LOL this... Had someone a while back want data stability for a millenia, including the system to read the data. The conclusion we came to was carve it in marble or in fired ceramic, including the instructions for building the data reader in plain text.
The better method for determining scientific truth is to fix their damn mathematical models such that they accurately reflect the global temperatures for the last 75 years and can accurately predict global temperatures for the next 10 years and can calculate the difference between natural global warming and AGW, this is also known as science:
1 Observe 2 Hypothesis 3 Test 4 Conclusion
What we have right now is:
1 Observe - The earth has been warmer and cooler than it is now, with more CO2 in the atmosphere 2 Hypothesis - Humans must be destroying the world and bringing about the apocalypse 3 Mathematical model - Create mathematical models that have been proven wildly inaccurated without exception for the last 25 years; engage in incestuous consensus, conduct a witch hunt for any who disagree, shout down any opposing theories by claiming majority rule regardless of their scientific merit 4 Conclusion - AGW is right and is the apocalypse, everyone who disagrees is either an idiot or a shill for fossil fuels
As you can see, there are some key differences between real science and the climate change crowd...
The problem here is not Google snippets, the problem is ignorant/dumb students with poor truth filters. You need to start out with a basic knowledge of history. You used to be able to get this knowledge from your history books in junior high and high school (I am assuming that you still can if you want to). Then you find news outlets who do a good job of being right and reporting the story accurately and in it's entirety instead of grinding a bias into every sentence. When you are browsing the internet, again, you have to evaluate first the source. Wikipedia, for all it's flaws, is usually pretty accurate about non-controversial historical events. If the topic is a historical event and it is locked from editing, it is probably pretty accurate as well. Current political stuff on Wikipedia is pretty useless. Browsing some random website not affiliated with a well established foundation or news outlet for historical facts is just dumb.
"Where is the point where the crime is so egregious that the FBI is willing to publish the exploit? "
Probably prosecution of a live, thwarted US citizen terrorist that they couldn't deport to Gitmo or rendition and could only deal with in US courts.
They probably looked at the kiddie porn guy and decided he wasn't a high threat based on a propensity of evidence. It makes sense to save this exploit (which all the CIA/US assets already probably have a workaround for) and keep using it against significant criminals who are attempting to conceal their identities on the web.
The only things that stink here are the fetid bias of the MSM and their complete lack of journalistic ethics and the Democrats lack of ethics of any kind (likely to be revealed in the coming weeks as the AG opens real investigations and begins criminal prosecutions).
Just to be clear, there was no lying involved with Jeff Sessions. Here are some facts without the liberal MSM spin machine shitting all over them:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions was asked under oath if he had ever had any contact with the Russians regarding the Trump campaign. The exact question was:
"Several of the President-Elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?"
Jeff Sessions answered "No."
There has been zero evidence to date that his answer was not accurate (note the question asked about contact with the Russian government about the election, not contact with the Russian government in general as the MSM and dishonest Democrats are alleging...) Even the far left factcheck.org who are shills for the liberal progressive movement say there is nothing there: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/...
Fact 1: Jeff Sessions met with the Russian ambassador once in 2016, before he was part of the campaign, as a function of his position on the armed services committee. Fact 2: The meeting was also attended by several retired armed service members and staffers, hardly the venue for collusion about throwing an election. Fact 3: His other "meeting" was in a receiving line for 30 seconds surrounded by hundreds of people, again no sane person would believe that this even provided opportunity to discuss the 2016 election.
If you look at the facts, this is a non-story, but the MSM and democrats are doing their best to conflate and confuse the public.
Michael Flynn's "improper contact" with the Russian ambassador happened after the election and was nothing sandwich. It was in his job description to interact with foreign diplomats, and his only mistake was trying to get a jump on his responsibilities rather than waiting for after his confirmation hearings. Many legal scholars say that because Flynn was part of the president elect's selected cabinet, he was not in violation of law and could have made a strong case and would have won any legal challenge to his actions (in the same way that every president elect, including Trump interacts legally with foreign countries/leaders even though he has not been sworn in yet). He resigned not because it was illegal or indicative of collusion with the Russians to throw the election but because he is an honorable man and didn't want it to be a distraction.
From now forward I suspect you will see some really brutal blow-back on all of the criminal felon leakers in the federal government, and you may see many from the Obama administration perp walked in handcuffs for leaking classified information and/or illegal wiretapping/lying on a federal warrant application and serving hard time in federal prison. Since day one, the Democrats and Obama appointees have been working to sabotage the government to prevent Trump from getting anything done, and they have been succeeding, but the jig appears to be up with the revelation that the Obama admin wiretapped Trump under false pretense during the election and systematically distributed classified information within the executive branch for the purposes of later leaking it to the press.
