Hillary, on the other hand... every time Sanders wins a primary it seems her lead increases. So much for the "Democratic" party.
Funny thing how that works. I think the key is probably "seems". Since almost all of the Dem primaries are allocate delligates proportionally, if one candidate wins many states by a tiny bit, but looses a few states by a lot, it is possible to win the majority of deligates even without winning many states.
In any case, for this particular race, while Sanders does seem to be getting a lot of press whenever he does well, he really needs to do amazingly well in the remaining primaries in order to make up for how far he is behind currently.
If he could do something like that or if Clinton revealed she was an agent for vampire aliens from Mars, it at least is possible that the "superdelegates" could change their minds, but in most tight races those deligates tip the scales her way. It doesn't seem like a super tight race as things now stand.
Though honestly, it seems like it'd be a lot simpler to just genetically engineer women to think more like men. There's actually women out there like that, they're just a small (and probably highly sought-after) minority. We need to concentrate some of our biotech effort on figuring out what genes select for women who are basically geeky, rational men in a woman's body, and then figure out how to produce lots more of them.
Better do it quick. It is probably easier to figure out how to do the whole "procreation game" without need of the sperm cell - just merge a pair of eggs to get the right amount of mixing. If significant numbers of males are unable to work with females without needing to modify them, perhaps the females will just go it alone.
Do something special in taxes just for this class and me. Next thing, we have complicated State and Fed tax codes. Just like we do.
Additionally, these sorts of credits which seem good in priniciple (giving an additional incentive to behaviour we thing is "good" like getting exercise or promoting children's education) often do not in fact result in a much increase in that behaviour, but rather just divert money to people who would be doing these things even without the incentives. When sold as benifits to the poor downtroden masses, often they end up being benifficial mostly to upper middle class taxpayers.
Then there is the difficulty of keeping track of all of them. How much of a cost are they to the tax system? How many of them are there? Since they do not apear as line-items in annual budgets, they tend to make it more difficult to judge how much money we are spending in different areas.
I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make. Obviously GWB was a two-term president. I even alluded to that when I said, "whereas all of the others were two-term presidents". Bush Sr: one term. Bush Jr: two terms. It's very simple. So, what's your point again?
My error - I missed the "H" and thought you were crazy. Obviously it is me.
So it really comes down to the fact that all this solar makes sense only if you count on a whole pile of tax dollars.
Well, it also makes sense if you live in an area where electricity costs are "high" (for some value of "high"). It looks like your area has extremely low electricity costs. From your own numbers, if your electricity costs were doubled, then your savings would also be doubled and the ecconomics might be more to your liking. It does looks like there are a number of regions with twice your electrical costs.
Saving $1,500 a year for a $25,000 investment is a lousy return on investment.
I don't know - a 6% return is pretty decent. Historical stock market returns are in the 6-11% range, with significant volitility. Bonds and other investments are typically lower. Additionally, but one should keep in mind that when one avoids speding money, that saved money is equivalent to tax free income. Depending on one's tax bracket, that can significantly change the calculations.
A 6% tax free return on investment would seem to be hard to beat with any reliability, and the risk profile for this type of investment seems much lower than anything with similar returns. What else are you going to do with your $25,000?
WIth that said, I haven't dropped any coin on similar investments myself.
I think any place with a tram/train system for mass transit lets you drink (or don't enforce it) on the trains, Vancouver is the same way, so is Tokyo. So long as you're not peeing on the seat or something.
I cannot speak to Tokyo, but in BC you are not allowed to drink anywhere on the tranist system. I have never encountered an enforcement officer who did not enforce BC's drinking laws. With that said, there is very little enforcement because there are few patroling officers.
It’s quite simple. You can drink in your home, at a campsite or anywhere that has a liquor licence. You can’t drink in public, at beaches or parks, in your car, or at non-licensed establishments open to the public. Liquor is allowed in private non-licensed places, like a closed office or business."
In Canada the postal company took care of it. It's called Epost and I can file everything there.
Canada Post's ePost is pretty good, and they do supply this type of service with a fairly large number of employers and utilities, but they don't have many banks and probably only about 20% of the bills that I regularly get.
