The person you are replying to is joking. Maybe you should rethink what people are saying politically about such issues if you can't tell a clear joke.
That is not an accurate assessment of what Trump sad. untilourcountry'srepresentativescanfigureoutwhatisgoingon.. I'm not sure what your point is in regards to disavowing the KKK, the point is that it ok him 24 hours to do it and he initially refused and then lied about. The Hillary comparison is also not helpful for a least 6 reasons: first, that's one endorsement of Hillary v. the many white separate white supremacists who endorsed Trump. Second, no major reporter has asked Hillary about the KKK endorser about her. Third, this ignores that many white supremacists have actively credited Trump with increasing their enrollment in their groups. http://theweek.com/speedreads/593608/white-supremacist-groups-credit-surging-interest-donald-trump-hes-certainly-creating-movement. Fourth, the Dragon who endorsed Hillary did so out of essentially a conspiracy theory about her actual policies being different than her stated policies, while the Trump ones are endorsing him based on his actual statements. Fifth, this is not a game of baseball where points against one candidate somehow magically count as points in favor of another candidate.
And this is before we get to the fact that many of his other policy ideas about immigration have nothing to do with enforcing current rules (e.g. his ideas about banning all Muslims from entering the US).
I don't know if Trump is racist, but he's made a lot of comments that certainly move in that direction, and if he isn't racist he's making a concerted effort to appeal to racists and general xenophobic sentiments.
I was somewhat ok with NBC, Univision and Macy's dropping Trump, since in those cases the organizations were deeply tied into the profit from the Trump persona. However, Amazon has many products and is essentially content neutral.So the situation seems different. In general, in many ways things function best if keep politics and business separate, and don't engage in retribution to people whose politics we don't like. However, in Trump's case, his politics, persona and business are so wrapped together it is hard to see a distinction. At the same time, this sort of thing should worry people. How would people feel about a similar petition to Amazon to not sell Israeli goods? Palestinian goods? Chinese goods? Etc.
Don't worry, for making this reasonable point, most of which includes actual information about the service in question, you'll get at least a few downmods. Probably by the same set of people who complain about "SJWs" downmodding on Slashdot and also the people who downmod people giving actual information about Donald Trump in the last three Trump threads.
Even if they don't get ti fixed, Kepler has had an absolutely amazing run. The initial planned mission lifetime was 3.5 years, and that was in 2009. So we've gotten almost twice as much out of it as it was planned.
One of my favorite computer games from the 1990s was Masters of Orion II, 4X space exploration/conquering game. One thing in that game and many similar games was the idea that you couldn't find out what planets were in a star system until you had actually sent a probe there. It is absolutely amazing that shortly after those games were made, we had the technology to detect planets in other star systems while remaining in comfort here.
Not what is going on here. I'm extremely in favor of renewable energy, and have spent a fair bit of time on Slashdot harping about what people can do to encourage the use of renewable energy, and I had the same reaction. Yes, there are people who immediately condemn any sort of new renewable technology in a knee jerk fashion, but that doesn't change that some ideas really aren't good ones for practical applications.
I can't parse your first paragraph in a way that makes any sense in context since no one has been discussing any sort of utopia or socialism. Your second paragraph is also wrong: this is a common misconception. Genes can cross over from pairs of chromosomes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover. The only thing of note is the Y chromosome which does exhibit crossing over with the X chromosome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoautosomal_region. So no, you don't have any specific reason to think that they share a chromosome.
If you want to criticize McCain for his policy stances then by all means do so. The relevant point that decent people don't do is claiming that because McCain was a POW that this is somehow a problem and an indication that he isn't a "winner." That's reprehensible.
Not sure what you're implying here, but you would have a very hard time convincing me that, somehow, Donald Trump is not an intelligent and decent person. Despite some of his wacky outbursts, he is in no way unfit to be president of the US, and might be exactly what this country needs right now.
I don't know about intelligent or not, since that's very hard to judge, but he's ignorant, not at all decent, and wildly unqualified to be President. He doesn't know about basic aspects of US military and foreign policy, like the nuclear triad which combines with his terrible ideas about using nukes as a serious threat instead of conventional troops. This combines with his general deep misunderstandings of basic issues in international relations http://www.vox.com/2016/3/28/11318722/trump-foreign-policy.
