If you want to discuss creationism, fine. Here are the things you must do, in order:
Um no. You are not the moderator of this discussion, but a participant, nor are many of your criteria reasonable. A reasonable person seeking truth evaluates all the theories (because no one in this discussion was present at the beginning of the universe) and picks the most reasonable theory with the most evidence to back it up. But nice try. I will answer some of your questions though in an effort to help you seek truth:
State who your claimed creator is.
- Elohim, the singular creator God described in the Bible. An infinite, all knowing, all present being of unlimited power who exists outside of time and space, but who has the power to manipulate time, space, mater and all the laws of physics in any way he pleases. He created the entire universe by speaking it into existence and sent his son to die in our place so that our transgressions could be forgiven and we can spend eternity in his presence.
Provide credible evidence that said creator exists Evidence that can be attributed to other claimed creators or the scientific explanations is not credible evidence of your claimed creator.
(The second half of this request is again fallacious, just because something can be explained differently doesn't make that alternative explanation correct or the best explanation and is clearly intended to frame the discussion in your favor, rather than arriving at the best theory, I do not accept that criteria.)
- Physics: mater is not eternal, it has a finite life before it decays. If mater is not eternal, then it must have had a beginning, before which mater did not exist. Atheists argue that nothing exploded and created the universe with tremendous energy and organization. Creationists argue that nothing never explodes, and explosions never create order, only increase entropy and therefore the Athiest argument is pure faith that is directly contradicted by science. Creationists assert that the universe was created by God, an extra dimensional being of unlimited power, omnipotence and omnipresence who exists outside of time and space. The universe, including the light and organization in the universe was directly created by the intelligent Creator God.
- 6000 years of recorded history and millions of eyewitnesses have observed the Judeo-Christian God and chronicled his activities. Those historical chronicles survive to this day in un-altered, accurate form, protected and duplicated by believers who held that even a slight change to the Bible might damn them to hell for eternity. The acts of God were attested to by millions of eyewitnesses who were convinced of their observation to the extent that they were willing to live and die according to their beliefs.
- The supernatural activities of the God of the Bible in the nation of Israel were extremely public and evidence exists to this day (massive amounts of evidence of a global flood, including fossils at the top of Mt. Everest, 170 plus cultures with a global flood account, 150 plus that recount a single family that survived the flood, sedimentary rock found virtually everywhere at every elevation on the planet, trillions of tons of oil and coal created by rapidly burying living plants and animals under sedimentary rock. Brass bells and other man made articles are found in coal, indicating it was created at the time of man. Polystrata fossils that penetrate what Evolutionist think are millions of years indicate that the strata and sediment were laid down quickly before the fossils could rot and separate, as would be seen in a global flood, not over millions of years.
- Remains of Sodom and Ghemorah, Jericho, Parting of the red sea and subsequent destruction of Egyptian army, etc. etc. have all been archaeologically discovered and verified.
- There is no dispute among serious scholars that Jesus was a real person and that the accounts of
The main stays of talk radio are not shock jocks... Howard Stern is a shock jock. Get a clue. And not that the MSM is evil, but that they don't give a shit about the truth anymore, only what sells and pushing their alt left agenda, which sounds like it's fine with you... Watch Shepard Smith sometime on Fox news. He is the epitome of an alt left empty suit "journalist". He sensationalizes everything he can, has no damn clue about modern history or a drop of common sense and he wears his alt left point of view on his sleeve, blatantly editorializing even though he is supposed to be a hard news anchor. The other networks are just more of that BS.
Rush Limbaugh (was in the 1990s, he needs to retire), Sean Hanity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham etc. are reasonable, well informed news commentators. They report the news and are conservatives and give background, historical perspective and call out the bullshit in the MSM. You might try to listen to any one of these guys for a few hours (assuming your brain doesn't explode from the sudden influx of actual facts.) The left tried to do talk radio (see the flaming failure of Air America), but the problem is that they are all emotion and sensationalism and very light on the facts, and you can already get that on CNN, MSNBC etc. Plus they already have alt left NPR paid for by the tax payers.
There are always examples of purely entertainment shows, and talk radio is no exception. There are kooks (like Art Bell for example). It took me 5 minutes listening to him to decide he was a nut and move on. However, in the mid 1990s when talk radio exploded with shows like Rush Limbaugh, they were telling the rest of the story and filling in the entire picture with the facts the main stream media was hiding, obfuscating or otherwise misreporting in an attempt to deceive the American people.
Bill Clinton was a dirty mobster and had a virtually unending parade of huge scandals. Remember when Bill Clinton got millions in campaign contributions from China and then gave them the green light to manufacture ICBM guidance systems, which they promptly stole and reverse engineered and are now guiding ICBMS aimed at the US)? Yeah, that happened and the MSM buried it.
Or remember when Clinton tried to bribe North Korea to stop developing nuclear weapons and paid $1.5B tax dollars for a worthless treaty that the North Koreans promptly broke? Yeah. Clinton's first two years were a complete shit show.
Then, because everyone was so pissed at him and talk radio was on his ass every day, the Republicans kicked ass and took names and got a big majority in Congress. They dragged Clinton kicking and screaming to sign the contract with America bills which boosted the economy in a big way, dramatically reduced welfare by giving people jobs, and did a number of things that made the last 4 years of Clinton's presidency pretty good for your average American.
Right, except that regardless of your means or scale, every piece of hardware inside every Xbox 360 and Xbone are DRM matched, so you can take it apart, but you can't do shit with the hardware. The software is also DRM locked down, such that only software from M$ with the proper DRM keys will run on the console. It is basically an expensive brick unless you are playing M$ approved games (disc purchase or online store). Sony is the same way. They even got sued for locking down the old PS3s and taking away the dual boot option.
