I don't want to think the O-man needs to or wants to make these sacrifices as an incumbent. He's a constitutional scholar and I think, a geek like us. At least I hope so.
Obama is no geek. He's no academic, or intellectual. He's a 'community activist' (read agitator) who has adopted the mannerisms of the intellectual. If you doubt me, just try to find the scholarly work you would expect of someone with his academic credentials. I'll wait.
It seems like you're trying to be cute. Are you actually aware that handling improves when you minimize the mass of the objects riding directly on the road? Are you aware that hub motors are heavy things directly in contact with the road, and hence contrary to this general automotive principle? Because it seems like you're not half as clever as you imagine you are.
Something about war crimes against the nation of straw men.
Aren't you precious?! You attended Rhetoric 101!
You must be new here, to not realize the GP is both correct and relevant. He's trying to move the conversation past the usual horse manure to answer the submitter's interesting question.
The unsprung weight of a hub motor is generally bad for handling. Given that it's an SUV we're talking about, and the ratio to sprung weight is what matters, they might be able to get away with it.
I've wondered what F1 would be like without all the restrictions.
I would imagine the problem would be the wealthiest teams would come to dominate the track so utterly and completely that there would be no sport in it. It wouldn't be much of a race if you had the two or three wealthiest teams vying for the lead, and then have the rest of the field a half lap behind, effectively out of the competition. If I were charged with keeping a motorsport going, I'd want to keep fans interested by making every lap entertaining and nail-biting. A playing field so lop-sided that a guy can get 10 laps ahead and then stop for a burger would start losing fans.
Climate scientists have no authority to submit to as a teacher might.
How about the politicians that fund their research (and want excuses for more tax revenue and authority), or their own egos (which might like a more prominent role in world affairs.) ?
And all that is fine, for an adequately sophisticated parent. Unfortunately, we also have a great deal of parents who aren't terribly articulate. These are decent people who lead good lives, but in terms of raw intellect, or being able to explain rules in a way that children will appreciate, well, they fall short. These people lead decent lives because they live by a vast cultural heritage, with thousands of unspoken mores and customs, that allowed the creation of the nation we have today, and enabled them to succeed to the extent that they do. Their children need to learn these same lessons, and be imbued with the same general cultural practices and mores, until they are independant and mature enough to reflect on them. That is why "Because I said so" needs to remain a valid option, and why parents (and teachers) need to be able to impose discipline on children. No, the results of effective parental authority will not always be perfect. They will not measure up against some imaginary flawless standard method of child-rearing (that exists nowhere). Mistakes will be made. Feelings will be hurt. A minority with especially depraved parents will come out worse for the matter. On the balance, though, society benefits from parental authority, and using 'because I said so' as a necessary method.
The rules of society are not built for those with 80+ percentile knowledge and verbal skills. They're built for everyone.
More importantly, I don't get why anyone would advertise that 350M is being spent to create 20 "permanent" positions. That's 17.5M per fulltime job!
This isn't a government make-work program. It's a project intended to serve an actual purpose, with the creation of permanent jobs as a nice side effect. The 'goodness' and cost-effectiveness of the job will be whether it reduces the ratepayer's bills, and/or increases utility profits (not sure of the regulatory structure out there), and/or increases the reliability of the grid. If it could do those things and employ zero people, it would still be a good expenditure.
It should be decided by Hawaiians what happens to Hawaii - and I assure you they wouldn't want some megalomaniacal (sp?) asshat with all that power over their lives.
These Hawaiins, are they Americans, too? Because in the rest of the United States, we can buy and sell property- even the Native Americans do this!
I don't really see what purpose subdividing Hawaiians out of the rest of America serves, except to stir up animosity and discontent- or perpetuate the same.
Look at the 10 states that did best. Almost all are rural: Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Virginia.
Texas and Montana did better than NY or CA?
Time to ask, 'What and who were tested?' I suspect the sample was far from uniformly distributed across all US 8th graders.
It's also time to ask whether or not the presumptions that lead you to such astonishment and doubt are actually valid. Such a thing is vital to your personal understanding of reality.
(Your question is valid, but the way you posed it belies certain assumptions that need to be examined.)
But, God is omnipotent right? He doesn't need tools. See how just a little thought about physics causes you to reject one of the most fundamental claims about God, his omnipotence.
