Responding to your sig: "The SJW cancer on the left is starting to worry me more than the corporate oligarchy on the right."
Which is exactly what the corporate oligarchy on the right wants. Mission accomplished! That has been the strategy for 40 years now: distract, distract, distract. The perils of gay marriage burned out quite some time ago. Now reviving the Terrible Peril of Political Correctness yet again, with a new label. You are putty in their hands.
an HR Vice President has the legal and fiduciary responsibility to tell his boss he is committing a crime and to cut it out - not facilitate it.
I applaud your optimism and naivete.
No, there is nothing optimistic or naive about pointing out the truth. That is his responsibility.
What would be optimistic and naive is to think he would ever be punished for violating those responsibilities. Corporate crime is never punished these days, at worst there is a modest tax (a fine, or lawsuit pay-out) on part of their takings.
But Wikipedia editors sure can voice their displeasure about Jimmy rewarding him for malfeasance. No doubt Jimmy is expecting him to do the same favors he did for Schmidt. There is no reason that the public should turn the same blind eye that the law does.
BTW, do we know what his salary at that "non-profit" company is?
Just that the Wikimedia Foundation is swimming in more money than they can spend. Part of that is due to really stupid non-profit laws that prevent setting up a trust account (which can be done by donors... just not the non-profit) to save the money for a rainy day...
Say what? Then how is that the Wikimedia Foundation is starting to set up an endowmentthis year if such a thing is impossible?
The endowment which they are just now creating is being funded with $5 million, after burning through almost $300 million in the last several years, and it is just 7% of their projected fundraising revenue this year. And if their problem is that they are "swimming in money" why the aggressive year-after-year fundraising goals of 10-20% growth every single year? That is the growth plan of an aggressive for-profit start-up, not a non-profit.
The fact is, Wikimedia could have easily funded an endowment long ago that would keep Wikipedia on-line forever without requiring another dollar in fundraising.
I'm sorry - the argument that he can't be held to account for breaking the law because he was just trying to keep his (very well paid) job is about as weak a case as you could possibly make.
A top executive position is not some office flunky who only does what he is told, an HR Vice President has the legal and fiduciary responsibility to tell his boss he is committing a crime and to cut it out - not facilitate it. If he can't stand up to Schmidt, he can't stand up to Wales.
I would say that any other reasons for not employing him are superfluous.
BTW, do we know what his salary at that "non-profit" company is?
"The Federation of American Scientists argues that the high accuracy and low destructive settings means military commanders might press to use the bomb in an attack, knowing the radioactive fallout and collateral damage would be limited."
Just like MacArthur did during the Korean War, and by various folks during various stages of the Vietnam conflict.
But the President has to authorize any use of nuclear weapons, and will invariably ask "Is that your only option?" And when the answer comes back, "Well, no...." that will end the discussion.
The longer we look without seeing anything, the lower the estimate will be for the density of dark matter. At some point that density may fall well below what is expected from other experiments and theories. At that point one starts to doubt the theories, and to look for ways to revise them. But you need to look long enough to be sure the theories are wrong. Also, it could be that dark matter exists, but has a much lower density than theory predicts. To confirm that, you need to keep looking. Obviously not forever, but as long as you can.
You don't identify what type of "density" you are referring to - mass density or particle density. For mass density we have a very good idea of what it is from direct measurement of its gravitation - that is not really a matter of theory. Now particle density depends on what the mass of what the particles are. There we have room for lots of uncertainty, and of course there is the even bigger uncertainty about how the interact with known types of matter - regardless of particle density.
With Windows 10, Microsoft have become malware, and the will keep trying to shove this up your ass until they succeed or you forcibly stop them. All they'll do it re-issue it with a different number and keep trying.
And here is the kicker - what will they do next? If you had posted a prediction of what the Window$ 10 roll-out would entail a year ago, and described all the deceptive, self-serving behaviors that Micro$oft has served up M$ apologists would have laughed at and mocked you for your paranoia. With M$, anyone who is not paranoiac is not a realist.
For this we can thank Madeline HalfBright and BJ Clinton. Thanks guys! In about ten years, we will be having the same conversation, except about Iran , Hillary, and BHO.
Here is the non-right-wing fantasy version (aka the "reality based version") of how North Korea went nuclear:
North Korea built its first graphite reactor, a prototype for its plutonium production reactors, during Ronald Reagan's first term of office, and it went critical in 1986 during his second term.