I am currently typing this on my hex core AMD machine, and thankful that I have gone with them for my last 3 builds. However, in the past I have gone with Intel because they were more reliable and more efficient (if you are going to run several machines 24/7 and one CPU pulls 100W and another pulls 40W that adds up quick if you pay real money for electricity, like we do on the US left coast.
Most if not all games with large open worlds and large populations of game AI NPCs running independent behavior algorithms are CPU intensive. For example, if your game world tracks every ore, every piece of wood or pool of water, structural component and each of those can be interacted with by AI driven animals and other NPCs as well as the player, who can then also interact with each other, and there are 500 plus of those AI driven creatures and NPCs per planet all interacting in real time as the player plays in their own corner of the planet, that is intensive. Now expand that by 10 worlds all running in real time. You can see how CPU intensive that can get quite rapidly. The GPU may do the eye candy and local physics, but all that off screen tracking and behavior is on the CPU.
Even games that minimally do this hit the CPU pretty hard. I have been enjoying Empyrion, and it does this to some degree (but it puts planets the player is not on on hold until you return to that solar system.) http://empyriongame.com/ Still a pretty fun game assuming they ever finish it and work out the bugs.
Either eliminate news from FB altogether, or hire people from both sides of the aisle and set guidelines for what actually is fake news (i.e. demonstrably false in a plain language reading based on facts already proven).
The problem that Facebook, Twitter and Google have is they all exist in an alt left echo chamber and can't figure out why 60% of the country gets pissed at them when they use "fake news" as an excuse to censor legitimate conservative news sources and stories. Not agreeing with a story does not make it fake news...
Actually, Nvidia has already been controlling what is done with their cards for years. Want to do 3D professional CAD on a PC? You have to buy their Quadro line of video cards for a substantial premium. The differences between Quadro and Geforce were minimal, and primarily it was a different driver set.
All they need to do here is what they do there. If you want to mine cryptocurrency, the firmware starting with the newest update will handicap you to 60% speed unless you buy their special "Crypto" line of boards which are "optimized" for crypto mining and will float pricing with the demand for crypto mining. That way they can control the volumes and keep the currency miners from ruining the gamer market, which is what Nvidia wants to protect long term.
Cryptocurrency is just like the speculative tech stocks bubble of 2000 and the housing bubble of 2006. People are losing their common sense to overwhelming greed, and there is no real value in cryptocurrency and when the bubble bursts, the damage will bleed over into other sectors and the economy in general will suffer a hit.
I believe that would require an open architecture, and other than the early PS3, there are no other consoles that have an open architecture. Beyond that, the console makers don't want currency mining done on their consoles, because they only break even on the consoles and they make all their money by licensing the games. If a console is used for mining, it will not be buying any games or in other words, it will make no money for the console maker (Sony or MS).
nVidia knows two things: First, gamers will need graphics cards. Now, tomorrow, forever. Miners will need a lot of cards now but whether they will still buy any with the next generation is questionable. First question, is cryptocurrency still a thing and second, is GPUs still where the bitcoins are. If they can't supply enough cards to meet the demand today anyway, there is no point in trying to suck up to any customers today. But you might have to see where you get your customers tomorrow.
And second, gamers might have a preference for nVidia today, but they will buy AMD if they can't get nVidia cards for a reasonable price. If the gaming market suddenly gets flooded with AMD cards, game makers will stop optimizing mainly for nVidia. If there are more people playing on AMD than on nVidia, game makers will optimize for AMD.
And who'd then buy an nVidia card tomorrow when there (possibly) isn't a demand for crypto mining anymore?
Well said. I believe this is exactly the calculus that Nvidia has also done.
Ummm, how about thousands of years of observation? That animals have repeatable behaviors and instincts is the fundamental underpinning of animal training and use/domestication by humans...
As far as humans go, again, thousands of years of historical evidence. People can chose to give in to their base instincts/biological drives (food, sex, comfort, etc.) or they can control these urges and use their rational mind to pursue personal, ideological, theological, political, etc. goals or even self sacrifice (rationally sacrificing one's life for an abstract goal or purpose).
How you have become a grown ass adult and not be aware of these relatively universal facts is a sad commentary on our society.
If the thing was designed for stealth from sonar (not sure that is even possible in the real world, recall sonar is active) as well as extremely silent running as you suggest, so passive listening wouldn't hear it, then I agree it would be a much more serious threat as a first strike weapon.
In that case it is a simple threat to Russia: "Don't build this. If you build it and it goes off, regardless if you meant to launch it or some third party stole it and launched it, we are going to nuke you until mother Russia glows for 1000 years."
Please tell me, specifically, which other free democracy with a bill of rights and rule of law is keeping despots and rogue countries like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea in check from either world conquest or nuclear exchange/blackmail?....
Not sure what country you are from, but I am pretty sure that the babies being murdered objected as much as they could, but their capability is limited. In a just society, the strong protect the weak and defenseless. Societies that murder babies don't last long. Abortionists and those that work in the trade suffer permanent damage to their soul...
In Europe they will all be wearing burkas in 10 years because they are a bunch of sheep unwilling to be bothered to even birth and raise their own children.
"If you weren't liberal when you were young, you had no heart, if you aren't conservative as you get older, you have no brains."
The facts aren't with you there. Democrats pull much larger volumes of low information voters, most criminals, most low income and welfare recipients by huge margins. Add to that their legal and illegal immigrant voting blocks who can barely speak English and all the other identity politics sub groups who make up nearly 50% of the Democrat voting block and who would fail hard on a poll test and the Dims would be SOL. It is the fundamental reason why they fear voter ID, because it takes interest, effort and intelligence to get a voter ID, and many of their voters lack two or more of those traits...
Republicans have primarily middle class voters who are much higher information (i.e. Republicans don't go around handing out gambling/food vouchers to street people and criminals in jail and a card showing the names to vote for to our constituents...) Democrats do and have done exactly that for decades.
