Please provide me with links to peer reviewed scientific articles to support your claims that these figures are inline with past observed GLOBAL warming trends. No you don't get to count the medieval warm period - it was confined to such a tiny area that the global average barely changed *AT ALL* during the entire thing. In fact - there is NO previous GLOBAL warming trend that looked anything like this. Some local ones in very specific regions, but nothing like this on the global averages. Hell even the ends of ice ages didn't happen this fast (or anywhere close actually).
Not just the advanced nations. Even in South Africa solar is the fastest rising source of new power, and that's despite a government that refuses to engage with it - and is forging ahead with an unaffordable nuclear build plan that won't yield results for decades - all because the key decision makers took bribes from (get this) the owners of the largest Uranium mine in the country - who would love to have more nuclear plants they could sell to locally (shipping nuclear fuels for exports is very expensive due to all the safety considerations and rules and South Africa only has a single nuclear power plant - which can only buy so much).
Or to quote Neil De Grasse Tyson: "It's basic physics. If you keep adding energy to a system, but you slow down the rate at which the energy can leave the system then the system gets hotter".
Wait... you think people demanding we let them drive on roads we all share without proof that they are capable of doing so with a modicum of responsibility and skill, or worse with convincing proof that they cannot (known as 'license suspended') are somehow heroes for liberty ?
When your actions endanger the lives of uncountable innocent people - they are NOT an action of liberty. Regulating you from doing so is not government overreach - it's government doing exactly what it exists - above all - to do. On the contrary - not letting you drive with a suspended license is PROTECTING liberty - it protects MY liberty to walk the streets without an unreasonably high risk that the people driving on it will fail to stop at zebra crossings.
Don't be so sure. Hell South Africa managed to do appartheid without having race defined ! I'm not kidding you. They went through about 6 different attempts to define it in the early days - and ultimately settled on "you are a member of the race of which the community and culture accepts you as a member" - and had individual cases of dispute left up to judges who would rule when there were issues based on collecting a whole lot of personal data and witness statements from neighbours and the like.
In a few cases coloureds (the South African term 'coloured' means "mixed race" - it's more like what Americans once called "Mulatos") managed to cross the line and become legally white for example, and at least a few white people who lived in areas bordering coloured populations ended up being legally included in that race group. Oddly though there was the case of Johnny Clegg. Clegg was white-born in a Zulu area and fully and utterly adoped Zulu culture, and was accepted as a Zulu by the local tribe. Despite years of attempts though - he could never get legally classified as Zulu. Clegg is also one the best-selling musicians in the country's history so his case became very well publicised.
In 1986, in a desperate attempt to try and keep the system on life support the government instituted a number of reforms -believing they could keep the foundational appartheid system running if they curb the worst of it's excesses. These reforms got rid of several of the most racist laws and in some truly bizarre ways at times. For example it scrapped the immorality act (which prohibited sex or marriage across colour lines) but kept the group areas act - which meant that while you could now marry somebody of a different race, legally you and your new spouse could not live together !
But one of those reforms completely scrapped racial classification and definition. The 1986 election was the last true whites-only election in the country in fact, and had there been another appartheid election it would have been very hard to keep black people from voting since legally they didn't exist anymore. That they somehow managed to keep the segregation laws going while not legally classifying people at all made it all rather surreal - even by appartheid government standards. They also insituted a new tricameral parliament. The two additional houses of parliament had one which ruled over coloured affairs and one which ruled over Indian affairs (no representation for black's still - despite being 80% of the population) and they had no real power anyway as the white-chamber could veto any law they passed. This was the beginning of the end of the system anyway. The government grew ever more paranoid and the country was effectively in a never-ending state of emergency. Always quite censorious and masters of propaganda it got stepped up to never before seen levels and even flagrant dishonesty - the government fought a ten year war in Angola while denying to the population that it was at war at all ! It was "just guarding the border of Namibia" it said... this was a bit of an open secret though - you can't have thousands of soldiers serving and coming home without some of them talking about where they really were.
That president P.W. Botha basically went crazier and crazier - and after a minor health-scare in 1989 the party essentially held a coup from the inside, claiming he had, had a severe stroke they removed him from office before he could wipe the shit from his eyes and gave the presidency to F.W. De Klerk who abolished all remaining appartheid laws, freed Nelson Mandela and all other political prisoners and announced a negotiation process to ultimately lead to elections in a unified South Africa where all could vote - all in his very first speech (February 29, 1989).
There was one last desperate attempt to ressurrect the system. In 1992 the rightwing parties (who held a considerable number of parliamentary seats) were clamoring that the National Party had no right to end the system, negotiate with the ANC (and other
When you're asked a question and you get it wrong saying "It is only wrong because of things I don't care about" makes you MORE of an idiot, not LESS.
Your "explanation" also fails to account for the false belief that the stock market has gone down. It's not like Bummsville, Idaho has it's own stock market so the people there can pretend that the one in New York doesn't matter.
