He also railed against Goldman Sachs, and now has an ex Goldman Sachs banker-turned-media magnate as his chief strategist, and a Goldman Sachs-banker-turned-filmmaker is the leading contender for his treasury secretary.
"Media magnate" - not to mention that he has a reputation for being a racist and white-supremacist etc etc. Sad to think that I, only a few days ago, spoke in favour of giving Trump a chance to show us what he really is like; I guess that is what he is now doing, and it doesn't look pretty. Keep it up like this, and even the most pessimistic expectations will be more than fulfilled.
we should ban free speech so that crybabies can have a safe space. Best start with eliminating all negative stories, including this one.
yeah, and we should force "our women" to stay indoors, so "real men" don't get in trouble over rape and other trivial misdemeanors (that was sarcasm, in case anybody thought otherwise).
Society has to be based on people "getting along", one way or another. This means compromise are necessary; the need of an individual to speak their mind and go about their daily affairs, is important, but so are the rights of other individuals - and when the two come into conflict, a compromise must be found. After all, why should the rights of an immature bully count as more important than the rights of those that are less immature? It is also characteristic of people like you to talk about "Freedom of Speech" in the same breath as you're trying to deny others that freedom - basically, what you say "get the crybabies to shut up", isn't it? The value to society of a bully is a whole lot less than the value of those who take part constructively in the debate.
Just because the Founding Fathers designed the system in some way, doesn't per se mean that it is a good system; even if they were entirely flawless as individuals, they still had to try to make democracy work in a situation where long distance communication, not to mention computing power, were painfully slow, if I'm not mistaken. So they came up with the best they could with what was at hand, but it seems obvious that now, when we have the ability to communicate almost instantly across continents and are able to handle vast amounts of data, a better system ought to be possible; such as a more direct election process, perhaps.
Yes. However, I didn't understand what you said - I've over it several times, and it doesn't seem to make sense. I can't see that people have been trying to "disassemble the establishment"; they have tried to make things fairer, they have tried to make the political system less corrupt and skewed towards making the rich richer and the poor poorer, and still haven't managed to achieve that, as far as I can see. And who is the "gay millionaire"? Trump? He has rather a lot of children for a gay person, but if he is, good on him.
What exactly should we be told to believe next to bridge the divide?
I would recommend you to believe only what you yourself can check out and confirm; that is the scientific way. Of course, that also implies giving up on conspiracy theories, since once you start checking the facts, they tend not to add up. But to bridge the divide, simply be willing to exactly that: check out the things people say when you disagree with them, without deciding a priori that they are wrong; accept that in some cases you may be in the wrong.
... that one your going to loose because you guys don't have guns.
May I suggest that you read up on what Gandhi achieved in India against the military might of the British Empire? Guns can help you win a battle, but that is all.
You call for the people not rioting to be calm and give a pass to the ones who are. Say we need to come together and begin working together, and then you say Trump is a twit.
Well, I think he is - but I am open to being proven wrong. Also, I think calling him a twit is pretty moderate fare, compared to what people are throwing at each other atm. Isn't he the one who leads on "straight talk"? But I don't agree with the extreme hysteria on both sides; Trump won fair and square, as far as I can see, so we have to accept that, however reluctantly, and give him a chance to prove that he is in fact able to lead the nation and not be as thin-skinned as he has tended to be during the campaign - or thoughtlessly vitriolic as he used to be.
In return, I think it is also appropriate if the other side stop the more unrealistic and hysterical tirades against Ms Clinton. If you call people "murderer" and "traitor", you will need to be able to produce valid evidence. The same protection that protects you from being found guilty based only on accusations, also applies for her, even if you hate everything you imagine she stands for, so produce solid evidence that will stand up in a court of law, or desist.
Its not even the liberals that are rioting, its PAID protesters. Media outlets have seen the people being bussed into the riots and handed signs and given directions. You come and pretend to be the voice of reason and only blame the people not causing problems while name calling the president elect.
We no longer care about your opinion if you are going to be a "twit" yourself. When you grow up and can discuss things in a respectful manner, there will be a place for you. Until then you will be laughed at. I suspect you are a paid poster here.
Feeling better, now you've got that off your chest? I don't mind being called a twit - I don't think I am one, but again, I may be wrong.
As for the so-called paid protesters - isn't it a long-standing practice in America, that people are being organised into all kinds of rallies? Like when somebody wants to organise a write-in campaign by producing a standard letter that people can download and send in, just adding their signature. I don't see that as particularly suspicious or wrong; those on the right probably do it the same way, I imagine.
Finally, it is perfectly possible to be respectful and mature without grovelling; and if you are yourself a mature person, then you will be able to ignore a minor taunt like the word "twit", and instead come back with your reasons why you disagree with me in a fairly measured way. I won't mind being told that I am being foolish, dangerously naive or even stupid, if that is what you think, but I do expect that you will give me well thought out reasons and arguments, otherwise I will find it hard to engage with what you say.
I think you are generalising beyond what is reasonable - I can think of many on the right side of the spectrum, who would be happy to kill somebody for having the wrong opinion - or skin coulour; I think you know them too. And I don't deny that there are extremists on the left who would do the same. But there is a very large group of people that are either moderately right- or left leaning, and they are fully prepared to defend the rights of other people to express their views, even if they think they are wrong.
