Well. at least I don't think they have tried to produce reel to reel tape like BASF has done. Damn I used to hate those BASF tapes that left their coating and what not on my recording heads. Back then I would swear by 3M Scotch Classic.
i used to buy BASF cassettes in the belief that they knew what they were doing, and in the fullness of time they all refused to move. Tried transferring the tape packs into new housings, no go, so I figure the lube in the tape went away.
CEOs know this. Marketers know this. The EASIEST way to get a scientist in your pocket is to threaten their paycheck if the results dont support the product being sold. So more often than not, what you see in scientific journals and publications through 'credible' sources is skewed science to sell something....
Even in educational institutions. Who do you think pays for the grants?
On a similar note though...
The Japanese have a process called Kaizen - which is code for incremental improvement.
Like ants building an anthill, or bees building a beehive, the workers do not know nor are they given awareness of what's being built. They are, after all, drones, and are given enough information to do their specific job and nothing more.
So what are you building, humans?
The scientific method, in it's current incarnation, largely supports the benefit of the organization it supports. When there's a failure in what the scientific method is leveraged for or the organization dependent on it, it is actually not that terrifically difficult to draw lines for who the failure benefited and how. Follow that 'up the chain' and find out what's really going on....
Perceptual "Corruption" and Failure" in the people and processes is largely there to entice people to continue focusing on the minutia - the details, and to overwhelm them with too much information which prevents them from looking at or understanding the big picture.
Herein lies the fundamental flaw with the scientific method in use today.
It quite literally prevents major breakthroughs because the mindset of those 'testing' are looking for flaws in their details rather than supportive evidence of the breakthrough.
Belief creates reality.
And if you're hyper focused on trying to generate enough energy to break through that last 1/10 of 1/10 of 1/10 of 1/10 of a meter per second to break the speed of light, which is nearly infinite energy, you'll never understand there's more to breaking the speed of light than nearly infinite supply of energy alone;-)
That's Q's hint of the day for breaking the speed of light.
mua ha ha.
uh, where do YOU think grants for academic scientists come from? that we need to support the product being sold? because i don't recall any pressure being put on me to "support the sales" of alkaline phosphatase, or Na-K ATPase, or even Adriamycin when I could still call myself a scientist.
"Make it about “political correctness run amok”: For instance, you might open the article with the transgender students’ protesting the Person of Stature’s University talk. But then you will pan back and show that this is but one instance among many in a much larger and disturbing trend sweeping the nation—aka, “political correctness running amok.” (I am not sure why political correctness is always “running amok” as opposed to other synonymous phrases, but just roll with it.) And at this point, you can simply provide readers with a laundry list of seemingly similar incidents of activists and minority groups taking things way too far with their “political correctness” and “censorship.” For examples of this laundry-list approach, see recent high profile pieces by Jonathan Chait, Michelle Goldberg, and Caitlin Flanagan (there are countless others—The Atlantic alone seems to be churning out one or two of these per month!). The benefit of this approach is that you don’t have to go too in depth about any specific issue (e.g., interviewing all the parties involved, accurately conveying their differing perspectives, etc.)—you can just hastily depict all of them as being outrageous. Additionally, this allows you to conflate some potentially legitimate issues (e.g., protests of the Person of Stature) with a bunch of random mean things that random people (who have no stature) have said on Twitter." https://medium.com/@juliaseran... "When people rail against political correctness, they're usually stating that it has run amok." http://www.dummies.com/how-to/...
"Political Correctness Run Amuck!" http://reflectionsfromtheburg....
"On the other hand, I do think political correctness has run amuck" http://greginhollywood.com/jer...
"There are those who claim that political correctness has run amuck." http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/ne...
"Flag defenders: Political correctness has run amok." https://www.dailyadvance.com/n...
“the clearest example of political correctness run amok that I have seen in quite some time.” http://knoxblogs.com/humphreyh...
"Political correctness run amuck again." http://forum.woodenboat.com/sh...
"Has political correctness really 'run amok' on college campuses?" http://talk.collegeconfidentia...
"Political Correctness Run Amok" http://www.newsmax.com/Freind/...
"Has political correctness really 'run amok' on college campuses?" https://www.washingtonpost.com...
"Has Political Correctness Run Amok?" https://www.insidehighered.com...
