Which is why you have TWO tractors available... When it's time to harvest, it's time to harvest. (Just to tell Deere, they will have to stop the buy one, get one half off sales if you do).
Get it? I don't think you get it at all.. She's slumming for votes and just happened to find an acorn you like, just like a blind pig.
I expect all the candidates to "get it" on all sorts of topics and ideas, but I don't think most of them are serious about any of it. They just want the sound bite, to be seen as "getting it" by as many as possible in hopes of "getting" their votes.
For all intents and purposes, that's pretty much where they did this, just really high up. Enough air to not let you stay in orbit very long, high enough to demonstrate the technology.
Seriously, like it or not, destroying and protecting stuff in space is an important set of technologies to have in today's age. I don't blame India for developing and demonstrating this capability.
It was only in LEO - this stuff will de-orbit pretty quickly. In a couple of weeks to months, it will all be gone. Unlike the results of the China test or all the stuff we have parked in geosynchronous orbit, which won't deorbit before the sun expands and swallows us...
I am a EE graduate turned computer programmer in the 25+ years of my professional career. I've worked in many industries like the arts (theater lights and sound), aviation, telecommunications, defense and held all sorts of positions and title from trainee to Principle Engineer, from junior developer to Development Manager. I've done a lot of related stuff because I have a "I'll try" attitude and the ability to work independently or in groups. I get stuff done, on time, within budget and I don't require a lot of management, just give me the task and it gets done. I don't recall ever claiming I had professional experience with stuff when I don't, but after almost 40 years of working for a living I've done a large number of things and have a wide range of experience as a result so I can see if you somehow don't think it's possible. Maybe for you it won't be, but I've been at this earning a living thing for a long time and I don't really mind what job I'm given, so I've done a lot of things over the years.
I suppose to some young skull full of mush who's just starting out the old man with grey hair seems kind of useless. I sit over here, flying my desk and I'm sure it seems to you that I don't know any of the new things, the important things to you. You've just graduated from college and finished your 16 years of schooling with all the pomp and circumstance ringing in your ears. But truth be told, you know enough to be dangerous and still haven't learned enough to know what you don't know. I've been doing this job (or ones like it) for twice as long as you've been alive. I see you for who you are, because I was once just like you, except that I understood that I had a lot to learn and the old guys with grey hair had a lot to teach me if I'd listen to them. Maybe it was how I was raised, in a poor farm family, struggling to stay fed and warm, seeing college and hard work as a way to a better life? Maybe it's my willingness to try all sorts of jobs, to do the dirty work that nobody else wants that gave me the wide breadth of experience I have... Maybe I'm just one of the lucky ones...
However, for you, I'd suggest you grow up some. Put some time in your profession. Listen more than you speak. You have a lot to learn.
IMHO, you use LED bulbs where they make sense, let the market drive this.
I actually have been slowly moving my whole house over to LED bulbs *because* they generate less heat. My primary consumer of electrical power is the Air Conditioning, so I benefit from the lower heat dissipation two ways. If one lives in a colder climate, the older light bulbs might be a good option.
So as LED's come down in price (and they have recently) more of them will be used, limiting electrical power consumption growth, making my wallet a bit fatter and decreasing emissions caused by my house.
(And just in case you miss it, I'm being sarcastic.. )
And an idiot, just in case you missed it.
That's it? A personal insult is all you got to argue with here?
There is one thing that being an electrical engineer has helped me with is seeing the absolute hogwash that gets said about electricity production in terms of "green" energy or "zero emissions" for your electric cars. The truth of industrial scale electrical energy production is that it's a dirty business no matter how you do it. If you think you are saving the planet by driving one, you are at best misinformed or at worst actively lying about how things really work.
IMHO, if you want to do the least amount of emitting when you drive, you need to remember that nearly 70% of domestic electrical energy production in the USA comes from fossil fuels, including the energy you used to charge that battery. Somehow I wonder if we'd be better off burning Natural Gas in internal combustion engines over burning it to charge my EV's battery given transmission losses, conversion losses and charge/discharge efficiency and losses you have to over come... But hey, your mileage may vary (literally) but I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as a "zero" emission vehicle especially if you look at the whole life cycle of the car... Those are the facts I'm armed with, and why I'm being sarcastic...
But all you are armed with is personal insults.. I guess you don't have anything else then...
I thought we should all be driving electric cars because they where emission free... So how does using more electricity for light bulbs create pollution when charging my car doesn't?