Good people can have relatives who are bad people. Smart people can have relatives whoa re dumb people. It might be interesting to minimally note that John Trump was in fact a decent scientists, bu it says absolutely zero in any direction about his nephew. Donald Trump's repeated invocations of his uncle as evidence that he has "good genes" is however decent evidence of how Donald Trump thinks about himself and the world, and it isn't pretty.
A lot of good points have already been made, so I'd like to make one more note: they aren't doing second stage reuse here. There is a second stage but they are only reusing the first stage. Everyone knows second and third stage reuse has a lot of problems (more fuel required is only one of them). First stages cost more than other stages since the have the highest variability in what conditions they need to be able to function in (from near sea level pressures to near vacuum) and they are larger because they need to lift more total material. So just focusing on saving first stages already helps a lot.
Well, there's a lot you can do. You as an individual can change behavior, take public transit more, or buy an electric car or hybrid (the new Tesla 3 is really nice!). If you own a house, you can get more insulation for the house, and possibly get solar panels. You can reduce your meat consumption since growing meat is a major contributor to climate change. Similarly, you can buy more efficient appliances.
, or Everybody Solar http://www.everybodysolar.org/, and the Solar Electric Light Fund http://self.org/. All of these have slightly different approaches and you should choose for yourself which makes the most sense. Similarly, you can donate to the Wind Energy Foundation http://windenergyfoundation.org/. There's no really good place to donate for nuclear power which is unfortunate since, any eventual full-scale solution is going to likely require it.
You can also vote for and donate money to politicians who support dealing with climate change when they are running against those who don't. One race that's a good example of this is in Maine- Emily Cain is running against Bruce Poliquin who is not at all good about climate change. So you can go donate to her campaign http://emilycain.com/. This is going to be one of the closest congressional races in the country, so every dollar will make a difference.
Actually, he was asked if people should be punished for doing an illegal thing. After that the media just ran with it. It was a well executed journalistic sucker punch.
No. This completely misses the point. Even the far-right has been in favor of making it illegal for doctors to perform abortions and for any punishment to occur to doctors, not to the women.
It doesn't show that Trump is evil, just that he can't handle the media as if he were a politician.
Trump's real crime is that he's no good at handling hostile reporters trying to harvest a juicy sound bite.
No. It is that Trump is an ignoramus who doesn't bother learning about issues, talks off the cuff with extreme ideas and then continues to push for those ideas. No one else would have claimed that John McCain's being a POW was a mark against McCain and a sign he wasn't a "winner" because no one else would have even thought it. No one else would have had a problem with reporters quoting when one claimed that global warming was a hoax made by the Chinese, because no one would have thought it. And no one would have quotes telling your fans that if they get violent with protesters he'll pay the legal bills, because no one else would have said anything remotely like that. All reporters are doing are quoting the actual words coming out of his mouth, and the contexts don't make them any better. No context makes keeping out a billion people from the US based on their religion a good idea. No issue of context makes his repeated claims about 1000s celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11 any less false. Etc.
This isn't about reporters taking things out of context. This is what the man actually is doing and saying.
Trump doesn't understand what the nuclear triad is but likes the idea of Japan and South Korea being defended via nukes.
Trump apparently wanted to criminalize abortion to the point where women who had abortions were punished (at least he took that back).
He doesn't just want to enforce current immigration law: building a wall and keeping out every Muslim is not current immigration.
Claiming that there even are trade pacts that don't favor the US shows a deep misunderstanding since these trade pacts are almost invariably initiated by the US. Note for example that Trump claimed that the TPP favored China when China isn't even a member.
Etc.
If you think this then you need to spend ten minutes thinking about various things Trump has said and imagining what happens if he tries to implement any of them or follow through on what they imply. If you really think that Trump can't do much damage, that says more about you than it says about the situation or Trump.
I get wanting to avoid HuffPo, but Daily Mail is about as bad, just on the other end of the political spectrum and without even trying to pretend that they are helping.
Pretty much everything you've said is wrong. Yes, the Delft experiment used filtering. No, the filtering doesn't do what you think it does. But more to the point, there have been many experiments prior to the Delft experiment that didn't use that sort of filtering and still got results consistent with entanglement. See e.g. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/abs/409791a0.html for an example.
