As the article hints, the issue here isn't really raw population, its land.
Mating for Cheetahs involves miles and miles of chasing. If they don't have that kind of grassland space available to them, there will be no more cheetahs.
This is also why they could not be domesticated (even though they are quite tamable), and cannot be bred in captivity. Zoos cannot save them. If they go in the wild, they are gone.
Why? The USA is already having children at a rate below replacement levels. The only reason its population hasn't been SHRINKING the last couple of decades is immigration.
If you're one of the people who thinks population growth is a problem, the USA is not the place to try to attack the problem. Its a model to be emulated.
My Pebble was about $100. You can get dumbwatches for $25 I suppose, but $100 for a watch that will tell me who's calling while I'm driving without having to risk everyone by trying to dig my phone out, and whose face look I can change on a whim to one of any thousands of options available is a pretty damn good deal.
I'll agree that thousands of $ is ridiculous, but at $100 its frankly dumb to buy anything else.
In 2015, Shawyer published an article in Acta Astronautica, summarising existing tests on the EmDrive. Of seven tests, four produced a measured force in the intended direction and three produced thrust in the opposite direction. Furthermore, in one test, thrust could be produced in either direction by varying the spring constants in the measuring apparatus
I suggest that this should instead be referred to as the Experimental Error Drive.
Oh hey, random Youtuber dismissed the claims because they don't match what he learned in high school physics or something, so screw empirical testing....
Your "random Youtuber" is in fairly good company though. Among other skeptics, there's a Mathematical Physicist at UC, and Physicists and UT-Austin and Caltech who have publicly scoffed.
The produced thrust is so low that measurement or experiment error seems a quite likely explanation. Even its designer at NASA freely admitted in his peer-reviewed paper on the engine that there is no mainstream theory in Physics that can explain his reported results.
I'm not saying he's wrong. But thinking up something that shouldn't work, but you want it to, then building it, is just not how science works. If he'd found a weird result in some other experiment, didn't understand it, but decided to try to use it to build an engine, THAT I'd understand. Most of what we know about electricity came about exactly that way. This thing's history has much more resemblance to the various perpetual motion machines that somebody's always coming up with.
So I'm going to go with History and with the Physicists on this one.
That would be relevant information if all counties/precincts had roughly the same number of people in them. However, in the USA, it means zilch. For example, here in Oklahoma it would be quite possible to not get a single vote in all but 3 of our 77 counties, and still lose the state.
If you venture into the realm of theoretical electoral math, then it would also be mathematically possible in *any* state to barely lose every county but one, and win the state. Furthering that line, it would be mathematically possible to lose all but about 20 counties/precincts in the entire country and win the election. It would even be possible to lose all but one precinct or county in the entire USA and win the popular vote.
Right. I guess what I'm getting at here is that I do happen to be one of those people, and I'm saying that, unlike in 2004 (where there were lots of exiting young Dems), they got nobody legit warming up in the batter's box right now. Didn't really have much of anyone in 2016 either, just the meh old white people we ended up with.
Perhaps for you Obama wasn't a "big name" Dem in 2008, but for Democrats he sure was. I'd personally been keeping an eye on the guy since his convention speech in 2004, and I wasn't the only one. His Senate run that year made national news, precisely because the media saw where he was aimed as well. The guy had clear skillz.
Unless someone's slipping my mind (quite possible), the Democrats don't have anybody like that waiting in the wings right now. Probably the closest is Corey Booker. There are a couple of other folks I'm watching, but nobody that I could point to and say "this person will be strong challenger for the nomination in 2020". Folks may point to Warren, but she'll be 71 in 2020, and I for one am not exited at the idea of nominating a candidate who would be almost 80 should they manage to survive a full 8-year dual term.
You thought he was a imbecile but he clearly isn't. He owns a very large business empire and had a successful tv series
His "empire" would be more valuable today if he'd taken his initial investment, put it in a S&P500 indexed fund, and spent all his time drinking Mai-Tais instead. If you think it takes smarts to headline a successful TV series, then I'd like you to explain where Snooki has been hiding her vast intelligence.
