The Juno probe reached 266,000 km/h. So you're off by two orders of magnitude. Just a rounding error, really. Probably the aliens.
Really though, keep explaining how humans will never amount to anything.
By the way, using 266,000 km/h, the needed increase is 40x, not 190x. Again, really just a rounding error, and humanity will never achieve a 40x increase in anything, really. Ever.
Now yes... as they say in the medical world "when you hear hoofbeats think horses, not zebras."
I like that analogy. The obvious answer is often the correct one. In this case, the obvious answer is that this is a natural object. I also like that analogy because my wife has EDS, and their "symbol" is the zebra, because they are the zebras in that analogy that constantly get misdiagnosed.
So, yeah, maybe it's a natural rock. Maybe it's not.
You've got a lot of snark here. The first car had a top speed of 16kph. The current land speed record is almost 1228kph. The Wright Flyer had a top speed of 48kph. The SR-71 could reach 3529kph. The X-15 reached 7274kph. 56 years passed between the flights of the Wright Flyer and the X-15. In those 56 years the atmospheric speed record for an aircraft increased 151x (again, in 56 years). The things we have in space now are the Wright Fliers of space (OK, maybe they're the Fokker Dr.I of space).
Shit man, in less than 60 years we went from the first heavier-than-air manned flight to escape velocity.
By the way, in your RAM analogy, your computer today has 262,144 times as much memory as the old Commodore. So maybe an increase in space travel speed of 200x over the next few hundred years isn't really all that outlandish.
So some civilization created a probe that can last in interstellar space for thousands, or even millions of years?
Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe go fuck yourself.
Seriously, no one is drawing conclusions, that is very premature. Read his list of facts to understand why we're not sure. It didn't help that the object was already well past us by the time we thought maybe we should study it.
Are they suggesting some civilization managed to build a probe that can travel at an appreciable percentage of the speed of light?
I suppose that's one possibility. Another is that it was launched a really, really long time ago. Maybe it even course-corrected a few dozen decades ago once it started detecting broadcasts from us. Maybe there are other possibilities as well. This is kind of the point of the whole thing, we don't know. You're not seeing conclusions here, you're seeing a list of facts plus speculation on what those facts might tell us.
You haven't "seen anything like it before" because we have barely "seen" anything.
He addresses that specifically:
Assuming that other planetary systems resemble the solar system, Pan-STARRS should not have discovered this or any other interstellar rock in the first place. In a paper published a decade ago, we predicted an abundance of interstellar asteroids that is smaller by many (two to eight) orders of magnitude than needed to explain the discovery of ‘Oumuamua, assuming it’s a member of a random population of objects. Put another way, ‘Oumuamua implies that the population of interstellar objects is far greater than expected. Each star in the Milky Way needs to eject 10^15 such objects during its lifetime to account for a population as large as ‘Oumuamua implies. Thus, the nurseries of ‘Oumuamua-like objects must be different from what we know based on our own solar system.
So, sure, maybe it's nothing special, and that there are solar systems ejecting objects like this every 5 minutes (that's the rate needed to get the amount he's talking about). We'll know more when the LSST is operational and can detect objects like this much better. If that telescope fails to detect any other objects like this, then we have another piece of information and hopefully in the next couple decades we would be able to build a vehicle capable of chasing it down and studying it.
Loeb is not saying we should "believe" anything. He is just saying that we shouldn't rule anything out, and we should lookout for similar objects in the future.
And that we might want to think about chasing this one down. While it's hauling ass (sorry for the technical term), it's going to be in our relative vicinity for thousands of years or so before it leaves the solar system. So...
Within a few years, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) will become operational and be far more sensitive to the detection of ‘Oumuamua-like objects. It should therefore discover many such objects within its first year of operation. If it does not find any, we will know that ‘Oumuamua was special and that we must chase this guest down the street in order to figure out its origin.
And...
But since it would take ‘Oumuamua thousands of years to leave the solar system entirely, getting a closer look of it through a flyby remains a possibility if we were to develop new technologies for faster space travel within a decade or two.
This is all exciting. His first point was that, if this thing is not really all that special, then there should be a ton of them, and the LSST will be better at detecting them. If that fails to detect any others like it, then maybe it IS special, and maybe we should chase it down for a close-up. We still have time. That's pretty exciting.
I realize a lot of people want all the answers now today, but we don't have them now. We have the possibility of getting them in the future.
It's hilarious to see the frothing stalking behavior come out again. I see all those "9 hidden comments", I know you're trying to get my attention. I've already shredded everything you've done or everything you're so proud about, though. No reason to keep shooting the dead cow. I'm not going to gain any insight by reading your 9 hidden comments on every post I make, like the unhinged stalker you are. Go ahead and link to the post where I tore down your accomplishments, though. I'm not reading your replies but something tells me you've neglected to do that. It's embarrassing for you, I get it.
