Sound experts and physicians say they know of no sound that can cause physical damage when played for short durations at normal levels through standard equipment like a cellphone or computer.
Obviously these people have never heard Trump speak. I actually envy them
Self harm is evidence of a mental disorder... You might want to get that physical damage checked out.
We've been sucking C02 out of the air for a long long time to make dry ice and carbonated drinks and as a byproduct of capturing nitrogen and oxygen for industrial and medical use. It's easy to capture the stuff...
The problem is long term storage. Where you going to stuff this stuff in Iceland?
So bully on you sir for collecting CO2, but what now? How you going to make this actually work long term? Call me when you have an answer for that one.
Noise generators for random numbers are not easily produced and are not usually part of computer hardware. What's more, it's pretty difficult to actually know for sure they are giving you random data... I've never seen a "load accumulator A with a random number" in a CPU instruction set. CPU designers tend to shy away from non-deterministic behavior because they are building digital devices, where that random result is actually a problem.
So, which computer do you have that has this random brancing ability? I've only seen one truly random number from thermal noise interface and it was not commercially available in large quantities.
So, what makes up a thought? We all have them.. Well most of us do.... But you tell me, when will a computer think it's own thought? Then tell me how can we tell?
This is a philosophical question, for which technology will never have an answer. However, I'm right until we can prove that computers can and do think on their own. Think, not just respond to stimuli, think their own thoughts. Until then, they only do what they are allowed to do by their hardware and programming.
The Turing test isn't enough by the way. Passing that test only says a computer is indistinguishable from a control human for the questions it's been asked. You never know if you've asked all the relevant questions because there is no exact list or way to determine one.
LOL... What noise? I've never heard of the assembly instruction "Load accumulator A with noise" on a CPU, and if you are running some program to do this, it's going to be deterministic, if you know the initial state of the digital machine you are using. It's actually a design constraint of good digital electronics that you not have anything but defined logical states. Any "noise" or randomness needs to be removed. Therefore any digital system that produces "random" numbers really isn't random at all. In fact, this is a serious problem in cryptology and generating thins like one time pads gets a lot of attention because of this.
Now if you are figuring on producing hardware that uses thermal noise or background radiation to create random numbers, I'm here to tell you that it's a whole lot harder than it sounds to do that. Not impossible, just a difficult analog electrical engineering problem and decidedly NOT a digital machine. To detect the randomness in chaos, is going to take a lot of careful thought, or you will end up not getting random anything....
Chess is a deterministic problem as most games are, I never believed computers wouldn't ever be better than humans. I'm guessing that most games would be better played by AI than humans as long as the game play was deterministic, where all possible moves and outcomes can be conceivably looked at.
I'd be willing to bet (tooth picks) that playing poker with AI would not be as deterministic, that the humans would win at least some times, and if you let the humans keep a database of information at hand to consult they'd do nearly as well. But I don't know the game that well to explain why.
In sort, some things can be learned and trained, but throw a poker playing computer into a game of Gin Rummy would not garner very many wins. Then once you had it trained up in Rummy if you switched to Hearts it would be down hill again. Then if you went back to poker, it would be a horrible poker player again. A human could switch back to poker.... Your computer wouldn't.... Unless you purpose built the system and it's adapters to learn multiple games...
My point here is, if you can imagine a scenario (playing cards) and train your AI, great, it can/will play cards. But if you throw a new game at it, say crazy eights after it learned hearts, poker, spades and old maid, it's not going to play well until it can adapt to the new rules. Humans may make the transition a bit quicker and may even be good players of the new game after being given the rules. Computer AI? Not so much, you have to train it, or program it.
At some point the robots will be better at engineering better robots than humans too.
Um, no. They will have no ability to engineer anything beyond what they've been programed to engineer and only within the parameters the programmer allowed when they wrote the program. Computers will not be capable of abstract thought, they won't be able to learn things they are not designed to learn. They will be stuck within their design limitations.
But I'm not going to be able to prove this to you.... Why? Because ultimately it's a question of philosophy, not how complex something can be engineered.
LOL... Random number generator programs are pretty much deterministic if their internal states and external stimuli are the same, the number you get out of them is going to be the same.
So, I got to ask, how are you generating your random number for that branch?
Only because they are not identical systems starting from the same internal condition..;) CPU's are pretty deterministic.... And when they aren't, it's usually a problem.
