Personally, I wonder what the response would be if it were asked about Hillary instead...she should be being prosecuted for the shit she pulled, but she is still the golden child of the Democratic Party.
I however will say, I hate all the candidates from both of the parties. I am waiting to see who runs from the other parties to see if anyone looks good from there. I am not however threatening to throw a temper tantrum because the nominations/elections don't go the way I want, but that may have more to do with neither party representing me in any way.
Um, I don't agree with most of what Barbara said, but You kind of got your response a little confused.
It was in great shape before Obama got hold of it. By handing it to the ayatollah he created the civil wars we now see.
Actually, Obama had no choice on this one, the Iraqi president asked us to leave, are we going to refuse the lawful request of a sitting president and occupy his country? Bush tried to negotiate some soldiers staying, but the Iraqi president refused any concession that included lawful immunity to our soldiers, which was unpalatable to our military leaders. The entire ISIS thing falls on the Iraqi president's shoulders; he made the choice to kick the US soldiers out of Iraq, no one else did.
Yeah, but when I respond to a logged in user, I know they see my response, and might actually respond, and I know that response is from the same person. With an AC, you never know what you will get. Also, every comment a logged in user makes is available to peruse, while ACs can say anything and it never effects them in any way.
Trump apparently wanted to criminalize abortion to the point where women who had abortions were punished (at least he took that back).
Did you actually listen to the WHOLE interview, and not the cut up portion that was all over CNN (at least)?
The question was "If abortion is illegal, should women who get an abortion be prosecuted", if you believe in the rule of law, the answer to that is "of course". If something is illegal, and you do it anyways, don't you expect to be punished for it?
Did you know that there is a wall on the southern border? It doesn't go all the way, but it exists in some areas. Why is it suddenly racist to want to secure our borders from people crossing illegally? Do we call European countries racist when they try to secure their borders from the influx of Syrians illegally entering their country?
Read the response to the Stack Exchange response you cite:
You point is invalid, please read users.physics.ox.ac.uk/~smithb/website/coursenotes/rel_A.pdf page 34 quote "That equation also serves as a general proof that the velocity addition formulae never result in a speed w > c when u, v c. For, if u c and v c then the right hand side of (3.13) is real and non-negative, and therefore (w) is real, hence w c." using values above 1c produces non real values. aka -9.8c... you can only travel through time if you do your maths wrong, sorry – Arthur Feb 3 at 14:27
You would not literally arrive before you left, as the trip itself would take time, and the return trip would be longer. I am not sure how the response came to their numbers, but I can see no way for it to come out the way it did. In his example:
In the futuristic Earth year of 3000, Tralfamadore is 98,000 light years away, and receding at 20% of cc. I leave Earth at 1000% of cc, relative to Earth. In Earth year 13000 Tralfamadore is 100,000 light years away, and I catch up to it. I turn around and leave Tralfamadore at 1000% of cc, relative to Tralfamadore. In Earth year 2796, I arrive home.
The trip there takes 100 years, and the return trip takes 102 years, where exactly did he get the 13000 year from? 13000 is when you see the ship arriving, but that doesn't mean that is when the ship really arrived. Also, you don't go back in time like that on the return trip, it is still a positive time vector even when traveling back.
You know, I would love to buy you a beer sometime if you end up in Maryland. I can be contacted at Gmail if you are ever up here. I would love to chat about how to start a successful business, and financial strategies.
Some forms of Gerrymandering are actually mandated by federal law too!
The Voting Rights Act amendment of 1982 actually led to minority majority districts that are specifically designed to give minority voters a voice, then are held up as that terrible Gerrymandering boogeyman.
In fact, this is the cause of "the most gerrymandered districts" that the Wall Street Journal talks about here: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Funny how there is so much noise about federally mandated gerrymandering of districts to give minorities a voice in places like North Carolina, but you hear so little about the gerrymandering in Maryland (where I live) that is controlled by Democrats.
They had $95 million in payroll, $12 million of which is for management (pg 22). Lower down it lists out specific people's payroll amount, and lists all three Clintons as $0.
All the prior years are available as well, but I don't particularly have the time to go through them all.
