Ranxerox

The Expanse is a series by James S A Corey (a pen name for the writing duo Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck). The events in season one are lifted pretty much straight from the first book in the series, Leviathan Wakes. Though the character Chrisjen Avasarala doesn't appear in the books until the second in the series,Caliban's War.

Thanks for the clarification on what I needed to change in order to be more readily understood.

That's true. In the book, weeks (months?) passed between the start of the book and where the characters are after 5 episodes. In the TV series maybe it has been weeks or months, but admittedly it has been framed as if it were a matter of days. So that is a fair gripe.

A little embarrassing since I'm the one who started this thread, but I was only up to watching episode 3 when I replied to your post, which is why I didn't get the CQB reference. Sorry, that my writing style was difficult to understand. That was something that I was worried about. If you would quote it back to me with the edits that you think it needs, that would be helpful to me. I'm pretty sure that the him pushing Naomi away in order to propel himself back to the catwalk came right from the book. Now obviously they can't just go into scientific exposition like the the book sometimes does, but given that limitation I feel that the show has been good in its presentation of the science. What scientific inaccuracies, in the show have been frustrating you?

I don't know what CQB is so I haven't seen the episode in question, but I think I can answer your question anyway. In zero gravity without expelling something, pushing something or pulling something a person is not going to be able to move their center of gravity vertically or horizontally. They can however give themselves spin, and indeed there is always the danger of accidentally giving oneself spin. The trick is that people can pull there limbs in close to there center of gravity and extend them out away from there center of gravity, and actions done away from the center of gravity have more centripetal momentum to them than actions close to the center of gravity. This is a fact that kids on swings use get higher and higher into the air without actually having anything to push on and figure skaters use speed up and slow down their spins. So if you are floating in zero gravity and for some reason want to start spinning, you just need to sweep your arm in a broad arc away from your center of gravity and when it come time to bring your arm back, first pull the arm in close to your body before rotating the arm back to its starting position. The broad sweep will impart more centripetal momentum than the close to the body rotation back will cancel out. You can repeat the process as many time as need be to get up to the desired spin speed. In your example, the person probably brought there legs close into there body so they would give as little centripetal drag as possible and then made a broad sweeping motion with there arms fully extended away from their center of gravity to flip their body so that their feet were facing the person they wanted to kick off against.

I'm loving this show. No doubt there are mistakes in its science but they are getting so many things right. The moment a ship stops accelerating the crew start floating up and have to activate their mag boots to stay on the deck. When detective Miller pours himself a drink the booze doesn't go straight down because of the Coriolis effect from the the stations spin. He tries to pour water in a part of the station where the rich people live and he misses the glass because the Coriolis effect is less pronounced in that part of the station. People who grew up in the asteroid belt are tall, thin and can't handle gravity well (no pun intended). Consequently using a gravity as form of torture on them has been banned. When a spaceship wants to turn around it flips over so that it's main rockets are facing the way it was heading and then uses those rockets accelerate it back the way it came. Just so many little details that show they actually respect science. It's wonderful.

Yeah, I did. Embarrassing. So there is another member of the Justice League in good standing. I was just doing heroes. Anti-heroes need not apply.

Wow, I'm impressed by how many DC characters CW has brought on board; Green Arrow, Flash, Firestorm, Black Canary, Vibe, Hawkgirl and Hawkman and now Vixon, just to name the heroes. At this point forget Legends of Tomorrow, they could just call it Justice League and have enough canon members to earn the name.

Also lets not forget her long time nemesis Dr Psycho.

One very much like the one that you inherited. It is just easy not notice how things are when you are a kid, especially if you are a white kid.

In response to just these sorts of criticisms they added Zarya. So being vocal can help. Now if they just added a couple more not overtly sexualized* female characters to the line-up the game wouldn't be embarrassing to play. * - Disclaimer: I find Zarya totally bloody hot whereas the original female cast I just found meh, so maybe she is just differently sexualized.

