What other countries? They certainly weren't making it to Europe in their little rowboats or whatever they could find to escape on.
That leaves a bunch of tiny islands, many under US control anyway and those that aren't were in just as bad a shape as Cuba throughout much of the cold war era. Mexico, which might be a great tourist trap but not really where most people think of when they want to start a new life of dreams and unicorns. Or Florida.
Not to mention Florida is also the closest of all of those to Havana so in addition to saving time on the water, there'd be significantly less travel time on land as well for most of the escapees, which would have had plenty of its own pitfalls (mostly in the form of being caught in the act.)
Though that said, I'd be less than shocked if I found out that a bunch of Cubans had also escaped to Cancun. And I'm sure some did flee to Jamaica and Haiti and whatnot, though that would have been more difficult with Guantanamo (and US military presence) right there in addition to dodging the Cuban military.
That's kind of the problem with Trump. He just spouts off whatever happens to be going through his head that second without any long term consideration.
It makes it very hard for anyone to predict what he'll actually do vs him just spouting off about something he read yesterday.
And that's a really scary problem in a president. Even if he ends up doing nothing horrible, the fact that we can't even begin to gauge him means that uncertainty is rampant not just in the US but around the globe, and uncertainty has a nasty habit of leading to instability. In markets, in politics, everywhere.
Him simply being unable to shut his yap and stay on topic could do more damage to the US than any policy he finally ends up implements (depending on the policy of course!)
Yeah but nobody takes them seriously -- not the companies who finance campaigns, not the media who report on them and not the voters who have been taught since birth that two parties is all there is (and any country that has more is obviously dumb because 'Murca is the best!)
It doesn't help that the third party candidates were, as you say, clowns. That doesn't seem to be super uncommon in any country -- alternate parties and independents just love promising the world in hopes of getting a few extra votes without any concept of how to finance it because frankly, even they don't take themselves seriously most of the time.
Anyone who seriously thought a wall was going to happen -- never mind somehow convincing Mexico to pay for the damned thing -- probably needs a bit of a reality check at the best of times.
But that said.. yeah. Its hard to get a handle on Trump's plans since he just spouts off whatever he's thinking at the time with no concern for consistency or even truth. Presumably, once he decides to actually act on something (rather than just dropping a slew of verbal diarrhea,) he'll straighten up and get down to business on it.
It would certainly be nice to have some sort of indication about which actions are serious ahead of time though, to be sure.
She couldn't actually do that without reopening negotiations and that would take the consent of all 12 countries and have to go through the signing process again and so forth. It would take years.
At this point the only choice the US (or anyone else) has is whether to ratify it or not. There's not really any more room for changes, no matter who won the election.
Not really THAT surprising: a) Its extremely unpopular, even within congress.. especially the members who are likely still pissed off that they were asked to fast track something as large and complex as the TPP with little warning and zero input.
b) There's probably some fear about what Trump would do as well. Its bad enough for the TPP to be essentially killed by the country that pretty much wrote their own wishlist (even if it was a wishlist tailored to big business and nobody else,) but it would be far far worse if they ratified it now and then three months later Trump just drops the axe and says fuck it as he's already claiming he'll do to NAFTA.
Eventually sure, but likely not until after Trump's out of office. These things take far too long to negotiate (the TPP was well over a decade in the making -- Bush' government would have been the one to open the initial talks a year or two before Obama was a name anyone had heard.)
If something does creep up that quickly, even if they forego the TPP's infamous secrecy, it would likely have been something initiated under Obama (and there could well be such things out there.. the TPP was big but there's still Europe and South America and India to make deals with.. maybe even the odd country in Africa though I don't know how much they have to offer that we haven't already just taken by bullying..)
No. The one chapter us nerds mostly care about was about copyright. The TPP is a humongously long document covering dozens if not hundreds of business interests.
Unfortunately from what I've seen, almost every single one of those chapters includes at least something that should make normal people afraid in some way.
There's a reason why the pro-TPP lobby can't even come up with a selling point beyond how much money could theoretically be made (for their companies and basically no one else.. but they also leave that part off of course.)
It was written by a lot of big corporations -- those are just the ones we tend to hear about the most because that's what the Slashdot crowd tend to focus on.
There's a lot of bad things in there for farmers and manufacturers as well, not to mention that whole investor-state bullshit that effectively lets companies override a country's sovereignty in order to protect their bottom line, weakening of environmental protections around the world and so on.