The Obama administration was empirically one of the least transparent, most corrupt administrations in modern history (lying on warrant applications and then wire tapping the AP and reporter James Rosen, anyone remember that?), and it appears that Trump is not going to give them a pass any more and is now directing the FBI and attorney general to begin investigating the misdeeds of the Obama administration.
First off, tone it down, calling names only makes you look foolish. Secondly, you seem to be conflating clinical observation with legal finding. Legal finding requires more than just one psychiatrist testifying, it also entails an interview between the patient and the judge as well as multiple people who know the patient well. So no, the earlier post was not conclusive to the topic at hand, namely the legal disposition of severely mentally ill patients.
First off, you need to tone it down. There is no reason to get personal, my PhD seems to refute your claim about my competence level, and FYI I came across the diamond transistor research back when I was working in the semiconductor industry (which I do actually know quite well from the inside), specifically researching better heat spreaders to mount to the dies. I was looking at the viability of hybrid silver/diamond http://www.rhp-technology.com/... or synthetic diamond wafers http://www.e6.com/en/Home/Mate... as heat spreaders and came across the diamond transistor development. Diamond has a thermal conductivity around 800W/mK versus ~400 for copper and ~170 for aluminum and it's CTE (around 1x10^-6) is a better match for silicon than the metals, meaning a thinner bonding layer could be used.
I never said the CEOs were clueless, just that they were risk averse. A carbon based processor would require massive investment, completely new processes and as others have mentioned, it is unclear if the market demand for 300GHz processors would support that kind of investment.
Spongman, you make an excellent point, and it supports mine. Disrupting an industry has unexpected and unintended consequences, and most of the time CEOs are afraid of that if they are head of a large, established company like Intel. However, imagine that a small startup works out the details and starts fabricating small GPUs and then CPUS that are rated at 50GHz and use 2W of power to run. It would upend the industry. Your smartphone could be more powerful than your desktop.
This is essentially what happened to Eastman Kodak (you know, the photo company). They had been around forever, they had the corner on film manufacturing, and they basically invented the digital camera, but decided not to commercialize it because it would upend their film business. They are now gone because of this choice by their shortsighted CEO...
I believe diamond it'self is an insulator, while Graphene is a conductor. As others have mentioned, it would almost be an entirely new industry with entirely new processes for creating processors. The existing methods would all have to be re-invented (thus the choice by CEOs to add more processors using existing silicon technology).
Admittedly carbon based electronics was not my PhD field, but it seems like you could get carbon nanotubes to line up nicely for you by passing an electrical current transverse to a strong, homogeneous, static magnetic field? Maybe I am missing something though.
And historically we used leaches and bled people of bad humors... I don't recommend you base your policy opinions on ancient history. Clinical observation and judicial oversight largely eliminate revenge commitment. The US has one of the smallest populations of committed mentally ill, while we have one of the largest populations of homeless people, many of whom are mentally ill and can't care for themselves, and a few that are a danger to themselves and others. Compared to European countries we have like 80% of our mentally ill living on the streets (assuming that mental illness has a similar incidence rate between the EU and US.)
This is a potentially dangerous consequence of this reckless behavior by telemarketers. I wonder what the social and economic impact has been over the years of all the un-answered phone calls by people assuming it was a telemarketer when it was in fact an important call that they should have taken, all because a few assholes want to abuse the system for their personal economic gain...
Don't be an ass. You got 8 years with Obama and we took it like adults, you can do the same with Trump. There are like a billion pages of federal regulations and each one has an economic cost to businesses and indirectly to everyone else (something the previous administration never understood). Fixing the accuracy of our phone systems has a definite economic and personal benefit, but there are millions of other regulations that have significant economic cost with no benefit to society (all of the CO2 regulations for starters, and virtually every other EPA regulation that does not directly work towards clean air, clean water and clean soil.)
The environmental nuts and climate change fascists have destroyed hundreds of billions of dollars with their unscientific regulations protecting frogs and smelt and some hypothetical anthropogenic climate apocalypse that every model they had said would already be here but was wildly off over the last 15 years...
News flash: species go extinct, breed them in captivity if you can, or let them die out, such is life on this planet.