Part of the problem is that there simply aren't that many other big names. There are only 18 Democratic Governors right now, and unless you live in a neighboring state, likely the only one of them you've ever heard of is Andrew Cuomo (ick). The only Democrat I can think of who had the national stature with the base to beat Clinton would have been Elisabeth Warren. She might have done better in the general, but that's entirely speculative, because she likely would have been attacked in the exact same way, but never was because she wasn't running.
It probably would have had to be a big city mayor. Someone like DeBlasio or Julian Castro. The former didn't seem interested, and the latter really needs more political seasoning.
Would it really be fair if the population of New York City alone got to boss around the 10 lowest population states?
If they have enough larger of a population to "boss around" 10 states, then why not? You seem to be arguing against majority rule, the foundational principle of all modern Democracy?
Also worth noting is that roughly 30% of New Yorkers (state) vote for the Republican every election. There are millions of farmers and conservatives and gun-lovers in New York, particularly upstate. Our current system effectively erases their votes, like they don't even exist. That's a lot of soft-disenfranchised voters.
which adopted the idiotic winner take all formula, which pretty much completely undermined the original intent of the Electoral College
The "original intent" of the Electoral College was to give slave states a way to count their slaves toward their representation in the POTUS election, without having to do anything crazy like actually allow those slaves to vote. The southern states wouldn't agree to a Constitution that called for a straight vote, because their plantation-societies would have been heavily outvoted every election, and there would never be a slaveholder POTUS.
With the EC and the 3/5th compromise in place, 4 of the first 5 Presidents were owners of slave plantations.
Protecting slavery is what the EC was created for. All other reasons for it you may have heard are just a big steaming pile of marketing.
I for one am glad Finland is doing this. It will save my country from being this generation's lab rat. It seem very couple of decades we need to relearn that price fixing doesn't work.
I don't agree with your (dogmatic?) presupposition that the experiment won't work, but otherwise I agree 100%. In the US we often use state law to carry out such experiments, but due to lack of internal immigration barriers I don't think BI could be done as an effective experiment by a single US state. Some country somewhere really needs to try this out on a large scale so we can find what the real problems and benefits of it are. Not having a more than a theoretical clue about that ahead of time, it would be insane to try it out on the world's largest economy.
Rome used to give bread to the mob, because when they didn't, food riots would break out and then you'd see some real violence.
That's largely true. However, the riots were more of any annoyance than anything.
The real driving force in Imperial Rome was the armies. Whenever an Emperor died (or an existing one sucked), generally the armies between themselves (often times by fighting each other) picked who would be the new Emperor. That effectively meant the army had to be kept happy at all costs, which in practice meant they kept getting raises, regardless of the rest of the Empire's ability to pay them. Eventually they had to start looting their own temples to pay the Armys' wages.
Last two times I've visited my general practitioner I was given a "new" form to fill out that essentially tried to convince me I was depressed; I was visiting for a cough and my yearly physical, neither of which had
I have to go in for a general physical every other year (insurance requirement), including one about 6 months ago, and have never had anything approaching that description happen to me.
My suspicion would be that you either got a really weird GP, or a depression-shaped chip on your shoulder. Assuming its not the latter, then if it bothers you, I suggest you get a new GP.
When Bush was president 200,000 new jobs was considered anemic as it didn't cover the rise in working age adults.
When Bush was president, the USA gained 3 million jobs. Sounds like a lot, but that amounts to 93,750 jobs a quarter over his 8 years. 200,000 would have been on average a GOOD report for him.
Now, with a greater population 187k is considered great. A sign that the economy is truly booming.
Obama has added somewhere in the (very rough) neighborhood of 10 million jobs during his term. Considering he was handed a economy that was *losing* jobs and took a few months to turn around, doing 3-4 times better than Bush in the same amount of time isn't too shabby. You can see where the talk around these jobs numbers would be a bit more positive, even for cherry-picked reports that happened to have the roughly same number for that month.
Also, this is not exactly the same USA it was in 2008. The Baby Boomers are starting to retire now, (2016-1947 = 69 years). So the labor force is not growing like it was back then. There are some who argue it is now shrinking. So 200k new jobs for a quarter now would be more like 400k back in 2008.
