You, like so many other whackjobs miss the elephant that's stomping on your feet in your rush to build a scenario in which the US becomes nothing but a shell.
The absolute last thing that China wants to do is crash the US economy. They, unlike you, know damn well what happens after one of the world's largest exporters and importers drops offline... Europe and Japan (I.E. the balance of China's significant trading partners) follow, maybe as much as a week later. Guess what happens to China in that event?
It's amazing how nobody in the media was talking about the problem of Gerrymandering 2007-2009...I wonder why?
If you've been paying attention, gerrymandering has regularly been discussed in the media since the late 90's. It's only become a big (public) issue *now* because the Facebook crowds have latched onto it - each side accusing the other of using it to their sole benefit while ignoring their sides' usage to the same end. The result is a bunch of sound and fury that will vanish shortly to be replaced by the next 'outrage'.
tl;dr version - you have two amateur groups and one university group re-creating basic experiments first performed at least forty plus years ago in space suit simulators that don't appear to have any notable fidelity.
Think back to your own office, how many important documents had supporting documents written by all of the members of the committee? You see, you've made a straw man of an argument as there has likely never been a single committee in all of human history that has done what you have demanded.
I didn't "demand" anything, I pointed out multiple flaws in your logic - try looking in a dictionary for the meaning of the words, because you're using "demand" in a way that bears no resemblance to normal English usage.
The fact of the matter is that a very notable subset of very influential members of the committee that wrote these documents wrote the Federal Papers.
"A very notable subset of the Founding Fathers", yes. But that's not the same as representing the views of all the Founding Fathers, or even a majority of them. (As you originally attempted to imply.)
More to the point there are/no/ known papers disputing their legitimacy, context or intent. That this comes from a time and place when propaganda was considered such an art form that a substantial number of the countries newspapers were dedicated solely to the purpose of producing propaganda of one point or another.
Had I claimed they weren't "legitimate" (whatever that means in this context), you'd have a point. But I didn't, so you're just blowing smoke. And you bringing up propaganda as an art form is an interesting point... because that's largely what the Federalist Papers are. Learned and well written propaganda, but propaganda none the less - intended not to explain the Constitution, but to convince people to vote for it's ratification.
And with that, I'm done replying to your right wing conspiriwhacko bullshit. You're a clueless idiot regurgitating nonsense that you no more understand than does this keyboard I'm typing on.
Actually the Constitution, Bill of Rights and other critical documents that the Founding Fathers wrote did come with what you could call a 'dictionary' where they spelled out their intent and meaning. The set of documents that was written where they described exactly what they meant when they wrote what they wrote, context of meaning and so on.
Except for the part where it's not a dictionary, not a part of any statute or law, and wasn't written by the Founding Fathers (but rather by a limited subset thereof)... sure. Or to put it another way, ROTFLMAO.
The political rhetoric is irrelevant. The point is that states implemented their own systems and none of them have been declared a disaster.
Maybe not in the national media - but Washington's was roundly criticized in the local media for many of the things the Federal website has been "declared a disaster" for. This article lists a number of states and the problems their sites have faced. The rollout is far from "working as intended".
Despite the differences in orbital shapes, IIRC the delta-V required isn't that obscene and probably easily written into the capabilities of an experimental jetpack.
You don't recall correctly - the delta-V required is on the order of thousands a feet per second. (Far, far more than anything that could be packed into a decent size capsule, let alone a backback.)
What you really need is an entirely secondary constitutional amendment that spells out in plain language that "Shall make / not" means exactly what the dictionary says it does.
Unfortunately, the dictionary is not a programming reference and the English language is not a programming language. There is no such thing as an unequivocal 'plain language' meaning.
The right to privacy is a wonderful idea, but it's worthless until we restore the concept of the "right" to begin with.
As above - there's no concept of 'right' that we have drifted from, as there's no absolute meaning against which to compare.
Maybe, maybe not. Netflix is already on a wide variety of app-enabled TV's and Blu-Ray players, on TIVO, on Roku, etc... etc... Among the various boxes that make up my home entertainment system the only ones that Netflix isn't available on are my ancient steam powered VCR/DVD player and the sound system.
The cable companies could very well decide to get themselves a piece of that action.
"In other words, The Circle isnâ(TM)t much of a cautionary tale for the broader world"
No, the review makes it sound more like a tale deliberately written not so much as a cautionary one as a semi-political screed designed mostly to vent their authors opinions while appealing to certain tinfoil hat crowd.
Historically movies have been put out to "sell war" and FUD about alleged enemies of the US.
In tinfoil-hat land maybe, in the real world... not so much.
I'll close with something I already stated for the doubters. Do you really believe that people making millions upon millions of dollars have movies full of "accidents" or unintentional messages and content? That is not a realistic thought process, yet many have it.
Having seen how much is routinely read into things ex post facto (sometimes by decades or centuries), I find it trivial to belief that such things happen. (Not to mention the vast effort it would require to control every single tiny thing said and seen onscreen - an effort it would be virtually impossible to hide over time.) In short, this is just more tinfoil hat nonsense.
