Seriously, this blacklisting of people for even daring to support anything but the democrats has grown grotesque.
Dismiss this as a nitpick, but that's not accurate. It's blacklisting of people for even daring to support Trump, unless you have evidence that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein supporters are also being blacklisted.
Also, I disagree with you singling out the Democrats for actions that the Republicans are also guilty of, but that's an entirely different discussion. Full disclosure: I rarely vote for candidates put forth by either of the two major parties, and this year will be no exception.
The latest hysteria about Trump for example: Trump said very clearly that he would ask his Attorney General to assign a Special Prosecutor to investigate the Clinton's. Sounds reasonable to most of us considering the amount of corruption that surrounds them (worded intentionally, so read what I wrote instead of what you want to see). Media report: Trump is going to randomly jail people. He's a dictator, he's a this, he's a that.
So, while I agree with much of what you wrote, I'd like to caveat that during this same debate, Trump also said to Clinton "because you'd be in jail" (in response to her "awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country"). His lack of qualifiers ("probably" would've helped, for example) implies that he is presupposing the outcome of the investigation he'd commission and could be cited as evidence of his desire for the investigation to reach a predetermined outcome.
Full disclosure: definitely voting, but not for either of these two fucks.
It was a joke about how in the 60s we were building a man-rated three-stage Saturn V capable of 140000kg payload to LEO while today's best launcher isn't man-rated and only does 28790kg to LEO (about 20% as much), but nevermind.
I never said Keystone ends in Europe. I implied that if Canadian oil becomes available to the US, then it puts more pressure on Russian oil prices and forces them to sell it at fair market value to Eastern Europe.
First, Canadian oil is already available to the US. The first two phases of the Keystone pipeline system are already online and fully operational. The third phase is partly online, and expected to be fully operational in 2017. The fourth phase, Keystone XL, is what was nixed.
Second, the Keystone pipeline system is far from the only oil pipeline from Canada to the US. Here's a map that I found linked from here, easily found by a cursory web search. So, again, Canadian oil is already available to the US.
Third, Canadian oil has been available to the US for longer than we've had pipelines, as oil is commonly distributed via tankers. I'll stop beating that horse now, as I'm assuming you misspoke on that point and are aware that over 1/3 of US oil imports already come from Canada.
Fouth, you seem to be making a number of mutually-exclusive assumptions about oil. Specifically, you seem to be assuming that the cost of transporting Canadian oil to Europe by tanker is less than the cost of transporting Russian oil to Europe by pipeline. You seem to [correctly] imply that transport by pipeline is cheaper than transport by tanker in the context of Canada/US oil transport, but for some reason [falsely] imply the opposite in the context of supplying Europe with oil. If pipeline transport is cheaper than tanker transport, then tanker-transported Canadian oil wouldn't be able to undercut pipeline-transported Russian oil on price. If pipeline transport is not cheaper than tanker transport, then Keystone XL wouldn't lower the cost of Canadian oil.
Finally, you're overlooking many other aspects of this situation. Say, the fact that not all oils are born equal (though that's not really that much of an issue in this comparison, as both Canadian and Russian crude oils are shit). Maybe the fact that geographic location of refining and storage capacity dictate in large part the route that petrochemicals travel between production and consumption. Et cetera.
In a nutshell, I find your view overly simplistic and likely inaccurate. While it's true that increased production in North America (and indeed, the current bottleneck is in the distribution network, not on the production side) would put some negative price pressure on oil markets, there's no reason to suspect that this would be sufficient to bankrupt Gazprom.
Also, I'd like to point out that the "stupid oil pipeline" in Syria isn't actually an oil pipeline. It's a natural gas pipeline. And Russia extorts Eastern Europe via turning the screws on gas prices during winter. We should've been talking about gas, not oil. An oversight like that really makes me wonder why I spend so much time on my response, but feel free to reply if you're interested in how natural gas distribution works.
The funny thing here is that if they just approved and opened up the Keystone Pipeline, they'd have achieved the same goal of bankrupting GAZPROM, w/o going to war in the Mid East.
Keystone XL was never intended to terminate in Europe.
But I'll definitely take whatever it is that you're smoking.
Because saying "fuck you" by voting for the Libertarian or Green candidates is like saying "fuck you" while you're standing out in the middle of the woods with nobody listening. The vote is lost.
That's a gross oversimplification of the way presidential elections work in the USA.
If you live in a swing state, what you said is true. However, most American voters don't live in swing states, and indeed, they have no say in the contest between Democrats and Republicans. Their vote is effectively lost regardless of how they vote.
