With a taxi, I can prearrange specific pickup times and the every time I have done this, they show up 10 minutes early.
I've had the same experience. Unfortunately, I've also had the experience where they waited 5 minutes for me. So my taxi abandoned me 5 minutes before the arranged time. I've not had the same experience with Uber. But I use them less often.
Assange committed a "crime" that isn't a crime in the US. He lied to a woman to convince her to have sex with him. Apparently that's "rape" in Sweden, and not in the US. In addition to the non-crime (from an American perspective, assuming you are American), If the US media weren't a bunch of liars, it'd have been called "sexual misconduct" or the like, rather than "rape". It's not rape in any definition I've ever seen. To call it such, even if he's guilty is an insult to women who have been raped.
The ironic part is that the shutdown is about attacking those that pointed out the harasser. The protesters are supporting rape, and things like that. That's what I can't figure out. Who is organizing the protest, and why?
So please stop claiming that the allegations against Assange are false - you simply don't know that (and probably never will).
Assange had claimed that. The "victim" claimed that as well. The first prosecutor declined to prosecute. Seems everyone involved agreed that the allegations were false.
But after the US spoke to Sweden, a new prosecutor was selected, who did decide to go ahead with the prosecution. And the new prosecutor has not followed standard procedure for interviewing someone in a foreign country, or much of any standard process.
Punishing someone based on accusations; ie - getting away from "innocent until proven guilty", gives enormous power to your enemies.
I love how the initiator and cheerleaders for something almost always end up the ones against it. Innocent until proven guilty (though never practiced fully with Blacks), was abolished by the Republican Conservatives. McCarthy started "guilt by association" and blacklists with no evidence or process. He's not the first ever, but he was the first to mainstream abandonment in the US.
Either that or they need to account for people's contrary direct observations in some meaningful way.
What if the people don't have contrary observations, but faulty memory? They are comparing how they feel this June to how they remember feeling last June. When that doesn't match the measured temperatures, people choose their faulty memory over fact. That's why memory is unreliable.
And in the first 50 years of the USA, when did that happen? Never? Sorry, reality proves you wrong.
Sure, they don't work in places with armed insurrection, but in more stable countries, they work much much better. Or are you asserting that the USA isn't a stable country?
What amazes me is the amount of people trusting government implicitly,
Those who object to trusting the government are the same ones who trust the government completely when the government certifies a contested election in Florida.
It's not about "government trust" it's about "any lie that sells my side of the argument". They trust the cops 100% when the cops shoot a Black man, and 0% when the cops shoot a white person (Randy Weaver's family, David Koresh).
Those who question everything are labeled as the "enemy" by both sides. Those who question nothing are assumed to be on "my side" by both sides.
None of the involved logic makes sense. It's all irrational cognitive dissonance to justify an opinion, not an idea reached through logical contemplation.
You are missing the point. The solutions are undesireable, so the problem can't exist. That's the logic you are arguing against. So your petty human logic won't work. People don't want solutions, they want the problem to not exist. Have you learned nothing from Trump's campaign?
So you deny the issue exists because you believe it does, but you don't like the solution options. That seems more absurd than picking an Al Gore solution, even though you hate the man.
For the first 100 or so years, voting in the US was open ballot. The only reason it changed was because there was a civil war. Corruption and vote fraud was much less with an open ballot, and so long as you aren't in a situation with armed insurrection, is clearly superior to the secret ballot.
Once we go back to open ballots, fraud will drop, and online voting fraud will become irrelevant as well.
The definition is the important point at this time. A "fighter" could be anything. Fighters are all purpose. So are these going to be remotely piloted F16s, based on F16 and modified slightly to remove the human component? Are they going to be remotely piloted F-16 with a full cockpit, so a human will fly them from one test ground to another? Are they to be ground support (precision bombers)? Air combat?
TFA says there's a line item in a budget with the wish of having an unmanned fighter. No plan for one, and no definition of the role or requirements.
For high-speed maneuvers, probably. A static 30g for 30 seconds is likely within the capabilities of the airframe (and deadly for the pilot). But a lower-speed dog fight, the meat sack can (and has) asked more of the airframe than it could give, and had to punch out from an airframe failure
The what is a "fighter jet"? Something designed to take out manned aircraft? Unmanned aircraft?