Remind me who were the ones screaming people down with accusations of "racist, misogynist, nazi, hitler",
True - as one of the people who feared the election of Trump as a very bad thing indeed, I have to admit that people on my side did tend to do that, and that was wrong.
The marxists that make up today's left-wing movement absolutely despise the American system and the constitution. They detest free speech and free elections and would just prefer to use government force to cram their ideals down everyone else's throats. They are always demanding more and more power be given to the federal government, not caring about the abuses of power it results in, because they believe it will be THEIR power to use against their opponents. With their loss of this election, they are are slowly realising why such power is not to be granted. Their opponents now wield this power, and they are terrified of it being used against themselves.
- but as this illustrates, your side engage in exactly the same tactics. And that is why American politics is broken: there is no honest and open-minded debate to be found, at least not in public. It is tempting to point the finger at lack of education or blinkered religion, both of which probably contribute, in some way, but I have met people who were both illiterate and deeply religious, but still managed to teach me a thing or two about open-mindedness and being willing to listen.
I don't know the solution - I don't think any of you guys do either - but I think it is very likely that the way to the future, from where we are now, can go two ways: either towards ever deeper conflict between two almost exact halves of the population, perhaps ending in civil war, or people can decide that they have to start reaching out to their "enemies" and seek compromise and understanding. There is still time to make the better choice, but the longer you continue down the path of division, the harder will it be to heal the wounds.
So, why don't we start the process here and now? It isn't really all that hard - it is of course necessary to state your viewpoints and your grievances, but it is also your duty to be willing to listen to the other side and try to take on board some of it. Let me give you an example: I think the Trump is an absolutely appalling twit - based on the way he appears to insult without thinking, and apparently lies without shame and so on. This is my subjective view of him, and I may be wrong. I absolutely understand and accept the anger that is felt by his supporters; they happen to be mostly male, white and working class, but the gross indecency of the ever growing inequality in the US is unversal and hurts all except the few that richer - one of whom happens to be Trump, by the way. So, there you have it - it may only be a small, symbolic gesture by one individual, but that is all any of us have to give, and it is genuine; I really do want the situation to improve, and I really am willing to give Trump the chance to prove himself, but it won't matter unless everybody else is willing to do the same.
This shit needs to just stop. Every god damn election there's this stupid talk about either going to Canada or seceding, and it's all a bunch of stupid bullshit, and I'm sick of it.
Aren't we all? The thing is, the only way to stop it is by reaching out across the many, many cracks that break up American society and start listening to the views that you disagree strongly with - and start taking them in in some way. And that goes for all sides - the nation is not going to come together, if the angry, white working class won't take in the fact that there are close to 50% of the population that don't agree with them, and the same goes for the libertarians, pro-lifers, gun-lobbyists and all the other, narrow interest groups with extreme views: as long as everybody is uncompromising and distrustful of everybody else, things can only get worse.
And to be honest, when it comes to California - I can't see how that is much different from Brexit. If UK can go it alone, despite all the very close links to Europe, then so can California. But just as Brexit is a profoundly stupid thing to do, it also won't be a good idea for California to leave the US, because it won't actually solve the fundamental problem: that everybody is going tribal and are (almost) prepared to start killing the others over things that could be solved by compromise. That sort of uncompromising outlook on life is what rips apart nations in the Middle East and other places, and one would hope Americans can at least be better than that.
Incidentally, for those looking for someone to blame here, look no further than the DNC:
- and the GOP, who have been tearing themselves apart and letting the people down. And the God Mongers, who have always been part of the establishment; and the media, whose only interest has ever been to line their own pockets and wouldn't let facts get in the way. And so on.
What can anyone say at this point? As somebody who has lived long enough to see what the reality is like in politics, I think you guys made a mistake - there is a hell of a lot of difference between "sorting out the world" over a few pints in your usual bar, and tackling real politics in the real world. Clinton knows her way around the political system - she would have been able to make things continue more or less the way they have always gone; admittedly not the best campaign slogan, but we knew what we were getting and she never promised more than she could deliver. Trump, on the other hand - what can he actually do, now that he has to do it for real? Build a wall? Start a major trade war with China? Deport all the illegal immigrants? Make America great again? How would behaving like an idiot make America great? On the other hand, if he doesn't deliver on his promises, because he comes to his senses, what will all the angry people, whose anger he has stoked with his talk, how will they react? Are they going to take it stoically? Well, we will see, but I think we are in for a bumpy ride, and we will feel it no matter where we are.
Well, if the drive works, then either the symmetry underlying conservation of momentum isn't entriely true (it wouldn't be the first time we discovered a surprising lack of symmetry, you know), or the drive isn't entirely reactionless. I think it is important to always be willing to keep an open mind, when we don't know for certain; what you are saying is "No, impossible, so I am not even going to look". Personally, I think preservation of momentum is true; so in my view there must be an escape of momentum that we haven't figured - if this works. This doesn't strike me as unthinkable - after all, energy is put in, so it must go somewhere. We just need to find an explanation.
Another viewpoint is that China, like the US and former USSR in the 1960s, are developing their space program as a complementary program to their ballistic missile programs.
Well, there is no denying that being good at sending rockets to the Moon also helps when you are designing ICBMs, but I think China are genuinely seeking to establish themselves as a power in space, and not just militarily. In the long term, it makes sense to establish colonies off Earth.
