Meh, HALO was bought when they acquired Bungie Studios, but those rings are piddly, like the diameter of a planet. Ringworld is 1AU in diameter and something like 25,000 miles wide, which is a whole different ballgame with an entire universe of books around it including nearly all of Niven's books. Most of Niven's work would be better served as a miniseries on Syfy channel, like the BSG reboot. CGI and effects are so good and cheap these days that kind of thing is better in many ways. I would also love to see some of the Man-Kzin wars on the big or small screen. Wookies are just overgrown teddy bears compared to the Kzin.
Using humans as batteries is not science, just pure fiction, thus not science fiction. The Matrix used technobabble to sell magical powers and spectacular visuals on the big screen. Great movie, but such a flawed premise it lands squarely in the fantasy genre, at least in my book.
Where spacecraft traveling interstellar distances at superluminal speeds. Engage the enemy like WWII fighters (well Steven modeled manuveurs from that war's combat footage), larger ships engaged each other like 18th century navies. And it had flaming fireballs and thunderous explosions in the vacuum of space, yeah!
The light speed was definitely a misnomer, but I remember reading somewhere that they wanted to avoid a lawsuit from Paramount over similarities with the original Star Trek (thus they didn't use warp speed as a term). They still got sued (and won) over similarities with Battlestar Galactica.
The combat style and sounds were adapted primarily for theatrical purposes. However, if you want to see a great, realistic space battle, the expanse has a great one here, but it required a lot more CGI and special effects than were available at the time of Star Wars and though they did a good job with the realism, there is no crowd pleasing explosion, thundering engines or gut wrenching bullet sounds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Assuming not a troll, it truly was your loss. In trying to be "cool" you missed out on one of the greatest movies of all time. That said, I don't recommend you see it now, you will just sit there and pick apart every minor flaw and not enjoy the movie.
They had the right idea with the ring, but the orientation was wrong, it should have been perpendicular to the camera and haloed around the original death star location because it is created by POV illusion. With a big detonation like that and then flames chasing an expanding wave front of fuel, the front of fuel and exploding gasses expands out in a sphere, but the edges of the sphere appear much more brightly because there is more plasma to be seen per viewing angle, vs straight through the middle of the sphere where you only see at most two thicknesses of the combustion front, front and back (assuming that is what they were going for).
I have seen SST a few times, and my friends and I discussed it quite a lot at the time and here was some of the things that we came up with:
No, they didn't use gun sights because they were firing smart bullets that would track targets within maybe 3 degrees divergence of their fired direction. This would allow you to spray and still consistently hit the target.
What we perceived as body armor due to the low budget of the film was actually supposed to be smart gear, carrying ammo, locator beacons for friend or foe ID, food, water, battery pack, etc (I don't remember them all carrying backpacks, just a few and those probably had LAW or HE charges or other specialized hardware). Body armor only makes sense if it protects you from your enemy, and you pay a price for carrying the extra weight and loss of mobility. The bugs were able to punch through like an inch of steel at the overrun compound, so likely the choice was made for greater mobility vs body armor that was not survivable anyway in combat with bugs.
The only benefit to armored vehicles and artillery are greater firepower and protection from small arms. The bugs didn't use small arms, and the soldier with a LAW rocket has just as much firepower as a tank or artillery piece. The rifles that ever soldier carried seemed to use explosive rounds as well and were very effective on the smaller bugs (at least getting through their exoskeleton). From a mobility standpoint, humans are better adapted to cross very rugged and varying terrain than vehicles, so the choice was probably made to just use infantry and leave the heavy vehicles behind, since they offered no benefit when fighting the bugs.
Surface bombardment is ineffective against dug in opponents, up to a point, but those explosions on the surface were clearly visible and big even from space (covering like 2% of the planet's surface each), so we are talking massive gigga-ton level explosions, at which point, just the translated shock-wave would probably liquefy anything buried underground, no matter how deep (there is a limit to how deep you can dig because you eventually reach the mantle and molten rock).
It is a well known and long standing practice for hollywood to remake movies in different settings. This goes way back, but one that springs to mind:
Kurosawa's Yojimbo (Edo Japan Ronin playing two factions against each other for profit) remade as "A Fist Full of Dollars" a western starring Clint Eastwood with the same storyline, but set in the cowboy American mid west.
It happens a lot more often than you think, and these are remakes in the truest sense of the word.
