Delegates are only bound on the first ballot, if Trump doesn't achieve a majority they're free to abandon him for another candidate.
Depends on the rules of the state parties. Most delegates become unbound after the first, but not all of them. Otherwise I completely agree, if he doesn't win the first ballot, he's in trouble.
The problem is, this is all speculation since a contested convention in the current primary system has never happened. Maybe he'll start offering them all Lamborghini's and lifetime supplies of Trump Steaks. There aren't a ton of rules governing how delegates can be courted by potential candidates.
At least some of the delegates feel bound to vote for who their populations voted for, which is the candidate who sent them there.
You say that as if we have any precedent for what a contested convention would look like, but it hasn't happened since the parties adopted the current primary system in the 70s. Most of the delegates haven't even been selected yet, and the state parties have a lot of control over that process. They could easily (and likely will) choose delegates who are opposed to Trump.
If he loses the first ballot, don't be surprised if he loses the nomination altogether. Technically, the delegates could even unbind themselves on the first ballot, since they will first have to decide on the convention rules, although that's highly unlikely and could potentially end the GOP as we know it.
It's becoming clear now that by the end of the year Trump will have become President-Elect Trump, and early next year he will be President Trump.
You aren't paying attention as closely as you think you are. Trump is incredibly unpopular among the general electorate. His favorability rating (i.e. percentage of people who view him favorably minus those who view him unfavorably) is between -30 and -35, nationally, across all demographics. This is astoundingly low, the lowest of either party in the last 9 Presidential elections. Among women, it's -50 (70% view him unfavorably, and 20% view him favorably).
He isn't even that popular among Republicans, he has only won 37% of the popular vote across all the primaries so far. It's only because of the way the primaries work that he might win the nomination. He's being buoyed by winner-take-all and winner-take-most states, and the fact that the Republican field has taken a long time to narrow.
While he's still the most likely to win the nomination, the chance that he won't even get that far is actually increasing. You should really look into exactly how the party conventions work, because it's not as simple as "he gets the most delegates and then he wins". Most of the delegates haven't even been chosen yet, and since the party has a lot of control over the selection, they're likely to choose people who don't like Trump. Is he going to go into the convention with the most delegates? Probably, but if he doesn't have a majority pledged to him, and he loses the first ballot (i.e. he fails to convince enough unbound delegates to make up the deficit), then a lot of them become unbound, and can vote however they want on the subsequent ballots. In fact, since the delegates get to vote on the convention rules first, they can even decide to unbind themselves on the first ballot. The last scenario is unlikely, but not impossible.
Your chickens haven't hatched yet, keep an eye on those eggs.
As long as there is a properly installed quench tube to vent the boiling Helium and prevent it from filling the room, I don't see how a quench can kill or injure someone.
What would make sense is that someone went near the scanner with something magnetic, injuring/killing themselves or someone else, and resulting in an emergency shutdown of the field (i.e. a quench).
Alkaline batteries are dangerous too, if I eat them.
I think they usually monitor the procedure in real-time, adjusting the area being scanned, etc. I can't imagine why having a computer in the same room as a 1.5T superconducting magnet would be a bad idea...
I personally stay away from companies who practice the GE way. Jack Welch left a terrible legacy as an enemy of innovation...
I wonder what source or experience you're citing when you say that. Here's mine, take it for what you will.
My dad worked at the GE Global Research headquarters in Niskayuna for most of my childhood. He was in a couple of different research departments, and eventually became a Program Manager. He met Jack Welch on a few occasions, and has a lot of admiration for him. I have never heard him say anything that indicates he was an "enemy of innovation". Apparently I even met him once, my dad says I "cost him a ride on Jack's helicopter, because I was too afraid".
Jack removed a lot of bureaucracy, fostered an informal environment, and stripped out tons of middle-management. My dad often speaks highly of the "rank and yank" policy, where the bottom 10% of employees were let go on a yearly basis and new hires took their place. There was constant turnover, influxes of new people, new ideas, etc. Even if you were performing well, you would never stay in the same position for more than 6 years. If you weren't promoted within that time (often to other projects or departments), you received what was called a "sideways promotion"; you were shifted somewhere else, maybe at the same level, maybe at a lower level. The idea was to constantly have fresh eyes on everything, to prevent people from stagnating in one position. Jack also broadened stock option availability to a lot of employees based on their performance. He was cutthroat, for sure, but if you were damn good at your job, you thrived at GE.
The Revolv Lifetime Subscription, which is included in the $299 you pay for the solution, enables GeoSense automation and remote updates that allows your Revolv to work together seamlessly (and continually update) with the products you already own; for the lifetime of the product.