Now -there's a lot of truth to the claim that the decline of rural economics had a lot to do with the anger that drove Trump into the white house - clearly it was sufficient that his utterly overt racism, sexism, rapeyism, corruption, constant lies and frankly dangerous derangement could all be overlooked (which to me is impossible by somebody who isn't ALSO racist, sexist, rapey, dishonest and bigotted - overlooking it MAKES YOU PART OF IT) but there's a problem: the blame was misplaced and the cure was wrong. The president deals with economic issues on a national level - as affected by GLOBAL geopolitical matters. It is impossible to do that AND do something about the unemployment rate in coaltown, Virginia. The president has to consider 350 million citizens - of which 66% live in those big cities. His capacity to deal with local economic issues is extremely limited. That job belongs with your mayors, your state legislators, your governor. They have the local knowledge, they make the local laws, they should be fostering the environment for improving local lives.
If the average numbers for the country as a whole has improved - the president has done a fine job, and no president CAN do more than that since their power simply do not (and never can be allowed to) extend that far.
Somebody here on./ once defended the electoral college on the basis that "San Francisco shouldn't get to dictate to the entire country". But he is wrong - because "San Francisco" and it's like represent two thirds of all Americans. That IS America. The rural parts are a minority and their backwardness is by choice - and has been a major reason for their decline. On the contrary, coaltown Virginia should not get to dictate to all of America.
And finally - there is the fact that Trump is not going to do anything for the people who voted for him. He may take a protectionist approach to China (his choice for trade secretary suggest he'll actually follow through on that one)... but that would put MORE people in America OUT of work. Even if he saves some jobs, the jobs lost to the massive economic decline that follows would outnumber that by several thousand to one. What about immigration, even just the illegal kind ? If Trump follows through on the policies he promised - that would cause an immediate second great depression. Which is why every indication is that he has no intention of doing anything about that. Hell he appointed the CEO of Karl's Jr. to his cabinet: a man who hires almost exclusively illegal aliens and has spent his life lobbying to keep doing that, who has repeatedly and publicly stated that he PREFERS illegal aliens over Americans since they dare not try and negotiate a better deal and the barest scraps he can toss them. He is the worst kind of person whether you love or hate immigrants - because he defends having a flood of them in order to exploit their desperation. Trump put him in cabinet. So much for his promises there. Trump won't keep any promises he made to the rural communities, not one with the SOLE exception of those from which he, himself, personally can make a profit (and if half the rest ends up unemployed to make him that profit he won't care).
Hell he won't even do the mass deportation thing he promised. He can't, there CANNOT be another operation wetback. Do you know why ? Because we have 70 years of supreme court rulings since Eisenhower and they have made it absolutely clear that the constitution applies to everybody within the borders of the US - whether a citizen, a tourist or an immigrant, legal or otherwise. The supremes have declared that you cannot do a raid to check fo
Small correction: fewer than any president in closer to a hundred years (it may be more but I haven't looked further back). FDR holds the record (but as the longest serving president ever that should be seen in context), and every president since him has issued significantly more EO's than Obama has.
Sure. My wife is a nude model. Her nips, ass, pussy whatever you want to look at is all over the web if you know where to look.
She started after we met - and I encouraged her, it made her happy, she enjoyed it, it turned her on - and I got the benefits of her coming back from shoots all revved up.
Not everybody thinks nudity is a big deal or sex is something shameful or private.
However, no, you can't have any of my mother's pix (if such exist, I've never asked) because - and here is the clincher - unlike my wife, she has NOT consented to letting strangers see them. My wife agreed to that, she is happy with that. THAT is what makes it okay. It's okay, if the person whose body it is is okay with it being seen. Nobody else's opinion matters.
Then you don't get to ask my kid to do that either.
Thank god I live in a country where you expressing that TO a breatfeeding mother in public is a crime and you will get fined for it. She has a right to feed her child whenever, where-ever she needs to. You do NOT have a right to object to it. If you're a public business (like a shopping mall) you can't even complain if you OWN the place she's doing it in. It's considered harassment to ask her to cover up, or in fact to bother her in any way. There is no more healthy way to feed an infant than breastmilk, and it's to the advantage of everybody if we make it as easy as possible for all mothers to use this method - because their healthier children means shorter wait times for us at the doctor, and cheaper medicines when we get sick - since there isn't the added the demand of a billion sick babies.
> As a conservative, I do think the prevalence of pornography and the accessibility of these images is harmful to society on the whole.
What a wonderful sentence. In one sentence you summed up everything wrong with America today. You hold that porn is harmful - but offer no evidence whatsoever to counteract the overwhelming scientific evidence that, not only is it harmless, it's actually HEALTHY.
Your basis for this claim is "As a conservative" - you believe this, not because of any rational reason, simply because that is the view of your tribe. You accept this view because you are conservative and it's a conservative view. Now it's true that there is a similar thing on the liberal side, but it's measurably and massively smaller. The right has it's wingnuts and the left has it's moonpies - but the moonpies are a tiny fringe while on the right the tendency to accept ideology over scientific fact is far more prevalent and indeed, is the mainstream.
This is the right's version of identity politics. I believe what my tribe believes. I adore tradition without being critical of it (that's a formal fallacy by the way) and I always imagine the past was better than the present (and that is, at least in part, sustained by never, ever asking what the past looked like if you weren't MY ancestors).