Wal-Mart hires people on the bottom rung because they can get away with paying them the least. By concentrating on price, only on price, coupled with astronomical volumes, and their arm-twisting style, Wal-Mart has started the whole world on the race to the bottom.
That's what everyone believes - but like most things that 'everyone knows', it's completely wrong. Wal-Mart didn't start the race to the bottom, that started back in the late 19th century with the rise of the chain store and really got going in the nineteen teens with the rise of the discount store.
And let's not forget the prime reasons Wal-Mart does those things: if they didn't, they'd still be a one-store operation in backwater Arkansas... if they were even still in business. Wal-Mart (and McDonald's, and a whole raftload of other consumer facing businesses) exist in their current form not in a greedy vacuum, but because the American consumer is extraordinarily sensitive to price, to the near exclusion of all other factors.
Looks like someone needs to indulge in less hyperbole, and more time on basic reading comprehension. (As in, look of the definition of 'police state' jackwagon. We aren't even close.)
No, backups are to kick in when the primaries fail, not because some idiot accidentally poked the "off" button.
A backup system doesn't know if the failure (lack of water flow, or change of level or temp, or whatever triggered them in this case) is caused by accident or actual failure - and that's proper design, because you want to rely on the backups activating regardless of the cause. A failure is a failure regardless of the cause.
Failsafes (double-person authentication, or at the very least a molly-guard a big freaking DON'T TOUCH UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING sign) are what is needed to prevent issues like this.
Um, 'fail safe' is exactly what this system did - despite human error, no accident ensued. (Or, to put it another way, you shouldn't use big words you're clueless as to the meaning of. It make's you look like a fool.) As to the others, no matter what you do you cannot eliminate human error. Period. Designing your backups to protect against erroneous operations is simply good engineering. Relying solely on signs and switchguards is foolish and an invitation to accidents.
That kind of thing sounds good to the armchair engineer... who never thinks that there might be situations where the pumps might need to be shut off in a hurry. Or of the facts that adding complexity failure modes - making the system less safe, not more.
"A Tepco employee carelessly pressed a button shutting off cooling pumps that serve the spent fuel pool in reactor #4 - thankfully a backup kicked in before any critical consequences resulted."
Um - that's what backups are for. Seriously, this is just another ignorant journalist generating controversy from thin air to get the site he works for some page views.
It hasn't affected me personally, but it's hit a lot of my friends who either work for PSNS or are contractors at PSNS, Keyport, or Bangor. The place my wife works has a lot of military/DoD civilian/contractor customers.... so, it'll hit home for us sooner or later. (Thank $DIETY their busy season is over, else it could be even worse.)
Is something you very badly need, because you utterly failed to either comprehend or answer my question.
Have you ever heard of a "control" group? (Hint: It's a basic part of the scientific method)
Yes, I've heard of a control group. No, it's not applicable here. If you're testing open access journals, you compare one to another (like for like). You don't do experiments on apples and use oranges as the control group. Or, to put it another way, you're a moron with no more clue about the scientific method than the pencil on the desk in front of me.
Science has an axe to grind here, obviously, and this "experiment" is seriously biased.
Please, feel free to explain the bias - because you signally fail to do so.
It does not appear that it was submitted to any closed, for-profit journals (like Science). It would have been much more interesting to see how many of them would have accepted the paper.
Indeed, it would have been very interesting. But not doing so is not an indication of bias on Science's part - anymore than taste testing chewing gum but not bubble gum is a bias against chewing gum.
When someone give no indication that they've bothered to read TFA... well, that someone should expect to be taken to task for providing incomplete information.
Slashdot Mirror
You, like so many other whackjobs miss the elephant that's stomping on your feet in your rush to build a scenario in which the US becomes nothing but a shell.
The absolute last thing that China wants to do is crash the US economy. They, unlike you, know damn well what happens after one of the world's largest exporters and importers drops offline... Europe and Japan (I.E. the balance of China's significant trading partners) follow, maybe as much as a week later. Guess what happens to China in that event?
If you've been paying attention, gerrymandering has regularly been discussed in the media since the late 90's. It's only become a big (public) issue *now* because the Facebook crowds have latched onto it - each side accusing the other of using it to their sole benefit while ignoring their sides' usage to the same end. The result is a bunch of sound and fury that will vanish shortly to be replaced by the next 'outrage'.
tl;dr version - you have two amateur groups and one university group re-creating basic experiments first performed at least forty plus years ago in space suit simulators that don't appear to have any notable fidelity.
I fail to see the point.
I didn't "demand" anything, I pointed out multiple flaws in your logic - try looking in a dictionary for the meaning of the words, because you're using "demand" in a way that bears no resemblance to normal English usage.
"A very notable subset of the Founding Fathers", yes. But that's not the same as representing the views of all the Founding Fathers, or even a majority of them. (As you originally attempted to imply.)
Had I claimed they weren't "legitimate" (whatever that means in this context), you'd have a point. But I didn't, so you're just blowing smoke. And you bringing up propaganda as an art form is an interesting point... because that's largely what the Federalist Papers are. Learned and well written propaganda, but propaganda none the less - intended not to explain the Constitution, but to convince people to vote for it's ratification.