Its basically every Christmas and birthday present ever wrapped up and given to multinationals at the cost of local businesses, consumer rights and jobs (at least American jobs. It'd probably be great for creating Malaysian sweatshop jobs as we outsource even more labor to the lowest-wage, lowest-legal-protections country in the TPP roster.)
I'm reasonably sure that the officer can't specifically ask a potential john -- the john would have to ask them. Otherwise the john could claim that they wouldn't have considered the thought of the officer hadn't suggested it.
Not sure if that's technically entrapment or not (because only words were exchanged not money) but its still a pretty shaky case to bring in front of a judge whereas if the john made the approach, the case is fairly solid that he was specifically searching for a prostitute.
I would assume that they use a similar argument to what bittorrent sites use -- they host a service, but they don't explicitly provide the content. Though the FBI probably has less work to defend that argument since nobody's going to be too hard on them for trying to stop CP (unlike the *AAs trying to stop bittorrent sites.) Just hard enough to ensure they're following the rules and not risk having their eventual cases tossed on a technicality.
Of course at some point they're going to have to review more than logs to ensure that the content they're prosecuting someone for is actually CP otherwise the defendant could just claim they were only there for the articles or some such nonsense.
So yes at some level, they will have to have special license granted to do this since in general anything even vaguely related to CP is automatically at least suspect if not outright illegal. And seeing some of the suggested related stories on TFA's site, it sounds like the FBI is having a bit of a time defending their practices (though it seems more to do with the IP-collecting malware than the hosting itself.)
You're assuming that they give a crap about valid uses, and I don't see why they would. Even if someone decided to challenge it, they'd likely have to show that they couldn't obtain legitimate material via other means, or would at least be significantly inconvenienced in doing so. And of course nobody's going to challenge it based on illegitimate material for obvious reasons.
Yes, that's generally how it works not just in science but everywhere -- most people do their best to work toward the benefit of their employer.
When your employer is Exxon-Mobile and your research shows that burning fossil fuels is screwing the planet, perhaps you go ahead and bury your research or try to massage the data to make it show what your boss wants.
When your employer is the public and your research shows that burning fossil fuels is screwing the planet, then its in the public's interest (ie: your employer) to warn them and try to fix things before its too late.
Basically, its not so much an issue of corporate scientists all being shills.. its more an issue that the shills are the ones the corporations show to the public.
Sooo.. according to that guy's data.. temperatures have been almost horizontal over the past 100-150 years (which amounts to a very fast increase using their top-down charting method and relatively corresponds to xkcd's chart.)
But after that when he gets into future predictions, even his worst case for the next 500 years is barely shy of vertical, and his best case prediction has the trend toward warming suddenly do a 180 and go entirely the other direction? Even if we completely discounted human causes for global warming, that's a pretty damned unlikely thing to happen.
In fact the only way that would be remotely possible is if humans not only immediately stopped our warming-related actions but actively started trying to cool the planet (and given our history, we'd probably drive ourselves right into the opposite direction of cooling the planet too fast..)
Because by the time we have solid, uncontroversial proof that the planet no longer supports life, there won't be anyone around to care.
That said, there's plenty of scientific evidence of climate change. What there isn't strict evidence for is exactly how the planet will react to a (geologically) extremely sudden rise in average temperature. Estimates range from "kind of fucked" to "extremely fucked" and everywhere in between.
Of particular note is that "not fucked" isn't in that range of possibilities. Very few scientists are still willing to make that claim and most of the ones who do are almost universally funded by the oil industry in one way or another.
It would certainly be nice if science could be more concrete when predicting the future, but we don't exactly have a trove of Earths laying around that we can trial various scenarios on, so they're stuck making predictions based on the available information, rather than just sticking our collective head in the sand and hoping nothing bad happens.
Tree rings, ice core samples, sediment layers, etc. We have lots of ways to estimate temperatures based on observable biological and geological histories. And several of those can be measured independently and so far agree with each other to a pretty good degree.
I mean you can always stick your head in the sand and claim that everything you don't want to believe is bullshit and that's your prerogative, but unfortunately the planet and the environment operate with or without your personal consent, and the rest of us would prefer to leave a habitable planet for our grandchildren.
And if nothing else, there's always the simple safe bet approach: If science is somehow wrong but we clean up our act anyway, Shell and Exxon lose 1% off their quarterly reports for a few years while cleaner technology is invented.
On the other hand, if science is right and we do nothing, we all lose the only planet we know can support human life. Which gamble are you willing to take?
Not to mention the fact that unless you're heavily invested in an oil company, you probably won't be personally affected much either way so in addition to gambling the future of humanity, you're doing so for no real material benefit.