And that is what just gave the presidency to the single most dangerous and least capable candidate to ever hold that office.
Nevermind the abundant and overwhelming scientific FACT that immigrants CREATE more jobs than they take - we want them gone (but we won't take the jobs they were doing afterwards because it STILL pays too little for us). And when they are gone and we're ALL out of work and sitting in the second great depression (because there can literally be NO other outcome from a mass deportation program in the 21st century)... we'll somehow convince ourselves it was the liberals fault. After all we already believe that unemployment went up and the stock market went down under Obama - reality has no place in our decision making process. We believe this, because our tribe, the people we trust, believe it - and we never question them, or wonder if whoever told THEM was honest.
This, right here, is why we're heading towards world war 3 at breakneck speed right now.
There's just one small problem: Obama has used less executive orders than any other president in 40 years. Even now, in his final days, when presidents traditionally use a lot of them - passing things their base will like and forcing the other side to be the assholes that repeal it because their base don't like them.
Obama only really began using executive orders after 4 years of the most obstructionist congress in history. The guy REALLY tried to do things by working with congress, they refused to work with him. They took a vow to undermine him at every step and pursued that vow with such alacrity that some of their actions bordered on high treason (that letter to Iran almost certainly crossed the line actually). That was where Obama, finally, started using them as the only means to get ANYTHING done while in office.
What else did you expect when over a 4 year period the republicans would not cooperate on ANYTHING -even things they had been clamoring to do for DECADES were resisted if it was proposed by HIM.
When the GOP talks about not raising taxes they always silently add "on rich people". In fact they always give them tax CUTS.
They have never failed to raise taxes on ordinary people. Never. But then, they have never given a crap about ordinary people - the ordinary people are just the ladders they stand on to reach the corporate cock they suck on.
I'm not sure phlogiston was ever a medical term. It was a physics term for a substance believed to be what flames are made out off - the explanation for fire. If I'm wrong and it had a medical usage I would love to learn. Phlogiston also put up quite a fight before finally going the way of the dodo. When we finally figured out how to weigh things that burned and discovered, to our shock, that they got HEAVIER not lighter - for a while most scientists were convinced that this proved phlogiston had negative mass (and that helped explain why every attempt to isolate it had failed - if it's mass is negative then obviously we've been trying all the wrong ways to look for it).
It took quite a bit of time for the idea that atoms bond into molecules, some of those processes are exothermic and produce heat and "flames" are just glowing, hot gasses from the result to finally replace the old belief. That's the trouble with a theory that explains every observation so far, when data starts emerging that contradicts it, it can be very tempting to try and massage the theory into fitting the new data (even if this means such ridiculous changes as a substance with negative mass) rather than considering that it may be time to write a new theory. Science often takes the long route to better consensus - but it does get there in the end.
Not exactly, but when you drop that impressive new gadget on the bar the girl next to you will assume anybody who has such a fancy gadget must also have a big penis - and by the time she finds out the truth she'll be unlikely to change her mind about where she wants it to be put.
This system was first developed with extremely large, expensive cars. In some parts of the US it works well with extremely large, expensive guns. The use of it with tech gadgets remains heavily advertised but only slightly successful.
Please note that this technique has never worked on any women with an IQ higher than that of a dog. It presumably could also work on MEN with an IQ of dog-level or lower but their response to concluding you have a big penis tends to be violent.
Good job "working within the system" to prevent bad things happening so far....
Nobody thought killing the Archduke Ferdinand would unleash a world war. Nobody. Hell a month after it happened the markets hadn't moved yet. But a LOT of historians and scholars between 1910 and 1914 warned that the web of alliances and treaties in Europe were causing a highly unstable situation where a single wrong move could unleash a cataclysmic chain of events - more than one warned it could cause a world war if the wrong thing happened, they couldn't tell what that thing would be - but it was visible to those who knew how to look that the world was tense enough to make it happen. World war 2 was even more obvious - it was predicted in detail by several scholars as early as 1919. They could see the inevitable outcome of the Versailes treaty would be to ultimately push Germany to elect a dictator and rise up against the world.
Now as it happened, inside the government of the Weimar republic there were a lot of people like you - who also saw that risk, and believed they could prevent it arising by "working within the system". For a while they succeeded - but there were things they couldn't control. Most critically - they couldn't control the US election of 1928. That election gave republicans both houses of congress and the white house (just like right now ahem) and the *same* republican economic plans that they always push were now able to be unleashed at full force. We call it "trickle down" economics (I know republicans pretend that isn't what it is but their claim is built on nothing more solid than 'we never use that phrase' - they do nothing to call the accuracy of their description into question) back then it was called "Horse and Sparrow" economics (feed the horses well and the sparrows can eat the seeds they drop on the road) - as one commentator at the time remarked "The great thing about it is, it admit straight up that under republican ideals the poor are expected to eat shit". Notice how incredibly alike these things are.