If you had a poll test (not an IQ test, IQ testing is fairl irrelevant to level of education or knowledge of the issues and is inherently unfair; the intelligence people are born with is beyond their control, what they do with what they have is what is important here) where there were 10 random questions about the structure of the government, separation of powers, simple high school civics stuff with no cheat sheets allowed, 70% or higher score required for your vote to count, Republicans would dominate elections for the next 100 years...
Democrats have a lot of emotion and very few facts. They passionately "know" they are right. That only works in a vacuum of knowledge (AKA ignorance). When you drill down, there is no foundation below the volcano of emotions...
I would be happy to discuss creationism with you any time. I have a PhD in Engineering and have taught at the college level for years. I routinely discuss and debate with professors in the biology and astrophysics departments, and they never win, because they don't have any hard facts or solid logic to support their theories.
You seem be be laboring under the false impression that cosmic evolution (or biological evolution) is in any way scientific. Both Creationism and Evolution (cosmic and biological) require faith, since neither has ever been observed in nature or in a lab. (And no, a different beak shape is not evolution, it is genetic diversity from genes already present, nor is duplicate, damaged or deformed preexisting structures). Biological evolution requires a rock to become a banana to become a dog (never observed in nature or in the lab). Cosmic evolution/origin requires that nothing (the state of existence before the universe was created) creates something which is fundamentally irrational.
The root of this problem is that MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, The New York Times, and virtually all the mainstream media has lost all credibility in the eyes of conservatives and independents (only 32% of Americans trust the media, coincidentally aligning with the dyed in the wool alt left crowd who have no knowledge of history and "think" with their emotions). http://news.gallup.com/poll/19...
This has occurred for a simple reason. Traditional constitutional journalism necessary for democracy targeted one simple principle: find the truth no mater what it was and follow it no matter where it led. Throughout history journalists have achieved this with varying degrees of success. However, the modern alt left infested main stream media now has the motto: "Change the world." They have divested all semblance of independence, fair reporting or pursuit of the truth instead choosing to only report stories and/or slant stories (i.e. lie by omission) that further their world view and political candidates. This is not some grand conspiracy, but rather an organic result of the alt left fascist cesspool that is the college campuses in the US where the next generation of journalists are spoon fed the alt left propaganda.
The democracy has recognized and is rejecting this poisoned fruit and is in the process of finding new avenues to get accurate news that covers the entire set of facts including historical background and objective facts. In the 1990s we saw the explosion of talk radio, then Fox news, then citizen journalists online, and now Facebook and more broadly online sources.
There have always been propaganda stories during elections, it is up to the individual voter, more than ever, to find the truth and sources that are trustworthy. The Democrats last election cycle ran Hillary Clinton, and most people knew exactly who and what she was (a grasping, lying, cheating, back stabbing politician lawyer who only wants power and money, in that order; don't believe me, ask the Bernie Sanders supporters). You could have run a false story that she ate babies for dinner every night to stay young and most conservatives would believe it because she has been in the public eye for 20 years and has extremely high negatives with conservatives and those who actually pay attention to politics.
The fact is that Russia and China try to meddle in US elections every time to varying degrees of success (the Chinese successfully funneled millions into Bill Clinton's campaign and no one said boo until he gave them ICBM guidance technology, Ted Kennedy tried to work with the Russians to get Reagan out of office, etc. etc.) https://www.dailywire.com/news...
Any rock big enough to create a 100 MT blast doesn't really need to be protected on the way down. It would naturally have to have a ferrous core, and you could shoot at it with nukes, but a direct strike is extremely unlikely. A de-orbiting asteroid is traveling at 28,000 km/h. Near nuclear detonations would not affect a big ferrous asteroid.
I recommend reading Footfall by Larry Niven, as this is basically the premise of his book. Great author BTW.
They fear our Doomsday arsenal, which is why we have so little war and things to worry about. If the good cop carries the only gun, the neighborhood is much safer. Weapons including WMD are, at the end of the day, tools, the ability to project force. In the hands of a stable, peaceful democracy, they are a deterrent to despots, dictators and governments with designs on world conquest as well as genocide and holocausts.
Or, you know, keep Russian subs away from the US coast and use a sonar network to find any subs or "giant nuclear death torpedoes" traveling at 30 knots and sink them before they get anywhere near US coastal cities. Honestly, it seems like Russia is asking the US to nuke them to the stone age...
They had better watch their asses, Trump might take them up on the offer...
Because of it's yield, minimum safe distance to fire that thing would be like 500 miles, and with a range of 6000 miles, the torpedo must look more like a small submarine. On top of that, the top speed of something that size is only going to be 30 knots or so. A few hundred sonar buoys/beacons up and down each coast in a grid from 100 miles offshore to 400 miles offshore (ideally a moving grid, so you never know where a buoy will be) and you can intercept this behemoth with anti sub weapons deployed from a helicopter within 10 miles of it's launch point (10 minutes after launch). Contrary to Hollywood, nuclear bombs do not detonate when you explode them, they implode to trigger the nuclear detonation, any other form of explosion just breaks the bomb apart.
Given all that information, this looks like a last gasp of an irrelevant regime at trying to reclaim superpower status. Furthermore, I think we should tell the Russians that we are fine if they want to build that, but if they chose to, we will deploy a sonar defense net and sink any unidentified or Russian sub within 400 miles of US coastline, because we can't be sure if it is a sub or their nuclear torpedo, and if we do have to sink something Russian made in that safety barrier and we get a radiological response from the detonation, we will be firing 10% of our ICBMs (about 190 missiles) to vaporize every major city in Russia, while at the same time using missile defenses deployed in Eastern Europe to shoot down any Russian ICBMs over Russian airspace. If they don't like that they can cool their shit and stop trying to threaten the US and behave like the second tier country that they are.
