Since the cities core is fairly wealthy, they are willing to pay more for a cleaner, quicker, and more reliable service.
So, since higher fares are available through Uber, the higher-standards (self-imposed) licensed taxi drivers are moonlighting to Uber and buying out their own tokens (or whatever the system is locally)?
There's really no chance of that in Seattle. The number of token is limited, the city isn't releasing any more, and the people who own them don't want to sell because they're direct income. I know one guy that was a cab driver that bought his own token, but he only got one because an owner ran into some trouble, needed money fast, and he had the money to buy it. The law limits the sale of such tokens to $20k last I heard, but he also had to slip another $80k under the table to the guy. Once you have your token, you rent it to the taxi companies, who rent it to the taxi drivers. If memory serves me correctly, that's about $200/day to the token owner pretty much every day their taxi is in service minus the cost of the taxi as they must supply the car (which are all used police cars) but the taxi company handles maintenance.
Basically, they want to be like Wal-mart. Offer an inferior product at half price. But then the consumer is getting pissed off when the product doesn't perform as well as the full priced product.
Depends on the market. They want to do what it takes to get into a city. Here in Seattle, they're offering a superior service for more money. Too many people are pissed at regular taxis being dirty, never showing up, or late. Since the cities core is fairly wealthy, they are willing to pay more for a cleaner, quicker, and more reliable service.
You are missing my point. Some of these ponds were never stocked by anyone, yet they have fish in them. As I said, I know this because I know the people who built the ponds and continued to own the land the ponds were situated on when fish were found in them.
Well, nobody that knew about it. Sounds like some of the stuff my uncles would do growing up on the farm. Stock a neighbor's pond because they'd rather fish there the next season than travel all the way to the lake.
The Hawking radiation is very very tiny, and I am pretty certain is impossible to see. Hawking radiation is inversely proportional to the black hole size.
True, which I why I stated "detected accurately". In fact, for a super massive black hole it should be less than the background radiation from the big bang. Thus, we could expect naked black holes (not singularities) to possibly be a cold spot against the CMB.
Well, the thing about a Black Hole, its main distinguishing feature, is it's black. And the thing about space, your basic space colour is black. So how are you supposed to see them?
Actually, in theory, they are not black, but have Hawking radiation that if could be detected accurately would be of some use to us confirming theory. Then there is the radiation given off by the things falling into them. Most black holes probably aren't observable because the region around them is opaque from all the energetic things going on before matter even hits the event horizon. Then, space isn't black, there is cosmic background microwaves, distant galaxies, gas clouds, etc. A black hole will obscure everything behind it and should be detectable just as taking a photo of a new moon would be because there is a noticeable area without stars. Even a black hole without and accretion disk should, with a good enough image, be detectable via occlusion of what we would expect to see in that area, not to mention the lensing of the objects visible around it.
We're talking about the importance of garages. Does IBM have a garage? Does IBM have a Function Generator that plays the Halleluiah Chorus? I didn't think so! Who said I had to have a point anyway? THIS IS/.!
Garages are important. Any sort of startup that can't afford a commercial space, a garage is a convenient space that can be used as a workshop. Garages are a sizable amount of square footage that can be used in place of a commercial shop for everything from personal hobbies to budding businesses. Similar amounts of space probably are less available inside of people's homes. When several friend of mine were looking to buy a house, a large garage has been a very attractive thing because it was a place they could work with machinery on their hobbies. Now that I'm looking for a house, I'm finding myself in the same mindset.
That's one of the big reasons many physicists believe that they're not actually possible - they inherently wreak havoc on all sorts of our fundamental assumptions about the universe.
Well, if they're really physicists and not just playing philosophers, they'll show us the math.
Well sure. In a lot of these things, like Tippler's time machine, space gets folded in improbably ways, but as Frank Lloyd Wright said when asked how his mile high tower he designed would be built, 'That's a problem for the engineers'. A lot of it requires either exotic materials or structures that might simply not be able to be constructed, but technically, they don't violate the known laws of physics. So they're all based on exploratory physics like string theory, loop quantum gravity, or MOND. Neat ideas that might work and the math is at least partially there, but can't be tested or figured out exactly.
