User talk:RealityCheck

I'm reverting most of your changes to Imaginary World, which is not intended as an alternative to Fictional Universe, but to encompass concepts which go beyond fiction (such as delusion, dream etc.) — JEREMY 20:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion taken up at imaginary world talk. RealityCheck 06:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Racialism

Nice edits. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mel Etitis! RealityCheck 14:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mestizo

I've reverted your edits at the Mestizo article. All the concerns that you have raised, which you have stated need verification, are in fact figures from Filipino national archives and current demographic statistics.

Additionally:

Today, the term may refer generically to individuals of mixed ancestry, especially those of Asian or Amerindian and European descent. The term also has specific cultural and social meanings in different countries and regions.

This is absolutely incorrect. The term mestizo (whether in it's Spanish, Portuguese or French variants; mestizo, mestiço or métis) is used exclusively for people of mixed European and Amerindian descent in the Americas. The only exception to this use is with the the term mestiso as used for the mixed race Filipino minority (where the non-native element may be ANY non-native ancestry, not just European), and apart for said Filipino minority, NO OTHER mixed race Asians. Mestizo is a term of European colonial origins and connotations. It is for this reason that the word exists in the Philippines for the mixed race minority in that country, because it was once a colonial posession of Spain. Non-Filipino mixed race asians are denominated by other names, such as Eurasian for those of mixed European ancestry.

Although the term Eurasian may also be used for some mestiso Filipinos (those who mixture is composed of a European ancestry), it does not work vice versa, and so mestiso does not apply to any other mixed race Asians because there is no historic colonial origin or usage of mestizo. Al-Andalus 03:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Al, thanks for explaining this in a direct, no b/s manner. As it seems that it would be very easy to aurally confuse mestizo and mestiso, I am going to copyedit the reference in the introduction slightly. Btw, is the pronunciation something like mezzteezo v. missteeso? RealityCheck 14:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC). Hmm, how to do it? Al, would you be happy to simply remove the brackets around (mestiso), so that the article reads in effect that the "similar term mestiso, in use in the Philippines, is a generic..." (for example)? RealityCheck 14:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your change to program 437

Uh, I understand copyedit and stuff, but you have changed the meaning a couple times. The part that bugs me most is when you changed the sentence explaining how the antisatellite devices would work. You made it say "by nuclear explosion or electromagnetic pulse." This is not true. The reason they used nuclear weapons is they were not especially accurate. The actual kernel of the explosion would likely not be in excess of a couple kilometers (that is to say, the plasma, superheated matter, etc). However, the EMP could spread out very far, in excess of 80 km. So the EMP was almost certainly the method for attack. Today (over 40 years later), we have guidance systems which can "home in" on targets. We have missiles that can physically hit a satellite (and of course, we now have stealth satellites). So while it may seem obvious that we would use the explosion to disable or destroy satellites today, it just isn't true for 1960. I'll change it back, unless you've changed it because of something you knew and I didn't. Also, removing the last sentence about when the program was cancelled, and changing "while" to "when" in the second-to-last sentence has caused some confusion (see the talk page). aa v ^ 13:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Apologies for any hassle in dealing with these things you mention (hopefully all the other changes were considered an improvement!). Regarding "when" / "while", you're right (using "although" would have been better but subsequent edits have overcome the issue altogether). Just with "destroy or disable targets through nuclear explosion or electromagnetic pulse", I think you're saying that because blast was never the primary mode of attack (due to the technological limits of the day), this construction does not make that clear. Nothing was misunderstood about the obvious blast/EMP thing and the differences between then and now, it was simply an attempt at improving what we previously had: "The mechanism allowing Program 437 to be successful in this role was the nuclear explosion and related electromagnetic pulse (EMP)". Anyway, with GZ's effective and simple inclusion of "the resulting (EMP)" I think we're closer to something ideal. Perhaps you can further clarify in the article. Btw, it would be good to have more content in the Anti-satellite weapon article on current systems with accuracies allowing satellite targets to be physically hit. Could you try this? RealityCheck 14:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I hadn't thought of updating the ASAT article. I suppose I could do that. At the least, a chronology and a picture or two would help (not that I dislike F-15's or anything...) aa v ^ 15:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good, thanks man. The technology which enables such incredible accuracy is intriguing and I for one would like to know more. RealityCheck 07:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]