By that time work had begun in the plutonium reactors, and a plutonium extraction plant that was near completion in 1992, when Herbert George Walker Bush was in office.
The, in 1994, when Bill Clinton was President, and Madeleine Albright was Secretary of State the U.S. arranged the U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework which halted all work on the Yongbyon site, both the reactors and the processing plant and North Korea made no further movement toward going nuclear. This lasted for eight years, the entire rest of the Clinton presidency.
The in 2002, during the George W. Bush Presidency, ham-handed confrontational 'diplomacy' ('cuz real men don't do subtlety?) caused the Framework to breakdown, and North Korea restarted all of its weapon program facilities. This resulted, four years later, in 2006, with George W. Bush still in office North Korea began its series of nuclear tests.
So all of the significant progress toward going nuclear occurred during 5 Republican presidencies, and the 8 years of Bill Clinton are marked by a remarkable freeze on that program.
Now go back to you Democrat-hating, Fox News is on.
New Windows 7 computers for everyone in my family. They also use Linux and Mac, but all have use-cases calling for Windows.
The computers are the most up-to-date and powerful models I could find that shipped with Windows 7 installed. Of course auto-update has been disabled. My intention is that these will be the last Windows computers I ever buy - unless a force awakens that overthrows the dark side, or throws a ring into Mr. Redmond, or something.
You don't actually understand why capital gains are taxed at the rate they're taxed, do you? The percentage can, arguably, be discussed but first you should understand the reason that the rates are as low as they are. The reason they're low is because you want me to keep my money invested and you want me to do so in the long-term area.
The real situation is the exact opposite of this.
Long term investment is thought to be encouraged by higher taxes on capital gains since there is a significant penalty to taking the money out of investment (this is called "lock-in", yes, it is a well defined, well accepted concept in economics). Defenders of the special low, low tax treatment often throw out this bizarre, factually wrong, and illogical argument. See for example an analysis of this question in The Capital Gains Tax and the "Lock-In" Effect, by Peter Eilbott and Larry Hersh, in
Nebraska Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Winter, 1976), pp. 21-33. You can read it for free on JSTOR if you register (also free). The reverse "lock-in effect" posited by KGill, does not even get mention in the paper because it doesn't really exist in real economics.
More sophisticated defenders of low capital gains taxes, who care whether their arguments actually make some economic sense, argue the reverse. That low capital gains taxes encourage investment because they prevent lock-in, that is money can be pulled out with little penalty for reinvestment at any time, after that "magic" arbitrary one year holding period.
The problem with that argument though is that money pulled out of capital gains is not necessarily reinvested in anything. The money is completely fungible.
The real question is whether low capital gains taxes encourages more investment. And the evidence is that it does not. See for example this recent Congressional Budget Office Study. The key summary (pg. 12: "Capital gains tax rate reductions appear to decrease public saving and may have little or no effect on private saving. Consequently, capital gains tax reductions likely have a negative overall impact on national saving.".
The real principal effect of low capital gains taxes is simply to put more money in the pockets of big investors. It is a tax give-away to them.* As a result there is an enormous policy mill industry devoted to churning out denials of this fact.
*Even Ronald Reagan realized this, which is why he normalized capital gains rates as regular income. You will never see the right-wing of today mention this.
I find that Prius drivers in my area seem to be some of the most aggressive, pedal to the medal drivers around. I imagine that they're probably getting nowhere near the advertised gas mileage out of them.
Your imagination is most likely wrong. Fast acceleration is not penalized in mileage significantly in a Prius since it is the stored energy in the battery giving the boost. Doing a lot of braking is penalized however. Tailgaters suffer, so do people in city traffic. I have a lot of experience driving Priuses and being driven in them (250,000+ miles) and the real-time MPG readout provides an excellent means to monitor this. Even the worst mileage I have seen in a Prius though is better than almost any other car.
You don't have to take my word for it. The TrueDelta site allows side by side comparisons of mileage reports on all makes and models.
Also, it should be possible to install an odiferous bodily fluid vapor detector if this really becomes a problem. A car would detect contamination and remove itself for cleaning.
I started reading this thread with the idea that the AV algorithms should be adjusted to take into account real (rather than ideal) driver behavior, like what real people normally do.