Travel through a wormhole would be through normal space time although highly curved, but things get weird when such things happen. A thought experiment with a black hole and various lightlike paths around it can easily come up with two light like paths that have different distances between the same points. Hell, it's basically happening in every case of gravitational lensing. People mistake things like wormholes as being FTL when they are not really as the path taken through the hole is not FTL, but may be seen as such by observers that can't see the wormhole, although the actual relationship is determined by the properties of the wormhole. This can be taken in extreme with teleportation. If it's possible to teleport between point A and point C, then they must be connected somehow, either either through something like a wormhole, hyperspace, or a transform of some type or every point would be equal to every other point. The typical FTL travel is time travel doesn't hold for such cases because while it might be if it was FTL through Minkowski space using the Lorentz Transform, the actual relationship and qualities of such travel are determined by the qualities of that space or transform that is actually transversed, not of the flat space time between the two points made by a separate observer.
Well, as the saying goes: "Special Relativity, FTL, and causality: pick any two". If SR is correct then any ability to transfer information between two points faster than light automatically implies the ability to send information into your own past. And honestly, as weak as our theory is as to why we *can't* send information back in time, I think causality is a little shaky.
So, at least in the context of an science geek watching science fiction: if you're suspending your disbelief to allow FTL travel, you get time travel as a free bonus.
Well, we can get rid of special relativity right off the bat because that only works in Minkoski space and we don't live there. We can approximate it really well, but things get weird just as Newtonian physics broke down in certain situations. If we're talking about wormholes or warp drives, we are not in Minkoski space by definition. To figure out stuff by General Relativity, you'll need to know the topology of the space you are in and crunch the math. If something goes outside of normal space, then all rules are off because that space, in fiction, can have whatever rules we want it to, so FTL travel via hyperspace is certainly possible according to whatever transform you want to use. As for causality, Tippler showed that physics doesn't care about that in 1974 as far as general relativity is concerned.
Thus accounting for the fact that they suddenly can't hit the broadside of a barn anymore...
The only time they were not able to hit what they were shooting at was when herding prisoners that were tricked into thinking they were escaping to a spaceship that had a transmitter installed on it to lead the Empire to the rebel base.
The GOP has been broken for decades now. Their last good President was Eisenhower. They just keep drifting into more extreme white christianist views, and have doubled-down on religion at a time when smart people understand that the supernatural is imaginary.
ITT: Democrats sore about last election claim Republicans are done, starting....now.
No we don't. There's nothing but a cold hard vacuum out there, with a couple of extremely inhospitable cold rocks.
There is almost limited energy. once fossil fuels run out, we will be left with essentially the energy that hits us coming from the sun (plus fission and fusion but... *waves hand*). There is a lot more of that out is space and we will probably want to tap into it. My bet is that eventually, the energy infrastructure in space will grow to the point that we'll both develop manufacturing in space and have people in space as that will be the least work intensive method to get that energy. From there, the infrastructure to support those people will grow until space itself can support itself. From there, we'll move out through the solar system and possibly the nearby systems harvesting materials as we go.
The ISS is not a deep space craft. It and the crew is still protected by the Van Allen belt from radiation, and is not mean to handle the thrust of moving it. The boosting just to keep it in orbit is already taking a toll on the structure and it is very much still in the grip of Earth's gravity and probably could not handle the thrust needed to get it out into deep space. A ion thruster would not do will still in orbit. As far as a car analogy goes, what you are suggesting is like saying somebody should use a short ranged electric car meant for short city trips to do multi ton interstate shipping.
We should build a moon base. It will be the first of its kind...Alpha.
Something we should have completed 15 years ago, instead of wasting money on ISS.
I understand you are making a funny, but I see people saying this in seriousness. The matter of the fact is that if we were serious about going to Mars or a moon base, we would not abandon the ISS but fund it even more and probably need to build a second one, just to do the research to get the knowledge to make such things possible. Complaining about spending funds on the ISS instead of a moon base is like complaining about all the money spend on fusion research instead of just building the final working product right now.
Lets face it, the first couple of missions to Mars are probably going to be one way. I for one would like to know how to mitigate 'space scurvy' before taking the plunge.
No trip to Mars is going to be one way. We could probably send a one way trip if we really wanted to, but we will never do it. We will want a good chance of success and by time we do go through the trouble of figuring out the issues like "space scurvy", long term deep space habitats, and making sure that the trip actually has a desired chance of success to justify even making a trip to Mars, the return trip will be trivial.
The problem here is that you just no true Scotsmanned away over half the people with your ideological alignment.
Besides which, the data on libertarian voting isn't very ambiguous. Self identified libertarians vote for republican candidates at about the same rate as self identifed republicans. 75% vs 80%.