Yes, complex digital systems can display very non-deterministic behavior, but that's because between systems there are slight variances in things like clock rates and logical voltage levels.
I think you make a mistake when you describe the "zero shot learning" of these systems as being untrained. Sure, they may be able to utilize previous training information as a short cut to answer a new kind of question, but that is not starting untrained, but partially trained. And if you take a look at the Blog you will note that the trained and "untrained" problem domains involve the same kinds of input adapters, which implies that the problems may be slightly different specifically, but they are actually similar activities.
Think of it as a color sorting problem where objects come by and you are tasked with removing the green ones and leaving the white ones. All works great for your first shift. Then on your second day they are processing white and red objects and you are to remove the red ones. Your training on the first day will certainly help you on the second day. Then on the third day, the color you remove is yellow... By then you are going to be pretty well trained, but only because all along they have been keeping the white ones.... The forth day they are processing red and green objects.... My guess day 3 you will be able to guess what to do, but day 4? Not so much,
Sure, it looks close, but it's not ever going to be the same.
Intuition is about making decisions on topics for which you have no specific exposure or experience. Everything you describe requires that the computer be pre-exposed to a situation in some way, either though simulation, training on real data or hard coding logic.
Computers will be useful for specifically defined tasks, but they will neither recognize the boundaries of what they know or choose to stray outside their limits. They will always just respond as they have been programed to.
Computers (when they are running as designed) are deterministic. They do what they are told to do, so two identical computers in the same condition, stimulated the same way, will produce the same results... Every Time. We might be able to invest seeming "insight" into some random looking problem using AI and training data, code in some clever randomness in our deterministic programs, but we won't *ever* get a computer to think, feel and decide based on intuition.
However, I'm not as convinced that computers will not be taking on more and more of our work activities, but only insofar as they can be deterministically programed to perform them efficiently. They just are not going to take over the world and exterminate us as unnecessary or any other nonsense like that.
nobody over here on the right is saying we need to or should remove ALL regulations.
True, but it sure does look like they have a very different definition of that is "good" regulation. The Republicans seem to think that if regulation reduces the ability of companies to make a profit, that means the regulation is bad.
You don't seem to be listening close enough to the republicans then. Of course the main thrust of the argument is that excess regulation costs money, but don't conflate that with the belief that all regulation that costs money should go. You are basically setting up a straw man when you do that.
You are making claims that Trump is acting out of self interest, with zero evidence. You *might* be right, because it's impossible to gauge what's going on inside another's head, so nobody knows for sure. However, evidence is mounting that doesn't support your view.
My evidence is basically that he's not made any overt moves that indicate anything other than what he claims his reasons are for running for president. Everything he's done is arguably consistent with what he's claiming. Yet for you to be right, he has to be lying, lying a lot, and taking actions which benefit him in some way. He's been under the microscope now for nearly two years, yet we have yet to catch him doing anything to enrich himself over the interests of the county. Yea, there are lots of allegations, but no proof of anything forthcoming, and nothing that justifies your judgment of the man.
Your mileage may vary do to political bias (both yours and mine), but I ask you to take an impassionate view of the actual facts as they unfold.
Actually, the biggest issue here is not the goals but the method used to reach the goals. In general, both parties share the same overall goals, but differ in their ideas about how to reach them... Of course, political rhetoric is designed to conflate the rejection of your preferred method with rejection of your goal. How many times have we heard "Republicans want to push granny off the cliff!" in discussions over Medicare? They are conflating goals with methods.
Trump, if you listen to him closely, isn't the pure bread republican or democrat on most things to start with. Where he rejects the democratic view of economics and government, he's basically democratic in his social views and war. (although on the last one he's had to modulate some due to realities on the ground.). On the rest of the issues you mention, there really isn't any difference between the parties goals, just the methods needed to achieve them.
So, then I must infer that you mean the establishment doesn't like Trump because he is a bad actor?
You do know that this is a bright line you are trying to draw using a fairly biased perspective and it's going to be hard to make that line bright when bias is obscuring your vision.
Trump is not part of the republican or democrat establishments. In fact he ran specifically opposing them openly. They don't like or approve of his policies because he's made it part of his mission to dismantle their power ("Drain the Swamp" means this). They oppose him for this reason, because he threatens to upend their power structure, over turn the money changers tables and take away their power.
