It looks fairly easy but produces incredible results. I think your suggestion would make a great project for me to learn it, but I might do the border in crochet rather than tatted lace as I think it would suit better.
-
Nice work, how did you learn to tat lace?
Thanks
I mostly learnt from youtube tutorials. I've been knitting on and off since I was about 5, so anything to do with threads or yarn I tend to pick up pretty easily.
-
1
-
-
So, I wanted to incorporate a motif like this into a larger design, so I designed a border for a doily. I realised that the motif would be lost in the rest of the design if it was done in white, so I started making a psilocybin molecule with each type of atom represented by a different colour. However, I'm looking at this design and thinking that molecule (not finished) will not be very clear inside the border, and don't want to put in the work to fill the space between the border and the motif with lace if I'm not going to like the end result.
I think I'll have to do something a bit more creative if I want to make a larger design with a molecular theme, but it might take some time to execute, so I want to make sure I have a solid design before I start working on it. Not sure what I will do with this doily border, but I might just fill it in with a lace pattern.
-
This is a straw-man argument.
A straw man is where someone misrepresents the opponent's position. You didn't demonstrate how weedRampage misrepresented a position, but instead appeared to defend the position that weedRampage was attacking, implying that it wasn't a straw-man at all
Chernobyl was pretty much the worst-case scenario, and events like this are pretty rare. Even using the most grossly overestimated death-tolls for an event like this, the number of people who have died as a result of nuclear accidents since its inception pales in comparison to the number of people who have died in motor vehicle accidents in the same time frame.
It's also worth noting that focussing solely on half-life can be misleading, because the longer a material's half-life, and the more widely dispersed, the lower its activity. If you have a material with a half-life of 1000s of years and it is widely dispersed, it's activity will be so low that it will be basically harmless. On the other hand, if you have a material that has a half-life of a year being highly concentrated in a local water supply, its activity will be high enough to cause radiation poisoning, but its lack of dispersion will mean fewer people will be affected, and its short half-life will mean that the cross generational problems will not occur.
-
1
-
-
I also think I should note that I do not completely disagree with having to pay excise on alcohol, considering a lot of people who make their own liquor are likely to over-indulge and become a burden on the public healthcare system. I think it would be reasonable to legalize distilling for personal use, and to apply a small excise in the form of an annual license (it would be too hard to police one based on quantity). Applying harsh penalties to those who distill without the licence would encourage people to pay the fee, but without the ridiculously stringent licencing standards that currently force people to do it illegally. Having said that, I don't think there are enough people distilling to make it worth their while changing any laws, so unlike cannabis prohibition, I would expect our distilling laws to remain the same for a long time.
-
so long as your not selling any, they turn a blind eye, so just don't attract unwanted attention.
I think this would be mostly true, but it's just another stupid law that could be used at the discretion of the police if they don't like you. Imagine a cop using "reasonable suspicion" to search your house because he thinks he smells cannabis. He doesn't find any, but does find a small still and several bottles of 'moonshine'. I think it's unlikely he'd be turning a blind eye.
-
5
-
-
If it involves distillation & your still is greater than 4L capacity then it is required to be registered with the commonwealth for the collection of excise regardless of whether or not any actually needs to be paid.
Unless something has changed, these laws cover possession of a still only, and it is illegal to distill any quantity of ethanol without a license.
-
Astonishing and incredible precision. is it painted using oil paint? Or a pen of some sort?
BTW the portraits are also so energetic, almost seem like they are moving out of their 2D form.
It's all done using acrylic paint. He's never been too comfortable with the properties of oil paint.
-
-
Does he use a paint brush? How big are these paintings? They are awesome !
Yeah, he just uses a very fine brush.
They vary in size. The Buddha is pretty large. At a guess I'd say it's about a meter wide. This latest one is roughly 35x45cm.
-
What sort of paint does he use?
Acrylic
And if I understand from the comments above these are all dots/stippling like a scrimshaw?
Well, some of the ones on the first page use more conventional methods, but the first Buddha uses some lines and lots of dots, and the other one in the first post, as well as the second buddha, as well as this most recent painting are done with a combination of lines and dots. The close ups in post #12 show how the larger features are made of lines and dots, much like a printed image.