Let me make a wild guess: we are talking about a pair of glasses with more or less transparent displays for lenses and some sort of eye tracking tech? Hard to imagine how this has cost billions to develop. Thousands, I can believe, or even millions, but billions? Let's see the goods, that all I can say.
I think we can show a little bit of sympathy here; I know the gp is exaggerating and very negative, but it is easy to get depressed about the inadequate responses we have managed to mount so far.
I'm not worried about life on Earth, as such, but we should be worried about whether we are going to take much part in it. I think it is clear, if we look ahead to a far future - say in 500 to 1000 years - we will either have found a way to live sustainably on this planet, or we will be in rapid, possibly catastropihic, decline. The present time really is a sort of turning point, and we ought to be clever enough to adapt.
Except for all the many, many other plants and animals that don't live in harmony with Earth either. Unlike the vast majority of plants and animals, we've actually figured out how to control our population (in the developed world, of course).
Whether life in general lives in harmony or not, is much complex than people generally imagine. It certainly isn't as simple as whether they somehow cooperate (like in symbiosis) or compete - even competing species, or predators and prey, are normally in a sort of beneficial relationship, at least at the species level. The only cases where there isn't this balance, is when it comes to invasive species (another blot on humankind's cv), because they have escaped their predators and competitors, at least temporarily. Of course, at some point a balance will be achieved, because when an invasive species is overwhelming the native ecosystem, the processes that maintain the environment tend to break down, and the newcomer runs out of the resources that it has been so good at exploiting. We humans are in many ways comparable to invasive species: we over exploit resources, we drive other species to extinction - and at some point, we will either find a way to live sustainably with the ecosystem, or we will stand on the brink, with a huge population and no resources. And then nature will take it's inevitable course. We still have time to avoid that, and we are, as a species, clever enough. We just need to realise that, yes, we actually, really must.
I think what is so remarkable about this is not so much China's individual achievements, but the fact that they clearly follow a long-term plan. Not to belittle American and Russian achievements, but they basically made it up as they went, and it did go much further than getting a bloke to the Moon and back again. NASA's scientists have always kept pushing for more exploration and shown great leadership, but the necessary, political will has been missing, and that is what the Chinese have. I think more or less everybody now agrees that China are definitely going to build one or more spacestations, and then go on to build a base on the Moon - and dare we hope, on to Mars? They have taken the lead, simple as that, and the rest of the world will follow. It feels good.
Unless they don't come the conclusion that we want them to, then it's OK to just ignore what they say.
"Power to the people", you say - but that really should be "power to about half of the people", and that is the big problem. Leaving the EU is something that has profound effects on the nation as a whole, and just like those in favour may feel strongly that they have very good reasons for feeling the way the do, those other side has the same strength of feeling about their viewpoint. It isn't like a general election, where you can feel sore over losing, but you know you will have anothiner chance in 5 years - you can't sort of go "I think we should be i the EU this year, why not?" and then pop back in for a quick dip.
It was idiotic to hold this referendum in the first place, and the way it was held was ill thought through. Anybody with a bit of a observational skill would have known that the result was always going to be rather tight - and as we have seen, there wasn't really a clear majority. Not if by clear majority you mean a big enough difference between the two sides, that you can be sure that the result wouldn't be different, if people would be given a second vote after 6 months. As it is, there has been a fair few who have come out and said that if they had known it would go this way, then they would have voted for staying - they only voted leave as a sort of privately sticking the finger up to the establishment. And now we have a Britain that feels divided over this big issue in a serious way, and that has hurt us all. It may go on to hurt us even further, if Scotland breaks away from the UK - and Northern Ireland follows suit. All in all, well done, everybody.
I think it is a status symbol, being so well off that you don't have to worry about always being onlline, like most of the middle classes are. There is something about the rich and powerful choosing some sort of "handicap", almost, to show off the fact that they can afford to rely on the efforts of others - like in Imperial China, when the high-ranking officials would dress in ridiculously impractical clothes with far too long sleeves to indicate that they rarely needed to use their hands; or now-a-days when women totter around clumsily on stiletto heels and look decidedly un-sexy. So, I think not having a mobile and avoiding electronic communication is about showing that you are so powerful that you *can*. And, to be honest, don't most of us sometimes wish we could do the same? I know I do.
I'm not a Christian, but GP is right. If something is from a source that precedes what you are citing, it's proper to give the credit to that original.
Not when the point is to something that is not in the original source, like in this case the wider context of the lyrics of a Lou Reed song. If people don't know Lou Reed, this gives them an opportunity to look into it and find out. I don't know, maybe that is too subtle; I would have thought that names like Velvet Underground and Lou Reed would have been known to an American audience.
...trust me, I'd be the first to do that if it took Trump down a notch.
There you go again, being reasonable. If you want to match the Trump crowd, you have to assume by default that everything he does is suspicious, at the very least, and probably has malicious intent. He went to the loo? Highly suspicious - probably wanted to hide his substance abuse. He passed a primary school in his car? Probably prospecting for under-age girls. Finding there is a Russian bank that communicates with one of his servers is practically watertight proof that he is in with Putin in a major way. If we were to argue like Trump's followers. Regrettably, most of us, who aren't his followers, are restrained by things like intellect, honesty and basic integrity.
Well, look it up, it isn't hard - Lou Reed did in fact use it in his song, "Perfect day". And then grow a bit of sense of humour, it often helps understanding the point of comments, and brightens the day in the process. The very fact that it originates (in Western culture at least) in the Bible is what gives his song a certain, bitter-sweet twist.