"In Fort Collins, political correctness run amok"
To be fair, while he hasn't proposed concentration camps yet, neither did Hitler when he was first rising to power. I have a feeling the German people would have rejected "let's kill all the Jews and everyone who disagrees with me" if he led with that idea. Instead, he began with smaller ideas. You are suffering (which Germany was and which Trump supporters seem to think America is) and it's all these people's fault (putting the blame on another group - be they Jews, Muslims, or Mexicans). Then, since it's all their fault, they should be identified (star on their clothes or a national Muslim database) and segregated from "normal society." Then, you need a task force to deal with these undesirables (Trump's Deportation Force might not be as bad as the SS on paper, but I doubt the SS on paper was exactly what they became).
No, Trump isn't Hitler, but he's stoking the same xenophobic flames, is proposing clearly unconstitutional ideas without care as to their legality, and doing so while his supporters seem to say "We don't care if it's legal or not, those people need to be 'taken care of.'" History has shown us where this path leads and it's NOT a nice place. It's certainly not anywhere that I'd want America heading towards.
I don't like the sound of these boncentration bamps.
and why should we pretend that the bottom of the barrel trailer park trash that support him are anything to be listened to.
Because their vote counts just as much as yours or mine does. Ignore them at your own peril.
Not true! Liberal lies! Their vote counts more than ours do, because they live in rural underpopulated states which benefit from the extra 2 electoral college votes per state above the population-based representation, so their vote counts more than yours or mine does.
" Look no Western country allows to carry around guns and buy guns that easily."
And neither do most Eastern countries, or Southern countries, or Northern countries, etc. Yet many of them have murder rates far higher than the US.
The fact that you rely on some assumption that 'Western' countries are more moral/advanced/civil/whatever is bigoted to begin with, but it also torpedoes your argument that guns are the problem. Social structures and living conditions shouldn't matter if guns are the root cause of violence. Russia is on-par with the US in regards to technology, has strict firearm ownership restrictions, and the murder rate is 4x higher. Gun problem or people problem?
Additionally, randomly picking France or some other 'Western' country that is the size of Minnesota and has 1/8th the US population is simple cherry-picking. If you take all of Europe from Portugal to Moscow, which is far more equivalent to the size, population, and geographic disparities of the US, as well as income and education variations, the murder rates are far closer despite firearm ownership being so much less so as to be statistically none in comparison.
"And you have a mass shooting almost every day"
Only by a measure which includes 'shootings' in which nobody was killed, and the vast majority is gang violence in the inner city.
"Your ignorance (as a country) will be your undoing."
For most Americans (those born 1960 or later) it's never been safer. There are 10,000 less murders a year than 20 or 30 years ago. The murder rate is lower or equal to what it was in 1960. Rapes are down, assaults are down, etc.
You can't say the same for Europe. The incidence of rapes, assaults, hate-crimes, etc are all higher than the US. Now you have a refugee problem, how's that working out for Europe these days?
It's hardly a one-factor cause and effect of course. This graph https://img.washingtonpost.com... though shows an interesting split; for developed first world countries there is a pretty linear relationship between guns per capita and gun related deaths per capita, with the US not really off the curve, merely just out on one end of the spread. but for third world/developing countries, there is generally a median number of guns per capita, but the gun related death rate is variable, and can be very very very high.
thinking about it, that's probably not too surprising (the linear, first world thing), given that the majority of gun deaths are suicides; expand that to a general "crimes of passion/impulse" category, where somebody isn't meticulously planning a crime or suicide but just has an impulse and grabs what is handy, and it's clear that having more guns handy would increase that incidence. and presumably having more guns would increase the frequency of accidental shootings, toddlers finding and triggering a gun, etc. so the actual number of planned firearm murders or even firearm crime numbers might not be that sensitive to the overall guns per capita, even though the overall gun fatality rate is.
Unless you count service members killed in action, I doubt it. Most gun-related violence in the US happens in large urban areas and tends to be gang related. I live in a small city of 300,000 people and I can count the number of firearm-related deaths this year on one hand. In all cases it was gang/drug related from out of town. Each time it made the local news for a week or so.