I have come around to the think that although that may be a useful transitional measure, that really people need to get used to automated cars. A way of clearly marking a car as being automated would be necessary, and when people see one they will need to realize that it is going to strictly obey the traffic laws and act accordingly. This is similar to the idea that a driver should not be assuming that the car in front is going to dash through the yellow light, and plan on doing it also rather than realized they might brake to a halt like they are supposed to do.
This is entirely new to me. Libertarians have ranks? "Independent" ones at that! What is your rank? How did you acquire it? What are the other ranks? Inquiring minds want to know.
So the one effective means available of providing desperately needed competition (a fact you acknowledge) should be prohibited because it seems good? Wow, what a devastating critique!
If this broad-brush all-inclusive disparagement of the University of Chicago extends to dismissing its "freshwater school" of monetarist economists wholesale (Milton Friedman, et al) then we have really accomplished something important here today!
I'll gladly dismiss Barack Obama's accomplishments, if we can dismiss Milton Friedman too.
I suspect a lot of Star Wars fan behaviour is reactionaryism -- they see the Trekkies wandering around with Spock-ears and want to show that Star Wars is better. Twenty years ago, the proof that Star Wars was better was that the fans didn't get involved in that sort of nonsense, and just watched the films....
You obviously do not have a brother who has imagined that he is a Jedi for almost 40 years....
Standoff weapons would probably help, but given air defense systems with a 250 mi range (like the S-300s Iran bought), the B-52s would have to stay pretty far away....
The U.S. is currently buying 5000 cruise missiles that defeat the range of a 250 mile SAM system. Seems like the U.S. has thought of this. Imagine that!
The US used 207 B-52s, which flew 741 sorties during the operation. The North Vietnamize had 14 S-75 missile batteries distributed over their whole country. The S-75 design was about 15 years, so not super high tech even at the time. (The USSR had newer missilea, but they didn't give them to North Vietnam.) These 14 missile batteries shot down 15 B-52s. Granted, that's only a 2% loss rate per sortie, but imagine if North Vietnam had more than 14 missile batteries! Imagine that the missile batteries used modern technology rather than 1950s technology.
Note that each battery had 6 launchers, so they had 84 missiles on the rails at a time, each rail had 6 ready reloads, and the reload time was only 10 minutes, so in a hours time could have put 500 missiles in the air if needed. And about this "distributed over the entire country" thing. The batteries were mobile and they moved them to protect the Hanoi-Haiphong area during the U.S. blitz. About 750 missiles were fired to being down those 15 aircraft. This was the densest air defense system every assembled anywhere on Earth at the time.
Short version: The B-52 is great against people who wield AK-47s and drive around in Toyota pickup trucks. It's not clear how useful the B-52 is against a reasonably modern and competent military.
The dumb bombs that the B52s dropped back then have been almost completely retired, guided weapons are used exclusively today, and stand-off weapons with ranges of hundreds (or even more than a thousand kilometers) are available to use when needed. Your "short version" is 20 years out of date.
No longer true. When necessary, its defense mechanism is to launch long range weapons that place it out of harms way. When the enemies air defenses are sufficiently degraded, then they just fly where ever they want, carrying anti-radiation missiles as needed for self-defense.
Post some data supporting your assertion, since those poor white males are a very, very distant second in being well off, I am sure you can quickly pull up a ton of examples. Like how they get paid more than men, hold many more executive positions in business, dominate electoral office at all levels, etc. etc.
The problem with those polls is that the Republican field is diluted. Most of the people who would support Trump are already polling as supporting Trump. As some of the 15+ other candidates start to drop out, most of their supports will go to support candidates other than Trump.
I think Trump can pick up nearly all of the support of Carson and Cruz, the two others who are benefiting from the ignorance and crazy talk crowd.
If you add up their numbers and Trump's what do you get? The latest national poll on this had Trump at 33%, Cruz at 13% and Carson at 15%, that adds up to 61%. And I am not cherry picking polls. The link I provided summarizes all of the polling, and you can pick any of them. Last Friday's CNN poll would put that total at 66%
The rest of the candidates are irrelevant.
You are whistling in the dark, and ignoring the numbers, because the truth is just too scary. Join the rest of us in being very afraid.
Slashdot Mirror
Responding to your sig: "The SJW cancer on the left is starting to worry me more than the corporate oligarchy on the right."
Which is exactly what the corporate oligarchy on the right wants. Mission accomplished! That has been the strategy for 40 years now: distract, distract, distract. The perils of gay marriage burned out quite some time ago. Now reviving the Terrible Peril of Political Correctness yet again, with a new label. You are putty in their hands.
an HR Vice President has the legal and fiduciary responsibility to tell his boss he is committing a crime and to cut it out - not facilitate it.
