How is it relevant? It points to his decision making processes, among other things. He looks at science and religion and concludes that creationism is a real thing that actually happened. I think that's relevant. I want a leader to be able to look at the same set of information that I have and reach a similar conclusion. When someone looks at the same information that I have and they come to a conclusion that is wildly different than my own, then obviously one of us is seriously mistaken. On this issue in particular, I think that all available evidence is so overwhelmingly on one side that I find fault with the decision-making abilities of people who take the opposite conclusion.
There is a fairly large group of people in this country who will not vote for an atheist for whatever reason, maybe they just don't trust them. I'm in the opposite camp, when people hold religious views that I find to be frankly ridiculous, and even contrary to physical evidence, I have a hard time trusting their decision-making abilities. I doubt that they can be trusted to make a good decision when they are faced with evidence that goes against their religious beliefs.
Paul's belief in creationism I believe is also tied to his views on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. If he is president when a bill comes across his desk to legislate things like that, I don't think he's going to represent my views. At best he's going to say to leave it to the states, and at worst he's going to make something illegal on a federal level which I do not agree with.
And how precisely would libertarians defend civil rights and personal choice
I don't know the answer to that, but I know this for a fact: both the Republicans and Democrats have proven, year after year, that they do not give a shit about neither civil rights nor personal choice. Both of them are in bed with corporations and lobbyists, and that's where their loyalties are. Are Libertarians going to be any different? I don't know, but I'm not willing to cast my vote for one of the actors that has already proven to be at fault. I would rather vote for an unknown then get another 4 years of the same old bullshit.
That being said, if Bernie Sanders ran with Elizabeth Warren, under any party, I would vote for them.
But we face the long hard task of the individualistic libertarians out there coming together in large enough numbers to begin to make a difference.
It just takes a little education. In the 2012 election I had a few friends wearing their Ron Paul shirts and things like that, expecting some sort of revolution if they voted for a Republican. I pointed out that Ron Paul is a creationist and suggested they look at Gary Johnson instead (most people hadn't heard of him - thanks, media!). My friends who appreciated the more libertarian views of Ron Paul decided to vote for Johnson instead, contributing to Johnson's 1.27 million votes (more than all other minor parties combined, the most successful third party since 2000, and the highest total for the Libertarian party ever).
I think that if younger people see the bickering and fighting going on in the 2 major parties, and they notice that when either of them are in power the people get fucked in some way or another, then they'll consider a third party a viable vote. People who have grown up watching the past 10 elections or so may be of the mindset that a third party vote is a wasted vote, which is complete bullshit and hopefully the younger folks won't be afflicted by the same kind of apathy. I don't expect to see a groundswell of support for third parties in 2016 necessarily, maybe they go from 1% of the vote to 2%, but I think that the numbers talked about in TFA are unrealistically skewed in suggesting that new voters will automatically vote for one of the major parties. They aren't affected by the same kind of thinking as old voters, and they very might well believe that neither of the major parties really represents them. They would be correct, also.
there's no reason why a local municipality shouldn't be able to collectively decide that they want to take a crack at creating something better.
No, you see, "local municipality" is just a codeword for "big government", so the problem is that you don't want big government doing things like running utilities, because fascism, and when you have big government (i.e. a council of a town with a population of 1,000 people) competing against the free market and small business (i.e., Comcast), then that's unfair because monopoly. Not Comcast's monopoly, the monopoly that big government would have (because it's the government, duh). Also, small businesses like Comcast could not compete with big government like the council of a town with a population of 1,000 people.
Designs for Navy vessels now have to focus more and more on supplying power (as in electricity).
I believe the DDG-1000 series was supposed to address that, I remember reading about the power system and how it was modular enough to allow virtually all power to be directed to any particular system. "All power to weapons."
That was my impression also. I don't think the purpose of the specific system being designed and tested right now is to allow a ship to destroy an ICBM. Maybe start with one that can destroy Iranian dinghies, then one that can shoot down incoming mortars and drones, then one that can acquire and destroy incoming tank or artillery rounds, then missiles launched from planes, then larger boats and planes, before you can scale the size down while keeping the same power required to track and destroy an ICBM. It seems like if they could do that, then they're probably pretty close to also having a version small and powerful enough to mount on a tank. It may not be powerful enough to destroy an ICBM, but if you had a tank that could fire at other tanks and also shoot down incoming anti-tank rounds then you probably wouldn't need very many of them.