Unless they vote for a third party. You see, though the D/R contest is already settled in most states, there is another one in which these voters can still have a say: the fight for more money.
For your convenience:
Minor party candidates and new party candidates may become eligible for partial public funding of their general election campaigns. (A minor party candidate is the nominee of a party whose candidate received between 5 and 25 percent of the total popular vote in the preceding Presidential election. A new party candidate is the nominee of a party that is neither a major party nor a minor party.) The amount of public funding to which a minor party candidate is entitled is based on the ratio of the party's popular vote in the preceding Presidential election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in that election. A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote. The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate's popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.
So, in many ways, you're advocating for people to dutifully throw their votes away on statistically-impossible outcomes instead of actually casting them in a way that is considerably more likely to actually have a practical outcome. For a Californian, like it or not, their state is going for Clinton (99.9% probability as per Nate Silver's projections as of this writing), regardless of who they vote for. If their vote was somehow going to be the deciding factor in California, then virtually all other states would already be in the bag for Trump, and the contest would have already been decided anyway. The only way their vote can have any practical impact is by helping to push a third party past the 5% threshold, enabling the collection of partial public funding for the next election.
Emphasis added for people with short attention spans.
The traffic code in most cases specifically excludes intent from consideration, but that's an anomalous area in the law. Throughout very nearly all of criminal law, intent is crucial to determining guilt. So while you're correct that "Officer, I didn't see the sign" won't do you any good, your argument is a red herring that demonstrates significant lack of knowledge of criminal law.
So, as it turns out, 18 U.S.C. 793(f) is also an anomalous area in the law, because it doesn't require intent. Care to contribute some more of that knowledge of criminal law?
It isn't enough to just preposition supplies you need to develop and transport a highly automated industrial base using technology that does not yet exist to create the things people will need to survive.
Is that how the Americas were colonized by the Europeans?
Sure, you can do it, but if you rely on your rocket engines entirely to decelerate (as the video clearly shows), you would need roughly double the fuel.
Agreed, but the real question is what are they replacing the expended fuel with? I mean, so that the landing mass is roughly the same as the launch mass. Because that's the only way you would need roughly double the fuel.
On a more serious note, they've already been landing boosters this way. In Earth gravity. Furthermore, how the fuck are your parachutes going to help land on a planet with little-to-no atmosphere?
You play KSP, so it's totally reasonable to expect that you know better than an entire company full of rocket scientists.
The environment is so insane there that any probes we managed to send to the surface only lasted seconds before being melted by acid rain and extreme temperature and pressure.
This isn't much different than the environment on Earth's surface. We've only been able to get four probes all the way down to the surface, and we've been living on this planet for ages.
Or, do you use "surface" to denote an arbitrary point in the fluids surrounding Earth? If so, why does this definition no longer work on Venus? Because the point at which the fluids exert 1 atm of pressure on Venus is rather comfortable, much like it is on Earth.
And that's just regulations, even if by magic such an automated truck was available *tomorrow*, you have a capital base of billions of dollars worth of trucks already out there which can't do this. And these trucks are, for the most part, built for extreme long-term durability with useful lifespans of at least a decade. It would take 10-20 years for such an automated truck to replace the existing base of trucks.
Sunk cost fallacy. If the cost savings that result from decreased labor costs are greater than the cost of buying an automated truck and disposing of a manually-piloted one, it's a fiscally sound decision to make.
proxima centauri b is expected to be in tidal lock with its star. that is, half of the planet is expected to have more than enough radiation shielding. whether or not there is atmospheric or oceanic convection to have reasonable temperatures on that half is the next question that needs to be answered.
I don't see how its victim blaming because it's hard to see this person as a victim. He was "cheated" out of a few seconds of movie scenes.
If one purchases a particular multi-featured product or service for one specific feature, and then it turns out that feature doesn't actually exist, is one cheated out of only this specific feature or is one cheated out of the full purchase price of the entire product or service?
I'm inclined to say the latter, which is why I believe he was cheated out of the full price of admission. Regardless of any incidental expenses incurred, you yourself admit that he was cheated. Why do you find it hard to see someone who was cheated as a victim? In your mind, is fraud a victimless crime?
Now, I'm not saying your reasoning is wrong, but isn't this textbook victim blaming?
This guy bought into allegedly fraudulent advertising claims and lost some money. How is that any different from someone getting conned by someone in the street? I mean, yes, everyone ought to be smarter than that, but isn't that the whole point of laws prohibiting fraud? To protect those among us that are gullible enough to fall for it?