News flash: the climate changes, and no one can tell me how much the climate would have changed with no influence from mankind, showing once again that climate science is anything but science and these climate clowns in lab coats don't have a clue what they are doing. 40 years ago the next ice age was upon us, now we are all going to burn up or drown... The emperor has no clothes and the majority of the population now sees that gobal cooling was wrong, global warming is wrong, so why should "climate change" be something to worry about since hard science shows this has happened for 500,000 years or more...
The size of current US law serves only to make every citizen an unwitting criminal, and if you run a business even more so. Shrinking that regulatory burden is good for the citizens and bad for the bureaucrats. Tough cookies.
There should only be two options that are legal: for private citizens, they can chose to either block or unblock their ID (shows as their number or BLOCKED on caller ID). For businesses, your ID must show up as a number that you or your business legally owns, no blocking or spoofing allowed at all. So for example, doctors calling a patient back after hours on their personal cell could legally show as the main number for the doctors office, or blocked, since it is their personal cell if they don't want you to have their personal cell number. A business calling you about anything from a business owned line would have to show a number that they own that is connected and answered.
And what do you do when a loved one is in an accident and the hospital or police are trying to call you to notify you Mr. Smarty pants? Your solution is not valid for the use case of the phone system... There is a valid reason for allowing in any phone that is calling yours, there is no valid reason not to have a trust/certificate system run by a non profit that ties to an actual number, an IP, a physical billing address and someone's drivers license. If you want to be anonymous, go online and use TOR for your communications, just don't expect to call the police, EMS or me.
This is what I have been calling for for a while now. It would also address the issue of SWATing using spoofed/VOIP systems to conceal the true callers ID. The bottom line is that if you want to be anonymous, go on the internet, but for the phone system, you never used to be able to conceal your ID and because of the use case of the phone system (EMS/Police/bomb squad etc.) we need to re-add the trust and accuracy of knowing who is calling.
If you want the hypothetical means to conceal your ID while leaking government crimes as a whistleblower, use voice chat on the PSN or XBL or WhatsApp or any number of other apps/programs that allow you privacy. There are still ways to conceal your identity, but the phone system should not be on that list.
This doesn't go far enough and won't catch scammers spoofing using a real, valid phone number to display on your caller ID. We need some kind of trust/certificate system tied to IP and real physical address/person. Once we have that, we can systematically block all callers who spoof their caller ID or otherwise try to mask or confuse their identity over the phone networks, and we can pass a law making it a federal crime to try to do so...
OK, then how about a law that holds the family criminally liable if they suspected that the person was mentally ill but did not report it and the person goes on to commit a murder. If the mentally ill person gets access to a family members firearm, that family member would be charged with whatever crimes the mental patient commits, since they were the responsible party.
Once a patient is reported, you have psychologists evaluate the person, and if the psychologists find that the patient is mentally ill, they have a review with a judge to decide with a patient advocate and the patient and their family... Oh wait, we kind of had that before until the ACLU fucked it all up in the 1970s...
Another fun tidbit, the Obama administration presided over 162 mass shootings (defined by the FBI as 4 or more victims in one incident). This is more than 8X the mass shootings of all 4 prior presidents who had between 10-23 per 8 years, and virtually every one he and his party came out pounding the drumbeat of gun confiscation...
Another fun fact: The federal government allowed Dylan Roof to purchase his legal gun, despite his criminal record and narcotics arrest that should have prevented it...
I am not a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, but it will be informative to see if the same trend continues under Trump or if things revert back to the ~20 mass shootings every 8 years trend...
The stated purpose of gun control laws today is to reduce homicide. (The actual purpose is to take power away from the citizens and give the guns and the power to the state). The facts indicate that strict gun laws or confiscation dramatically increase crime rates. Homicide (all homicide, not just looking at gun homicide) jumps up dramatically when guns are banned (the UK saw an increase in homicides and a 100% increase in violent crime after they banned guns). This is also borne out in Australia after their gun ban and other countries. Gun homicide drops, because they are not as readily available, but if you are a citizen, you don't really care if you get murdered by a gun or a machete, either way you are having a really shitty day that you probably could have prevented with a concealed carry weapon (which happens dozens of times per day by the way).
Now look at the liberal progressive paradise of Chicago with 4367 shootings last year and one of the strictest gun bans in the country. The simple concept that liberals intentionally to fail to grasp is that CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW. If they are going to murder someone, they are going to chose the best tool that is available, and the laws be damned...
We already have federal background checks, and every lib who says guns are too easy to get should be forced to go through the process of getting one (you don't have to actually buy one, just go through the process). Your ignorance is apparent to the rest of us who have. Liberals are just conservatives who haven't experienced enough of the real world yet. If you haven't gone through the process of buying a gun or you think that someone can just "buy a gun" at a gun show without a background check, you have been lied to and are demonstrably ignorant of reality. Every gun purchase has to go through an FFL dealer and process with a background check. Period... Go to your nearest gun show or even online and try to buy a gun. Every one will go through an FFL dealer and you will go through a background check.