At such a 50kW Laser at 95% reflectance would mean 5% absorbance or only 2.5 kW. That means to give the same amount energy at the same distance for the same surface you need 20 time the same time.
You're assuming that the entire time while the laser is striking the mirror, and the mirror is absorbing some amount of energy, that the reflection stays constant.
So it's a machine that heats up water and then puts flavor in it. Brilliant. My stove top can heat up water like a champ, and I can put whatever I want into that hot water. I can even make food on it! Revolutionary!
Followers of the bible would counter that by saying that many of the laws in the old testament were superseded by the new testament. The story of the villagers bringing the adulteress to Jesus and asking if they should stone her is a good example.
I think he was referring to the Son of God, and also God himself (part of the holy trinity), born as a man from immaculate conception, the Savior, the adoptive son of a carpenter, visited at birth by wise men guided by a star, whose human parents fled when angels predicted that the local dictator would attempt to assassinate the child, born without sin, the miraculous healer of disease, followed by disciples, capable of raising the dead, host of one hell of a last supper. He who made the lepers whole! He who was meek, merciful, and forgave his enemies! He who was crucified, and was then resurrected! Ladies and gentlemen, the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head! The Lion Of The Tribe Of Saki! My savior, and yours! Give it up for Krishnaaaaaaaa!
Sorry, I got confused. I'm talking about the Holy Child, born on December 25th to a virgin and placed in a manger! The traveling teacher who performed miracles! The sacred king of kings killed and eaten in a eucharistic ritual of purification! The one who turned water into wine, was crucified, and was resurrected after death! The God of Gods! The Only Begotten Son! The Redeemer, Bearer of Sin, the Anointed One, Alpha and Omega, the Lamb of God! My God of the Vine, and yours! Dionysuuuuuuus!
Sorry, I was confused. I'm talking about THE ONLY begotten son of God, born of a virgin! His birth heralded by the brightest star in the sky! Threats of death upon his birth, with his mother rushing to hide them! Nothing at all known about him between the ages of 12 and 30! Baptized in a river at 30! The baptizer got beheaded! The one who walked on water! Cast out demons! Healed the sick! Cured the blind! Crucified, died, and was resurrected 3 days later! My God of the Sky, and yours! Hooooooruuuuuuuus!
Or maybe someone else. I'm sure their mother claimed to be a virgin too. Suuuuuuure, honey. Whatever it takes to avoid being stoned to death.
mom CHOOSE to risk getting pregnant. It's closer to DUI than anything else. You might be able to get in the car and drive home safe, but the one time you don't the end result is that somebody died because you made a bad decision.
So you're saying that, just like forcing pregnant women to have a child, you think we should also force drunken drivers to crash and kill someone?
Currently 50 million people do not exist in the US because of abortion.
Good. If there's one thing this country, and planet, does not need, it's more people.
Yes. Being against abortion in all circumstances is naive at best.
So you are all for killing unborn children, on a whim?
On a whim? Like, just for the fun of it? No. There are many, many reasons why abortion should be a safe and legal option. Feel free to consider the various reasons why women actually seek abortions.
Culturally this had became an issue with this generation, previously across multiple faiths and non-faiths it was considered deviant behavior.
I think the "deviant behavior" thing is actually relatively recent, at least in this country. This is why a gay man like James Buchanan could be elected president in 1857, but today if a gay man campaigned for president the "vocally religious" people in this country (to put it nicely) would have a major problem with it, they would see some sort of ethical or moral shortcoming that people did not necessarily ascribe to gay people 160 years ago. This also completely avoids the fact that the bible does not suggest doing anything like denying services to gay people or holding them as outcasts in any way. Exactly the opposite, in fact. Widespread institutionalized homophobia is a relatively new phenomenon.
And for many people the fact that they are God fearing is the only thing that is holding them back from being really violent.