Yes, because Republicans and Libertarians are far more liberal than the authoritarian socialists people call Democrats these days. Naturally they would align.
Yes. Bush was a very liberal president, in the classical sense, probably the most in a long time. He created an entire new branch of government and increased its powers.
Because they did not sit there and say that the risk had not changed and there was no way to know if there would be an earthquake or not. If they had kept saying that or just never had their press conference to begin with, they would have been fine. In previous/. stories on there, there were the transcripts of the public meeting. They started off by saying that there was no way to tell if there was any way to tell if there would be an earthquake or not, but under the pressure of public questioning to answer yes or no to something they don't know, they finally caved and gave an answer that seemed to the listeners to be a "no". In the end they said something along the lines of "Don't worry about it. Go home and have a glass of wine."
I guess my position is, you have to start somewhere, and you can't reasonably expect the first try to succeed.
And that start is the ISS. They are doing the beginnings of the work and research that will be needed to get to Mars. Later will probably come a larger ISS type station because there is a lot of work that needs to be done before we venture into space. Later, we'll need a deep space version to test living outside of the protective magnetic shield of the Earth. Then probably some trips to the moon and even a moon base. Then, we can realistically look at some sort of fly by and landing on Mars.
Not rocket science -- we saw the same thing in the sixties. Association with a movement -- "hipster" in this case, "hippie" back then -- although intending noncomformity, in truth only means conforming with a different set of rules. Or as Frank Zappa said decades ago, "Everyone in this room is wearing a uniform, and don't kid yourself".
So long as it's not the same uniform as their parents, they're probably fine with that.
I love it. Hipster-hate, in all it's forms, is the latest new thing! It's the latest trend.
Nope. Hipster hate has been around since at least the 40's when it was associated with jazz. Hipster is a pretty much generic term for whatever twenty somethings are doing currently. It was used in the 40's and 50's became hippies in the 60's and 70's. The 80's seemed filled with a variety of alternative subcultures so they all got their own names, but it has returned for at least twenty years where I have heard the hipster hate in my trendy section of Seattle. The twenty somethings in the neighborhood are always called hipsters and have had variety of looks in the last two decades from white belted rockers to the current lumbersexuals. The up and coming youth always want to do their own thing which somehow seems to involved dressing in their grandparent's clothes, listening to new music, and generally trying not to be their parents. The parents always hate this.
The nothing they are referring to is mass-energy. I think that basically they have mathematically confirmed the theory that a cold, empty false-vacuum universe could spontaneously spawn a bubble of stable true vacuum filled with the seething energy that eventually cooled to become the universe we see today.
OK, but could a false vacuum universe spawn a lower energy false vacuum universe filled with energy, that could spawn a true false vacuum universe?
Once the surface tension barrier is breached, the clump explodes in a huge nuclear explosion. Strange matter particles then simply decay and become regular hadrons and form regular nuclei. However, it's also possible that some clumps sank to the core if the collision conditions were just right and surface tension barrier is strong enough.
In that case wouldn't we see a varying degree of dark/strange/missing versus normal matter over time and thus have more missing matter in older galaxies that were farther away and be able to test for that?
It means it is no longer a violation of state law, only federal. The federal government can still enforce the laws without using local resources but they don't really want to spark a fight between state governments and the federal.
They probably don't want to see all those minor drug arrests end up in Federal courts. I'm sure that if the Fed came down on the states, then local cops would be more than happy to call the FBI and request assistance and to turn over the perpetrators to them (or whatever the actual process would be). The end result would be that those arresting officers time, trials, and prosecutor hours would all end up on the Fed's budget and not the state's, not to mention prison costs. The Fed doesn't want that any more than the state.
But the claim is that it would be threatened. So... why doesn't hemp use threaten paper use where it's legal?
Nobody claimed that Hearst and the rest actually knew what they were talking about, merely that they feared something and sought to criminalize it via dubious methods by lying to the public and invoking 'the children'.
Eisenhower was not a modern Republican. He'd not have an inkling of a chance to be permitted to run for either party these days. He's the guy who sent the army to desegregate the Southern schools. He's the one who warned about the military industrial complex. If you want to see what happens to people who think out of the box in our times, look up Derek Khanna.
True, back then most modern Republicans were still Democrats. The change over starting with the Dixiecrats and Nixon is still progressing as the South has only become solid Republican in the last few years.