As far as illegal, stolen guns; as a gun owner, I am 100% for having the death penalty option for firing a gun in the commission of any violent crime. How is that for being tough on gun crime? But liberals don't want to punish criminals do they... It's almost pathological, blame the inanimate gun, not the conscious, thinking criminal who is choosing moment by moment to break the law and harm innocents around him...
Further we need to take every person who is mentally ill and a danger to themselves and those around them and have them permanently committed so that they can get the meds that they need every day and the rest of us can live in safety with all of our freedoms intact.
The liberal progressive shills at Politifact are wrong again, what a shocker. You can only bend truth so far before it becomes horse shit. Politifact has been shoveling it industrial scale for many years now and at this point the name it'self is an oxymoron, along with anyone who things they are getting straight information from politifact.
This exactly, and were I the NRA, I might also review my contract to see what legal recourse I could take for bait and switch or breach of contract. At minimum a few heads should roll over at Snapchat.
Alt-right is the latest pejorative of the weak minded liberal progressives who have become progressively shrill over the last 6 months as their paper thin arguments have been shredded in the truth filters of millions of Americans. 50 years ago they redrew the political spectrum because they were left wing nutjobs arguing against conservative centrists, and it was hard to get people to take them seriously arguing against the center from the far left.
The original political spectrum looked like this: - Left Wing were for totalitarian government control: Fascists, socialists, communists, Nazis all fit in this category to various degrees
- Centrists were for limited government: conservatives typically fit this category (they want to continue the status quo existing limited government)
- Right Wing were for minimal or no government: Libertarians and Anarchists fit in this category to different degrees
Now, as the American population is seeing that the emperor has no clothes, the left wing progressive nutjobs have tried to further marginalize the centrist conservatives, because far right wasn't pejorative enough, so they have moved on to alt-right as the new insult for those with better, more reasonable positions and arguments that rely on facts instead of feelings.
The most immoral act it seems was to sell ad space to the NRA, who represent about half of the households in the US (45 million households own firearms) and then turn around and try to stifle their voice by offering to kill the ads for a fee. I am pretty certain that this would have been illegal if it were radio or broadcast TV airtime because of the rules around selling ad space.
If the position of Everytown is well reasoned and sourced, it seems that the NRA adds should be welcome, seeing as the NRA is essentially paying to put Everytown online (that is how ads work, they pay for the cost of distributing the content)...
However, if the NRA ads are well reasoned and effective, it seems like not only a disservice to the audience, but to our democracy by silencing 1 side of the debate. The days of the liberal media are numbered. They are revealed as fascist radicals at every turn. They don't foster debate and open dialog, they shout down or shut out the other perspectives because "only their perspective can possibly be right." While at the same time they at best have a high school level education regarding anything in the hard or applied sciences.
The same thing is true of academia, where professors lie to their ignorant students who are nothing but adult children and rile them up to go shout down the opposition, rather than listening and debating and becoming better informed on the controversy, and the general population is sick of all the little morally "superior" brown shirts shouting down any opposition.
First off, any honest, informed person will tell you that politifact is full of shit and a shill for the liberal progressives. They spin and twist and build straw man arguments rather than doing what they purport to do, namely, fact check things.
Secondly, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right. Flying commercial is not. You can't infringe a constitutional right without a felony conviction or a finding of mental incompetence. Period full stop. The no fly list does not have a jury of your peers to put you on it, or really much in the way of judicial review. If you don't like the second amendment, get the votes to change the constitution, until then you are out of luck.
Thirdly, we already have federal background checks for every gun purchase. If the feds do their jobs, all is well. If they are incompetent and don't do their jobs in a reasonable time frame, bad things can happen. Welcome to the real world.
Fourth, the liberal progressives in general and the ACLU in particular are responsible for nearly every mass murder attack in the US after they broke the system for involuntary commitment for the mentally ill in the 1970s (look it up). It doesn't matter if they use a knife, a gun or a car to follow the voices in their head and murder people, we can't have mentally ill people roaming free in a free society, or there will be mass killings. The solution is not to take away everyone's freedom to use knives, machetes, axes, pipes, guns or drive cars, the solution is to take the paranoid schizophrenics and put them in the looney bin like it used to be...