You're both confusing gun related crimes and gun related deaths, which are most commonly accidents where people shoot themselves with a gun they thought was unloaded. The accidental deaths far outnumber the crime-related gun deaths but both sides want you to believe otherwise. Pro-gun folks want you to believe everyone should carry a gun because all the "bad guys" are invading homes and assaulting them (statistically incredibly rare---less than 0.1% --http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt ), or walking down every street. Anti-gun folks say no one should have guns because "think of the children".
This is the problem with these gun death statistics... most anti-gun folks use the whole number of deaths and the pro-gun folks use the actual "crime related" numbers. The two sides of this argument will never see eye to eye and each side is using the same data to support its argument. They're both wrong.
biggest source of gun mortality is, of course, suicide. second amendment purists tend to dismiss that as nothing we can do about it, and nothing we should do about it. I assume they are prochoice rather than prolife.
> It tells me that "some" people are ignorant and racists
Half of people are below average intelligence.
*shakes head*
Median. Half of people are below median intelligence.
*shakes head a bit more*
Average. Half of the people are below average intelligence. Due to the law of large numbers and the construction that intelligence has finite variance, intelligence is normally distributed. Therefore the statement holds for the three most used averages: Mode, Median and (arithmetic) Mean.
"Trump is a bit of a clown"
That is quite an understatement.
"so what does that tell you...that people are sick of President Obama "
No. It tells me that "some" people are ignorant and racists. I restrain to add stupid as I believe that they are willfully misguiding their intellects for selfish primitive instincts they choose not to to keep in check.
interesting graph in the paper today, gun sales over the past few years. been rising generally since 9/11. but two big, sharp peaks; when obama got elected, and when he took office.
I assume it was folks preparing to defend the republic against a racist uprising who would never accept a legitimate election.
Its like Curz said the other day "I'll direct the pentagon to destroy ISIS"
Guess what that would probably work and I would expect Trump would say something similar. It would probably work. Our Generals don't get where they are in our armed forces by not being effective. If a president told them "eliminate ISIS, I really don't care how and I'll back you" they could probably get it done.
Most presidents don't have the will do the politically unpopular things they would likely want to do. That isn't necessarily bad but Trumps in ability to do much more than shout "just do it" probably means he would have much greater success than anyone who would be more involved.
hey that's very similar to my plan for world peace. elect me, and I'll tell everybody to stop making war, and be peaceful. Mission accomplished!
You're exaggerating. He might mess up his country and a bunch of other countries in bad ways if he is elected, but he's nowhere as dangerous or evil as Hitler. He's essentially a clown, a narcissist entertainer who was blessed with and psychologically corrupted by a lot of inherited wealth. The kind of guy who is proud to be an asshole and actually is one, as opposed to all these likable 'nice assholes' who in reality aren't.
Yes, it will be Hillary vs Trump, Trump will become the next George W. Bush^3 of the USA, and after his reign,the US might be at the brink of a civil war, but at least its going to be entertaining. In the long run, a weak and reasonably fucked up US can be beneficial to Europe, so I don't worry too much.
“the fact that some dressed-up uniform fetishist, a vegetarian with bad teeth, bad breath and bad digestion, a morphine user to the last, an asocial man with phobias, that we in all seriousness believed that this is a good idea — that is completely incomprehensible.” - Jan Böhmermann, on Hitler
What is the disease does this country have in listening to people like this? I realize there are other candidates that are clearly not all there upstairs but when is this Trump shit gonna go away. Fuck that idiot and fuck his hi-jacking of the discussion.
the thing is, he's not the cause. nobody's sitting around going "I thought Muslims weren't all bad, but you know, Trump convinced me otherwise". Trump just happened to kick over the stone they were under and they're all swarming out. if he went away, if he never existed, they would all still be there with the same opinions. imagine what their behavior is like when nobody is shining a camera on them.
And here is your typical Trump supporter, fiscally cartoon-conservative and socially a closeted pseudo-nazi. They hate the shit out of every aspect of social progress and have a monstrous persecution complex, even though they're virtually all straight white Christian Americans, the most privileged and powerful group in the known universe.
They hate that social progressiveness restrains and effectively muzzles their many potent prejudices, and they hate when science and evidence disagree with their stupid gut feelings on other issues.
And Trump is a giant nuclear double-middle-finger to progressiveness and facts, who promises to finally give them what they want, to run their country based on their many potent prejudices and uninformed gut feelings.
it's good, though. this way the people who are secretly somebody to back away from come out and identify themselves with bumper stickers and stuff so you know to avoid taking their advice on anything.
