Also I see no leap. Potentially 1 billion dollars raised is a small leap but ordering a paint shop? This is is just standard business no leap no news. I ordered a reel of components for the project I am working on huge leap forward in the project, I think not.
No even without Global warming or climate change we still need clean air to breath us organic people.
Diesel is great except for what comes out the tail pipe is bad for people and the low emissions is to make places with lots of cars livable by humans, for some strange reason where there are lots of cars there tend to be lots of people. If we could separate them out we may not need such tight emissions standards.
you must actually not ever travel. I have seen dogs sniffing and find stuff at the airport they know that it is there, just watch the behavior of the dog. Perhaps you have reference to your blind tests but I have experience in seeing the dogs find the goods. (not in my own bag.)
What I witnessed was finding fresh fruits and vegetables which are banned through plenty of airports round the world.
This is not how negotiation is done. You want to give them time to get used to aspects of the deal that you are going to accept so they don't get blindsided and basically have to think outside of what they were planning.
This is why Trump has said, US protection for NK meaning military alliance. Also total denationalization or he walks. Also Sanctions stay until the deal is signed.
This is how you get them used to the ideas you have, negotiation is a slow process normally perhaps Trump has a different method. The reason it is slow when the other side gets a surprise it normally has an emotional response and you want a thought out response. Too many surprises too quickly and the emotions will destroy the deal. But if you have some non negotiables it is best to have them laid out so you dont all sit down with false expectations.
A lot of politics unfortunately is trash talking, the problem with trash talking is you end up trashing the opposition for the same things you do. Both Left and right are guilty (you may try and say one is more guilty that the other but such distinctions are tiny.)
Trump is a pretty expert trash talker, actually it is great for his committed supporters but hopeless at helping move those undecided towards voting for him. The left are trash talk masters more like the Phd level instead of street trash talkers but they don't have the same style it is more a formal mess with a lot of big words and intellectual sounding arguments. There is plenty of truth in all the trash talking and countering and plenty of lies. In such an environment self introspection probably is counter productive however in the real world outside of politics self introspection may be or is a blessing.
Actually I said my explanation is more valid. I remember (from Sherlock Homes I think but mostly heard it on star trek.) "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
However it seems that we would rather just hold out for desperate unknown possibilities turning up than to consider the possibility that there is a creator. Yet there can be nothing without a source of that thing. This is confirmed by maths and the laws of physics. The Universe did not exist at one point, now it does. This is just basic fact. So to consider the source nothing (this is the position of atheism.) The universe was sourced from Nothing, or it self created according to Stephen Hawkins most recent book which is basically the same thing. Pluto is just a small indicator in a huge and obvious situation. The universe has a source.
Fantastic you actually want to go back to discussion at hand.
The problem with Pluto and Neptune is it would take about 10 to the power 10 years to form by the standard accretion theory. This is a lot longer than the solar system has existed for. So now they throw up a new theory which is the Comet theory.
Problem where are all the comets?
NASA did a study of the comets which show up a huge shortage the number was less than 10% of the theory (I am going from memory a little bit but I think they expected to find at least 90 comets in the area surveyed and only found 3.)
See the problem with comets is they don't last long so we are looking for a source of comets because unless the comets are new they should not exist. These are the problems.
Now the suggestion that Pluto is a comet or formed from comets with contradictory evidence (that is some evidence for and some against.) This shows no actual progress in the theory of the formation.
I will note that Pluto is our least known planet and therefore the most speculative.
Now the text book theories for the formation of Pluto are basically disproven (by the same text books.) Perhaps you would enlighten me to some of the numerous theories? That is to say I love to read and read about this kind of stuff, mostly people write because it is their job but some actually write because they have something to say so some books are better than others. So my conclusion with or without my motivation is I would propose more valid in that it has not been disproven than conclusions with observational evidence bringing them into great doubt if not impossibility. Also since Pluto is very far away theories are mostly not based on much evidence but just speculation so it is more interesting to look at other planets since we have a lot more observational information about them.
Your argument is flawed in that it says the conclusion would be invalidated by the method by which it came about. If the conclusion is correct and if the method is correct or in correct that does not matter. Pure reason is more elusive than supposed and if you claim to posses it then I would suggest you don't know the truth of your own thoughts.
