What makes you say she didn't? The evidence of Hillary's election interference is far stronger than the evidence of Trump's interference (ironically, due to the alleged interference).
Neither got caught, to the extent that both are not in prison. Both certainly pushed as hard as they thought they could. It is unknown who went further.
Is your standard of accepting evidence of Trumps guilt the same as your standard of accepting evidence of Hillary's guilt?
Hillary was not charged. Trump was not charged.
Lots of "dirt" was found on Hillary. Lots of "dirt" was found on Trump.
The only difference here is your politics. If Trump committed treason with the Russians, Hillary committed treason with every country that paid Bill $200K per talk. If Trump interfered with the election, Hillary interfered with the election.
If anything, the evidence against Hillary is stronger than the evidence against Trump. Trump's advisors have circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing, while Hillary's husband provides the evidence against her case.
This is a way that you can recharge the cell by extracting a "used" liquid from the vehicle, and pouring in a "new" liquid. Think of it as a liquid battery, where you swap out most of the battery whenever you fill up.
So the energy density problem is solved the same way as with gasoline - instead of a big wire pushing electrons, you pour in an energy dense liquid.
The problem with your approach to the issue is that the miners are human. Specifically, they are humans that are already hurt and losing their jobs. And you are suggesting that we sue them (any attack on the industry will be taken personally), destroying whatever jobs are left.
It's called kicking a man when he's down. It hurts worse to the man, engenders sympathy from all the other humans, makes you look like the enemy, and loses your team the election.
Really, coal plants where going out. In a few years we wouldn't have many coal miners regardless of government actions. But by taking severe regulatory actions, Obama made the Democrats own the problem.
Worse, this is all a "broken window fallacy". Whenever a government touts "job creation" by anything it touches, your first thought should always be the broken window fallacy.
Creating jobs (through subsidies) by confiscating other people's income (through taxes) means that the jobs that would have provided desired stuff to people are destroyed and jobs that provide undesired stuff are created.
If the subsidized job products were desired, the subsidy wouldn't be required. Governments do this because the job loss is spread out, so they don't get blamed, while the job gains are concentrated so they can claim the praise. But due to the inefficiency of governments there is a net loss to society except for a very few edge cases (which don't really apply here).
There is a case to be made for renewable energy. It does not involve "job creation".
OK then, which were the Russians engaged in? They revealed true, but damaging, information about the Democratic candidate in the United States. They almost certainly used illegal means to do so.
Is that democracy in action? Is that hijacking democracy?
In the words of the true guardians of the galaxy, a little bit of both?
Actually, this is backwards. Cancer risk decreases for the first low dosage radiation exposure.
This is because the radiation "turns on" your body's natural radiation fighting responses. Those responses are actually pretty good, so turning them on decreases cancer risk initially. But if the radiation exposure gets higher, the body's system can't keep up.
So for optimal cancer risk mitigation, you want slightly higher radiation than Earth currently puts out.
However the true cause of the crash was actually nepotism. The copilot that caused the crash (by continually stalling the plane until it hit the water) was not the best for the job, he just had the best connections. He did not know that continuously pulling back on the stick would stall/crash the plane.
Of course, the real root cause of the crash was that there was no obvious feedback that he was pulling back on the stick. The PIC did not know he was doing that until he mentioned it right before impact, by which time it was too late to recover. (from the transcript: copilot: I'm pulling back on the stick, why doesn't the nose go up. command pilot: NON!)
Maybe one day the liberal "dont hurt my feelings while i piss on yours" community will realize how fucking stupid and truly hated their kind is in this country.
Yes, this. Think about it, over 50% of American states dislike liberals so much that when presented with the false choice of Hillary to Trump, they chose Trump anyway...
Our Government, contrary to what you might believe, actually does thing for people. Good things
Just because you believe it doesn't make it true. This election was won because most people no longer believe that, after seeing the government screw up so much stuff.
Everything the government does, it does at the expense of individual freedom. When the government hands out education, they are removing money from me (so my education suffers) and gives it to Racist Studies majors. If you are not a politician, you lose from any interaction with the government.
On the flip side, why is it that the area around DC is so expensive that none of us could afford to live there - when the maximum government worker salary is lower than ours? Because politicians win by working in the government - it's called corruption.