They had 8 years of dickless in chief reset button and hot mic "more flexibility" B. Hussein Obama, but that ended, and regardless of the tin foil hat wearing alt left conspiracy nuts, Trump is not going to take shit from the Russians any more than the Chinese or the North Koreans.
No, actually what is observed in animals is instinct, which is hard wired biologically into said animals. Animals are incredibly complex biological machines, but at the end of the day, they are limited in their behavior to their programming. Humans have been able to hack that programming in some instances (for example with domesticated dogs) but the limitations are still there. Humans alone have free will and the ability to rationally chose their actions.
Some people may choose to live only by instinct, but that does not indicate the nature of humanity, only that humans can choose to live by baser desires. If I buy a Ferrari and chose to drive 5 MPH everywhere I go, it does not mean that I bought a bicycle, it just means that I am choosing to travel at that speed.
The problem with de-escalation is, it works sometimes when you have a hostage situation with a rational (non mentally unstable) individual on the other end. It does not work with terrorists (you are just giving them time to trip their bomb or bomb vest). It does not work with the mentally ill (the crazy guy who shot up the naval yard, most of the school mass shootings, etc). De-escalation in those circumstances will get more people killed, often including police. It is on the police to make a split second determination as to who they are dealing with and they have to decide if that person is rational or not and, combined with what the person is doing and how they are following commands, make a split second decision that innocent lives as well as their own may hang on. And you point out instances where those choices have been wrong in hind sight. The problem is, in the real world where nothing is perfect, you will always be able to find mistakes. That is a symptom of reality, not a symptom of a broken system or a problem with police.
In the instance of the air marshal, I can tell you 100% that futzing with his backpack is what got him shot, and the air marshal will be cleared. If any cop tells you to lay face down with his gun drawn, you do it, it doesn't matter if there is dog shit on the ground or if you will break $1000 worth of electronics in your backpack, you do it, because if the officer has his gun drawn, he is pretty sure that you are a lethal threat to him or innocent life, and he will shoot you if you don't slowly comply exactly with what he tells you to do. Futzing with your hands and not exactly complying with commands lead to 99% of unarmed suspect police shootings.
If that is the logical capability that you came out of college with, you were either sadly under served or under equipped...
The lack of respect for human life is directly responsible for the dictators above murdering millions of people. Every single one of those dictators were Atheists who did not believe in God (they have posthumously changed their opinion to no avail) and believed that humans are just animals evolved from rock soup that became alive (spontaneous generation) and a cosmic accident. Since there was nothing special about people, there is no moral barrier to killing people that you don't agree with or who are making politics difficult for you. And so they killed millions.
The normal things (including biological functions, having romantic interests, etc.) that those men did have no correlation to their terrible crimes, rather they are indicators that they were still human beings. The aberrant views that they held are what differentiate them from their other contemporary world leaders and lead them to murder millions. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you.
If the pregnant woman wants to, she can set up the adoption early in her term, and the adoptive parents will often pay for her medical expenses, prenatal care, prenatal supplements, etc. She is carrying their child that they will spend a lifetime loving and caring for, and they want the best for them. The lost income is typically on the pregnant mother, she became pregnant and she is going to have to put up with it until the baby comes to term. Most women I have known only take the last month or two off before giving birth. Some work right up until they go into labor.
If a woman has no other choice, then she puts up with it, and next time uses an effective form of birth control. The fact is in the real world, actions have consequences. If you jump off a cliff naked, you typically die. If you have unprotected sex with no form of birth control, you will get pregnant. This is one of the reasons why pre 1973 women were much more careful and selective about when they had sex and with whom and what the circumstances were. The first 9 months can be very difficult for a single mother. The next 18 years can be very expensive for an unwed father. Best to be careful and not get pregnant accidentally.
We often use the fear of consequences to keep potential criminals in line with the laws of mainstream society. That is one function of the penal system. The penalty is worse than the crime is typically the goal. If abortion as a "right" was rescinded either by law or court decision, we would return to the pre 1973 state. Back alley abortions and associated deaths were very low, far below the lies told then and now.
Myth #2. Tens of thousands of women died from illegal abortions every year. This pseudo-fact was much repeated by the media. The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the co-founders of the National Abortion Rights Action League and the obstetrician/ gynecologist who directed what was in the 1970s the world’s largest abortion clinic, later revealed that leading abortion proponents knew this figure was false but considered it to be “useful” in their public relations campaign.[3] Even Planned Parenthood’s own leading statisticians admitted that the official statistics on deaths resulting from illegal abortion were very accurately reported prior to 1973. In 1972, there were only 39 maternal deaths related to illegal abortion, not the thousands proclaimed by pro-abortionists.
In fact, deaths from illegal abortions were already declining or leveling off prior to 1973. After legalization, this trend remained unchanged. Deaths eliminated from the illegal abortion column were replaced by deaths resulting from legal abortion.
The number of women dying from legal abortions is probably several times what it was when abortion was illegal. For many compelling reasons, deaths resulting from illegal abortion were accurately reported on death certificates. Independent studies have confirmed this. But ever since 1973, whenever a legal abortion results in a maternal death the underlying cause is often, and perhaps usually, ignored or disguised on death certificates.
This occurs for many reasons: to spare the surviving family members embarrassment, to limit liability exposure, to avoid tarnishing public perceptions of abortion, and simply because the death is no longer related to a criminal activity
If we incorporated educational videos about both the actual dangers of abortions and factual information about prenatal life and some 3D ultrasounds at various weeks, the number of back alley abortions would be very small, as it was before legalization. In the US at least, we have safe harbor locations where a mother can drop off an infant anonymously (fire stations, hospitals, police stations) no questions asked. The child will be taken care of and the mother can go on with her life without the child.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to discuss creationism, fine. Here are the things you must do, in order:
Um no. You are not the moderator of this discussion, but a participant, nor are many of your criteria reasonable. A reasonable person seeking truth evaluates all the theories (because no one in this discussion was present at the beginning of the universe) and picks the most reasonable theory with the most evidence to back it up. But nice try. I will answer some of your questions though in an effort to help you seek truth:
State who your claimed creator is.