Millennial? Not sure if I should be flattered or not, seeing that I am in my sixties. If you a referring to the last millennium, perhaps it means I appear to be very young in my outlook; on the other hand, you may be referring to the one before...
The thing is - as an older programmer (which I am very much) it is no longer about programming. but more about other skills, like knowing frameworks and design patterns to a high level of expertise, leadership or even (heaven forbid!) management. I have been listening to a lot of science podcasts recently (not the "Aw, look at that, ain't it awesome" kind of thing, but proper science; they do exist) and one thing that stands out is the growing need for what is loosely called Big Data: the handling and analysis of huge amounts of data. One that I heard about this morning is the experiments they do at CERN - apparently they have something like a million proton-proton collissions per second to analyse in real time, and they expect to find 1 Higgs boson per hour - or was it day or week? Both a huge amount of data, very few events of interest and very little time to analyse it in because there is no realistic way they can store that much. And of course, CERN are not the only ones that produce vast amounts of data - all sciences do, from biology to medicine to physics to just about anything. When you reach my advanced age, you begin to have an outlook on life that makes real science look very, very attractive, I think.
While I'm not a fan of either, I will at least acknowledge that a President Trump is more check-able than a President Clinton (45)
Be careful what you wish for, and also scrutinise your motives for wishing. History is littered with examples of how bad it can go, when you roll over for the silly candidate "because he will be more easily controlled". George W Bush landed the US in the Iraq war, that is now spitting terrorists out in all directions; that's how much he could be controlled. Or to take the more extreme examples: Hitler was made Chancellor of Germany based on pretty similar reasoning; Mussolini probably likewise in Italy (although I haven't checked the history on eith in any detail). Clinton is predictable: her presidency will be more or less the same as usual, with policies that will be mostly competent in their execution, even if you disagree strongly with their direction. Trump - well you just don't know, but I feel quite convinced that he will not react with quiet dignity when he runs into the massive problems that arise when Congress or whoever disagree with his every move. The guy is a narcissist - read up on narcissistic personality disorder to see what kind of behaviour can be expected; a person who is constatly craving the admiration of others may be easily manipulated, but who is going to do the manipulation? Hard to guess, but there are some very good manipulators in the world - a guy like Putin springs to mind; the Chinese are not bad either. To quote Lou Reed (Perfect Day): "You're going to reap just what you sow". So think about it - it's bloody hard to pick up the seeds after you have sown them.
As a complete outsider to the US elections, I shouldn't really offer my opinions, I suppose, but like a lot of the fiercer critics, I do love America, and it pains me to see the mess you guys are in.
I would invite people to take a step back from the furore and think a bit wider about the issues. The problem isn't just that you now have to choose between two unpalatable candidates; it is important that the US starts working again as a nation, both for its people (and here I mean all of its people, not just the favoured few), but it is also hugely important that America doesn't simply drop the ball, internationally. You may wish to disenagage from some of the too many duties you have taken on over the years in your quest for dominance, but there are different ways of doing so, and some could have devastating consequences, whereas other ways might be very advantageous. If Clinton and Trump really is all you have to choose from at this time, the sensible thing to do is to choose Clinton, who actually has a track record in the top of politics. Trump's bluster about "running the country like a business" simply isn't realistic. Firstly because a nation is vastly more complicated than a corporation, and of course, the States run on democracy, which a business doesn't. On top of that, Trump isn't really a good businessman; the fact that he makes a lot of money isn't a good indicator - if you start out with more money than you can squander quickly, then it is actually very hard not to make money, even if it all just sits in a bank account. A good businessman is one who constantly and creatively (as well as successfully) develops his business concept - as far as I know, Trump hasn't done much of that.
But America's problems run much deeper than having to choose the least bad president; somehow you have developed a culture where simple fact is invariably construed as "leftist" (at best) by those on the right, and "rightist" by those on the left, depending on their short term agenda, and the only thing you can't seem to find is a reliable, neutral view - at least originating from inside America. I remember a time, in my childhood (and that's a long time ago, let me tell you) when we all had to acknowledge America as the one, reliable source of facts that the rest of us tried to emulate, even if we didn't like the American Way. And then came the moronic agendas of the narrowminded, religious zealots that took over the debate to the extent that everybody in a public position must now pretend that they care deeply about "God", much to the detriment of truth and ironically, faith. And now, this kind of "faith" tries to dictate whether you are allowed to actually think clearly about real issues in almost all areas. And that, I think, is one of the fundamental problems that you have to solve.
It is not my place to tell you how to solve the problems, but I do suggest that your real enemy is not so much Clinton or Trump or even the political establishment as such - they are only consequences of the much more sinister problem of religious mind-control. Your enemy is stupid, bullying religion - those two adjectives are important: stupid and bullying. There are many intelligent ways to practise religion (or so I'm told, and it seems plausible), but insisting that a fistful of fables is the only Truth that reality must be bent to fit, is stupid. And of course, intelligent practitioners of religion don't go around trying to bully people into closing their eyes to common sense - they don't need to, because they are not scared of reality, and they know that the Bible is just a bunch of stories that were never meant to be taken at face value. So, there you have it: if you want to make America great again, topple the sick establishment and so on, start with stupid, bullying religion and make clear, fact-based debate mainstream again.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, 500,000 heavily armed soldiers looking at you in a menacing way aren't wrong, are they? Think about it.