'Little thought' accurately describes your post. It's a clever little turn of phrase that is actually quite shallow and reflects a lack of understanding about what you mock.
For there to be no 'tools' ( laws of the universe) that God used, our entire existence would be magical, and constantly upheld by miracles from God.
This would be proof that God exists, and as such, one would not be free to choose whether or not to follow the word of God, as you would know without a doubt that He is real, He is there, and you will in fact burn in hell if you disobey Him.
Free agency is therefor gone in this scenario, and our existence- the test of what we do with the free will that God gave us- would have no point.
Now, I'm not much of a Christian. I have come to see how much good certain religions have done for humanity, and I see how little atheists have to offer that would do the same.
They offer mockery, derision, and emptiness to counter belief. Judeo-Christian belief (and the nations based thereon) offers charity, fellowship, self-restraint, functional guidance and, oh yeah, centuries of world dominance in all fields. Humans are not purely rational, and it is fantasy to think the optimal society could be based on non-existent people. Pretending it's even possible requires a certain level of magical thinking. I would caution you against feeling smug about imagining you're more rational than your fellow humans, as the emotional, irrational side of humanity is what makes everything possible. There's a certain part of the brain responsible for emotions. If this is damaged, it leaves the rational part of the brain in charge. The result? Such patients are paralyzed by the array of options we face each moment, and are unable to properly analyze their choices- and hence do little at all. (Citation not handy. You're smart enough to find it on your own if you're actually curious.)
The only realistic way to get rid of religion is to prevent religious people from infecting the next generation and waiting for the current one to die off. This, itself, is magical thinking, because the religious people out reproduce other sections of the population. Practically speaking, the tyranny required to execute such a notion would likely offend you more than some old lady saying 'god bless you' after you hold the door open for her. Otherwise, you would have to do your conversion to your enlightened rational humanism through voluntary persuasion, and the only practical 'benefit' to converting (notwithstanding biblical literalist) is the adoption of a smug attitude that you're better than all those superstitious fools.
Note how it consists of some Mall Ninja acronym/name, like the murderous "Fast and the Furious" program put on by the justice department and ATF clowns.
The reason I suggest it might not be too late is because they pissed off Amtrak by molesting train passengers (leaving the train, no less), and were banned from Amtrak property for a while (still?).
So, at least a government-sponsored entity is willing to tell these jack-booted thugs to go pound sand.
Any government that would replace the free market would still be run by mortal, falliable men, but with an unprecidented concentration of power in their hands.
Because it would assume the powers to direct all economic activity, it would necessarily become totalitarian, and moreover, a centralized authority would be unable to keep up with rapidly changing market conditions, causing their efforts to fail, and their distribution of resources to become inefficient- a problem you bemoan of the free market.
You are not the first person to think such a thing- that putting all economic authority in the hands of a beneficient- but all powerful- government would advance humanity.
Many people in history have actually managed to implement such states. The result has been oppressive and bloody. I leave it to you to trace the effects of central planning through the last two hundred years of history.
Now, I agree with you that we should not be governed by corporate lobbyism, but it is a predictable outcome of the regulatory state. Folks like you think they can direct the affairs of private people and companies better then they can do so themselves, so you implement regulations.
Then the regulated seek, and often obtain, control of the regulators. They change the process to their own ends. As a consequence, you get what we have today- companies profiting hugely by courting government favor, not by serving their customers in any real fashion.
All the same, the responsibility is all on you when it comes to your child(ren). If you expect that others will bend to your will just because it makes your job as a parent easier, that's selfish, IMHO.
So, if all I want to make my job as a parent easier is some basic decorum in the public library, a standard that you agree too, I'm not sure what your point is.
I'm not bringing my kids to a nudie beach and asking folks to cover up. I'm not bringing them to a strip club and asking the girls to skip the ping pong ball trick.
We're talking about a library here. Part of the way I do my job as a parent and control what they're exposed to is by choosing where I bring them. Given that we both agree that a public showing of 'two girls, one cup' shouldn't occur at a public library, I think we're really on the same page here.
I mean, I don't want to see 'TGOC' at the library, and you don't, and I don't want my kids to see it either. Does saying it that make you feel better?
If you avoid the crazy mindfuck of creationism and the idea that we somehow aren't animals, you'll simply realize that human children have been subjected to sex and reproduction from early ages for 10,000s of years at the very least (800,000 or so, depending on what you consider human).