So you prefer a world where Comcast essentially won't let your business operate unless you pay them a $1000/mo (for the lowest tier) "fast lane" fee? Or where bittorrent is just flat out banned not because of any illegal activities on it, but simply because AT&T decided that it was using too much bandwidth so fuck it?
And I can already hear the cries of "but but competition fixes everything!" Yeah. Sure. When there is any. But a large portion of the country is limited to exactly one provider. And even when there's two, they're often colluding. You don't see much real competition until there's a half dozen or so providers, and that's pretty rare even in the big cities.
Yes the government answers to people they probably shouldn't, and yes they get things wrong plenty often. But its been shown time and time and time again that when left to their own devices, businesses will happily fuck over their customers, people who aren't their customers and even their future selves in order to boost their quarterly earnings by half a percent.
And "self-regulation" just doesn't happen except in the case where there's a real threat of government regulation if the industry in question doesn't clean their act up. Sometimes that works out, often times it just leads to them being sneakier and proper regulations have to be put in place a few years later anyway.
They have: . Primarily designed by and for research institutions.
Of course, its not just arbitrarily available to the general public because well, guess who are also members of the general public? For-profit, competitive business owners (and their businesses.)
GP never suggested that he was trying to do the right thing. Just that in this one particular case, it just so happens that what's good for Trump's business also happens to be good for the public (assuming you trust in GP's underlying assumption about it being good for Trump's business of course.)
Businesses aren't inherently evil which seems to be your assertion. They do what's in their interests and sometimes that happens to coincide with the public interest, and sometimes it doesn't. Of course that concept seems to go over the head of most Americans who either think business = capitalism = 100% pure good or business = "the corporations" = 100% pure evil. As with most things in life, very rarely does reality lie at either extreme.
Well that's kind of the point -- make it so that there isn't a "need be" by spreading the trust across multiple independent (and independently developed) voting machines similar to how you don't lock one person in a room by themselves when they're doing a hand count.
Computers aren't inherently worse than humans at adding -- in fact they're much much better at it. Its all a question of trust and there's no fundamental reason why a hand count by a single person should be trusted any more than an electronic count by a single machine.
We mitigate the issue of misplaced trust in humans by simply not having a single person doing the hand count (plus overseers and whatever else involved.) I'm just suggesting that we could, in principle, do the same thing with the machines and have just as high a level of trust without the need for paper.
Not that I expect that will happen. It would indicate that we don't have faith in the lowest bidder (and that would be unAmerican, no matter how many times companies betray that faith, 'cause capitalism!) And it would require a lot of funds both up front and for ongoing maintenance which I'm sure wouldn't be especially easy to procure when you tell people you need 2-3x the minimum amount you could theoretically get away with in a perfect world.
Relativity holds up just fine in those scenarios.. it just requires more mass in the form of dark matter (and the equations fine no matter where mass comes from, as long as there's the right amount of it.) And we have some fairly strong evidence for dark matter outside of relativity (the bullet cluster is a nice visual example, so far unexplainable by any means other than dark matter last I heard, and one of the biggest problem areas in MOND.)
Now that said, we're always finding places where our current understanding of relativity appears to not hold up, but in most cases new solutions to Einstein's equations end up being found eventually and the problem is considered solved.
The only real problem GR faces is at the center of black holes where GR predicts a singularity, which quantum mechanics doesn't particularly like, so one (or both) of those theories is necessarily wrong in a certain extreme limit. If they solve a theory of everything, it doesn't invalidate GR at the scales GR is currently used for just like GR doesn't invalidate Newton when you need to measure the speed of a ball rolling down a hill -- its only when you start hitting those (fairly well understood) limits that you start getting significantly incorrect results and have to switch to the more complex theory.
The trouble with questioning our current understanding of physics is that its so damned accurate. QED in particular has been tested to obscene levels of accuracy.
So if its truly new physics at work, it means that its either a) a smaller effect than we can currently measure (in which case, how does it generate so much force?) Or b) something within our current realm of experiments that somehow everybody since Newton or even before has managed to just overlook continuously.
Or of course there's option c) human error. The fact that the margin for error seems to hover oh-so-tantalizingly close to the range of expected results makes the possibility exciting to be sure and its never bad to test things that may be true, no matter how unlikely.. but option c is still the most probable answer.
Slashdot Mirror
What other countries? They certainly weren't making it to Europe in their little rowboats or whatever they could find to escape on.