I worry far more about the costs of an excessively litigious society than the alleged trauma of a first-world man-child over not seeing specific a few expected scenes in a movie.
Translation: I worry far less about enforcement of our exceedingly complex legal code than I do about the immaturity of the plaintiff.
Everyone knew this "nominating process" was rigged from the start. These emails just add more confirmation to what we already knew.
Everyone suspected (not knew) this "nominating process" was rigged form the start. These emails add confirmation (not more confirmation, but initial confirmation) of what we suspected but did not know. It's like Snowden's NSA leaks, which confirmed suspicions but were similarly dismissed on the basis of "we already knew this". No, we already suspected. In the minds of rational agents, suspicion and knowledge are two separate concepts.
While your point is valid, the DNC chair has already chosen to resign rather than make the argument you just raised. She seems to have found the source trustworthy herself.
Is it possible or probable that some of the damning emails edited or completely faked?
Pretty sure if the emails were edited or completely faked, that's the explanation they'd be going with, as it's considerably more plausible than this "a vote against Hillary is a vote for Putin" joke. The fact that DWS is instead resigning from her role as DNC chair instead of offering such an explanation suggests that these emails might actually be legitimate.
While everything you've said is true to the best of my knowledge, this is a hilariously one-sided account. One might argue that you're intentionally lying by omission by omitting so much context.
By salary increase, I didn't mean salary increases related to increasing experience, nor nominal salary increases related to inflation.
A labor shortage would be associated with a broad and significant increase in market labor rates in a given sector. This would have nothing to do with individuals negotiating pay raises, or even with individual performance on the job at all, but would solely be a consequence of market forces. And that's not something that is corroborated by any published employment statistics.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, this blacklisting of people for even daring to support anything but the democrats has grown grotesque.
Dismiss this as a nitpick, but that's not accurate. It's blacklisting of people for even daring to support Trump, unless you have evidence that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein supporters are also being blacklisted.
Also, I disagree with you singling out the Democrats for actions that the Republicans are also guilty of, but that's an entirely different discussion. Full disclosure: I rarely vote for candidates put forth by either of the two major parties, and this year will be no exception.
The latest hysteria about Trump for example: Trump said very clearly that he would ask his Attorney General to assign a Special Prosecutor to investigate the Clinton's. Sounds reasonable to most of us considering the amount of corruption that surrounds them (worded intentionally, so read what I wrote instead of what you want to see). Media report: Trump is going to randomly jail people. He's a dictator, he's a this, he's a that.
So, while I agree with much of what you wrote, I'd like to caveat that during this same debate, Trump also said to Clinton "because you'd be in jail" (in response to her "awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country"). His lack of qualifiers ("probably" would've helped, for example) implies that he is presupposing the outcome of the investigation he'd commission and could be cited as evidence of his desire for the investigation to reach a predetermined outcome.
Full disclosure: definitely voting, but not for either of these two fucks.
It was a joke about how in the 60s we were building a man-rated three-stage Saturn V capable of 140000kg payload to LEO while today's best launcher isn't man-rated and only does 28790kg to LEO (about 20% as much), but nevermind.
Are you serious? They're basically where the Soviets and US were in the early 1960s.
So, in other words, you agree that their space program is more advanced than the one we have in the US today?
I never said Keystone ends in Europe. I implied that if Canadian oil becomes available to the US, then it puts more pressure on Russian oil prices and forces them to sell it at fair market value to Eastern Europe.
First, Canadian oil is already available to the US. The first two phases of the Keystone pipeline system are already online and fully operational. The third phase is partly online, and expected to be fully operational in 2017. The fourth phase, Keystone XL, is what was nixed.
Second, the Keystone pipeline system is far from the only oil pipeline from Canada to the US. Here's a map that I found linked from here, easily found by a cursory web search. So, again, Canadian oil is already available to the US.
Third, Canadian oil has been available to the US for longer than we've had pipelines, as oil is commonly distributed via tankers. I'll stop beating that horse now, as I'm assuming you misspoke on that point and are aware that over 1/3 of US oil imports already come from Canada.
Fouth, you seem to be making a number of mutually-exclusive assumptions about oil. Specifically, you seem to be assuming that the cost of transporting Canadian oil to Europe by tanker is less than the cost of transporting Russian oil to Europe by pipeline. You seem to [correctly] imply that transport by pipeline is cheaper than transport by tanker in the context of Canada/US oil transport, but for some reason [falsely] imply the opposite in the context of supplying Europe with oil. If pipeline transport is cheaper than tanker transport, then tanker-transported Canadian oil wouldn't be able to undercut pipeline-transported Russian oil on price. If pipeline transport is not cheaper than tanker transport, then Keystone XL wouldn't lower the cost of Canadian oil.