This is simply not true. About 20 years ago, I lost the ability to walk. (Also sit, stand, etc.) I gained a lot of weight.
Three years ago, I was put on an exercise regime that made it so that I can walk again. It is very intense - so intense that I get tendonitis of my joints once ever few months (and they don't let me stop exercising then either...).
I have not lost any weight at all. I look better, and obviously feel better, but my mass is more, not less.
Thanks for posting this link. The linked report demonstrates the issue precisely.
On page 7 of the pdf summary report, it talks about the "bad stuff" that is predicted due to climate change. The major data points given are that crop yields will fall. This is in direct opposition to all the science I have read on the topic, for example Obama's EPA.gov site says "Agriculture and fisheries are highly dependent on the climate. Increases in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase some crop yields in some places."
They try to paint a highly negative picture, but then provide the data in chart below that. Crop yields are steadily increasing.
Whenever I look into the source data, I see this kind of thing. Dire consequences predicted, but then even a cursory examination of the data show that the prediction has been falsified.
Data points:
*) Fish failures predicted - real data shows that the fish simply move north/south (https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply) *) Crop failure predicted - real data shows steady growth of crop yield (https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply) *) Land flooding predicted - real data shows that the land movement effects swamp any issues with the sea rising (Florida has no problem, Louisiana has major problems) (https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-coastal-areas)
Does anyone have a prediction of "bad stuff" made in an IPCC report that has actually happened? (I am limiting "bad stuff" to things that my children's children will actually care about) The old reports are now old enough that there predictions should be apparent by now. I have reviewed the reports, and the cases I looked at (sea level rise, crop failures, fishing) were all falsified by what happened in reality.
If the IPCC has no predictive power, why should we use it to guide policy?
I posit that this is an area on which we can all agree!
Either you are a (climate change) (HOAX denier), or you are a (climate change HOAX) (denier). But we are now all (climate change HOAX denier)s! So let us bask in our reconciliation!
Looking at how this study was constructed, I believe most of the reported decline is likely just selection bias.
They did no original data collection - they just reviewed existing data sources. Unfortunately, the existing data sources are from conservation movements. They do not care about the New York rat population (which is doing just fine), those organizations are trying to track the species that are struggling.
So if a species is struggling to survive, it was far more likely to be included in the report than if the species was doing well. Selection bias.
It's depressing how rarely you see good statistics in science these days.
The problem with that approach is that you will tweak the algorithm until it works in 1996.
In other words, you will incorporate 1996 into the test set.
This is the big problem with almost all climate studies, and the reason why people that understand statistics really hate the current climate "science" as it is done. You really do need to make a prediction, and then test the prediction. If you get it wrong, you cannot re-try against the same data set until it works.
You need to look deeper - it's not that Trump works for Putin; It's that Putin's organization is in competition with Clinton's organization. Putin does not want the competition, even in the US criminal market.
Agreed - By the way, if anyone is considering not voting: please vote anyway.
Both these people are awful. If they win with only 40% of the popular vote because everyone voted for Fred, they will not be able to claim a mandate for sweeping evil changes. If you vote for a 3rd party, it weakens both bad candidates...
Um, no. Niel Armstrong really did fly the lunar lander. He really did run it almost totally out of fuel, because he had to avoid a huge rock. If he hadn't done that, the vehicle would have gone splat.
By the way, the computer was completely spazzing out during the landing and was not giving good data. Fortunately it was written in a way that kept the important stuff going regardless.
I used to think that as well, but in an Economics study I learned some unfortunate downside to legal prostitution. Unfortunately it seems that if prostitution is legalized, illegal forced prostitution increases. That sucks.
I'm not sure if the solution on balance should be to make prostitution illegal or just increase the resources expended against forced prostitution, but there is a downside I at least didn't know about earlier.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you say she didn't? The evidence of Hillary's election interference is far stronger than the evidence of Trump's interference (ironically, due to the alleged interference).
Neither got caught, to the extent that both are not in prison. Both certainly pushed as hard as they thought they could. It is unknown who went further.
Everyone, please consider the following:
Is your standard of accepting evidence of Trumps guilt the same as your standard of accepting evidence of Hillary's guilt?
Hillary was not charged. Trump was not charged.