The big thing about that election is - in 1929 it led to the complete collapse of Wall Street (there is NO doubt that republican deregulation campaigns caused black friday). It didn't end there. You see this isn't widely known but the stock market collapse was short-lived. Wall street was back to 1928 levels before January 1930 and back to 1929 levels before October. The stock market recovered almost instantly ! So why did the economy keep falling ? Another great republican idea: cutting government spending. Austerity in a great recession caused the great depression. As massive deflation hit, the republicans refused to spend - and the money just kept getting worth more and more. While nobody could sell anything. Agricultural prices dropped by 66% from January 1930 to January 1931 ! And with the cheapest food in history - people were starving, because nobody could buy the food. Those who had money hoarded it - because the money got worth more the longer you didn't spend it. Meantime the farmers kept cutting prices to try and sell - but too many people were without an income, they still didn't sell enough - so they had to cut staff to survive, which means there were now MORE people without an income so htey had to cut prices more. And so on and so forth. The depression wouldn't end until Pearl Harbour FORCED the government to start spending money - so SOMEBODY was spending money. Because everybody's income is somebody else's expense, and if nobody is spending then nobody is earning either.
But all this hit Germany really hard. The costs of Versailes on their economy had forced them to borrow heavily, they were okay - they
What assumptions. Were talking about known facts. The bullet cluster is colliding in a way thats impossible under MOND but exactly according to what ot would do if there is dark matter. No other theory can explain what we can see it doing. The cosmic background radiation is exactly what you would have if about 80% of the matter produced in the big bang was dark - and wrong for every other theory. The gravitational lensing of galaxies is exactly where it would be if tgere was a dark matter halo around them holding most of the mass far from the stars... and no other theory explains this. The redshift in the universe is exactly as dark matter theory predicts and if any other theory was true it would have to be different.
There is no other known theory that explains the universe we observe.
Here is a key thing about science. We do not measure an idea by how well it does what it was designed to do. Explainimg the thing we invented an idea to explain is not a valid test (that would be circular reasoning). We measure a theory by what else it does. We work out what other consequences it has and then compare those to observations. There are dozens of theories to explain the speed of galaxies. They all do it very well. No surprise bevause thats what all of them are designed to do. Dark matter however is the only one thst passes the "other things" test. Every identifiable consequence of dark matter has been observed. None of the cobsequences of any competimg theory is observed. The universe looks like one with dark matter. It does not look like one with MOND. We know what a MOND universe would look like and we do not live in one.
Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. Trust me. It takes a special kind of stupid to think tyrants are all unique. On the contrary they are all alike. And Trump is a textbook example. Your ignorance does not represent a flaw in my thinking. It just makes you another recurring pattern in the history of every tyrant ever: a useful idiot. Get an education for crying out loud. Read a fucking history book - a real one, not some piece of propaganda.
The only factor you have is f - that's not enough. But I'm not the one making the claim (that their figures represent a perpetual motion machine) - you are, so the burden of proof is on you to do the math and show that e is bigger than 1 KW. Since watt is a measure of the rate of energy use - you actually don't even have the input energy. You are claiming that output energy exceeds input energy - but you have no evidence to back up this (ridiculous) assertion. You just want us to accept it as a consequence of the lack of reaction mass without giving any evidence - but that is begging the question.
Now here's the clencher -the people who are testing this thing - at numerous independent labs around the world, include some pretty good scientists - their work is also being reviewed by top phycisists - people who most certainly WOULD raise a red flag if this things' output energy was higher than it's input energy. They have not done so. Nobody but you has suggested it - and the people who DO know the mass, the acceleration and the velocities certainly don't believe so. Nobody but you believes it is possible, in fact, with ANY mass or acceleration from any velocity for this thing to produce more energy than it consumes.
The burden of proof is on you to show why you believe this claim. If you have access to the numbers for mass, velocity and acceleration then you can do so.
There's a missing number which neither of us has - the mass of the device. You need that to calculate the change in velocity which you need to calculate the kinetic energy. My number is a best estimate given the 7 orders of magnitude difference between input energy and thrust.
The wikipedia pages are actually pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Note the section on Ammendments. Our constitution is intended as living document. We've had more ammendments in 22 years than the US has had in 300. Ultimately all the rights US citizens have (including the ones in the bill of rights ammendments) we have as well - mostly in the main document (Chapter 2 section 9 for example guarantees the rights of prisoners, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure - it contains the same rights as your fourth amendment). Most of the ammendments are minor administrative things like changing the name of a province - but some are important clarifications well.
And then there is this guy: https://www.dailymaverick.co.z... He is a professor of constitutional law who writes a weekly column for a newspaper. Many of the articles are news topical - explaining what the law (and constitution) actually says about some current event or important case, but many are more generic explanations of what the constitution says in general. Some may be hard to follow without some knowledge of local news but it covers in quite a lot of detail key things about how the law and constitution works and applies in particular situations. He has a habit of predicting court cases at times - and generally gets them right.
Slashdot Mirror
Citation needed.
Actually ditto for your previous post.
Please provide me with links to peer reviewed scientific articles to support your claims that these figures are inline with past observed GLOBAL warming trends.
No you don't get to count the medieval warm period - it was confined to such a tiny area that the global average barely changed *AT ALL* during the entire thing. In fact - there is NO previous GLOBAL warming trend that looked anything like this. Some local ones in very specific regions, but nothing like this on the global averages.
Hell even the ends of ice ages didn't happen this fast (or anywhere close actually).
