He can't really run for a national election using the same rhetoric that he used to sway tea-partiers away from Santorum, so now he seems like the moderate that he was in Massachusetts.
You'd think Obama would bring up the etch-a-sketch in one of these debates.
1) Never even tried to bring single payer to the table as he promised he would. Obamacare is literally less progressive than Nixon's health care plan. Was Nixon a progressive? 2) Great, now a small fraction of a small fraction of people can put their lives on the line to protect oil company profits. 3) What exactly is progressive about cutting oil production? Cutting oil consumption would be progressive, but he hasn't done that. 4) Medicare, medicaid, etc have been increasing exponentially. But they've been increasing exponentially for decades. And hell, Bush passed Medicare part D. Was he progressive?
Sorry, the one progressive policy you singled out amounts to nothing but crumbs for a tiny fraction of the populace. Get real. Obama is a center right president.
You could say the same about Obama and the left wing of the Democratic party. Failing to implement a single progressive policy hasn't seemed to hurt his support.
Maybe we should take a hint from Pizza Hut. Crowd source a bounty for any individual in a town hall debate that asks why third party candidates aren't allowed in debates. Pizza Hut was offering $15K for anyone who asked "pepperoni or sausage" during the Town Hall debate. I bet the internet could beat that for a question of real importance.
yes, but one is extra-Christy (long-i vowel) and insists that you also have to subscribe to his party's belief system.
Perhaps, if you take what Romney says at face value. But that would be silly. Romney says whatever it takes to get elected, and he's banking on the evangelical vote. Judge him by his record, and he's pretty much the same as Obama.
I watched this debate, and none of the questions were even worth answering. Not one question was asked about civil liberties. Not one question about the TSA, or drug policy, or drone strikes. Not one mention of science. Not one question addressed the regulatory capture of just about every government agency. Not one question about Obama's failure to prosecute any banking execs for fraud after the 2008 financial crisis. Absolutely no worthwhile questions were asked, and no worthwhile answers were given.
The point of these things is to draw attention to the fact that the CPD excludes many candidates from the "official" debates. It may be futile, but shouting "HEY WE'RE HERE!" is about all we can really do.
The real funny part is that he uses a concept from economics to illustrate his point, to an audience who is clearly not made of of economists, and he expects us to understand this point. He apparently doesn't see how it would be useful to draw from a chemistry education to make a point to be understood by non-chemists.
An appropriate analogy is a newly-empowered dictator
That's not really an appropriate analogy. Anonymous at least has to convince many people to participate. They are still arbitrary and capricious, but necessarily less selfish. Anonymous is no one's personal army, and that's a good thing.
NAND is more fundamental than transistors. You can build a computer without transistors, as you note with vacuum tubes. You cannot build a computer without using NAND. As he notes in the video, it's a CS course, not EE or physics.
What few realize at the beginning of their academic career is that science is actually a lot like sports: it is constant competition. It's all about who can discover/prove/engineer the next milestone first. There is no such thing in science as a runner-up. Those who come in second, are the first to be scooped. Period.
This is the major problem with modern science. It encourages corner cutting, result hyping, and the file drawer problem.
How do you define a "need" for astronomers? This research is completely subsidized by the government. We could do ten times as much, we could do none at all. It's completely our choice. The laws of supply and demand don't work out normally when demand is arbitrarily determined by congress.
I suppose you'd say that the free market should fund astronomical research. Well good luck making that happen.
The irrelevant data: did they attend every class, and take three (3) or fewer dumps a day, numbering fewer than 15 minutes each and not more than 42.3 minutes total?
15 minutes on the toilet? At a time? Seriously? Eat some vegetables and put down the smart phone.
Sorry, I've got a DTV antenna, live outside of the downtown area of the largest city in my state, and OTA TV still breaks up every time a car passes by. I watch SD analog cable even when I get the same channel in HD OTA, it's that bad.
Why would you step on your brakes if someone going faster than you cuts in front of you? If he's going faster than you, you can maintain the same speed and your safety gap will reopen. The most I'd do in that situation is ease up on the throttle.
Slashdot Mirror
He can't really run for a national election using the same rhetoric that he used to sway tea-partiers away from Santorum, so now he seems like the moderate that he was in Massachusetts.
You'd think Obama would bring up the etch-a-sketch in one of these debates.
Our de facto two-party system
We have a de facto one party system.
I keep hearing this, but no one ever says what it is.
1) Never even tried to bring single payer to the table as he promised he would. Obamacare is literally less progressive than Nixon's health care plan. Was Nixon a progressive?