Certainly I find it more convenient to go through my list of accounts every now and then and download and file all the PDFs, compared to dealing with paper statements mailed each month. As it is for the few paper statement we still get, I scan and then shred them. Having it all filed away on the computer makes it easier to find and deal with than the same documents on paper in the filing cabinet for almost every need I encounter.
Switching to electrical use in your vehicle does allow easier switching of electrical power generation at the plant - as solar or wind or magical fairy dust plants come on line, they can replace the coal or evil other source.
A few of the big name schools make money from their football programs, most lose money.
Most lose money on the football program itself, but it still pays for itself or even brings in a lot of money through *donations* that they are able to encourage because people respond irrationally to football.
I've seen this type of thing said before, but I don't have a whole lot of confidence in it. If those supposedly increased donations do not go into general revenu but just serve to fund further athletic buildings, equipment, salaries, etc. what's the point?
The whole football and basketball systems are screwy. Baseball and hockey have a more sane minor league system for player development and do not depend on the colleges and univeristy systems to do it all for them. The schools of the nation should get out of the training of professional athletes.
"the Linux developers approved, condoned, and encouraged binary, non-GPL modules". You could argue that Linus has known all along that Linux distributions included binary, non-GPL modules (say NVIDIA video drivers?) They've known products were being distributed that aren't under the GPL license.
But no one is arguing that these products (NVIDIA) SHOULD be under the GPL license. So...no harm, no foul?
Flip side of the coin. Other products (NVIDIA) isn't arguing that the Linux Kernel should be invalidated against the GPL. (In theory, they could...but that wouldn't grant them a license to use the Linus Kernel. They could argue that their product (NVIDIA) can't be distributed with the Linux Kernel however. They could try to argue damages - but that would be pretty difficult given that they give product away for free as well.
So...now - let's look ZFS. Licensed under CDDL. Given away fro free.
SFC is arguing that ZFS owners COULD argue that giving away ZFS with Linux would violate the GPL. Yeah....so what? At that point Canonical apologies and pulls ZFS.
Damages? Maybe. I'm not sure I see how...but if Canonical is up to take the risk...the OWNER of ZFS could only attack Canonical for their actions. They CAN'T get any additional rights to Linux...Canonical doesn't own 'em.
I was thinking similar thoughts, but not so completely.
Who has standing to enforce the potential breach of license? If nobody, then it doesn't really matter. If the people with standing are the ones doing the breaching, again there is not much result.
I suppose if I ever submitted a patch to the project, I could potentially have standing, but am I likley to try to get the districution halted?
The core book of Christianity contains the new testament, which abolishes the old testament, and supercedes the passages you linked to. There is no such thing in Islam. Nothing trumps the quran.
As to nuance in approaching Islam, that is haram. Anyone with a nuanced approach to Islam is a heretic.
A quick read through your link does not come up with any quotes requiring abhorrent behaviours by true believers, but mostly passages saying "those other guys are doomed, but our guys are saved". Sure, it is "intolerant", but pretty similar to much of the New Testament Revelations: "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. "
The history of Christianity is filled with abohrant behaviour against "heritics". There are multiple passages in the New Testament which are abhorrent, to think that the New Testament is purely peace and joy is an indication of how unfamiliar most people (even most self-proclaimed believers) are of the actual text.
Most modern believers do not adhere to the objectionable passages of their holy books.
I am not saying that people don't shitty things in the name of their religion, and it is quite possible that a careful analysis of the holly texts of the great religions could objectively rank them in some sort of order based on acceptance of abhorrent actions - maybe the Koran would rank below the New Testament. Even if this is the case, it would be a matter of degree rather than fundamental character.
What I am trying to point out is that almost 23% of the world's population is characterised as a follower of Islam. If 1.6 billion people actually believed what you seem to think they believe, the Paris attacks would be the least of our worries. Heck, if even 1% of them held this belief than the world would be a much different place. The VAST majority of those individuals do not hold the same beliefs as the Paris attackers. Similarly, most of the 2.2 billion Christians would condemn the actions of the "Army of God" or the philosophy of "Christian Identity", even though they both find support of their actions in the Christian scriptures.