Slashdot Mirror
So, since higher fares are available through Uber, the higher-standards (self-imposed) licensed taxi drivers are moonlighting to Uber and buying out their own tokens (or whatever the system is locally)?
There's really no chance of that in Seattle. The number of token is limited, the city isn't releasing any more, and the people who own them don't want to sell because they're direct income. I know one guy that was a cab driver that bought his own token, but he only got one because an owner ran into some trouble, needed money fast, and he had the money to buy it. The law limits the sale of such tokens to $20k last I heard, but he also had to slip another $80k under the table to the guy. Once you have your token, you rent it to the taxi companies, who rent it to the taxi drivers. If memory serves me correctly, that's about $200/day to the token owner pretty much every day their taxi is in service minus the cost of the taxi as they must supply the car (which are all used police cars) but the taxi company handles maintenance.
Basically, they want to be like Wal-mart. Offer an inferior product at half price. But then the consumer is getting pissed off when the product doesn't perform as well as the full priced product.
Depends on the market. They want to do what it takes to get into a city. Here in Seattle, they're offering a superior service for more money. Too many people are pissed at regular taxis being dirty, never showing up, or late. Since the cities core is fairly wealthy, they are willing to pay more for a cleaner, quicker, and more reliable service.
You are missing my point. Some of these ponds were never stocked by anyone, yet they have fish in them. As I said, I know this because I know the people who built the ponds and continued to own the land the ponds were situated on when fish were found in them.
Well, nobody that knew about it. Sounds like some of the stuff my uncles would do growing up on the farm. Stock a neighbor's pond because they'd rather fish there the next season than travel all the way to the lake.
The Hawking radiation is very very tiny, and I am pretty certain is impossible to see. Hawking radiation is inversely proportional to the black hole size.
True, which I why I stated "detected accurately". In fact, for a super massive black hole it should be less than the background radiation from the big bang. Thus, we could expect naked black holes (not singularities) to possibly be a cold spot against the CMB.
Well, the thing about a Black Hole, its main distinguishing feature, is it's black. And the thing about space, your basic space colour is black. So how are you supposed to see them?
Actually, in theory, they are not black, but have Hawking radiation that if could be detected accurately would be of some use to us confirming theory. Then there is the radiation given off by the things falling into them. Most black holes probably aren't observable because the region around them is opaque from all the energetic things going on before matter even hits the event horizon. Then, space isn't black, there is cosmic background microwaves, distant galaxies, gas clouds, etc. A black hole will obscure everything behind it and should be detectable just as taking a photo of a new moon would be because there is a noticeable area without stars. Even a black hole without and accretion disk should, with a good enough image, be detectable via occlusion of what we would expect to see in that area, not to mention the lensing of the objects visible around it.
We're talking about the importance of garages. Does IBM have a garage? Does IBM have a Function Generator that plays the Halleluiah Chorus? I didn't think so! Who said I had to have a point anyway? THIS IS /.!
Garages are important. Any sort of startup that can't afford a commercial space, a garage is a convenient space that can be used as a workshop. Garages are a sizable amount of square footage that can be used in place of a commercial shop for everything from personal hobbies to budding businesses. Similar amounts of space probably are less available inside of people's homes. When several friend of mine were looking to buy a house, a large garage has been a very attractive thing because it was a place they could work with machinery on their hobbies. Now that I'm looking for a house, I'm finding myself in the same mindset.
That's one of the big reasons many physicists believe that they're not actually possible - they inherently wreak havoc on all sorts of our fundamental assumptions about the universe.
Well, if they're really physicists and not just playing philosophers, they'll show us the math.
Well sure. In a lot of these things, like Tippler's time machine, space gets folded in improbably ways, but as Frank Lloyd Wright said when asked how his mile high tower he designed would be built, 'That's a problem for the engineers'. A lot of it requires either exotic materials or structures that might simply not be able to be constructed, but technically, they don't violate the known laws of physics. So they're all based on exploratory physics like string theory, loop quantum gravity, or MOND. Neat ideas that might work and the math is at least partially there, but can't be tested or figured out exactly.