See you are going way off topic exactly as I said which is because you don't want to face the facts or the matter at hand so you instead try to back track into my history and motivation. This is a ploy and a distraction and far from reason. In fact I saw through this at the start, it is the weakness of someone who does not know how to debate a subject only how to debate a person. You have no point and nothing to add to the discussion being had.
I cannot help be suspicious of your question as I really don't think you are search for the answer but for an angle to discredit my comments due to something unrelated to the actual topic or comments.
This is a typical tacit for arguing with people you disagree with, especially if you cannot dispute the comments directly.
Is it reasonable to say that something formed from Nothing, to discount God is to say that is how the Universe started (the actual stated case of most Atheists.) We know that nothing can come from Nothing so the fact that the universe exists is confounding unless you are reasonable. Now extrapolate to Pluto, even if it formed from a natural process God is the source. However we cannot figure out a natural process, according to a study from NASA on comets they are mostly missing. So there is not the huge source of comets sitting out there to form planets.
I would say the only reasonable solution is God created the universe and Pluto. Your opinion my differ but that does not make it the only reasonable option. Lets say there is a big step in the reason to accept God but once you have then a lot of unreasonable things become reasonable.
Not really. Let just say, certainly science has gaps. I Start believing in God and take other things as needing to fit my belief.
However there are a lot of people who say they believe in science and not God (as if the two are mutually exclusive) when science does not actually offer an alternative to God that has substantial proof. Plenty will disagree with that statement but when it comes to, is the proof valid, you mostly find at best it is evidence that could be interpreted many ways.
There is a branches of science which are lab based and can produce results, but this kind of science like how Pluto was formed is not lab based (they cannot reproduce it.) Nor can they produce even a mathematical model for Pluto but that is actually the same pretty much for all planets, then moons of planets is worse. Where some moons seem to defy explanation.
I would maintain that science and God are not opposites any more than evolution and science are not opposites. Evolution is a preset of believes (evolution of the solar system here not the species but there are similarities.) Believing in God is a preset of beliefs. When evidence is found it needs to be fit into a model, if it cannot fit you may think this is an outlier, or I will try and force it to fit or it may challenge my beliefs. I would suggest that evolutionary astronomers are far more challenged than creationist astronomers.
However this is not the taught stuff you have to either come at this believing in Creation or start thinking there is something wrong here as so many things do not fit the theory. Normally only people who are very self confident and actually know their stuff do this.
Basically they have no clue. If pluto formed from a cloud of dust it would have taken about 1 trillion years, so it's a no go. Now a billion comets? they are grasping at straws. Mostly every theory of formation is based on crap evidence with plenty of evidence that disproves it.
There is an explanation which is creation. Scientists claim to have evidence to alternatives (Planetary evolution) but they find so much evidence that basic throws the wheels off it that they start grasping at straws like this. There is no formation theory that fits the facts of discovery and evidence except creation. Lets say to be kind, so far.
Awesome clear analysis. This is the kind of comment which I can enjoy reading.
I would add my own comment (not endorsed by raymorris.)
Hitler was anti Jews (they were seen as the oppressor.) Progressives are anti white in a similar way (not yet as forward) but I see this as just divisive for both, Hitler never intended the holocaust he grew into it I believe. Even the gas chambers were initially for the weak and sick to "strengthen" the race and the country.
Progressives already have their own version of genocide which is abortion, amazing thing is Margaret Sanger who is behind abortion laws also designed the Gas chamber concept with plans which Hitler built for the same purpose (to deal with weak and sick people.) They were not built in the US but instead she decided on birth control but her purpose here was not Womans' rights but effectively elimination of sick weak people. She was a true believer in a kind of master race. Even saying that abortion would help to control the black population (to a KKK rally.) Now she is a hero of the progressives and ties them to Nazism and Hitler in a very strong way making Nazism a progressive Ideology rather than a Republican one.
Electric lights? You are not really a historian are you.
As for trains this was the spread of technology such as if they in China buy our cell phones and towers. When you build a Train it is a little different to an IC in that those who build it don't really need to do anything to reverse engineer it.
Now good points all the same lets learn from history and not allow communist China to rapidly eclipse the US like the US has eclipsed Britain and Europe.