Quantum computing can be described as a method, a technique, which allows for the computer for a given task to take a peak into the future and to read the answer from the future back to the present.
This is completely wrong. There are in fact computational models that have been worked out about what a computer that could peak into the future would be like and they are insanely more powerful than quantum computers. See http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/ctc.pdf. Quantum computing has nothing remotely like what you've said. I suggest for an actual primer on the topic reading Scott Aaronson's excellent book "Quantum Computing Since Democritus" which doesn't require anything beyond a little basic linear algebra. And in the meantime, if you don't know much about a topic, maybe don't make extreme policy suggestions?
This delivery is noteworthy for being a commercial resupply, which is still a very new thing. There have only been a very small number of commercial missions.
Um,what? I made no comment about what I believe, and I'm not sure how you would get any guess about what I believe from my comment. Also, in your analogy, who exactly is the equivalent of Monsanto here?
So, the question is what will happen in response? Will the pro-gun groups stop claiming that none of these measures will help. Will the pro gun-control groups stop claiming that the ineffective laws are effective? Or will both groups just keep screaming at each other?
Slashdot Mirror
The person you are replying to is joking. Maybe you should rethink what people are saying politically about such issues if you can't tell a clear joke.
Um, no one argued that xenophobia was exclusive to one side of the political spectrum.
That is not an accurate assessment of what Trump sad. untilourcountry'srepresentativescanfigureoutwhatisgoingon.. I'm not sure what your point is in regards to disavowing the KKK, the point is that it ok him 24 hours to do it and he initially refused and then lied about. The Hillary comparison is also not helpful for a least 6 reasons: first, that's one endorsement of Hillary v. the many white separate white supremacists who endorsed Trump. Second, no major reporter has asked Hillary about the KKK endorser about her. Third, this ignores that many white supremacists have actively credited Trump with increasing their enrollment in their groups. http://theweek.com/speedreads/593608/white-supremacist-groups-credit-surging-interest-donald-trump-hes-certainly-creating-movement. Fourth, the Dragon who endorsed Hillary did so out of essentially a conspiracy theory about her actual policies being different than her stated policies, while the Trump ones are endorsing him based on his actual statements. Fifth, this is not a game of baseball where points against one candidate somehow magically count as points in favor of another candidate.
People do have a tendency to call people racist when they really mean they disagree about race relate political issues. But that isn't what is going on here. Trump's words far exceed any sort of attempt to enforce current immigration laws. For example, his claims that Mexico was deliberately sending its criminals to the US http://www.laweekly.com/news/heres-a-fact-check-of-donald-trumps-mexico-bashing-5754639 which was demonstrably false. He plans on making a wall between Mexico and the US and making Mexico pay for it, despite the fact that the number of illegal immigrants has in the last few years been stable or declined http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/19/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/. He's claimed that a judge in a legal case was biased against him purely under the basis that the judge was Hispanic http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-27/trump-university-argues-ex-student-can-t-bow-out-as-trial-nears. And then there was the bit where he refused to disavow the KKK and then lied about it, claiming it was due to mishearing the question when his response indicates he understood exactly what was being asked http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/28/politics/donald-trump-white-supremacists/
And this is before we get to the fact that many of his other policy ideas about immigration have nothing to do with enforcing current rules (e.g. his ideas about banning all Muslims from entering the US).
I don't know if Trump is racist, but he's made a lot of comments that certainly move in that direction, and if he isn't racist he's making a concerted effort to appeal to racists and general xenophobic sentiments.
I was somewhat ok with NBC, Univision and Macy's dropping Trump, since in those cases the organizations were deeply tied into the profit from the Trump persona. However, Amazon has many products and is essentially content neutral.So the situation seems different. In general, in many ways things function best if keep politics and business separate, and don't engage in retribution to people whose politics we don't like. However, in Trump's case, his politics, persona and business are so wrapped together it is hard to see a distinction. At the same time, this sort of thing should worry people. How would people feel about a similar petition to Amazon to not sell Israeli goods? Palestinian goods? Chinese goods? Etc.
Don't worry, for making this reasonable point, most of which includes actual information about the service in question, you'll get at least a few downmods. Probably by the same set of people who complain about "SJWs" downmodding on Slashdot and also the people who downmod people giving actual information about Donald Trump in the last three Trump threads.