Not just the advanced nations. Even in South Africa solar is the fastest rising source of new power, and that's despite a government that refuses to engage with it - and is forging ahead with an unaffordable nuclear build plan that won't yield results for decades - all because the key decision makers took bribes from (get this) the owners of the largest Uranium mine in the country - who would love to have more nuclear plants they could sell to locally (shipping nuclear fuels for exports is very expensive due to all the safety considerations and rules and South Africa only has a single nuclear power plant - which can only buy so much).
Or to quote Neil De Grasse Tyson: "It's basic physics. If you keep adding energy to a system, but you slow down the rate at which the energy can leave the system then the system gets hotter".
Wait... you think people demanding we let them drive on roads we all share without proof that they are capable of doing so with a modicum of responsibility and skill, or worse with convincing proof that they cannot (known as 'license suspended') are somehow heroes for liberty ?
When your actions endanger the lives of uncountable innocent people - they are NOT an action of liberty. Regulating you from doing so is not government overreach - it's government doing exactly what it exists - above all - to do. On the contrary - not letting you drive with a suspended license is PROTECTING liberty - it protects MY liberty to walk the streets without an unreasonably high risk that the people driving on it will fail to stop at zebra crossings.
Don't be so sure. Hell South Africa managed to do appartheid without having race defined !
I'm not kidding you. They went through about 6 different attempts to define it in the early days - and ultimately settled on "you are a member of the race of which the community and culture accepts you as a member" - and had individual cases of dispute left up to judges who would rule when there were issues based on collecting a whole lot of personal data and witness statements from neighbours and the like.
In a few cases coloureds (the South African term 'coloured' means "mixed race" - it's more like what Americans once called "Mulatos") managed to cross the line and become legally white for example, and at least a few white people who lived in areas bordering coloured populations ended up being legally included in that race group. Oddly though there was the case of Johnny Clegg. Clegg was white-born in a Zulu area and fully and utterly adoped Zulu culture, and was accepted as a Zulu by the local tribe. Despite years of attempts though - he could never get legally classified as Zulu. Clegg is also one the best-selling musicians in the country's history so his case became very well publicised.
In 1986, in a desperate attempt to try and keep the system on life support the government instituted a number of reforms -believing they could keep the foundational appartheid system running if they curb the worst of it's excesses. These reforms got rid of several of the most racist laws and in some truly bizarre ways at times. For example it scrapped the immorality act (which prohibited sex or marriage across colour lines) but kept the group areas act - which meant that while you could now marry somebody of a different race, legally you and your new spouse could not live together !
But one of those reforms completely scrapped racial classification and definition. The 1986 election was the last true whites-only election in the country in fact, and had there been another appartheid election it would have been very hard to keep black people from voting since legally they didn't exist anymore. That they somehow managed to keep the segregation laws going while not legally classifying people at all made it all rather surreal - even by appartheid government standards. They also insituted a new tricameral parliament. The two additional houses of parliament had one which ruled over coloured affairs and one which ruled over Indian affairs (no representation for black's still - despite being 80% of the population) and they had no real power anyway as the white-chamber could veto any law they passed.
This was the beginning of the end of the system anyway. The government grew ever more paranoid and the country was effectively in a never-ending state of emergency. Always quite censorious and masters of propaganda it got stepped up to never before seen levels and even flagrant dishonesty - the government fought a ten year war in Angola while denying to the population that it was at war at all ! It was "just guarding the border of Namibia" it said... this was a bit of an open secret though - you can't have thousands of soldiers serving and coming home without some of them talking about where they really were.
That president P.W. Botha basically went crazier and crazier - and after a minor health-scare in 1989 the party essentially held a coup from the inside, claiming he had, had a severe stroke they removed him from office before he could wipe the shit from his eyes and gave the presidency to F.W. De Klerk who abolished all remaining appartheid laws, freed Nelson Mandela and all other political prisoners and announced a negotiation process to ultimately lead to elections in a unified South Africa where all could vote - all in his very first speech (February 29, 1989).
There was one last desperate attempt to ressurrect the system. In 1992 the rightwing parties (who held a considerable number of parliamentary seats) were clamoring that the National Party had no right to end the system, negotiate with the ANC (and other
Presumably those could be covered under "and more" ?
When you're asked a question and you get it wrong saying "It is only wrong because of things I don't care about" makes you MORE of an idiot, not LESS.
Your "explanation" also fails to account for the false belief that the stock market has gone down. It's not like Bummsville, Idaho has it's own stock market so the people there can pretend that the one in New York doesn't matter.
Now -there's a lot of truth to the claim that the decline of rural economics had a lot to do with the anger that drove Trump into the white house - clearly it was sufficient that his utterly overt racism, sexism, rapeyism, corruption, constant lies and frankly dangerous derangement could all be overlooked (which to me is impossible by somebody who isn't ALSO racist, sexist, rapey, dishonest and bigotted - overlooking it MAKES YOU PART OF IT) but there's a problem: the blame was misplaced and the cure was wrong.