He also railed against Goldman Sachs, and now has an ex Goldman Sachs banker-turned-media magnate as his chief strategist, and a Goldman Sachs-banker-turned-filmmaker is the leading contender for his treasury secretary.
"Media magnate" - not to mention that he has a reputation for being a racist and white-supremacist etc etc. Sad to think that I, only a few days ago, spoke in favour of giving Trump a chance to show us what he really is like; I guess that is what he is now doing, and it doesn't look pretty. Keep it up like this, and even the most pessimistic expectations will be more than fulfilled.
we should ban free speech so that crybabies can have a safe space. Best start with eliminating all negative stories, including this one.
yeah, and we should force "our women" to stay indoors, so "real men" don't get in trouble over rape and other trivial misdemeanors (that was sarcasm, in case anybody thought otherwise).
Society has to be based on people "getting along", one way or another. This means compromise are necessary; the need of an individual to speak their mind and go about their daily affairs, is important, but so are the rights of other individuals - and when the two come into conflict, a compromise must be found. After all, why should the rights of an immature bully count as more important than the rights of those that are less immature? It is also characteristic of people like you to talk about "Freedom of Speech" in the same breath as you're trying to deny others that freedom - basically, what you say "get the crybabies to shut up", isn't it? The value to society of a bully is a whole lot less than the value of those who take part constructively in the debate.
Just because the Founding Fathers designed the system in some way, doesn't per se mean that it is a good system; even if they were entirely flawless as individuals, they still had to try to make democracy work in a situation where long distance communication, not to mention computing power, were painfully slow, if I'm not mistaken. So they came up with the best they could with what was at hand, but it seems obvious that now, when we have the ability to communicate almost instantly across continents and are able to handle vast amounts of data, a better system ought to be possible; such as a more direct election process, perhaps.
Do you even comprehend what you've wrote?
Yes. However, I didn't understand what you said - I've over it several times, and it doesn't seem to make sense. I can't see that people have been trying to "disassemble the establishment"; they have tried to make things fairer, they have tried to make the political system less corrupt and skewed towards making the rich richer and the poor poorer, and still haven't managed to achieve that, as far as I can see. And who is the "gay millionaire"? Trump? He has rather a lot of children for a gay person, but if he is, good on him.
What exactly should we be told to believe next to bridge the divide?
I would recommend you to believe only what you yourself can check out and confirm; that is the scientific way. Of course, that also implies giving up on conspiracy theories, since once you start checking the facts, they tend not to add up. But to bridge the divide, simply be willing to exactly that: check out the things people say when you disagree with them, without deciding a priori that they are wrong; accept that in some cases you may be in the wrong.
... that one your going to loose because you guys don't have guns.
May I suggest that you read up on what Gandhi achieved in India against the military might of the British Empire? Guns can help you win a battle, but that is all.
You call for the people not rioting to be calm and give a pass to the ones who are. Say we need to come together and begin working together, and then you say Trump is a twit.
Well, I think he is - but I am open to being proven wrong. Also, I think calling him a twit is pretty moderate fare, compared to what people are throwing at each other atm. Isn't he the one who leads on "straight talk"? But I don't agree with the extreme hysteria on both sides; Trump won fair and square, as far as I can see, so we have to accept that, however reluctantly, and give him a chance to prove that he is in fact able to lead the nation and not be as thin-skinned as he has tended to be during the campaign - or thoughtlessly vitriolic as he used to be.
In return, I think it is also appropriate if the other side stop the more unrealistic and hysterical tirades against Ms Clinton. If you call people "murderer" and "traitor", you will need to be able to produce valid evidence. The same protection that protects you from being found guilty based only on accusations, also applies for her, even if you hate everything you imagine she stands for, so produce solid evidence that will stand up in a court of law, or desist.
Its not even the liberals that are rioting, its PAID protesters. Media outlets have seen the people being bussed into the riots and handed signs and given directions. You come and pretend to be the voice of reason and only blame the people not causing problems while name calling the president elect.
We no longer care about your opinion if you are going to be a "twit" yourself. When you grow up and can discuss things in a respectful manner, there will be a place for you. Until then you will be laughed at. I suspect you are a paid poster here.
Feeling better, now you've got that off your chest? I don't mind being called a twit - I don't think I am one, but again, I may be wrong.
As for the so-called paid protesters - isn't it a long-standing practice in America, that people are being organised into all kinds of rallies? Like when somebody wants to organise a write-in campaign by producing a standard letter that people can download and send in, just adding their signature. I don't see that as particularly suspicious or wrong; those on the right probably do it the same way, I imagine.
Finally, it is perfectly possible to be respectful and mature without grovelling; and if you are yourself a mature person, then you will be able to ignore a minor taunt like the word "twit", and instead come back with your reasons why you disagree with me in a fairly measured way. I won't mind being told that I am being foolish, dangerously naive or even stupid, if that is what you think, but I do expect that you will give me well thought out reasons and arguments, otherwise I will find it hard to engage with what you say.
I think you are generalising beyond what is reasonable - I can think of many on the right side of the spectrum, who would be happy to kill somebody for having the wrong opinion - or skin coulour; I think you know them too. And I don't deny that there are extremists on the left who would do the same. But there is a very large group of people that are either moderately right- or left leaning, and they are fully prepared to defend the rights of other people to express their views, even if they think they are wrong.