Those countries are destroying themselves, that is European countries, with their open boarder EU crap. Russia is really too small to care but China is a dangerous enemy who have a life long dictator and suppress things like rights and free speech to control everything. We need to be careful to spank them like a red headed step child when they do the wrong thing to us, like steal, fund North Korea, try and stop our ships in international waters etc.
I don't post right because I mold my opinion to match my party but choose my party to match my opinion. There is a significant difference.
What you say is true or mostly true but in my view the science is shifting to acknologe that Global warming etc is complex and unknown and the computer models are wrong (they all know that but it is just how wrong they are.)
When I get time to look into the science I am seeing more and more material available from real scientists that put climate theory either under the bus or at least raise significant questions about conclusions and even current measurements. Such as what is not taken into account.
The senate hearings show that the truth is not pinned down but just the opinions of each political party is pinned down to some extent.
If you saw the senate hearings on climate change (which is available to watch but I cannot be bothered to link it for you.)
You would see that the scientists were presenting their research and conclusions which was both sides of the conclusion. It seemed the majority said climate change is normal CO2 has minimal effect and the best measurements do not support danger or sea levels rising etc. Ice is both reducing in some areas and increasing in others and this is not very radical.
The Dems did not like to listen to this science and brought their own science with them. (Funny it was that already paid for research which is out of date and failing to prove it self with its predictions.)
Anyway none of that matters since the idea of producing less CO2 has great cost and little effect. It would only work if globally accepted (work as in actually produce a reduction overall.) It is window dressing, but plenty on the left want to cry to have more window dressing even though the science is moving on. One of the things about science is you need to reject wrong conclusions to be able to accept correct ones, but there is still plenty of scientists who and even more progressives who are totally unwilling to do that.
P.S. If you disagree I am not being a troll I actually watched the hearings. This is all fact, I can already only post twice a day sorry if I micro agressed you but stating facts you don't believe or agree with. (actually I am not sorry.)
too long living off their parents and not actually making things happen.
I spent too long with a soft job just doing my work before I realized that if I was not in business I was not making near enough money to pay for the demands of a family. I would say that you can earn what you want to earn if you are smart and able to take some risks.
The basic thing here is you need wake up, it will not be handed to me on a plate. In the US you will get given mostly what you need, if you want more then you will have to go and get it.
I have lived in another country (Indonesia) and you are right in some ways. I would say that there is people who are well off but not rich enough for that. If you have you ever lived there it is not just the money, which honestly they don't have much of. It is the infrastructure. Being a westerner helps a little but man I was glad to come back home after just a few months. If you are poor there you are truly at the bottom.
Listen. Firstly the planet is not broken nor the US. But this kind of hopelessness and complaining that other people are in control and have messed me us is what is broken.
There was a speech "ask not what your country can do for you..."
If you are alive now you have better housing, a better car, better global travel, better communications, better access to information, better health care. The country (even the poor) have more wealth than ever in all of history. Many rich people from other countries would be upgraded to be poor in the US. Many rich people from the past would be upgraded to be poor today. There are so many benefits to being alive now. Just try living like it was 100 or even 50 lets say 30 years ago.
I had a friend years ago who was depressed. She was tall slim attractive, high salary, highly educated not a drug addict or gambler or anything. I suggested she go to live in India for 1 year and it would have solved her depression for life.
The only thing wrong with people is their internal attitude and their sponge like ability to soak up bad news, and as much as people make up the country that is what is wrong with the country.
Pence is part of a plan to bring about a realistic negation.
Facts are.
US is big and NK is small, if they want to negotiate as equals forget it. They must know that we have the upper hand and if they are lucky we will let them live.
This is less of a negotiation than a capitulation, we need to treat them fair but harshly (as they deserve.)
The problem here is the same as it always was, NK is part of the China tool kit in dealing with the US.
Cancelling the talks is a good start, we need to think of dealing with NK as the same as dealing with Vader. He has turned himself over to the dark side and he is subject to the emperor (China) once you see that picture you can see how hard it is going to be to pin them down and keep them pinned down. This takes balls of steel and is a test which Obama did not even step up to face and we will see if Trump will pass it. Don't worry he will but it is far from over.
Slashdot Mirror
Also I see no leap. Potentially 1 billion dollars raised is a small leap but ordering a paint shop? This is is just standard business no leap no news. I ordered a reel of components for the project I am working on huge leap forward in the project, I think not.