The modern problem of fundamental extremists is not a problem of exactly which holy texts they use to support their extremism. Blaming the texts or the overall religion is unproductive, and quite likely counterproductive.
In any case, one can with some justification make the argument that the vast majority of christians reject a literal understanding of these types of passages, claiming that other passages supercede these or that they reflect the society in which they were written and that modern understanding has become more nuanced. They do not interpret the scriptures in a violent and opressive manner.
A similar argument can be made that the vast majority of muslims have a similarly nuanced approach to the abhorrent interpretations of their scriptures.
Just for easy access - here are some of the more "controversial" verses of the Koran/Quran/Qur'an they are not too great either: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Top...
Almost all the religiously motivated shootings on your list, and the one we're talking about specifically here were because of Islam. Hmmmm, why do you resort to these non-sequiturs?
If your point was not trying to say "Islam is what causes people to go on mass shootings" (which is what the counter examples were attempint to refute), but in stead was trying to say "The shooters in this particular incident were Muslims", then your point is sort of pointless. The shooters in this particular incident were also male, and predomonelty right handed.
It is certaily true that there are too many crazy ass people who use Islam to justify abhorent behaviour. There are also too many crazy ass people who use Christianity or Hindu or Sikh or various other religions or philosophies to jeustify abhorent behaviour. Additionally, vastly larger fractions followers of each of these world-views feel that the crazy ass people are crazy ass.
It amazes me that most American still believe their government's official story of 9/11. Elsewhere in the world, people generally accepted the US government blew up their own buildings.
I don't know where your view of "elsewhere in the world" is from, but it does not seem to match mine. Do you have any citations of these general beliefs?
Is this like the belief that humans have not visited the moon? An "incorrect" belief that could widely held, or are you implying that the US gov did in fact blow up the buildings and it is those who think otherwise who are wrong?
So gravity's a bit weird (understatement of the century, but let's go with it). If you have two massive objects at a distance and they move inertially with respect to each other, each of them will feel a gravitational pull towards each other in the direction of their instantaneous positions, so there is no lightspeed delay.
I may be mis-reading your satement, but as written it seems incorrect. Two massive object at a distance moving "interially" with respect to each other experiences a gravitational pull towards each other, in the direction where they were in the past. For example, for a star, the gravity pulls in the same direction what the starlight came from.
It has been a long time since I tried to do any GR calculations, and my tensor manipulation skiz are very atrophied, but I am very confident that GR is fully compliant with special relativlty, and all those SR transformations mess up the concept of exactly where distant objects "are" depending on exactly which frame one is speaking of, but in no case would I want to think that even for constantly moving massive object there was any "instant" propagation of field directions. If you have any references indicating otherwise, I would like to learn of them.
I have a nice, pretty, and many years my junior girlfriend. Why? Because I just happened to have my laptop bag with me and a Live USB disk handy. It was Lubuntu (as we seem to recall) but she's been using Mint Cinnamon lately.
So was it the laptop bag or the USB disk that caused you to age? Or did one of them make her younger? You should sell that to the cosmetics cartel.
Yeah, that may be a bit of an exaggeration, but for $160,000.00 I could get way more than a tad over an acre and build nice a house.
$160k sounds like a pretty low price for builting a house. In 2013 the average construction costs for a new home in the USA seemed to be just shy of $250k
It looks like materials cost about half of this ($146k) according to http://www.fixr.com/costs/buil... so even if you did everything yourself, building a typical house for $160k seems like a bargain.
The point is that being a State House Representative is not a full time job. Whether it should be or not is a different question, but in the U.S. the position of State Legislator is mostly considered part-time.
I wonder if you can effectively be a representative without unduely impacting your full time job? At the very least, I would think it would be appropriate to be paid the local minimum wage for the hours you are expected to be "working".
I have always thought that tying legislators' wages to some multiple of the mimimum wage would be a good way to keep the two numbers reasonable - in NH they could make that number one.