Even if they don't get ti fixed, Kepler has had an absolutely amazing run. The initial planned mission lifetime was 3.5 years, and that was in 2009. So we've gotten almost twice as much out of it as it was planned.
One of my favorite computer games from the 1990s was Masters of Orion II, 4X space exploration/conquering game. One thing in that game and many similar games was the idea that you couldn't find out what planets were in a star system until you had actually sent a probe there. It is absolutely amazing that shortly after those games were made, we had the technology to detect planets in other star systems while remaining in comfort here.
Not what is going on here. I'm extremely in favor of renewable energy, and have spent a fair bit of time on Slashdot harping about what people can do to encourage the use of renewable energy, and I had the same reaction. Yes, there are people who immediately condemn any sort of new renewable technology in a knee jerk fashion, but that doesn't change that some ideas really aren't good ones for practical applications.
I can't parse your first paragraph in a way that makes any sense in context since no one has been discussing any sort of utopia or socialism. Your second paragraph is also wrong: this is a common misconception. Genes can cross over from pairs of chromosomes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover. The only thing of note is the Y chromosome which does exhibit crossing over with the X chromosome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoautosomal_region. So no, you don't have any specific reason to think that they share a chromosome.
If you want to criticize McCain for his policy stances then by all means do so. The relevant point that decent people don't do is claiming that because McCain was a POW that this is somehow a problem and an indication that he isn't a "winner." That's reprehensible.
Not sure what you're implying here, but you would have a very hard time convincing me that, somehow, Donald Trump is not an intelligent and decent person. Despite some of his wacky outbursts, he is in no way unfit to be president of the US, and might be exactly what this country needs right now.
I don't know about intelligent or not, since that's very hard to judge, but he's ignorant, not at all decent, and wildly unqualified to be President. He doesn't know about basic aspects of US military and foreign policy, like the nuclear triad which combines with his terrible ideas about using nukes as a serious threat instead of conventional troops. This combines with his general deep misunderstandings of basic issues in international relations http://www.vox.com/2016/3/28/11318722/trump-foreign-policy.
As for being a decent person, decent people don't attack war heroes for being POWs http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-attacks-mccain-i-like-people-who-werent-captured-120317, they don't suggest they'll pay legal fees for supporters who engage in violence http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-attacks-mccain-i-like-people-who-werent-captured-120317, and then lie about it http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/15/fact-check-trump-claims-he-never-said-hed-pay-legal-fees-for-rally-attendees-who-hit-protesters/. They don't have such thin skins that they get upset over a comment about the size of their hands and then proceed to reference the size of their genitalia on at a Presidential debate http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/03/04/donald-trumps-obsession-with-size-surfaces-in-crude-ways.html .These are only a few examples.
He's an unqualified, egotistical blowhard. It is a deep shame that the party of Lincoln has been reduced to this.
Good people can have relatives who are bad people. Smart people can have relatives whoa re dumb people. It might be interesting to minimally note that John Trump was in fact a decent scientists, bu it says absolutely zero in any direction about his nephew. Donald Trump's repeated invocations of his uncle as evidence that he has "good genes" is however decent evidence of how Donald Trump thinks about himself and the world, and it isn't pretty.
A lot of good points have already been made, so I'd like to make one more note: they aren't doing second stage reuse here. There is a second stage but they are only reusing the first stage. Everyone knows second and third stage reuse has a lot of problems (more fuel required is only one of them). First stages cost more than other stages since the have the highest variability in what conditions they need to be able to function in (from near sea level pressures to near vacuum) and they are larger because they need to lift more total material. So just focusing on saving first stages already helps a lot.
Well, there's a lot you can do. You as an individual can change behavior, take public transit more, or buy an electric car or hybrid (the new Tesla 3 is really nice!). If you own a house, you can get more insulation for the house, and possibly get solar panels. You can reduce your meat consumption since growing meat is a major contributor to climate change. Similarly, you can buy more efficient appliances.
, or Everybody Solar http://www.everybodysolar.org/, and the Solar Electric Light Fund http://self.org/. All of these have slightly different approaches and you should choose for yourself which makes the most sense. Similarly, you can donate to the Wind Energy Foundation http://windenergyfoundation.org/. There's no really good place to donate for nuclear power which is unfortunate since, any eventual full-scale solution is going to likely require it.