Possibly because the kind of "person" that might actually agree that Trump's policies make sense will have some vague notion of Bill Gates as having something to do with computers and, by inference, the Internet? Somehow I doubt the current captains of the industry, even those with a lot of mainstream media coverage, are going to achieve the same level of name recognition - let alone the people that head up the companies that you'd *really* need to be talking to try and make something like this actually happen. Pop quiz: how many of the following CEOs do you recognise: Lowell C. McAdam? Chuck Robbins? Brian L. Roberts? Randall L. Stephenson?
rightwingers are all about authority and hierarchy. trump is famous; he must be great. bill gates is famous; he must be brilliant. etc
I dont care how crazy it comes off or about getting modded down. Trump is a ringer who's only purpose is to make sure no Republican candidate has a chance in the elections.
Because the rest of the Republican candidates are so sane and rational.
Many people make fun of Donald Trump or don't take him seriously. What most don't realize is that he is represents the pinnacle of what the Republican Party has become. All that he says is little more than populist slurs and factually incorrect statements, barring any context. He is extremely anti social, anti socialist and very pro industry and military. He resents using government money for social programs but has no problems spending the same taxpayer money for military projects. His world view is an immature outlook where the US is at the center and the rest is a nuisance or a playground for the military. He willingly and knowingly misleads the public using fear, uncertainty and doubt tactics. When he's on television he revels in the attention and uses it to entertain people with outlandish rants and to polish his public image as an anti-establishment rebel, while saying absolutely nothing of consequence. He is the kind of person that can only appeal to, for lack of a better word: white trash and its scary that it has come so far that he reaches mass appeal in the US. Abraham Lincoln must be turning in his grave from what his party has become.
the problem is not trump per se, but the fact that his off the wall hack gets taken seriously by a good chunk of the american voting public. as if andrew dice clay could be accepted as a leader by a mass of people. which happened, of course.
Outside of the USA, the USA doesn't have a great image. It never really had, to be honest.
And, unfortunately for the USA, Donald Trump is doing absolutely nothing to make that image any better.
If anyone were to look just at Donald and how he represents you guys, then they will see an idiot, a racist, a bigot, a religious intolerant... he posses, in their worst forms, all of the bad stereotypes applied to "Americans". And, in many ways, he is the most un-American person one could point to. Taking just the simplest of American values - Freedom: He wants to close down the internet, ban Muslims, and have everyone saying 'Merry Christmas', because that's obviously what Freedom means to him.
I really feel sorry for you guys. He really does make the whole country look like a joke. I dare not imagine what your country will become if he were to be elected.
To be honest, there's an awful lot of things that he says that reminds me of one Adolf Hitler.
- observations from an outsider.
Yeah, but the US has also elected Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush Jr, so our international reputation regarding elected leaders can't exactly get worse.
Both Trump and Clinton said the same thing. Why only attack one of them in the summary when the article criticizes both parties? This goes to show that both sides have no concern for the constitution, and are probably just pandering to fears.
The article says:
Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton urged tech companies to “deny online space” to terrorists. Clinton then anticipated and waved away presumed First Amendment criticisms. We’re going to hear all the usual complaints,” she said on Monday, “you know, freedom of speech, et cetera. But if we truly are in a war...
Wow, she basically summarized the first amendment as "blah blah blah" and justified that it is okay to violate the constitution during wartime. This is the exact same kind of logic that was used 200 years ago that made us write those constitutional amendments. We have been fighting the same political battles for 200 years.
first amendment freedom of speech doesn't refer to private entities having to allow speech to everybody. the naacp can deny the kkk from writing an article in their monthly bulletin if they wish.
Doesn't that pinhead Trump realize Microsoft doesn't understand the Internet - That's why the Internet runs on Linux and BSD. Hell, even MS is recommending deploying their Azure environment on Linux...
Yeah, the dumbest thing Trump has ever said is the idea that Bill Gates can shut down part of the internet,
Slashdot Mirror
Well. at least I don't think they have tried to produce reel to reel tape like BASF has done. Damn I used to hate those BASF tapes that left their coating and what not on my recording heads. Back then I would swear by 3M Scotch Classic.
i used to buy BASF cassettes in the belief that they knew what they were doing, and in the fullness of time they all refused to move. Tried transferring the tape packs into new housings, no go, so I figure the lube in the tape went away.