This whole discussion seems to be based on a false report. See the update at http://www.theatlantic.com/pol.... The original story from the Des Moines Register appears to be a collection of anecdotal reports with perhaps a measure of confirmation bias thrown in: once reporters were looking for cases of Hillary coin toss wins they found them. Even by late last night there was at least one official saying Bernie won the toss in her precinct, making the story at best 6 of 7, not 6 of 6. Today a party spokesman said Bernie actually won more tosses than Hillary. Since these were precinct delegates at stake, who in turn elect delegates to some kind of intermediate district caucuses, who in their turn elect the state-wide delegates who elect the Iowa delegates to the national convention, these coin flips are each of minuscule importance, which is probably why everyone is cool with using them.
An actual link to useful information? This is not the slashdot I have come to know....
It is. The DNC has their way of conducting their nominating process, which is different from what the RNC does. For example, the RNC has no "super delegates" to try to steer the nomination towards the establishment's chosen favorite, like the DNC does.
They may not be called "super delegates" but the RNC has unpledged delegates at their convention too. It looks like their numbers of such are smaller than the DNC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "In the Republican Party, as in the Democratic Party, members of the party’s national committee automatically become delegates without being pledged to any candidate. In 2008, there are 123 members of the Republican National Committee among the total of 2,380 delegates to the 2008 Republican National Convention.[28] There are three RNC delegates (the national committeeman, national committeewoman, and state party chair) for each state."
Slashdot Mirror
Hillary, on the other hand... every time Sanders wins a primary it seems her lead increases. So much for the "Democratic" party.
Funny thing how that works. I think the key is probably "seems". Since almost all of the Dem primaries are allocate delligates proportionally, if one candidate wins many states by a tiny bit, but looses a few states by a lot, it is possible to win the majority of deligates even without winning many states.
In any case, for this particular race, while Sanders does seem to be getting a lot of press whenever he does well, he really needs to do amazingly well in the remaining primaries in order to make up for how far he is behind currently.
If he could do something like that or if Clinton revealed she was an agent for vampire aliens from Mars, it at least is possible that the "superdelegates" could change their minds, but in most tight races those deligates tip the scales her way. It doesn't seem like a super tight race as things now stand.
I found this interesting: superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...
You wouldn't print a car, would you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Though honestly, it seems like it'd be a lot simpler to just genetically engineer women to think more like men. There's actually women out there like that, they're just a small (and probably highly sought-after) minority. We need to concentrate some of our biotech effort on figuring out what genes select for women who are basically geeky, rational men in a woman's body, and then figure out how to produce lots more of them.
Better do it quick. It is probably easier to figure out how to do the whole "procreation game" without need of the sperm cell - just merge a pair of eggs to get the right amount of mixing. If significant numbers of males are unable to work with females without needing to modify them, perhaps the females will just go it alone.
Do something special in taxes just for this class and me. Next thing, we have complicated State and Fed tax codes. Just like we do.
Additionally, these sorts of credits which seem good in priniciple (giving an additional incentive to behaviour we thing is "good" like getting exercise or promoting children's education) often do not in fact result in a much increase in that behaviour, but rather just divert money to people who would be doing these things even without the incentives. When sold as benifits to the poor downtroden masses, often they end up being benifficial mostly to upper middle class taxpayers.
Then there is the difficulty of keeping track of all of them. How much of a cost are they to the tax system? How many of them are there? Since they do not apear as line-items in annual budgets, they tend to make it more difficult to judge how much money we are spending in different areas.
And keep in mind that George HW Bush was president for only one term, whereas all of the others were two-term presidents. ....
So was GWB replaced by an android from 2005-2009 or was he sleeping from 2001-2005?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ...served as the 43rd President of the United States from 2001 to 2009...
I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make. Obviously GWB was a two-term president. I even alluded to that when I said, "whereas all of the others were two-term presidents". Bush Sr: one term. Bush Jr: two terms. It's very simple. So, what's your point again?
My error - I missed the "H" and thought you were crazy. Obviously it is me.
And keep in mind that George HW Bush was president for only one term, whereas all of the others were two-term presidents. ....
So was GWB replaced by an android from 2005-2009 or was he sleeping from 2001-2005?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ...served as the 43rd President of the United States from 2001 to 2009...
So it really comes down to the fact that all this solar makes sense only if you count on a whole pile of tax dollars.