Yea, Trump is FAR from perfect, but we ALL knew that BEFORE the election so tell me something I didn't know before he won.
How about the fact that he's willing to damage the country to benefit himself? Is that enough for you? What about literally embracing our adversaries and shitting all over our allies? How about the fact that he'll do everything he can to literally obstruct justice, which is a crime if you didn't know, in order to benefit himself? I mean, being a cocksucker is one thing. Being a cocksucker who thinks the laws don't apply to him and who will damage the country if it helps him is something you may want to be concerned about, depending on how you feel about the United States as a whole. If you don't care about the well-being of the US, I can understand excusing all of Trump's behavior, but it seems really unlikely that someone who didn't care about the US would care so much about Trump.
So why do we have to keep digging up stuff about Trump to beat him with? What's the point of reporting on such things?
Because he continues to actively damage the country. It's that simple.
Trump's voters didn't care about it back then
Obviously. Many of them appear to not care about it even now also, which is a little confusing when they're also talking about how important they think things like the security of the US are. It's kind of hard to understand the cognitive dissonance with wanting a secure country and also supporting a man actively making the country less secure.
they see all this as unfair and biased reporting.
Which of course is not the same thing as untrue. Although I have to admit that it was amusing to hear Trump whine about everything (read: our federal laws) being "unfair" to him. He makes such huge efforts to act like he's some tough guy, so it's frankly funny to see him moan and whine when people don't want to break the law for him or people don't want to lie for him or people want to hold him to the same standards as everyone else as being "unfair." He obviously believes that, as the president, he's better than everyone else and is no longer applicable to certain laws. Well, he's wrong, and it makes him look like a bitch to whine about that being unfair. If he can't take the heat....
The media ignores his accomplishments
I don't think so, I'm aware of him doing several things that I approve of, I caught that reporting. But he's a machine gun president, no one story stays in the news long as long as he's tweeting about some absolutely absurd shit. He's the reason why good things he's done don't stay in the media, because he immediately does something stupid that everyone starts talking about. And he commits unforced errors all the time. Like backing out of the CR after saying he would sign it, for example, that could have been a softball win for him, but instead of taking the easy W he decided to fuck everything up and then the media started reporting on that instead. So, yes, the media reports on a lot of negative stories about him, but the single reason for that is because he does so many negative things to report about. If he wants positive stories then maybe he should stop directing people to lie to Congress and stop being an obstinate fucker and actually get some things done. I'll give him credit where it's due, he's done good things with regard to pharmaceuticals, although I'd love to see a lot more (another easy win for him if he cared to do it between tweet rages). But those don't excuse the absurd things he does on nearly a daily basis. It's frustrating to even keep up with, it's tiring. One story isn't even finished being discussed when he's doing the next stupid thing that people are going to want to talk about. So with regard to which stories are being covered on a daily basis, he only has himself to blame for that, because I hear when he does something I appreciate. And
What confuses you about speaking fees? Let me know what questions you have about people getting paid fees for appearing or speaking and I'll try to clear up your confusion.
why Russia donated $2.35 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation.
The most simple answer would probably be trying to influence a sitting SecState. That's just off the top of my head though, maybe I'm wrong.
If you're expecting me to defend the Clintons or their behavior, don't do that. I don't like them. If you're suspecting that either of them did something illegal, great, let's bring charges. If you're just using that to excuse any kind of behavior by Trump, you're going to need to spell out how the behavior of the Clintons excuses the behavior of Trump, because I'm missing that connection.
If you're trying to suggest that Russia was backing Clinton and not Trump in the 2016 election, then you're just delusional. I can't help you with that, seek medical care.
Oh, fuck off. I've never voted for a Clinton. And you're talking about Russia dealing with a sitting Secretary Of State, which is much different than dealing with her as a presidential candidate.
As for the uranium scare tactics, you realize that the US and Russia regularly sell uranium to each other, right? There is a world uranium market, and the US and Russia participate.
Guess who the largest supplier of US enriched uranium imports in 2017 was. Go ahead, take a wild guess. Was it Russia? Oh shit, it was fucking Russia! We bought 45.5% of our enriched uranium imports from Russia, but hey since someone with the last name Clinton was SecState during a year, like every year, when we also sold uranium to Russia, well shit that just gives you a rash on your asshole, doesn't it?
That was an interesting night. No matter what the outcome I was going to be a little sad for the future of the country, but a little happy that a monumental ego got knocked down. I was prepared, I knew the person that I voted for wasn't going to win, even if it was mathematically possible.