Yeah, we're just animals, man. We should just drop our trousers and relieve ourselves where ever, because we're just animals. Instead of laughing at the guidos circling each other in domination rituals and getting into fistfights over some girl, we should cheer it on as representing our animal nature.
Good stuff man, good stuff. What else can we do as animals? Oh yeah, we could have whole cows shipped to us, and then kill them in our front yard. Then we could go out there and pick off some raw meat whenever we're hungry, and leave it there for the scavengers to clean up. We could reproduce with our siblings too, cause hey, we're just animals. That's what they do.
Have you picked up on the sarcasm yet? We've only gotten as far as we have, as humans, by rising above the animals purposefully. This means that certain daily activities have their time and place, and it's not always in public.
Hey, I'm with you on not being uptight about sex, but I want to discuss it in a manner that I think matches what I decide my children are capable of grasping. I don't want to go from 'zero' to 'two girls one cup' because some guy needs to rub his crank through his pants at the library, and my kid saw it.
Plenty of other comments discuss how you've got this completely wrong. It's the cost of the plane (totaled, but 'cheap'), vs the cost of the electronics and the ability to move said electronics to a spare plane.
The other poster responded well, but I'll continue.
Academic transcripts are much more important to leftists, who value being obedient to the right kind of heiarchy.
I'm much more interested in what a fellow's done since his academic career- and Obama clearly fails this test as well.
I will, however, take potshots at Obama for his academic secrecy, because releasing it would surely show he's a fraud in that arena, too- there's no other reason to keep it hidden.
Why would I be worried about his transcripts, or his other (apparently non-existent) academic work? There are very few reasons that they would be kept hidden, and none of them are flattering for Obama. You can call it partisan, I call it doing my part to kick that empty suit out of the white house- and yes, the fact that our president is in way over his head is a real issue.
His academic record (and publications you'd think a prof would have, but this one lacks) would merely demonstrate what most of us already know from his behavior thus far.
As for scoring points, it was a rebound off the GP post.
No one is really too interested in the academic career of our great president either- not his transcript, his thesis, his publications (or lack thereof), or any of the other career markers you would expect of such a lauded academic.
If it were a democratic senator proposing the same, the submitter would have praised it as forward-looking and thoughtful, defending the people's right to know what they're being exposed to.
The submitter, and the editor who approved and posted it, are leftist hacks, and are using any platform they can get to belittle republicans. This is because they are so cock-sure of their position that this sort of behavoir seems legitimate.
Unfortunately, they pushed it a little too far this time, as their blind partisanship made them out to be the fools they are.
Slashdot Mirror
Obama is no geek. He's no academic, or intellectual. He's a 'community activist' (read agitator) who has adopted the mannerisms of the intellectual.
If you doubt me, just try to find the scholarly work you would expect of someone with his academic credentials. I'll wait.
It seems like you're trying to be cute.
Are you actually aware that handling improves when you minimize the mass of the objects riding directly on the road?
Are you aware that hub motors are heavy things directly in contact with the road, and hence contrary to this general automotive principle?
Because it seems like you're not half as clever as you imagine you are.
Aren't you precious?! You attended Rhetoric 101!
You must be new here, to not realize the GP is both correct and relevant. He's trying to move the conversation past the usual horse manure to answer the submitter's interesting question.
The unsprung weight of a hub motor is generally bad for handling. Given that it's an SUV we're talking about, and the ratio to sprung weight is what matters, they might be able to get away with it.
I would imagine the problem would be the wealthiest teams would come to dominate the track so utterly and completely that there would be no sport in it.
It wouldn't be much of a race if you had the two or three wealthiest teams vying for the lead, and then have the rest of the field a half lap behind, effectively out of the competition.
If I were charged with keeping a motorsport going, I'd want to keep fans interested by making every lap entertaining and nail-biting. A playing field so lop-sided that a guy can get 10 laps ahead and then stop for a burger would start losing fans.
How about the politicians that fund their research (and want excuses for more tax revenue and authority), or their own egos (which might like a more prominent role in world affairs.) ?
And all that is fine, for an adequately sophisticated parent.
Unfortunately, we also have a great deal of parents who aren't terribly articulate.
These are decent people who lead good lives, but in terms of raw intellect, or being able to explain rules in a way that children will appreciate, well, they fall short.