Well, it also makes sense if you live in an area where electricity costs are "high" (for some value of "high"). It looks like your area has extremely low electricity costs. From your own numbers, if your electricity costs were doubled, then your savings would also be doubled and the ecconomics might be more to your liking. It does looks like there are a number of regions with twice your electrical costs.
Saving $1,500 a year for a $25,000 investment is a lousy return on investment.
I don't know - a 6% return is pretty decent. Historical stock market returns are in the 6-11% range, with significant volitility. Bonds and other investments are typically lower. Additionally, but one should keep in mind that when one avoids speding money, that saved money is equivalent to tax free income. Depending on one's tax bracket, that can significantly change the calculations.
A 6% tax free return on investment would seem to be hard to beat with any reliability, and the risk profile for this type of investment seems much lower than anything with similar returns. What else are you going to do with your $25,000?
WIth that said, I haven't dropped any coin on similar investments myself.
I think any place with a tram/train system for mass transit lets you drink (or don't enforce it) on the trains, Vancouver is the same way, so is Tokyo. So long as you're not peeing on the seat or something.
I cannot speak to Tokyo, but in BC you are not allowed to drink anywhere on the tranist system. I have never encountered an enforcement officer who did not enforce BC's drinking laws. With that said, there is very little enforcement because there are few patroling officers.
From http://engage.gov.bc.ca/liquor...
"Where can you drink?
It’s quite simple. You can drink in your home, at a campsite or anywhere that has a liquor licence. You can’t drink in public, at beaches or parks, in your car, or at non-licensed establishments open to the public. Liquor is allowed in private non-licensed places, like a closed office or business."
In Canada the postal company took care of it. It's called Epost and I can file everything there.
Canada Post's ePost is pretty good, and they do supply this type of service with a fairly large number of employers and utilities, but they don't have many banks and probably only about 20% of the bills that I regularly get.
Certainly I find it more convenient to go through my list of accounts every now and then and download and file all the PDFs, compared to dealing with paper statements mailed each month. As it is for the few paper statement we still get, I scan and then shred them. Having it all filed away on the computer makes it easier to find and deal with than the same documents on paper in the filing cabinet for almost every need I encounter.
Switching to electrical use in your vehicle does allow easier switching of electrical power generation at the plant - as solar or wind or magical fairy dust plants come on line, they can replace the coal or evil other source.
A few of the big name schools make money from their football programs, most lose money.
Most lose money on the football program itself, but it still pays for itself or even brings in a lot of money through *donations* that they are able to encourage because people respond irrationally to football.
I've seen this type of thing said before, but I don't have a whole lot of confidence in it. If those supposedly increased donations do not go into general revenu but just serve to fund further athletic buildings, equipment, salaries, etc. what's the point?
The whole football and basketball systems are screwy. Baseball and hockey have a more sane minor league system for player development and do not depend on the colleges and univeristy systems to do it all for them. The schools of the nation should get out of the training of professional athletes.
Yes and no.
"the Linux developers approved, condoned, and encouraged binary, non-GPL modules". You could argue that Linus has known all along that Linux distributions included binary, non-GPL modules (say NVIDIA video drivers?) They've known products were being distributed that aren't under the GPL license.
But no one is arguing that these products (NVIDIA) SHOULD be under the GPL license. So...no harm, no foul?
Flip side of the coin. Other products (NVIDIA) isn't arguing that the Linux Kernel should be invalidated against the GPL. (In theory, they could...but that wouldn't grant them a license to use the Linus Kernel. They could argue that their product (NVIDIA) can't be distributed with the Linux Kernel however. They could try to argue damages - but that would be pretty difficult given that they give product away for free as well.
So...now - let's look ZFS. Licensed under CDDL. Given away fro free.
SFC is arguing that ZFS owners COULD argue that giving away ZFS with Linux would violate the GPL. Yeah....so what? At that point Canonical apologies and pulls ZFS.
Damages? Maybe. I'm not sure I see how...but if Canonical is up to take the risk...the OWNER of ZFS could only attack Canonical for their actions. They CAN'T get any additional rights to Linux...Canonical doesn't own 'em.