Remind me who were the ones screaming people down with accusations of "racist, misogynist, nazi, hitler",
True - as one of the people who feared the election of Trump as a very bad thing indeed, I have to admit that people on my side did tend to do that, and that was wrong.
The marxists that make up today's left-wing movement absolutely despise the American system and the constitution. They detest free speech and free elections and would just prefer to use government force to cram their ideals down everyone else's throats. They are always demanding more and more power be given to the federal government, not caring about the abuses of power it results in, because they believe it will be THEIR power to use against their opponents. With their loss of this election, they are are slowly realising why such power is not to be granted. Their opponents now wield this power, and they are terrified of it being used against themselves.
- but as this illustrates, your side engage in exactly the same tactics. And that is why American politics is broken: there is no honest and open-minded debate to be found, at least not in public. It is tempting to point the finger at lack of education or blinkered religion, both of which probably contribute, in some way, but I have met people who were both illiterate and deeply religious, but still managed to teach me a thing or two about open-mindedness and being willing to listen.
I don't know the solution - I don't think any of you guys do either - but I think it is very likely that the way to the future, from where we are now, can go two ways: either towards ever deeper conflict between two almost exact halves of the population, perhaps ending in civil war, or people can decide that they have to start reaching out to their "enemies" and seek compromise and understanding. There is still time to make the better choice, but the longer you continue down the path of division, the harder will it be to heal the wounds.
So, why don't we start the process here and now? It isn't really all that hard - it is of course necessary to state your viewpoints and your grievances, but it is also your duty to be willing to listen to the other side and try to take on board some of it. Let me give you an example: I think the Trump is an absolutely appalling twit - based on the way he appears to insult without thinking, and apparently lies without shame and so on. This is my subjective view of him, and I may be wrong. I absolutely understand and accept the anger that is felt by his supporters; they happen to be mostly male, white and working class, but the gross indecency of the ever growing inequality in the US is unversal and hurts all except the few that richer - one of whom happens to be Trump, by the way. So, there you have it - it may only be a small, symbolic gesture by one individual, but that is all any of us have to give, and it is genuine; I really do want the situation to improve, and I really am willing to give Trump the chance to prove himself, but it won't matter unless everybody else is willing to do the same.
This shit needs to just stop. Every god damn election there's this stupid talk about either going to Canada or seceding, and it's all a bunch of stupid bullshit, and I'm sick of it.
Aren't we all? The thing is, the only way to stop it is by reaching out across the many, many cracks that break up American society and start listening to the views that you disagree strongly with - and start taking them in in some way. And that goes for all sides - the nation is not going to come together, if the angry, white working class won't take in the fact that there are close to 50% of the population that don't agree with them, and the same goes for the libertarians, pro-lifers, gun-lobbyists and all the other, narrow interest groups with extreme views: as long as everybody is uncompromising and distrustful of everybody else, things can only get worse.
And to be honest, when it comes to California - I can't see how that is much different from Brexit. If UK can go it alone, despite all the very close links to Europe, then so can California. But just as Brexit is a profoundly stupid thing to do, it also won't be a good idea for California to leave the US, because it won't actually solve the fundamental problem: that everybody is going tribal and are (almost) prepared to start killing the others over things that could be solved by compromise. That sort of uncompromising outlook on life is what rips apart nations in the Middle East and other places, and one would hope Americans can at least be better than that.
Incidentally, for those looking for someone to blame here, look no further than the DNC:
- and the GOP, who have been tearing themselves apart and letting the people down. And the God Mongers, who have always been part of the establishment; and the media, whose only interest has ever been to line their own pockets and wouldn't let facts get in the way. And so on.
What can anyone say at this point? As somebody who has lived long enough to see what the reality is like in politics, I think you guys made a mistake - there is a hell of a lot of difference between "sorting out the world" over a few pints in your usual bar, and tackling real politics in the real world. Clinton knows her way around the political system - she would have been able to make things continue more or less the way they have always gone; admittedly not the best campaign slogan, but we knew what we were getting and she never promised more than she could deliver. Trump, on the other hand - what can he actually do, now that he has to do it for real? Build a wall? Start a major trade war with China? Deport all the illegal immigrants? Make America great again? How would behaving like an idiot make America great? On the other hand, if he doesn't deliver on his promises, because he comes to his senses, what will all the angry people, whose anger he has stoked with his talk, how will they react? Are they going to take it stoically? Well, we will see, but I think we are in for a bumpy ride, and we will feel it no matter where we are.
Well, if the drive works, then either the symmetry underlying conservation of momentum isn't entriely true (it wouldn't be the first time we discovered a surprising lack of symmetry, you know), or the drive isn't entirely reactionless. I think it is important to always be willing to keep an open mind, when we don't know for certain; what you are saying is "No, impossible, so I am not even going to look". Personally, I think preservation of momentum is true; so in my view there must be an escape of momentum that we haven't figured - if this works. This doesn't strike me as unthinkable - after all, energy is put in, so it must go somewhere. We just need to find an explanation.
Another viewpoint is that China, like the US and former USSR in the 1960s, are developing their space program as a complementary program to their ballistic missile programs.
Well, there is no denying that being good at sending rockets to the Moon also helps when you are designing ICBMs, but I think China are genuinely seeking to establish themselves as a power in space, and not just militarily. In the long term, it makes sense to establish colonies off Earth.
