Author Topic: Episode #594  (Read 2194 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Friendly Angel

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2866
  • Post count reset to zero in both forum apocalypses
Re: Episode #594
« Reply #30 on: December 01, 2016, 05:38:29 PM »
I'm pretty sure that it was the Ojibwe, not the Algonquin, who told the friends of the Lakota were called the Sioux. The Lakota people or from the plains, the Algonquin sore from Delaware.

Algonquin is a group of languages (and a descriptor of tribes that speak an Alqonquin language)--one that includes the Delaware (Lenape) as well as Ojibewe.

The Sioux have roots further east and inhabited the Lower Mississippi valley until pushed west into the great plains in the 1600s.

The Algonquin thing didn't sit right with me either.  Wikipedia says both, but Steve's story was a mix of the two - Algonquin root with Ojibwe meaning.

Quote
The name "Sioux" was adopted in English by the 1760s from French. It is abbreviated from Nadouessioux, first attested by Jean Nicolet in 1640. The name is sometimes said to be derived from an Ojibwe exonym for the Sioux meaning "little snakes" (compare nadowe "big snakes", used for the Iroquois). The spelling in -x is due to the French plural marker. The Proto-Algonquian form *na·towe·wa, meaning "Northern Iroquoian", has reflexes in several daughter languages that refer to a small rattlesnake (massasauga, Sistrurus).

An alternative explanation is derivation from an (Algonquian) exonym na·towe·ssiw (plural na·towe·ssiwak), from a verb *-a·towe· meaning "to speak a foreign language".

The current Ojibwe term for the Sioux and related groups is Bwaanag (singular Bwaan), meaning "roasters". Presumably, this refers to the style of cooking the Sioux used in the past.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2016, 05:40:31 PM by Friendly Angel »
Amend and resubmit.

Offline RMoore

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Episode #594
« Reply #31 on: December 01, 2016, 10:41:02 PM »
Rather surprised that none of the rogues knew the origin of the word "chocolate" (which the Aztecs called xocolatl). A very Native (North) American word.

Offline Fast Eddie B

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2427
Re: Episode #594
« Reply #32 on: December 02, 2016, 03:26:47 PM »
I bet against the EM drive, because that way I win either way. If it's a bust, I won the bet. If it's real, I won new physics!

On that topic, at least a couple of times the rogues theorized about what the emerging force - or whatever - would "push against".

I think that reflect a common misunderstanding. A rocket, or anything emitting particles or energy in one direction to move in another, needs nothing to "push against". It would work even in a vacuum.

Or so I understand from high school physics a very long time ago.
"And what it all boils down to is that no one's really got it figured out just yet" - Alanis Morisette
• • •
"I doubt that!" - James Randi

Online Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10549
Re: Episode #594
« Reply #33 on: December 02, 2016, 04:01:11 PM »
Rather surprised that none of the rogues knew the origin of the word "chocolate" (which the Aztecs called xocolatl). A very Native (North) American word.
That surprised me too, it actually looks quite like an anglicized Nahautl word.  Even if I didn't know chocolate came from the Americas, I'd still think it was probably a word from Mexico. 
Loved the Potter skit!!

Regarding anti gmo arguments, I had a bizarre one a while back where a friend insisted we should not be trying to support larger numbers of humans at the expense of...gmoing.
Her logic was that we have to let people die off eventually so we may as well let famine do a cull early.
You cant really argue with that once someone makes it a value judgement in that way. Its a pretty ridiculous corner for someone to be backed into though.
I've run across that line of reasoning before.  Its pretty much where I give up.  I don't know where to go from "I'd rather let folks starve than do ''x'!"
« Last Edit: December 02, 2016, 04:05:22 PM by Ah.hell »

Online Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10549
Re: Episode #594
« Reply #34 on: December 02, 2016, 04:09:14 PM »
I haven't listened to the new episode yet.  Is there still no mention of the elephant in the room?  The biggest skeptical story of our lifetime?  The post reality election of Donald Trump?

It's the single biggest example of a lack of critical thinking having a world wide effect and they won't talk about it.  There is NO bigger story regarding evidence based thinking.  When will the rogues talk about it?

I think they would rather steer away from politics.
Its better to wait anyway.  Let us all digest the reality before we try to explain it.  A lot of the explanation that were aired in the first week or so don't stand up to much scrutiny.  Aside from that, its easier to pick apart particular policy rather than the bigger question of "how did this happen"  which, I think they have a pretty good argument for why that's outside they scope of their show.   I don't see anyone calling for them to address the brexit or the general rise in populism across the Developed world.

Online daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4360
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Episode #594
« Reply #35 on: December 02, 2016, 05:43:59 PM »
I bet against the EM drive, because that way I win either way. If it's a bust, I won the bet. If it's real, I won new physics!

On that topic, at least a couple of times the rogues theorized about what the emerging force - or whatever - would "push against".

I think that reflect a common misunderstanding. A rocket, or anything emitting particles or energy in one direction to move in another, needs nothing to "push against". It would work even in a vacuum.

Or so I understand from high school physics a very long time ago.

In a reaction engine (like a rocket engine) the gas in the engine pushes against the engine, and then, since it is exhausted out the back, it never pushes the other way. Effectively, the engine pushes against the gas before it is expelled. Or to be more precise, the gas and the engine push against each other.

In a closed cavity, like your microwave oven, there is no thrust because the microwave photons bounce around, pushing equally on all sides of the cavity.

The reactionless engine cannot work because whatever is inside it will push equally in all directions. Claims that it pushes against quantum virtual particles are just gobbledegook, capitalizing on the fact that "quantum virtual particles" sounds really cool.

Anyway, the rogues were not wrong to ask what the drive is supposed to push against because you have to push against something, even if it's only your own exhaust gasses. Which is why any reaction engine needs a propellant, and why a reactionless drive is analogous to a perpetual motion machine.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

 

personate-rain