Slashdot Mirror
LOL this... Had someone a while back want data stability for a millenia, including the system to read the data. The conclusion we came to was carve it in marble or in fired ceramic, including the instructions for building the data reader in plain text.
The better method for determining scientific truth is to fix their damn mathematical models such that they accurately reflect the global temperatures for the last 75 years and can accurately predict global temperatures for the next 10 years and can calculate the difference between natural global warming and AGW, this is also known as science:
1 Observe
2 Hypothesis
3 Test
4 Conclusion
What we have right now is:
1 Observe - The earth has been warmer and cooler than it is now, with more CO2 in the atmosphere
2 Hypothesis - Humans must be destroying the world and bringing about the apocalypse
3 Mathematical model - Create mathematical models that have been proven wildly inaccurated without exception for the last 25 years; engage in incestuous consensus, conduct a witch hunt for any who disagree, shout down any opposing theories by claiming majority rule regardless of their scientific merit
4 Conclusion - AGW is right and is the apocalypse, everyone who disagrees is either an idiot or a shill for fossil fuels
As you can see, there are some key differences between real science and the climate change crowd...
The problem here is not Google snippets, the problem is ignorant/dumb students with poor truth filters. You need to start out with a basic knowledge of history. You used to be able to get this knowledge from your history books in junior high and high school (I am assuming that you still can if you want to). Then you find news outlets who do a good job of being right and reporting the story accurately and in it's entirety instead of grinding a bias into every sentence. When you are browsing the internet, again, you have to evaluate first the source. Wikipedia, for all it's flaws, is usually pretty accurate about non-controversial historical events. If the topic is a historical event and it is locked from editing, it is probably pretty accurate as well. Current political stuff on Wikipedia is pretty useless. Browsing some random website not affiliated with a well established foundation or news outlet for historical facts is just dumb.
"Where is the point where the crime is so egregious that the FBI is willing to publish the exploit? "
Probably prosecution of a live, thwarted US citizen terrorist that they couldn't deport to Gitmo or rendition and could only deal with in US courts.
They probably looked at the kiddie porn guy and decided he wasn't a high threat based on a propensity of evidence. It makes sense to save this exploit (which all the CIA/US assets already probably have a workaround for) and keep using it against significant criminals who are attempting to conceal their identities on the web.
The only things that stink here are the fetid bias of the MSM and their complete lack of journalistic ethics and the Democrats lack of ethics of any kind (likely to be revealed in the coming weeks as the AG opens real investigations and begins criminal prosecutions).
Just to be clear, there was no lying involved with Jeff Sessions. Here are some facts without the liberal MSM spin machine shitting all over them:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions was asked under oath if he had ever had any contact with the Russians regarding the Trump campaign. The exact question was:
"Several of the President-Elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?"
Jeff Sessions answered "No."
There has been zero evidence to date that his answer was not accurate (note the question asked about contact with the Russian government about the election, not contact with the Russian government in general as the MSM and dishonest Democrats are alleging...) Even the far left factcheck.org who are shills for the liberal progressive movement say there is nothing there: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/...
Fact 1: Jeff Sessions met with the Russian ambassador once in 2016, before he was part of the campaign, as a function of his position on the armed services committee.
Fact 2: The meeting was also attended by several retired armed service members and staffers, hardly the venue for collusion about throwing an election.
Fact 3: His other "meeting" was in a receiving line for 30 seconds surrounded by hundreds of people, again no sane person would believe that this even provided opportunity to discuss the 2016 election.
If you look at the facts, this is a non-story, but the MSM and democrats are doing their best to conflate and confuse the public.
Michael Flynn's "improper contact" with the Russian ambassador happened after the election and was nothing sandwich. It was in his job description to interact with foreign diplomats, and his only mistake was trying to get a jump on his responsibilities rather than waiting for after his confirmation hearings. Many legal scholars say that because Flynn was part of the president elect's selected cabinet, he was not in violation of law and could have made a strong case and would have won any legal challenge to his actions (in the same way that every president elect, including Trump interacts legally with foreign countries/leaders even though he has not been sworn in yet). He resigned not because it was illegal or indicative of collusion with the Russians to throw the election but because he is an honorable man and didn't want it to be a distraction.
From now forward I suspect you will see some really brutal blow-back on all of the criminal felon leakers in the federal government, and you may see many from the Obama administration perp walked in handcuffs for leaking classified information and/or illegal wiretapping/lying on a federal warrant application and serving hard time in federal prison. Since day one, the Democrats and Obama appointees have been working to sabotage the government to prevent Trump from getting anything done, and they have been succeeding, but the jig appears to be up with the revelation that the Obama admin wiretapped Trump under false pretense during the election and systematically distributed classified information within the executive branch for the purposes of later leaking it to the press.