The president deals with economic issues on a national level - as affected by GLOBAL geopolitical matters. It is impossible to do that AND do something about the unemployment rate in coaltown, Virginia. The president has to consider 350 million citizens - of which 66% live in those big cities. His capacity to deal with local economic issues is extremely limited. That job belongs with your mayors, your state legislators, your governor. They have the local knowledge, they make the local laws, they should be fostering the environment for improving local lives.
If the average numbers for the country as a whole has improved - the president has done a fine job, and no president CAN do more than that since their power simply do not (and never can be allowed to) extend that far.
Somebody here on ./ once defended the electoral college on the basis that "San Francisco shouldn't get to dictate to the entire country". But he is wrong - because "San Francisco" and it's like represent two thirds of all Americans. That IS America. The rural parts are a minority and their backwardness is by choice - and has been a major reason for their decline. On the contrary, coaltown Virginia should not get to dictate to all of America.
And finally - there is the fact that Trump is not going to do anything for the people who voted for him. He may take a protectionist approach to China (his choice for trade secretary suggest he'll actually follow through on that one)... but that would put MORE people in America OUT of work. Even if he saves some jobs, the jobs lost to the massive economic decline that follows would outnumber that by several thousand to one.
What about immigration, even just the illegal kind ? If Trump follows through on the policies he promised - that would cause an immediate second great depression. Which is why every indication is that he has no intention of doing anything about that. Hell he appointed the CEO of Karl's Jr. to his cabinet: a man who hires almost exclusively illegal aliens and has spent his life lobbying to keep doing that, who has repeatedly and publicly stated that he PREFERS illegal aliens over Americans since they dare not try and negotiate a better deal and the barest scraps he can toss them. He is the worst kind of person whether you love or hate immigrants - because he defends having a flood of them in order to exploit their desperation. Trump put him in cabinet. So much for his promises there.
Trump won't keep any promises he made to the rural communities, not one with the SOLE exception of those from which he, himself, personally can make a profit (and if half the rest ends up unemployed to make him that profit he won't care).
Hell he won't even do the mass deportation thing he promised. He can't, there CANNOT be another operation wetback. Do you know why ? Because we have 70 years of supreme court rulings since Eisenhower and they have made it absolutely clear that the constitution applies to everybody within the borders of the US - whether a citizen, a tourist or an immigrant, legal or otherwise. The supremes have declared that you cannot do a raid to check fo
Small correction: fewer than any president in closer to a hundred years (it may be more but I haven't looked further back). FDR holds the record (but as the longest serving president ever that should be seen in context), and every president since him has issued significantly more EO's than Obama has.
Sure. My wife is a nude model. Her nips, ass, pussy whatever you want to look at is all over the web if you know where to look.
She started after we met - and I encouraged her, it made her happy, she enjoyed it, it turned her on - and I got the benefits of her coming back from shoots all revved up.
Not everybody thinks nudity is a big deal or sex is something shameful or private.
However, no, you can't have any of my mother's pix (if such exist, I've never asked) because - and here is the clincher - unlike my wife, she has NOT consented to letting strangers see them.
My wife agreed to that, she is happy with that. THAT is what makes it okay. It's okay, if the person whose body it is is okay with it being seen. Nobody else's opinion matters.
Do you eat YOUR lunch in the shitter ?
Then you don't get to ask my kid to do that either.
Thank god I live in a country where you expressing that TO a breatfeeding mother in public is a crime and you will get fined for it. She has a right to feed her child whenever, where-ever she needs to. You do NOT have a right to object to it. If you're a public business (like a shopping mall) you can't even complain if you OWN the place she's doing it in. It's considered harassment to ask her to cover up, or in fact to bother her in any way.
There is no more healthy way to feed an infant than breastmilk, and it's to the advantage of everybody if we make it as easy as possible for all mothers to use this method - because their healthier children means shorter wait times for us at the doctor, and cheaper medicines when we get sick - since there isn't the added the demand of a billion sick babies.
> As a conservative, I do think the prevalence of pornography and the accessibility of these images is harmful to society on the whole.
What a wonderful sentence. In one sentence you summed up everything wrong with America today. You hold that porn is harmful - but offer no evidence whatsoever to counteract the overwhelming scientific evidence that, not only is it harmless, it's actually HEALTHY.
Your basis for this claim is "As a conservative" - you believe this, not because of any rational reason, simply because that is the view of your tribe. You accept this view because you are conservative and it's a conservative view.
Now it's true that there is a similar thing on the liberal side, but it's measurably and massively smaller. The right has it's wingnuts and the left has it's moonpies - but the moonpies are a tiny fringe while on the right the tendency to accept ideology over scientific fact is far more prevalent and indeed, is the mainstream.
This is the right's version of identity politics. I believe what my tribe believes. I adore tradition without being critical of it (that's a formal fallacy by the way) and I always imagine the past was better than the present (and that is, at least in part, sustained by never, ever asking what the past looked like if you weren't MY ancestors).
And that is what just gave the presidency to the single most dangerous and least capable candidate to ever hold that office.