Interesting reading though. It is interesting that Chelsea works 20 hours a week for the foundation, but they don't pay her anything. I would expect her to get some kind of salary, but I guess she has other funding sources.
(Oh, and Hillary paying herself from campaign funds to run for "President.")
What do you expect to happen? You don't think that the campaign funds are used to support the candidate while they are running for office? This seemed like a basic thing the funds are for, from paying for flights/lodging/food, to supporting the candidate's ability to not have to go to a job while they are campaigning.
Out of curiosity, did you actually read that article. It supports what I'm New stated. The KKK were supporters of the Democratic party, and were mostly Democrats. However, the partys swapped in the 20th century when the Dixiecrats fled the Democratic Party that was passing the Civil Rights reforms.
Also, the abortion clinic bombers are not Christians as they are directly going against their own religion. The Islamic Terrorists are following their religion.
I'm not sure exactly how that qualifies, but I can't say I understand all that happened there from reading that article. It appears that they were actively targeting Vietcong bases located in Laos and Cambodia, what is the big deal there? It seems like a smart decision, and as Laos and Cambodia were not actively engaged in preventing the Vietcong from invading their country, it seems that they were either allowing it, which makes them combatants, or they were unable to stop it, which means we were assisting with invasions of their territory (without their permission?).
I am genuinely curious, not trying to argue. I wasn't alive back then, so don't really understand the issues of the day.
I think you might be confused in some way. FTL does not allow you to literally time travel. You leave your home and reach your destination before the destination sees the light from you leaving, but it does not allow you to go back in time in any way.
You could not travel somewhere and return before you left, therefore there is no time travel.
Causality doesn't say that it was time travel to appear to leave after you arrived at a location.
Are you perhaps confusing Internet and intranet? There is only one Internet, it is a global telecommunications network. An intranet is an internal network which might be connected to the Internet, but doesn't have to be.
I wasn't even aware that there was more than one Internet. It seems hard to think of the Internet becoming a generic term when the word describes exactly one network.
The dissent thought this line was "unnecessary, unwise, and inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment"[2] because according to Scalia's previous logic, this firm but bright line would be defunct as soon as the surveillance technology used went into general public use, which was still undefined.
In the dissent Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the use of thermal imaging does not constitute a search, which requires a warrant, because any person could detect the heat emissions. He argued that this could be done by simply feeling that some areas in or around the house are warmer than others or observing that snow was melting more quickly on certain sections of the house. Since the public could gather this information, Stevens argued, there is no need for a warrant and the use of this technique is not unconstitutional. Moreover, Stevens asserted that the use of the thermal imaging device was merely "off the wall" surveillance because it did not detect any "intimate" details of Kyllo's home. Finally, Stevens commented on Kyllo's trying to incorporate something as intangible, fluid and public as heat into the private sphere. He explained, "Heat waves, like aromas that are generated in a kitchen, or in a laboratory or opium den, enter the public domain if and when they leave a building."
I wonder, if it had been snow melting quicker than normal, would the supremes even have had an issue with it? Also, as Stevens asserts, IR cameras have entered public use, they are cheap enough right now that anyone could buy one.
You keep waving that piece of paper as if everyone else can't read it, but it appears that it is you who needs to reread it as it does not say what you think it says.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It seems he understands innocent until proven guilty better than you do. He typed suspected criminal, and alluded to the limited privacy rights they are afforded under the fourth amendment where they are subject to a search based on probable cause under something called a search warrant.
It depends, can you convince a judge that there is enough evidence of a crime to write out a search warrant, as exists in every case where law enforcement has asked Apple (Google, MS, etc) for help. In MANY of the cases, Apple was more than happy to help, but oh my god, that guy who shot up a work party, he totally deserves more privacy than any other case.
Except that what you said is actually not true. There has to be proof of rape, or else it will get thrown out. The courts don't send men to prison automatically on accusation of rape.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I wonder what the response would be if it were asked about Hillary instead...she should be being prosecuted for the shit she pulled, but she is still the golden child of the Democratic Party.
I however will say, I hate all the candidates from both of the parties. I am waiting to see who runs from the other parties to see if anyone looks good from there. I am not however threatening to throw a temper tantrum because the nominations/elections don't go the way I want, but that may have more to do with neither party representing me in any way.
