California has a booming (up 4.2% in 2015, twice the national rate), diverse economy which is larger than all but five of the nations in the world (bigger than France, Brazil or India). It's economy is one and half times bigger than that of the next state (Texas). Seems to be doing fine, and, unlike some other one trick ponies, it won't go under if crude oil prices stay low.
We've got eight counties in Texas with less than 1000 residents, I'm sure they all went for Trump. On the other hand, Texas has five counties with over a million residents (Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar and Travis). Of those, four of the five went for Clinton. That's in TEXAS. Measuring wins by county is crap unless you are giving the vote to cows and sagebrush. If you do want to rank votes by counties, then measured by economic output, Clinton won the counties nationwide which account for 64% of the USA's economic output (http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/25/presidential-election-economic-split/). So the counties which are actually producing in this country went for Clinton.
Well, she and the Dems did get more total votes than the Republicans in both the presidential and senate elections. And as far as appealing to middle and lower classes, Hilllary lead in the votes of those with family incomes of $50K and less, and she lost those with higher incomes (http://www.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trump-clinton-2016-11/#the-racial-divide-between-democratic-and-republican-voters-was-clear-3). So we have to be very specific in discussions of which of the lower and middle class voters the Dems don't appeal to. The ones they do appeal to seem to have been forgotten in all these post election analyses.
The Greatest Generation also spawned the Vietnam War (and sent the Boomers to fight it) and with it the collapse of citizens' trust in the American government. And they also enshrined the concept of untouchable entitlements for the elder generations, paid for by the next generation; on that the Boomers are just following up what their parents set in place.
Many people have looked at the results (http://www.electoral-vote.com/#item-1) and their conclusion is that it was not an unusual turnout of white baby boomers who propelled Trump to victory, but rather a lack of turnout by everyone who isn't a white baby boomer (compared to previous recent elections). The baby boomers didn't change their voting habits much, the Millennials just didn't bother to get out and vote for their own futures -- that's not the Boomers' fault. And I've seen statements that the Millennials are now a bigger voting block then the Boomers -- maybe voting just isn't trendy and cool enough.
Notice that whenever the "21st Century Texas Economic Success" story is mentioned, is is almost always Austin or Houston listed as examples, never the conservative leaning cities like Port Arthur, Midland,... Vidor, etc. There are reasons for that, one of which is that nobody really wants to live in those holes. The recent oil boom brought some prosperity to the boonies but that's over for now.
I thought the same thing at first reading of the title but the wording involved has a subtle distinction. A "naked singularity" is a term which has been defined by physicists for a while and is, as you stated, a singularity in space-time which does not have an event horizon around it, or would be if such a thing can exist, which is currently undecided. The presence of an event horizon is what makes a black hole (things go in, nothing comes out [minus Hawking radiation, I know]). The term "naked black hole" seems to be a term just made up by the author of the linked article or somewhere back in the reporting chain and has no formal definition, as far as I know, but is highly misleading. I would say that whoever made up that term "naked black hole" is not very familiar with the field of gravitation or they would have avoided this confusing construction. Speaking of confusing, the last time I posted something involving General Relativity, I screwed it up; hopefully this time is better.
Ah, you are totally right. That's what I get for doing a politically related post in a hurry. And I screwed up Comey's name (copying that from the parent). Correction appreciated. Comey was Ashcroft's Deputy Attorney General.
Colmy didn't prosecute Scooter Libby, that was special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, then a federal jury convicted Libby, and the federal judge presiding sentenced him. Libby never went to jail -- Bush commuted that part of his sentence. John Ashcroft was FBI director at the time. All Colmy did was appoint Fitzgerald after Ashcroft recused himself from the case.
"The Constitutional freedoms of the US have never been under more attack" -- man, they need to teach history better in the schools. Constitutional freedoms have always been under attack -- consider the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus, the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, the House Un-American Activities Committee (1938 to 1975), the FBI under Hoover. And that's not even considering that for most of the USA's existence constitutional freedoms were regularly denied to persons of the wrong race. Things are no worse than before, and better for a lot of Americans. It's just that everyone now thinks they are special. The civil libertarians have always had work to do, and always will.