Still, I have not heard anybody use the word "booming". Economists will actually tell you that you don't want "booming" because that has a nasty tendency to be paired with a bust (and inflation). What you'd like to see is sustained moderate growth. That way WHEN the next recession happens after that (they happen), it shouldn't be too horrible, because it doesn't have so much over-exuberance to correct for. Roller-coasters need to stay in the amusement parks.
I know a wee bit about the process myself, and some of the info there looked kinda dubious, so I went out to look at the home page for that website....
...uh...Oh wow. This guy... erm...
So do you have a source for any of this information that isn't from a website full of one-sided (and sometimes ridiculous) attacks against Democratic politicians?
Seriously thou I don't see a problem with the US burning taxpayer's money to bring the guy back. He's...
More to the point, this is something they end up having to do all the time, with much younger people there. For example, just five months ago, two other people had to be evacuated for health reasons. Having to do this every now and this is just part of the price of operating there.
So its not like it means he's necessarily any less hardy that anyone else out there.
But something tells me only the right-wing politicians and supporters will get banned. Call it a crazy intuition
No, I call it a persecution complex. Twitter bans and suspends accounts every day. For some crazy reason, nobody gets up-in-arms about it until it happens to a right-winger.
It's my 15th wedding anniversary today, and my wife said look at this.
Facebook had without her asking, put together an anniversary congratulation, that included a slide show of engagement photos (from 16 years ago!) and wedding photos!
Scary stuff!
What I find even more interesting is that Facebook knew enough to do that for her, but not for you.
But the point here is that Google already is silently doing this to lots of people. You know...the "Don't be evil" people. Probably others too. Uber's just trying to hitch their own boxcar onto the back of the gravy-train.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to wonder what will happen next. How exactly does the USA mourn when it loses the only actual princess it has ever had?
As the article hints, the issue here isn't really raw population, its land.
Mating for Cheetahs involves miles and miles of chasing. If they don't have that kind of grassland space available to them, there will be no more cheetahs.
This is also why they could not be domesticated (even though they are quite tamable), and cannot be bred in captivity. Zoos cannot save them. If they go in the wild, they are gone.
Why? The USA is already having children at a rate below replacement levels. The only reason its population hasn't been SHRINKING the last couple of decades is immigration.
If you're one of the people who thinks population growth is a problem, the USA is not the place to try to attack the problem. Its a model to be emulated.
and a VERY high price, given you can
My Pebble was about $100. You can get dumbwatches for $25 I suppose, but $100 for a watch that will tell me who's calling while I'm driving without having to risk everyone by trying to dig my phone out, and whose face look I can change on a whim to one of any thousands of options available is a pretty damn good deal.
I'll agree that thousands of $ is ridiculous, but at $100 its frankly dumb to buy anything else.
My Pebble can go about a week, and charges to full when I put it on the charger while I shower.
Buy one now, while the box stores still have some in stock.
In 2015, Shawyer published an article in Acta Astronautica, summarising existing tests on the EmDrive. Of seven tests, four produced a measured force in the intended direction and three produced thrust in the opposite direction. Furthermore, in one test, thrust could be produced in either direction by varying the spring constants in the measuring apparatus
I suggest that this should instead be referred to as the Experimental Error Drive.
Oh hey, random Youtuber dismissed the claims because they don't match what he learned in high school physics or something, so screw empirical testing ....
Your "random Youtuber" is in fairly good company though. Among other skeptics, there's a Mathematical Physicist at UC, and Physicists and UT-Austin and Caltech who have publicly scoffed.
The produced thrust is so low that measurement or experiment error seems a quite likely explanation. Even its designer at NASA freely admitted in his peer-reviewed paper on the engine that there is no mainstream theory in Physics that can explain his reported results.
I'm not saying he's wrong. But thinking up something that shouldn't work, but you want it to, then building it, is just not how science works. If he'd found a weird result in some other experiment, didn't understand it, but decided to try to use it to build an engine, THAT I'd understand. Most of what we know about electricity came about exactly that way. This thing's history has much more resemblance to the various perpetual motion machines that somebody's always coming up with.