I think you give Avatar too much credit, Avatar was a remake of Disney's Pocahontas in space lol. If it were Dances with Wolves, it would have had more nuance and depth.
Pretty sure this has less to do with direct access to the Play Store and more to do with people from the third world, who for all intents and purposes view technology as magic, getting access to smart phones. And who was the friend who shared the app with her? One would think that friends would be even better sources for information on an App that they use and have on their phone than the play store's faceless reviews.
Capitalism works exactly how I stated. The difference is some artists want to make money, so they make art that people want (Fifty Shades of Gray or the movie Titanic are two examples) and others make art that they like personally but sells poorly. Marketing is a part of capitalism, but you can only up-sell a turd so much. The reason Fifty Shades and Titanic did well was that they tapped into a basic desire/instinct inherent in many women and fed it just the way they wanted it to be fed. If you are not in that category, it did not appeal to you, but that doesn't make it crap, you were just not the target audience. Art is subjective, one man's art is another's toilet paper.
Art for the sake of art in a capitalist society will leave you starving, art that people want can make you very rich.
My first PC was an 8MHz 286 XT PC clone with (gasp) 512K of RAM and an amber 13" monochrome monitor and a 20MB HDD (because no one would ever need more than 20 MB, I mean come on, I think it was actually 40MB but firmware locked to 20MB). I also had one of those screeching dot matrix printers (I blessed the day that the HP Laserjet II arrived). I didn't even have a modem or NIC. I had MSDOS and ran Lotus and Wordperfect 5.1. I remember my first install of C being a stack of like 20x 3.5" diskettes (I cant remember the version, it was some guys name like Peter Norton or something). Good times.
That's my point though, there are a lot of young, talented millennials who would love to have those jobs at the current wages. Writers can easily work remotely, and if I were the networks, I would start putting out calls for new writers and submissions of new content and let this whole mess of entitled writers collapse under their own weight and go work at McDonalds for the last 5 years of their careers. I hope Netflix and Amazon pull something like this if it goes to a strike.
Talking about percentages is a mistake. I am not talking about the ratio, I am talking about the energy radiated from the planet into space. Change the emissivity by 20% and you multiply that through the equation f(T)*(Emissivity-0.2)= 20% decrease in energy radiated (or alternatively multiply your original equation by 0.8) (this is for demonstrative purposes, pretty sure even obscene CO2 levels of 1000 PPM don't lower global emissivity by anything close to 20% in the climate models I have seen). Alternatively, bump up the global temperature by 1C, Your outgoing radiation energy is MULTIPLIED by 95,054,975. Thats not the energy delta, that is the delta in the T^4 multiplier. On the one hand you have multiplication by 0.8, on the other, multiplication by 95,054,975. That is why all the global warming chicken little's running around have to have some catastrophic, amplifying, self re-enforcing effect that craters the emissivity to essentially zero to get global warming.
The caveat here is that if you get a very low emissivity (below 15-20%) small absolute changes in emissivity can have a large net effect because the %of emissivity change is large (for example at 10% emissivity, if you lose 5% that is a 50% reduction in outbound energy) but all human life will be dead from a poisoned atmposhere long before we get into those ranges of emissivity and there is absolutely no way to get there with CO2.
Regarding CO2, you seem to not understand radiation at all. IR is a spectrum that runs from 0.8 um to 1000 um. CO2 absorbs THREE WAVELENTHS IN THE IR SPECTRUM and is essentially TRANSPARENT outside of those wavelengths. I did not say that the atmosphere was opaque in IR, just those three wavelengths. Each object radiates IR based on it's temperature, and any IR (including IR re-emitted by CO2) outside of those wavelengths goes straight through CO2 with no interaction (it has to do with the molecular bonds and how they match up with the various wavelengths, from what I remember). The point is though that adding more CO2 won't block more than the 100% of those three bands that are already absorbed.
I fully understand the statistics and considerations that you are citing, However, you need to take it out of the theoretical and apply it to the story if you want to have a relevant post. The post was specifically about "micro babies" which is pure bunk based on the statistical deviation that they saw. (Micro babies are those born from 20-25 weeks that weigh an average of around 500g). Further, it is a well documented fact that baring genetic deformity or maternal compromise (i.e. drug use, malnutrition, etc.) fetal health and viability is predominantly predicated on gestational age and not weight at the time of birth. So the concern on birth weight is not relevant in that sense either...