Travel through a wormhole would be through normal space time although highly curved, but things get weird when such things happen. A thought experiment with a black hole and various lightlike paths around it can easily come up with two light like paths that have different distances between the same points. Hell, it's basically happening in every case of gravitational lensing. People mistake things like wormholes as being FTL when they are not really as the path taken through the hole is not FTL, but may be seen as such by observers that can't see the wormhole, although the actual relationship is determined by the properties of the wormhole. This can be taken in extreme with teleportation. If it's possible to teleport between point A and point C, then they must be connected somehow, either either through something like a wormhole, hyperspace, or a transform of some type or every point would be equal to every other point. The typical FTL travel is time travel doesn't hold for such cases because while it might be if it was FTL through Minkowski space using the Lorentz Transform, the actual relationship and qualities of such travel are determined by the qualities of that space or transform that is actually transversed, not of the flat space time between the two points made by a separate observer.
Well, as the saying goes: "Special Relativity, FTL, and causality: pick any two". If SR is correct then any ability to transfer information between two points faster than light automatically implies the ability to send information into your own past. And honestly, as weak as our theory is as to why we *can't* send information back in time, I think causality is a little shaky.
So, at least in the context of an science geek watching science fiction: if you're suspending your disbelief to allow FTL travel, you get time travel as a free bonus.
Well, we can get rid of special relativity right off the bat because that only works in Minkoski space and we don't live there. We can approximate it really well, but things get weird just as Newtonian physics broke down in certain situations. If we're talking about wormholes or warp drives, we are not in Minkoski space by definition. To figure out stuff by General Relativity, you'll need to know the topology of the space you are in and crunch the math. If something goes outside of normal space, then all rules are off because that space, in fiction, can have whatever rules we want it to, so FTL travel via hyperspace is certainly possible according to whatever transform you want to use. As for causality, Tippler showed that physics doesn't care about that in 1974 as far as general relativity is concerned.
Thus accounting for the fact that they suddenly can't hit the broadside of a barn anymore...
The only time they were not able to hit what they were shooting at was when herding prisoners that were tricked into thinking they were escaping to a spaceship that had a transmitter installed on it to lead the Empire to the rebel base.
The GOP has been broken for decades now. Their last good President was Eisenhower. They just keep drifting into more extreme white christianist views, and have doubled-down on religion at a time when smart people understand that the supernatural is imaginary.
ITT: Democrats sore about last election claim Republicans are done, starting....now.
How about a Republican sore about the last election and claiming the Republicans are done?
We need to expand beyond Earth
No we don't. There's nothing but a cold hard vacuum out there, with a couple of extremely inhospitable cold rocks.
There is almost limited energy. once fossil fuels run out, we will be left with essentially the energy that hits us coming from the sun (plus fission and fusion but... *waves hand*). There is a lot more of that out is space and we will probably want to tap into it. My bet is that eventually, the energy infrastructure in space will grow to the point that we'll both develop manufacturing in space and have people in space as that will be the least work intensive method to get that energy. From there, the infrastructure to support those people will grow until space itself can support itself. From there, we'll move out through the solar system and possibly the nearby systems harvesting materials as we go.
The ISS is not a deep space craft. It and the crew is still protected by the Van Allen belt from radiation, and is not mean to handle the thrust of moving it. The boosting just to keep it in orbit is already taking a toll on the structure and it is very much still in the grip of Earth's gravity and probably could not handle the thrust needed to get it out into deep space. A ion thruster would not do will still in orbit. As far as a car analogy goes, what you are suggesting is like saying somebody should use a short ranged electric car meant for short city trips to do multi ton interstate shipping.
We should build a moon base. It will be the first of its kind...Alpha. Something we should have completed 15 years ago, instead of wasting money on ISS.
I understand you are making a funny, but I see people saying this in seriousness. The matter of the fact is that if we were serious about going to Mars or a moon base, we would not abandon the ISS but fund it even more and probably need to build a second one, just to do the research to get the knowledge to make such things possible. Complaining about spending funds on the ISS instead of a moon base is like complaining about all the money spend on fusion research instead of just building the final working product right now.
Lets face it, the first couple of missions to Mars are probably going to be one way. I for one would like to know how to mitigate 'space scurvy' before taking the plunge.
No trip to Mars is going to be one way. We could probably send a one way trip if we really wanted to, but we will never do it. We will want a good chance of success and by time we do go through the trouble of figuring out the issues like "space scurvy", long term deep space habitats, and making sure that the trip actually has a desired chance of success to justify even making a trip to Mars, the return trip will be trivial.
The problem here is that you just no true Scotsmanned away over half the people with your ideological alignment.
Besides which, the data on libertarian voting isn't very ambiguous. Self identified libertarians vote for republican candidates at about the same rate as self identifed republicans. 75% vs 80%.