Yes, the best superpower fight scene of the series to date. It really helped that it was it wasn't just two super strong individuals duking it out yet again and the electrical special effects for Livewire looked pretty decent. The rest of the episode went fairly well too, except I am very quickly growing tired of the love triangle/quadrilateral. I know this is a bit unfair since in real life these things can sometimes go on for years, but every week they drag this storyline out leaves me with less respect for participants. Really the sooner everyone lays their emotional cards on the table, the better IMO.

Well if that's where you want to set the bat ...

Hey he bought it as a multipower and not an elemental control. It not his fault; when you can do everything, you have to save points where you can.

I have mixed feeling about this. On one hand it is cool that they are reaching out to girls as a market, OTOH the quality doesn't look very good to me.

Both Flash and Green Arrow are going to be in Legends of Tomorrow and will be back on their own shows afterward. Why should Kendra disappear after Legends of Tomorrow?

Kara's sister explicitly states early in her fight with Supergirl that the government has been keeping Superman's vulnerability to kryptonite a carefully guarded secret. So, not having been exposed to it previously there is no reason either Supergirl or her aunt should be aware of it.

Irony is based upon an unexpected twist. I this really unexpected?

I'm in agreement with Markdoc on this, the arguments in this article are rubbish. Yes, you can't be the ideal specimen of masculinity but really you can't be the ideal specimen of any abstract concept from the ideal catholic to the ideal doctor to the ideal teacher to the ideal feminist (Laci Green of MTV's Braless has nice piece on how becoming a better feminist is the work of a lifetime which I can link to if you like). This is not surprising because human beings aren't abstract concepts and therefore we can't epitomize them. However, contrary to the writer's assertions this is not something that most people lose much sleep over. Men know that can't be the ideal specimen specimen of masculinity and are generally okay with this as long as they feel they doing a reasonable job being men. Where you see a lot of anxiety about masculinity is in males that suspect that they aren't measuring up as men. This is most common in young males, because of course they aren't measuring up as men; they are still just boys. However, having the concept masculinity points them in the direction that society expects them to go and this can be very helpful. People like clear expectations. In recent decades, though, as lifestyles have changed so the the duties and responsibilities of men. Concepts of masculinity have shifted in response to changing needs and expectations, but still they have lagged behind the pace of social change. This has led to a certain amount of navel gazing concerning what it means to be a man in the modern age. Nonetheless, calling masculinity an anxiety disorder is a gross mischaracterization. The vast majority of males in time take up the responsibilities of manhood and find peace with their own sense of masculinity. Of course finding peace with the concepts of masculinity and femininity is a harder row to hoe for the queer. Therefore I can sympathize with the author's rejection of concept of masculinity as it was never likely to be a good fit for him. It is a very good thing that the mental health community has finally pulled their collective heads far enough out of their rumps to stop classifying queerness as a mental disorder. That doesn't mean that now is the time make a mental disorder out of traditional masculinity or femininity.

Actually, your long history here has everything to do with my response on multiple levels. If I did not like you or care about you, I wouldn't have bothered. Really, I don't get in long drawn out arguments with people on discussion boards. It's not my style. I say whatever it is that I wanted to say and walk away. Occasionally, I will make a second post when I feel that I did a poor job expressing myself in the first post, however, it is very rare for me to make a third response. So the fact that I have pursued the conversation this far is due to your history here and the fact that it has led me to consider you worth my time. No, I don't expect you to feel honored by this or even believe me, but there it is. The other thing about your post history here that factored into my response, is that in the past you have shown sympathy for the MRA movement. They have a narrative about how men are the real victims, and I thought that a saw in your skepticism about women facing more online harassment a shadow of this view. Because when you have two groups and one of them is complaining about a problem and the other isn't, the most straightforward assumption is that the group that is complaining is experiencing the problem and the group that isn't complaining either isn't experiencing the problem or is experiencing it to a lesser degree. Yes, there are other possible reasons why one group might complain and the other group not, but these wouldn't be my initial go to assumptions. Women (and not just the ones who make headlines) are complaining about the online threats they receive, and these threats are often very specific in the types of harm that is being threatened. Furthermore, a lot of these threads seems to have more to do with femaleness as opposed to something specific that they are doing. So sure abortion doctors both male and female get threats but female game designers get threats and male game designers not so much, and the threats they get seem be very focused on their status as females. The studies that I have seen haven't been perfect (few studies are), but they are in line with the anecdotal evidence that I have heard, and at this time I have no reason to doubt them. Maybe, a good study will come out that supports the counter intuitive view, but until one does I am incline to believe that the duck is a duck. As for John the consumer seeking romance in the most straightforward manner possible, I am going to reply with John Nash.

