It's not embarrassing to apply machines as all.... as you say,

I would like to fly to New York...

Or....

I would like to travel into space.

The fact that we are ill adapted to survive in space should be no more of a justification that we shouldn't go there than the fact that we are unable to fly without machines should be a justification to never get into an aircraft.

Really.... did I have to explain this twice?

Why did the plane deviated over 500km from its usual path? Obviously the ATC forced them to so otherwise they wouldn't be that fucking stupid and fly over a known war zone.

MH17 was also requested by Kiev to drop from 35000 ft to 33000 ft right before it got hit.

If, as you say, Kiev had confiscated the ATC record, then how on earth could you, or whoever you heard it from, have known any of that?

But of course... conspiracy theories are so much more interesting than reality, I can't fault people for wanting to believe them.

It's my understanding that all statements about the trajectory are deductive based on post-attack evidence. If they had actually identified the trajectory of the missile from a satellite, they would also easily know which side of the Russia/Ukraine border it originated on... which they do not.

Why would soldiers waste expensive missiles for some irrelevant passenger plane?

Why, indeed... and part of the reason why I don't think that this was done as any official act by either nation.

Why would be there a plane over a warzone in the first place?

Apparently, before takeoff, the aircraft was explicitly told that the route was safe to fly over.

When you perform a terrorist act you tell that YOU did it in order to intimidate. You don't deny you did it.

I think that would depend on whether or not the uncertainty and the slinging of accusations from all sides better serves their interest than the fear it might generate if they knew who did it. I strongly suspect that the actual perpetrators are sitting back and watching the fireworks right now... hoping it will eventually escalate to the point that they'll be too busy fighting eachother to notice what the group is *really* up to.

And what makes you think that organizations acting independently of the government wouldn't have that kind of money?

The biggest argument against the notion that it was government sanctioned is that Russia wouldn't have anything to gain from shooting down a civilian plane in Ukraine airspace and the Ukraine government doesn't have that kind of hardware in the first place.

That, I think, was the poster's point.... that it is just as absurd as suggesting that we should not go into space merely because of how ill-adapted we are to it.

Actually, I suspect that neither side knows the truth. Or at least neither government does. This strikes me as an act of somebody or some organization that was acting entirely independently of government authority or sanction (and most likely used illegally purchased munitions to achieve it).

Sort of.

Go there. See for yourself.

It won't necessarily prove exactly when it happened, if you're going to be really skeptical about it, but it should prove that it happened... at least to the extent that you can trust what your own senses tell you, and what you will find there will be completely consistent with what should be there. At an absolute worst case, it would prove that somebody spent a whole lot of money to fabricate a replica set of the"fake moon landing" on the real moon just to convince future people who land there that it actually happened... of course,even that still means that somebody has already been on the moon.

Oh, and of course, any stories you might tell upon your return would be categorized by skeptics as either you being paid off to say what you saw. And the really die hard skeptics who go up themselves would probably just believe that they were being brainwashed if they saw it for themselves.

There is a difference, you see, between proving that something happened and having somebody believe that it happened.

I think you'll have a considerably harder time convincing yourself that negative numbers don't exist once you finally realize that it's subtraction that doesn't "really" exist.

Is there any form of math for which no match to anything in reality exists? Not for a specif application of math (which may not fit), but a specific field of math or a theorem, which has no application to reality?

Surreal numbers

What does "advanced" even mean? We have no new energy sources and no new theories about how to create thrust

Oh, how absurd of me to think that somebody will think of something that nobody has thought of before.

It may not happen in my lifetime, or even my kids lifetime... but it's going to happen, someday... and the cynicism that you are so clearly hold dear to will eventually be seen as just as absurd and outdated as what scientists less than 200 years ago were saying when they suggested that we could never travel faster than the speed of sound.

As for the comfort that you no doubt seem to think that believing otherwise gives me... it may surprise that it doesn't... because I don't expect it to happen in my own lifetime. I say what I do not because it makes me feel better, but because if there is anything that is constant about humanity, it is change. Betting against that is going to be a losing proposition. Every time. Unless, as I said... you know of something that will wipe us out before that can actually happen.

And my viewpoint comes from being, on more than one occasion, being on receiving end of an unexpected dismissal (always within a probationary period) for reasons that were literally cited as "not fitting in".

...you could wind up with a discrimination complaint depending on the circumstances; even if you truly did not discriminate.They would nee to substantiate what the discrimation was.... It's not generally even illegal to fire somebody simply because you've decided you just don't like them... particularly during an initial probationary period. It can still risk you being exposed to a lawsuit, but as one can sue for pretty much any reason anyways, that risk is there regardless of what you say or do.

After such a probationary period, then generally the employer is obligated to give the employee sufficient time to conform to any new expectations, and communication to that effect will generally be in writing, along with acknowledgement that the individual understands that failure to conform to the newer standards will result in dismissal. If the employee feels that he or she is being treated differently than other employees, then that would be the time to address the concern, not after they have already been fired.

If all I say is "he didn't fit into our company's corporate culture" the employee would somehow have to argue that there were other people who didn't fit in either who were not discharged. Since there's no possible way he could ever hope to prove such an allegation, how would he proceed?

I'd place my bets on someday being advanced enough to leave this planet. To suggest otherwise is to say it would never happen, and considering the amount of time that we will have to accomplish it, I consider that alternative to be less realistic than any so-called "sci-fi fantasy".