Sounds like you'll be surprised when he wins again.
I try to never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers, I won't be surprised at all if he convinces large numbers of stupid people to again vote against their own self-interest. Trump said it best himself, "I love the poorly educated," and they love him too. It's really an interesting dynamic, he requires large numbers of stupid people to get elected, and they want him to lead them. It's perfect. But it's just a tad bit premature to start taking bets. For example, I think it's highly unlikely that someone who got impeached would get elected again. I know that a felon isn't able to vote, but are felons allowed to run for office? I don't know the answer to that question. Let's wait to hear from Mr. Mueller before we start sucking Trump's dick, OK?
You know nothing of the history of the FBI if you don't think they meddle in politics
I never said I don't think the FBI has ever meddled in politics. I DO think Nixon was guilty. I mean, he fucking resigned. I ALSO realize that Russia wanted Trump to win way, way, way more than they wanted Clinton to win. It's obviously the case. So excuse me if I see you suggesting that Russia was backing Clinton and that Nixon was innocent and think that you're full of shit. The only reason I think that is because it's true.
Hahahhahhaha. Funniest thing I've read all week.
You must live in a sad and lonely world if you think that a substantial portion of government workers and US citizens hate the country. A sad, delusional world. We can disagree with each other without suggesting the other side doesn't love the country. Don't be the poster child for the idiots that the founding fathers were protecting the country from when they decided that treason was going to be the only crime they defined. Their justification for doing so still holds true today. Don't be that person, Americans are better than that. Trump voters might be easily duped into voting against their own interests, but I'm not going to suggest they don't love the country, or at least love what they think America means, even if it's not correct.
I doubt they're just trying to inflame Trump supporters.
All joking aside though, it just speaks to Trump's character. He's willing to pay $50k to influence an online popularity contest. It speaks to his character and his ego. If you want to believe Cohen is up to you.
Would a regulation making the Slashdot poll say it is not scientific or similar be that bad?
Other than highlighting the fact that the public is full of mindless zombies incapable of original thought? Maybe not. It would just be sad if people actually needed to be told that an online poll is not scientific. The same way that we need warning labels pointing out that hot coffee is hot, you know?
things may not be so clear and people don't have time to research every poll.
Well, here's a hint: if it's called a "poll" then it is not scientific. Scientists have studies, not opinion polls. You want to know what scientific conclusion you can draw from an opinion poll? You can conclude that you know what that polled group of people think about the questions you asked, and even then your accuracy is probably still no greater than 80%. Cause they're lying. You can't even conclude with any reasonable certainty that you can extrapolate their answers to a larger population. Because, again, people will lie, or maybe your sample just sucks.
Well then it's a good thing we follow the rule of law and have things like trials. But, go on, tell me again how the entire FBI functions as a single entity with one hive-mind.
get the Russians to leak it to the press.
Why would the Russians want to damage their guy? Do you understand how little the Russians like the Clintons? You understand that they were actively working against Hillary, right? But, they're going to do something to damage Trump? And you believe that? Is that the current state of cognitive dissonance in the Trump camp regarding the investigations? Is the current line that Russia was now working AGAINST Trump instead of for him? Do you guys do any actual training for those kinds of mental gymnastics or do you just kind of wing it?
They took down Nixon, and apparently think they can get rid of any democratically elected president they don't like.
Holy shit, I think this is the first time I've seen the "Nixon was innocent" argument. If nothing else, you guys are at least amusing.
I've heard of revisionist history, but holy fuck. Russia was working against Trump? Nixon was innocent? Look at how far you have to go to get to a place where all of these pieces of evidence that you don't like start to line up with your chosen narrative. This is absurd. You're jumping through more hoops than Giuliani trying to explain the campaign's involvement with Russia.
There was NO CONTACT! OK, there was contact, but it wasn't planned! OK, it was planned, but not about the campaign! OK, it was about the campaign, but it wasn't meaningful! And there was another meeting. Collusion isn't even a crime! You can't collude with someone you don't personally know! OK, maybe SOMEONE colluded, but it wasn't Trump!
Oh, but yeah, sure, the ENTIRE FBI is corrupt. OK, yeah, sure buddy. It's not your guy who is an amazingly incompetent dickhead, no it's the entire federal law enforcement agency which is breaking the law and being unconstitutional. You know, literally the two things that they're there to specifically not do.
Time to defund the FBI and bar all members from any future government job.