A have a major problem with people like that. People who don't live by the golden rule are complete shitheads. To paraphrase a comedian, if the only thing stopping you from killing someone is the possibility that you might receive some sort of divine reward, then you're a real asshole.
Of course religion has its good sides, I think a lot of people behave better than they might have because they think God/Allah is watching or it affects their karma.
Ha! No, they still do what they want to do, they just ask for forgiveness after they've done it so they can feel better about themselves.
I'll calm down when people stop running political campaigns for higher elected offices based on their religious affiliation and devotion. That shouldn't be a qualification for higher office, and an ancient collection of myths, parables, and legends designed to help warring desert nomadic tribes live in relative peace and safety (while ensuring the patriarchy goes uncontested) shouldn't be a manual on how to govern the United States in the 21st century.
First, read TFA. It's short. Then you won't look like a moron. You'll see things like the first paragraph:
A Central California woman claims she was fired after uninstalling an app that her employer required her to run constantly on her company issued iPhone - an app that tracked her every move 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
You'll also find bits like this:
The app had a "clock in/out" feature which did not stop GPS monitoring, that function remained on. This is the problem about which Ms. Arias complained.
Not so when approaching others and most especially women. With the decline of civility, asking a woman out and being rejected is no longer, "I'm sorry. I appreciate you asking but I'm just not interested" to, "Fucking loser! Why would you talk to me? Get the fuck out of here."
That's nonsense. They either respond to questions with a 1-word answer in a quiet voice while staring at their phone, or they just claim to be a lesbian until the asshole that they're looking for shows up.
I haven't seen much blatant hostility, it's usually just outright avoidance.
Slashdot Mirror
How is it relevant? It points to his decision making processes, among other things. He looks at science and religion and concludes that creationism is a real thing that actually happened. I think that's relevant. I want a leader to be able to look at the same set of information that I have and reach a similar conclusion. When someone looks at the same information that I have and they come to a conclusion that is wildly different than my own, then obviously one of us is seriously mistaken. On this issue in particular, I think that all available evidence is so overwhelmingly on one side that I find fault with the decision-making abilities of people who take the opposite conclusion.
There is a fairly large group of people in this country who will not vote for an atheist for whatever reason, maybe they just don't trust them. I'm in the opposite camp, when people hold religious views that I find to be frankly ridiculous, and even contrary to physical evidence, I have a hard time trusting their decision-making abilities. I doubt that they can be trusted to make a good decision when they are faced with evidence that goes against their religious beliefs.
Paul's belief in creationism I believe is also tied to his views on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. If he is president when a bill comes across his desk to legislate things like that, I don't think he's going to represent my views. At best he's going to say to leave it to the states, and at worst he's going to make something illegal on a federal level which I do not agree with.
And how precisely would libertarians defend civil rights and personal choice
I don't know the answer to that, but I know this for a fact: both the Republicans and Democrats have proven, year after year, that they do not give a shit about neither civil rights nor personal choice. Both of them are in bed with corporations and lobbyists, and that's where their loyalties are. Are Libertarians going to be any different? I don't know, but I'm not willing to cast my vote for one of the actors that has already proven to be at fault. I would rather vote for an unknown then get another 4 years of the same old bullshit.
That being said, if Bernie Sanders ran with Elizabeth Warren, under any party, I would vote for them.
But we face the long hard task of the individualistic libertarians out there coming together in large enough numbers to begin to make a difference.
It just takes a little education. In the 2012 election I had a few friends wearing their Ron Paul shirts and things like that, expecting some sort of revolution if they voted for a Republican. I pointed out that Ron Paul is a creationist and suggested they look at Gary Johnson instead (most people hadn't heard of him - thanks, media!). My friends who appreciated the more libertarian views of Ron Paul decided to vote for Johnson instead, contributing to Johnson's 1.27 million votes (more than all other minor parties combined, the most successful third party since 2000, and the highest total for the Libertarian party ever).
