bigbubba

Similarly, the Japanese Type 91 aerial torpedo was sometimes equipped with wooden aerodynamic stabilizers (which broke off when they hit the water.)

Tornadoes have been known to embed bits of straw or dried grass into trees. And tornado speeds are a gentle walk in the park compared to orbital speeds.

Because it isn't. It's distinct from chattel slavery, which is not the only form of slavery. Bonded labor is the most common form of slavery today, and is also not chattel slavery.

Forced labor is slavery, full stop. This was recognized by the men who wrote the 13th amendment. It is not "definitely different". And no, paying a slave does not make it 'not slavery.' Slaves have been paid paltry sums some of the time throughout history. It's still slavery.

Surely he was taking the piss. Not even a journalist could be that stupid.

Well, friction brakes are cooled by the airflow in the wheel wells. Perhaps you could aircool the resistors in the same place. The friction brakes would probably still be there though; would there be space for both?

If a Tesla would use rheostatic braking, I think it would require more cooling capacity than the cars are currently designed for. If the resistor couldn't be kept cool, then the car would have to revert back to friction brakes anyway. More cooling probably means bigger air intakes, which I think would run contrary to their aesthetic goals.

Aka rheostatic braking. Trains do this, but they have pretty large radiators for it.

I don't give a damn about his reputation. The point of the legal system is to protect the innocent, not ruin the reputations of the guilty. He continues to use the legal system to victimize people, and this should not be allowed. Strip him of his right to sue anybody over copyright. Leave intact his right to sue the government to restore his other rights. To this man, courts are a weapon used to extort people. Allowing a criminal like him to keep his weapon is moronic.

Because he's in prison for lying to the court in a copyright lawsuit. He should no longer have the right to sue anybody for copyright infringement.

pmiller2's intent was clear, he was obviously commenting on limitations of camera technology, not suggesting that black people intent nor choose(?!?) to be hard to photograph. dstick's response is maliciously uncharitable at best.

His rights regarding copyright should be taken from him. This is no different from a convicted murderer no longer having the right to own a gun. Allowing this man to continue to sue people is a travesty of justice.

The question is inane, anybody who doesn't earnestly value the life of a human more than the life of a dog is morally bankrupt. And frankly, I think most who claim otherwise earnestly do not feel that way when put on the spot. Given the choice of dying young or receiving a porcine heart valve transplant, I am quite sure what damn near everybody except a handful of nutjobs would chose.

You're not alone. To be frank, I think much of the apparent love showered on pets by some people is performative. In public, people compete to show off how great they are at pampering their 'furbaby.' Pampering pets has become a fashion.

The answer is yes.

Save the kitten then bask in the notoriety. When asked why you did it, claim the painting was disappointingly small and very over rated.

Prison should prevent a criminal from continuing to victimize the general public. When that fails, restrictions on the prisoner should be increased until it does.

In this man's case, he should probably be forbidden from ever owning the copyright to anything again. Anything he utters with his own mouth should go straight into the public domain. That would put an end to this horse shit from him.

Children are ethically immature? Who could have guessed?!?

I think he's right, games overdo it. I look at high resolution photographs of battlefields today and everything is covered in dust. Floors? Dust. Walls? Dust. Soldiers? Dust. Corpses? Dust. What happens when a grenade is set off in an empty room, nothing? Nah, it shakes plaster off the walls and covers everything with more dust. And if it's not dust, it's mud or some other sort if grime. Meanwhile what does the game Battlefield show? A bunch of immaculately clean surfaces with crystal clear reflections. Where is the dust? Where is the grime? It's missing, because those do not showcase RTX...

I think the closest land analogue to orcas is probably wolves, since they also live in packs, which I assume means older/weaker wolves/orcas use their social connections to other pack members to get food. This, I would expect, makes these two sorts of predators less likely to attack humans out of individual desperation. However, although it's rare, groups of wolves attacking humans as prey is not unheard of. Children are particularly at risk from what I understand, since the wolves know they're weaker. (To an orca, I think any human in the water would be weak.)

Aren't pretty much all warm blooded large land predators known to eat humans on occasion? Bears, tigers, wolves, etc. Perhaps that happens because the opportunity arises more often.

From what I understand, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it federally illegal in all of America to do nearly anything with even roadkilled birds.

It's not whataboutism since they're not defending facebook.

Something to consider; why don't orcas ever bite humans in the wild? The standard answer is we're too bony and taste bad. Maybe that's the reason, but it doesn't sit right with me. Sure we might be bony compared to seals, but how do orcas know we taste bad if they won't even take a nibble? Orcas seem to have zero curiosity for how we taste. Contrast this with sharks, which are known for taking a taste once in a while. Are sharks, glorified fish, really more curious than these hyper intelligent mammals? Maybe, but that seems suspect to me.

Here is what I believe; whales are capable of passing knowledge down through their generations, just like us. The power of their language is not yet fully understood, but I think it reasonable to assume they are able to express at least simple ideas like "Can I eat this?", "Do not eat that!" and "Those are dangerous to us." A language which can convey those ideas may be sufficient for whales to have memory of industrial scale whaling. I believe Orcas likely remember that humans are very good at killing whales, and subsequently know not to fuck with us. (They may also be able to reason this out by observing our capabilities today, even if they have forgotten what we once did.)

Per that chart, Japan predominantly hunts minke whales, and last took a single sperm whale in 2013. Indonesia kills approximately 20 sperm whales every year.

Two points: 1) Japan does not presently hunt blue whales and hasn't for some years. 2) For the past few years Norwegians have killed more whales than the Japanese, yet the Japanese receive the lion's share of criticism for it.

https://iwc.int/total-catches

One RTG is nothing, a handful of whole nuclear reactors have been dumped into the ocean before (a few of the accidentally, and a few of the deliberately.)

Sure. From Wikipedia:

A derivation of Dr Woo's stochastic terrorism model was proffered by an anonymous blogger posting on Daily Kos in 2011 to describe public speech that can be expected to incite terrorism without a direct organizational link between the inciter and the perpetrator.[31][32] The term "stochastic" is used in this instance to describe the random, probabilistic nature of its effect: whether or not an attack actually takes place. And, although the actual perpetrator of a planned attack and its timing is not under the control of the stochastic terrorist, their actions nevertheless serve to increase the probability that a terrorist attack will occur.[33] The stochastic terrorist in this context does not direct the actions of any particular individual or members of a group. Rather, the stochastic terrorist gives voice to a specific ideology via mass media with the aim of optimizing its dissemination.[33]

So if 'stochastic terrorism' is speech that will probabilistically inspire acts of violence when it reaches a large number of people, why can't this be generalized to crimes other than terrorism? If the (now banned) subreddit r/shoplifting publishes messages glorifying shoplifting to a large number of people, it will likely inspire some portion of those exposed to commit these crimes themselves. Does that make the subreddit a form of 'stochastic theft'?

Perhaps the RV was stolen from an American.

I'm pretty sure I know what it means. If you want a more substantial reply, give me one first.