2) Great, now a small fraction of a small fraction of people can put their lives on the line to protect oil company profits.
3) What exactly is progressive about cutting oil production? Cutting oil consumption would be progressive, but he hasn't done that.
4) Medicare, medicaid, etc have been increasing exponentially. But they've been increasing exponentially for decades. And hell, Bush passed Medicare part D. Was he progressive?
Sorry, the one progressive policy you singled out amounts to nothing but crumbs for a tiny fraction of the populace. Get real. Obama is a center right president.
You could say the same about Obama and the left wing of the Democratic party. Failing to implement a single progressive policy hasn't seemed to hurt his support.
We know Romney did things that were uncharitable, but at least his actions were not evil - they were, after all, legal and financial actions.
Legal and financial actions account for most of the evil that is done in this world.
Maybe we should take a hint from Pizza Hut. Crowd source a bounty for any individual in a town hall debate that asks why third party candidates aren't allowed in debates. Pizza Hut was offering $15K for anyone who asked "pepperoni or sausage" during the Town Hall debate. I bet the internet could beat that for a question of real importance.
I'm not sure Romney understands Romney's platform.
yes, but one is extra-Christy (long-i vowel) and insists that you also have to subscribe to his party's belief system.
Perhaps, if you take what Romney says at face value. But that would be silly. Romney says whatever it takes to get elected, and he's banking on the evangelical vote. Judge him by his record, and he's pretty much the same as Obama.
I watched this debate, and none of the questions were even worth answering. Not one question was asked about civil liberties. Not one question about the TSA, or drug policy, or drone strikes. Not one mention of science. Not one question addressed the regulatory capture of just about every government agency. Not one question about Obama's failure to prosecute any banking execs for fraud after the 2008 financial crisis. Absolutely no worthwhile questions were asked, and no worthwhile answers were given.
Mitt Romney is the crony capitalist candidate. So is Barack Obama. Two parties, one agenda.
Because the Commision on Presidential Debates is controlled by Democrats and Republicans.
The point of these things is to draw attention to the fact that the CPD excludes many candidates from the "official" debates. It may be futile, but shouting "HEY WE'RE HERE!" is about all we can really do.
The real funny part is that he uses a concept from economics to illustrate his point, to an audience who is clearly not made of of economists, and he expects us to understand this point. He apparently doesn't see how it would be useful to draw from a chemistry education to make a point to be understood by non-chemists.
By 15, it's pretty clear. My dad could have said that I "will not be a salesman" with absolute certainty at that age.
An appropriate analogy is a newly-empowered dictator
That's not really an appropriate analogy. Anonymous at least has to convince many people to participate. They are still arbitrary and capricious, but necessarily less selfish. Anonymous is no one's personal army, and that's a good thing.
NAND is more fundamental than transistors. You can build a computer without transistors, as you note with vacuum tubes. You cannot build a computer without using NAND. As he notes in the video, it's a CS course, not EE or physics.
What few realize at the beginning of their academic career is that science is actually a lot like sports: it is constant competition. It's all about who can discover/prove/engineer the next milestone first. There is no such thing in science as a runner-up. Those who come in second, are the first to be scooped. Period.
This is the major problem with modern science. It encourages corner cutting, result hyping, and the file drawer problem.
How do you define a "need" for astronomers? This research is completely subsidized by the government. We could do ten times as much, we could do none at all. It's completely our choice. The laws of supply and demand don't work out normally when demand is arbitrarily determined by congress.
I suppose you'd say that the free market should fund astronomical research. Well good luck making that happen.
I hate to break it to you, but the eventual application of your research (if any) will primarily help rich people make even more money.
The irrelevant data: did they attend every class, and take three (3) or fewer dumps a day, numbering fewer than 15 minutes each and not more than 42.3 minutes total?
15 minutes on the toilet? At a time? Seriously? Eat some vegetables and put down the smart phone.
It ranges from Loser to Satan gave me a Taco.
Interpretive dance is never cool. Not even if you science it up.
Sorry, I've got a DTV antenna, live outside of the downtown area of the largest city in my state, and OTA TV still breaks up every time a car passes by. I watch SD analog cable even when I get the same channel in HD OTA, it's that bad.
A space of more than about a car length between me and the car in front of me is an invitation for someone to dangerously merge.
Why is a dangerous merge every minute or so worse than maintaining a dangerous following distance perpetually?
Why would you step on your brakes if someone going faster than you cuts in front of you? If he's going faster than you, you can maintain the same speed and your safety gap will reopen. The most I'd do in that situation is ease up on the throttle.