Trump can cut the size of the federal government all by himself. He controls the executive branch which is most of the jobs in government, and he can place hiring freezes at will or cut headcount at will. The money will just sit there unallocated until the next budget is passed. Congress controls the purse strings, the president controls how big of a hole is draining money out of the purse though.
So he has 60 years of experience and somehow spending 3 years working as a professors bitch on some super small segment of a phenomena makes you more competent? (That's all it takes to get a PhD these days, I have seen it.) I believe he also holds a degree in climatology though. And what exactly makes you a climate scientists? A degree? BS? MS? PhD? Working at a research institute funded to research global warming?... You might want to rethink your position.
I honestly can't tell what you are saying beyond that. I get the concept of collective bargaining, but it only goes so far in a free market. If you and all your co workers work collectively is worth $50/hr per person to your employer and they pay you $35/hr (this is typical and how all economic transactions work, your work is always more valuable to them than what your employer pays you, that is how they make money, expand the business and pay back investors etc.) but you demand $60/hr in wages and benefits, one of two things happens, the company either goes bankrupt paying you more than you are worth collectively (and you have no job), or they fire you and hire other workers who are willing to work for a lower wage (and you have no job). The best way to increase wages is to vote for politicians that will un-FUBAR our business environment, making it easier to start and grow a business and hire employees. The more demand for labor there is, the higher prices will go. You should also vote for politicians who will restrict H1B and immigration in general (legal and illegal) because those are both sources of cheap labor that will keep the price of labor down, which keeps down your paycheck.
This is all being said in the context of jobs that require minimal specialization/training and are generally easy to do (like teaching grade-school children, which used to be performed to a higher standard than today by high school graduates). If you have specialized skills or knowledge either through experience, invention or advanced knowledge/degree, you can more easily bargain with your employer on a per person basis.
Google long ago gave up on it's core premise to "do no evil" and yet people still haven't caught on and bailed out. It is blatantly obvious how evil Google is, just google it. Anyone who disagrees should email me at my gmail account. For more information on how evil Google and Alphabet (a shell company Google created to hide more misdeeds) visit my YouTube channel and check out my videos. Now give me a minute, I need to check another tab in my Chrome browser. . ./sarcasam off
In all seriousness though, the saying coined by Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight Rises seems to be holding true for Google: "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain." From handing over the email of private citizens to the US government https://yro.slashdot.org/story... to upranking liberal sites on political topic searches https://news.slashdot.org/stor... to skewing auto complete of searches about Hillary Clinton pre election http://www.breitbart.com/tech/... there have been some mis-steps at Google lately.
This is how the free market should work. If wages are really too low, the strike will cost more than just raising the pay for the writers and the networks will cave. If the writers are overpaid, there are still a lot of unemployed people looking for work, the networks can go find new talent who don't belong to the union (they call it guild, but it is acting as a labor union right now).
Notice that unlike the teachers union, the screen writers guild can't pour in cash to elect their bosses who then kick back raises and benefits, regardless of what is best for the larger organization. This is why all public sector unions need to be banned and why so many Democrats in the past were strongly against public sector unions.
Sure, blame Trump, because the US is the great satan... GTFO.
If you are really worried about pollution and destroying the planet, you need to talk to China first (BTW, they are a lot closer to the GBR than the US as well.)
As opposed to Democrats who literally want to control when and how you take a shit (via pollution and water use laws). Trump is reducing the size of the executive branch departments across the board and in some departments gutting them. Trumps budget cuts ~$1T/year in government spending. You need to watch less MSNBC... http://thehill.com/policy/fina...
What, you mean now that the fascist progressives are in the minority across the federal government? Note that this bill didn't get passed in 8 years under Obama, 2 years where the Dims had the house, senate and presidency, 4 years where they had the majority in the senate.
Pull your head out of wherever and realize that this bill is being sponsored and actually has a shot at passing because the Republicans are now running the show. They want smaller, less intrusive government for as many people as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Meh, HALO was bought when they acquired Bungie Studios, but those rings are piddly, like the diameter of a planet. Ringworld is 1AU in diameter and something like 25,000 miles wide, which is a whole different ballgame with an entire universe of books around it including nearly all of Niven's books. Most of Niven's work would be better served as a miniseries on Syfy channel, like the BSG reboot. CGI and effects are so good and cheap these days that kind of thing is better in many ways. I would also love to see some of the Man-Kzin wars on the big or small screen. Wookies are just overgrown teddy bears compared to the Kzin.