-
Finally finished
-
7
-
-
In a broad general respect doing what we know is right and what does not harm others or interfere with the lives of others directly in the process are the best traits of an anarchist because it keeps the respectful harmony of existence amongst peers.
As I said, there is a difference between an anarchist and a citizen of an anarchist society. The traits that would make a person a good citizen of an anarchist society is not the same thing as what makes a good anarchist, whatever that is.
Evolved to democracy? If you mean control has evolved to histories most clever form of delusional illusions. An oligarchy elected in a two party dominated circus with a few extra clowns on the side to give the illusion of choice, of which one of the dominating parties always gets elected by telling lies that they don't intend or know they cannot keep . Given that we started in Anarchy I would have to say that it sounds more like a de-evolution. But then a pyramid scheme does look like a rage up their at the top. Must be very tempting.
There are plenty of countries that do not have democracy. If you would prefer to live in one of those, there's not a lot stopping you, apart from the fact that they're mostly terrible places with atrocious human rights records.
There have been many societies around the world with very varied social structures, but the only ones that have come close to anarchy are very small tribal cultures. Even then, there is hierarchical structure to those cultures. In every single example of larger societies, there has either been dictatorship or democracy. Large societies simply cannot exist in a state of anarchy. There are no exceptions to this rule throughout history and across cultures.The only reason why anarchy could not work atm is because the critical mass of people who believe and propagandize the belief that it cannot work is so rife that of course it could never work the way things are currently. It would require a massive paradigm shit and re-education on an epic scale. But it is not impossible.
Actually, we have the threat of incarceration for the reason that many people can't learn to be controlled. In spite of this threat, there are many people who behave in damaging ways to their fellow man. Fortunately, people who transgress in serious ways are usually caught and locked up to protect the rest of society. In a state of anarchy, the only way to deal with such people is to form vigilante justice groups. Of course, such groups intrinsically need some sort of hierarchical structure in order to operate. And there's nothing to stop such groups imposing their will on the rest of the populous...unless of course you have other vigilante groups that fight them. See where this is going? You end up with 'tribal' warfare and ultimately dictatorship. This is the default state of humanityYes everyone in the anarchistic society would have to cooperate for it too work. But If a people can learn to be controlled and docile to a system of control then they can also learn or be taught just as easily (in a healthy environment) to live peacefully with each other without being forced to do so.
However, given that we are so heavily indoctrinated into this control system and so inundated with toxic brain fogging chemicals and additives, I concede that it would take a serious shift of change to ever even see a glimpse of anarchy taking root not even counting the fearful opposition the very idea instils amongst the "educated" populace who are more concerned about making sure their debt repayments are made on time.
It's not simply a matter of educating people. Rape, war, murder, oppression, etc. have always existed. There may be some component of human nature that is relevant to education and upbringing, but there are very fundamental aspects of human nature, such as greed, fear and anger, that are evolved, biological characteristics, which would make anarchy an impossible state for a human society to exist in.
Perhaps we should start a new thread for this?
-
At the risk of further derailing...
I'm no anarchist. I obey common sense rules which make life nicer for people. I don't drive intoxicated. I don't throw rubbish on the street. I treat everyone with the same basic respect that I'd like to be shown.
You give me the impression that you have a mistaken interpretation of what Anarchy or an Anarchist is while at the same time having some of the best attributes of what makes an anarchist. However, I can understand why, with all these fake anarchist groups being set up to run around and behave unruly, disrespectful and unlawful to prove that Anarchy is bad and a delusional ideal. Not to mention all the website repeating the old political adage that anarchy would lead to chaos on the streets which people thought was the actual definition of Anarchy. True Anarchy is none of these things and it behaves in manner of self rule rather than big brother rule.