That leaves a bunch of tiny islands, many under US control anyway and those that aren't were in just as bad a shape as Cuba throughout much of the cold war era. Mexico, which might be a great tourist trap but not really where most people think of when they want to start a new life of dreams and unicorns. Or Florida.
Not to mention Florida is also the closest of all of those to Havana so in addition to saving time on the water, there'd be significantly less travel time on land as well for most of the escapees, which would have had plenty of its own pitfalls (mostly in the form of being caught in the act.)
Though that said, I'd be less than shocked if I found out that a bunch of Cubans had also escaped to Cancun. And I'm sure some did flee to Jamaica and Haiti and whatnot, though that would have been more difficult with Guantanamo (and US military presence) right there in addition to dodging the Cuban military.
So you're saying we need to destroy the planet in order to "prove" that we're destroying the planet to your satisfaction?
That seems a bit counter-productive.
I thought "I never said that" was the campaign's catch phrase. Hardly surprising that it caught on.
That's kind of the problem with Trump. He just spouts off whatever happens to be going through his head that second without any long term consideration.
It makes it very hard for anyone to predict what he'll actually do vs him just spouting off about something he read yesterday.
And that's a really scary problem in a president. Even if he ends up doing nothing horrible, the fact that we can't even begin to gauge him means that uncertainty is rampant not just in the US but around the globe, and uncertainty has a nasty habit of leading to instability. In markets, in politics, everywhere.
Him simply being unable to shut his yap and stay on topic could do more damage to the US than any policy he finally ends up implements (depending on the policy of course!)
Yeah but nobody takes them seriously -- not the companies who finance campaigns, not the media who report on them and not the voters who have been taught since birth that two parties is all there is (and any country that has more is obviously dumb because 'Murca is the best!)
It doesn't help that the third party candidates were, as you say, clowns. That doesn't seem to be super uncommon in any country -- alternate parties and independents just love promising the world in hopes of getting a few extra votes without any concept of how to finance it because frankly, even they don't take themselves seriously most of the time.
Anyone who seriously thought a wall was going to happen -- never mind somehow convincing Mexico to pay for the damned thing -- probably needs a bit of a reality check at the best of times.
But that said.. yeah. Its hard to get a handle on Trump's plans since he just spouts off whatever he's thinking at the time with no concern for consistency or even truth. Presumably, once he decides to actually act on something (rather than just dropping a slew of verbal diarrhea,) he'll straighten up and get down to business on it.
It would certainly be nice to have some sort of indication about which actions are serious ahead of time though, to be sure.
She couldn't actually do that without reopening negotiations and that would take the consent of all 12 countries and have to go through the signing process again and so forth. It would take years.
At this point the only choice the US (or anyone else) has is whether to ratify it or not. There's not really any more room for changes, no matter who won the election.
Not really THAT surprising:
a) Its extremely unpopular, even within congress.. especially the members who are likely still pissed off that they were asked to fast track something as large and complex as the TPP with little warning and zero input.
b) There's probably some fear about what Trump would do as well. Its bad enough for the TPP to be essentially killed by the country that pretty much wrote their own wishlist (even if it was a wishlist tailored to big business and nobody else,) but it would be far far worse if they ratified it now and then three months later Trump just drops the axe and says fuck it as he's already claiming he'll do to NAFTA.
Eventually sure, but likely not until after Trump's out of office. These things take far too long to negotiate (the TPP was well over a decade in the making -- Bush' government would have been the one to open the initial talks a year or two before Obama was a name anyone had heard.)
If something does creep up that quickly, even if they forego the TPP's infamous secrecy, it would likely have been something initiated under Obama (and there could well be such things out there.. the TPP was big but there's still Europe and South America and India to make deals with.. maybe even the odd country in Africa though I don't know how much they have to offer that we haven't already just taken by bullying..)
No. The one chapter us nerds mostly care about was about copyright. The TPP is a humongously long document covering dozens if not hundreds of business interests.
Unfortunately from what I've seen, almost every single one of those chapters includes at least something that should make normal people afraid in some way.
There's a reason why the pro-TPP lobby can't even come up with a selling point beyond how much money could theoretically be made (for their companies and basically no one else.. but they also leave that part off of course.)
It was written by a lot of big corporations -- those are just the ones we tend to hear about the most because that's what the Slashdot crowd tend to focus on.
There's a lot of bad things in there for farmers and manufacturers as well, not to mention that whole investor-state bullshit that effectively lets companies override a country's sovereignty in order to protect their bottom line, weakening of environmental protections around the world and so on.