CEOs know this. Marketers know this. The EASIEST way to get a scientist in your pocket is to threaten their paycheck if the results dont support the product being sold. So more often than not, what you see in scientific journals and publications through 'credible' sources is skewed science to sell something....
Even in educational institutions. Who do you think pays for the grants?
On a similar note though...
The Japanese have a process called Kaizen - which is code for incremental improvement.
Like ants building an anthill, or bees building a beehive, the workers do not know nor are they given awareness of what's being built. They are, after all, drones, and are given enough information to do their specific job and nothing more.
So what are you building, humans?
The scientific method, in it's current incarnation, largely supports the benefit of the organization it supports. When there's a failure in what the scientific method is leveraged for or the organization dependent on it, it is actually not that terrifically difficult to draw lines for who the failure benefited and how. Follow that 'up the chain' and find out what's really going on....
Perceptual "Corruption" and Failure" in the people and processes is largely there to entice people to continue focusing on the minutia - the details, and to overwhelm them with too much information which prevents them from looking at or understanding the big picture.
Herein lies the fundamental flaw with the scientific method in use today.
It quite literally prevents major breakthroughs because the mindset of those 'testing' are looking for flaws in their details rather than supportive evidence of the breakthrough.
Belief creates reality.
And if you're hyper focused on trying to generate enough energy to break through that last 1/10 of 1/10 of 1/10 of 1/10 of a meter per second to break the speed of light, which is nearly infinite energy, you'll never understand there's more to breaking the speed of light than nearly infinite supply of energy alone ;-)
That's Q's hint of the day for breaking the speed of light .
mua ha ha.
uh, where do YOU think grants for academic scientists come from? that we need to support the product being sold? because i don't recall any pressure being put on me to "support the sales" of alkaline phosphatase, or Na-K ATPase, or even Adriamycin when I could still call myself a scientist.
a philosopher in three separate parts
I quit my job, contact the offshoring place in India, tell them to submit me for my job.
"Make it about “political correctness run amok”: For instance, you might open the article with the transgender students’ protesting the Person of Stature’s University talk. But then you will pan back and show that this is but one instance among many in a much larger and disturbing trend sweeping the nation—aka, “political correctness running amok.” (I am not sure why political correctness is always “running amok” as opposed to other synonymous phrases, but just roll with it.) And at this point, you can simply provide readers with a laundry list of seemingly similar incidents of activists and minority groups taking things way too far with their “political correctness” and “censorship.” For examples of this laundry-list approach, see recent high profile pieces by Jonathan Chait, Michelle Goldberg, and Caitlin Flanagan (there are countless others—The Atlantic alone seems to be churning out one or two of these per month!). The benefit of this approach is that you don’t have to go too in depth about any specific issue (e.g., interviewing all the parties involved, accurately conveying their differing perspectives, etc.)—you can just hastily depict all of them as being outrageous. Additionally, this allows you to conflate some potentially legitimate issues (e.g., protests of the Person of Stature) with a bunch of random mean things that random people (who have no stature) have said on Twitter." https://medium.com/@juliaseran...
"When people rail against political correctness, they're usually stating that it has run amok." http://www.dummies.com/how-to/...
"Political Correctness Run Amuck!" http://reflectionsfromtheburg....
"On the other hand, I do think political correctness has run amuck" http://greginhollywood.com/jer...
"There are those who claim that political correctness has run amuck." http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/ne...
"Flag defenders: Political correctness has run amok." https://www.dailyadvance.com/n...
“the clearest example of political correctness run amok that I have seen in quite some time.” http://knoxblogs.com/humphreyh...
"Political correctness run amuck again." http://forum.woodenboat.com/sh...
"Has political correctness really 'run amok' on college campuses?" http://talk.collegeconfidentia...
"Political Correctness Run Amok" http://www.newsmax.com/Freind/...
"Has political correctness really 'run amok' on college campuses?" https://www.washingtonpost.com...
"Has Political Correctness Run Amok?" https://www.insidehighered.com...