All five of the kills which Steve Ritchie (the only US Air Force pilot ace in Vietnam) got were done by AIM-7 Sparrows. For two of those kills he was flying an F-4E which had a gun. Here is a description of his fourth kill, "The first MiG had also turned back and was attacking the last F-4 in Ritchie's flight from behind, an often fatal consequence to US aircraft employing the then-standard "fluid four" tactical formation. Ritchie made a hard turn across the curving intercept of the MiG, again coming out at its 5 o'clock, and the MiG, apparently perceiving the threat, broke hard right and dove away. Ritchie fired an AIM-7 from inside its minimum range and at the limit of its capability to turn. Expecting the Sparrow to miss, he was trying to switch to a gun attack in the relatively unfamiliar F-4E he was flying that day when the missile exploded the MiG, 1 minute and 29 seconds after the first kill." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
He's 'pro-life' personally but professionally does not impose his beliefs on others. Statement from NARAL Pro-Choice America, ""While Senator Kaine has been open about his personal reservations about abortion, he’s maintained a 100% pro-choice voting record in the U.S. Senate. He voted against dangerous abortion bans, he has fought against efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, and he voted to strengthen clinic security by establishing a federal fund for it," NARAL President Ilyse Hogue said in the statement. "
"The NACA model, where the agency was an entity for funding basic research and cooperative collaboration with external entities toward the advancement of the state of the art, rather than a body for carrying out congressional megaproject-mandates, seems much more desirable." -- interesting idea that has merits but in the absence of NASA, the Air Force would have certainly taken over crewed spaceflight in the US in the 1960s. I don't think that would have turned out so well; at least under NASA the military astronauts had to pretend to be supporting "science, peaceful exploration, etc". And there would be the same mega-project problem, as there already exists with the Air Force. The robotic probe side of NASA would likely have ended up with the National Science Foundation, which may have been better by not competing directly with crewed spaceflight in the same agency but I think space exploration would have been too large a program for NSF to absorb in comparison to the rest of its budget and space would have eaten the budget for other sciences there at NSF or died over there.
So, from your vast DoD experience do you actually KNOW of anyone who went to jail for being sloppy with classified material, without some espionage attempt being established? Maybe it is a jailing offence, but in the real world DoD that I was in what would have happened would be an investigation to see what might have gotten compromised and at worst the offender would have gotten a reprimand and lost their security clearance.
I'd trust a Tesla car in "autopilot" mode to not hit me on the road a lot more than I trust the cars under the control of most of the human drivers out there.
You need to read up on some history of the American space program. If it wasn't for Johnson and Kennedy then there wouldn't be an American civilian space program. Eisenhower wasn't interested and it was his administration which told the Army group under von Braun to NOT launch an orbital satellite in 1956 two years before the Russians eventually did. When Kennedy wanted to come up with something big in space he had Johnson check on the possibilities for him, from which came Project Apollo. Of all the presidents, Johnson was NASA's biggest proponent (and supporter of congressional funding). In contrast, Goldwater (Johnson's Republican challenger in 1964 for the history-challenged) wanted to close up NASA and transfer all American space work to the Air Force. After Johnson, Nixon wasn't interested at all and his administration started cutting Apollo flights almost as soon as he got into office. They cancelled Apollos 18 and 19 and Nixon himself proposed cancelling all the moon missions after Apollo 15 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canceled_Apollo_missions). No president, and possibly no political figure at all, pushed harder for space exploration than Johnson; certainly none had the positive impact that he did.
Thanks for this. Well analyzed. Though I'm at the point of not bothering to discuss it. I just want to find a legal betting market and make money off the stupidity out there rather than just be appalled.
There have been theories for some years that explain the preferred chirality of biological molecules (the ones which are chiral) because of the inherent asymmetry of the weak nuclear force. I've seen arguments that because of the weak force one enantiomer of a chiral molecule will be very slightly more tightly bound than the other and then due to biological selection (as you describe) and amplifying feedback effects during the rise of the first set biological molecules that the chirality we see today was preferred and not randomly selected. One quick recent reference: http://www.nature.com/news/for...
As Republican presidents Gerald Ford and G.H. Bush proved, you don't have to wait until someone close to your administration is tried, or even indicted, to grant them a pardon.
A tank full of gasoline is not going to spontaneously explode because a speck of the wrong kind of dirt (a catalyst) gets in the tank or a fuel line. Gasoline itself is quite flammable but it doesn't explosively decompose like H2O2 does -- it has to be mixed with air at not too rich or too lean of a mixture, then initiated with a spark or flame. Diesel and jet fuel with their higher flashpoints are even less prone to spontaneous fire or explosion. Gasoline itself would probably be deemed too dangerous to use as a general purpose fuel if it weren't already grandfathered into the world's infrastructure. Whereas with H2O2 we have this quote from Wikipedia, "The boiling point of H2O2 has been extrapolated as being 150.2 C, approximately 50 C higher than water. In practice hydrogen peroxide will undergo potentially explosive thermal decomposition if heated to this temperature." and that is even without a catalyst present.