Hmm, unfortunately the way that is worded makes me feel that we haven't really gotten anywhere, i.e. the lifetime of the product is defined more specifically in some obscure place.
It's like when you're getting a new internet plan and you ask how much it is, and they respond by saying "Well, you're going to save $X..." I don't care about X! That number is completely irrelevant to me! My bank statement is never going to say "Hey you were going to pay $Y for internet, but instead it's Y-X." There is 0 impact of X on my financial situation whatsoever!/rant
"Lifetime" should not be considered an acceptable term to establish a warranty timeframe. It's redundant; warranties are supposed to define the lifetime of the product, not the other way around.
Or it should be specifically defined to mean "as long as the original purchaser retains ownership", or something like that. Aren't there laws around the use of certain terms in advertising, like "new" vs. "new and improved" etc.? Maybe it doesn't apply to warranties, but if the warranty is used as a selling point, then it should.
I would imagine (hope?) that at the very least the "lifetime" period is specified in the fine print somewhere.
Does the expiration of my dishwasher warranty allow the company to send a guy to my home to permanently disable it?
This takes planned obsolescence to a whole other level. With lifetime warranties that apply to the owner's lifespan, they just send someone with a garrote over to permanently disable you.
Are you talking about a judge who happens to be on trial for a crime? I assume it would apply the same as it would apply to anyone else.
Are you talking about a judge overseeing a trial where they may be ignorant of the relevant laws? Probably depends on where you are, and at what level of government, but I'm sure there are procedures for removing judges who are deemed to be grossly incompetent. If you're talking SCOTUS, then you're SOL.
No one said that global security is the job of the US military, but it absolutely has a profound effect. This isn't limited to aggressive military action either, it includes things like aid and disaster relief.
When something happens that has a potentially global impact, we are expected to respond, we are expected to be involved. Every fight is our fight. I'm not saying it's the way it should be, but I am saying it's the way it is.
Yes! Let's turn the US military into a global protection racket! Who cares about global security and preserving the Long Peace when we could be wetting our beaks!
I can hear it now, in a particularly obnoxious Brooklyn accent: "You gotta real nice country here, South Korea, it'd be a shame if something happened to it."
I think most epidemiologists would agree that prevention is at least as important as finding a "cure", if not more-so.
One of the best tools we have is education. The more people understand the causes and potential risk factors of infection, the more they can be mitigated. Even fairly simple ideas, when in widespread use, can have a profound impact (e.g. washing your hands to prevent the spread of influenza). A broader understanding (and even sympathy) by people in general can go a long way to fighting an epidemic.
We can agree that the primary method of spreading extremism is prolonged exposure (however the exposure is notgeographically limited). We can agree that the vast majority would be immune, even within the susceptible group, regardless of the length of exposure. And we can agree that there are hot spots.
But there are more questions to be answered. Why do "hot spots" form where they do? Why are some people immune? Can others be inoculated or develop immunity as well?
A disease cannot survive or spread easily in an inhospitable setting. Generalizing or even demonizing an entire group of people who are more vulnerable to infection creates an environment where this particular virus can thrive. If you create stigma around the disease and those vulnerable to it, it risks isolating them from support mechanisms that may help them avoid infection. It may also prevent others close to the infected person from seeking help, if they are fearful of the government, law-enforcement, or community response.
Immunity is probably a combination of a few things: education, exposure to other cultures, socioeconomic factors, etc. Simply "quarantining" the immune with the infected is probably not the best idea. While most plagues burn through the population killing everyone except the immune, this particular virus tends to do the opposite. Rather, the best approach would be to work with the immune to determine what makes them resistant, and develop inoculations and treatments for those who are also vulnerable.
I like the disease analogy. However, he doesn't take it far enough, and his solution ends up being too simplistic. Ultimately, his "common-sense reaction" is not really applicable to the real world situation we face.
How about: stop making stupid things like drugs illegal? You want to talk conservative policies? Why does BIG GOVERNMENT get to come into my house and tell me what I can and cannot put in my own body?
Slashdot Mirror
Damnit, do we have to talk about Trump in every thread?
I've got news for you, we're all part GMO.
Just bought the Asus UX305.
Very thin and very light (less than 2.5lbs), plus passive cooling. I was wary of the CPU, 900MHz with boost to 2.2GHz, but so far it's been great.
Delegates are only bound on the first ballot, if Trump doesn't achieve a majority they're free to abandon him for another candidate.
Depends on the rules of the state parties. Most delegates become unbound after the first, but not all of them. Otherwise I completely agree, if he doesn't win the first ballot, he's in trouble.