- Elohim, the singular creator God described in the Bible. An infinite, all knowing, all present being of unlimited power who exists outside of time and space, but who has the power to manipulate time, space, mater and all the laws of physics in any way he pleases. He created the entire universe by speaking it into existence and sent his son to die in our place so that our transgressions could be forgiven and we can spend eternity in his presence.
Provide credible evidence that said creator exists Evidence that can be attributed to other claimed creators or the scientific explanations is not credible evidence of your claimed creator.
(The second half of this request is again fallacious, just because something can be explained differently doesn't make that alternative explanation correct or the best explanation and is clearly intended to frame the discussion in your favor, rather than arriving at the best theory, I do not accept that criteria.)
- Physics: mater is not eternal, it has a finite life before it decays. If mater is not eternal, then it must have had a beginning, before which mater did not exist. Atheists argue that nothing exploded and created the universe with tremendous energy and organization. Creationists argue that nothing never explodes, and explosions never create order, only increase entropy and therefore the Athiest argument is pure faith that is directly contradicted by science. Creationists assert that the universe was created by God, an extra dimensional being of unlimited power, omnipotence and omnipresence who exists outside of time and space. The universe, including the light and organization in the universe was directly created by the intelligent Creator God.
- 6000 years of recorded history and millions of eyewitnesses have observed the Judeo-Christian God and chronicled his activities. Those historical chronicles survive to this day in un-altered, accurate form, protected and duplicated by believers who held that even a slight change to the Bible might damn them to hell for eternity. The acts of God were attested to by millions of eyewitnesses who were convinced of their observation to the extent that they were willing to live and die according to their beliefs.
- The supernatural activities of the God of the Bible in the nation of Israel were extremely public and evidence exists to this day (massive amounts of evidence of a global flood, including fossils at the top of Mt. Everest, 170 plus cultures with a global flood account, 150 plus that recount a single family that survived the flood, sedimentary rock found virtually everywhere at every elevation on the planet, trillions of tons of oil and coal created by rapidly burying living plants and animals under sedimentary rock. Brass bells and other man made articles are found in coal, indicating it was created at the time of man. Polystrata fossils that penetrate what Evolutionist think are millions of years indicate that the strata and sediment were laid down quickly before the fossils could rot and separate, as would be seen in a global flood, not over millions of years.
- Remains of Sodom and Ghemorah, Jericho, Parting of the red sea and subsequent destruction of Egyptian army, etc. etc. have all been archaeologically discovered and verified.
- There is no dispute among serious scholars that Jesus was a real person and that the accounts of
The main stays of talk radio are not shock jocks... Howard Stern is a shock jock. Get a clue. And not that the MSM is evil, but that they don't give a shit about the truth anymore, only what sells and pushing their alt left agenda, which sounds like it's fine with you... Watch Shepard Smith sometime on Fox news. He is the epitome of an alt left empty suit "journalist". He sensationalizes everything he can, has no damn clue about modern history or a drop of common sense and he wears his alt left point of view on his sleeve, blatantly editorializing even though he is supposed to be a hard news anchor. The other networks are just more of that BS.
Rush Limbaugh (was in the 1990s, he needs to retire), Sean Hanity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham etc. are reasonable, well informed news commentators. They report the news and are conservatives and give background, historical perspective and call out the bullshit in the MSM. You might try to listen to any one of these guys for a few hours (assuming your brain doesn't explode from the sudden influx of actual facts.) The left tried to do talk radio (see the flaming failure of Air America), but the problem is that they are all emotion and sensationalism and very light on the facts, and you can already get that on CNN, MSNBC etc. Plus they already have alt left NPR paid for by the tax payers.
There are always examples of purely entertainment shows, and talk radio is no exception. There are kooks (like Art Bell for example). It took me 5 minutes listening to him to decide he was a nut and move on. However, in the mid 1990s when talk radio exploded with shows like Rush Limbaugh, they were telling the rest of the story and filling in the entire picture with the facts the main stream media was hiding, obfuscating or otherwise misreporting in an attempt to deceive the American people.
Bill Clinton was a dirty mobster and had a virtually unending parade of huge scandals. Remember when Bill Clinton got millions in campaign contributions from China and then gave them the green light to manufacture ICBM guidance systems, which they promptly stole and reverse engineered and are now guiding ICBMS aimed at the US)? Yeah, that happened and the MSM buried it.
Or remember when Clinton tried to bribe North Korea to stop developing nuclear weapons and paid $1.5B tax dollars for a worthless treaty that the North Koreans promptly broke? Yeah. Clinton's first two years were a complete shit show.
Then, because everyone was so pissed at him and talk radio was on his ass every day, the Republicans kicked ass and took names and got a big majority in Congress. They dragged Clinton kicking and screaming to sign the contract with America bills which boosted the economy in a big way, dramatically reduced welfare by giving people jobs, and did a number of things that made the last 4 years of Clinton's presidency pretty good for your average American.
Right, except that regardless of your means or scale, every piece of hardware inside every Xbox 360 and Xbone are DRM matched, so you can take it apart, but you can't do shit with the hardware. The software is also DRM locked down, such that only software from M$ with the proper DRM keys will run on the console. It is basically an expensive brick unless you are playing M$ approved games (disc purchase or online store). Sony is the same way. They even got sued for locking down the old PS3s and taking away the dual boot option.