Your ideas about Trump being dangerous to the country is merely how both sides would characterize their opposition to Trump in their rhetoric. They want to cast Trump as both an idiot, self serving or acting out of malice for the USA depending on the issue. None of these perspectives on Trump is true, quite the opposite.
He's not dumb or stupid, far from it. He took a bit of money invested in couple of small real estate developments and parlayed that into a huge enterprise doing development in the most expensive and competitive real estate markets world wide. He's not dumb.
He's not acting out of self interest. He's given up his salary and control of his businesses, submitted to the anal exam of public scrutiny after spending a lot of his own money on his campaign. I think the evidence shows that he actually is a patriot who wants the best for the country, but if you want to think otherwise, all I can say is you need to provide actual *evidence* for that view. As I see it, he went from living in a Park Avenue penthouse, to the Whitehouse, which like it or not is a step down for him.
The last idea is that he's actually out to destroy the USA... This would be outrageously funny to suggest if folks didn't actually believe this..
I suppose you could look at it that way... But the republicans are usually loathed to "fix" things using unfair rules or procedures given their propensity to appeal to the "rule of law" the "original meaning of the constitution" and other such nonsense, so I'm not surprised.
So, In 2020, who are the democrats going to actually try and field? I've been puzzling over the likelys list and nobody is standing out yet. Inquiring minds want to know..
This list is pretty much junk political rhetoric driven by a desire to bash your opponents over perceived and made up accusations for which you really don't have much evidence.
I'll give you 1, 2, 7 and part of 10 (the repeal part), but the rest is plain garbage and made up complaints.
1. Tighter immigration control - Agreed - insofar as you mean "illegal" immigration and limits on legal immigration based on security issues. I don't see the issue here or why you think this is a bad thing..
2. Less regulation on corporations - Agreed - Less expense though needless regulation is a bad thing for the economy. Removing stupid, conflicting or pointless regulations is a good thing. Making regulations simpler also makes them more effective. But before you go off and start yelling, nobody over here on the right is saying we need to or should remove ALL regulations.
7. More Military spending - Agreed - I don't see why you consider this to be a problem. Historically it is the lack of military spending that has what preceded war more often than increased spending. Have you heard of "Peace though Strength"? How about "Speak softly, but carry a big stick"? We need to have the strongest, best equipped military we can, to keep the peace.
10. Repeal Obamcare - Agreed - But the rest of your statement is untrue and unfair political rhetoric. Obamacare didn't insure the poor, it just fined them if they don't get insurance and made them MORE poor. It also increased regulations on business (see #2) and universally increased health insurance costs for employers and employees. It really needs to go away. It was a hugely bad idea to start with.
The rest of that list is basically political rhetoric with no basis in facts or reality. Certainly it's not an effective means of opening a debate where your concerns can be discussed and dealt with, but that's not what propaganda is designed to do now is it?
I will agree that both sides of the establishment don't like him because he's not part of them, and doesn't want to be part of them. He's an outsider to both and they have no power over him and are doing what they can to obstruct him..
That is why you hear him called a "loose cannon" because he IS, by their definition. They have no control of what this guy does.
Now the debate about if he's good or bad for the nation will not be answered here by you and I, not at this point. We are in the midst of the political battle that will be hard fought for the next three to eight years. All sides are throwing all they got, flame throwers, hand grenades and mortar shells into the fray and where you may think your side is winning, nobody really knows how this will end up. Let's wait for the history to be written and we have the benefit of hindsight.
I totally disagree. Trump is as republican as I am a woman. I can call myself one, even dress like one and in some places even use the women's room, but nothing can biologically make me one.
Trump ran as a republican only because he would have never won the democratic primary and a third party is a non-starter in our system. He only self identifies as a republican for political convenience, but he's actually very much a democrat on the majority of the issues democrats find important. However, He doesn't care about either side's sacred cows, so they both hate him, while many voters love him for the very same reason.
The original poster is right, Trump is hated by both sides of the establishment. He's hated by the republicans because he won without their help or approval and isn't beholden to their handlers (those who give them money and keep them in power). He's hated by the democrats simply because he won over the heir apparent. But Trump is Trump....
Slashdot Mirror
Sound experts and physicians say they know of no sound that can cause physical damage when played for short durations at normal levels through standard equipment like a cellphone or computer.
Obviously these people have never heard Trump speak. I actually envy them
Self harm is evidence of a mental disorder... You might want to get that physical damage checked out.
Sequestration is quite another.