I think that if younger people see the bickering and fighting going on in the 2 major parties, and they notice that when either of them are in power the people get fucked in some way or another, then they'll consider a third party a viable vote. People who have grown up watching the past 10 elections or so may be of the mindset that a third party vote is a wasted vote, which is complete bullshit and hopefully the younger folks won't be afflicted by the same kind of apathy. I don't expect to see a groundswell of support for third parties in 2016 necessarily, maybe they go from 1% of the vote to 2%, but I think that the numbers talked about in TFA are unrealistically skewed in suggesting that new voters will automatically vote for one of the major parties. They aren't affected by the same kind of thinking as old voters, and they very might well believe that neither of the major parties really represents them. They would be correct, also.
Couple years ago we had a referendum and opted out of the state's blocking of municipal broadband services.
Wait, you can do that?
I wonder what would happen if such a referendum passed in a state capitol.
Also, what other laws can you opt out of?
there's no reason why a local municipality shouldn't be able to collectively decide that they want to take a crack at creating something better.
No, you see, "local municipality" is just a codeword for "big government", so the problem is that you don't want big government doing things like running utilities, because fascism, and when you have big government (i.e. a council of a town with a population of 1,000 people) competing against the free market and small business (i.e., Comcast), then that's unfair because monopoly. Not Comcast's monopoly, the monopoly that big government would have (because it's the government, duh). Also, small businesses like Comcast could not compete with big government like the council of a town with a population of 1,000 people.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Designs for Navy vessels now have to focus more and more on supplying power (as in electricity).
I believe the DDG-1000 series was supposed to address that, I remember reading about the power system and how it was modular enough to allow virtually all power to be directed to any particular system. "All power to weapons."
That was my impression also. I don't think the purpose of the specific system being designed and tested right now is to allow a ship to destroy an ICBM. Maybe start with one that can destroy Iranian dinghies, then one that can shoot down incoming mortars and drones, then one that can acquire and destroy incoming tank or artillery rounds, then missiles launched from planes, then larger boats and planes, before you can scale the size down while keeping the same power required to track and destroy an ICBM. It seems like if they could do that, then they're probably pretty close to also having a version small and powerful enough to mount on a tank. It may not be powerful enough to destroy an ICBM, but if you had a tank that could fire at other tanks and also shoot down incoming anti-tank rounds then you probably wouldn't need very many of them.
So where do I make an error ?
This part:
At such a 50kW Laser at 95% reflectance would mean 5% absorbance or only 2.5 kW. That means to give the same amount energy at the same distance for the same surface you need 20 time the same time.
You're assuming that the entire time while the laser is striking the mirror, and the mirror is absorbing some amount of energy, that the reflection stays constant.
Trying to decide whether or not I am surprised that someone carrying so much gear would not include condoms.
So it's a machine that heats up water and then puts flavor in it. Brilliant. My stove top can heat up water like a champ, and I can put whatever I want into that hot water. I can even make food on it! Revolutionary!
It's good that we have a 3D printing expert here. How do they 3D print other metals? Like the jet engine that was on Slashdot yesterday, for example.
Sounds like a laser printer to me. It checks out. I''ll allow it.
Followers of the bible would counter that by saying that many of the laws in the old testament were superseded by the new testament. The story of the villagers bringing the adulteress to Jesus and asking if they should stone her is a good example.
I think he was referring to the Son of God, and also God himself (part of the holy trinity), born as a man from immaculate conception, the Savior, the adoptive son of a carpenter, visited at birth by wise men guided by a star, whose human parents fled when angels predicted that the local dictator would attempt to assassinate the child, born without sin, the miraculous healer of disease, followed by disciples, capable of raising the dead, host of one hell of a last supper. He who made the lepers whole! He who was meek, merciful, and forgave his enemies! He who was crucified, and was then resurrected! Ladies and gentlemen, the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head! The Lion Of The Tribe Of Saki! My savior, and yours! Give it up for Krishnaaaaaaaa!
Sorry, I got confused. I'm talking about the Holy Child, born on December 25th to a virgin and placed in a manger! The traveling teacher who performed miracles! The sacred king of kings killed and eaten in a eucharistic ritual of purification! The one who turned water into wine, was crucified, and was resurrected after death! The God of Gods! The Only Begotten Son! The Redeemer, Bearer of Sin, the Anointed One, Alpha and Omega, the Lamb of God! My God of the Vine, and yours! Dionysuuuuuuus!