Its basically every Christmas and birthday present ever wrapped up and given to multinationals at the cost of local businesses, consumer rights and jobs (at least American jobs. It'd probably be great for creating Malaysian sweatshop jobs as we outsource even more labor to the lowest-wage, lowest-legal-protections country in the TPP roster.)
I'm reasonably sure that the officer can't specifically ask a potential john -- the john would have to ask them. Otherwise the john could claim that they wouldn't have considered the thought of the officer hadn't suggested it.
Not sure if that's technically entrapment or not (because only words were exchanged not money) but its still a pretty shaky case to bring in front of a judge whereas if the john made the approach, the case is fairly solid that he was specifically searching for a prostitute.
I would assume that they use a similar argument to what bittorrent sites use -- they host a service, but they don't explicitly provide the content. Though the FBI probably has less work to defend that argument since nobody's going to be too hard on them for trying to stop CP (unlike the *AAs trying to stop bittorrent sites.) Just hard enough to ensure they're following the rules and not risk having their eventual cases tossed on a technicality.
Of course at some point they're going to have to review more than logs to ensure that the content they're prosecuting someone for is actually CP otherwise the defendant could just claim they were only there for the articles or some such nonsense.
So yes at some level, they will have to have special license granted to do this since in general anything even vaguely related to CP is automatically at least suspect if not outright illegal. And seeing some of the suggested related stories on TFA's site, it sounds like the FBI is having a bit of a time defending their practices (though it seems more to do with the IP-collecting malware than the hosting itself.)
You're assuming that they give a crap about valid uses, and I don't see why they would. Even if someone decided to challenge it, they'd likely have to show that they couldn't obtain legitimate material via other means, or would at least be significantly inconvenienced in doing so. And of course nobody's going to challenge it based on illegitimate material for obvious reasons.
Yes, that's generally how it works not just in science but everywhere -- most people do their best to work toward the benefit of their employer.
When your employer is Exxon-Mobile and your research shows that burning fossil fuels is screwing the planet, perhaps you go ahead and bury your research or try to massage the data to make it show what your boss wants.
When your employer is the public and your research shows that burning fossil fuels is screwing the planet, then its in the public's interest (ie: your employer) to warn them and try to fix things before its too late.
Basically, its not so much an issue of corporate scientists all being shills.. its more an issue that the shills are the ones the corporations show to the public.
Sooo.. according to that guy's data.. temperatures have been almost horizontal over the past 100-150 years (which amounts to a very fast increase using their top-down charting method and relatively corresponds to xkcd's chart.)
But after that when he gets into future predictions, even his worst case for the next 500 years is barely shy of vertical, and his best case prediction has the trend toward warming suddenly do a 180 and go entirely the other direction? Even if we completely discounted human causes for global warming, that's a pretty damned unlikely thing to happen.
In fact the only way that would be remotely possible is if humans not only immediately stopped our warming-related actions but actively started trying to cool the planet (and given our history, we'd probably drive ourselves right into the opposite direction of cooling the planet too fast..)
Because by the time we have solid, uncontroversial proof that the planet no longer supports life, there won't be anyone around to care.
That said, there's plenty of scientific evidence of climate change. What there isn't strict evidence for is exactly how the planet will react to a (geologically) extremely sudden rise in average temperature. Estimates range from "kind of fucked" to "extremely fucked" and everywhere in between.
Of particular note is that "not fucked" isn't in that range of possibilities. Very few scientists are still willing to make that claim and most of the ones who do are almost universally funded by the oil industry in one way or another.
It would certainly be nice if science could be more concrete when predicting the future, but we don't exactly have a trove of Earths laying around that we can trial various scenarios on, so they're stuck making predictions based on the available information, rather than just sticking our collective head in the sand and hoping nothing bad happens.
Tree rings, ice core samples, sediment layers, etc. We have lots of ways to estimate temperatures based on observable biological and geological histories. And several of those can be measured independently and so far agree with each other to a pretty good degree.
I mean you can always stick your head in the sand and claim that everything you don't want to believe is bullshit and that's your prerogative, but unfortunately the planet and the environment operate with or without your personal consent, and the rest of us would prefer to leave a habitable planet for our grandchildren.
And if nothing else, there's always the simple safe bet approach: If science is somehow wrong but we clean up our act anyway, Shell and Exxon lose 1% off their quarterly reports for a few years while cleaner technology is invented.
On the other hand, if science is right and we do nothing, we all lose the only planet we know can support human life. Which gamble are you willing to take?