"In Fort Collins, political correctness run amok"
To be fair, while he hasn't proposed concentration camps yet, neither did Hitler when he was first rising to power. I have a feeling the German people would have rejected "let's kill all the Jews and everyone who disagrees with me" if he led with that idea. Instead, he began with smaller ideas. You are suffering (which Germany was and which Trump supporters seem to think America is) and it's all these people's fault (putting the blame on another group - be they Jews, Muslims, or Mexicans). Then, since it's all their fault, they should be identified (star on their clothes or a national Muslim database) and segregated from "normal society." Then, you need a task force to deal with these undesirables (Trump's Deportation Force might not be as bad as the SS on paper, but I doubt the SS on paper was exactly what they became).
No, Trump isn't Hitler, but he's stoking the same xenophobic flames, is proposing clearly unconstitutional ideas without care as to their legality, and doing so while his supporters seem to say "We don't care if it's legal or not, those people need to be 'taken care of.'" History has shown us where this path leads and it's NOT a nice place. It's certainly not anywhere that I'd want America heading towards.
I don't like the sound of these boncentration bamps.
http://justviral.eu/wp-content...
and why should we pretend that the bottom of the barrel trailer park trash that support him are anything to be listened to.
Because their vote counts just as much as yours or mine does. Ignore them at your own peril.
Not true! Liberal lies! Their vote counts more than ours do, because they live in rural underpopulated states which benefit from the extra 2 electoral college votes per state above the population-based representation, so their vote counts more than yours or mine does.
" Look no Western country allows to carry around guns and buy guns that easily."
And neither do most Eastern countries, or Southern countries, or Northern countries, etc. Yet many of them have murder rates far higher than the US.
The fact that you rely on some assumption that 'Western' countries are more moral/advanced/civil/whatever is bigoted to begin with, but it also torpedoes your argument that guns are the problem. Social structures and living conditions shouldn't matter if guns are the root cause of violence. Russia is on-par with the US in regards to technology, has strict firearm ownership restrictions, and the murder rate is 4x higher. Gun problem or people problem?
Additionally, randomly picking France or some other 'Western' country that is the size of Minnesota and has 1/8th the US population is simple cherry-picking. If you take all of Europe from Portugal to Moscow, which is far more equivalent to the size, population, and geographic disparities of the US, as well as income and education variations, the murder rates are far closer despite firearm ownership being so much less so as to be statistically none in comparison.
"And you have a mass shooting almost every day"
Only by a measure which includes 'shootings' in which nobody was killed, and the vast majority is gang violence in the inner city.
"Your ignorance (as a country) will be your undoing."
For most Americans (those born 1960 or later) it's never been safer. There are 10,000 less murders a year than 20 or 30 years ago. The murder rate is lower or equal to what it was in 1960. Rapes are down, assaults are down, etc.
You can't say the same for Europe. The incidence of rapes, assaults, hate-crimes, etc are all higher than the US. Now you have a refugee problem, how's that working out for Europe these days?
It's hardly a one-factor cause and effect of course. This graph https://img.washingtonpost.com... though shows an interesting split; for developed first world countries there is a pretty linear relationship between guns per capita and gun related deaths per capita, with the US not really off the curve, merely just out on one end of the spread. but for third world/developing countries, there is generally a median number of guns per capita, but the gun related death rate is variable, and can be very very very high.
thinking about it, that's probably not too surprising (the linear, first world thing), given that the majority of gun deaths are suicides; expand that to a general "crimes of passion/impulse" category, where somebody isn't meticulously planning a crime or suicide but just has an impulse and grabs what is handy, and it's clear that having more guns handy would increase that incidence. and presumably having more guns would increase the frequency of accidental shootings, toddlers finding and triggering a gun, etc.
so the actual number of planned firearm murders or even firearm crime numbers might not be that sensitive to the overall guns per capita, even though the overall gun fatality rate is.
Unless you count service members killed in action, I doubt it. Most gun-related violence in the US happens in large urban areas and tends to be gang related. I live in a small city of 300,000 people and I can count the number of firearm-related deaths this year on one hand. In all cases it was gang/drug related from out of town. Each time it made the local news for a week or so.
You're both confusing gun related crimes and gun related deaths, which are most commonly accidents where people shoot themselves with a gun they thought was unloaded. The accidental deaths far outnumber the crime-related gun deaths but both sides want you to believe otherwise. Pro-gun folks want you to believe everyone should carry a gun because all the "bad guys" are invading homes and assaulting them (statistically incredibly rare---less than 0.1% --http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt ), or walking down every street. Anti-gun folks say no one should have guns because "think of the children".