I was so hyped for Children of Men, but so disappointed.
Using humans as batteries is not science, just pure fiction, thus not science fiction. The Matrix used technobabble to sell magical powers and spectacular visuals on the big screen. Great movie, but such a flawed premise it lands squarely in the fantasy genre, at least in my book.
Where spacecraft traveling interstellar distances at superluminal speeds. Engage the enemy like WWII fighters (well Steven modeled manuveurs from that war's combat footage), larger ships engaged each other like 18th century navies. And it had flaming fireballs and thunderous explosions in the vacuum of space, yeah!
The light speed was definitely a misnomer, but I remember reading somewhere that they wanted to avoid a lawsuit from Paramount over similarities with the original Star Trek (thus they didn't use warp speed as a term). They still got sued (and won) over similarities with Battlestar Galactica.
The combat style and sounds were adapted primarily for theatrical purposes. However, if you want to see a great, realistic space battle, the expanse has a great one here, but it required a lot more CGI and special effects than were available at the time of Star Wars and though they did a good job with the realism, there is no crowd pleasing explosion, thundering engines or gut wrenching bullet sounds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Compared to Star Wars space fights like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The BSG reboot sits somewhere in the middle, but their space battles are also great and exciting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Not sure if trolling or just really sad.
Assuming not a troll, it truly was your loss. In trying to be "cool" you missed out on one of the greatest movies of all time. That said, I don't recommend you see it now, you will just sit there and pick apart every minor flaw and not enjoy the movie.
They had the right idea with the ring, but the orientation was wrong, it should have been perpendicular to the camera and haloed around the original death star location because it is created by POV illusion. With a big detonation like that and then flames chasing an expanding wave front of fuel, the front of fuel and exploding gasses expands out in a sphere, but the edges of the sphere appear much more brightly because there is more plasma to be seen per viewing angle, vs straight through the middle of the sphere where you only see at most two thicknesses of the combustion front, front and back (assuming that is what they were going for).
I have seen SST a few times, and my friends and I discussed it quite a lot at the time and here was some of the things that we came up with:
No, they didn't use gun sights because they were firing smart bullets that would track targets within maybe 3 degrees divergence of their fired direction. This would allow you to spray and still consistently hit the target.
What we perceived as body armor due to the low budget of the film was actually supposed to be smart gear, carrying ammo, locator beacons for friend or foe ID, food, water, battery pack, etc (I don't remember them all carrying backpacks, just a few and those probably had LAW or HE charges or other specialized hardware). Body armor only makes sense if it protects you from your enemy, and you pay a price for carrying the extra weight and loss of mobility. The bugs were able to punch through like an inch of steel at the overrun compound, so likely the choice was made for greater mobility vs body armor that was not survivable anyway in combat with bugs.
The only benefit to armored vehicles and artillery are greater firepower and protection from small arms. The bugs didn't use small arms, and the soldier with a LAW rocket has just as much firepower as a tank or artillery piece. The rifles that ever soldier carried seemed to use explosive rounds as well and were very effective on the smaller bugs (at least getting through their exoskeleton). From a mobility standpoint, humans are better adapted to cross very rugged and varying terrain than vehicles, so the choice was probably made to just use infantry and leave the heavy vehicles behind, since they offered no benefit when fighting the bugs.
Surface bombardment is ineffective against dug in opponents, up to a point, but those explosions on the surface were clearly visible and big even from space (covering like 2% of the planet's surface each), so we are talking massive gigga-ton level explosions, at which point, just the translated shock-wave would probably liquefy anything buried underground, no matter how deep (there is a limit to how deep you can dig because you eventually reach the mantle and molten rock).
Yep, that is probably at the top of my list as well.
It is a well known and long standing practice for hollywood to remake movies in different settings. This goes way back, but one that springs to mind:
Kurosawa's Yojimbo (Edo Japan Ronin playing two factions against each other for profit) remade as "A Fist Full of Dollars" a western starring Clint Eastwood with the same storyline, but set in the cowboy American mid west.
It happens a lot more often than you think, and these are remakes in the truest sense of the word.