Let me make a wild guess: we are talking about a pair of glasses with more or less transparent displays for lenses and some sort of eye tracking tech? Hard to imagine how this has cost billions to develop. Thousands, I can believe, or even millions, but billions? Let's see the goods, that all I can say.
I think we can show a little bit of sympathy here; I know the gp is exaggerating and very negative, but it is easy to get depressed about the inadequate responses we have managed to mount so far.
I'm not worried about life on Earth, as such, but we should be worried about whether we are going to take much part in it. I think it is clear, if we look ahead to a far future - say in 500 to 1000 years - we will either have found a way to live sustainably on this planet, or we will be in rapid, possibly catastropihic, decline. The present time really is a sort of turning point, and we ought to be clever enough to adapt.
Except for all the many, many other plants and animals that don't live in harmony with Earth either. Unlike the vast majority of plants and animals, we've actually figured out how to control our population (in the developed world, of course).
Whether life in general lives in harmony or not, is much complex than people generally imagine. It certainly isn't as simple as whether they somehow cooperate (like in symbiosis) or compete - even competing species, or predators and prey, are normally in a sort of beneficial relationship, at least at the species level. The only cases where there isn't this balance, is when it comes to invasive species (another blot on humankind's cv), because they have escaped their predators and competitors, at least temporarily. Of course, at some point a balance will be achieved, because when an invasive species is overwhelming the native ecosystem, the processes that maintain the environment tend to break down, and the newcomer runs out of the resources that it has been so good at exploiting. We humans are in many ways comparable to invasive species: we over exploit resources, we drive other species to extinction - and at some point, we will either find a way to live sustainably with the ecosystem, or we will stand on the brink, with a huge population and no resources. And then nature will take it's inevitable course. We still have time to avoid that, and we are, as a species, clever enough. We just need to realise that, yes, we actually, really must.
I think what is so remarkable about this is not so much China's individual achievements, but the fact that they clearly follow a long-term plan. Not to belittle American and Russian achievements, but they basically made it up as they went, and it did go much further than getting a bloke to the Moon and back again. NASA's scientists have always kept pushing for more exploration and shown great leadership, but the necessary, political will has been missing, and that is what the Chinese have. I think more or less everybody now agrees that China are definitely going to build one or more spacestations, and then go on to build a base on the Moon - and dare we hope, on to Mars? They have taken the lead, simple as that, and the rest of the world will follow. It feels good.
Unless they don't come the conclusion that we want them to, then it's OK to just ignore what they say.
"Power to the people", you say - but that really should be "power to about half of the people", and that is the big problem. Leaving the EU is something that has profound effects on the nation as a whole, and just like those in favour may feel strongly that they have very good reasons for feeling the way the do, those other side has the same strength of feeling about their viewpoint. It isn't like a general election, where you can feel sore over losing, but you know you will have anothiner chance in 5 years - you can't sort of go "I think we should be i the EU this year, why not?" and then pop back in for a quick dip.
It was idiotic to hold this referendum in the first place, and the way it was held was ill thought through. Anybody with a bit of a observational skill would have known that the result was always going to be rather tight - and as we have seen, there wasn't really a clear majority. Not if by clear majority you mean a big enough difference between the two sides, that you can be sure that the result wouldn't be different, if people would be given a second vote after 6 months. As it is, there has been a fair few who have come out and said that if they had known it would go this way, then they would have voted for staying - they only voted leave as a sort of privately sticking the finger up to the establishment. And now we have a Britain that feels divided over this big issue in a serious way, and that has hurt us all. It may go on to hurt us even further, if Scotland breaks away from the UK - and Northern Ireland follows suit. All in all, well done, everybody.
I think it is a status symbol, being so well off that you don't have to worry about always being onlline, like most of the middle classes are. There is something about the rich and powerful choosing some sort of "handicap", almost, to show off the fact that they can afford to rely on the efforts of others - like in Imperial China, when the high-ranking officials would dress in ridiculously impractical clothes with far too long sleeves to indicate that they rarely needed to use their hands; or now-a-days when women totter around clumsily on stiletto heels and look decidedly un-sexy. So, I think not having a mobile and avoiding electronic communication is about showing that you are so powerful that you *can*. And, to be honest, don't most of us sometimes wish we could do the same? I know I do.
I'm not a Christian, but GP is right. If something is from a source that precedes what you are citing, it's proper to give the credit to that original.
Not when the point is to something that is not in the original source, like in this case the wider context of the lyrics of a Lou Reed song. If people don't know Lou Reed, this gives them an opportunity to look into it and find out. I don't know, maybe that is too subtle; I would have thought that names like Velvet Underground and Lou Reed would have been known to an American audience.
Sorry, forgot to point out that I was being sarcastic
...trust me, I'd be the first to do that if it took Trump down a notch.
There you go again, being reasonable. If you want to match the Trump crowd, you have to assume by default that everything he does is suspicious, at the very least, and probably has malicious intent. He went to the loo? Highly suspicious - probably wanted to hide his substance abuse. He passed a primary school in his car? Probably prospecting for under-age girls. Finding there is a Russian bank that communicates with one of his servers is practically watertight proof that he is in with Putin in a major way. If we were to argue like Trump's followers. Regrettably, most of us, who aren't his followers, are restrained by things like intellect, honesty and basic integrity.
Well, look it up, it isn't hard - Lou Reed did in fact use it in his song, "Perfect day". And then grow a bit of sense of humour, it often helps understanding the point of comments, and brightens the day in the process. The very fact that it originates (in Western culture at least) in the Bible is what gives his song a certain, bitter-sweet twist.