The problem is, this is all speculation since a contested convention in the current primary system has never happened. Maybe he'll start offering them all Lamborghini's and lifetime supplies of Trump Steaks. There aren't a ton of rules governing how delegates can be courted by potential candidates.
At least some of the delegates feel bound to vote for who their populations voted for, which is the candidate who sent them there.
You say that as if we have any precedent for what a contested convention would look like, but it hasn't happened since the parties adopted the current primary system in the 70s. Most of the delegates haven't even been selected yet, and the state parties have a lot of control over that process. They could easily (and likely will) choose delegates who are opposed to Trump.
If he loses the first ballot, don't be surprised if he loses the nomination altogether. Technically, the delegates could even unbind themselves on the first ballot, since they will first have to decide on the convention rules, although that's highly unlikely and could potentially end the GOP as we know it.
It's becoming clear now that by the end of the year Trump will have become President-Elect Trump, and early next year he will be President Trump.
You aren't paying attention as closely as you think you are. Trump is incredibly unpopular among the general electorate. His favorability rating (i.e. percentage of people who view him favorably minus those who view him unfavorably) is between -30 and -35, nationally, across all demographics. This is astoundingly low, the lowest of either party in the last 9 Presidential elections. Among women, it's -50 (70% view him unfavorably, and 20% view him favorably).
He isn't even that popular among Republicans, he has only won 37% of the popular vote across all the primaries so far. It's only because of the way the primaries work that he might win the nomination. He's being buoyed by winner-take-all and winner-take-most states, and the fact that the Republican field has taken a long time to narrow.
While he's still the most likely to win the nomination, the chance that he won't even get that far is actually increasing. You should really look into exactly how the party conventions work, because it's not as simple as "he gets the most delegates and then he wins". Most of the delegates haven't even been chosen yet, and since the party has a lot of control over the selection, they're likely to choose people who don't like Trump. Is he going to go into the convention with the most delegates? Probably, but if he doesn't have a majority pledged to him, and he loses the first ballot (i.e. he fails to convince enough unbound delegates to make up the deficit), then a lot of them become unbound, and can vote however they want on the subsequent ballots. In fact, since the delegates get to vote on the convention rules first, they can even decide to unbind themselves on the first ballot. The last scenario is unlikely, but not impossible.
Your chickens haven't hatched yet, keep an eye on those eggs.
As long as there is a properly installed quench tube to vent the boiling Helium and prevent it from filling the room, I don't see how a quench can kill or injure someone.
What would make sense is that someone went near the scanner with something magnetic, injuring/killing themselves or someone else, and resulting in an emergency shutdown of the field (i.e. a quench).
Alkaline batteries are dangerous too, if I eat them.
There's an abundance of research showing that strong electric and magnetic fields can be hazardous.
Sure, like the electric field formed between clouds and the Earth, but only if you happen to be around when the field discharges.
I think they usually monitor the procedure in real-time, adjusting the area being scanned, etc. I can't imagine why having a computer in the same room as a 1.5T superconducting magnet would be a bad idea...
I personally stay away from companies who practice the GE way. Jack Welch left a terrible legacy as an enemy of innovation...
I wonder what source or experience you're citing when you say that. Here's mine, take it for what you will.
My dad worked at the GE Global Research headquarters in Niskayuna for most of my childhood. He was in a couple of different research departments, and eventually became a Program Manager. He met Jack Welch on a few occasions, and has a lot of admiration for him. I have never heard him say anything that indicates he was an "enemy of innovation". Apparently I even met him once, my dad says I "cost him a ride on Jack's helicopter, because I was too afraid".
Jack removed a lot of bureaucracy, fostered an informal environment, and stripped out tons of middle-management. My dad often speaks highly of the "rank and yank" policy, where the bottom 10% of employees were let go on a yearly basis and new hires took their place. There was constant turnover, influxes of new people, new ideas, etc. Even if you were performing well, you would never stay in the same position for more than 6 years. If you weren't promoted within that time (often to other projects or departments), you received what was called a "sideways promotion"; you were shifted somewhere else, maybe at the same level, maybe at a lower level. The idea was to constantly have fresh eyes on everything, to prevent people from stagnating in one position. Jack also broadened stock option availability to a lot of employees based on their performance. He was cutthroat, for sure, but if you were damn good at your job, you thrived at GE.
Boston's Underwater District
OMG, like Rapture?!
(They're planning on building on reclaimed ground that conservative estimates give maybe 50 years to remain above water.)
Oh. :(
Must HAVE, god damn it, must HAVE. Seriously, I thought /. is the one place I wouldn't see this crap!