I applaud your optimism and naivete.
No, there is nothing optimistic or naive about pointing out the truth. That is his responsibility.
What would be optimistic and naive is to think he would ever be punished for violating those responsibilities. Corporate crime is never punished these days, at worst there is a modest tax (a fine, or lawsuit pay-out) on part of their takings.
But Wikipedia editors sure can voice their displeasure about Jimmy rewarding him for malfeasance. No doubt Jimmy is expecting him to do the same favors he did for Schmidt. There is no reason that the public should turn the same blind eye that the law does.
BTW, do we know what his salary at that "non-profit" company is?
Just that the Wikimedia Foundation is swimming in more money than they can spend. Part of that is due to really stupid non-profit laws that prevent setting up a trust account (which can be done by donors... just not the non-profit) to save the money for a rainy day...
Say what? Then how is that the Wikimedia Foundation is starting to set up an endowment this year if such a thing is impossible?
The endowment which they are just now creating is being funded with $5 million, after burning through almost $300 million in the last several years, and it is just 7% of their projected fundraising revenue this year. And if their problem is that they are "swimming in money" why the aggressive year-after-year fundraising goals of 10-20% growth every single year? That is the growth plan of an aggressive for-profit start-up, not a non-profit.
The fact is, Wikimedia could have easily funded an endowment long ago that would keep Wikipedia on-line forever without requiring another dollar in fundraising.
I'm sorry - the argument that he can't be held to account for breaking the law because he was just trying to keep his (very well paid) job is about as weak a case as you could possibly make.
A top executive position is not some office flunky who only does what he is told, an HR Vice President has the legal and fiduciary responsibility to tell his boss he is committing a crime and to cut it out - not facilitate it. If he can't stand up to Schmidt, he can't stand up to Wales.
I would say that any other reasons for not employing him are superfluous.
BTW, do we know what his salary at that "non-profit" company is?
"The Federation of American Scientists argues that the high accuracy and low destructive settings means military commanders might press to use the bomb in an attack, knowing the radioactive fallout and collateral damage would be limited."
Just like MacArthur did during the Korean War, and by various folks during various stages of the Vietnam conflict.
But the President has to authorize any use of nuclear weapons, and will invariably ask "Is that your only option?" And when the answer comes back, "Well, no...." that will end the discussion.
Military commanders do not decide this.
The longer we look without seeing anything, the lower the estimate will be for the density of dark matter. At some point that density may fall well below what is expected from other experiments and theories. At that point one starts to doubt the theories, and to look for ways to revise them. But you need to look long enough to be sure the theories are wrong. Also, it could be that dark matter exists, but has a much lower density than theory predicts. To confirm that, you need to keep looking. Obviously not forever, but as long as you can.
You don't identify what type of "density" you are referring to - mass density or particle density. For mass density we have a very good idea of what it is from direct measurement of its gravitation - that is not really a matter of theory. Now particle density depends on what the mass of what the particles are. There we have room for lots of uncertainty, and of course there is the even bigger uncertainty about how the interact with known types of matter - regardless of particle density.
With Windows 10, Microsoft have become malware, and the will keep trying to shove this up your ass until they succeed or you forcibly stop them. All they'll do it re-issue it with a different number and keep trying.
And here is the kicker - what will they do next? If you had posted a prediction of what the Window$ 10 roll-out would entail a year ago, and described all the deceptive, self-serving behaviors that Micro$oft has served up M$ apologists would have laughed at and mocked you for your paranoia. With M$, anyone who is not paranoiac is not a realist.
For this we can thank Madeline HalfBright and BJ Clinton. Thanks guys! In about ten years, we will be having the same conversation, except about Iran , Hillary, and BHO.
Here is the non-right-wing fantasy version (aka the "reality based version") of how North Korea went nuclear:
North Korea built its first graphite reactor, a prototype for its plutonium production reactors, during Ronald Reagan's first term of office, and it went critical in 1986 during his second term.
By that time work had begun in the plutonium reactors, and a plutonium extraction plant that was near completion in 1992, when Herbert George Walker Bush was in office.