Yes, because Republicans and Libertarians are far more liberal than the authoritarian socialists people call Democrats these days. Naturally they would align.
Yes. Bush was a very liberal president, in the classical sense, probably the most in a long time. He created an entire new branch of government and increased its powers.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Because they did not sit there and say that the risk had not changed and there was no way to know if there would be an earthquake or not. If they had kept saying that or just never had their press conference to begin with, they would have been fine. In previous /. stories on there, there were the transcripts of the public meeting. They started off by saying that there was no way to tell if there was any way to tell if there would be an earthquake or not, but under the pressure of public questioning to answer yes or no to something they don't know, they finally caved and gave an answer that seemed to the listeners to be a "no". In the end they said something along the lines of "Don't worry about it. Go home and have a glass of wine."
I guess my position is, you have to start somewhere, and you can't reasonably expect the first try to succeed.
And that start is the ISS. They are doing the beginnings of the work and research that will be needed to get to Mars. Later will probably come a larger ISS type station because there is a lot of work that needs to be done before we venture into space. Later, we'll need a deep space version to test living outside of the protective magnetic shield of the Earth. Then probably some trips to the moon and even a moon base. Then, we can realistically look at some sort of fly by and landing on Mars.
Not rocket science -- we saw the same thing in the sixties. Association with a movement -- "hipster" in this case, "hippie" back then -- although intending noncomformity, in truth only means conforming with a different set of rules. Or as Frank Zappa said decades ago, "Everyone in this room is wearing a uniform, and don't kid yourself".
So long as it's not the same uniform as their parents, they're probably fine with that.
I love it. Hipster-hate, in all it's forms, is the latest new thing! It's the latest trend.
Nope. Hipster hate has been around since at least the 40's when it was associated with jazz. Hipster is a pretty much generic term for whatever twenty somethings are doing currently. It was used in the 40's and 50's became hippies in the 60's and 70's. The 80's seemed filled with a variety of alternative subcultures so they all got their own names, but it has returned for at least twenty years where I have heard the hipster hate in my trendy section of Seattle. The twenty somethings in the neighborhood are always called hipsters and have had variety of looks in the last two decades from white belted rockers to the current lumbersexuals. The up and coming youth always want to do their own thing which somehow seems to involved dressing in their grandparent's clothes, listening to new music, and generally trying not to be their parents. The parents always hate this.
The nothing they are referring to is mass-energy. I think that basically they have mathematically confirmed the theory that a cold, empty false-vacuum universe could spontaneously spawn a bubble of stable true vacuum filled with the seething energy that eventually cooled to become the universe we see today.
OK, but could a false vacuum universe spawn a lower energy false vacuum universe filled with energy, that could spawn a true false vacuum universe?
Once the surface tension barrier is breached, the clump explodes in a huge nuclear explosion. Strange matter particles then simply decay and become regular hadrons and form regular nuclei. However, it's also possible that some clumps sank to the core if the collision conditions were just right and surface tension barrier is strong enough.
In that case wouldn't we see a varying degree of dark/strange/missing versus normal matter over time and thus have more missing matter in older galaxies that were farther away and be able to test for that?
It means it is no longer a violation of state law, only federal. The federal government can still enforce the laws without using local resources but they don't really want to spark a fight between state governments and the federal.
They probably don't want to see all those minor drug arrests end up in Federal courts. I'm sure that if the Fed came down on the states, then local cops would be more than happy to call the FBI and request assistance and to turn over the perpetrators to them (or whatever the actual process would be). The end result would be that those arresting officers time, trials, and prosecutor hours would all end up on the Fed's budget and not the state's, not to mention prison costs. The Fed doesn't want that any more than the state.
But the claim is that it would be threatened. So... why doesn't hemp use threaten paper use where it's legal?
Nobody claimed that Hearst and the rest actually knew what they were talking about, merely that they feared something and sought to criminalize it via dubious methods by lying to the public and invoking 'the children'.
Eisenhower was not a modern Republican. He'd not have an inkling of a chance to be permitted to run for either party these days. He's the guy who sent the army to desegregate the Southern schools. He's the one who warned about the military industrial complex. If you want to see what happens to people who think out of the box in our times, look up Derek Khanna.
True, back then most modern Republicans were still Democrats. The change over starting with the Dixiecrats and Nixon is still progressing as the South has only become solid Republican in the last few years.