Community > Posts By > metalwing

 
metalwing's photo
Tue 04/12/16 07:27 AM
Happy Birthday Storm! May there be many, many more to come!

metalwing's photo
Mon 04/11/16 04:05 PM

metalwing's photo
Fri 04/08/16 03:29 PM
Judge Joe says:

Yep! You are a wimp!:smile:

metalwing's photo
Fri 04/08/16 03:26 PM
What a bunch of horse crap!

metalwing's photo
Fri 04/08/16 02:55 PM
Edited by metalwing on Fri 04/08/16 02:57 PM
The cow jumped over the moon. The landing was hard.



metalwing's photo
Fri 04/08/16 02:53 PM
Each of us is the sum of all of our parts.

metalwing's photo
Fri 04/08/16 02:47 PM
Actually we don't know that the fundamental laws are the same everywhere. They just appear the same from what we can see. There is also plenty that we can't see (dark energy, dark matter, and black holes) where the best we can do is make an educated guess. There is also space beyond what we can see where maybe the rules change again.

The best example is the expansion of the universe. From what we can see we can measure the speed and distance of the expansion but there is very little understanding of the "why and how". Using dark energy as the fuel for expansion may be correct or it may just be feeling in the dark.

metalwing's photo
Tue 04/05/16 04:26 PM
Edited by metalwing on Tue 04/05/16 04:36 PM


One way time travel is easy and has happened many times as described in the original article. Einstein's equations work and are the basis of modern physics. All you need is speed.

Backwards time travel is another story. It may be possible but no one knows how to do it yet.

The physics of black holes open additional possibilities of freezing time.

But time is just math? Afraid not. It is possible now to make one member of a set of twins an old man while the other is still young using nothing but a fast moving spacecraft. That is time travel.


no it's not... "proof" is doing it, not speculating on it...


Every astronaut has done it. Good grief, don't you know ANYTHING about physics?

Here's a little quote from space.com ... a short explanation of what happens as we move faster and slow time.

"Einstein's theory of special relativity says that time slows down or speeds up depending on how fast you move relative to something else. Approaching the speed of light, a person inside a spaceship would age much slower than his twin at home. Also, under Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity can bend time.

Picture a four-dimensional fabric called space-time. When anything that has mass sits on that piece of fabric, it causes a dimple or a bending of space-time. The bending of space-time causes objects to move on a curved path and that curvature of space is what we know as gravity.

Both the general and special relativity theories have been proven with GPS satellite technology that has very accurate timepieces on board. The effects of gravity, as well as the satellites' increased speed above the Earth relative to observers on the ground, make the unadjusted clocks gain 38 microseconds a day. (Engineers make calibrations to account for the difference.)

In a sense, this effect, called time dilation, means astronauts are time travelers, as they return to Earth very, very slightly younger than their identical twins that remain on the planet.
- See more at: http://www.space.com/21675-time-travel.html#sthash.KluUKSxk.dpuf"

metalwing's photo
Tue 04/05/16 06:35 AM
One way time travel is easy and has happened many times as described in the original article. Einstein's equations work and are the basis of modern physics. All you need is speed.

Backwards time travel is another story. It may be possible but no one knows how to do it yet.

The physics of black holes open additional possibilities of freezing time.

But time is just math? Afraid not. It is possible now to make one member of a set of twins an old man while the other is still young using nothing but a fast moving spacecraft. That is time travel.

metalwing's photo
Sat 04/02/16 04:52 PM




The Geneva Convention was used to put in place "rules for warfare" that were to be shared by civilized nations in actual warfare. The rules were never meant to apply to criminals or terrorists. Even then, there were exceptions specifically given for treatment of those playing "outside the rules". If, for example, you were caught in the act of spying or warfare without a uniform, you could just be shot ... end of story.

Terrorists play by a different set of rules called "asymmetric warfare". They play to the weakness of the rules of whoever they attach. Civilians are fair game as are women and children. Poison of any kind, weapons of any kind, and religious targets are fair game.

To expect one to use the rules of the Geneva Convention to apply to one side but not to the other is to defend oneself with one hand tied behind your back.

Terrorists do not exist in a vacuum. They are fed, housed, financed, and equipped by a different type of terrorist who doesn't actually pull the trigger. All of which need to be identified and dealt with harshly.

The nation of Iran, for example, should not be allowed to exist in it's present form.


First of all, please explain this total non sequitur:

"The nation of Iran, for example, should not be allowed to exist in it's present form."

Nothing that you said before that, has anything at all to do with Iran. So what in the world are you talking about them suddenly for?