You can also vote for and donate money to politicians who support dealing with climate change when they are running against those who don't. One race that's a good example of this is in Maine- Emily Cain is running against Bruce Poliquin who is not at all good about climate change. So you can go donate to her campaign http://emilycain.com/. This is going to be one of the closest congressional races in the country, so every dollar will make a difference.
Actually, he was asked if people should be punished for doing an illegal thing. After that the media just ran with it. It was a well executed journalistic sucker punch.
No. This completely misses the point. Even the far-right has been in favor of making it illegal for doctors to perform abortions and for any punishment to occur to doctors, not to the women.
It doesn't show that Trump is evil, just that he can't handle the media as if he were a politician.
Um, no one used the word "evil" here but you. But no, if anything he handles the media far better than most politicians. See e.g. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-donald-trump-hacked-the-media/.
Trump's real crime is that he's no good at handling hostile reporters trying to harvest a juicy sound bite.
No. It is that Trump is an ignoramus who doesn't bother learning about issues, talks off the cuff with extreme ideas and then continues to push for those ideas. No one else would have claimed that John McCain's being a POW was a mark against McCain and a sign he wasn't a "winner" because no one else would have even thought it. No one else would have had a problem with reporters quoting when one claimed that global warming was a hoax made by the Chinese, because no one would have thought it. And no one would have quotes telling your fans that if they get violent with protesters he'll pay the legal bills, because no one else would have said anything remotely like that. All reporters are doing are quoting the actual words coming out of his mouth, and the contexts don't make them any better. No context makes keeping out a billion people from the US based on their religion a good idea. No issue of context makes his repeated claims about 1000s celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11 any less false. Etc. This isn't about reporters taking things out of context. This is what the man actually is doing and saying.
And how do you intend to actually force that to happen?
Trump doesn't understand what the nuclear triad is but likes the idea of Japan and South Korea being defended via nukes. Trump apparently wanted to criminalize abortion to the point where women who had abortions were punished (at least he took that back). He doesn't just want to enforce current immigration law: building a wall and keeping out every Muslim is not current immigration. Claiming that there even are trade pacts that don't favor the US shows a deep misunderstanding since these trade pacts are almost invariably initiated by the US. Note for example that Trump claimed that the TPP favored China when China isn't even a member. Etc.
If you think this then you need to spend ten minutes thinking about various things Trump has said and imagining what happens if he tries to implement any of them or follow through on what they imply. If you really think that Trump can't do much damage, that says more about you than it says about the situation or Trump.
I get wanting to avoid HuffPo, but Daily Mail is about as bad, just on the other end of the political spectrum and without even trying to pretend that they are helping.
Pretty much everything you've said is wrong. Yes, the Delft experiment used filtering. No, the filtering doesn't do what you think it does. But more to the point, there have been many experiments prior to the Delft experiment that didn't use that sort of filtering and still got results consistent with entanglement. See e.g. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/abs/409791a0.html for an example.
Quantum computing can be described as a method, a technique, which allows for the computer for a given task to take a peak into the future and to read the answer from the future back to the present.
This is completely wrong. There are in fact computational models that have been worked out about what a computer that could peak into the future would be like and they are insanely more powerful than quantum computers. See http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/ctc.pdf. Quantum computing has nothing remotely like what you've said. I suggest for an actual primer on the topic reading Scott Aaronson's excellent book "Quantum Computing Since Democritus" which doesn't require anything beyond a little basic linear algebra. And in the meantime, if you don't know much about a topic, maybe don't make extreme policy suggestions?
The primary reason that fusion has stayed far away has been a demonstrated lack of funding. See https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/U.S._historical_fusion_budget_vs._1976_ERDA_plan.png. Even given that, there's been by pretty much all major metrics steady improvement in fusion. See e.g. https://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-15/listening.htm.
This delivery is noteworthy for being a commercial resupply, which is still a very new thing. There have only been a very small number of commercial missions.
Um,what? I made no comment about what I believe, and I'm not sure how you would get any guess about what I believe from my comment. Also, in your analogy, who exactly is the equivalent of Monsanto here?
So, the question is what will happen in response? Will the pro-gun groups stop claiming that none of these measures will help. Will the pro gun-control groups stop claiming that the ineffective laws are effective? Or will both groups just keep screaming at each other?