Profile overview for rwbj.
Submission statistics

This user has mostly submitted to the following subverses (showing top 5):

139 submissions to technology

44 submissions to science

30 submissions to PaleBlueDot

28 submissions to news

20 submissions to whatever

This user has so far shared a total of 321 links, started a total of 81 discussions and submitted a total of 5047 comments.

Voting habits

Submissions: This user has upvoted 4886 and downvoted 0 submissions.

Comments: This user has upvoted 5975 and downvoted 0 comments.

Submission ratings

5 highest rated submissions:

5 lowest rated submissions:

Imagine - The Beatles, submitted: 8/11/2016 4:39:49 PM, -1 points (+2|-3)

Lady Gaga: Poker Face - Metal Cover, submitted: 1/27/2016 10:20:14 AM, 0 points (+2|-2)

From America to Viagra: finding what you're not looking for - great discoveries helped along by chance, submitted: 9/30/2016 8:49:10 AM, 0 points (+1|-1)

Piers Baron - more tracks (mostly trance/electronic) from the musician behind the recent Dubai jetpack video, submitted: 5/14/2015 7:24:19 AM, 1 points (+1|-0)

TheGuardian editor in chief leaves to work at BuzzFeed, submitted: 6/16/2015 9:52:06 PM, 1 points (+1|-0)

Comment ratings

3 highest rated comments:

Nasa announces discovery of 6 billion year old planet with habitable zone of star 1400 ly away submitted by Redeyedjedi to news

rwbj 1 points 551 points (+552|-1) ago

For those that may not realize, these distances are easily traversable within the life of a single human - and much much further in fact. We can never perceive anything as going faster than the speed of light, but from your own perspective (or for instance, from those aboard the ship) you can continue to accelerate with no 'speed limit'. The universe 'cheats' to keep things within the speed of light from your perspective such as making time for you start to slow down (1 second for you might be 10 seconds or even 10 years for a relatively at rest observer) and distances themselves will begin to physically contract but the net result is that you get to travel distances far beyond what you could in the lifetime of a single human.

Here some examples of the math are worked out. In particular if we can build a craft capable of accelerating at 1g per second then:

  • In 3.6 years you can travel 4.3 light years.

  • In 6.6 years you can travel 27 light years.

  • In 20 years you can travel 30,000 light years.

  • In 28 years you can travel 2,000,000 light years.

And according to my calculations, 1400 light years at 1g acceleration would take about 14 years. As an interesting aside 7 of those years are spent decelerating. You accelerate as fast as you can for 7 years and then decelerate for 7 years to reach the object at rest.

This is not a theory (in the colloquial sense). The math is used for instance to synchronize GPS satellites with earth. They rely on extremely high precision atomic clocks yet travel fast enough that relativistic effects make their clocks tick, from our perspective, faster than clocks on earth do. If these relativistic effects were not accounted for GPS errors would accumulate to the tune of 10 kilometers a day!

Essentially our universe allows you to press a 'fast forward' button if you yourself meet certain conditions such as traveling sufficiently rapidly or being within the vicinity of a body with a sufficiently large gravitational pull. Some people may not realize the science in the movie Interstellar, for instance, was based on our actual universe. Of course by the time you reach your destination everybody and everything you knew is long since dead. Although in some mind bending 'paradoxes' if humanity later develops an even faster ship you might make it there in 14 years only to find that people born hundreds of years after you left are already there... Gotta love our universe.

How is TPP bad exactly? submitted by GoFukaGoat to AskVoat

rwbj 1 points 228 points (+229|-1) ago

So far only a handful of chapters have been leaked. You can read them for yourself here.

Most of the mainstream media is completely useless here. The reason is that the TPP is an enormous corporate handout, and the mainstream media tends to be owned by corporations. Disney owns ABC, Comcast owns NBC, Time Warner owns CNN, etc.. These companies stand to gain enormously from the TPP. If you take a random page of the bill you'll likely find something to be upset about. One of the most dangerous things is allowing private companies to sue governments for hypothetical loss profits for any action that can be argued to have somehow negatively impacted the corporation. And who pays that? The taxpayer.

So let's take an example. A commonly cited example is Phillip Morris and Uruguay. Phillip Morris is a cigarette manufacturer. Switzerland, where Phillip Morris is headquartered, and Uraguay have a treaty in effect similar to the TPP. Uraguay passed a series of smoking regulations similar to much of the developed world. No smoking in enclosed indoor areas, requiring packaging to prominently disclose health risks, restrictions on advertising, and so on. Thanks to this treaty Philip Morris is now able to sue Uruguay and is doing exactly that.