We've been sucking C02 out of the air for a long long time to make dry ice and carbonated drinks and as a byproduct of capturing nitrogen and oxygen for industrial and medical use. It's easy to capture the stuff...
The problem is long term storage. Where you going to stuff this stuff in Iceland?
So bully on you sir for collecting CO2, but what now? How you going to make this actually work long term? Call me when you have an answer for that one.
Noise generators for random numbers are not easily produced and are not usually part of computer hardware. What's more, it's pretty difficult to actually know for sure they are giving you random data... I've never seen a "load accumulator A with a random number" in a CPU instruction set. CPU designers tend to shy away from non-deterministic behavior because they are building digital devices, where that random result is actually a problem.
So, which computer do you have that has this random brancing ability? I've only seen one truly random number from thermal noise interface and it was not commercially available in large quantities.
So, what makes up a thought? We all have them.. Well most of us do.... But you tell me, when will a computer think it's own thought? Then tell me how can we tell?
This is a philosophical question, for which technology will never have an answer. However, I'm right until we can prove that computers can and do think on their own. Think, not just respond to stimuli, think their own thoughts. Until then, they only do what they are allowed to do by their hardware and programming.
The Turing test isn't enough by the way. Passing that test only says a computer is indistinguishable from a control human for the questions it's been asked. You never know if you've asked all the relevant questions because there is no exact list or way to determine one.
LOL... What noise? I've never heard of the assembly instruction "Load accumulator A with noise" on a CPU, and if you are running some program to do this, it's going to be deterministic, if you know the initial state of the digital machine you are using. It's actually a design constraint of good digital electronics that you not have anything but defined logical states. Any "noise" or randomness needs to be removed. Therefore any digital system that produces "random" numbers really isn't random at all. In fact, this is a serious problem in cryptology and generating thins like one time pads gets a lot of attention because of this.
Now if you are figuring on producing hardware that uses thermal noise or background radiation to create random numbers, I'm here to tell you that it's a whole lot harder than it sounds to do that. Not impossible, just a difficult analog electrical engineering problem and decidedly NOT a digital machine. To detect the randomness in chaos, is going to take a lot of careful thought, or you will end up not getting random anything....
Chess is a deterministic problem as most games are, I never believed computers wouldn't ever be better than humans. I'm guessing that most games would be better played by AI than humans as long as the game play was deterministic, where all possible moves and outcomes can be conceivably looked at.
I'd be willing to bet (tooth picks) that playing poker with AI would not be as deterministic, that the humans would win at least some times, and if you let the humans keep a database of information at hand to consult they'd do nearly as well. But I don't know the game that well to explain why.
In sort, some things can be learned and trained, but throw a poker playing computer into a game of Gin Rummy would not garner very many wins. Then once you had it trained up in Rummy if you switched to Hearts it would be down hill again. Then if you went back to poker, it would be a horrible poker player again. A human could switch back to poker.... Your computer wouldn't.... Unless you purpose built the system and it's adapters to learn multiple games...
My point here is, if you can imagine a scenario (playing cards) and train your AI, great, it can/will play cards. But if you throw a new game at it, say crazy eights after it learned hearts, poker, spades and old maid, it's not going to play well until it can adapt to the new rules. Humans may make the transition a bit quicker and may even be good players of the new game after being given the rules. Computer AI? Not so much, you have to train it, or program it.
At some point the robots will be better at engineering better robots than humans too.
Um, no. They will have no ability to engineer anything beyond what they've been programed to engineer and only within the parameters the programmer allowed when they wrote the program. Computers will not be capable of abstract thought, they won't be able to learn things they are not designed to learn. They will be stuck within their design limitations.
But I'm not going to be able to prove this to you.... Why? Because ultimately it's a question of philosophy, not how complex something can be engineered.
LOL... Random number generator programs are pretty much deterministic if their internal states and external stimuli are the same, the number you get out of them is going to be the same.
So, I got to ask, how are you generating your random number for that branch?
Only because they are not identical systems starting from the same internal condition.. ;) CPU's are pretty deterministic.... And when they aren't, it's usually a problem.
Yes, complex digital systems can display very non-deterministic behavior, but that's because between systems there are slight variances in things like clock rates and logical voltage levels.
I think you make a mistake when you describe the "zero shot learning" of these systems as being untrained. Sure, they may be able to utilize previous training information as a short cut to answer a new kind of question, but that is not starting untrained, but partially trained. And if you take a look at the Blog you will note that the trained and "untrained" problem domains involve the same kinds of input adapters, which implies that the problems may be slightly different specifically, but they are actually similar activities.