No even without Global warming or climate change we still need clean air to breath us organic people.
Diesel is great except for what comes out the tail pipe is bad for people and the low emissions is to make places with lots of cars livable by humans, for some strange reason where there are lots of cars there tend to be lots of people. If we could separate them out we may not need such tight emissions standards.
A new level to a DDOS attack.
You must be new here, to earth I mean.
you must actually not ever travel. I have seen dogs sniffing and find stuff at the airport they know that it is there, just watch the behavior of the dog. Perhaps you have reference to your blind tests but I have experience in seeing the dogs find the goods. (not in my own bag.)
What I witnessed was finding fresh fruits and vegetables which are banned through plenty of airports round the world.
This is not how negotiation is done. You want to give them time to get used to aspects of the deal that you are going to accept so they don't get blindsided and basically have to think outside of what they were planning.
This is why Trump has said, US protection for NK meaning military alliance. Also total denationalization or he walks. Also Sanctions stay until the deal is signed.
This is how you get them used to the ideas you have, negotiation is a slow process normally perhaps Trump has a different method. The reason it is slow when the other side gets a surprise it normally has an emotional response and you want a thought out response. Too many surprises too quickly and the emotions will destroy the deal. But if you have some non negotiables it is best to have them laid out so you dont all sit down with false expectations.
A lot of politics unfortunately is trash talking, the problem with trash talking is you end up trashing the opposition for the same things you do. Both Left and right are guilty (you may try and say one is more guilty that the other but such distinctions are tiny.)
Trump is a pretty expert trash talker, actually it is great for his committed supporters but hopeless at helping move those undecided towards voting for him. The left are trash talk masters more like the Phd level instead of street trash talkers but they don't have the same style it is more a formal mess with a lot of big words and intellectual sounding arguments. There is plenty of truth in all the trash talking and countering and plenty of lies. In such an environment self introspection probably is counter productive however in the real world outside of politics self introspection may be or is a blessing.
Actually I said my explanation is more valid. I remember (from Sherlock Homes I think but mostly heard it on star trek.) "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
However it seems that we would rather just hold out for desperate unknown possibilities turning up than to consider the possibility that there is a creator. Yet there can be nothing without a source of that thing. This is confirmed by maths and the laws of physics. The Universe did not exist at one point, now it does. This is just basic fact. So to consider the source nothing (this is the position of atheism.) The universe was sourced from Nothing, or it self created according to Stephen Hawkins most recent book which is basically the same thing. Pluto is just a small indicator in a huge and obvious situation. The universe has a source.
Fantastic you actually want to go back to discussion at hand.
The problem with Pluto and Neptune is it would take about 10 to the power 10 years to form by the standard accretion theory. This is a lot longer than the solar system has existed for. So now they throw up a new theory which is the Comet theory. Problem where are all the comets?
NASA did a study of the comets which show up a huge shortage the number was less than 10% of the theory (I am going from memory a little bit but I think they expected to find at least 90 comets in the area surveyed and only found 3.) See the problem with comets is they don't last long so we are looking for a source of comets because unless the comets are new they should not exist. These are the problems.
Now the suggestion that Pluto is a comet or formed from comets with contradictory evidence (that is some evidence for and some against.) This shows no actual progress in the theory of the formation.
I will note that Pluto is our least known planet and therefore the most speculative.
Now the text book theories for the formation of Pluto are basically disproven (by the same text books.) Perhaps you would enlighten me to some of the numerous theories? That is to say I love to read and read about this kind of stuff, mostly people write because it is their job but some actually write because they have something to say so some books are better than others. So my conclusion with or without my motivation is I would propose more valid in that it has not been disproven than conclusions with observational evidence bringing them into great doubt if not impossibility. Also since Pluto is very far away theories are mostly not based on much evidence but just speculation so it is more interesting to look at other planets since we have a lot more observational information about them.
Your argument is flawed in that it says the conclusion would be invalidated by the method by which it came about. If the conclusion is correct and if the method is correct or in correct that does not matter. Pure reason is more elusive than supposed and if you claim to posses it then I would suggest you don't know the truth of your own thoughts.