As for the rest of it...

The Geneva and other related accords do NOT say "on the other hand, if the other guy misbehaves first, then all bets are off, and you can do whatever you like."

So your argument that because terrorists (which are NOT defined by anyone save those being attacked) are not directly specified as combatants or innocents under the accords, that we can pretend WE aren't obligated to behave according to the laws, is completely false.

I know it feels good to pretend you can be immoral as long as you are the SECOND person to do it, but really, that's something most people should have learned is BS, by the time they became adults.

After all, it's against the law to steal. If someone steals from you, however, you are NOT allowed to therefore go to their place and steal from THEM. If someone kills your friend, it is NOT legal for you to go to their home and kill them in cold blood. If someone abuses your child, it is NOT okay in any sense at all, for you to abuse theirs.


You should look up the definition of "non sequitur".

The post is about appropriate response to terrorism. It is also about asymmetric warfare. Iran is the largest, most well known, and overall worst sponsor of terrorism in the world. They, by definition, are engaging in asymmetric warfare (I guess you need to look that up too!) by supplying the food, shelter, money, training, and weapons to the terrorists (do you see the connection now?). Iran and the other sponsors of terrorism are engaging in war with the Western World without following the rules of the Geneva Convention by seeking out weakness and exploiting them in the most murderous ways possible. They hide in schools and Mosques, store weapons in hospitals, attack by blowing up civilians. The 'normal' rules of war should not apply to those who do not abide by them.

Just because you don't understand a post doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

Iran is a monster and should be treated as one. The terrorist groups who are rampaging across the Middle East and parts of Africa should be exterminated as vermin. Don't see a connection? Many do.


You made no mention of Iran in your opening remarks about terrorism.

You laid zero groundwork, such as accusing Iran of either sponsoring terror, or of supporting asymmetric warfare methods. That is why your post included a no sequitur.

Thank you for correcting your error, after the fact, as I requested.

By the way, if YOU actually look up the meaning of non sequitur, you will learn that it does NOT mean "therefore the statement is false," it simply means that the writer failed, within their narrative, to prepare in any way for the statements made.

So your sarcasm is both inaccurate and misguided.

Terrorists play by a different set of rules called "asymmetric warfare". They play to the weakness of the rules of whoever they attach. Civilians are fair game as are women and children. Poison of any kind, weapons of any kind, and religious targets are fair game.

To expect one to use the rules of the Geneva Convention to apply to one side but not to the other is to defend oneself with one hand tied behind your back.

Terrorists do not exist in a vacuum. They are fed, housed, financed, and equipped by a different type of terrorist who doesn't actually pull the trigger. All of which need to be identified and dealt with harshly.


Again. This does NOT answer what I pointed out. The conventions DO NOT support your contention that torture and other terrorist acts, nor any of the other acts which they declare are not to be done, are okay in response to someone else doing them.

If you want to proclaim that you support entirely relative morality, and no rule of law, that's fine. Just don't pretend you are doing something else while you do so.


You not seeing the connections in my post does not mean they aren't there. Your lack of knowledge of Iran's finger in terrorism doesn't mean it isn't there ... it's knowledge widely known (which eliminates the non-sequitur). It's so easy to demand proof to support a position than any educated person should be well versed. You made no points, just mistakes. My post is accurate in fact and my opinions are shared by many.

And BTW, you putting words into my post that don't exist are the purest form of intellectual dishonesty. The reality is that the Geneva Convention exceptions easily put a death sentence on most terrorism.

That is the rule of law.

metalwing's photo
Sat 04/02/16 04:40 PM



Yep, I sure did

Hi (((Annie)))

Have you ever been addicted to overachieving?


I have. Sometimes being an overachiever is a curse.

Have you ever been accused of being too cool for school?


Nope.

Have you ever been to Cool School?

Tell the truth!!!



Well, my school was pretty cool. I even rode a horse to high school sometimes! Thats pretty cool.

Did you?

metalwing's photo
Sat 04/02/16 04:10 PM

Yep, I sure did

Hi (((Annie)))

Have you ever been addicted to overachieving?


I have. Sometimes being an overachiever is a curse.

Have you ever been accused of being too cool for school?

metalwing's photo
Sat 04/02/16 03:40 PM

metalwing's photo
Sat 04/02/16 03:18 PM


The Geneva Convention was used to put in place "rules for warfare" that were to be shared by civilized nations in actual warfare. The rules were never meant to apply to criminals or terrorists. Even then, there were exceptions specifically given for treatment of those playing "outside the rules". If, for example, you were caught in the act of spying or warfare without a uniform, you could just be shot ... end of story.