Sorry, I was confused. I'm talking about THE ONLY begotten son of God, born of a virgin! His birth heralded by the brightest star in the sky! Threats of death upon his birth, with his mother rushing to hide them! Nothing at all known about him between the ages of 12 and 30! Baptized in a river at 30! The baptizer got beheaded! The one who walked on water! Cast out demons! Healed the sick! Cured the blind! Crucified, died, and was resurrected 3 days later! My God of the Sky, and yours! Hooooooruuuuuuuus!
Or maybe someone else. I'm sure their mother claimed to be a virgin too. Suuuuuuure, honey. Whatever it takes to avoid being stoned to death.
Now, let's not bicker and argue about who killed who. This is supposed to be a happy occasion!
involuntary population reduction
That's a good way to describe any war. Also, a good band or album name.
mom CHOOSE to risk getting pregnant. It's closer to DUI than anything else. You might be able to get in the car and drive home safe, but the one time you don't the end result is that somebody died because you made a bad decision.
So you're saying that, just like forcing pregnant women to have a child, you think we should also force drunken drivers to crash and kill someone?
Currently 50 million people do not exist in the US because of abortion.
Good. If there's one thing this country, and planet, does not need, it's more people.
I don't know, females kill babies every month whether they masturbate or not.
Being Anti-Abortion a bad thing?
Yes. Being against abortion in all circumstances is naive at best.
So you are all for killing unborn children, on a whim?
On a whim? Like, just for the fun of it? No. There are many, many reasons why abortion should be a safe and legal option. Feel free to consider the various reasons why women actually seek abortions.
Culturally this had became an issue with this generation, previously across multiple faiths and non-faiths it was considered deviant behavior.
I think the "deviant behavior" thing is actually relatively recent, at least in this country. This is why a gay man like James Buchanan could be elected president in 1857, but today if a gay man campaigned for president the "vocally religious" people in this country (to put it nicely) would have a major problem with it, they would see some sort of ethical or moral shortcoming that people did not necessarily ascribe to gay people 160 years ago. This also completely avoids the fact that the bible does not suggest doing anything like denying services to gay people or holding them as outcasts in any way. Exactly the opposite, in fact. Widespread institutionalized homophobia is a relatively new phenomenon.
And for many people the fact that they are God fearing is the only thing that is holding them back from being really violent.
A have a major problem with people like that. People who don't live by the golden rule are complete shitheads. To paraphrase a comedian, if the only thing stopping you from killing someone is the possibility that you might receive some sort of divine reward, then you're a real asshole.
Of course religion has its good sides, I think a lot of people behave better than they might have because they think God/Allah is watching or it affects their karma.
Ha! No, they still do what they want to do, they just ask for forgiveness after they've done it so they can feel better about themselves.
I'll calm down when people stop running political campaigns for higher elected offices based on their religious affiliation and devotion. That shouldn't be a qualification for higher office, and an ancient collection of myths, parables, and legends designed to help warring desert nomadic tribes live in relative peace and safety (while ensuring the patriarchy goes uncontested) shouldn't be a manual on how to govern the United States in the 21st century.
First, read TFA. It's short. Then you won't look like a moron. You'll see things like the first paragraph:
A Central California woman claims she was fired after uninstalling an app that her employer required her to run constantly on her company issued iPhone - an app that tracked her every move 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
You'll also find bits like this:
The app had a "clock in/out" feature which did not stop GPS monitoring, that function remained on. This is the problem about which Ms. Arias complained.
Not so when approaching others and most especially women. With the decline of civility, asking a woman out and being rejected is no longer, "I'm sorry. I appreciate you asking but I'm just not interested" to, "Fucking loser! Why would you talk to me? Get the fuck out of here."
That's nonsense. They either respond to questions with a 1-word answer in a quiet voice while staring at their phone, or they just claim to be a lesbian until the asshole that they're looking for shows up.
I haven't seen much blatant hostility, it's usually just outright avoidance.
That's a pretty good post, but it could use a few more parentheticals.
2.8% of Earth's gravity might be a little bit difficult to get used to.