With all due respect, it's time for you to stop talking like you've got the pulse of "real Americans." The FBI does a fine job. The FBI is staffed with many, many people who love and care about the country and have made it their life's work to help the country. I believe that anyone who goes out of their way to make it seem like the majority of government workers have some hidden, secret agenda is probably full to the tipping point with bullshit. Sorry pal, that argument doesn't pass the smell test. You may believe the turds that fall out of the president's mouth, but let me assure you that you are in a very small majority with regard to that. The majority of the country still believes that the people working in the government - REGARDLESS OF THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS - are there because they love the country and want to help it, not damage it. Trying to act like the literal federal law enforcement agency would go against the Constitution and break the law is laughably absurd, and it says very bad things about your though process and where you get your information from.
You know what? Don't take my word for it. How strong are your convictions? Are you just a big talker or do you back it up? Because I would encourage you, whole-heartedly, to find the bars around your local FBI office and go in and start telling everyone how all FBI agents are corrupt and hate the country. Go ahead, let me know how that works out for you.
The second is the reality pointed out in about the ninth or so paragraph of their article. The FBI wanted to correct what they felt was a mistake by the American people, and began to work on a soft coupe, by launching an investigation of a duly elected President on the most flimsy and spurious of evidence combined with already debunked and provably false data.
He wouldn't weep over the poll, he's probably weeping over the story about the poll though. Especially if Fox reports on it, if they report on it then we'll know he'll see it and, if he tweets about it then we'll know it got to him. Because that's the kind of thing your brave leader is concerned about. Never mind the minor things like the FBI investigating whether a sitting president is acting as an agent for a major foreign adversary.
No though, yeah Trump is really enjoying this, isn't he? Loves all the publicity when he treats some college football team to the most amazing display of fast food, believe me. Yeah, he generates amazing press for his amazing actions and, by all accounts, is a completely stable genius who loves the news talking about him, his amazing decisions, and his best people who keep quitting or being fired. All of this press coverage over the "great negotiator" being responsible for the longest government shutdown in history because he refuses to actually negotiate, I'm sure that really makes him smile. The only thing he's smiling about is that he successfully got everyone to talk about the wall and the shutdown instead of his legal problems with Mueller. That's starting to reverse though, and he'll be back to weeping.
What escapes me is the importance of this revelation.
Really the humor of it. We've got someone with very high name recognition, who tries to create an image as a savvy businessman, literally hiring a company for a sole purpose of getting him a place on the top 100 business leaders, and he failed. That's pretty funny.
At some point, it just becomes a dull buzz when it's so frequent...
That's no joke. We know that the FBI opened an investigation into a sitting US president to determine if he is acting as an agent of a major foreign adversary, and I haven't even discussed that with anyone. Literally. People say they're worried about Trump normalizing hate speech, what's even more concerning is normalizing egregious behavior to the point that people hardly even discuss it.
What's going to happen when Trump is gone? Things are going to seem so boring.
Jesus, how deep are those comments nested? Good god, I made one post and it brought out the rabid frothing insanity, this is hilarious. I value my time and sanity, so you understand that I'm not reading any of this mental diarrhea.
If you'd like to link to an interaction in the past though, try the post where I tore down every single one of your so-called "achievements" to show that you haven't done but Jack and Shit for the past two decades. Shit man, you're still trying to claim "achievements" like submitting patches to other people's projects that they decided to not even implement. Or a "thank you" for sending someone a link to the Windows API. These are what you're proud of, these are what stand out for you as great or notable things you've done over the past 15 or 20 years. And your Life's Work Magnum Opus is a fucking string sorting program. It's a huge joke. You're a huge joke.
Anyway, if you want to link to something, link to that. Dumbass.
OK, resume the unhinged frothing insanity. It's absurdly easy to trigger you, which is another reason why you have nothing to show over the past decades, because no one wants to hire or work with you, because you're a fucking nutcase. Go ahead, prove me right. Click that little "Reply" link and spew your shit. Again, please excuse me if I don't follow up, don't read anything you write, and don't respond. Just be careful about claiming I'm "running" when you know damn well there's a post out there that completely destroys all of the crap you claim. Unlike you, though, I haven't written some program to scrape Slashdot and send me alerts whenever people are talking about me, I don't stalk people like a lunatic, I don't have text files and text files full of links to refer back to, etc. That's all you, bud. So I'll leave it up to you to point out where you got destroyed. Or, you can ignore that, like a pussy. It's up to you, really.
Slashdot Mirror
Are the people in charge of doing that as moronic as me?
No. That's why they're in charge and you're trolling.
The Juno probe reached 266,000 km/h. So you're off by two orders of magnitude. Just a rounding error, really. Probably the aliens.
Really though, keep explaining how humans will never amount to anything.
By the way, using 266,000 km/h, the needed increase is 40x, not 190x. Again, really just a rounding error, and humanity will never achieve a 40x increase in anything, really. Ever.
Now yes... as they say in the medical world "when you hear hoofbeats think horses, not zebras."
