The stop-and-frisk reports from the NYPD during the Bloomberg years shows that clearly.
What stop-and-frisk reports show is black people tend to live in neighborhoods with more crime. Spinning that into "proof" of racism is exactly what he's talking about.
And nothing, nothing out of this administration should be taken at face value when it touches on race.
... which also happen to be the neighborhoods with the highest crime rates. Do you think having cops allocate more resources to neighborhoods with higher crime rates is a bad idea? Sounds like Law Enforcement 101 to me.
There's a lot of data from the returned Falcon stages which adds to the existing understanding of the engineering task. The airframes are designed for multiple stresses, and the engines have been performing and relighting admirably.
I know what they're designed to do, and the fact that the tested returnees didn't blow up is a good sign. But you and I don't know what SpaceX has done in the way of inspections and refurb for the ones they've tested. A rocket that will probably work and on that's proven to be acceptably reliable are two very different things. My point is two things must be true for SpaceX to succeed: The stages must work more than once and also getting a stage ready for reflight must be inexpensive. I'm pretty comfortable with the first part, but at this point the second is a complete unknown.
In the "making it work better" vein, they've been experimenting with different reentry attitudes and burns in recent flights. They said they were trying to bleed off more speed in the upper atmosphere to save fuel for the landing. Perhaps they've succeeded, too: on this flight they went back to the single engine landing, which requires more fuel but is easier on the hardware.
That's really the $68,000 question. I wouldn't fly on the first test flight of a brand new commercial airliner, and that's essentially what satellite makers are doing with disposable rockets. But airliners don't take the same punishment as rocket boosters. Nobody really knows if we can build a booster that can fly over and over reliably enough to be, well, relied upon. Maybe SpaceX has already done it with Falcon 9. Maybe the amount of inspection and refurb necessary between flights makes the whole thing not worth the trouble. We shall see.
The funny thing is they don't actually have to prove anything. Let's say they take all your stuff and don't even charge you. Or they charge you and you're found "not guilty" in court. So you turn to the feds and say "Hey, since I haven't been found guilty of anything, can I have my stuff back?"
The problem is the numbers don't work. If those hybrid space planes get to orbit at all they're going to do it without any appreciable cargo. Why fund something like that?
Bill Gates is probably the most effective philanthropist ever, which is why Buffett gave his foundation so much money.
If he wants to impress me, he needs to give away about 77.9 billion of that, funding things like the elimination of daesh/isis/isil, al-queda & boko haram
He couldn't do that if he wanted to - you can't run your own foreign policy under US law, and even if he could people like you would criticize him for it. Daesh exists for a reason, and even if you were able to eliminate the group you'd have the same ideologies percolating under the surface. Daesh wouldn't exist but for the fact we went around "eliminating" people and groups thinking they couldn't be replaced by anything worse.
...making an excellent education free and safe across the entire surface of the earth...
I doubt you'd ever get people to agree on just what an "excellent education" is. Certainly I wouldn't pay a bent nickel to subsidize the US university system at this point.
...ensuring no-one goes hungry...
Probably also a bad idea. There are a whole lot of people who would sink into a cycle of dependency and sloth if they were allowed to do so, and they'd be miserable for it. You want to lift people out of poverty? The only way that actually works is to provide them with the tools to lift themselves out.
...and getting things like an amendment to the constitution to reverse the Citizens United decision
Why? Is there some reason people should lose their right to free speech when acting as a group? Or do you just want to remove that right for people who criticize Hillary Clinton?
When he reduces his wealth so that he here merely has enough for he and his family to live comfortably on for the next 7 generations, MAYBE I'll stop considering him a worthless piece of shit.
I'm trying to understand why you would think of a person you don't know in those terms. Gates has already done more for destitute people in Africa than you our your descendants will ever do. What would make you think he's a "worthless piece of shit"?
You're right - a million bucks isn't that much any more, particularly in the context of retirement. They say you should plan for long term care costs of $7k/month, and there are health problems that can cost a couple hundred grand in one go.
You can't get a 5% return these days without taking on significant risk, either.
That's all true, but aren't you neglecting the other half of the equation? Engines are more efficient at certain RPMs, and how fast you're going at the engine's most efficient RPM is a function of gearing.
The cops weren't "outsmarted" by anyone. And no, we should not put blame on him. The blame goes to his family, the press, and political interests in the US that want to use these kinds of made-up stunts as "teachable moments".
They do have a fiduciary duty to shareholders, though. Don't you think the moves they've made toward censorship affect the bottom line? Specifically things like the Orwellian "Trust and Safety Committee"?
There's a difference, though. For the most part conservatives don't try to get people fired or arrested for things they say. That's a pretty standard SJW tactic.
He's definitely a rhetorical bomb thrower. But look at what Twitter banned him for - not things he wrote, but things that people who follow him wrote. That's a site in its death throes.
Plus the state AG and the county coroner. People who are still chanting "hand up don't shoot" are just idiots. This has to be one of the most investigated encounters between two people in the history of US law enforcement.
That makes no sense. Of course they'll be begging to use the phone in the "texting universe", because they can't send texts. And they'll already have the number on their phone.
Every night at closing time it will be one long stream of "Can I use the phone to call my friend/a cab/Uber?"
It's funny and concerning people refuse to look into this case and realize the cop was protecting himself. But go ahead, pretend nobody bothered to investigate this.