(And just in case you miss it, I'm being sarcastic.. )
Sorry, the summary says the counsel deferred to AG and Rosenstein on whether there was enough to prosecute, not that there "was no collusion" - Mueller never said that, sorry bitch. Trump hangs for his other proven crimes either way.
You lose either way.
Deferred the choice on obstruction, which, by the way, REQUIRES that there be an actual crime for which the investigation was obstructed... Which was what? Russian Collusion?
By the way, Mueller isn't going to charge anybody else here, that means that nobody else was involved in some criminal activity, INCLUDING the Trump Tower Meeting attendees. At this point, I suppose you *could* argue that Trump himself was colluding but his staff didn't know about it or participated in the scheme, but I'd say you are grasping at straws if you did.
It's pretty clear from the summary, nobody in Trump's campaign was colluding with the Russians. This clearly includes the Trump Tower meeting.
I suppose you could invent a wild conspiracy theory to explain Mueller's report... After all it seems this whole thing was based on a conspiracy theory, so why not go whole hog?
Ain't nothing more entertaining than the play that is security theater.
LOL.. Ain't that the truth. The TSA is basically "feel good" theater that pretends they are making you more secure. Any determined attacker is not stopped by their efforts.
The only real way to do security in airports is to do things that TSA simply cannot do, profile, run background checks on everybody and making sure to positively ID everybody. Americans wouldn't stand for such invasive searching and as a result, the TSA can only put on a show.
They simply determine whether the evidence indicates a person committed a crime or not.
Not quite. They determine whether there's enough evidence to punish someone for having committed a crime. The evidence might still indicate that they've committed a crime, but there might not be enough of it.
For crimes.. You need enough evidence to prove "Beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict of a crime.
For Civil law, it's "most likely"
Which is why Criminal Juries must be unanimous and why civil juries are majority rule.
Also, Trump's campaign manager, son, and son-in-law met with an agent of the Russian government for the purpose of coordinating campaign assistance. I can believe that there isn't enough evidence of a specific crime to charge them with anything, but it's still collusion and it should still be an enormous scandal.
So.. That's the point here. Mueller clearly investigated this "evidence" and found nothing that showed that there was any behind the scenes coordination between Trump's campaign and Russians. This was Bob Mueller's focus, his mandate, the whole purpose of his efforts. So He didn't find that this meeting was what many have claimed for the last 2 years.
In short, Mueller doesn't agree. Mueller is saying this meeting wasn't Trump and the Russians coordinating their campaign efforts. The Trump Tower meeting is apparently not evidence of what you've been told.
Actually, Manafort and Cohen both been convicted of cheating on their taxes in cases unconnected to Trump and his campaign.
Cohen was convicted of making an excessive contribution to the Trump campaign, "for the principle purpose of influencing the election," at the request of Individual 1.
No, Cohen ADMITTED to this, he was not tried in court. He entered into a Plea bargain deal, he wasn't convicted in court so nobody had to prove he violated campaign finance law. I know there is little practical difference for Cohen, but there IS a difference here.
Further, the "Russian Collusion" angel has nothing at all to do with Cohen and the campaign finance charges taken up by the Southern District of NY.
Queue the outrage machine, get people angry so they will vote for you...
Yea, but HRC did too and we are only now finding out the full extent of that.. But let's be honest, we are already in the presidential campaign for 2020, we have been since 2016.
This is just politics as usual. It's a dirty business with only really one rule, do what it takes to win. Lie, cheat, steal elections, whatever. Remember in politics the end's justify the means and ONLY the loser risks ending up in jail. The "party" only set's the background color in your Ads and sets the letter after your name on the ballot.
Do for you exactly? It give you the freedom to choose.
Choose what? That depends on what you want it to do and what you work to get. You see, capitalism provides you opportunity to do what you want to be what you want and to make choices about your life. As such, it has produced more wealth (not money, wealth) and raised more people's standard of living than any other system. Many equate opportunity and results, but they are not the same, then they bash capitalism based on the experiences of a few. But history proves that it is the system that does the most good for the most people. That's what capitalism does for you.
The problem with Deere (and other manufacturers) is we've messed things up though government regulations and the unintended side effects of well meaning laws. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for zero government regulation, quite the contrary, I'm just pointing to this as a cautionary tale to prove that government is a necessary evil that can do great harm if used too much.
Double blind... Means you have randomized the study, twice, and during the study nobody participating can directly know when and to whom the stimulus is being applied. The point is to avoid any possible impact of the placebo effect or subconsciously communicating to the test subject the status of the stimulation.