I like that analogy. The obvious answer is often the correct one. In this case, the obvious answer is that this is a natural object. I also like that analogy because my wife has EDS, and their "symbol" is the zebra, because they are the zebras in that analogy that constantly get misdiagnosed.
So, yeah, maybe it's a natural rock. Maybe it's not.
Either we are talking about some pretty stealthy aliens, which raises the question how come the prove isn't stealth too
Wouldn't it be? It's very cold and doesn't seem to emit any signals, that we can detect. That sounds pretty stealthy.
Shit, we weren't even aware of it until after it passed us. We detected it 40 days after it had passed its closest point to the sun.
You've got a lot of snark here. The first car had a top speed of 16kph. The current land speed record is almost 1228kph. The Wright Flyer had a top speed of 48kph. The SR-71 could reach 3529kph. The X-15 reached 7274kph. 56 years passed between the flights of the Wright Flyer and the X-15. In those 56 years the atmospheric speed record for an aircraft increased 151x (again, in 56 years). The things we have in space now are the Wright Fliers of space (OK, maybe they're the Fokker Dr.I of space).
Shit man, in less than 60 years we went from the first heavier-than-air manned flight to escape velocity.
By the way, in your RAM analogy, your computer today has 262,144 times as much memory as the old Commodore. So maybe an increase in space travel speed of 200x over the next few hundred years isn't really all that outlandish.
So some civilization created a probe that can last in interstellar space for thousands, or even millions of years?
Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe go fuck yourself.
Seriously, no one is drawing conclusions, that is very premature. Read his list of facts to understand why we're not sure. It didn't help that the object was already well past us by the time we thought maybe we should study it.
Are they suggesting some civilization managed to build a probe that can travel at an appreciable percentage of the speed of light?
I suppose that's one possibility. Another is that it was launched a really, really long time ago. Maybe it even course-corrected a few dozen decades ago once it started detecting broadcasts from us. Maybe there are other possibilities as well. This is kind of the point of the whole thing, we don't know. You're not seeing conclusions here, you're seeing a list of facts plus speculation on what those facts might tell us.
You haven't "seen anything like it before" because we have barely "seen" anything.
He addresses that specifically:
Assuming that other planetary systems resemble the solar system, Pan-STARRS should not have discovered this or any other interstellar rock in the first place. In a paper published a decade ago, we predicted an abundance of interstellar asteroids that is smaller by many (two to eight) orders of magnitude than needed to explain the discovery of ‘Oumuamua, assuming it’s a member of a random population of objects. Put another way, ‘Oumuamua implies that the population of interstellar objects is far greater than expected. Each star in the Milky Way needs to eject 10^15 such objects during its lifetime to account for a population as large as ‘Oumuamua implies. Thus, the nurseries of ‘Oumuamua-like objects must be different from what we know based on our own solar system.
So, sure, maybe it's nothing special, and that there are solar systems ejecting objects like this every 5 minutes (that's the rate needed to get the amount he's talking about). We'll know more when the LSST is operational and can detect objects like this much better. If that telescope fails to detect any other objects like this, then we have another piece of information and hopefully in the next couple decades we would be able to build a vehicle capable of chasing it down and studying it.
Loeb is not saying we should "believe" anything. He is just saying that we shouldn't rule anything out, and we should lookout for similar objects in the future.
And that we might want to think about chasing this one down. While it's hauling ass (sorry for the technical term), it's going to be in our relative vicinity for thousands of years or so before it leaves the solar system. So...
Within a few years, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) will become operational and be far more sensitive to the detection of ‘Oumuamua-like objects. It should therefore discover many such objects within its first year of operation. If it does not find any, we will know that ‘Oumuamua was special and that we must chase this guest down the street in order to figure out its origin.
And...
But since it would take ‘Oumuamua thousands of years to leave the solar system entirely, getting a closer look of it through a flyby remains a possibility if we were to develop new technologies for faster space travel within a decade or two.
This is all exciting. His first point was that, if this thing is not really all that special, then there should be a ton of them, and the LSST will be better at detecting them. If that fails to detect any others like it, then maybe it IS special, and maybe we should chase it down for a close-up. We still have time. That's pretty exciting.
I realize a lot of people want all the answers now today, but we don't have them now. We have the possibility of getting them in the future.
It's hilarious to see the frothing stalking behavior come out again. I see all those "9 hidden comments", I know you're trying to get my attention. I've already shredded everything you've done or everything you're so proud about, though. No reason to keep shooting the dead cow. I'm not going to gain any insight by reading your 9 hidden comments on every post I make, like the unhinged stalker you are. Go ahead and link to the post where I tore down your accomplishments, though. I'm not reading your replies but something tells me you've neglected to do that. It's embarrassing for you, I get it.