Finally, you're overlooking many other aspects of this situation. Say, the fact that not all oils are born equal (though that's not really that much of an issue in this comparison, as both Canadian and Russian crude oils are shit). Maybe the fact that geographic location of refining and storage capacity dictate in large part the route that petrochemicals travel between production and consumption. Et cetera.
In a nutshell, I find your view overly simplistic and likely inaccurate. While it's true that increased production in North America (and indeed, the current bottleneck is in the distribution network, not on the production side) would put some negative price pressure on oil markets, there's no reason to suspect that this would be sufficient to bankrupt Gazprom.
Also, I'd like to point out that the "stupid oil pipeline" in Syria isn't actually an oil pipeline. It's a natural gas pipeline. And Russia extorts Eastern Europe via turning the screws on gas prices during winter. We should've been talking about gas, not oil. An oversight like that really makes me wonder why I spend so much time on my response, but feel free to reply if you're interested in how natural gas distribution works.
The funny thing here is that if they just approved and opened up the Keystone Pipeline, they'd have achieved the same goal of bankrupting GAZPROM, w/o going to war in the Mid East.
Keystone XL was never intended to terminate in Europe.
But I'll definitely take whatever it is that you're smoking.
Because saying "fuck you" by voting for the Libertarian or Green candidates is like saying "fuck you" while you're standing out in the middle of the woods with nobody listening. The vote is lost.
That's a gross oversimplification of the way presidential elections work in the USA.
If you live in a swing state, what you said is true. However, most American voters don't live in swing states, and indeed, they have no say in the contest between Democrats and Republicans. Their vote is effectively lost regardless of how they vote.
Unless they vote for a third party. You see, though the D/R contest is already settled in most states, there is another one in which these voters can still have a say: the fight for more money.
For your convenience:
Minor party candidates and new party candidates may become eligible for partial public funding of their general election campaigns. (A minor party candidate is the nominee of a party whose candidate received between 5 and 25 percent of the total popular vote in the preceding Presidential election. A new party candidate is the nominee of a party that is neither a major party nor a minor party.) The amount of public funding to which a minor party candidate is entitled is based on the ratio of the party's popular vote in the preceding Presidential election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in that election. A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote. The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate's popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.
Source.
So, in many ways, you're advocating for people to dutifully throw their votes away on statistically-impossible outcomes instead of actually casting them in a way that is considerably more likely to actually have a practical outcome. For a Californian, like it or not, their state is going for Clinton (99.9% probability as per Nate Silver's projections as of this writing), regardless of who they vote for. If their vote was somehow going to be the deciding factor in California, then virtually all other states would already be in the bag for Trump, and the contest would have already been decided anyway. The only way their vote can have any practical impact is by helping to push a third party past the 5% threshold, enabling the collection of partial public funding for the next election.
Emphasis added for people with short attention spans.
The traffic code in most cases specifically excludes intent from consideration, but that's an anomalous area in the law. Throughout very nearly all of criminal law, intent is crucial to determining guilt. So while you're correct that "Officer, I didn't see the sign" won't do you any good, your argument is a red herring that demonstrates significant lack of knowledge of criminal law.
So, as it turns out, 18 U.S.C. 793(f) is also an anomalous area in the law, because it doesn't require intent. Care to contribute some more of that knowledge of criminal law?
It isn't enough to just preposition supplies you need to develop and transport a highly automated industrial base using technology that does not yet exist to create the things people will need to survive.
Is that how the Americas were colonized by the Europeans?
Sure, you can do it, but if you rely on your rocket engines entirely to decelerate (as the video clearly shows), you would need roughly double the fuel.
Agreed, but the real question is what are they replacing the expended fuel with? I mean, so that the landing mass is roughly the same as the launch mass. Because that's the only way you would need roughly double the fuel.
On a more serious note, they've already been landing boosters this way. In Earth gravity. Furthermore, how the fuck are your parachutes going to help land on a planet with little-to-no atmosphere?
You play KSP, so it's totally reasonable to expect that you know better than an entire company full of rocket scientists.
Get back to me when they have something in orbit.
So, 28 September 2008?
"If I disapprove, it's not speech." Do you support blacklisting Palmer Luckey and others like him, Bruce Perens?