You don't get free hydrogen from separation of hydrogen peroxide; you get free oxygen plus water. H2O2 -> O + H2O. And concentrated hydrogen peroxide (not the 3% stuff in the drugstores) is highly explosive and needs no other reactant, except a catalyst-- it's used as a rocket fuel. Not something going in my car.
"The money is overseas because the sold products overseas and had revenue overseas. On top of that, the products were probably built overseas." In that case these companies don't seem to need the US market for their products. We should just close it to them or tariff up their products. Real US corporations, the ones who pay US taxes, can fill the (lucrative) demand here.
There is a concept called 'emergent phenomena' whereby large entities arise from smaller components with properties not evident except in the aggregation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence). So you can have these corporations which are psychopathic entities greater (or more malevolent, depending on your view) than the sum of their shareholders. These giant corporations long ago passed the point of being entities which can't just be defined by their creators and owners. No 'evil ghost people' explanation required to explain corporate behavior nowadays, just corporate managers.
The Roosevelts were kind of an anti-dynasty. The Theodore Roosevelt side of the family didn't support Franklin in his run for President, according to some PBS special I saw last year.. Also Theodore was a Republican and Franklin was a Democrat. They were among the best presidents of the 20th century, though, arguably #1 and #2. I'll take that dynasty.
If you don't like it, then move somewhere else in Texas. Austin is pretty unusual in the state, being 'leftist' and all. Maybe that's why Austin is such a desirable place to live and people are moving in like crazy. I've got a friend up in Wichita Falls, there's no problem getting cheap property up there. Or if you prefer coastal living, I've got another friend in Brazosport, no leftyness there and plenty of cheap property. What does Austin have that Wichita Falls, Brazosport, Vidor, Odessa etc. don't, that could make it worth living in such a leftist community?
Slashdot Mirror
California has a booming (up 4.2% in 2015, twice the national rate), diverse economy which is larger than all but five of the nations in the world (bigger than France, Brazil or India). It's economy is one and half times bigger than that of the next state (Texas). Seems to be doing fine, and, unlike some other one trick ponies, it won't go under if crude oil prices stay low.
We've got eight counties in Texas with less than 1000 residents, I'm sure they all went for Trump. On the other hand, Texas has five counties with over a million residents (Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar and Travis). Of those, four of the five went for Clinton. That's in TEXAS. Measuring wins by county is crap unless you are giving the vote to cows and sagebrush. If you do want to rank votes by counties, then measured by economic output, Clinton won the counties nationwide which account for 64% of the USA's economic output (http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/25/presidential-election-economic-split/). So the counties which are actually producing in this country went for Clinton.
Well, she and the Dems did get more total votes than the Republicans in both the presidential and senate elections. And as far as appealing to middle and lower classes, Hilllary lead in the votes of those with family incomes of $50K and less, and she lost those with higher incomes (http://www.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trump-clinton-2016-11/#the-racial-divide-between-democratic-and-republican-voters-was-clear-3). So we have to be very specific in discussions of which of the lower and middle class voters the Dems don't appeal to. The ones they do appeal to seem to have been forgotten in all these post election analyses.
The Greatest Generation also spawned the Vietnam War (and sent the Boomers to fight it) and with it the collapse of citizens' trust in the American government. And they also enshrined the concept of untouchable entitlements for the elder generations, paid for by the next generation; on that the Boomers are just following up what their parents set in place.
Many people have looked at the results (http://www.electoral-vote.com/#item-1) and their conclusion is that it was not an unusual turnout of white baby boomers who propelled Trump to victory, but rather a lack of turnout by everyone who isn't a white baby boomer (compared to previous recent elections). The baby boomers didn't change their voting habits much, the Millennials just didn't bother to get out and vote for their own futures -- that's not the Boomers' fault. And I've seen statements that the Millennials are now a bigger voting block then the Boomers -- maybe voting just isn't trendy and cool enough.