Think of it as a color sorting problem where objects come by and you are tasked with removing the green ones and leaving the white ones. All works great for your first shift. Then on your second day they are processing white and red objects and you are to remove the red ones. Your training on the first day will certainly help you on the second day. Then on the third day, the color you remove is yellow... By then you are going to be pretty well trained, but only because all along they have been keeping the white ones.... The forth day they are processing red and green objects.... My guess day 3 you will be able to guess what to do, but day 4? Not so much,
Sure, it looks close, but it's not ever going to be the same.
Intuition is about making decisions on topics for which you have no specific exposure or experience. Everything you describe requires that the computer be pre-exposed to a situation in some way, either though simulation, training on real data or hard coding logic.
Computers will be useful for specifically defined tasks, but they will neither recognize the boundaries of what they know or choose to stray outside their limits. They will always just respond as they have been programed to.
LOL... Boy, are you going to be surprised when the current 8 years gets into the history books...
Reagan was despised and mocked too while in office.... It sure didn't turn out the way his detractors thought it would...
I'm thinking I know which half you are in...
Enjoy those Jerry Springer reruns.. Just understand those people are not typical average Americans. In fact, most of what you see on TV isn't.
Exactly this.
The whole point here is that robots free humans up to perform the higher level tasks such as acquiring more knowledge to engineer better robots.
I don't believe it for a moment.
Computers (when they are running as designed) are deterministic. They do what they are told to do, so two identical computers in the same condition, stimulated the same way, will produce the same results... Every Time. We might be able to invest seeming "insight" into some random looking problem using AI and training data, code in some clever randomness in our deterministic programs, but we won't *ever* get a computer to think, feel and decide based on intuition.
However, I'm not as convinced that computers will not be taking on more and more of our work activities, but only insofar as they can be deterministically programed to perform them efficiently. They just are not going to take over the world and exterminate us as unnecessary or any other nonsense like that.
I bet you listen more closely to how all this is reported on by others who share your bias than the primary information sources, but have it your way.
nobody over here on the right is saying we need to or should remove ALL regulations.
True, but it sure does look like they have a very different definition of that is "good" regulation. The Republicans seem to think that if regulation reduces the ability of companies to make a profit, that means the regulation is bad.
You don't seem to be listening close enough to the republicans then. Of course the main thrust of the argument is that excess regulation costs money, but don't conflate that with the belief that all regulation that costs money should go. You are basically setting up a straw man when you do that.
You are making claims that Trump is acting out of self interest, with zero evidence. You *might* be right, because it's impossible to gauge what's going on inside another's head, so nobody knows for sure. However, evidence is mounting that doesn't support your view.
My evidence is basically that he's not made any overt moves that indicate anything other than what he claims his reasons are for running for president. Everything he's done is arguably consistent with what he's claiming. Yet for you to be right, he has to be lying, lying a lot, and taking actions which benefit him in some way. He's been under the microscope now for nearly two years, yet we have yet to catch him doing anything to enrich himself over the interests of the county. Yea, there are lots of allegations, but no proof of anything forthcoming, and nothing that justifies your judgment of the man.
Your mileage may vary do to political bias (both yours and mine), but I ask you to take an impassionate view of the actual facts as they unfold.
Actually, the biggest issue here is not the goals but the method used to reach the goals. In general, both parties share the same overall goals, but differ in their ideas about how to reach them... Of course, political rhetoric is designed to conflate the rejection of your preferred method with rejection of your goal. How many times have we heard "Republicans want to push granny off the cliff!" in discussions over Medicare? They are conflating goals with methods.
Trump, if you listen to him closely, isn't the pure bread republican or democrat on most things to start with. Where he rejects the democratic view of economics and government, he's basically democratic in his social views and war. (although on the last one he's had to modulate some due to realities on the ground.). On the rest of the issues you mention, there really isn't any difference between the parties goals, just the methods needed to achieve them.
So, then I must infer that you mean the establishment doesn't like Trump because he is a bad actor?
You do know that this is a bright line you are trying to draw using a fairly biased perspective and it's going to be hard to make that line bright when bias is obscuring your vision.