The, in 1994, when Bill Clinton was President, and Madeleine Albright was Secretary of State the U.S. arranged the U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework which halted all work on the Yongbyon site, both the reactors and the processing plant and North Korea made no further movement toward going nuclear. This lasted for eight years, the entire rest of the Clinton presidency.
The in 2002, during the George W. Bush Presidency, ham-handed confrontational 'diplomacy' ('cuz real men don't do subtlety?) caused the Framework to breakdown, and North Korea restarted all of its weapon program facilities. This resulted, four years later, in 2006, with George W. Bush still in office North Korea began its series of nuclear tests.
So all of the significant progress toward going nuclear occurred during 5 Republican presidencies, and the 8 years of Bill Clinton are marked by a remarkable freeze on that program.
Now go back to you Democrat-hating, Fox News is on.
New Windows 7 computers for everyone in my family. They also use Linux and Mac, but all have use-cases calling for Windows.
The computers are the most up-to-date and powerful models I could find that shipped with Windows 7 installed. Of course auto-update has been disabled. My intention is that these will be the last Windows computers I ever buy - unless a force awakens that overthrows the dark side, or throws a ring into Mr. Redmond, or something.
Indeed. *Cough* *cough*.. langley... *cough* *cough*.
You don't actually understand why capital gains are taxed at the rate they're taxed, do you? The percentage can, arguably, be discussed but first you should understand the reason that the rates are as low as they are. The reason they're low is because you want me to keep my money invested and you want me to do so in the long-term area.
The real situation is the exact opposite of this.
Long term investment is thought to be encouraged by higher taxes on capital gains since there is a significant penalty to taking the money out of investment (this is called "lock-in", yes, it is a well defined, well accepted concept in economics). Defenders of the special low, low tax treatment often throw out this bizarre, factually wrong, and illogical argument. See for example an analysis of this question in The Capital Gains Tax and the "Lock-In" Effect, by Peter Eilbott and Larry Hersh, in Nebraska Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Winter, 1976), pp. 21-33. You can read it for free on JSTOR if you register (also free). The reverse "lock-in effect" posited by KGill, does not even get mention in the paper because it doesn't really exist in real economics.
More sophisticated defenders of low capital gains taxes, who care whether their arguments actually make some economic sense, argue the reverse. That low capital gains taxes encourage investment because they prevent lock-in, that is money can be pulled out with little penalty for reinvestment at any time, after that "magic" arbitrary one year holding period.
The problem with that argument though is that money pulled out of capital gains is not necessarily reinvested in anything. The money is completely fungible.
The real question is whether low capital gains taxes encourages more investment. And the evidence is that it does not. See for example this recent Congressional Budget Office Study. The key summary (pg. 12: "Capital gains tax rate reductions appear to decrease public saving and may have little or no effect on private saving. Consequently, capital gains tax reductions likely have a negative overall impact on national saving.".
The real principal effect of low capital gains taxes is simply to put more money in the pockets of big investors. It is a tax give-away to them.* As a result there is an enormous policy mill industry devoted to churning out denials of this fact.
*Even Ronald Reagan realized this, which is why he normalized capital gains rates as regular income. You will never see the right-wing of today mention this.
I find that Prius drivers in my area seem to be some of the most aggressive, pedal to the medal drivers around. I imagine that they're probably getting nowhere near the advertised gas mileage out of them.
Your imagination is most likely wrong. Fast acceleration is not penalized in mileage significantly in a Prius since it is the stored energy in the battery giving the boost. Doing a lot of braking is penalized however. Tailgaters suffer, so do people in city traffic. I have a lot of experience driving Priuses and being driven in them (250,000+ miles) and the real-time MPG readout provides an excellent means to monitor this. Even the worst mileage I have seen in a Prius though is better than almost any other car.
You don't have to take my word for it. The TrueDelta site allows side by side comparisons of mileage reports on all makes and models.
Also, it should be possible to install an odiferous bodily fluid vapor detector if this really becomes a problem. A car would detect contamination and remove itself for cleaning.
I started reading this thread with the idea that the AV algorithms should be adjusted to take into account real (rather than ideal) driver behavior, like what real people normally do.
I have come around to the think that although that may be a useful transitional measure, that really people need to get used to automated cars. A way of clearly marking a car as being automated would be necessary, and when people see one they will need to realize that it is going to strictly obey the traffic laws and act accordingly. This is similar to the idea that a driver should not be assuming that the car in front is going to dash through the yellow light, and plan on doing it also rather than realized they might brake to a halt like they are supposed to do.