What are the design considerations? Do you want a fighter jet that can out maneuver a SAM? Perhaps designed to dog-fight a SAM and shoot it down. Then you could deploy 10 of these around manned aircraft (bombers or the like) as an anti SAM defense.
Part of my point to base the discussion around existing jets, is that that's all we know. Designing a jet with unlimited capabilities is beyond aerospace design. It'll take many generations until the unmanned fighter jet will be anywhere close to optimal. At first, I'd expect them to take an existing airframe, and strip all the human tech (O2 bottles, etc.) and strengthen it. You can't make vast changes with the first generation.
The predator drones are incapable of making maneuvers that would kill a pilot, and they were designed from the ground up as unmanned. But then, they are not "fighters". Or are the fighters of the future just mobile weapons platforms?
It could be great, it could not matter. One of the realities is that the current designs are not much stronger than the human body. Sure, they can pull 20g indefinitely, when the human can't, but a quick transition from -20g to +20g could cause structural failure. A plane with no delicate meat-sack inside would greatly out-perform the meat-sack, but not if it exceeds the airframe capabilities or performance envelope.
No, but as Windows Mobile got popularity, they depreciated Windows CE phones. Windows, not the iPhone, declared that the previous "smartphones" weren't smartphones. Same with some of the others that did the same thing. The first smartphones weren't smartphones as people today think of it. They were '90s PDAs with phone capabilities. Unrelated to Apple, those attempts have been ret-con'ed to non-smartphone. Often by the maker of that phone, as an attempt to explain how much better the new phone is.
Midwest Racism is "We're not racist, we just don't want *those people* near us or dating our daughter." They may respond to logic. Southern racism is a whole 'nother beast. If you weren't raised there, you likely didn't get to experience much of it. The racists know they are despised, to they hide it, effectively lying, when not surrounded by their kind. They are also the core anti-SJW anti-PC group. They want to be able to call a fucking nigger a fuckin nigger without some prick calling them rude. They know it's rude, how could they not? They just want the freedom to deliberately insult and abuse everyone they don't like all the time.
I don't doubt that your tactic would work on some people. But I've met thousands it wouldn't work with.
I get labeled an SJW here because I'm not an SJW. I'm just not afraid to point out social problems I've personally seen.
You do realize that there's still explicit segregation in schools, right? At least the last time I talked with a student athlete at Texas A&M University, the athletic dorms are officially segregated, with no white person living in the same room with a non-white, unless they specifically requested it. When you spend your whole life seeing explicit segregation enforced by the government (The State of Texas "owns" TAMU), you have a different vision from those that grew up in different circumstances. My parents were from the Midwest, so I got to see both sets of racism, and managed to see both as racist, even if different.
Of course there's also the now-popular "hate whitey" meme that's being pushed real hard by the capitalist propaganda organs.
I primarily see "hate whitey" as being pushed by the white racists. They want to push for a confrontation and encourage riots, because it serves their narrative.
The last Fortune 500 I worked for didn't do any of that. There were no incentives to hire diverse. Wat you say is borderline illegal as well. Quotas are almost always illegal.
You whined first. You whined loudest. You were triggered by an article about "diversity" to mock and insult AMJ. You started this with all your outrage over anti-racism.
And Facebook has never lied to anyone about anything? Wouldn't it make sense to Facebook to report all automated takedowns as "community reported" to deflect blame?
now what in my experience reliably makes them stop and reconsider? If they're denouncing $RACE, just say to them calmly: "You know, I've met quite a few nice/smart/etc $RACE people. Have you really never met at nice $RACE person?" Maybe that sounds too simple, but it does seem to work.
Maybe we know different bigots, but in my experience, nothing makes them reconsider. Bigotry is a religion. All evidence against is the work of the devil, and coincidence for is confirmation.
Have you ever hear someone say that Usain Bolt is proof of white supremacy? I have. "Those Niggers are all faster and stronger, because that's how monkeys are built, and if they were as smart as us, they'd be better off than us. That they aren't is proof they must be dumber." "I know some smart Black people." "Yeah, some soft descendents of house Niggers." There is no response that would get through, so why bother?