This is the problem with these gun death statistics... most anti-gun folks use the whole number of deaths and the pro-gun folks use the actual "crime related" numbers. The two sides of this argument will never see eye to eye and each side is using the same data to support its argument. They're both wrong.
biggest source of gun mortality is, of course, suicide. second amendment purists tend to dismiss that as nothing we can do about it, and nothing we should do about it. I assume they are prochoice rather than prolife.
> It tells me that "some" people are ignorant and racists
Half of people are below average intelligence.
*shakes head* Median. Half of people are below median intelligence.
*shakes head a bit more* Average. Half of the people are below average intelligence. Due to the law of large numbers and the construction that intelligence has finite variance, intelligence is normally distributed. Therefore the statement holds for the three most used averages: Mode, Median and (arithmetic) Mean.
also, half of the people are mean.
"Trump is a bit of a clown" That is quite an understatement. "so what does that tell you...that people are sick of President Obama " No. It tells me that "some" people are ignorant and racists. I restrain to add stupid as I believe that they are willfully misguiding their intellects for selfish primitive instincts they choose not to to keep in check.
interesting graph in the paper today, gun sales over the past few years. been rising generally since 9/11. but two big, sharp peaks; when obama got elected, and when he took office.
I assume it was folks preparing to defend the republic against a racist uprising who would never accept a legitimate election.
Its like Curz said the other day "I'll direct the pentagon to destroy ISIS"
Guess what that would probably work and I would expect Trump would say something similar. It would probably work. Our Generals don't get where they are in our armed forces by not being effective. If a president told them "eliminate ISIS, I really don't care how and I'll back you" they could probably get it done.
Most presidents don't have the will do the politically unpopular things they would likely want to do. That isn't necessarily bad but Trumps in ability to do much more than shout "just do it" probably means he would have much greater success than anyone who would be more involved.
hey that's very similar to my plan for world peace. elect me, and I'll tell everybody to stop making war, and be peaceful. Mission accomplished!
You're exaggerating. He might mess up his country and a bunch of other countries in bad ways if he is elected, but he's nowhere as dangerous or evil as Hitler. He's essentially a clown, a narcissist entertainer who was blessed with and psychologically corrupted by a lot of inherited wealth. The kind of guy who is proud to be an asshole and actually is one, as opposed to all these likable 'nice assholes' who in reality aren't.
Yes, it will be Hillary vs Trump, Trump will become the next George W. Bush^3 of the USA, and after his reign,the US might be at the brink of a civil war, but at least its going to be entertaining. In the long run, a weak and reasonably fucked up US can be beneficial to Europe, so I don't worry too much.
“the fact that some dressed-up uniform fetishist, a vegetarian with bad teeth, bad breath and bad digestion, a morphine user to the last, an asocial man with phobias, that we in all seriousness believed that this is a good idea — that is completely incomprehensible.” - Jan Böhmermann, on Hitler
And when he proposed every single Nuremberg law you didnt see it ?
don't be silly. he only has a dumb hairdo, not a bad mustache. his policies are the same, of course, but no mustache.
What is the disease does this country have in listening to people like this? I realize there are other candidates that are clearly not all there upstairs but when is this Trump shit gonna go away. Fuck that idiot and fuck his hi-jacking of the discussion.
the thing is, he's not the cause. nobody's sitting around going "I thought Muslims weren't all bad, but you know, Trump convinced me otherwise". Trump just happened to kick over the stone they were under and they're all swarming out. if he went away, if he never existed, they would all still be there with the same opinions. imagine what their behavior is like when nobody is shining a camera on them.
And here is your typical Trump supporter, fiscally cartoon-conservative and socially a closeted pseudo-nazi. They hate the shit out of every aspect of social progress and have a monstrous persecution complex, even though they're virtually all straight white Christian Americans, the most privileged and powerful group in the known universe.
They hate that social progressiveness restrains and effectively muzzles their many potent prejudices, and they hate when science and evidence disagree with their stupid gut feelings on other issues.
And Trump is a giant nuclear double-middle-finger to progressiveness and facts, who promises to finally give them what they want, to run their country based on their many potent prejudices and uninformed gut feelings.
it's good, though. this way the people who are secretly somebody to back away from come out and identify themselves with bumper stickers and stuff so you know to avoid taking their advice on anything.