Trump is not part of the republican or democrat establishments. In fact he ran specifically opposing them openly. They don't like or approve of his policies because he's made it part of his mission to dismantle their power ("Drain the Swamp" means this). They oppose him for this reason, because he threatens to upend their power structure, over turn the money changers tables and take away their power.
Your ideas about Trump being dangerous to the country is merely how both sides would characterize their opposition to Trump in their rhetoric. They want to cast Trump as both an idiot, self serving or acting out of malice for the USA depending on the issue. None of these perspectives on Trump is true, quite the opposite.
He's not dumb or stupid, far from it. He took a bit of money invested in couple of small real estate developments and parlayed that into a huge enterprise doing development in the most expensive and competitive real estate markets world wide. He's not dumb.
He's not acting out of self interest. He's given up his salary and control of his businesses, submitted to the anal exam of public scrutiny after spending a lot of his own money on his campaign. I think the evidence shows that he actually is a patriot who wants the best for the country, but if you want to think otherwise, all I can say is you need to provide actual *evidence* for that view. As I see it, he went from living in a Park Avenue penthouse, to the Whitehouse, which like it or not is a step down for him.
The last idea is that he's actually out to destroy the USA... This would be outrageously funny to suggest if folks didn't actually believe this..
I suppose you could look at it that way... But the republicans are usually loathed to "fix" things using unfair rules or procedures given their propensity to appeal to the "rule of law" the "original meaning of the constitution" and other such nonsense, so I'm not surprised.
So, In 2020, who are the democrats going to actually try and field? I've been puzzling over the likelys list and nobody is standing out yet. Inquiring minds want to know..
This list is pretty much junk political rhetoric driven by a desire to bash your opponents over perceived and made up accusations for which you really don't have much evidence.
I'll give you 1, 2, 7 and part of 10 (the repeal part), but the rest is plain garbage and made up complaints.
1. Tighter immigration control - Agreed - insofar as you mean "illegal" immigration and limits on legal immigration based on security issues. I don't see the issue here or why you think this is a bad thing..
2. Less regulation on corporations - Agreed - Less expense though needless regulation is a bad thing for the economy. Removing stupid, conflicting or pointless regulations is a good thing. Making regulations simpler also makes them more effective. But before you go off and start yelling, nobody over here on the right is saying we need to or should remove ALL regulations.
7. More Military spending - Agreed - I don't see why you consider this to be a problem. Historically it is the lack of military spending that has what preceded war more often than increased spending. Have you heard of "Peace though Strength"? How about "Speak softly, but carry a big stick"? We need to have the strongest, best equipped military we can, to keep the peace.
10. Repeal Obamcare - Agreed - But the rest of your statement is untrue and unfair political rhetoric. Obamacare didn't insure the poor, it just fined them if they don't get insurance and made them MORE poor. It also increased regulations on business (see #2) and universally increased health insurance costs for employers and employees. It really needs to go away. It was a hugely bad idea to start with.
The rest of that list is basically political rhetoric with no basis in facts or reality. Certainly it's not an effective means of opening a debate where your concerns can be discussed and dealt with, but that's not what propaganda is designed to do now is it?
I will agree that both sides of the establishment don't like him because he's not part of them, and doesn't want to be part of them. He's an outsider to both and they have no power over him and are doing what they can to obstruct him..
That is why you hear him called a "loose cannon" because he IS, by their definition. They have no control of what this guy does.
Now the debate about if he's good or bad for the nation will not be answered here by you and I, not at this point. We are in the midst of the political battle that will be hard fought for the next three to eight years. All sides are throwing all they got, flame throwers, hand grenades and mortar shells into the fray and where you may think your side is winning, nobody really knows how this will end up. Let's wait for the history to be written and we have the benefit of hindsight.
I totally disagree. Trump is as republican as I am a woman. I can call myself one, even dress like one and in some places even use the women's room, but nothing can biologically make me one.
Trump ran as a republican only because he would have never won the democratic primary and a third party is a non-starter in our system. He only self identifies as a republican for political convenience, but he's actually very much a democrat on the majority of the issues democrats find important. However, He doesn't care about either side's sacred cows, so they both hate him, while many voters love him for the very same reason.
The original poster is right, Trump is hated by both sides of the establishment. He's hated by the republicans because he won without their help or approval and isn't beholden to their handlers (those who give them money and keep them in power). He's hated by the democrats simply because he won over the heir apparent. But Trump is Trump....
Or both... Be seen and by virtue of that capture more taxpayer funding..