I don't get it. Who are you quoting? Why is "speech" emphasized? Blacklisting Palmer Luckey from what?
I've read the rest of your comments in this thread and, sadly, they're not any more coherent than this one. I want a refund.
The environment is so insane there that any probes we managed to send to the surface only lasted seconds before being melted by acid rain and extreme temperature and pressure.
This isn't much different than the environment on Earth's surface. We've only been able to get four probes all the way down to the surface, and we've been living on this planet for ages.
Or, do you use "surface" to denote an arbitrary point in the fluids surrounding Earth? If so, why does this definition no longer work on Venus? Because the point at which the fluids exert 1 atm of pressure on Venus is rather comfortable, much like it is on Earth.
And that's just regulations, even if by magic such an automated truck was available *tomorrow*, you have a capital base of billions of dollars worth of trucks already out there which can't do this. And these trucks are, for the most part, built for extreme long-term durability with useful lifespans of at least a decade. It would take 10-20 years for such an automated truck to replace the existing base of trucks.
Sunk cost fallacy. If the cost savings that result from decreased labor costs are greater than the cost of buying an automated truck and disposing of a manually-piloted one, it's a fiscally sound decision to make.
We would never expect an individual to not take a tax deduction or child credit etc. because they have "courage". That's just bad personal finances.
Indeed. Much like we would never expect an individual to engage in charitable giving. That's just bad personal finances.
I dream that one day, people that think this way will no longer burden the rest of us with their greedy existence. Not holding my breath, though.
proxima centauri b is expected to be in tidal lock with its star. that is, half of the planet is expected to have more than enough radiation shielding. whether or not there is atmospheric or oceanic convection to have reasonable temperatures on that half is the next question that needs to be answered.
I don't see how its victim blaming because it's hard to see this person as a victim. He was "cheated" out of a few seconds of movie scenes.
If one purchases a particular multi-featured product or service for one specific feature, and then it turns out that feature doesn't actually exist, is one cheated out of only this specific feature or is one cheated out of the full purchase price of the entire product or service?
I'm inclined to say the latter, which is why I believe he was cheated out of the full price of admission. Regardless of any incidental expenses incurred, you yourself admit that he was cheated. Why do you find it hard to see someone who was cheated as a victim? In your mind, is fraud a victimless crime?
Now, I'm not saying your reasoning is wrong, but isn't this textbook victim blaming?
This guy bought into allegedly fraudulent advertising claims and lost some money. How is that any different from someone getting conned by someone in the street? I mean, yes, everyone ought to be smarter than that, but isn't that the whole point of laws prohibiting fraud? To protect those among us that are gullible enough to fall for it?
I worry far more about the costs of an excessively litigious society than the alleged trauma of a first-world man-child over not seeing specific a few expected scenes in a movie.
Translation: I worry far less about enforcement of our exceedingly complex legal code than I do about the immaturity of the plaintiff.
You're right, the rule of law is for suckers.
Everyone knew this "nominating process" was rigged from the start. These emails just add more confirmation to what we already knew.
Everyone suspected (not knew) this "nominating process" was rigged form the start. These emails add confirmation (not more confirmation, but initial confirmation) of what we suspected but did not know. It's like Snowden's NSA leaks, which confirmed suspicions but were similarly dismissed on the basis of "we already knew this". No, we already suspected. In the minds of rational agents, suspicion and knowledge are two separate concepts.
While your point is valid, the DNC chair has already chosen to resign rather than make the argument you just raised. She seems to have found the source trustworthy herself.
Is it possible or probable that some of the damning emails edited or completely faked?
Pretty sure if the emails were edited or completely faked, that's the explanation they'd be going with, as it's considerably more plausible than this "a vote against Hillary is a vote for Putin" joke. The fact that DWS is instead resigning from her role as DNC chair instead of offering such an explanation suggests that these emails might actually be legitimate.
While everything you've said is true to the best of my knowledge, this is a hilariously one-sided account. One might argue that you're intentionally lying by omission by omitting so much context.
If you're finding it hard to pay off credit card debt, you're the beneficiary of tax revenues more than you're a contributor to the general fund.
By salary increase, I didn't mean salary increases related to increasing experience, nor nominal salary increases related to inflation.
A labor shortage would be associated with a broad and significant increase in market labor rates in a given sector. This would have nothing to do with individuals negotiating pay raises, or even with individual performance on the job at all, but would solely be a consequence of market forces. And that's not something that is corroborated by any published employment statistics.