So, in this case, the WiFi signal would be turned on and off by one researcher, who would be changing switch settings for the power on the outside of a opaque box, but didn't know how the switches where wired or what settings would enable the WiFi and which disabled it. All they would do is pick the switch settings and record them outside the view of the test subject who wouldn't know when switches where changed or their positions. Another researcher would be asking the test subject the "how do you feel" questions and recording the results. This way, the research subject would never come into contact with someone who had come into contact with anyone who knew the state of the WiFi signal. Thus it's called double blind. In fact, in this case, nobody would actually know during the duration of the testing when the signal was or wasn't on because the wiring in the box generating the WiFi signal would be setup by a THIRD researcher who didn't come in contact with the others until after the test was conducted.
I guarantee you that nobody "feels" WiFi at the allowed Part 15 power levels, even in close proximity. If they think they do, it's subconscious and they are actually responding to some other stimuli. I welcome the chance to prove that by conducting the above testing. I even know of a shielded room we can likely arrange to use for the testing and I'd be happy to cook up a randomized way to turn the RF on and off. All we need is a test subject...
Or printer cartridges where the price of the printer was lowered to a loss leader item, where the manufacturer would actually make money on selling parts to keep the printer printing.. It was so bad at times, the printer was cheaper than you could buy the cartridges in the box with it.
Apart from the legal "It's for essential emission controls" so we force you to use factory certified parts. It's a shame pretty much ALL companies went with this sell the product cheap and gouge it back from the customer over time model...
True that.. Now if he retained controlling interest in the company his grandfather worked for... That's a deere of a different color, in this case Brown...
However, suppose it's a nice PR move to use this guy's linage to help sell your idea and lobby for the laws you want and I'm going to guess he's getting paid "deere-ly" for the invocation of his family legacy. What's in a name? Well, in this case, likely a few bucks and if you ravage the company that benefited from your ancestors, who really cares? It wouldn't really matter even if his name was John Deere....
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why you have TWO tractors available... When it's time to harvest, it's time to harvest. (Just to tell Deere, they will have to stop the buy one, get one half off sales if you do).
Get it? I don't think you get it at all.. She's slumming for votes and just happened to find an acorn you like, just like a blind pig.
I expect all the candidates to "get it" on all sorts of topics and ideas, but I don't think most of them are serious about any of it. They just want the sound bite, to be seen as "getting it" by as many as possible in hopes of "getting" their votes.
The only safe test would have been in atmosphere.
For all intents and purposes, that's pretty much where they did this, just really high up. Enough air to not let you stay in orbit very long, high enough to demonstrate the technology.
But YOU did it first...Decades ago...
Seriously, like it or not, destroying and protecting stuff in space is an important set of technologies to have in today's age. I don't blame India for developing and demonstrating this capability.
It was only in LEO - this stuff will de-orbit pretty quickly. In a couple of weeks to months, it will all be gone. Unlike the results of the China test or all the stuff we have parked in geosynchronous orbit, which won't deorbit before the sun expands and swallows us...
I am a EE graduate turned computer programmer in the 25+ years of my professional career. I've worked in many industries like the arts (theater lights and sound), aviation, telecommunications, defense and held all sorts of positions and title from trainee to Principle Engineer, from junior developer to Development Manager. I've done a lot of related stuff because I have a "I'll try" attitude and the ability to work independently or in groups. I get stuff done, on time, within budget and I don't require a lot of management, just give me the task and it gets done. I don't recall ever claiming I had professional experience with stuff when I don't, but after almost 40 years of working for a living I've done a large number of things and have a wide range of experience as a result so I can see if you somehow don't think it's possible. Maybe for you it won't be, but I've been at this earning a living thing for a long time and I don't really mind what job I'm given, so I've done a lot of things over the years.
I suppose to some young skull full of mush who's just starting out the old man with grey hair seems kind of useless. I sit over here, flying my desk and I'm sure it seems to you that I don't know any of the new things, the important things to you. You've just graduated from college and finished your 16 years of schooling with all the pomp and circumstance ringing in your ears. But truth be told, you know enough to be dangerous and still haven't learned enough to know what you don't know. I've been doing this job (or ones like it) for twice as long as you've been alive. I see you for who you are, because I was once just like you, except that I understood that I had a lot to learn and the old guys with grey hair had a lot to teach me if I'd listen to them. Maybe it was how I was raised, in a poor farm family, struggling to stay fed and warm, seeing college and hard work as a way to a better life? Maybe it's my willingness to try all sorts of jobs, to do the dirty work that nobody else wants that gave me the wide breadth of experience I have... Maybe I'm just one of the lucky ones...