I am currently typing this on my hex core AMD machine, and thankful that I have gone with them for my last 3 builds. However, in the past I have gone with Intel because they were more reliable and more efficient (if you are going to run several machines 24/7 and one CPU pulls 100W and another pulls 40W that adds up quick if you pay real money for electricity, like we do on the US left coast.
Most if not all games with large open worlds and large populations of game AI NPCs running independent behavior algorithms are CPU intensive. For example, if your game world tracks every ore, every piece of wood or pool of water, structural component and each of those can be interacted with by AI driven animals and other NPCs as well as the player, who can then also interact with each other, and there are 500 plus of those AI driven creatures and NPCs per planet all interacting in real time as the player plays in their own corner of the planet, that is intensive. Now expand that by 10 worlds all running in real time. You can see how CPU intensive that can get quite rapidly. The GPU may do the eye candy and local physics, but all that off screen tracking and behavior is on the CPU.
Even games that minimally do this hit the CPU pretty hard. I have been enjoying Empyrion, and it does this to some degree (but it puts planets the player is not on on hold until you return to that solar system.) http://empyriongame.com/ Still a pretty fun game assuming they ever finish it and work out the bugs.
Either eliminate news from FB altogether, or hire people from both sides of the aisle and set guidelines for what actually is fake news (i.e. demonstrably false in a plain language reading based on facts already proven).
The problem that Facebook, Twitter and Google have is they all exist in an alt left echo chamber and can't figure out why 60% of the country gets pissed at them when they use "fake news" as an excuse to censor legitimate conservative news sources and stories. Not agreeing with a story does not make it fake news...
Actually, Nvidia has already been controlling what is done with their cards for years. Want to do 3D professional CAD on a PC? You have to buy their Quadro line of video cards for a substantial premium. The differences between Quadro and Geforce were minimal, and primarily it was a different driver set.
All they need to do here is what they do there. If you want to mine cryptocurrency, the firmware starting with the newest update will handicap you to 60% speed unless you buy their special "Crypto" line of boards which are "optimized" for crypto mining and will float pricing with the demand for crypto mining. That way they can control the volumes and keep the currency miners from ruining the gamer market, which is what Nvidia wants to protect long term.
Cryptocurrency is just like the speculative tech stocks bubble of 2000 and the housing bubble of 2006. People are losing their common sense to overwhelming greed, and there is no real value in cryptocurrency and when the bubble bursts, the damage will bleed over into other sectors and the economy in general will suffer a hit.
I believe that would require an open architecture, and other than the early PS3, there are no other consoles that have an open architecture. Beyond that, the console makers don't want currency mining done on their consoles, because they only break even on the consoles and they make all their money by licensing the games. If a console is used for mining, it will not be buying any games or in other words, it will make no money for the console maker (Sony or MS).
nVidia knows two things: First, gamers will need graphics cards. Now, tomorrow, forever. Miners will need a lot of cards now but whether they will still buy any with the next generation is questionable. First question, is cryptocurrency still a thing and second, is GPUs still where the bitcoins are. If they can't supply enough cards to meet the demand today anyway, there is no point in trying to suck up to any customers today. But you might have to see where you get your customers tomorrow.
And second, gamers might have a preference for nVidia today, but they will buy AMD if they can't get nVidia cards for a reasonable price. If the gaming market suddenly gets flooded with AMD cards, game makers will stop optimizing mainly for nVidia. If there are more people playing on AMD than on nVidia, game makers will optimize for AMD.
And who'd then buy an nVidia card tomorrow when there (possibly) isn't a demand for crypto mining anymore?
Well said. I believe this is exactly the calculus that Nvidia has also done.
Ummm, how about thousands of years of observation? That animals have repeatable behaviors and instincts is the fundamental underpinning of animal training and use/domestication by humans...
As far as humans go, again, thousands of years of historical evidence. People can chose to give in to their base instincts/biological drives (food, sex, comfort, etc.) or they can control these urges and use their rational mind to pursue personal, ideological, theological, political, etc. goals or even self sacrifice (rationally sacrificing one's life for an abstract goal or purpose).
How you have become a grown ass adult and not be aware of these relatively universal facts is a sad commentary on our society.
If the thing was designed for stealth from sonar (not sure that is even possible in the real world, recall sonar is active) as well as extremely silent running as you suggest, so passive listening wouldn't hear it, then I agree it would be a much more serious threat as a first strike weapon.
In that case it is a simple threat to Russia: "Don't build this. If you build it and it goes off, regardless if you meant to launch it or some third party stole it and launched it, we are going to nuke you until mother Russia glows for 1000 years."
Please tell me, specifically, which other free democracy with a bill of rights and rule of law is keeping despots and rogue countries like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea in check from either world conquest or nuclear exchange/blackmail? ....
That is what I thought smart ass.
Not sure what country you are from, but I am pretty sure that the babies being murdered objected as much as they could, but their capability is limited. In a just society, the strong protect the weak and defenseless. Societies that murder babies don't last long. Abortionists and those that work in the trade suffer permanent damage to their soul...
In Europe they will all be wearing burkas in 10 years because they are a bunch of sheep unwilling to be bothered to even birth and raise their own children.
"If you weren't liberal when you were young, you had no heart, if you aren't conservative as you get older, you have no brains."
The facts aren't with you there. Democrats pull much larger volumes of low information voters, most criminals, most low income and welfare recipients by huge margins. Add to that their legal and illegal immigrant voting blocks who can barely speak English and all the other identity politics sub groups who make up nearly 50% of the Democrat voting block and who would fail hard on a poll test and the Dims would be SOL. It is the fundamental reason why they fear voter ID, because it takes interest, effort and intelligence to get a voter ID, and many of their voters lack two or more of those traits...
Republicans have primarily middle class voters who are much higher information (i.e. Republicans don't go around handing out gambling/food vouchers to street people and criminals in jail and a card showing the names to vote for to our constituents...) Democrats do and have done exactly that for decades.