I was thinking similar thoughts, but not so completely.
Who has standing to enforce the potential breach of license? If nobody, then it doesn't really matter. If the people with standing are the ones doing the breaching, again there is not much result.
I suppose if I ever submitted a patch to the project, I could potentially have standing, but am I likley to try to get the districution halted?
Specifics? Lots. Start here.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbi...
The core book of Christianity contains the new testament, which abolishes the old testament, and supercedes the passages you linked to. There is no such thing in Islam. Nothing trumps the quran.
As to nuance in approaching Islam, that is haram. Anyone with a nuanced approach to Islam is a heretic.
A quick read through your link does not come up with any quotes requiring abhorrent behaviours by true believers, but mostly passages saying "those other guys are doomed, but our guys are saved". Sure, it is "intolerant", but pretty similar to much of the New Testament Revelations: "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. "
The history of Christianity is filled with abohrant behaviour against "heritics". There are multiple passages in the New Testament which are abhorrent, to think that the New Testament is purely peace and joy is an indication of how unfamiliar most people (even most self-proclaimed believers) are of the actual text.
http://backyardskeptics.com/wo...
http://skepticsannotatedbible....
Most modern believers do not adhere to the objectionable passages of their holy books.
I am not saying that people don't shitty things in the name of their religion, and it is quite possible that a careful analysis of the holly texts of the great religions could objectively rank them in some sort of order based on acceptance of abhorrent actions - maybe the Koran would rank below the New Testament. Even if this is the case, it would be a matter of degree rather than fundamental character.
What I am trying to point out is that almost 23% of the world's population is characterised as a follower of Islam. If 1.6 billion people actually believed what you seem to think they believe, the Paris attacks would be the least of our worries. Heck, if even 1% of them held this belief than the world would be a much different place. The VAST majority of those individuals do not hold the same beliefs as the Paris attackers. Similarly, most of the 2.2 billion Christians would condemn the actions of the "Army of God" or the philosophy of "Christian Identity", even though they both find support of their actions in the Christian scriptures.
Army of God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Christian Identity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The modern problem of fundamental extremists is not a problem of exactly which holy texts they use to support their extremism. Blaming the texts or the overall religion is unproductive, and quite likely counterproductive.
The main difference is that the core book of Islam not only justifies but demands abhorent behaviour.
Do you have any specifics?
The core book of Christianity not only justifies but demands abhorent behaviour.
Here are some death penalties:
http://valerietarico.com/2009/...
Here are some other "crazy" bits:
https://www.salon.com/2014/05/...
In any case, one can with some justification make the argument that the vast majority of christians reject a literal understanding of these types of passages, claiming that other passages supercede these or that they reflect the society in which they were written and that modern understanding has become more nuanced. They do not interpret the scriptures in a violent and opressive manner.
A similar argument can be made that the vast majority of muslims have a similarly nuanced approach to the abhorrent interpretations of their scriptures.
Just for easy access - here are some of the more "controversial" verses of the Koran/Quran/Qur'an they are not too great either:
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Top...
Almost all the religiously motivated shootings on your list, and the one we're talking about specifically here were because of Islam. Hmmmm, why do you resort to these non-sequiturs?
If your point was not trying to say "Islam is what causes people to go on mass shootings" (which is what the counter examples were attempint to refute), but in stead was trying to say "The shooters in this particular incident were Muslims", then your point is sort of pointless. The shooters in this particular incident were also male, and predomonelty right handed.
It is certaily true that there are too many crazy ass people who use Islam to justify abhorent behaviour. There are also too many crazy ass people who use Christianity or Hindu or Sikh or various other religions or philosophies to jeustify abhorent behaviour. Additionally, vastly larger fractions followers of each of these world-views feel that the crazy ass people are crazy ass.
That's unnecessarily vague. You might as well say it wouldn't happen without people, when in fact it's only certain types of people: muslims.
Deadliest mas shooting rampages:
http://timelines.latimes.com/d...
Humm, if we got rid of all the Muslims, I guess those other non-muslum killers would have stayed home?
It amazes me that most American still believe their government's official story of 9/11. Elsewhere in the world, people generally accepted the US government blew up their own buildings.