Yea, Trump is FAR from perfect, but we ALL knew that BEFORE the election so tell me something I didn't know before he won.
How about the fact that he's willing to damage the country to benefit himself? Is that enough for you? What about literally embracing our adversaries and shitting all over our allies? How about the fact that he'll do everything he can to literally obstruct justice, which is a crime if you didn't know, in order to benefit himself? I mean, being a cocksucker is one thing. Being a cocksucker who thinks the laws don't apply to him and who will damage the country if it helps him is something you may want to be concerned about, depending on how you feel about the United States as a whole. If you don't care about the well-being of the US, I can understand excusing all of Trump's behavior, but it seems really unlikely that someone who didn't care about the US would care so much about Trump.
So why do we have to keep digging up stuff about Trump to beat him with? What's the point of reporting on such things?
Because he continues to actively damage the country. It's that simple.
Trump's voters didn't care about it back then
Obviously. Many of them appear to not care about it even now also, which is a little confusing when they're also talking about how important they think things like the security of the US are. It's kind of hard to understand the cognitive dissonance with wanting a secure country and also supporting a man actively making the country less secure.
they see all this as unfair and biased reporting.
Which of course is not the same thing as untrue. Although I have to admit that it was amusing to hear Trump whine about everything (read: our federal laws) being "unfair" to him. He makes such huge efforts to act like he's some tough guy, so it's frankly funny to see him moan and whine when people don't want to break the law for him or people don't want to lie for him or people want to hold him to the same standards as everyone else as being "unfair." He obviously believes that, as the president, he's better than everyone else and is no longer applicable to certain laws. Well, he's wrong, and it makes him look like a bitch to whine about that being unfair. If he can't take the heat....
The media ignores his accomplishments
I don't think so, I'm aware of him doing several things that I approve of, I caught that reporting. But he's a machine gun president, no one story stays in the news long as long as he's tweeting about some absolutely absurd shit. He's the reason why good things he's done don't stay in the media, because he immediately does something stupid that everyone starts talking about. And he commits unforced errors all the time. Like backing out of the CR after saying he would sign it, for example, that could have been a softball win for him, but instead of taking the easy W he decided to fuck everything up and then the media started reporting on that instead. So, yes, the media reports on a lot of negative stories about him, but the single reason for that is because he does so many negative things to report about. If he wants positive stories then maybe he should stop directing people to lie to Congress and stop being an obstinate fucker and actually get some things done. I'll give him credit where it's due, he's done good things with regard to pharmaceuticals, although I'd love to see a lot more (another easy win for him if he cared to do it between tweet rages). But those don't excuse the absurd things he does on nearly a daily basis. It's frustrating to even keep up with, it's tiring. One story isn't even finished being discussed when he's doing the next stupid thing that people are going to want to talk about. So with regard to which stories are being covered on a daily basis, he only has himself to blame for that, because I hear when he does something I appreciate. And
What confuses you about speaking fees? Let me know what questions you have about people getting paid fees for appearing or speaking and I'll try to clear up your confusion.
why Russia donated $2.35 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation.
The most simple answer would probably be trying to influence a sitting SecState. That's just off the top of my head though, maybe I'm wrong.
If you're expecting me to defend the Clintons or their behavior, don't do that. I don't like them. If you're suspecting that either of them did something illegal, great, let's bring charges. If you're just using that to excuse any kind of behavior by Trump, you're going to need to spell out how the behavior of the Clintons excuses the behavior of Trump, because I'm missing that connection.
If you're trying to suggest that Russia was backing Clinton and not Trump in the 2016 election, then you're just delusional. I can't help you with that, seek medical care.
Oh, fuck off. I've never voted for a Clinton. And you're talking about Russia dealing with a sitting Secretary Of State, which is much different than dealing with her as a presidential candidate.
As for the uranium scare tactics, you realize that the US and Russia regularly sell uranium to each other, right? There is a world uranium market, and the US and Russia participate.
Guess who the largest supplier of US enriched uranium imports in 2017 was. Go ahead, take a wild guess. Was it Russia? Oh shit, it was fucking Russia! We bought 45.5% of our enriched uranium imports from Russia, but hey since someone with the last name Clinton was SecState during a year, like every year, when we also sold uranium to Russia, well shit that just gives you a rash on your asshole, doesn't it?
Maybe YOU should do some fucking research.
Sound like you were surprised when Trump won.
That was an interesting night. No matter what the outcome I was going to be a little sad for the future of the country, but a little happy that a monumental ego got knocked down. I was prepared, I knew the person that I voted for wasn't going to win, even if it was mathematically possible.
Sounds like you'll be surprised when he wins again.