The Revolv Lifetime Subscription, which is included in the $299 you pay for the solution, enables GeoSense automation and remote updates that allows your Revolv to work together seamlessly (and continually update) with the products you already own; for the lifetime of the product.
Hmm, unfortunately the way that is worded makes me feel that we haven't really gotten anywhere, i.e. the lifetime of the product is defined more specifically in some obscure place.
It's like when you're getting a new internet plan and you ask how much it is, and they respond by saying "Well, you're going to save $X..." I don't care about X! That number is completely irrelevant to me! My bank statement is never going to say "Hey you were going to pay $Y for internet, but instead it's Y-X." There is 0 impact of X on my financial situation whatsoever! /rant
"Lifetime" should not be considered an acceptable term to establish a warranty timeframe. It's redundant; warranties are supposed to define the lifetime of the product, not the other way around.
Or it should be specifically defined to mean "as long as the original purchaser retains ownership", or something like that. Aren't there laws around the use of certain terms in advertising, like "new" vs. "new and improved" etc.? Maybe it doesn't apply to warranties, but if the warranty is used as a selling point, then it should.
Yeah, we totally should have gone with the Republican health care reform plan. Which of course was...
I would imagine (hope?) that at the very least the "lifetime" period is specified in the fine print somewhere.
Does the expiration of my dishwasher warranty allow the company to send a guy to my home to permanently disable it?
This takes planned obsolescence to a whole other level. With lifetime warranties that apply to the owner's lifespan, they just send someone with a garrote over to permanently disable you.
If it is then it's an incredibly unprofitable one.
Not sure what you mean...
Are you talking about a judge who happens to be on trial for a crime? I assume it would apply the same as it would apply to anyone else.
Are you talking about a judge overseeing a trial where they may be ignorant of the relevant laws? Probably depends on where you are, and at what level of government, but I'm sure there are procedures for removing judges who are deemed to be grossly incompetent. If you're talking SCOTUS, then you're SOL.
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Ignorance has never been a great defense against breaking the law. This would basically be an extension of that.
No one said that global security is the job of the US military, but it absolutely has a profound effect. This isn't limited to aggressive military action either, it includes things like aid and disaster relief.
When something happens that has a potentially global impact, we are expected to respond, we are expected to be involved. Every fight is our fight. I'm not saying it's the way it should be, but I am saying it's the way it is.
Yes! Let's turn the US military into a global protection racket! Who cares about global security and preserving the Long Peace when we could be wetting our beaks!
I can hear it now, in a particularly obnoxious Brooklyn accent: "You gotta real nice country here, South Korea, it'd be a shame if something happened to it."
I think most epidemiologists would agree that prevention is at least as important as finding a "cure", if not more-so.
One of the best tools we have is education. The more people understand the causes and potential risk factors of infection, the more they can be mitigated. Even fairly simple ideas, when in widespread use, can have a profound impact (e.g. washing your hands to prevent the spread of influenza). A broader understanding (and even sympathy) by people in general can go a long way to fighting an epidemic.
We can agree that the primary method of spreading extremism is prolonged exposure (however the exposure is not geographically limited). We can agree that the vast majority would be immune, even within the susceptible group, regardless of the length of exposure. And we can agree that there are hot spots.
But there are more questions to be answered. Why do "hot spots" form where they do? Why are some people immune? Can others be inoculated or develop immunity as well?
A disease cannot survive or spread easily in an inhospitable setting. Generalizing or even demonizing an entire group of people who are more vulnerable to infection creates an environment where this particular virus can thrive. If you create stigma around the disease and those vulnerable to it, it risks isolating them from support mechanisms that may help them avoid infection. It may also prevent others close to the infected person from seeking help, if they are fearful of the government, law-enforcement, or community response.
Immunity is probably a combination of a few things: education, exposure to other cultures, socioeconomic factors, etc. Simply "quarantining" the immune with the infected is probably not the best idea. While most plagues burn through the population killing everyone except the immune, this particular virus tends to do the opposite. Rather, the best approach would be to work with the immune to determine what makes them resistant, and develop inoculations and treatments for those who are also vulnerable.
I like the disease analogy. However, he doesn't take it far enough, and his solution ends up being too simplistic. Ultimately, his "common-sense reaction" is not really applicable to the real world situation we face.
Tell you what, let's compromise: how about we ban guns and Muslims?
How about: stop making stupid things like drugs illegal? You want to talk conservative policies? Why does BIG GOVERNMENT get to come into my house and tell me what I can and cannot put in my own body?
You're that ninja...