The Obama administration was empirically one of the least transparent, most corrupt administrations in modern history (lying on warrant applications and then wire tapping the AP and reporter James Rosen, anyone remember that?), and it appears that Trump is not going to give them a pass any more and is now directing the FBI and attorney general to begin investigating the misdeeds of the Obama administration.
First off, tone it down, calling names only makes you look foolish. Secondly, you seem to be conflating clinical observation with legal finding. Legal finding requires more than just one psychiatrist testifying, it also entails an interview between the patient and the judge as well as multiple people who know the patient well. So no, the earlier post was not conclusive to the topic at hand, namely the legal disposition of severely mentally ill patients.
First off, you need to tone it down. There is no reason to get personal, my PhD seems to refute your claim about my competence level, and FYI I came across the diamond transistor research back when I was working in the semiconductor industry (which I do actually know quite well from the inside), specifically researching better heat spreaders to mount to the dies. I was looking at the viability of hybrid silver/diamond http://www.rhp-technology.com/... or synthetic diamond wafers http://www.e6.com/en/Home/Mate... as heat spreaders and came across the diamond transistor development. Diamond has a thermal conductivity around 800W/mK versus ~400 for copper and ~170 for aluminum and it's CTE (around 1x10^-6) is a better match for silicon than the metals, meaning a thinner bonding layer could be used.
I never said the CEOs were clueless, just that they were risk averse. A carbon based processor would require massive investment, completely new processes and as others have mentioned, it is unclear if the market demand for 300GHz processors would support that kind of investment.
Spongman, you make an excellent point, and it supports mine. Disrupting an industry has unexpected and unintended consequences, and most of the time CEOs are afraid of that if they are head of a large, established company like Intel. However, imagine that a small startup works out the details and starts fabricating small GPUs and then CPUS that are rated at 50GHz and use 2W of power to run. It would upend the industry. Your smartphone could be more powerful than your desktop.
This is essentially what happened to Eastman Kodak (you know, the photo company). They had been around forever, they had the corner on film manufacturing, and they basically invented the digital camera, but decided not to commercialize it because it would upend their film business. They are now gone because of this choice by their shortsighted CEO...
I believe diamond it'self is an insulator, while Graphene is a conductor. As others have mentioned, it would almost be an entirely new industry with entirely new processes for creating processors. The existing methods would all have to be re-invented (thus the choice by CEOs to add more processors using existing silicon technology).
Admittedly carbon based electronics was not my PhD field, but it seems like you could get carbon nanotubes to line up nicely for you by passing an electrical current transverse to a strong, homogeneous, static magnetic field? Maybe I am missing something though.
And historically we used leaches and bled people of bad humors... I don't recommend you base your policy opinions on ancient history. Clinical observation and judicial oversight largely eliminate revenge commitment. The US has one of the smallest populations of committed mentally ill, while we have one of the largest populations of homeless people, many of whom are mentally ill and can't care for themselves, and a few that are a danger to themselves and others. Compared to European countries we have like 80% of our mentally ill living on the streets (assuming that mental illness has a similar incidence rate between the EU and US.)
This is a potentially dangerous consequence of this reckless behavior by telemarketers. I wonder what the social and economic impact has been over the years of all the un-answered phone calls by people assuming it was a telemarketer when it was in fact an important call that they should have taken, all because a few assholes want to abuse the system for their personal economic gain...
Don't be an ass. You got 8 years with Obama and we took it like adults, you can do the same with Trump. There are like a billion pages of federal regulations and each one has an economic cost to businesses and indirectly to everyone else (something the previous administration never understood). Fixing the accuracy of our phone systems has a definite economic and personal benefit, but there are millions of other regulations that have significant economic cost with no benefit to society (all of the CO2 regulations for starters, and virtually every other EPA regulation that does not directly work towards clean air, clean water and clean soil.)
The environmental nuts and climate change fascists have destroyed hundreds of billions of dollars with their unscientific regulations protecting frogs and smelt and some hypothetical anthropogenic climate apocalypse that every model they had said would already be here but was wildly off over the last 15 years...
News flash: species go extinct, breed them in captivity if you can, or let them die out, such is life on this planet.
News flash: the climate changes, and no one can tell me how much the climate would have changed with no influence from mankind, showing once again that climate science is anything but science and these climate clowns in lab coats don't have a clue what they are doing. 40 years ago the next ice age was upon us, now we are all going to burn up or drown... The emperor has no clothes and the majority of the population now sees that gobal cooling was wrong, global warming is wrong, so why should "climate change" be something to worry about since hard science shows this has happened for 500,000 years or more...