Lots of "dirt" was found on Hillary. Lots of "dirt" was found on Trump.
The only difference here is your politics. If Trump committed treason with the Russians, Hillary committed treason with every country that paid Bill $200K per talk. If Trump interfered with the election, Hillary interfered with the election.
If anything, the evidence against Hillary is stronger than the evidence against Trump. Trump's advisors have circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing, while Hillary's husband provides the evidence against her case.
You're missing the point.
This is a way that you can recharge the cell by extracting a "used" liquid from the vehicle, and pouring in a "new" liquid. Think of it as a liquid battery, where you swap out most of the battery whenever you fill up.
So the energy density problem is solved the same way as with gasoline - instead of a big wire pushing electrons, you pour in an energy dense liquid.
Let me simplify this for you:
NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE
Don't tell them it is your phone, don't say you know the password, etc. Ask for your lawyer.
This - if you are the engineer, there is no such thing as pilot error. The pilot is not allowed to be at fault, because that can't be fixed.
The problem with your approach to the issue is that the miners are human. Specifically, they are humans that are already hurt and losing their jobs. And you are suggesting that we sue them (any attack on the industry will be taken personally), destroying whatever jobs are left.
It's called kicking a man when he's down. It hurts worse to the man, engenders sympathy from all the other humans, makes you look like the enemy, and loses your team the election.
Really, coal plants where going out. In a few years we wouldn't have many coal miners regardless of government actions. But by taking severe regulatory actions, Obama made the Democrats own the problem.
Worse, this is all a "broken window fallacy". Whenever a government touts "job creation" by anything it touches, your first thought should always be the broken window fallacy.
Creating jobs (through subsidies) by confiscating other people's income (through taxes) means that the jobs that would have provided desired stuff to people are destroyed and jobs that provide undesired stuff are created.
If the subsidized job products were desired, the subsidy wouldn't be required. Governments do this because the job loss is spread out, so they don't get blamed, while the job gains are concentrated so they can claim the praise. But due to the inefficiency of governments there is a net loss to society except for a very few edge cases (which don't really apply here).
There is a case to be made for renewable energy. It does not involve "job creation".
A UBI of $1000/ month would cost the US $3.6 trillion dollars. That is about the same as total current government spending in the US.
So you want to double taxes. And you don't think that will have any consequences?
An $8/hr UBI for the US would cost $5 trillion dollars. Current total US government spending is $4 trillion.
So you are talking about at least doubling taxes. And saying that will be good for the economy in some way?
OK then, which were the Russians engaged in? They revealed true, but damaging, information about the Democratic candidate in the United States. They almost certainly used illegal means to do so.
Is that democracy in action? Is that hijacking democracy?
In the words of the true guardians of the galaxy, a little bit of both?
Actually, this is backwards. Cancer risk decreases for the first low dosage radiation exposure.
This is because the radiation "turns on" your body's natural radiation fighting responses. Those responses are actually pretty good, so turning them on decreases cancer risk initially. But if the radiation exposure gets higher, the body's system can't keep up.
So for optimal cancer risk mitigation, you want slightly higher radiation than Earth currently puts out.
However the true cause of the crash was actually nepotism. The copilot that caused the crash (by continually stalling the plane until it hit the water) was not the best for the job, he just had the best connections. He did not know that continuously pulling back on the stick would stall/crash the plane.
Of course, the real root cause of the crash was that there was no obvious feedback that he was pulling back on the stick. The PIC did not know he was doing that until he mentioned it right before impact, by which time it was too late to recover. (from the transcript: copilot: I'm pulling back on the stick, why doesn't the nose go up. command pilot: NON!)
Maybe one day the liberal "dont hurt my feelings while i piss on yours" community will realize how fucking stupid and truly hated their kind is in this country.
Yes, this. Think about it, over 50% of American states dislike liberals so much that when presented with the false choice of Hillary to Trump, they chose Trump anyway...
Our Government, contrary to what you might believe, actually does thing for people. Good things
Just because you believe it doesn't make it true. This election was won because most people no longer believe that, after seeing the government screw up so much stuff.
Everything the government does, it does at the expense of individual freedom. When the government hands out education, they are removing money from me (so my education suffers) and gives it to Racist Studies majors. If you are not a politician, you lose from any interaction with the government.