Um, I don't agree with most of what Barbara said, but You kind of got your response a little confused.
It was in great shape before Obama got hold of it. By handing it to the ayatollah he created the civil wars we now see.
Actually, Obama had no choice on this one, the Iraqi president asked us to leave, are we going to refuse the lawful request of a sitting president and occupy his country? Bush tried to negotiate some soldiers staying, but the Iraqi president refused any concession that included lawful immunity to our soldiers, which was unpalatable to our military leaders. The entire ISIS thing falls on the Iraqi president's shoulders; he made the choice to kick the US soldiers out of Iraq, no one else did.
Yeah, but when I respond to a logged in user, I know they see my response, and might actually respond, and I know that response is from the same person. With an AC, you never know what you will get. Also, every comment a logged in user makes is available to peruse, while ACs can say anything and it never effects them in any way.
Good riddance?
S/he is judging the entire US by whatever city they visited or lived in, we don't need people that are that blind to how large a country the US is.
Trump apparently wanted to criminalize abortion to the point where women who had abortions were punished (at least he took that back).
Did you actually listen to the WHOLE interview, and not the cut up portion that was all over CNN (at least)?
The question was "If abortion is illegal, should women who get an abortion be prosecuted", if you believe in the rule of law, the answer to that is "of course". If something is illegal, and you do it anyways, don't you expect to be punished for it?
Did you know that there is a wall on the southern border? It doesn't go all the way, but it exists in some areas. Why is it suddenly racist to want to secure our borders from people crossing illegally? Do we call European countries racist when they try to secure their borders from the influx of Syrians illegally entering their country?
If you are going to talk down to things he says, you should at least include some things he has said, not wild speculation of what he might have said.
Did he even say any of the things you typed here?
Read the response to the Stack Exchange response you cite:
You point is invalid, please read users.physics.ox.ac.uk/~smithb/website/coursenotes/rel_A.pdf page 34 quote "That equation also serves as a general proof that the velocity addition formulae never result in a speed w > c when u, v c. For, if u c and v c then the right hand side of (3.13) is real and non-negative, and therefore (w) is real, hence w c." using values above 1c produces non real values. aka -9.8c... you can only travel through time if you do your maths wrong, sorry – Arthur Feb 3 at 14:27
You would not literally arrive before you left, as the trip itself would take time, and the return trip would be longer. I am not sure how the response came to their numbers, but I can see no way for it to come out the way it did. In his example:
In the futuristic Earth year of 3000, Tralfamadore is 98,000 light years away, and receding at 20% of cc. I leave Earth at 1000% of cc, relative to Earth.
In Earth year 13000 Tralfamadore is 100,000 light years away, and I catch up to it. I turn around and leave Tralfamadore at 1000% of cc, relative to Tralfamadore.
In Earth year 2796, I arrive home.
The trip there takes 100 years, and the return trip takes 102 years, where exactly did he get the 13000 year from? 13000 is when you see the ship arriving, but that doesn't mean that is when the ship really arrived. Also, you don't go back in time like that on the return trip, it is still a positive time vector even when traveling back.
You know, I would love to buy you a beer sometime if you end up in Maryland. I can be contacted at Gmail if you are ever up here. I would love to chat about how to start a successful business, and financial strategies.
Some forms of Gerrymandering are actually mandated by federal law too!
The Voting Rights Act amendment of 1982 actually led to minority majority districts that are specifically designed to give minority voters a voice, then are held up as that terrible Gerrymandering boogeyman.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/79...
In fact, this is the cause of "the most gerrymandered districts" that the Wall Street Journal talks about here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Funny how there is so much noise about federally mandated gerrymandering of districts to give minorities a voice in places like North Carolina, but you hear so little about the gerrymandering in Maryland (where I live) that is controlled by Democrats.
According to their financial report:
https://www.clintonfoundation....
They had $95 million in payroll, $12 million of which is for management (pg 22). Lower down it lists out specific people's payroll amount, and lists all three Clintons as $0.
All the prior years are available as well, but I don't particularly have the time to go through them all.
https://www.clintonfoundation....