If you had a poll test (not an IQ test, IQ testing is fairl irrelevant to level of education or knowledge of the issues and is inherently unfair; the intelligence people are born with is beyond their control, what they do with what they have is what is important here) where there were 10 random questions about the structure of the government, separation of powers, simple high school civics stuff with no cheat sheets allowed, 70% or higher score required for your vote to count, Republicans would dominate elections for the next 100 years...
Democrats have a lot of emotion and very few facts. They passionately "know" they are right. That only works in a vacuum of knowledge (AKA ignorance). When you drill down, there is no foundation below the volcano of emotions...
I would be happy to discuss creationism with you any time. I have a PhD in Engineering and have taught at the college level for years. I routinely discuss and debate with professors in the biology and astrophysics departments, and they never win, because they don't have any hard facts or solid logic to support their theories.
You seem be be laboring under the false impression that cosmic evolution (or biological evolution) is in any way scientific. Both Creationism and Evolution (cosmic and biological) require faith, since neither has ever been observed in nature or in a lab. (And no, a different beak shape is not evolution, it is genetic diversity from genes already present, nor is duplicate, damaged or deformed preexisting structures). Biological evolution requires a rock to become a banana to become a dog (never observed in nature or in the lab). Cosmic evolution/origin requires that nothing (the state of existence before the universe was created) creates something which is fundamentally irrational.
The root of this problem is that MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, The New York Times, and virtually all the mainstream media has lost all credibility in the eyes of conservatives and independents (only 32% of Americans trust the media, coincidentally aligning with the dyed in the wool alt left crowd who have no knowledge of history and "think" with their emotions). http://news.gallup.com/poll/19...
This has occurred for a simple reason. Traditional constitutional journalism necessary for democracy targeted one simple principle: find the truth no mater what it was and follow it no matter where it led. Throughout history journalists have achieved this with varying degrees of success. However, the modern alt left infested main stream media now has the motto: "Change the world." They have divested all semblance of independence, fair reporting or pursuit of the truth instead choosing to only report stories and/or slant stories (i.e. lie by omission) that further their world view and political candidates. This is not some grand conspiracy, but rather an organic result of the alt left fascist cesspool that is the college campuses in the US where the next generation of journalists are spoon fed the alt left propaganda.
The democracy has recognized and is rejecting this poisoned fruit and is in the process of finding new avenues to get accurate news that covers the entire set of facts including historical background and objective facts. In the 1990s we saw the explosion of talk radio, then Fox news, then citizen journalists online, and now Facebook and more broadly online sources.
There have always been propaganda stories during elections, it is up to the individual voter, more than ever, to find the truth and sources that are trustworthy. The Democrats last election cycle ran Hillary Clinton, and most people knew exactly who and what she was (a grasping, lying, cheating, back stabbing politician lawyer who only wants power and money, in that order; don't believe me, ask the Bernie Sanders supporters). You could have run a false story that she ate babies for dinner every night to stay young and most conservatives would believe it because she has been in the public eye for 20 years and has extremely high negatives with conservatives and those who actually pay attention to politics.
The fact is that Russia and China try to meddle in US elections every time to varying degrees of success (the Chinese successfully funneled millions into Bill Clinton's campaign and no one said boo until he gave them ICBM guidance technology, Ted Kennedy tried to work with the Russians to get Reagan out of office, etc. etc.) https://www.dailywire.com/news...
Any rock big enough to create a 100 MT blast doesn't really need to be protected on the way down. It would naturally have to have a ferrous core, and you could shoot at it with nukes, but a direct strike is extremely unlikely. A de-orbiting asteroid is traveling at 28,000 km/h. Near nuclear detonations would not affect a big ferrous asteroid.
I recommend reading Footfall by Larry Niven, as this is basically the premise of his book. Great author BTW.
https://www.amazon.com/Footfal...
They fear our Doomsday arsenal, which is why we have so little war and things to worry about. If the good cop carries the only gun, the neighborhood is much safer. Weapons including WMD are, at the end of the day, tools, the ability to project force. In the hands of a stable, peaceful democracy, they are a deterrent to despots, dictators and governments with designs on world conquest as well as genocide and holocausts.
Or, you know, keep Russian subs away from the US coast and use a sonar network to find any subs or "giant nuclear death torpedoes" traveling at 30 knots and sink them before they get anywhere near US coastal cities. Honestly, it seems like Russia is asking the US to nuke them to the stone age...
They had better watch their asses, Trump might take them up on the offer...
Because of it's yield, minimum safe distance to fire that thing would be like 500 miles, and with a range of 6000 miles, the torpedo must look more like a small submarine. On top of that, the top speed of something that size is only going to be 30 knots or so. A few hundred sonar buoys/beacons up and down each coast in a grid from 100 miles offshore to 400 miles offshore (ideally a moving grid, so you never know where a buoy will be) and you can intercept this behemoth with anti sub weapons deployed from a helicopter within 10 miles of it's launch point (10 minutes after launch). Contrary to Hollywood, nuclear bombs do not detonate when you explode them, they implode to trigger the nuclear detonation, any other form of explosion just breaks the bomb apart.
Given all that information, this looks like a last gasp of an irrelevant regime at trying to reclaim superpower status. Furthermore, I think we should tell the Russians that we are fine if they want to build that, but if they chose to, we will deploy a sonar defense net and sink any unidentified or Russian sub within 400 miles of US coastline, because we can't be sure if it is a sub or their nuclear torpedo, and if we do have to sink something Russian made in that safety barrier and we get a radiological response from the detonation, we will be firing 10% of our ICBMs (about 190 missiles) to vaporize every major city in Russia, while at the same time using missile defenses deployed in Eastern Europe to shoot down any Russian ICBMs over Russian airspace. If they don't like that they can cool their shit and stop trying to threaten the US and behave like the second tier country that they are.