Millennial? Not sure if I should be flattered or not, seeing that I am in my sixties. If you a referring to the last millennium, perhaps it means I appear to be very young in my outlook; on the other hand, you may be referring to the one before...
The thing is - as an older programmer (which I am very much) it is no longer about programming. but more about other skills, like knowing frameworks and design patterns to a high level of expertise, leadership or even (heaven forbid!) management. I have been listening to a lot of science podcasts recently (not the "Aw, look at that, ain't it awesome" kind of thing, but proper science; they do exist) and one thing that stands out is the growing need for what is loosely called Big Data: the handling and analysis of huge amounts of data. One that I heard about this morning is the experiments they do at CERN - apparently they have something like a million proton-proton collissions per second to analyse in real time, and they expect to find 1 Higgs boson per hour - or was it day or week? Both a huge amount of data, very few events of interest and very little time to analyse it in because there is no realistic way they can store that much. And of course, CERN are not the only ones that produce vast amounts of data - all sciences do, from biology to medicine to physics to just about anything. When you reach my advanced age, you begin to have an outlook on life that makes real science look very, very attractive, I think.
While I'm not a fan of either, I will at least acknowledge that a President Trump is more check-able than a President Clinton (45)
Be careful what you wish for, and also scrutinise your motives for wishing. History is littered with examples of how bad it can go, when you roll over for the silly candidate "because he will be more easily controlled". George W Bush landed the US in the Iraq war, that is now spitting terrorists out in all directions; that's how much he could be controlled. Or to take the more extreme examples: Hitler was made Chancellor of Germany based on pretty similar reasoning; Mussolini probably likewise in Italy (although I haven't checked the history on eith in any detail). Clinton is predictable: her presidency will be more or less the same as usual, with policies that will be mostly competent in their execution, even if you disagree strongly with their direction. Trump - well you just don't know, but I feel quite convinced that he will not react with quiet dignity when he runs into the massive problems that arise when Congress or whoever disagree with his every move. The guy is a narcissist - read up on narcissistic personality disorder to see what kind of behaviour can be expected; a person who is constatly craving the admiration of others may be easily manipulated, but who is going to do the manipulation? Hard to guess, but there are some very good manipulators in the world - a guy like Putin springs to mind; the Chinese are not bad either. To quote Lou Reed (Perfect Day): "You're going to reap just what you sow". So think about it - it's bloody hard to pick up the seeds after you have sown them.
As a complete outsider to the US elections, I shouldn't really offer my opinions, I suppose, but like a lot of the fiercer critics, I do love America, and it pains me to see the mess you guys are in.
I would invite people to take a step back from the furore and think a bit wider about the issues. The problem isn't just that you now have to choose between two unpalatable candidates; it is important that the US starts working again as a nation, both for its people (and here I mean all of its people, not just the favoured few), but it is also hugely important that America doesn't simply drop the ball, internationally. You may wish to disenagage from some of the too many duties you have taken on over the years in your quest for dominance, but there are different ways of doing so, and some could have devastating consequences, whereas other ways might be very advantageous. If Clinton and Trump really is all you have to choose from at this time, the sensible thing to do is to choose Clinton, who actually has a track record in the top of politics. Trump's bluster about "running the country like a business" simply isn't realistic. Firstly because a nation is vastly more complicated than a corporation, and of course, the States run on democracy, which a business doesn't. On top of that, Trump isn't really a good businessman; the fact that he makes a lot of money isn't a good indicator - if you start out with more money than you can squander quickly, then it is actually very hard not to make money, even if it all just sits in a bank account. A good businessman is one who constantly and creatively (as well as successfully) develops his business concept - as far as I know, Trump hasn't done much of that.
But America's problems run much deeper than having to choose the least bad president; somehow you have developed a culture where simple fact is invariably construed as "leftist" (at best) by those on the right, and "rightist" by those on the left, depending on their short term agenda, and the only thing you can't seem to find is a reliable, neutral view - at least originating from inside America. I remember a time, in my childhood (and that's a long time ago, let me tell you) when we all had to acknowledge America as the one, reliable source of facts that the rest of us tried to emulate, even if we didn't like the American Way. And then came the moronic agendas of the narrowminded, religious zealots that took over the debate to the extent that everybody in a public position must now pretend that they care deeply about "God", much to the detriment of truth and ironically, faith. And now, this kind of "faith" tries to dictate whether you are allowed to actually think clearly about real issues in almost all areas. And that, I think, is one of the fundamental problems that you have to solve.
It is not my place to tell you how to solve the problems, but I do suggest that your real enemy is not so much Clinton or Trump or even the political establishment as such - they are only consequences of the much more sinister problem of religious mind-control. Your enemy is stupid, bullying religion - those two adjectives are important: stupid and bullying. There are many intelligent ways to practise religion (or so I'm told, and it seems plausible), but insisting that a fistful of fables is the only Truth that reality must be bent to fit, is stupid. And of course, intelligent practitioners of religion don't go around trying to bully people into closing their eyes to common sense - they don't need to, because they are not scared of reality, and they know that the Bible is just a bunch of stories that were never meant to be taken at face value. So, there you have it: if you want to make America great again, topple the sick establishment and so on, start with stupid, bullying religion and make clear, fact-based debate mainstream again.