Notice that whenever the "21st Century Texas Economic Success" story is mentioned, is is almost always Austin or Houston listed as examples, never the conservative leaning cities like Port Arthur, Midland, ... Vidor, etc. There are reasons for that, one of which is that nobody really wants to live in those holes. The recent oil boom brought some prosperity to the boonies but that's over for now.
I thought the same thing at first reading of the title but the wording involved has a subtle distinction. A "naked singularity" is a term which has been defined by physicists for a while and is, as you stated, a singularity in space-time which does not have an event horizon around it, or would be if such a thing can exist, which is currently undecided. The presence of an event horizon is what makes a black hole (things go in, nothing comes out [minus Hawking radiation, I know]). The term "naked black hole" seems to be a term just made up by the author of the linked article or somewhere back in the reporting chain and has no formal definition, as far as I know, but is highly misleading. I would say that whoever made up that term "naked black hole" is not very familiar with the field of gravitation or they would have avoided this confusing construction. Speaking of confusing, the last time I posted something involving General Relativity, I screwed it up; hopefully this time is better.
Ah, you are totally right. That's what I get for doing a politically related post in a hurry. And I screwed up Comey's name (copying that from the parent). Correction appreciated. Comey was Ashcroft's Deputy Attorney General.
Colmy didn't prosecute Scooter Libby, that was special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, then a federal jury convicted Libby, and the federal judge presiding sentenced him. Libby never went to jail -- Bush commuted that part of his sentence. John Ashcroft was FBI director at the time. All Colmy did was appoint Fitzgerald after Ashcroft recused himself from the case.
"The Constitutional freedoms of the US have never been under more attack" -- man, they need to teach history better in the schools. Constitutional freedoms have always been under attack -- consider the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus, the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, the House Un-American Activities Committee (1938 to 1975), the FBI under Hoover. And that's not even considering that for most of the USA's existence constitutional freedoms were regularly denied to persons of the wrong race. Things are no worse than before, and better for a lot of Americans. It's just that everyone now thinks they are special. The civil libertarians have always had work to do, and always will.
All five of the kills which Steve Ritchie (the only US Air Force pilot ace in Vietnam) got were done by AIM-7 Sparrows. For two of those kills he was flying an F-4E which had a gun. Here is a description of his fourth kill, "The first MiG had also turned back and was attacking the last F-4 in Ritchie's flight from behind, an often fatal consequence to US aircraft employing the then-standard "fluid four" tactical formation. Ritchie made a hard turn across the curving intercept of the MiG, again coming out at its 5 o'clock, and the MiG, apparently perceiving the threat, broke hard right and dove away. Ritchie fired an AIM-7 from inside its minimum range and at the limit of its capability to turn. Expecting the Sparrow to miss, he was trying to switch to a gun attack in the relatively unfamiliar F-4E he was flying that day when the missile exploded the MiG, 1 minute and 29 seconds after the first kill."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
He's 'pro-life' personally but professionally does not impose his beliefs on others.
Statement from NARAL Pro-Choice America, ""While Senator Kaine has been open about his personal reservations about abortion, he’s maintained a 100% pro-choice voting record in the U.S. Senate. He voted against dangerous abortion bans, he has fought against efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, and he voted to strengthen clinic security by establishing a federal fund for it," NARAL President Ilyse Hogue said in the statement. "
"The NACA model, where the agency was an entity for funding basic research and cooperative collaboration with external entities toward the advancement of the state of the art, rather than a body for carrying out congressional megaproject-mandates, seems much more desirable." -- interesting idea that has merits but in the absence of NASA, the Air Force would have certainly taken over crewed spaceflight in the US in the 1960s. I don't think that would have turned out so well; at least under NASA the military astronauts had to pretend to be supporting "science, peaceful exploration, etc". And there would be the same mega-project problem, as there already exists with the Air Force. The robotic probe side of NASA would likely have ended up with the National Science Foundation, which may have been better by not competing directly with crewed spaceflight in the same agency but I think space exploration would have been too large a program for NSF to absorb in comparison to the rest of its budget and space would have eaten the budget for other sciences there at NSF or died over there.
So, from your vast DoD experience do you actually KNOW of anyone who went to jail for being sloppy with classified material, without some espionage attempt being established? Maybe it is a jailing offence, but in the real world DoD that I was in what would have happened would be an investigation to see what might have gotten compromised and at worst the offender would have gotten a reprimand and lost their security clearance.
I'd trust a Tesla car in "autopilot" mode to not hit me on the road a lot more than I trust the cars under the control of most of the human drivers out there.