As a ranking independent libertarian...
This is entirely new to me. Libertarians have ranks? "Independent" ones at that! What is your rank? How did you acquire it? What are the other ranks? Inquiring minds want to know.
So the one effective means available of providing desperately needed competition (a fact you acknowledge) should be prohibited because it seems good? Wow, what a devastating critique!
If this broad-brush all-inclusive disparagement of the University of Chicago extends to dismissing its "freshwater school" of monetarist economists wholesale (Milton Friedman, et al) then we have really accomplished something important here today!
I'll gladly dismiss Barack Obama's accomplishments, if we can dismiss Milton Friedman too.
I suspect a lot of Star Wars fan behaviour is reactionaryism -- they see the Trekkies wandering around with Spock-ears and want to show that Star Wars is better. Twenty years ago, the proof that Star Wars was better was that the fans didn't get involved in that sort of nonsense, and just watched the films....
You obviously do not have a brother who has imagined that he is a Jedi for almost 40 years....
The AK47 is supposed to be pretty damn inaccurate beyond about 30 yards....
Not the most accurate assault rifle, true, but it is fine at least out to 100 yards.
Standoff weapons would probably help, but given air defense systems with a 250 mi range (like the S-300s Iran bought), the B-52s would have to stay pretty far away....
The U.S. is currently buying 5000 cruise missiles that defeat the range of a 250 mile SAM system. Seems like the U.S. has thought of this. Imagine that!
The US used 207 B-52s, which flew 741 sorties during the operation. The North Vietnamize had 14 S-75 missile batteries distributed over their whole country. The S-75 design was about 15 years, so not super high tech even at the time. (The USSR had newer missilea, but they didn't give them to North Vietnam.) These 14 missile batteries shot down 15 B-52s. Granted, that's only a 2% loss rate per sortie, but imagine if North Vietnam had more than 14 missile batteries! Imagine that the missile batteries used modern technology rather than 1950s technology.
Note that each battery had 6 launchers, so they had 84 missiles on the rails at a time, each rail had 6 ready reloads, and the reload time was only 10 minutes, so in a hours time could have put 500 missiles in the air if needed. And about this "distributed over the entire country" thing. The batteries were mobile and they moved them to protect the Hanoi-Haiphong area during the U.S. blitz. About 750 missiles were fired to being down those 15 aircraft. This was the densest air defense system every assembled anywhere on Earth at the time.
Short version: The B-52 is great against people who wield AK-47s and drive around in Toyota pickup trucks. It's not clear how useful the B-52 is against a reasonably modern and competent military.
The dumb bombs that the B52s dropped back then have been almost completely retired, guided weapons are used exclusively today, and stand-off weapons with ranges of hundreds (or even more than a thousand kilometers) are available to use when needed. Your "short version" is 20 years out of date.
No longer true. When necessary, its defense mechanism is to launch long range weapons that place it out of harms way. When the enemies air defenses are sufficiently degraded, then they just fly where ever they want, carrying anti-radiation missiles as needed for self-defense.
Yes, but these SAMs are becoming more and more sophisticated. An S-400 can easily reach a B-52's cruising altitude.
If only the B-52 had weapons that outranged the S-400, and could destroy the launchers at the beginning of the conflict.
Oh, right they do.
There always tons of commenters here who think this is like sending knights out to do single combat, armed with exactly one weapon, one on one.
Post some data supporting your assertion, since those poor white males are a very, very distant second in being well off, I am sure you can quickly pull up a ton of examples. Like how they get paid more than men, hold many more executive positions in business, dominate electoral office at all levels, etc. etc.
We're waiting.
The problem with those polls is that the Republican field is diluted. Most of the people who would support Trump are already polling as supporting Trump. As some of the 15+ other candidates start to drop out, most of their supports will go to support candidates other than Trump.
I think Trump can pick up nearly all of the support of Carson and Cruz, the two others who are benefiting from the ignorance and crazy talk crowd.
If you add up their numbers and Trump's what do you get? The latest national poll on this had Trump at 33%, Cruz at 13% and Carson at 15%, that adds up to 61%. And I am not cherry picking polls. The link I provided summarizes all of the polling, and you can pick any of them. Last Friday's CNN poll would put that total at 66%
The rest of the candidates are irrelevant.
You are whistling in the dark, and ignoring the numbers, because the truth is just too scary. Join the rest of us in being very afraid.