Terrorists play by a different set of rules called "asymmetric warfare". They play to the weakness of the rules of whoever they attach. Civilians are fair game as are women and children. Poison of any kind, weapons of any kind, and religious targets are fair game.

To expect one to use the rules of the Geneva Convention to apply to one side but not to the other is to defend oneself with one hand tied behind your back.

Terrorists do not exist in a vacuum. They are fed, housed, financed, and equipped by a different type of terrorist who doesn't actually pull the trigger. All of which need to be identified and dealt with harshly.

The nation of Iran, for example, should not be allowed to exist in it's present form.


First of all, please explain this total non sequitur:

"The nation of Iran, for example, should not be allowed to exist in it's present form."

Nothing that you said before that, has anything at all to do with Iran. So what in the world are you talking about them suddenly for?

As for the rest of it...

The Geneva and other related accords do NOT say "on the other hand, if the other guy misbehaves first, then all bets are off, and you can do whatever you like."

So your argument that because terrorists (which are NOT defined by anyone save those being attacked) are not directly specified as combatants or innocents under the accords, that we can pretend WE aren't obligated to behave according to the laws, is completely false.

I know it feels good to pretend you can be immoral as long as you are the SECOND person to do it, but really, that's something most people should have learned is BS, by the time they became adults.

After all, it's against the law to steal. If someone steals from you, however, you are NOT allowed to therefore go to their place and steal from THEM. If someone kills your friend, it is NOT legal for you to go to their home and kill them in cold blood. If someone abuses your child, it is NOT okay in any sense at all, for you to abuse theirs.


You should look up the definition of "non sequitur".

The post is about appropriate response to terrorism. It is also about asymmetric warfare. Iran is the largest, most well known, and overall worst sponsor of terrorism in the world. They, by definition, are engaging in asymmetric warfare (I guess you need to look that up too!) by supplying the food, shelter, money, training, and weapons to the terrorists (do you see the connection now?). Iran and the other sponsors of terrorism are engaging in war with the Western World without following the rules of the Geneva Convention by seeking out weakness and exploiting them in the most murderous ways possible. They hide in schools and Mosques, store weapons in hospitals, attack by blowing up civilians. The 'normal' rules of war should not apply to those who do not abide by them.

Just because you don't understand a post doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

Iran is a monster and should be treated as one. The terrorist groups who are rampaging across the Middle East and parts of Africa should be exterminated as vermin. Don't see a connection? Many do.

metalwing's photo
Sat 04/02/16 10:01 AM
The Geneva Convention was used to put in place "rules for warfare" that were to be shared by civilized nations in actual warfare. The rules were never meant to apply to criminals or terrorists. Even then, there were exceptions specifically given for treatment of those playing "outside the rules". If, for example, you were caught in the act of spying or warfare without a uniform, you could just be shot ... end of story.

Terrorists play by a different set of rules called "asymmetric warfare". They play to the weakness of the rules of whoever they attach. Civilians are fair game as are women and children. Poison of any kind, weapons of any kind, and religious targets are fair game.

To expect one to use the rules of the Geneva Convention to apply to one side but not to the other is to defend oneself with one hand tied behind your back.

Terrorists do not exist in a vacuum. They are fed, housed, financed, and equipped by a different type of terrorist who doesn't actually pull the trigger. All of which need to be identified and dealt with harshly.

The nation of Iran, for example, should not be allowed to exist in it's present form.

metalwing's photo
Fri 04/01/16 07:43 PM

I appreciate the kind friendly energy that lu_rosemary always freely shares. :smile:


And another great pic to boot!

metalwing's photo
Fri 04/01/16 07:24 PM

And HOW is this pod, BEAM (" part bouncy castle" :laughing: ) going to be inflatable in space?

And safe enough to be partially inhabitable for 2yrs.?

It just seems unfathomable.


The air pressure in the ISS will inflate the module. Since there is no pressure outside, it wouldn't take much. The ISS maintains 14.7 psi, the same as ground level. That is plenty.

Spacecraft used to use much lower air pressure (about 5 psi) with mostly pure oxygen but learned that is was too dangerous in case of fire.

metalwing's photo
Fri 04/01/16 07:14 PM
Tis the future.

metalwing's photo
Wed 03/30/16 04:04 PM
That's not the way the system works.:smile:

metalwing's photo
Wed 03/30/16 12:00 PM
Feed her well. Get her boozed up. Take care of getting her home safe. Then see what happens.

1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 24 25