These people lead decent lives because they live by a vast cultural heritage, with thousands of unspoken mores and customs, that allowed the creation of the nation we have today, and enabled them to succeed to the extent that they do.
Their children need to learn these same lessons, and be imbued with the same general cultural practices and mores, until they are independant and mature enough to reflect on them.
That is why "Because I said so" needs to remain a valid option, and why parents (and teachers) need to be able to impose discipline on children.
No, the results of effective parental authority will not always be perfect. They will not measure up against some imaginary flawless standard method of child-rearing (that exists nowhere). Mistakes will be made. Feelings will be hurt. A minority with especially depraved parents will come out worse for the matter.
On the balance, though, society benefits from parental authority, and using 'because I said so' as a necessary method.
The rules of society are not built for those with 80+ percentile knowledge and verbal skills. They're built for everyone.
This isn't a government make-work program. It's a project intended to serve an actual purpose, with the creation of permanent jobs as a nice side effect. The 'goodness' and cost-effectiveness of the job will be whether it reduces the ratepayer's bills, and/or increases utility profits (not sure of the regulatory structure out there), and/or increases the reliability of the grid.
If it could do those things and employ zero people, it would still be a good expenditure.
These Hawaiins, are they Americans, too? Because in the rest of the United States, we can buy and sell property- even the Native Americans do this!
I don't really see what purpose subdividing Hawaiians out of the rest of America serves, except to stir up animosity and discontent- or perpetuate the same.
It's also time to ask whether or not the presumptions that lead you to such astonishment and doubt are actually valid.
Such a thing is vital to your personal understanding of reality.
(Your question is valid, but the way you posed it belies certain assumptions that need to be examined.)
You beat me to the punch. Likewise, many of these other systems will have hardwired safety systems that limit the danger they present.
I still think this equipment should be on isolated networks, but it's harder for me to get overly excited about ICS vulnerabilities.
'Little thought' accurately describes your post. It's a clever little turn of phrase that is actually quite shallow and reflects a lack of understanding about what you mock.
For there to be no 'tools' ( laws of the universe) that God used, our entire existence would be magical, and constantly upheld by miracles from God.
This would be proof that God exists, and as such, one would not be free to choose whether or not to follow the word of God, as you would know without a doubt that He is real, He is there, and you will in fact burn in hell if you disobey Him.
Free agency is therefor gone in this scenario, and our existence- the test of what we do with the free will that God gave us- would have no point.
Now, I'm not much of a Christian. I have come to see how much good certain religions have done for humanity, and I see how little atheists have to offer that would do the same.
They offer mockery, derision, and emptiness to counter belief. Judeo-Christian belief (and the nations based thereon) offers charity, fellowship, self-restraint, functional guidance and, oh yeah, centuries of world dominance in all fields.
Humans are not purely rational, and it is fantasy to think the optimal society could be based on non-existent people. Pretending it's even possible requires a certain level of magical thinking.
I would caution you against feeling smug about imagining you're more rational than your fellow humans, as the emotional, irrational side of humanity is what makes everything possible.
There's a certain part of the brain responsible for emotions. If this is damaged, it leaves the rational part of the brain in charge. The result? Such patients are paralyzed by the array of options we face each moment, and are unable to properly analyze their choices- and hence do little at all. (Citation not handy. You're smart enough to find it on your own if you're actually curious.)
The only realistic way to get rid of religion is to prevent religious people from infecting the next generation and waiting for the current one to die off.
This, itself, is magical thinking, because the religious people out reproduce other sections of the population.
Practically speaking, the tyranny required to execute such a notion would likely offend you more than some old lady saying 'god bless you' after you hold the door open for her.
Otherwise, you would have to do your conversion to your enlightened rational humanism through voluntary persuasion, and the only practical 'benefit' to converting (notwithstanding biblical literalist) is the adoption of a smug attitude that you're better than all those superstitious fools.
I present to you the TSA VIPR program.
Note how it consists of some Mall Ninja acronym/name, like the murderous "Fast and the Furious" program put on by the justice department and ATF clowns.
The reason I suggest it might not be too late is because they pissed off Amtrak by molesting train passengers (leaving the train, no less), and were banned from Amtrak property for a while (still?).
So, at least a government-sponsored entity is willing to tell these jack-booted thugs to go pound sand.
Any government that would replace the free market would still be run by mortal, falliable men, but with an unprecidented concentration of power in their hands.