I try to never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers, I won't be surprised at all if he convinces large numbers of stupid people to again vote against their own self-interest. Trump said it best himself, "I love the poorly educated," and they love him too. It's really an interesting dynamic, he requires large numbers of stupid people to get elected, and they want him to lead them. It's perfect. But it's just a tad bit premature to start taking bets. For example, I think it's highly unlikely that someone who got impeached would get elected again. I know that a felon isn't able to vote, but are felons allowed to run for office? I don't know the answer to that question. Let's wait to hear from Mr. Mueller before we start sucking Trump's dick, OK?
You know nothing of the history of the FBI if you don't think they meddle in politics
I never said I don't think the FBI has ever meddled in politics. I DO think Nixon was guilty. I mean, he fucking resigned. I ALSO realize that Russia wanted Trump to win way, way, way more than they wanted Clinton to win. It's obviously the case. So excuse me if I see you suggesting that Russia was backing Clinton and that Nixon was innocent and think that you're full of shit. The only reason I think that is because it's true.
Hahahhahhaha. Funniest thing I've read all week.
You must live in a sad and lonely world if you think that a substantial portion of government workers and US citizens hate the country. A sad, delusional world. We can disagree with each other without suggesting the other side doesn't love the country. Don't be the poster child for the idiots that the founding fathers were protecting the country from when they decided that treason was going to be the only crime they defined. Their justification for doing so still holds true today. Don't be that person, Americans are better than that. Trump voters might be easily duped into voting against their own interests, but I'm not going to suggest they don't love the country, or at least love what they think America means, even if it's not correct.
it serves to inflame the unthinking
I doubt they're just trying to inflame Trump supporters.
All joking aside though, it just speaks to Trump's character. He's willing to pay $50k to influence an online popularity contest. It speaks to his character and his ego. If you want to believe Cohen is up to you.
Similarly to how you failed to comprehend the meaning of what I wrote. Hint: not talking about the election.
Would a regulation making the Slashdot poll say it is not scientific or similar be that bad?
Other than highlighting the fact that the public is full of mindless zombies incapable of original thought? Maybe not. It would just be sad if people actually needed to be told that an online poll is not scientific. The same way that we need warning labels pointing out that hot coffee is hot, you know?
things may not be so clear and people don't have time to research every poll.
Well, here's a hint: if it's called a "poll" then it is not scientific. Scientists have studies, not opinion polls. You want to know what scientific conclusion you can draw from an opinion poll? You can conclude that you know what that polled group of people think about the questions you asked, and even then your accuracy is probably still no greater than 80%. Cause they're lying. You can't even conclude with any reasonable certainty that you can extrapolate their answers to a larger population. Because, again, people will lie, or maybe your sample just sucks.
They'll make up anything to do that.
Well then it's a good thing we follow the rule of law and have things like trials. But, go on, tell me again how the entire FBI functions as a single entity with one hive-mind.
get the Russians to leak it to the press.
Why would the Russians want to damage their guy? Do you understand how little the Russians like the Clintons? You understand that they were actively working against Hillary, right? But, they're going to do something to damage Trump? And you believe that? Is that the current state of cognitive dissonance in the Trump camp regarding the investigations? Is the current line that Russia was now working AGAINST Trump instead of for him? Do you guys do any actual training for those kinds of mental gymnastics or do you just kind of wing it?
They took down Nixon, and apparently think they can get rid of any democratically elected president they don't like.
Holy shit, I think this is the first time I've seen the "Nixon was innocent" argument. If nothing else, you guys are at least amusing.
I've heard of revisionist history, but holy fuck. Russia was working against Trump? Nixon was innocent? Look at how far you have to go to get to a place where all of these pieces of evidence that you don't like start to line up with your chosen narrative. This is absurd. You're jumping through more hoops than Giuliani trying to explain the campaign's involvement with Russia.
There was NO CONTACT!
OK, there was contact, but it wasn't planned!
OK, it was planned, but not about the campaign!
OK, it was about the campaign, but it wasn't meaningful! And there was another meeting.
Collusion isn't even a crime!
You can't collude with someone you don't personally know!
OK, maybe SOMEONE colluded, but it wasn't Trump!
Oh, but yeah, sure, the ENTIRE FBI is corrupt. OK, yeah, sure buddy. It's not your guy who is an amazingly incompetent dickhead, no it's the entire federal law enforcement agency which is breaking the law and being unconstitutional. You know, literally the two things that they're there to specifically not do.
Time to defund the FBI and bar all members from any future government job.