They had 8 years of dickless in chief reset button and hot mic "more flexibility" B. Hussein Obama, but that ended, and regardless of the tin foil hat wearing alt left conspiracy nuts, Trump is not going to take shit from the Russians any more than the Chinese or the North Koreans.
No, actually what is observed in animals is instinct, which is hard wired biologically into said animals. Animals are incredibly complex biological machines, but at the end of the day, they are limited in their behavior to their programming. Humans have been able to hack that programming in some instances (for example with domesticated dogs) but the limitations are still there. Humans alone have free will and the ability to rationally chose their actions.
Some people may choose to live only by instinct, but that does not indicate the nature of humanity, only that humans can choose to live by baser desires. If I buy a Ferrari and chose to drive 5 MPH everywhere I go, it does not mean that I bought a bicycle, it just means that I am choosing to travel at that speed.
The problem with de-escalation is, it works sometimes when you have a hostage situation with a rational (non mentally unstable) individual on the other end. It does not work with terrorists (you are just giving them time to trip their bomb or bomb vest). It does not work with the mentally ill (the crazy guy who shot up the naval yard, most of the school mass shootings, etc). De-escalation in those circumstances will get more people killed, often including police. It is on the police to make a split second determination as to who they are dealing with and they have to decide if that person is rational or not and, combined with what the person is doing and how they are following commands, make a split second decision that innocent lives as well as their own may hang on. And you point out instances where those choices have been wrong in hind sight. The problem is, in the real world where nothing is perfect, you will always be able to find mistakes. That is a symptom of reality, not a symptom of a broken system or a problem with police.
In the instance of the air marshal, I can tell you 100% that futzing with his backpack is what got him shot, and the air marshal will be cleared. If any cop tells you to lay face down with his gun drawn, you do it, it doesn't matter if there is dog shit on the ground or if you will break $1000 worth of electronics in your backpack, you do it, because if the officer has his gun drawn, he is pretty sure that you are a lethal threat to him or innocent life, and he will shoot you if you don't slowly comply exactly with what he tells you to do. Futzing with your hands and not exactly complying with commands lead to 99% of unarmed suspect police shootings.
If that is the logical capability that you came out of college with, you were either sadly under served or under equipped...
The lack of respect for human life is directly responsible for the dictators above murdering millions of people. Every single one of those dictators were Atheists who did not believe in God (they have posthumously changed their opinion to no avail) and believed that humans are just animals evolved from rock soup that became alive (spontaneous generation) and a cosmic accident. Since there was nothing special about people, there is no moral barrier to killing people that you don't agree with or who are making politics difficult for you. And so they killed millions.
The normal things (including biological functions, having romantic interests, etc.) that those men did have no correlation to their terrible crimes, rather they are indicators that they were still human beings. The aberrant views that they held are what differentiate them from their other contemporary world leaders and lead them to murder millions. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you.
If the pregnant woman wants to, she can set up the adoption early in her term, and the adoptive parents will often pay for her medical expenses, prenatal care, prenatal supplements, etc. She is carrying their child that they will spend a lifetime loving and caring for, and they want the best for them. The lost income is typically on the pregnant mother, she became pregnant and she is going to have to put up with it until the baby comes to term. Most women I have known only take the last month or two off before giving birth. Some work right up until they go into labor.
If a woman has no other choice, then she puts up with it, and next time uses an effective form of birth control. The fact is in the real world, actions have consequences. If you jump off a cliff naked, you typically die. If you have unprotected sex with no form of birth control, you will get pregnant. This is one of the reasons why pre 1973 women were much more careful and selective about when they had sex and with whom and what the circumstances were. The first 9 months can be very difficult for a single mother. The next 18 years can be very expensive for an unwed father. Best to be careful and not get pregnant accidentally.
We often use the fear of consequences to keep potential criminals in line with the laws of mainstream society. That is one function of the penal system. The penalty is worse than the crime is typically the goal. If abortion as a "right" was rescinded either by law or court decision, we would return to the pre 1973 state. Back alley abortions and associated deaths were very low, far below the lies told then and now.
Myth #2. Tens of thousands of women died from illegal abortions every year. This pseudo-fact was much repeated by the media. The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the co-founders of the National Abortion Rights Action League and the obstetrician/ gynecologist who directed what was in the 1970s the world’s largest abortion clinic, later revealed that leading abortion proponents knew this figure was false but considered it to be “useful” in their public relations campaign.[3] Even Planned Parenthood’s own leading statisticians admitted that the official statistics on deaths resulting from illegal abortion were very accurately reported prior to 1973. In 1972, there were only 39 maternal deaths related to illegal abortion, not the thousands proclaimed by pro-abortionists.
In fact, deaths from illegal abortions were already declining or leveling off prior to 1973. After legalization, this trend remained unchanged. Deaths eliminated from the illegal abortion column were replaced by deaths resulting from legal abortion.
The number of women dying from legal abortions is probably several times what it was when abortion was illegal. For many compelling reasons, deaths resulting from illegal abortion were accurately reported on death certificates. Independent studies have confirmed this. But ever since 1973, whenever a legal abortion results in a maternal death the underlying cause is often, and perhaps usually, ignored or disguised on death certificates.
This occurs for many reasons: to spare the surviving family members embarrassment, to limit liability exposure, to avoid tarnishing public perceptions of abortion, and simply because the death is no longer related to a criminal activity
http://afterabortion.org/2011/...
If we incorporated educational videos about both the actual dangers of abortions and factual information about prenatal life and some 3D ultrasounds at various weeks, the number of back alley abortions would be very small, as it was before legalization. In the US at least, we have safe harbor locations where a mother can drop off an infant anonymously (fire stations, hospitals, police stations) no questions asked. The child will be taken care of and the mother can go on with her life without the child.