Because it would assume the powers to direct all economic activity, it would necessarily become totalitarian, and moreover, a centralized authority would be unable to keep up with rapidly changing market conditions, causing their efforts to fail, and their distribution of resources to become inefficient- a problem you bemoan of the free market.
You are not the first person to think such a thing- that putting all economic authority in the hands of a beneficient- but all powerful- government would advance humanity.
Many people in history have actually managed to implement such states. The result has been oppressive and bloody. I leave it to you to trace the effects of central planning through the last two hundred years of history.
Now, I agree with you that we should not be governed by corporate lobbyism, but it is a predictable outcome of the regulatory state. Folks like you think they can direct the affairs of private people and companies better then they can do so themselves, so you implement regulations.
Then the regulated seek, and often obtain, control of the regulators. They change the process to their own ends. As a consequence, you get what we have today- companies profiting hugely by courting government favor, not by serving their customers in any real fashion.
So, if all I want to make my job as a parent easier is some basic decorum in the public library, a standard that you agree too, I'm not sure what your point is.
I'm not bringing my kids to a nudie beach and asking folks to cover up. I'm not bringing them to a strip club and asking the girls to skip the ping pong ball trick.
We're talking about a library here. Part of the way I do my job as a parent and control what they're exposed to is by choosing where I bring them. Given that we both agree that a public showing of 'two girls, one cup' shouldn't occur at a public library, I think we're really on the same page here.
I mean, I don't want to see 'TGOC' at the library, and you don't, and I don't want my kids to see it either. Does saying it that make you feel better?
So, insisting on some decorum in a library is the same as watching porno in a library?
Yeah, we're just animals, man. We should just drop our trousers and relieve ourselves where ever, because we're just animals. Instead of laughing at the guidos circling each other in domination rituals and getting into fistfights over some girl, we should cheer it on as representing our animal nature.
Good stuff man, good stuff. What else can we do as animals? Oh yeah, we could have whole cows shipped to us, and then kill them in our front yard. Then we could go out there and pick off some raw meat whenever we're hungry, and leave it there for the scavengers to clean up. We could reproduce with our siblings too, cause hey, we're just animals. That's what they do.
Have you picked up on the sarcasm yet? We've only gotten as far as we have, as humans, by rising above the animals purposefully. This means that certain daily activities have their time and place, and it's not always in public.
Hey, I'm with you on not being uptight about sex, but I want to discuss it in a manner that I think matches what I decide my children are capable of grasping. I don't want to go from 'zero' to 'two girls one cup' because some guy needs to rub his crank through his pants at the library, and my kid saw it.
If the ongoing activities at Sealand ever bother a major power, they'll work with the UK to simply demolish the platform.
Because this one man's impotent anger is essentially irrelevant.
How many votes do you think an issue like this will swing? Five?
Plenty of other comments discuss how you've got this completely wrong. It's the cost of the plane (totaled, but 'cheap'), vs the cost of the electronics and the ability to move said electronics to a spare plane.
The other poster responded well, but I'll continue.
Academic transcripts are much more important to leftists, who value being obedient to the right kind of heiarchy.
I'm much more interested in what a fellow's done since his academic career- and Obama clearly fails this test as well.
I will, however, take potshots at Obama for his academic secrecy, because releasing it would surely show he's a fraud in that arena, too- there's no other reason to keep it hidden.
Why would I be worried about his transcripts, or his other (apparently non-existent) academic work? There are very few reasons that they would be kept hidden, and none of them are flattering for Obama. You can call it partisan, I call it doing my part to kick that empty suit out of the white house- and yes, the fact that our president is in way over his head is a real issue.
His academic record (and publications you'd think a prof would have, but this one lacks) would merely demonstrate what most of us already know from his behavior thus far.
As for scoring points, it was a rebound off the GP post.
No one is really too interested in the academic career of our great president either- not his transcript, his thesis, his publications (or lack thereof), or any of the other career markers you would expect of such a lauded academic.
If it were a democratic senator proposing the same, the submitter would have praised it as forward-looking and thoughtful, defending the people's right to know what they're being exposed to.
The submitter, and the editor who approved and posted it, are leftist hacks, and are using any platform they can get to belittle republicans. This is because they are so cock-sure of their position that this sort of behavoir seems legitimate.
Unfortunately, they pushed it a little too far this time, as their blind partisanship made them out to be the fools they are.