Nevermind the abundant and overwhelming scientific FACT that immigrants CREATE more jobs than they take - we want them gone (but we won't take the jobs they were doing afterwards because it STILL pays too little for us). And when they are gone and we're ALL out of work and sitting in the second great depression (because there can literally be NO other outcome from a mass deportation program in the 21st century)... we'll somehow convince ourselves it was the liberals fault. After all we already believe that unemployment went up and the stock market went down under Obama - reality has no place in our decision making process. We believe this, because our tribe, the people we trust, believe it - and we never question them, or wonder if whoever told THEM was honest.
This, right here, is why we're heading towards world war 3 at breakneck speed right now.
If you don't know the name of the bit you just pointed at - that was hurt enough.
There's just one small problem: Obama has used less executive orders than any other president in 40 years. Even now, in his final days, when presidents traditionally use a lot of them - passing things their base will like and forcing the other side to be the assholes that repeal it because their base don't like them.
Obama only really began using executive orders after 4 years of the most obstructionist congress in history. The guy REALLY tried to do things by working with congress, they refused to work with him. They took a vow to undermine him at every step and pursued that vow with such alacrity that some of their actions bordered on high treason (that letter to Iran almost certainly crossed the line actually). That was where Obama, finally, started using them as the only means to get ANYTHING done while in office.
What else did you expect when over a 4 year period the republicans would not cooperate on ANYTHING -even things they had been clamoring to do for DECADES were resisted if it was proposed by HIM.
When the GOP talks about not raising taxes they always silently add "on rich people". In fact they always give them tax CUTS.
They have never failed to raise taxes on ordinary people. Never. But then, they have never given a crap about ordinary people - the ordinary people are just the ladders they stand on to reach the corporate cock they suck on.
I'm not sure phlogiston was ever a medical term. It was a physics term for a substance believed to be what flames are made out off - the explanation for fire. If I'm wrong and it had a medical usage I would love to learn.
Phlogiston also put up quite a fight before finally going the way of the dodo. When we finally figured out how to weigh things that burned and discovered, to our shock, that they got HEAVIER not lighter - for a while most scientists were convinced that this proved phlogiston had negative mass (and that helped explain why every attempt to isolate it had failed - if it's mass is negative then obviously we've been trying all the wrong ways to look for it).
It took quite a bit of time for the idea that atoms bond into molecules, some of those processes are exothermic and produce heat and "flames" are just glowing, hot gasses from the result to finally replace the old belief. That's the trouble with a theory that explains every observation so far, when data starts emerging that contradicts it, it can be very tempting to try and massage the theory into fitting the new data (even if this means such ridiculous changes as a substance with negative mass) rather than considering that it may be time to write a new theory. Science often takes the long route to better consensus - but it does get there in the end.
Not exactly, but when you drop that impressive new gadget on the bar the girl next to you will assume anybody who has such a fancy gadget must also have a big penis - and by the time she finds out the truth she'll be unlikely to change her mind about where she wants it to be put.
This system was first developed with extremely large, expensive cars. In some parts of the US it works well with extremely large, expensive guns. The use of it with tech gadgets remains heavily advertised but only slightly successful.
Please note that this technique has never worked on any women with an IQ higher than that of a dog. It presumably could also work on MEN with an IQ of dog-level or lower but their response to concluding you have a big penis tends to be violent.
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
Good job "working within the system" to prevent bad things happening so far....
Nobody thought killing the Archduke Ferdinand would unleash a world war. Nobody. Hell a month after it happened the markets hadn't moved yet. But a LOT of historians and scholars between 1910 and 1914 warned that the web of alliances and treaties in Europe were causing a highly unstable situation where a single wrong move could unleash a cataclysmic chain of events - more than one warned it could cause a world war if the wrong thing happened, they couldn't tell what that thing would be - but it was visible to those who knew how to look that the world was tense enough to make it happen.
World war 2 was even more obvious - it was predicted in detail by several scholars as early as 1919. They could see the inevitable outcome of the Versailes treaty would be to ultimately push Germany to elect a dictator and rise up against the world.
Now as it happened, inside the government of the Weimar republic there were a lot of people like you - who also saw that risk, and believed they could prevent it arising by "working within the system". For a while they succeeded - but there were things they couldn't control. Most critically - they couldn't control the US election of 1928. That election gave republicans both houses of congress and the white house (just like right now ahem) and the *same* republican economic plans that they always push were now able to be unleashed at full force. We call it "trickle down" economics (I know republicans pretend that isn't what it is but their claim is built on nothing more solid than 'we never use that phrase' - they do nothing to call the accuracy of their description into question) back then it was called "Horse and Sparrow" economics (feed the horses well and the sparrows can eat the seeds they drop on the road) - as one commentator at the time remarked "The great thing about it is, it admit straight up that under republican ideals the poor are expected to eat shit". Notice how incredibly alike these things are.
The big thing about that election is - in 1929 it led to the complete collapse of Wall Street (there is NO doubt that republican deregulation campaigns caused black friday). It didn't end there. You see this isn't widely known but the stock market collapse was short-lived. Wall street was back to 1928 levels before January 1930 and back to 1929 levels before October. The stock market recovered almost instantly !
So why did the economy keep falling ? Another great republican idea: cutting government spending. Austerity in a great recession caused the great depression. As massive deflation hit, the republicans refused to spend - and the money just kept getting worth more and more. While nobody could sell anything. Agricultural prices dropped by 66% from January 1930 to January 1931 ! And with the cheapest food in history - people were starving, because nobody could buy the food. Those who had money hoarded it - because the money got worth more the longer you didn't spend it.