So I'm going to go with History and with the Physicists on this one.
I think she lost 200 counties/precincts?
That would be relevant information if all counties/precincts had roughly the same number of people in them. However, in the USA, it means zilch. For example, here in Oklahoma it would be quite possible to not get a single vote in all but 3 of our 77 counties, and still lose the state.
If you venture into the realm of theoretical electoral math, then it would also be mathematically possible in *any* state to barely lose every county but one, and win the state. Furthering that line, it would be mathematically possible to lose all but about 20 counties/precincts in the entire country and win the election. It would even be possible to lose all but one precinct or county in the entire USA and win the popular vote.
This county/precinct metric is utterly worthless.
Right. I guess what I'm getting at here is that I do happen to be one of those people, and I'm saying that, unlike in 2004 (where there were lots of exiting young Dems), they got nobody legit warming up in the batter's box right now. Didn't really have much of anyone in 2016 either, just the meh old white people we ended up with.
Perhaps for you Obama wasn't a "big name" Dem in 2008, but for Democrats he sure was. I'd personally been keeping an eye on the guy since his convention speech in 2004, and I wasn't the only one. His Senate run that year made national news, precisely because the media saw where he was aimed as well. The guy had clear skillz.
Unless someone's slipping my mind (quite possible), the Democrats don't have anybody like that waiting in the wings right now. Probably the closest is Corey Booker. There are a couple of other folks I'm watching, but nobody that I could point to and say "this person will be strong challenger for the nomination in 2020". Folks may point to Warren, but she'll be 71 in 2020, and I for one am not exited at the idea of nominating a candidate who would be almost 80 should they manage to survive a full 8-year dual term.
You thought he was a imbecile but he clearly isn't. He owns a very large business empire and had a successful tv series
His "empire" would be more valuable today if he'd taken his initial investment, put it in a S&P500 indexed fund, and spent all his time drinking Mai-Tais instead. If you think it takes smarts to headline a successful TV series, then I'd like you to explain where Snooki has been hiding her vast intelligence.
Part of the problem is that there simply aren't that many other big names. There are only 18 Democratic Governors right now, and unless you live in a neighboring state, likely the only one of them you've ever heard of is Andrew Cuomo (ick). The only Democrat I can think of who had the national stature with the base to beat Clinton would have been Elisabeth Warren. She might have done better in the general, but that's entirely speculative, because she likely would have been attacked in the exact same way, but never was because she wasn't running.
It probably would have had to be a big city mayor. Someone like DeBlasio or Julian Castro. The former didn't seem interested, and the latter really needs more political seasoning.
No, the problem is that it worked perfectly this time.
Would it really be fair if the population of New York City alone got to boss around the 10 lowest population states?
If they have enough larger of a population to "boss around" 10 states, then why not? You seem to be arguing against majority rule, the foundational principle of all modern Democracy?
Also worth noting is that roughly 30% of New Yorkers (state) vote for the Republican every election. There are millions of farmers and conservatives and gun-lovers in New York, particularly upstate. Our current system effectively erases their votes, like they don't even exist. That's a lot of soft-disenfranchised voters.
which adopted the idiotic winner take all formula, which pretty much completely undermined the original intent of the Electoral College
The "original intent" of the Electoral College was to give slave states a way to count their slaves toward their representation in the POTUS election, without having to do anything crazy like actually allow those slaves to vote. The southern states wouldn't agree to a Constitution that called for a straight vote, because their plantation-societies would have been heavily outvoted every election, and there would never be a slaveholder POTUS.
With the EC and the 3/5th compromise in place, 4 of the first 5 Presidents were owners of slave plantations.
Protecting slavery is what the EC was created for. All other reasons for it you may have heard are just a big steaming pile of marketing.
I for one am glad Finland is doing this. It will save my country from being this generation's lab rat. It seem very couple of decades we need to relearn that price fixing doesn't work.