I don't know where your view of "elsewhere in the world" is from, but it does not seem to match mine. Do you have any citations of these general beliefs?
Is this like the belief that humans have not visited the moon? An "incorrect" belief that could widely held, or are you implying that the US gov did in fact blow up the buildings and it is those who think otherwise who are wrong?
So gravity's a bit weird (understatement of the century, but let's go with it). If you have two massive objects at a distance and they move inertially with respect to each other, each of them will feel a gravitational pull towards each other in the direction of their instantaneous positions, so there is no lightspeed delay.
I may be mis-reading your satement, but as written it seems incorrect. Two massive object at a distance moving "interially" with respect to each other experiences a gravitational pull towards each other, in the direction where they were in the past. For example, for a star, the gravity pulls in the same direction what the starlight came from.
It has been a long time since I tried to do any GR calculations, and my tensor manipulation skiz are very atrophied, but I am very confident that GR is fully compliant with special relativlty, and all those SR transformations mess up the concept of exactly where distant objects "are" depending on exactly which frame one is speaking of, but in no case would I want to think that even for constantly moving massive object there was any "instant" propagation of field directions. If you have any references indicating otherwise, I would like to learn of them.
Well, if it's energy waves, it can be used to communicate. I've seen that postulated in at least two SF stories.
How long will it be until the first GW phone call with nothing but heavy breathing? Or the first GW phishing email?
https://xkcd.com/1642/
I have a nice, pretty, and many years my junior girlfriend. Why? Because I just happened to have my laptop bag with me and a Live USB disk handy. It was Lubuntu (as we seem to recall) but she's been using Mint Cinnamon lately.
So was it the laptop bag or the USB disk that caused you to age? Or did one of them make her younger? You should sell that to the cosmetics cartel.
Yeah, that may be a bit of an exaggeration, but for $160,000.00 I could get way more than a tad over an acre and build nice a house.
$160k sounds like a pretty low price for builting a house. In 2013 the average construction costs for a new home in the USA seemed to be just shy of $250k
http://eyeonhousing.org/2014/0...
It looks like materials cost about half of this ($146k) according to http://www.fixr.com/costs/buil... so even if you did everything yourself, building a typical house for $160k seems like a bargain.
The point is that being a State House Representative is not a full time job. Whether it should be or not is a different question, but in the U.S. the position of State Legislator is mostly considered part-time.
https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_a_full-time_legislature
I wonder if you can effectively be a representative without unduely impacting your full time job? At the very least, I would think it would be appropriate to be paid the local minimum wage for the hours you are expected to be "working".
I have always thought that tying legislators' wages to some multiple of the mimimum wage would be a good way to keep the two numbers reasonable - in NH they could make that number one.
This whole discussion seems to be based on a false report. See the update at http://www.theatlantic.com/pol.... The original story from the Des Moines Register appears to be a collection of anecdotal reports with perhaps a measure of confirmation bias thrown in: once reporters were looking for cases of Hillary coin toss wins they found them. Even by late last night there was at least one official saying Bernie won the toss in her precinct, making the story at best 6 of 7, not 6 of 6. Today a party spokesman said Bernie actually won more tosses than Hillary. Since these were precinct delegates at stake, who in turn elect delegates to some kind of intermediate district caucuses, who in their turn elect the state-wide delegates who elect the Iowa delegates to the national convention, these coin flips are each of minuscule importance, which is probably why everyone is cool with using them.
An actual link to useful information? This is not the slashdot I have come to know....
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
It is. The DNC has their way of conducting their nominating process, which is different from what the RNC does. For example, the RNC has no "super delegates" to try to steer the nomination towards the establishment's chosen favorite, like the DNC does.
They may not be called "super delegates" but the RNC has unpledged delegates at their convention too. It looks like their numbers of such are smaller than the DNC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"In the Republican Party, as in the Democratic Party, members of the party’s national committee automatically become delegates without being pledged to any candidate. In 2008, there are 123 members of the Republican National Committee among the total of 2,380 delegates to the 2008 Republican National Convention.[28] There are three RNC delegates (the national committeeman, national committeewoman, and state party chair) for each state."