Except I'm not buying your claims of being a skeptical, neutral observer trying to find out whether online violence is gendered. I believe that you have a position on the subject, but don't wish to state it. After all, if you really wanted to know the answer to the question of whether online violence is gendered, you wouldn't come here with the question; that is what Google is for. It is this refusal to state your position and defend it that I see as a form of intellectual dishonesty. Also, I take issue with the notion that the threats need be "creditable". If you point gun at someone and threaten there life, you have assaulted them with a deadly weapon even if the gun is unloaded. That isn't my opinion; it is the opinion of the law. I imagine this is because judges got tired of having people commit armed robbery and then claim after the fact that the weapon had no bullets. So maybe the person sending the death threat lives in another state and has a heart condition and can't travel. How is the person he is threatening suppose to know that and why are they suppose to be sanguine about the death threat just because it is coming from a stranger over the internet? Now back to the chatroom study (yes, I know that I am answering post in the reverse order from how it was written), a chatroom is not a bar. When a man approaches a woman in a bar, he can see her, if he he is not a total meathead he can pick up what sort of signals she is sending and since they are both there something could potentially come of his approaching her. In a chatroom none of this is the case. The chances of "Jill" being an attractive female living nearby are less than the chances of "Jill" being a married man living in another state. Now, I grant you that there are lots of lonely, stupid guys out there, so maybe some of the time these sexual advances are just pathetic attempts to hook up. However, given the low chance of these pick ups succeeding versus the high chance of them offending and possibly driving off the recipient of the comment, I am inclined to think that most of these "come ons" are actually aggressive, displays of dominance. So I support the study's decision to categorize these messages as malicious.

Glad that the link was helpful. Here is another one. http://time.com/3305466/male-female-harassment-online/

Grandstanding? They had some committee hearings and they wrote a paper. It has had plenty of committee hearings and written many papers about despots filling mass graves. Having meetings and writing paper is what the UN does. It is basically all that the nations of the world have given them the power and mandate to do. So given that they don't have power or the mandate to stop the despots of the world from filling mass graves, it seems unfair to blame them for failing to do so. Internet harassment is not just a problem in the US, but is international like the internet itself. Since the biggest function of the UN, IMHO, is to give people space to talk on the record about problems that cross international boundaries, it would seem to be exactly the place to talk about internet harassment. YMMV.

First you are seeing a deception where none existed originally. The article in my original link is from 2009. At the time the article was written, the University of Maryland homepage probably had a link to the research in question. The link has just been taken down at some point in the last 6 years. However, a quick google of "University of Maryland cyber harassment study" led me to this abstract. Second it really does not matter how they define harassment as long as they define it the same way for both "male" and "female" bots. Because however they are defining it harassment the bots that are given female names are getting 25 times as much of it as the as the bots given male names, despite the fact that the code all the bots is identical except for the name that they use. Stop and think about that for a moment. Grief, however it is being defined, is being heaped in 25 times greater quantities just because the chatter is using a female name. If it was twice as much abuse that would be bad and indicative a serious problem. Four times as much abuse would be horrible. But 25 times as much abuse!?! Look even if the most the abuse in question is relatively minor, having a female name should not net you 25 times as much of it. It just should not. Now, address the issue. You talk about intellectual honesty; well have enough intellectual honesty to actually address the issue.