However, for you, I'd suggest you grow up some. Put some time in your profession. Listen more than you speak. You have a lot to learn.
IMHO, you use LED bulbs where they make sense, let the market drive this.
I actually have been slowly moving my whole house over to LED bulbs *because* they generate less heat. My primary consumer of electrical power is the Air Conditioning, so I benefit from the lower heat dissipation two ways. If one lives in a colder climate, the older light bulbs might be a good option.
So as LED's come down in price (and they have recently) more of them will be used, limiting electrical power consumption growth, making my wallet a bit fatter and decreasing emissions caused by my house.
(And just in case you miss it, I'm being sarcastic.. )
And an idiot, just in case you missed it.
That's it? A personal insult is all you got to argue with here?
There is one thing that being an electrical engineer has helped me with is seeing the absolute hogwash that gets said about electricity production in terms of "green" energy or "zero emissions" for your electric cars. The truth of industrial scale electrical energy production is that it's a dirty business no matter how you do it. If you think you are saving the planet by driving one, you are at best misinformed or at worst actively lying about how things really work.
IMHO, if you want to do the least amount of emitting when you drive, you need to remember that nearly 70% of domestic electrical energy production in the USA comes from fossil fuels, including the energy you used to charge that battery. Somehow I wonder if we'd be better off burning Natural Gas in internal combustion engines over burning it to charge my EV's battery given transmission losses, conversion losses and charge/discharge efficiency and losses you have to over come... But hey, your mileage may vary (literally) but I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as a "zero" emission vehicle especially if you look at the whole life cycle of the car... Those are the facts I'm armed with, and why I'm being sarcastic...
But all you are armed with is personal insults.. I guess you don't have anything else then...
I thought we should all be driving electric cars because they where emission free... So how does using more electricity for light bulbs create pollution when charging my car doesn't?
(And just in case you miss it, I'm being sarcastic.. )
Sorry, the summary says the counsel deferred to AG and Rosenstein on whether there was enough to prosecute, not that there "was no collusion" - Mueller never said that, sorry bitch. Trump hangs for his other proven crimes either way.
You lose either way.
Deferred the choice on obstruction, which, by the way, REQUIRES that there be an actual crime for which the investigation was obstructed... Which was what? Russian Collusion?
By the way, Mueller isn't going to charge anybody else here, that means that nobody else was involved in some criminal activity, INCLUDING the Trump Tower Meeting attendees. At this point, I suppose you *could* argue that Trump himself was colluding but his staff didn't know about it or participated in the scheme, but I'd say you are grasping at straws if you did.
Incorrect. The AG's summary clearly says there was no evidence of collusion; Which includes the Trump Tower meeting.
Mueller cannot prove a negative, nor can Trump. Conspiracy theories are born on such logical errors.
But we have the AG's summary.
It's pretty clear from the summary, nobody in Trump's campaign was colluding with the Russians. This clearly includes the Trump Tower meeting.
I suppose you could invent a wild conspiracy theory to explain Mueller's report... After all it seems this whole thing was based on a conspiracy theory, so why not go whole hog?
Ain't nothing more entertaining than the play that is security theater.
LOL.. Ain't that the truth. The TSA is basically "feel good" theater that pretends they are making you more secure. Any determined attacker is not stopped by their efforts.
The only real way to do security in airports is to do things that TSA simply cannot do, profile, run background checks on everybody and making sure to positively ID everybody. Americans wouldn't stand for such invasive searching and as a result, the TSA can only put on a show.
They simply determine whether the evidence indicates a person committed a crime or not.
Not quite. They determine whether there's enough evidence to punish someone for having committed a crime. The evidence might still indicate that they've committed a crime, but there might not be enough of it.
For crimes.. You need enough evidence to prove "Beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict of a crime.
For Civil law, it's "most likely"
Which is why Criminal Juries must be unanimous and why civil juries are majority rule.
After all, courts never truly exonerate people. They simply determine whether the evidence indicates a person committed a crime or not.
They don't deal in "innocence".
Which is why the "innocent until proven guilty" concept is an important part of our justice system.
You cannot prove a negative...
Also, Trump's campaign manager, son, and son-in-law met with an agent of the Russian government for the purpose of coordinating campaign assistance. I can believe that there isn't enough evidence of a specific crime to charge them with anything, but it's still collusion and it should still be an enormous scandal.
So.. That's the point here. Mueller clearly investigated this "evidence" and found nothing that showed that there was any behind the scenes coordination between Trump's campaign and Russians. This was Bob Mueller's focus, his mandate, the whole purpose of his efforts. So He didn't find that this meeting was what many have claimed for the last 2 years.