See you are going way off topic exactly as I said which is because you don't want to face the facts or the matter at hand so you instead try to back track into my history and motivation. This is a ploy and a distraction and far from reason. In fact I saw through this at the start, it is the weakness of someone who does not know how to debate a subject only how to debate a person. You have no point and nothing to add to the discussion being had.
I started believing in God after reading books.
I cannot help be suspicious of your question as I really don't think you are search for the answer but for an angle to discredit my comments due to something unrelated to the actual topic or comments.
This is a typical tacit for arguing with people you disagree with, especially if you cannot dispute the comments directly.
Is it reasonable to say that something formed from Nothing, to discount God is to say that is how the Universe started (the actual stated case of most Atheists.) We know that nothing can come from Nothing so the fact that the universe exists is confounding unless you are reasonable. Now extrapolate to Pluto, even if it formed from a natural process God is the source. However we cannot figure out a natural process, according to a study from NASA on comets they are mostly missing. So there is not the huge source of comets sitting out there to form planets.
I would say the only reasonable solution is God created the universe and Pluto. Your opinion my differ but that does not make it the only reasonable option. Lets say there is a big step in the reason to accept God but once you have then a lot of unreasonable things become reasonable.
Not really. Let just say, certainly science has gaps. I Start believing in God and take other things as needing to fit my belief.
However there are a lot of people who say they believe in science and not God (as if the two are mutually exclusive) when science does not actually offer an alternative to God that has substantial proof. Plenty will disagree with that statement but when it comes to, is the proof valid, you mostly find at best it is evidence that could be interpreted many ways.
There is a branches of science which are lab based and can produce results, but this kind of science like how Pluto was formed is not lab based (they cannot reproduce it.) Nor can they produce even a mathematical model for Pluto but that is actually the same pretty much for all planets, then moons of planets is worse. Where some moons seem to defy explanation.
I would maintain that science and God are not opposites any more than evolution and science are not opposites. Evolution is a preset of believes (evolution of the solar system here not the species but there are similarities.) Believing in God is a preset of beliefs. When evidence is found it needs to be fit into a model, if it cannot fit you may think this is an outlier, or I will try and force it to fit or it may challenge my beliefs. I would suggest that evolutionary astronomers are far more challenged than creationist astronomers.
However this is not the taught stuff you have to either come at this believing in Creation or start thinking there is something wrong here as so many things do not fit the theory. Normally only people who are very self confident and actually know their stuff do this.
Basically they have no clue. If pluto formed from a cloud of dust it would have taken about 1 trillion years, so it's a no go. Now a billion comets? they are grasping at straws. Mostly every theory of formation is based on crap evidence with plenty of evidence that disproves it.
There is an explanation which is creation. Scientists claim to have evidence to alternatives (Planetary evolution) but they find so much evidence that basic throws the wheels off it that they start grasping at straws like this. There is no formation theory that fits the facts of discovery and evidence except creation. Lets say to be kind, so far.
Awesome clear analysis. This is the kind of comment which I can enjoy reading.
I would add my own comment (not endorsed by raymorris.)
Hitler was anti Jews (they were seen as the oppressor.) Progressives are anti white in a similar way (not yet as forward) but I see this as just divisive for both, Hitler never intended the holocaust he grew into it I believe. Even the gas chambers were initially for the weak and sick to "strengthen" the race and the country.
Progressives already have their own version of genocide which is abortion, amazing thing is Margaret Sanger who is behind abortion laws also designed the Gas chamber concept with plans which Hitler built for the same purpose (to deal with weak and sick people.) They were not built in the US but instead she decided on birth control but her purpose here was not Womans' rights but effectively elimination of sick weak people. She was a true believer in a kind of master race. Even saying that abortion would help to control the black population (to a KKK rally.) Now she is a hero of the progressives and ties them to Nazism and Hitler in a very strong way making Nazism a progressive Ideology rather than a Republican one.
Electric lights? You are not really a historian are you.
As for trains this was the spread of technology such as if they in China buy our cell phones and towers. When you build a Train it is a little different to an IC in that those who build it don't really need to do anything to reverse engineer it.
Now good points all the same lets learn from history and not allow communist China to rapidly eclipse the US like the US has eclipsed Britain and Europe.