This has an enormous chilling effect on any sort of proactive regulation. Suddenly if a government wants to clean up their environment, economy, health, or so on they open the door to taxpayers having to give corporations huge handouts in tax money. In a nutshell while many people are criticizing governments for acting like puppets to corporations, this essentially solidifies that relationship into law.

And as mentioned this is just from one section of one chapter in the treaty. One can only imagine what's in the other 20+ chapters. Unfortunately the only people that truly know that are the corporations and Obama. Even congressmen aren't being given copies. Anybody that actually reads it or learns about it does tend to freak out but that is being kept to a tiny minuscule of all people by the corporate owned media spreading misinformation and politicians trying as hard as they can to keep the thing secret and passing it as quickly as possible with as little discussion as possible. We wouldn't know anything about it at all if not for leaks shared with Wikileaks.

Official White House Response To: Pardon Edward Snowden submitted by Charlemagne_III to politics

rwbj 1 points 91 points (+92|-1) ago

She's also lying through her teeth about getting a fair trial. US courts have gone over the top in interpreting the espionage act we have. In particular he would not be allowed to:

  • Express his intent
  • Express the value of leaks to the public domain
  • Express the lack of harm caused by the leaks

A "fair trial" translates to come to the US, admit you did it without any context, and then serve the rest of your life in solitary confinement. They also fail to mention that the reason he's stranded in Russia is not to "seek cover under an authoritarian regime" but because the US suspended his passport when he was at the Russian airport in what was presumably a miscalculation in believing that Russia would hand him over. Speaking of "authoritarian regime", I can't help but find the irony in claiming such when a man who had access to the highest levels of American intelligence is allowed to walk and speak freely in said country as opposed to being locking up and "interrogated" to no end as would certainly happen to him if he were to return to the land of the free.

3 lowest rated comments:

The revolving door between Google and the White House continues to spin submitted by FreeSpeachRocks to technology

rwbj 6 points -4 points (+2|-6) ago

Archive this shit up. And shit it is. Revolving door refers to the constant interweaving between public and private frequently with implication of attempts to use said public positions to unfairly benefit their soon to be private positions. Google lobbies hard, but there is little to no revolving door. Compare this to the revolving door at Monsanto.

And look at a bio of one of those individuals mentioned. Mr. Michael Taylor is corporate cronyism incarnate. Obama culminated this individual's lengthy history of going back and forth between regulatory roles and working for the company that's supposedly being regulated by creating for him his own brand new shiny level executive position at the FDA entitled the "deputy administrator of foods." Who is Michael Taylor? He's a Monsanto lobbyist and lawyer. One of his most famous successful cases as a Monsanto lawyer came in arguing that the US ought allow at least a minimal amount of carcinogens in our food. There was a time, long ago, that the US stood firm that 0 carcinogens were knowing allowed in our food. That man is now one of the people in charge of the FDA.

Are there any particular facts/stats/numbers in the first Inconvenient Truth Al Gore movie that have come true or not true in either direction, as much more than predicted or much less or no change? submitted by anzel2002 to AskVoat

rwbj 4 points -4 points (+0|-4) ago

Looking through a variety of sources it seems like the gist is that the movie was fundamentally accurate. The main thing it seems he got wrong was on the increasing frequency of violent storms. Apparently the movie included footage of Katrina which was rather less than supported by science. The movie mentioned that global warming would likely result in increases in both deadly heat waves and cold snaps. The heat waves have absolutely substantially increased, but cold snaps are actually declining. That could actually result in a net reduction in weather related deaths - cold tends to be a much more effective a killer than hot for now.

Stuff he got completely right was sea levels continuing to rise and rise even faster, arctic ice disappearing, increasing intensity of droughts (which may be contributing to political instability including even in places such as Syria), and just the general theme and consequences of global warming.

Judge Rules Wisconsin Right-to-Work Law Unconstitutional submitted by TeardropsFromHell to Libertarian

rwbj 6 points -4 points (+2|-6) ago

Unions in the US are obligated to defend all employees regardless of whether or not they're union members. So for instance if you feel you were wrongfully terminated at a job you can take your appeal to any union that exists for said job and they would be obligated to defend you even if you were not a member.

Right to work took this rather silly law one step further by adding that not only do unions have to defend non members, but non members no longer have to even pay any compensation. So effectively you can either pay union fees and get all the union protections and benefits or you can not pay union fees and get all the union protections and benefits. It was an overt and scummy union busting attempt.

For instance the logical solution is so obvious a 1st grader could probably see it. You get union protections and benefits if you're a fee paying member. Otherwise you can choose to not pay union fees, but also do not receive any of the protections and benefits of the union. The reason companies didn't want this is because it would encourage people to unionize. The whole purpose of these incredibly illogical laws, culminating in the absurdly named "right to work" laws, was union busting.