Interesting reading though. It is interesting that Chelsea works 20 hours a week for the foundation, but they don't pay her anything. I would expect her to get some kind of salary, but I guess she has other funding sources.
(Oh, and Hillary paying herself from campaign funds to run for "President.")
What do you expect to happen? You don't think that the campaign funds are used to support the candidate while they are running for office? This seemed like a basic thing the funds are for, from paying for flights/lodging/food, to supporting the candidate's ability to not have to go to a job while they are campaigning.
Out of curiosity, did you actually read that article. It supports what I'm New stated. The KKK were supporters of the Democratic party, and were mostly Democrats. However, the partys swapped in the 20th century when the Dixiecrats fled the Democratic Party that was passing the Civil Rights reforms.
Also, the abortion clinic bombers are not Christians as they are directly going against their own religion. The Islamic Terrorists are following their religion.
I'm not sure exactly how that qualifies, but I can't say I understand all that happened there from reading that article. It appears that they were actively targeting Vietcong bases located in Laos and Cambodia, what is the big deal there? It seems like a smart decision, and as Laos and Cambodia were not actively engaged in preventing the Vietcong from invading their country, it seems that they were either allowing it, which makes them combatants, or they were unable to stop it, which means we were assisting with invasions of their territory (without their permission?).
I am genuinely curious, not trying to argue. I wasn't alive back then, so don't really understand the issues of the day.
I think you might be confused in some way. FTL does not allow you to literally time travel. You leave your home and reach your destination before the destination sees the light from you leaving, but it does not allow you to go back in time in any way.
You could not travel somewhere and return before you left, therefore there is no time travel.
Causality doesn't say that it was time travel to appear to leave after you arrived at a location.
"nuclear" (as "noo-kyoo-lur" or rarely "noo-kuh-lur")
I thought the proper pronunciation was new clear.
Are you perhaps confusing Internet and intranet? There is only one Internet, it is a global telecommunications network. An intranet is an internal network which might be connected to the Internet, but doesn't have to be.
No it is Okay.
I wasn't even aware that there was more than one Internet. It seems hard to think of the Internet becoming a generic term when the word describes exactly one network.
Case in point: The san bernadino shooter's one didn't.
You seem to be asserting something that is not yet known. Are you sure there was nothing on the phone?
The dissent thought this line was "unnecessary, unwise, and inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment"[2] because according to Scalia's previous logic, this firm but bright line would be defunct as soon as the surveillance technology used went into general public use, which was still undefined.
In the dissent Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the use of thermal imaging does not constitute a search, which requires a warrant, because any person could detect the heat emissions. He argued that this could be done by simply feeling that some areas in or around the house are warmer than others or observing that snow was melting more quickly on certain sections of the house. Since the public could gather this information, Stevens argued, there is no need for a warrant and the use of this technique is not unconstitutional. Moreover, Stevens asserted that the use of the thermal imaging device was merely "off the wall" surveillance because it did not detect any "intimate" details of Kyllo's home. Finally, Stevens commented on Kyllo's trying to incorporate something as intangible, fluid and public as heat into the private sphere. He explained, "Heat waves, like aromas that are generated in a kitchen, or in a laboratory or opium den, enter the public domain if and when they leave a building."
I wonder, if it had been snow melting quicker than normal, would the supremes even have had an issue with it? Also, as Stevens asserts, IR cameras have entered public use, they are cheap enough right now that anyone could buy one.
You keep waving that piece of paper as if everyone else can't read it, but it appears that it is you who needs to reread it as it does not say what you think it says.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It seems he understands innocent until proven guilty better than you do. He typed suspected criminal, and alluded to the limited privacy rights they are afforded under the fourth amendment where they are subject to a search based on probable cause under something called a search warrant.
It depends, can you convince a judge that there is enough evidence of a crime to write out a search warrant, as exists in every case where law enforcement has asked Apple (Google, MS, etc) for help. In MANY of the cases, Apple was more than happy to help, but oh my god, that guy who shot up a work party, he totally deserves more privacy than any other case.
http://www.cnet.com/news/how-a...
Except that what you said is actually not true. There has to be proof of rape, or else it will get thrown out. The courts don't send men to prison automatically on accusation of rape.