He was most likely put up to it by his activist dad, particularly since he knew exactly what to say to the cops - he told them the truth, but in such a way that they would think he's lying. That's not something you know when you're 14.
Slashdot Mirror
What stop-and-frisk reports show is black people tend to live in neighborhoods with more crime. Spinning that into "proof" of racism is exactly what he's talking about.
And nothing, nothing out of this administration should be taken at face value when it touches on race.
... which also happen to be the neighborhoods with the highest crime rates. Do you think having cops allocate more resources to neighborhoods with higher crime rates is a bad idea? Sounds like Law Enforcement 101 to me.
People who don't have power where they park is a "fringe case"? That's daft.
I know what they're designed to do, and the fact that the tested returnees didn't blow up is a good sign. But you and I don't know what SpaceX has done in the way of inspections and refurb for the ones they've tested. A rocket that will probably work and on that's proven to be acceptably reliable are two very different things. My point is two things must be true for SpaceX to succeed: The stages must work more than once and also getting a stage ready for reflight must be inexpensive. I'm pretty comfortable with the first part, but at this point the second is a complete unknown.
In the "making it work better" vein, they've been experimenting with different reentry attitudes and burns in recent flights. They said they were trying to bleed off more speed in the upper atmosphere to save fuel for the landing. Perhaps they've succeeded, too: on this flight they went back to the single engine landing, which requires more fuel but is easier on the hardware.
That's really the $68,000 question. I wouldn't fly on the first test flight of a brand new commercial airliner, and that's essentially what satellite makers are doing with disposable rockets. But airliners don't take the same punishment as rocket boosters. Nobody really knows if we can build a booster that can fly over and over reliably enough to be, well, relied upon. Maybe SpaceX has already done it with Falcon 9. Maybe the amount of inspection and refurb necessary between flights makes the whole thing not worth the trouble. We shall see.
The funny thing is they don't actually have to prove anything. Let's say they take all your stuff and don't even charge you. Or they charge you and you're found "not guilty" in court. So you turn to the feds and say "Hey, since I haven't been found guilty of anything, can I have my stuff back?"
"No," they explain.
I'm American and I agree with you. I'm amazed at what other governments and peoples are willing to tolerate.
The problem is the numbers don't work. If those hybrid space planes get to orbit at all they're going to do it without any appreciable cargo. Why fund something like that?
Bill Gates is probably the most effective philanthropist ever, which is why Buffett gave his foundation so much money.
He couldn't do that if he wanted to - you can't run your own foreign policy under US law, and even if he could people like you would criticize him for it. Daesh exists for a reason, and even if you were able to eliminate the group you'd have the same ideologies percolating under the surface. Daesh wouldn't exist but for the fact we went around "eliminating" people and groups thinking they couldn't be replaced by anything worse.
I doubt you'd ever get people to agree on just what an "excellent education" is. Certainly I wouldn't pay a bent nickel to subsidize the US university system at this point.
Probably also a bad idea. There are a whole lot of people who would sink into a cycle of dependency and sloth if they were allowed to do so, and they'd be miserable for it. You want to lift people out of poverty? The only way that actually works is to provide them with the tools to lift themselves out.
Why? Is there some reason people should lose their right to free speech when acting as a group? Or do you just want to remove that right for people who criticize Hillary Clinton?
I'm trying to understand why you would think of a person you don't know in those terms. Gates has already done more for destitute people in Africa than you our your descendants will ever do. What would make you think he's a "worthless piece of shit"?
You're right - a million bucks isn't that much any more, particularly in the context of retirement. They say you should plan for long term care costs of $7k/month, and there are health problems that can cost a couple hundred grand in one go.
You can't get a 5% return these days without taking on significant risk, either.
That's all true, but aren't you neglecting the other half of the equation? Engines are more efficient at certain RPMs, and how fast you're going at the engine's most efficient RPM is a function of gearing.
Sure, a fourteen year old knows how to act suspicious. But he doesn't understand the legal line such that he can walk up to it but not cross.
The cops weren't "outsmarted" by anyone. And no, we should not put blame on him. The blame goes to his family, the press, and political interests in the US that want to use these kinds of made-up stunts as "teachable moments".
That's exactly the opposite of my experience.
They do have a fiduciary duty to shareholders, though. Don't you think the moves they've made toward censorship affect the bottom line? Specifically things like the Orwellian "Trust and Safety Committee"?
There's a difference, though. For the most part conservatives don't try to get people fired or arrested for things they say. That's a pretty standard SJW tactic.
He's definitely a rhetorical bomb thrower. But look at what Twitter banned him for - not things he wrote, but things that people who follow him wrote. That's a site in its death throes.
Presumably not, but so what? What does that have to do with Michael Brown's death?
Plus the state AG and the county coroner. People who are still chanting "hand up don't shoot" are just idiots. This has to be one of the most investigated encounters between two people in the history of US law enforcement.
When people start shrieking "racist!" I know they've reached the end of valid arguments.
That makes no sense. Of course they'll be begging to use the phone in the "texting universe", because they can't send texts. And they'll already have the number on their phone.
Every night at closing time it will be one long stream of "Can I use the phone to call my friend/a cab/Uber?"
It's funny and concerning people refuse to look into this case and realize the cop was protecting himself. But go ahead, pretend nobody bothered to investigate this.
It is if he attacks a cop.
He was most likely put up to it by his activist dad, particularly since he knew exactly what to say to the cops - he told them the truth, but in such a way that they would think he's lying. That's not something you know when you're 14.