Slashdot Mirror
With a taxi, I can prearrange specific pickup times and the every time I have done this, they show up 10 minutes early.
I've had the same experience. Unfortunately, I've also had the experience where they waited 5 minutes for me. So my taxi abandoned me 5 minutes before the arranged time. I've not had the same experience with Uber. But I use them less often.
Assange committed a "crime" that isn't a crime in the US. He lied to a woman to convince her to have sex with him. Apparently that's "rape" in Sweden, and not in the US. In addition to the non-crime (from an American perspective, assuming you are American), If the US media weren't a bunch of liars, it'd have been called "sexual misconduct" or the like, rather than "rape". It's not rape in any definition I've ever seen. To call it such, even if he's guilty is an insult to women who have been raped.
The ironic part is that the shutdown is about attacking those that pointed out the harasser. The protesters are supporting rape, and things like that. That's what I can't figure out. Who is organizing the protest, and why?
So please stop claiming that the allegations against Assange are false - you simply don't know that (and probably never will).
Assange had claimed that. The "victim" claimed that as well. The first prosecutor declined to prosecute. Seems everyone involved agreed that the allegations were false.
But after the US spoke to Sweden, a new prosecutor was selected, who did decide to go ahead with the prosecution. And the new prosecutor has not followed standard procedure for interviewing someone in a foreign country, or much of any standard process.
Punishing someone based on accusations; ie - getting away from "innocent until proven guilty", gives enormous power to your enemies.
I love how the initiator and cheerleaders for something almost always end up the ones against it. Innocent until proven guilty (though never practiced fully with Blacks), was abolished by the Republican Conservatives. McCarthy started "guilt by association" and blacklists with no evidence or process. He's not the first ever, but he was the first to mainstream abandonment in the US.
Either that or they need to account for people's contrary direct observations in some meaningful way.
What if the people don't have contrary observations, but faulty memory? They are comparing how they feel this June to how they remember feeling last June. When that doesn't match the measured temperatures, people choose their faulty memory over fact. That's why memory is unreliable.
Yes, that's what I asked the AC for. A citation of problems with open ballots in the USA. None were provided.
And in the first 50 years of the USA, when did that happen? Never? Sorry, reality proves you wrong.
Sure, they don't work in places with armed insurrection, but in more stable countries, they work much much better. Or are you asserting that the USA isn't a stable country?
What amazes me is the amount of people trusting government implicitly,
Those who object to trusting the government are the same ones who trust the government completely when the government certifies a contested election in Florida.
It's not about "government trust" it's about "any lie that sells my side of the argument". They trust the cops 100% when the cops shoot a Black man, and 0% when the cops shoot a white person (Randy Weaver's family, David Koresh).
Those who question everything are labeled as the "enemy" by both sides. Those who question nothing are assumed to be on "my side" by both sides.
None of the involved logic makes sense. It's all irrational cognitive dissonance to justify an opinion, not an idea reached through logical contemplation.
The science has shown that the big ball of fire in the sky has a primary impact, but the changes recently can't be explained by that ball of fire.
You are missing the point. The solutions are undesireable, so the problem can't exist. That's the logic you are arguing against. So your petty human logic won't work. People don't want solutions, they want the problem to not exist. Have you learned nothing from Trump's campaign?
So you deny the issue exists because you believe it does, but you don't like the solution options. That seems more absurd than picking an Al Gore solution, even though you hate the man.
The country was founded with open ballots, and they were used up to the Civil War. Open ballots have less fraud than secret ones.
For the first 100 or so years, voting in the US was open ballot. The only reason it changed was because there was a civil war. Corruption and vote fraud was much less with an open ballot, and so long as you aren't in a situation with armed insurrection, is clearly superior to the secret ballot.
Once we go back to open ballots, fraud will drop, and online voting fraud will become irrelevant as well.
The definition is the important point at this time. A "fighter" could be anything. Fighters are all purpose. So are these going to be remotely piloted F16s, based on F16 and modified slightly to remove the human component? Are they going to be remotely piloted F-16 with a full cockpit, so a human will fly them from one test ground to another? Are they to be ground support (precision bombers)? Air combat?