Here are more since I'm lazy and don't want to write out a longer list. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I think you give Avatar too much credit, Avatar was a remake of Disney's Pocahontas in space lol. If it were Dances with Wolves, it would have had more nuance and depth.
Pretty sure this has less to do with direct access to the Play Store and more to do with people from the third world, who for all intents and purposes view technology as magic, getting access to smart phones. And who was the friend who shared the app with her? One would think that friends would be even better sources for information on an App that they use and have on their phone than the play store's faceless reviews.
Capitalism works exactly how I stated. The difference is some artists want to make money, so they make art that people want (Fifty Shades of Gray or the movie Titanic are two examples) and others make art that they like personally but sells poorly. Marketing is a part of capitalism, but you can only up-sell a turd so much. The reason Fifty Shades and Titanic did well was that they tapped into a basic desire/instinct inherent in many women and fed it just the way they wanted it to be fed. If you are not in that category, it did not appeal to you, but that doesn't make it crap, you were just not the target audience. Art is subjective, one man's art is another's toilet paper.
Art for the sake of art in a capitalist society will leave you starving, art that people want can make you very rich.
Does my Atari 2600 count?
My first PC was an 8MHz 286 XT PC clone with (gasp) 512K of RAM and an amber 13" monochrome monitor and a 20MB HDD (because no one would ever need more than 20 MB, I mean come on, I think it was actually 40MB but firmware locked to 20MB). I also had one of those screeching dot matrix printers (I blessed the day that the HP Laserjet II arrived). I didn't even have a modem or NIC. I had MSDOS and ran Lotus and Wordperfect 5.1. I remember my first install of C being a stack of like 20x 3.5" diskettes (I cant remember the version, it was some guys name like Peter Norton or something). Good times.
That's my point though, there are a lot of young, talented millennials who would love to have those jobs at the current wages. Writers can easily work remotely, and if I were the networks, I would start putting out calls for new writers and submissions of new content and let this whole mess of entitled writers collapse under their own weight and go work at McDonalds for the last 5 years of their careers. I hope Netflix and Amazon pull something like this if it goes to a strike.
Talking about percentages is a mistake. I am not talking about the ratio, I am talking about the energy radiated from the planet into space. Change the emissivity by 20% and you multiply that through the equation f(T)*(Emissivity-0.2)= 20% decrease in energy radiated (or alternatively multiply your original equation by 0.8) (this is for demonstrative purposes, pretty sure even obscene CO2 levels of 1000 PPM don't lower global emissivity by anything close to 20% in the climate models I have seen). Alternatively, bump up the global temperature by 1C, Your outgoing radiation energy is MULTIPLIED by 95,054,975. Thats not the energy delta, that is the delta in the T^4 multiplier. On the one hand you have multiplication by 0.8, on the other, multiplication by 95,054,975. That is why all the global warming chicken little's running around have to have some catastrophic, amplifying, self re-enforcing effect that craters the emissivity to essentially zero to get global warming.
The caveat here is that if you get a very low emissivity (below 15-20%) small absolute changes in emissivity can have a large net effect because the %of emissivity change is large (for example at 10% emissivity, if you lose 5% that is a 50% reduction in outbound energy) but all human life will be dead from a poisoned atmposhere long before we get into those ranges of emissivity and there is absolutely no way to get there with CO2.
Regarding CO2, you seem to not understand radiation at all. IR is a spectrum that runs from 0.8 um to 1000 um. CO2 absorbs THREE WAVELENTHS IN THE IR SPECTRUM and is essentially TRANSPARENT outside of those wavelengths. I did not say that the atmosphere was opaque in IR, just those three wavelengths. Each object radiates IR based on it's temperature, and any IR (including IR re-emitted by CO2) outside of those wavelengths goes straight through CO2 with no interaction (it has to do with the molecular bonds and how they match up with the various wavelengths, from what I remember). The point is though that adding more CO2 won't block more than the 100% of those three bands that are already absorbed.
I fully understand the statistics and considerations that you are citing, However, you need to take it out of the theoretical and apply it to the story if you want to have a relevant post. The post was specifically about "micro babies" which is pure bunk based on the statistical deviation that they saw. (Micro babies are those born from 20-25 weeks that weigh an average of around 500g). Further, it is a well documented fact that baring genetic deformity or maternal compromise (i.e. drug use, malnutrition, etc.) fetal health and viability is predominantly predicated on gestational age and not weight at the time of birth. So the concern on birth weight is not relevant in that sense either...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
https://www.babycenter.com/ave...