Anarchy: the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups
I agree with you that anarchy is often misunderstood. The form of anarchy that grew out of a particular sub-culture of the punk movement is probably more closely related to libertinism than to true anarchy. However, the traits that you identify as "some of the best attributes of what makes an anarchist" are actually the examples of what would make good attributes of typical members of a society built on anarchy. There is a subtle difference. It doesn't matter how many 'good anarchists' there are, if we have a society unbounded by governmental control, then almost every member would need to cooperate in this system. We essentially started with anarcho-primitivism, and as societies grew larger, we ended up with dictatorships, which is simply a result of the undeniable fact that there exist in the world people who are selfish and power-hungry. Eventually, we evolved to a point where we have democratically elected governments, and despite the significant shortcomings of this system, it is preferable to the dictatorships that arise out of anarchy. Anarchy is a Utopian dream that would work perfectly in a society comprised of exactly one person, but the larger and larger a society gets, the less and less viable it becomes. Anarchist theory should not be misrepresented, but I don't think it's constructive to idealise or romanticise it either.
-
1
-
-
bullit, I think maybe you are still missing what you have done wrong here. It is not that you raised the issue. Things like this need to be raised if there are any concerns, as it enables other members to take extra precautions if they think it's warranted. All you really needed to do was add qualifiers to the title and your post. Things like "seems to", "possibly", "might", "could have", etc. When you speak in absolutes, you need to provide some supporting evidence. It's that simple.
-
1
-
-
Is there a formula or something to work it out?
First you need to work out how much power you will be drawing. Then you need to look at your inverter's efficiency curve for that power usage. For example, if you are going to be drawing 100W, and your inverter efficiency is 95% at 100W (not unreasonable for a 350W inverter), you will be drawing about 105W from your battery. Then you need to know your battery capacity. Let's say it's 100Ah for simplicity. If you multiply it by the voltage (12V?) you get a value of Watt-hours (1200) then divide it by the power you will be drawing (105) and you'll get about 11.4 hours out of it. There are peculiarities of battery behaviour not taken into account here, so you want to give yourself a wide error margin and give yourself a conservative estimate of maybe 7 or 8 hours.
So
t = C*V*E/P
where t is the time you get, C is the capacity, V is the voltage of the battery, P is the power you are going to be drawing, and E = E(P) is the inverter efficiency when you are drawing P watts, expressed as a fraction (i.e. 95% = 0.95).
-
5
-
-
^^^ is that a real thing?
From Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/b?ref_=tsm_1_tw_s_amzn_mx3eqp&node=8037720011
We're excited to share Prime Air — something the team has been working on in our next generation R&D lab.
The goal of this new delivery system is to get packages into customers' hands in 30 minutes or less using unmanned aerial vehicles.
Putting Prime Air into commercial use will take some number of years as we advance the technology and wait for the necessary FAA rules and regulations.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Is this science fiction or is this real?
A: It looks like science fiction, but it's real. From a technology point of view, we'll be ready to enter commercial operations as soon as the necessary regulations are in place. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is actively working on rules for unmanned aerial vehicles.
Q: One day we'll see a fleet of Prime Air vehicles in the sky?
A: Yes. One day, Prime Air vehicles will be as normal as seeing mail trucks on the road today.
Q: When will I be able to choose Prime Air as a delivery option?
A: We hope the FAA's rules will be in place as early as sometime in 2015. We will be ready at that time.
Q: How are you going to ensure public safety?
A: The FAA is actively working on rules and an approach for unmanned aerial vehicles that will prioritize public safety. Safety will be our top priority, and our vehicles will be built with multiple redundancies and designed to commercial aviation standards.
-
Amazon Prime Air
-
I was strongly against removal of the neg button originally, but I believe it has been a lot more harmonious around here since it went. The neg button caused a lot of fights, and often they were due to misunderstandings. The reason being that if you just click the button as a substitute for providing constructive feedback on why you don't like the post, it doesn't enable the poster to evaluate their post based on your feedback, and instead they just feel attacked. I was guilty of contributing to these problems. There was on time I clicked the neg button and didn't leave a reply. The person whose post it was thought it was someone else who negged them, and thought the reason for negging was different to what the actual reason was. So an argument started between the poster and someone who had nothing to do with the neg.