Those countries are destroying themselves, that is European countries, with their open boarder EU crap. Russia is really too small to care but China is a dangerous enemy who have a life long dictator and suppress things like rights and free speech to control everything. We need to be careful to spank them like a red headed step child when they do the wrong thing to us, like steal, fund North Korea, try and stop our ships in international waters etc.
I don't post right because I mold my opinion to match my party but choose my party to match my opinion. There is a significant difference.
What you say is true or mostly true but in my view the science is shifting to acknologe that Global warming etc is complex and unknown and the computer models are wrong (they all know that but it is just how wrong they are.)
When I get time to look into the science I am seeing more and more material available from real scientists that put climate theory either under the bus or at least raise significant questions about conclusions and even current measurements. Such as what is not taken into account.
The senate hearings show that the truth is not pinned down but just the opinions of each political party is pinned down to some extent.
If you saw the senate hearings on climate change (which is available to watch but I cannot be bothered to link it for you.) You would see that the scientists were presenting their research and conclusions which was both sides of the conclusion. It seemed the majority said climate change is normal CO2 has minimal effect and the best measurements do not support danger or sea levels rising etc. Ice is both reducing in some areas and increasing in others and this is not very radical.
The Dems did not like to listen to this science and brought their own science with them. (Funny it was that already paid for research which is out of date and failing to prove it self with its predictions.)
Anyway none of that matters since the idea of producing less CO2 has great cost and little effect. It would only work if globally accepted (work as in actually produce a reduction overall.) It is window dressing, but plenty on the left want to cry to have more window dressing even though the science is moving on. One of the things about science is you need to reject wrong conclusions to be able to accept correct ones, but there is still plenty of scientists who and even more progressives who are totally unwilling to do that.
P.S. If you disagree I am not being a troll I actually watched the hearings. This is all fact, I can already only post twice a day sorry if I micro agressed you but stating facts you don't believe or agree with. (actually I am not sorry.)
too long living off their parents and not actually making things happen.
I spent too long with a soft job just doing my work before I realized that if I was not in business I was not making near enough money to pay for the demands of a family. I would say that you can earn what you want to earn if you are smart and able to take some risks. The basic thing here is you need wake up, it will not be handed to me on a plate. In the US you will get given mostly what you need, if you want more then you will have to go and get it.
I have lived in another country (Indonesia) and you are right in some ways. I would say that there is people who are well off but not rich enough for that. If you have you ever lived there it is not just the money, which honestly they don't have much of. It is the infrastructure. Being a westerner helps a little but man I was glad to come back home after just a few months. If you are poor there you are truly at the bottom.
Thanks Doctor, point is really that we often don't know how good we have it.
Listen. Firstly the planet is not broken nor the US. But this kind of hopelessness and complaining that other people are in control and have messed me us is what is broken.
There was a speech "ask not what your country can do for you..."
If you are alive now you have better housing, a better car, better global travel, better communications, better access to information, better health care. The country (even the poor) have more wealth than ever in all of history. Many rich people from other countries would be upgraded to be poor in the US. Many rich people from the past would be upgraded to be poor today. There are so many benefits to being alive now. Just try living like it was 100 or even 50 lets say 30 years ago.
I had a friend years ago who was depressed. She was tall slim attractive, high salary, highly educated not a drug addict or gambler or anything. I suggested she go to live in India for 1 year and it would have solved her depression for life.
The only thing wrong with people is their internal attitude and their sponge like ability to soak up bad news, and as much as people make up the country that is what is wrong with the country.
These kind of wins are more like a the win of a round than the competition. Samsung will find someway to fight this again.
The real winner is the lawyers as usual.
Pence is part of a plan to bring about a realistic negation.
Facts are.
US is big and NK is small, if they want to negotiate as equals forget it. They must know that we have the upper hand and if they are lucky we will let them live.
This is less of a negotiation than a capitulation, we need to treat them fair but harshly (as they deserve.)
The problem here is the same as it always was, NK is part of the China tool kit in dealing with the US.
Cancelling the talks is a good start, we need to think of dealing with NK as the same as dealing with Vader. He has turned himself over to the dark side and he is subject to the emperor (China) once you see that picture you can see how hard it is going to be to pin them down and keep them pinned down. This takes balls of steel and is a test which Obama did not even step up to face and we will see if Trump will pass it. Don't worry he will but it is far from over.
I guess you both have the right to be wrong.