Possibly because the kind of "person" that might actually agree that Trump's policies make sense will have some vague notion of Bill Gates as having something to do with computers and, by inference, the Internet? Somehow I doubt the current captains of the industry, even those with a lot of mainstream media coverage, are going to achieve the same level of name recognition - let alone the people that head up the companies that you'd *really* need to be talking to try and make something like this actually happen. Pop quiz: how many of the following CEOs do you recognise: Lowell C. McAdam? Chuck Robbins? Brian L. Roberts? Randall L. Stephenson?
rightwingers are all about authority and hierarchy. trump is famous; he must be great. bill gates is famous; he must be brilliant. etc
Well, I guess the GOP was fed up with being accused of just having a mouth piece as a candidate, so they traded up for a hair piece.
Typo. You mean, "a herpes".
I dont care how crazy it comes off or about getting modded down. Trump is a ringer who's only purpose is to make sure no Republican candidate has a chance in the elections.
Because the rest of the Republican candidates are so sane and rational.
Many people make fun of Donald Trump or don't take him seriously. What most don't realize is that he is represents the pinnacle of what the Republican Party has become. All that he says is little more than populist slurs and factually incorrect statements, barring any context. He is extremely anti social, anti socialist and very pro industry and military. He resents using government money for social programs but has no problems spending the same taxpayer money for military projects. His world view is an immature outlook where the US is at the center and the rest is a nuisance or a playground for the military. He willingly and knowingly misleads the public using fear, uncertainty and doubt tactics. When he's on television he revels in the attention and uses it to entertain people with outlandish rants and to polish his public image as an anti-establishment rebel, while saying absolutely nothing of consequence. He is the kind of person that can only appeal to, for lack of a better word: white trash and its scary that it has come so far that he reaches mass appeal in the US. Abraham Lincoln must be turning in his grave from what his party has become.
the problem is not trump per se, but the fact that his off the wall hack gets taken seriously by a good chunk of the american voting public. as if andrew dice clay could be accepted as a leader by a mass of people. which happened, of course.
that keeps that hairpiece on the skull. It sinks in and poisons what's left of his brains.
the hair is some sort of alien puppet master controlling him.
Outside of the USA, the USA doesn't have a great image. It never really had, to be honest.
And, unfortunately for the USA, Donald Trump is doing absolutely nothing to make that image any better.
If anyone were to look just at Donald and how he represents you guys, then they will see an idiot, a racist, a bigot, a religious intolerant... he posses, in their worst forms, all of the bad stereotypes applied to "Americans". And, in many ways, he is the most un-American person one could point to. Taking just the simplest of American values - Freedom: He wants to close down the internet, ban Muslims, and have everyone saying 'Merry Christmas', because that's obviously what Freedom means to him.
I really feel sorry for you guys. He really does make the whole country look like a joke. I dare not imagine what your country will become if he were to be elected.
To be honest, there's an awful lot of things that he says that reminds me of one Adolf Hitler.
- observations from an outsider.
Yeah, but the US has also elected Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush Jr, so our international reputation regarding elected leaders can't exactly get worse.
Both Trump and Clinton said the same thing. Why only attack one of them in the summary when the article criticizes both parties? This goes to show that both sides have no concern for the constitution, and are probably just pandering to fears.
The article says:
Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton urged tech companies to “deny online space” to terrorists. Clinton then anticipated and waved away presumed First Amendment criticisms. We’re going to hear all the usual complaints,” she said on Monday, “you know, freedom of speech, et cetera. But if we truly are in a war...
Wow, she basically summarized the first amendment as "blah blah blah" and justified that it is okay to violate the constitution during wartime. This is the exact same kind of logic that was used 200 years ago that made us write those constitutional amendments. We have been fighting the same political battles for 200 years.
first amendment freedom of speech doesn't refer to private entities having to allow speech to everybody. the naacp can deny the kkk from writing an article in their monthly bulletin if they wish.
Doesn't that pinhead Trump realize Microsoft doesn't understand the Internet - That's why the Internet runs on Linux and BSD. Hell, even MS is recommending deploying their Azure environment on Linux...
Yeah, the dumbest thing Trump has ever said is the idea that Bill Gates can shut down part of the internet,