Trump can cut the size of the federal government all by himself. He controls the executive branch which is most of the jobs in government, and he can place hiring freezes at will or cut headcount at will. The money will just sit there unallocated until the next budget is passed. Congress controls the purse strings, the president controls how big of a hole is draining money out of the purse though.
So he has 60 years of experience and somehow spending 3 years working as a professors bitch on some super small segment of a phenomena makes you more competent? (That's all it takes to get a PhD these days, I have seen it.) I believe he also holds a degree in climatology though. And what exactly makes you a climate scientists? A degree? BS? MS? PhD? Working at a research institute funded to research global warming?... You might want to rethink your position.
Since the public sector teachers union apparently gave you a sub standard education, here is a link for you to educate yourself on the topic:
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfo...
I honestly can't tell what you are saying beyond that. I get the concept of collective bargaining, but it only goes so far in a free market. If you and all your co workers work collectively is worth $50/hr per person to your employer and they pay you $35/hr (this is typical and how all economic transactions work, your work is always more valuable to them than what your employer pays you, that is how they make money, expand the business and pay back investors etc.) but you demand $60/hr in wages and benefits, one of two things happens, the company either goes bankrupt paying you more than you are worth collectively (and you have no job), or they fire you and hire other workers who are willing to work for a lower wage (and you have no job). The best way to increase wages is to vote for politicians that will un-FUBAR our business environment, making it easier to start and grow a business and hire employees. The more demand for labor there is, the higher prices will go. You should also vote for politicians who will restrict H1B and immigration in general (legal and illegal) because those are both sources of cheap labor that will keep the price of labor down, which keeps down your paycheck.
This is all being said in the context of jobs that require minimal specialization/training and are generally easy to do (like teaching grade-school children, which used to be performed to a higher standard than today by high school graduates). If you have specialized skills or knowledge either through experience, invention or advanced knowledge/degree, you can more easily bargain with your employer on a per person basis.
Google long ago gave up on it's core premise to "do no evil" and yet people still haven't caught on and bailed out. It is blatantly obvious how evil Google is, just google it. Anyone who disagrees should email me at my gmail account. For more information on how evil Google and Alphabet (a shell company Google created to hide more misdeeds) visit my YouTube channel and check out my videos. Now give me a minute, I need to check another tab in my Chrome browser. /sarcasam off
.
.
In all seriousness though, the saying coined by Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight Rises seems to be holding true for Google: "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain." From handing over the email of private citizens to the US government https://yro.slashdot.org/story... to upranking liberal sites on political topic searches https://news.slashdot.org/stor... to skewing auto complete of searches about Hillary Clinton pre election http://www.breitbart.com/tech/... there have been some mis-steps at Google lately.
This is how the free market should work. If wages are really too low, the strike will cost more than just raising the pay for the writers and the networks will cave. If the writers are overpaid, there are still a lot of unemployed people looking for work, the networks can go find new talent who don't belong to the union (they call it guild, but it is acting as a labor union right now).
Notice that unlike the teachers union, the screen writers guild can't pour in cash to elect their bosses who then kick back raises and benefits, regardless of what is best for the larger organization. This is why all public sector unions need to be banned and why so many Democrats in the past were strongly against public sector unions.
Sure, blame Trump, because the US is the great satan... GTFO.
If you are really worried about pollution and destroying the planet, you need to talk to China first (BTW, they are a lot closer to the GBR than the US as well.)
My forays into Youtube have been facilitated by my PS4 and Xbone. I end up posting bugs like this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?... or cool moments like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
My friends get to take a look and I think that it is great that now they don't have to put up with ads when checking out my latest video.
As opposed to Democrats who literally want to control when and how you take a shit (via pollution and water use laws). Trump is reducing the size of the executive branch departments across the board and in some departments gutting them. Trumps budget cuts ~$1T/year in government spending. You need to watch less MSNBC... http://thehill.com/policy/fina...
What, you mean now that the fascist progressives are in the minority across the federal government? Note that this bill didn't get passed in 8 years under Obama, 2 years where the Dims had the house, senate and presidency, 4 years where they had the majority in the senate.
Pull your head out of wherever and realize that this bill is being sponsored and actually has a shot at passing because the Republicans are now running the show. They want smaller, less intrusive government for as many people as possible.