I don't agree with your (dogmatic?) presupposition that the experiment won't work, but otherwise I agree 100%. In the US we often use state law to carry out such experiments, but due to lack of internal immigration barriers I don't think BI could be done as an effective experiment by a single US state. Some country somewhere really needs to try this out on a large scale so we can find what the real problems and benefits of it are. Not having a more than a theoretical clue about that ahead of time, it would be insane to try it out on the world's largest economy.
Rome used to give bread to the mob, because when they didn't, food riots would break out and then you'd see some real violence.
That's largely true. However, the riots were more of any annoyance than anything.
The real driving force in Imperial Rome was the armies. Whenever an Emperor died (or an existing one sucked), generally the armies between themselves (often times by fighting each other) picked who would be the new Emperor. That effectively meant the army had to be kept happy at all costs, which in practice meant they kept getting raises, regardless of the rest of the Empire's ability to pay them. Eventually they had to start looting their own temples to pay the Armys' wages.
Last two times I've visited my general practitioner I was given a "new" form to fill out that essentially tried to convince me I was depressed; I was visiting for a cough and my yearly physical, neither of which had
I have to go in for a general physical every other year (insurance requirement), including one about 6 months ago, and have never had anything approaching that description happen to me.
My suspicion would be that you either got a really weird GP, or a depression-shaped chip on your shoulder. Assuming its not the latter, then if it bothers you, I suggest you get a new GP.
When Bush was president 200,000 new jobs was considered anemic as it didn't cover the rise in working age adults.
When Bush was president, the USA gained 3 million jobs. Sounds like a lot, but that amounts to 93,750 jobs a quarter over his 8 years. 200,000 would have been on average a GOOD report for him.
Now, with a greater population 187k is considered great. A sign that the economy is truly booming.
Obama has added somewhere in the (very rough) neighborhood of 10 million jobs during his term. Considering he was handed a economy that was *losing* jobs and took a few months to turn around, doing 3-4 times better than Bush in the same amount of time isn't too shabby. You can see where the talk around these jobs numbers would be a bit more positive, even for cherry-picked reports that happened to have the roughly same number for that month.
Also, this is not exactly the same USA it was in 2008. The Baby Boomers are starting to retire now, (2016-1947 = 69 years). So the labor force is not growing like it was back then. There are some who argue it is now shrinking. So 200k new jobs for a quarter now would be more like 400k back in 2008.
Still, I have not heard anybody use the word "booming". Economists will actually tell you that you don't want "booming" because that has a nasty tendency to be paired with a bust (and inflation). What you'd like to see is sustained moderate growth. That way WHEN the next recession happens after that (they happen), it shouldn't be too horrible, because it doesn't have so much over-exuberance to correct for. Roller-coasters need to stay in the amusement parks.
I know a wee bit about the process myself, and some of the info there looked kinda dubious, so I went out to look at the home page for that website....
...uh...Oh wow. This guy ... erm...
So do you have a source for any of this information that isn't from a website full of one-sided (and sometimes ridiculous) attacks against Democratic politicians?
Please 2016, not another one.
2016: I've still got a whole month left. Mwahahahah!
Seriously thou I don't see a problem with the US burning taxpayer's money to bring the guy back. He's ...
More to the point, this is something they end up having to do all the time, with much younger people there. For example, just five months ago, two other people had to be evacuated for health reasons. Having to do this every now and this is just part of the price of operating there.
So its not like it means he's necessarily any less hardy that anyone else out there.
But something tells me only the right-wing politicians and supporters will get banned. Call it a crazy intuition
No, I call it a persecution complex. Twitter bans and suspends accounts every day. For some crazy reason, nobody gets up-in-arms about it until it happens to a right-winger.
It's my 15th wedding anniversary today, and my wife said look at this.
Facebook had without her asking, put together an anniversary congratulation, that included a slide show of engagement photos (from 16 years ago!) and wedding photos!
Scary stuff!
What I find even more interesting is that Facebook knew enough to do that for her, but not for you.
Thanks. I may go do just that.
But the point here is that Google already is silently doing this to lots of people. You know...the "Don't be evil" people. Probably others too. Uber's just trying to hitch their own boxcar onto the back of the gravy-train.