The size of current US law serves only to make every citizen an unwitting criminal, and if you run a business even more so. Shrinking that regulatory burden is good for the citizens and bad for the bureaucrats. Tough cookies.
There should only be two options that are legal: for private citizens, they can chose to either block or unblock their ID (shows as their number or BLOCKED on caller ID). For businesses, your ID must show up as a number that you or your business legally owns, no blocking or spoofing allowed at all. So for example, doctors calling a patient back after hours on their personal cell could legally show as the main number for the doctors office, or blocked, since it is their personal cell if they don't want you to have their personal cell number. A business calling you about anything from a business owned line would have to show a number that they own that is connected and answered.
And what do you do when a loved one is in an accident and the hospital or police are trying to call you to notify you Mr. Smarty pants? Your solution is not valid for the use case of the phone system... There is a valid reason for allowing in any phone that is calling yours, there is no valid reason not to have a trust/certificate system run by a non profit that ties to an actual number, an IP, a physical billing address and someone's drivers license. If you want to be anonymous, go online and use TOR for your communications, just don't expect to call the police, EMS or me.
This is what I have been calling for for a while now. It would also address the issue of SWATing using spoofed/VOIP systems to conceal the true callers ID. The bottom line is that if you want to be anonymous, go on the internet, but for the phone system, you never used to be able to conceal your ID and because of the use case of the phone system (EMS/Police/bomb squad etc.) we need to re-add the trust and accuracy of knowing who is calling.
If you want the hypothetical means to conceal your ID while leaking government crimes as a whistleblower, use voice chat on the PSN or XBL or WhatsApp or any number of other apps/programs that allow you privacy. There are still ways to conceal your identity, but the phone system should not be on that list.
This doesn't go far enough and won't catch scammers spoofing using a real, valid phone number to display on your caller ID. We need some kind of trust/certificate system tied to IP and real physical address/person. Once we have that, we can systematically block all callers who spoof their caller ID or otherwise try to mask or confuse their identity over the phone networks, and we can pass a law making it a federal crime to try to do so...
OK, then how about a law that holds the family criminally liable if they suspected that the person was mentally ill but did not report it and the person goes on to commit a murder. If the mentally ill person gets access to a family members firearm, that family member would be charged with whatever crimes the mental patient commits, since they were the responsible party.
Once a patient is reported, you have psychologists evaluate the person, and if the psychologists find that the patient is mentally ill, they have a review with a judge to decide with a patient advocate and the patient and their family... Oh wait, we kind of had that before until the ACLU fucked it all up in the 1970s...
Another fun tidbit, the Obama administration presided over 162 mass shootings (defined by the FBI as 4 or more victims in one incident). This is more than 8X the mass shootings of all 4 prior presidents who had between 10-23 per 8 years, and virtually every one he and his party came out pounding the drumbeat of gun confiscation...
Another fun fact: The federal government allowed Dylan Roof to purchase his legal gun, despite his criminal record and narcotics arrest that should have prevented it...
I am not a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, but it will be informative to see if the same trend continues under Trump or if things revert back to the ~20 mass shootings every 8 years trend...
The stated purpose of gun control laws today is to reduce homicide. (The actual purpose is to take power away from the citizens and give the guns and the power to the state). The facts indicate that strict gun laws or confiscation dramatically increase crime rates. Homicide (all homicide, not just looking at gun homicide) jumps up dramatically when guns are banned (the UK saw an increase in homicides and a 100% increase in violent crime after they banned guns). This is also borne out in Australia after their gun ban and other countries. Gun homicide drops, because they are not as readily available, but if you are a citizen, you don't really care if you get murdered by a gun or a machete, either way you are having a really shitty day that you probably could have prevented with a concealed carry weapon (which happens dozens of times per day by the way).
http://crimeresearch.org/2013/...
Now look at the liberal progressive paradise of Chicago with 4367 shootings last year and one of the strictest gun bans in the country. The simple concept that liberals intentionally to fail to grasp is that CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW. If they are going to murder someone, they are going to chose the best tool that is available, and the laws be damned...
http://crime.chicagotribune.co...