With all due respect, it's time for you to stop talking like you've got the pulse of "real Americans." The FBI does a fine job. The FBI is staffed with many, many people who love and care about the country and have made it their life's work to help the country. I believe that anyone who goes out of their way to make it seem like the majority of government workers have some hidden, secret agenda is probably full to the tipping point with bullshit. Sorry pal, that argument doesn't pass the smell test. You may believe the turds that fall out of the president's mouth, but let me assure you that you are in a very small majority with regard to that. The majority of the country still believes that the people working in the government - REGARDLESS OF THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS - are there because they love the country and want to help it, not damage it. Trying to act like the literal federal law enforcement agency would go against the Constitution and break the law is laughably absurd, and it says very bad things about your though process and where you get your information from.
You know what? Don't take my word for it. How strong are your convictions? Are you just a big talker or do you back it up? Because I would encourage you, whole-heartedly, to find the bars around your local FBI office and go in and start telling everyone how all FBI agents are corrupt and hate the country. Go ahead, let me know how that works out for you.
The second is the reality pointed out in about the ninth or so paragraph of their article. The FBI wanted to correct what they felt was a mistake by the American people, and began to work on a soft coupe, by launching an investigation of a duly elected President on the most flimsy and spurious of evidence combined with already debunked and provably false data.
I know that's you, Giuliani. Pull the other one.
I have no idea, I don't visit regularly enough any more to notice.
He wouldn't weep over the poll, he's probably weeping over the story about the poll though. Especially if Fox reports on it, if they report on it then we'll know he'll see it and, if he tweets about it then we'll know it got to him. Because that's the kind of thing your brave leader is concerned about. Never mind the minor things like the FBI investigating whether a sitting president is acting as an agent for a major foreign adversary.
No though, yeah Trump is really enjoying this, isn't he? Loves all the publicity when he treats some college football team to the most amazing display of fast food, believe me. Yeah, he generates amazing press for his amazing actions and, by all accounts, is a completely stable genius who loves the news talking about him, his amazing decisions, and his best people who keep quitting or being fired. All of this press coverage over the "great negotiator" being responsible for the longest government shutdown in history because he refuses to actually negotiate, I'm sure that really makes him smile. The only thing he's smiling about is that he successfully got everyone to talk about the wall and the shutdown instead of his legal problems with Mueller. That's starting to reverse though, and he'll be back to weeping.
What escapes me is the importance of this revelation.
Really the humor of it. We've got someone with very high name recognition, who tries to create an image as a savvy businessman, literally hiring a company for a sole purpose of getting him a place on the top 100 business leaders, and he failed. That's pretty funny.
At some point, it just becomes a dull buzz when it's so frequent...
That's no joke. We know that the FBI opened an investigation into a sitting US president to determine if he is acting as an agent of a major foreign adversary, and I haven't even discussed that with anyone. Literally. People say they're worried about Trump normalizing hate speech, what's even more concerning is normalizing egregious behavior to the point that people hardly even discuss it.
What's going to happen when Trump is gone? Things are going to seem so boring.
Another reason tech of any kind needs some sort of regulation
Well that's dumb as hell. What are you suggesting, government oversight of Slashdot polls? Do you suspect Cowboy Neal might be rigging things?
Jesus, how deep are those comments nested? Good god, I made one post and it brought out the rabid frothing insanity, this is hilarious. I value my time and sanity, so you understand that I'm not reading any of this mental diarrhea.
If you'd like to link to an interaction in the past though, try the post where I tore down every single one of your so-called "achievements" to show that you haven't done but Jack and Shit for the past two decades. Shit man, you're still trying to claim "achievements" like submitting patches to other people's projects that they decided to not even implement. Or a "thank you" for sending someone a link to the Windows API. These are what you're proud of, these are what stand out for you as great or notable things you've done over the past 15 or 20 years. And your Life's Work Magnum Opus is a fucking string sorting program. It's a huge joke. You're a huge joke.
Anyway, if you want to link to something, link to that. Dumbass.
OK, resume the unhinged frothing insanity. It's absurdly easy to trigger you, which is another reason why you have nothing to show over the past decades, because no one wants to hire or work with you, because you're a fucking nutcase. Go ahead, prove me right. Click that little "Reply" link and spew your shit. Again, please excuse me if I don't follow up, don't read anything you write, and don't respond. Just be careful about claiming I'm "running" when you know damn well there's a post out there that completely destroys all of the crap you claim. Unlike you, though, I haven't written some program to scrape Slashdot and send me alerts whenever people are talking about me, I don't stalk people like a lunatic, I don't have text files and text files full of links to refer back to, etc. That's all you, bud. So I'll leave it up to you to point out where you got destroyed. Or, you can ignore that, like a pussy. It's up to you, really.
"35 Hidden Comments"
Now that's funny. Looks like a struck a nerve. Hope everyone excuses me if I'm not going to read through them all.