On the flip side, why is it that the area around DC is so expensive that none of us could afford to live there - when the maximum government worker salary is lower than ours? Because politicians win by working in the government - it's called corruption.
This is simply not true. About 20 years ago, I lost the ability to walk. (Also sit, stand, etc.) I gained a lot of weight.
Three years ago, I was put on an exercise regime that made it so that I can walk again. It is very intense - so intense that I get tendonitis of my joints once ever few months (and they don't let me stop exercising then either...).
I have not lost any weight at all. I look better, and obviously feel better, but my mass is more, not less.
Thanks for posting this link. The linked report demonstrates the issue precisely.
On page 7 of the pdf summary report, it talks about the "bad stuff" that is predicted due to climate change. The major data points given are that crop yields will fall. This is in direct opposition to all the science I have read on the topic, for example Obama's EPA.gov site says "Agriculture and fisheries are highly dependent on the climate. Increases in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase some crop yields in some places."
They try to paint a highly negative picture, but then provide the data in chart below that. Crop yields are steadily increasing.
Whenever I look into the source data, I see this kind of thing. Dire consequences predicted, but then even a cursory examination of the data show that the prediction has been falsified.
Data points:
*) Fish failures predicted - real data shows that the fish simply move north/south (https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply)
*) Crop failure predicted - real data shows steady growth of crop yield (https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply)
*) Land flooding predicted - real data shows that the land movement effects swamp any issues with the sea rising (Florida has no problem, Louisiana has major problems) (https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-coastal-areas)
Does anyone have a prediction of "bad stuff" made in an IPCC report that has actually happened? (I am limiting "bad stuff" to things that my children's children will actually care about) The old reports are now old enough that there predictions should be apparent by now. I have reviewed the reports, and the cases I looked at (sea level rise, crop failures, fishing) were all falsified by what happened in reality.
If the IPCC has no predictive power, why should we use it to guide policy?
Mr President, we cannot allow a "historical evidence" gap! - Gen. Buck
Yes, but are you a climate change HOAX denier?
I posit that this is an area on which we can all agree!
Either you are a (climate change) (HOAX denier), or you are a (climate change HOAX) (denier). But we are now all (climate change HOAX denier)s! So let us bask in our reconciliation!
Looking at how this study was constructed, I believe most of the reported decline is likely just selection bias.
They did no original data collection - they just reviewed existing data sources. Unfortunately, the existing data sources are from conservation movements. They do not care about the New York rat population (which is doing just fine), those organizations are trying to track the species that are struggling.
So if a species is struggling to survive, it was far more likely to be included in the report than if the species was doing well. Selection bias.
It's depressing how rarely you see good statistics in science these days.
The problem with that approach is that you will tweak the algorithm until it works in 1996.
In other words, you will incorporate 1996 into the test set.
This is the big problem with almost all climate studies, and the reason why people that understand statistics really hate the current climate "science" as it is done. You really do need to make a prediction, and then test the prediction. If you get it wrong, you cannot re-try against the same data set until it works.
You need to look deeper - it's not that Trump works for Putin; It's that Putin's organization is in competition with Clinton's organization. Putin does not want the competition, even in the US criminal market.
It's just business, it's not personal.
No, he should be fine. I hear Hillary! is representing him.
Agreed - By the way, if anyone is considering not voting: please vote anyway.
Both these people are awful. If they win with only 40% of the popular vote because everyone voted for Fred, they will not be able to claim a mandate for sweeping evil changes. If you vote for a 3rd party, it weakens both bad candidates...
Um, no. Niel Armstrong really did fly the lunar lander. He really did run it almost totally out of fuel, because he had to avoid a huge rock. If he hadn't done that, the vehicle would have gone splat.
By the way, the computer was completely spazzing out during the landing and was not giving good data. Fortunately it was written in a way that kept the important stuff going regardless.
http://space.stackexchange.com...
also
http://www.dickgordon.com/Apol...
I used to think that as well, but in an Economics study I learned some unfortunate downside to legal prostitution. Unfortunately it seems that if prostitution is legalized, illegal forced prostitution increases. That sucks.
I'm not sure if the solution on balance should be to make prostitution illegal or just increase the resources expended against forced prostitution, but there is a downside I at least didn't know about earlier.