We already have federal background checks, and every lib who says guns are too easy to get should be forced to go through the process of getting one (you don't have to actually buy one, just go through the process). Your ignorance is apparent to the rest of us who have. Liberals are just conservatives who haven't experienced enough of the real world yet. If you haven't gone through the process of buying a gun or you think that someone can just "buy a gun" at a gun show without a background check, you have been lied to and are demonstrably ignorant of reality. Every gun purchase has to go through an FFL dealer and process with a background check. Period... Go to your nearest gun show or even online and try to buy a gun. Every one will go through an FFL dealer and you will go through a background check.
As far as illegal, stolen guns; as a gun owner, I am 100% for having the death penalty option for firing a gun in the commission of any violent crime. How is that for being tough on gun crime? But liberals don't want to punish criminals do they... It's almost pathological, blame the inanimate gun, not the conscious, thinking criminal who is choosing moment by moment to break the law and harm innocents around him...
Further we need to take every person who is mentally ill and a danger to themselves and those around them and have them permanently committed so that they can get the meds that they need every day and the rest of us can live in safety with all of our freedoms intact.
The liberal progressive shills at Politifact are wrong again, what a shocker. You can only bend truth so far before it becomes horse shit. Politifact has been shoveling it industrial scale for many years now and at this point the name it'self is an oxymoron, along with anyone who things they are getting straight information from politifact.
This exactly, and were I the NRA, I might also review my contract to see what legal recourse I could take for bait and switch or breach of contract. At minimum a few heads should roll over at Snapchat.
Alt-right is the latest pejorative of the weak minded liberal progressives who have become progressively shrill over the last 6 months as their paper thin arguments have been shredded in the truth filters of millions of Americans. 50 years ago they redrew the political spectrum because they were left wing nutjobs arguing against conservative centrists, and it was hard to get people to take them seriously arguing against the center from the far left.
The original political spectrum looked like this:
- Left Wing were for totalitarian government control: Fascists, socialists, communists, Nazis all fit in this category to various degrees
- Centrists were for limited government: conservatives typically fit this category (they want to continue the status quo existing limited government)
- Right Wing were for minimal or no government: Libertarians and Anarchists fit in this category to different degrees
Now, as the American population is seeing that the emperor has no clothes, the left wing progressive nutjobs have tried to further marginalize the centrist conservatives, because far right wasn't pejorative enough, so they have moved on to alt-right as the new insult for those with better, more reasonable positions and arguments that rely on facts instead of feelings.
The most immoral act it seems was to sell ad space to the NRA, who represent about half of the households in the US (45 million households own firearms) and then turn around and try to stifle their voice by offering to kill the ads for a fee. I am pretty certain that this would have been illegal if it were radio or broadcast TV airtime because of the rules around selling ad space.
If the position of Everytown is well reasoned and sourced, it seems that the NRA adds should be welcome, seeing as the NRA is essentially paying to put Everytown online (that is how ads work, they pay for the cost of distributing the content)...
However, if the NRA ads are well reasoned and effective, it seems like not only a disservice to the audience, but to our democracy by silencing 1 side of the debate. The days of the liberal media are numbered. They are revealed as fascist radicals at every turn. They don't foster debate and open dialog, they shout down or shut out the other perspectives because "only their perspective can possibly be right." While at the same time they at best have a high school level education regarding anything in the hard or applied sciences.
The same thing is true of academia, where professors lie to their ignorant students who are nothing but adult children and rile them up to go shout down the opposition, rather than listening and debating and becoming better informed on the controversy, and the general population is sick of all the little morally "superior" brown shirts shouting down any opposition.
First off, any honest, informed person will tell you that politifact is full of shit and a shill for the liberal progressives. They spin and twist and build straw man arguments rather than doing what they purport to do, namely, fact check things.
Secondly, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right. Flying commercial is not. You can't infringe a constitutional right without a felony conviction or a finding of mental incompetence. Period full stop. The no fly list does not have a jury of your peers to put you on it, or really much in the way of judicial review. If you don't like the second amendment, get the votes to change the constitution, until then you are out of luck.
Thirdly, we already have federal background checks for every gun purchase. If the feds do their jobs, all is well. If they are incompetent and don't do their jobs in a reasonable time frame, bad things can happen. Welcome to the real world.
Fourth, the liberal progressives in general and the ACLU in particular are responsible for nearly every mass murder attack in the US after they broke the system for involuntary commitment for the mentally ill in the 1970s (look it up). It doesn't matter if they use a knife, a gun or a car to follow the voices in their head and murder people, we can't have mentally ill people roaming free in a free society, or there will be mass killings. The solution is not to take away everyone's freedom to use knives, machetes, axes, pipes, guns or drive cars, the solution is to take the paranoid schizophrenics and put them in the looney bin like it used to be...