You need to read up on some history of the American space program. If it wasn't for Johnson and Kennedy then there wouldn't be an American civilian space program. Eisenhower wasn't interested and it was his administration which told the Army group under von Braun to NOT launch an orbital satellite in 1956 two years before the Russians eventually did. When Kennedy wanted to come up with something big in space he had Johnson check on the possibilities for him, from which came Project Apollo. Of all the presidents, Johnson was NASA's biggest proponent (and supporter of congressional funding). In contrast, Goldwater (Johnson's Republican challenger in 1964 for the history-challenged) wanted to close up NASA and transfer all American space work to the Air Force. After Johnson, Nixon wasn't interested at all and his administration started cutting Apollo flights almost as soon as he got into office. They cancelled Apollos 18 and 19 and Nixon himself proposed cancelling all the moon missions after Apollo 15 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canceled_Apollo_missions). No president, and possibly no political figure at all, pushed harder for space exploration than Johnson; certainly none had the positive impact that he did.
Thanks for this. Well analyzed. Though I'm at the point of not bothering to discuss it. I just want to find a legal betting market and make money off the stupidity out there rather than just be appalled.
There have been theories for some years that explain the preferred chirality of biological molecules (the ones which are chiral) because of the inherent asymmetry of the weak nuclear force. I've seen arguments that because of the weak force one enantiomer of a chiral molecule will be very slightly more tightly bound than the other and then due to biological selection (as you describe) and amplifying feedback effects during the rise of the first set biological molecules that the chirality we see today was preferred and not randomly selected. One quick recent reference: http://www.nature.com/news/for...
As Republican presidents Gerald Ford and G.H. Bush proved, you don't have to wait until someone close to your administration is tried, or even indicted, to grant them a pardon.
A tank full of gasoline is not going to spontaneously explode because a speck of the wrong kind of dirt (a catalyst) gets in the tank or a fuel line.
Gasoline itself is quite flammable but it doesn't explosively decompose like H2O2 does -- it has to be mixed with air at not too rich or too lean of a mixture, then initiated with a spark or flame. Diesel and jet fuel with their higher flashpoints are even less prone to spontaneous fire or explosion. Gasoline itself would probably be deemed too dangerous to use as a general purpose fuel if it weren't already grandfathered into the world's infrastructure.
Whereas with H2O2 we have this quote from Wikipedia,
"The boiling point of H2O2 has been extrapolated as being 150.2 C, approximately 50 C higher than water. In practice hydrogen peroxide will undergo potentially explosive thermal decomposition if heated to this temperature." and that is even without a catalyst present.
You don't get free hydrogen from separation of hydrogen peroxide; you get free oxygen plus water. H2O2 -> O + H2O. And concentrated hydrogen peroxide (not the 3% stuff in the drugstores) is highly explosive and needs no other reactant, except a catalyst-- it's used as a rocket fuel. Not something going in my car.
"The money is overseas because the sold products overseas and had revenue overseas. On top of that, the products were probably built overseas." In that case these companies don't seem to need the US market for their products. We should just close it to them or tariff up their products. Real US corporations, the ones who pay US taxes, can fill the (lucrative) demand here.
There is a concept called 'emergent phenomena' whereby large entities arise from smaller components with properties not evident except in the aggregation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence). So you can have these corporations which are psychopathic entities greater (or more malevolent, depending on your view) than the sum of their shareholders. These giant corporations long ago passed the point of being entities which can't just be defined by their creators and owners. No 'evil ghost people' explanation required to explain corporate behavior nowadays, just corporate managers.
The Roosevelts were kind of an anti-dynasty. The Theodore Roosevelt side of the family didn't support Franklin in his run for President, according to some PBS special I saw last year.. Also Theodore was a Republican and Franklin was a Democrat. They were among the best presidents of the 20th century, though, arguably #1 and #2. I'll take that dynasty.
If you don't like it, then move somewhere else in Texas. Austin is pretty unusual in the state, being 'leftist' and all. Maybe that's why Austin is such a desirable place to live and people are moving in like crazy. I've got a friend up in Wichita Falls, there's no problem getting cheap property up there. Or if you prefer coastal living, I've got another friend in Brazosport, no leftyness there and plenty of cheap property. What does Austin have that Wichita Falls, Brazosport, Vidor, Odessa etc. don't, that could make it worth living in such a leftist community?