In short, Mueller doesn't agree. Mueller is saying this meeting wasn't Trump and the Russians coordinating their campaign efforts. The Trump Tower meeting is apparently not evidence of what you've been told.
Actually, Manafort and Cohen both been convicted of cheating on their taxes in cases unconnected to Trump and his campaign.
Cohen was convicted of making an excessive contribution to the Trump campaign, "for the principle purpose of influencing the election," at the request of Individual 1.
No, Cohen ADMITTED to this, he was not tried in court. He entered into a Plea bargain deal, he wasn't convicted in court so nobody had to prove he violated campaign finance law. I know there is little practical difference for Cohen, but there IS a difference here.
Further, the "Russian Collusion" angel has nothing at all to do with Cohen and the campaign finance charges taken up by the Southern District of NY.
They are getting crucified for acting like a for profit business.
Why is *anybody* surprised or outraged over this? They where simply acting like any for profit business would.
Sure.. But Orange man BAD!
Queue the outrage machine, get people angry so they will vote for you...
Yea, but HRC did too and we are only now finding out the full extent of that.. But let's be honest, we are already in the presidential campaign for 2020, we have been since 2016.
This is just politics as usual. It's a dirty business with only really one rule, do what it takes to win. Lie, cheat, steal elections, whatever. Remember in politics the end's justify the means and ONLY the loser risks ending up in jail. The "party" only set's the background color in your Ads and sets the letter after your name on the ballot.
What does capitalism do for *me*, exactly?
Do for you exactly? It give you the freedom to choose.
Choose what? That depends on what you want it to do and what you work to get. You see, capitalism provides you opportunity to do what you want to be what you want and to make choices about your life. As such, it has produced more wealth (not money, wealth) and raised more people's standard of living than any other system. Many equate opportunity and results, but they are not the same, then they bash capitalism based on the experiences of a few. But history proves that it is the system that does the most good for the most people. That's what capitalism does for you.
The problem with Deere (and other manufacturers) is we've messed things up though government regulations and the unintended side effects of well meaning laws. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for zero government regulation, quite the contrary, I'm just pointing to this as a cautionary tale to prove that government is a necessary evil that can do great harm if used too much.
Double blind... Means you have randomized the study, twice, and during the study nobody participating can directly know when and to whom the stimulus is being applied. The point is to avoid any possible impact of the placebo effect or subconsciously communicating to the test subject the status of the stimulation.
So, in this case, the WiFi signal would be turned on and off by one researcher, who would be changing switch settings for the power on the outside of a opaque box, but didn't know how the switches where wired or what settings would enable the WiFi and which disabled it. All they would do is pick the switch settings and record them outside the view of the test subject who wouldn't know when switches where changed or their positions. Another researcher would be asking the test subject the "how do you feel" questions and recording the results. This way, the research subject would never come into contact with someone who had come into contact with anyone who knew the state of the WiFi signal. Thus it's called double blind. In fact, in this case, nobody would actually know during the duration of the testing when the signal was or wasn't on because the wiring in the box generating the WiFi signal would be setup by a THIRD researcher who didn't come in contact with the others until after the test was conducted.
I guarantee you that nobody "feels" WiFi at the allowed Part 15 power levels, even in close proximity. If they think they do, it's subconscious and they are actually responding to some other stimuli. I welcome the chance to prove that by conducting the above testing. I even know of a shielded room we can likely arrange to use for the testing and I'd be happy to cook up a randomized way to turn the RF on and off. All we need is a test subject...
Or printer cartridges where the price of the printer was lowered to a loss leader item, where the manufacturer would actually make money on selling parts to keep the printer printing.. It was so bad at times, the printer was cheaper than you could buy the cartridges in the box with it.
Apart from the legal "It's for essential emission controls" so we force you to use factory certified parts. It's a shame pretty much ALL companies went with this sell the product cheap and gouge it back from the customer over time model...
Awwww, Don't worry.. An over the air firmware update will take care of any parts you manage to actually replace yourself....
This one was patented even....
Don't care what the kids of kids think.
True that.. Now if he retained controlling interest in the company his grandfather worked for... That's a deere of a different color, in this case Brown...
However, suppose it's a nice PR move to use this guy's linage to help sell your idea and lobby for the laws you want and I'm going to guess he's getting paid "deere-ly" for the invocation of his family legacy. What's in a name? Well, in this case, likely a few bucks and if you ravage the company that benefited from your ancestors, who really cares? It wouldn't really matter even if his name was John Deere....