And with that, I'm done replying to your right wing conspiriwhacko bullshit. You're a clueless idiot regurgitating nonsense that you no more understand than does this keyboard I'm typing on.
Except for the part where it's not a dictionary, not a part of any statute or law, and wasn't written by the Founding Fathers (but rather by a limited subset thereof)... sure. Or to put it another way, ROTFLMAO.
Maybe not in the national media - but Washington's was roundly criticized in the local media for many of the things the Federal website has been "declared a disaster" for. This article lists a number of states and the problems their sites have faced. The rollout is far from "working as intended".
You don't recall correctly - the delta-V required is on the order of thousands a feet per second. (Far, far more than anything that could be packed into a decent size capsule, let alone a backback.)
Unfortunately, the dictionary is not a programming reference and the English language is not a programming language. There is no such thing as an unequivocal 'plain language' meaning.
As above - there's no concept of 'right' that we have drifted from, as there's no absolute meaning against which to compare.
Maybe, maybe not. Netflix is already on a wide variety of app-enabled TV's and Blu-Ray players, on TIVO, on Roku, etc... etc... Among the various boxes that make up my home entertainment system the only ones that Netflix isn't available on are my ancient steam powered VCR/DVD player and the sound system.
The cable companies could very well decide to get themselves a piece of that action.
That's my point.. All you've got is fanboyism and hatred, what you don't have is a clue.
There, fixed that for you.
"In other words, The Circle isnâ(TM)t much of a cautionary tale for the broader world"
No, the review makes it sound more like a tale deliberately written not so much as a cautionary one as a semi-political screed designed mostly to vent their authors opinions while appealing to certain tinfoil hat crowd.
No, I'm accepting reality over *your* belief. There's a difference. Not all movies about war have been put out to "sell war" or spread FUD.
Um, you're writing my lines here... because it's you who live in a delusion.
In tinfoil-hat land maybe, in the real world... not so much.
Having seen how much is routinely read into things ex post facto (sometimes by decades or centuries), I find it trivial to belief that such things happen. (Not to mention the vast effort it would require to control every single tiny thing said and seen onscreen - an effort it would be virtually impossible to hide over time.) In short, this is just more tinfoil hat nonsense.
That's what everyone believes - but like most things that 'everyone knows', it's completely wrong. Wal-Mart didn't start the race to the bottom, that started back in the late 19th century with the rise of the chain store and really got going in the nineteen teens with the rise of the discount store.
And let's not forget the prime reasons Wal-Mart does those things: if they didn't, they'd still be a one-store operation in backwater Arkansas... if they were even still in business. Wal-Mart (and McDonald's, and a whole raftload of other consumer facing businesses) exist in their current form not in a greedy vacuum, but because the American consumer is extraordinarily sensitive to price, to the near exclusion of all other factors.
This. Pretty much everything in the article just screams "the author is a clueless git" to me.
Looks like someone needs to indulge in less hyperbole, and more time on basic reading comprehension. (As in, look of the definition of 'police state' jackwagon. We aren't even close.)
A backup system doesn't know if the failure (lack of water flow, or change of level or temp, or whatever triggered them in this case) is caused by accident or actual failure - and that's proper design, because you want to rely on the backups activating regardless of the cause. A failure is a failure regardless of the cause.
Um, 'fail safe' is exactly what this system did - despite human error, no accident ensued. (Or, to put it another way, you shouldn't use big words you're clueless as to the meaning of. It make's you look like a fool.) As to the others, no matter what you do you cannot eliminate human error. Period. Designing your backups to protect against erroneous operations is simply good engineering. Relying solely on signs and switchguards is foolish and an invitation to accidents.
That kind of thing sounds good to the armchair engineer... who never thinks that there might be situations where the pumps might need to be shut off in a hurry. Or of the facts that adding complexity failure modes - making the system less safe, not more.
"A Tepco employee carelessly pressed a button shutting off cooling pumps that serve the spent fuel pool in reactor #4 - thankfully a backup kicked in before any critical consequences resulted."
Um - that's what backups are for. Seriously, this is just another ignorant journalist generating controversy from thin air to get the site he works for some page views.
She must be a geocacher.
It hasn't affected me personally, but it's hit a lot of my friends who either work for PSNS or are contractors at PSNS, Keyport, or Bangor. The place my wife works has a lot of military/DoD civilian/contractor customers.... so, it'll hit home for us sooner or later. (Thank $DIETY their busy season is over, else it could be even worse.)
Is something you very badly need, because you utterly failed to either comprehend or answer my question.
Yes, I've heard of a control group. No, it's not applicable here. If you're testing open access journals, you compare one to another (like for like). You don't do experiments on apples and use oranges as the control group. Or, to put it another way, you're a moron with no more clue about the scientific method than the pencil on the desk in front of me.
Please, feel free to explain the bias - because you signally fail to do so.
Indeed, it would have been very interesting. But not doing so is not an indication of bias on Science's part - anymore than taste testing chewing gum but not bubble gum is a bias against chewing gum.
When someone give no indication that they've bothered to read TFA... well, that someone should expect to be taken to task for providing incomplete information.