I still don't like the idea of super sanitising things around here or in any other discussion forum, but the fact is that having no neg button doesn't actually restrict peoples ability to disagree with a post, it just means they have to put in the effort to construct an argument rather than click a button. There is a little loophole, where someone will post "you're wrong" after a 200 word coherent argument, without addressing any of the actual points made in the post. If this post gets 'liked' 15 times, it essentially becomes the neg button. I have seen this taken to another level on youtube videos that don't have ratings enabled, where someone has posted "I am the dislike button", and that post has been upvoted dozens of times. Although I advise against it, this is a fairly successful way to circumvent the lack of a neg button.
As a mod, having no neg button makes my job a lot easier because of the more harmonious atmosphere, so I'm quite happy if it stays gone.
-
5
-
-
Sorry to hear about your past troubles mate. Although I still don't think it's necessarily right for us to remove or censor a particular type of content based on the fact that it might not be wanted by some people - if we view SAB as analogous to society at large (which for the sake of this discussion I think we can), this is like saying that because some people don't like porn or feel negatively affected by it, that it should be banned and abolished and stamped out altogether.
I don't think it's necessarily about what is "right". This is a private space, and it's "right" for people to be allowed to post whatever the owner of the space decides is in keeping with how he thinks the forum should present itself. So, while I do agree that any internet forum is a microcosm of society at large, the same ethical issues about free speech do not come into play. We do, as a community get to decide whether this is okay with us by choosing to use the service, or not. I cannot say that I am happy about any restrictions on how people express themselves, short of directing abuse at other members, and this includes posting pornographic pictures as well as holocaust denialism and any other crazy shit that has been posted here over the years. But I can also say that I think this place is one of the most accommodating places when it comes to allowing differing viewpoints, and I think it's unlikely that anyone would leave if porn got banned from here.
I'm neither here nor there in regards to caring whether I can see this kind of stuff at SAB or not (like people say, it's everywhere anyway), but I think the principle behind the argument is worth looking at.
I'm totally with you there. I couldn't care less if more circle-jerk threads pop up or not, but given a chance, I would vote against preventing people from starting them.
threads of naked bodies would bring too many bad memories and feelings back for me,
Please remove such threads.
I am genuinely sorry that you have had a rough time, but if images of naked bodies are traumatising for you, I can't help but feel that maybe you need help beyond being shielded from them. If every single person decided they wanted content removed because it bothered them, there would be no threads left on these boards.
-
2
-
-
I can see the novelty value in cactus porn, but do we really need threads and threads of naked ladies?
I've heard you say if enough threads pop up about a particular topic to indicate that there is significant interest in that topic, then you might start a new subforum for it
We have plenty of threads here about topics that aren't particularly related to ethnobotany, and many of them are more common than the porn threads.
I would especially like to hear from the women members [privately if you prefer]. Do these threads put you off?
The implication being that women are highly sensitive and must be protected from being offended? Every member of these forums is an adult (as far as I know), and should be capable of making the decision not to click on a thread tagged "NSFW" if they think they will find the content distasteful.
-
I would go a very different route and make child rearing a privilege not a right and that all prospective parents should be required to complete an education and test before becoming eligible for government assistance of any type. It would solve a shitload of problems. The current system encourages poor breeding practices that will dilute the genepool and are anti-evolution.
Is that a quote from "Mein Kampf"?
But in all seriousness, policies like those you propose cannot possibly lead to good. We all have ideas about what kind of people we should have in our society, and how do you determine who gets to decide what kind of people can procreate? Yes, we do it to some extent when we send people to prison for life, but the prime goal of that is to protect society from the individual, not to prevent their genes from propagating to the next generation.
The current system encourages poor breeding practices that will dilute the genepool and are anti-evolution.
I'm not sure what you mean by "dilute the genepool" or "anti-evolution". Nothing is really anti-evolution. Evolution is what occurs when there is diversity in a population and external pressures are imposed on that population. Under certain conditions there will be a certain set of pressures, and under another there will be another set of pressures. It all leads to changing genetic characteristics within populations.
-
1
-
spiralling salvia growth
in Ethnobotany
Posted
Welcome to the forums phytolator
Very weird and cool. Do you have any ideas as to what might have caused it? Because this plant is propagated vegetatively, it seems unlikely that it would be a genetic thing, so I'm guessing it must be something caused by the growing conditions.