Not to mention the fact that unless you're heavily invested in an oil company, you probably won't be personally affected much either way so in addition to gambling the future of humanity, you're doing so for no real material benefit.
government overreach
So you prefer a world where Comcast essentially won't let your business operate unless you pay them a $1000/mo (for the lowest tier) "fast lane" fee? Or where bittorrent is just flat out banned not because of any illegal activities on it, but simply because AT&T decided that it was using too much bandwidth so fuck it?
And I can already hear the cries of "but but competition fixes everything!" Yeah. Sure. When there is any. But a large portion of the country is limited to exactly one provider. And even when there's two, they're often colluding. You don't see much real competition until there's a half dozen or so providers, and that's pretty rare even in the big cities.
Yes the government answers to people they probably shouldn't, and yes they get things wrong plenty often. But its been shown time and time and time again that when left to their own devices, businesses will happily fuck over their customers, people who aren't their customers and even their future selves in order to boost their quarterly earnings by half a percent.
And "self-regulation" just doesn't happen except in the case where there's a real threat of government regulation if the industry in question doesn't clean their act up. Sometimes that works out, often times it just leads to them being sneakier and proper regulations have to be put in place a few years later anyway.
They have: . Primarily designed by and for research institutions.
Of course, its not just arbitrarily available to the general public because well, guess who are also members of the general public? For-profit, competitive business owners (and their businesses.)
Why? That tactic seems to work just fine. If it ain't broke..
GP never suggested that he was trying to do the right thing. Just that in this one particular case, it just so happens that what's good for Trump's business also happens to be good for the public (assuming you trust in GP's underlying assumption about it being good for Trump's business of course.)
Businesses aren't inherently evil which seems to be your assertion. They do what's in their interests and sometimes that happens to coincide with the public interest, and sometimes it doesn't. Of course that concept seems to go over the head of most Americans who either think business = capitalism = 100% pure good or business = "the corporations" = 100% pure evil. As with most things in life, very rarely does reality lie at either extreme.
Well that's kind of the point -- make it so that there isn't a "need be" by spreading the trust across multiple independent (and independently developed) voting machines similar to how you don't lock one person in a room by themselves when they're doing a hand count.
Computers aren't inherently worse than humans at adding -- in fact they're much much better at it. Its all a question of trust and there's no fundamental reason why a hand count by a single person should be trusted any more than an electronic count by a single machine.
We mitigate the issue of misplaced trust in humans by simply not having a single person doing the hand count (plus overseers and whatever else involved.) I'm just suggesting that we could, in principle, do the same thing with the machines and have just as high a level of trust without the need for paper.
Not that I expect that will happen. It would indicate that we don't have faith in the lowest bidder (and that would be unAmerican, no matter how many times companies betray that faith, 'cause capitalism!) And it would require a lot of funds both up front and for ongoing maintenance which I'm sure wouldn't be especially easy to procure when you tell people you need 2-3x the minimum amount you could theoretically get away with in a perfect world.
Relativity holds up just fine in those scenarios.. it just requires more mass in the form of dark matter (and the equations fine no matter where mass comes from, as long as there's the right amount of it.) And we have some fairly strong evidence for dark matter outside of relativity (the bullet cluster is a nice visual example, so far unexplainable by any means other than dark matter last I heard, and one of the biggest problem areas in MOND.)
Now that said, we're always finding places where our current understanding of relativity appears to not hold up, but in most cases new solutions to Einstein's equations end up being found eventually and the problem is considered solved.
The only real problem GR faces is at the center of black holes where GR predicts a singularity, which quantum mechanics doesn't particularly like, so one (or both) of those theories is necessarily wrong in a certain extreme limit. If they solve a theory of everything, it doesn't invalidate GR at the scales GR is currently used for just like GR doesn't invalidate Newton when you need to measure the speed of a ball rolling down a hill -- its only when you start hitting those (fairly well understood) limits that you start getting significantly incorrect results and have to switch to the more complex theory.
The trouble with questioning our current understanding of physics is that its so damned accurate. QED in particular has been tested to obscene levels of accuracy.
So if its truly new physics at work, it means that its either a) a smaller effect than we can currently measure (in which case, how does it generate so much force?) Or b) something within our current realm of experiments that somehow everybody since Newton or even before has managed to just overlook continuously.
Or of course there's option c) human error. The fact that the margin for error seems to hover oh-so-tantalizingly close to the range of expected results makes the possibility exciting to be sure and its never bad to test things that may be true, no matter how unlikely.. but option c is still the most probable answer.