Meantime the farmers kept cutting prices to try and sell - but too many people were without an income, they still didn't sell enough - so they had to cut staff to survive, which means there were now MORE people without an income so htey had to cut prices more. And so on and so forth. The depression wouldn't end until Pearl Harbour FORCED the government to start spending money - so SOMEBODY was spending money. Because everybody's income is somebody else's expense, and if nobody is spending then nobody is earning either.
But all this hit Germany really hard. The costs of Versailes on their economy had forced them to borrow heavily, they were okay - they
You guys realize that the safety pin is not something scared people wear right ?
It means: "If you're in danger, I will protect you".
That's ... generally a sentiment associated not with fear but with bravery.
What assumptions. Were talking about known facts. The bullet cluster is colliding in a way thats impossible under MOND but exactly according to what ot would do if there is dark matter. No other theory can explain what we can see it doing.
The cosmic background radiation is exactly what you would have if about 80% of the matter produced in the big bang was dark - and wrong for every other theory.
The gravitational lensing of galaxies is exactly where it would be if tgere was a dark matter halo around them holding most of the mass far from the stars... and no other theory explains this.
The redshift in the universe is exactly as dark matter theory predicts and if any other theory was true it would have to be different.
There is no other known theory that explains the universe we observe.
Here is a key thing about science. We do not measure an idea by how well it does what it was designed to do. Explainimg the thing we invented an idea to explain is not a valid test (that would be circular reasoning). We measure a theory by what else it does. We work out what other consequences it has and then compare those to observations.
There are dozens of theories to explain the speed of galaxies. They all do it very well. No surprise bevause thats what all of them are designed to do. Dark matter however is the only one thst passes the "other things" test. Every identifiable consequence of dark matter has been observed. None of the cobsequences of any competimg theory is observed. The universe looks like one with dark matter. It does not look like one with MOND. We know what a MOND universe would look like and we do not live in one.
Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. Trust me. It takes a special kind of stupid to think tyrants are all unique. On the contrary they are all alike.
And Trump is a textbook example. Your ignorance does not represent a flaw in my thinking. It just makes you another recurring pattern in the history of every tyrant ever: a useful idiot.
Get an education for crying out loud. Read a fucking history book - a real one, not some piece of propaganda.
But you have no knowledge of
a, m or v.
The only factor you have is f - that's not enough. But I'm not the one making the claim (that their figures represent a perpetual motion machine) - you are, so the burden of proof is on you to do the math and show that e is bigger than 1 KW. Since watt is a measure of the rate of energy use - you actually don't even have the input energy.
You are claiming that output energy exceeds input energy - but you have no evidence to back up this (ridiculous) assertion. You just want us to accept it as a consequence of the lack of reaction mass without giving any evidence - but that is begging the question.
Now here's the clencher -the people who are testing this thing - at numerous independent labs around the world, include some pretty good scientists - their work is also being reviewed by top phycisists - people who most certainly WOULD raise a red flag if this things' output energy was higher than it's input energy. They have not done so. Nobody but you has suggested it - and the people who DO know the mass, the acceleration and the velocities certainly don't believe so.
Nobody but you believes it is possible, in fact, with ANY mass or acceleration from any velocity for this thing to produce more energy than it consumes.
The burden of proof is on you to show why you believe this claim. If you have access to the numbers for mass, velocity and acceleration then you can do so.
It's not paranoia when it's happened this way a million times - and has NEVER happened any OTHER way.
It's delusional to think this will be the exception to the rule that has never had an exception.
There's a missing number which neither of us has - the mass of the device. You need that to calculate the change in velocity which you need to calculate the kinetic energy.
My number is a best estimate given the 7 orders of magnitude difference between input energy and thrust.
The wikipedia pages are actually pretty good:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Note the section on Ammendments. Our constitution is intended as living document. We've had more ammendments in 22 years than the US has had in 300. Ultimately all the rights US citizens have (including the ones in the bill of rights ammendments) we have as well - mostly in the main document (Chapter 2 section 9 for example guarantees the rights of prisoners, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure - it contains the same rights as your fourth amendment). Most of the ammendments are minor administrative things like changing the name of a province - but some are important clarifications well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And then there is this guy:
https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...
He is a professor of constitutional law who writes a weekly column for a newspaper. Many of the articles are news topical - explaining what the law (and constitution) actually says about some current event or important case, but many are more generic explanations of what the constitution says in general. Some may be hard to follow without some knowledge of local news but it covers in quite a lot of detail key things about how the law and constitution works and applies in particular situations. He has a habit of predicting court cases at times - and generally gets them right.
Here are a few of his best columns (in my view):
https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...
https://www.dailymaverick.co.z... | This one goes into detail into a peculiarity of South African law. The way traditional leaders have been brought into the legal system (effectively on par with common law inherited from Europe)
https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...
https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...
https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...
https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...
https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...
https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...
Trump didn't say "modernize" he said "Expand" now I don't know what language you are talking but in English that means "get a lot more nukes".