TFA says there's a line item in a budget with the wish of having an unmanned fighter. No plan for one, and no definition of the role or requirements.
For high-speed maneuvers, probably. A static 30g for 30 seconds is likely within the capabilities of the airframe (and deadly for the pilot). But a lower-speed dog fight, the meat sack can (and has) asked more of the airframe than it could give, and had to punch out from an airframe failure
The what is a "fighter jet"? Something designed to take out manned aircraft? Unmanned aircraft?
What are the design considerations? Do you want a fighter jet that can out maneuver a SAM? Perhaps designed to dog-fight a SAM and shoot it down. Then you could deploy 10 of these around manned aircraft (bombers or the like) as an anti SAM defense.
Part of my point to base the discussion around existing jets, is that that's all we know. Designing a jet with unlimited capabilities is beyond aerospace design. It'll take many generations until the unmanned fighter jet will be anywhere close to optimal. At first, I'd expect them to take an existing airframe, and strip all the human tech (O2 bottles, etc.) and strengthen it. You can't make vast changes with the first generation.
The predator drones are incapable of making maneuvers that would kill a pilot, and they were designed from the ground up as unmanned. But then, they are not "fighters". Or are the fighters of the future just mobile weapons platforms?
It could be great, it could not matter. One of the realities is that the current designs are not much stronger than the human body. Sure, they can pull 20g indefinitely, when the human can't, but a quick transition from -20g to +20g could cause structural failure. A plane with no delicate meat-sack inside would greatly out-perform the meat-sack, but not if it exceeds the airframe capabilities or performance envelope.
No, but as Windows Mobile got popularity, they depreciated Windows CE phones. Windows, not the iPhone, declared that the previous "smartphones" weren't smartphones. Same with some of the others that did the same thing. The first smartphones weren't smartphones as people today think of it. They were '90s PDAs with phone capabilities. Unrelated to Apple, those attempts have been ret-con'ed to non-smartphone. Often by the maker of that phone, as an attempt to explain how much better the new phone is.
I don't doubt that your tactic would work on some people. But I've met thousands it wouldn't work with.
I get labeled an SJW here because I'm not an SJW. I'm just not afraid to point out social problems I've personally seen.
You do realize that there's still explicit segregation in schools, right? At least the last time I talked with a student athlete at Texas A&M University, the athletic dorms are officially segregated, with no white person living in the same room with a non-white, unless they specifically requested it. When you spend your whole life seeing explicit segregation enforced by the government (The State of Texas "owns" TAMU), you have a different vision from those that grew up in different circumstances. My parents were from the Midwest, so I got to see both sets of racism, and managed to see both as racist, even if different.
Of course there's also the now-popular "hate whitey" meme that's being pushed real hard by the capitalist propaganda organs.
I primarily see "hate whitey" as being pushed by the white racists. They want to push for a confrontation and encourage riots, because it serves their narrative.
The last Fortune 500 I worked for didn't do any of that. There were no incentives to hire diverse. Wat you say is borderline illegal as well. Quotas are almost always illegal.
You whined first. You whined loudest. You were triggered by an article about "diversity" to mock and insult AMJ. You started this with all your outrage over anti-racism.
And Facebook has never lied to anyone about anything? Wouldn't it make sense to Facebook to report all automated takedowns as "community reported" to deflect blame?
now what in my experience reliably makes them stop and reconsider? If they're denouncing $RACE, just say to them calmly: "You know, I've met quite a few nice/smart/etc $RACE people. Have you really never met at nice $RACE person?" Maybe that sounds too simple, but it does seem to work.
Maybe we know different bigots, but in my experience, nothing makes them reconsider. Bigotry is a religion. All evidence against is the work of the devil, and coincidence for is confirmation.
Have you ever hear someone say that Usain Bolt is proof of white supremacy? I have. "Those Niggers are all faster and stronger, because that's how monkeys are built, and if they were as smart as us, they'd be better off than us. That they aren't is proof they must be dumber." "I know some smart Black people." "Yeah, some soft descendents of house Niggers." There is no response that would get through, so why bother?
TFS says 30 miles, not 4.