Musk and his scientific/engineering teams landed a rocket vertically- more than once. Something that NASA engineers said could not be done and was impractical.
Why do people think NASA engineers are the Gold Standard for engineers? Plenty of equally, if not not better, qualified people work elsewhere (probably for higher pay too). Not trying to dis NASA, just sayin'.
I'm not sure what the motivation is for these attacks. Musk hasn't been particularly political and mainly stayed out of this election.
From the article linked in TFS:
Jaffe says that whoever is behind the attacks is aiming at Musk personally because they fear he could go into politics. He cited the allegations of fraud (emails) and negligence (Benghazi) levied at Clinton during the presidential campaign, charges that cemented the public’s perception of her as shady. “It’s the exact same thing as Musk. There’s a portion of the political spectrum that is scared to death of Musk as politician. They see him as a threat. They’re starting that process.”
... in my VA precinct. Filled in the bubbles then fed into a optical scanner attached to a lock box. It was the actually easier and perhaps faster than using the electronic voting machines we had last election. (State was Blue again this year.)
Convincing the "Poorly Educated" to vote for you by promising that you will bring Manufacturing back to the U.S is a lot harder then convincing the Highly Educated (CEO's) to actually bring those Manufacturing plants back. For one those CEO's will actually want to see Plans and Details and the Trump campaign lacked either of those.
... manufacturers are seeing relentless pressure, from investors and rival companies, to automate, replacing workers with machines that do not break down or require health benefits and pension plans. Wall Street hedge fund managers are demanding steadily rising earnings from Carrier’s parent, United Technologies, even as growth remains sluggish worldwide.
Carrier isn’t changing its plans.
The Carrier plant here is plenty profitable. But moving to Monterrey, Mexico, where workers earn in a day what they make here in an hour, will increase profits faster.
Even Robin Maynard, a Carrier team leader who enthusiastically backed Mr. Trump, acknowledges that even a phone call from the Oval Office to the company’s executive suite might not be enough to save his job. “Hopefully, he can do something for us,” Mr. Maynard said. “But I think it’s out of the C.E.O’s hands. It’s in the hands of the shareholders.”
Because Diebold et al have steadfastly refused to provide a verifiable paper trail, claiming it's too complicated, or incorporate any kind of audit log,
Ya, it's not like Diebold makes other things, like ATM machines, that provide all those features. Oh, wait, they do.
A: Clinton's lead of about 1.7 million votes continues to increase, largely due to an influx of absentee and provisional ballots still being counted in California. She has about 63.7 million votes to Trump's 62 million; her margin in California alone is about 3.5 million.
I'm not disputing the election results as per the Electoral College process, but "our choice" isn't as cut and dry as you'd like it to be.
It's more likely about people who have been negatively impacted by the last few decades of policy.
You mean those people with just a high school education, working for $17-$35/hour at a Carrier (or other) manufacturing plant, who never would (or could) get more education or obtain other skills, who are having their jobs move out of country or replaced by automation and are facing being unemployed and/or obsolete in a changing, evolving, advancing work environment?
You can blame "decades of policy" but need to recognize that these people *also* have some responsibility for their own situations. It's not like shareholders wanting lower costs and higher profits is a new thing. It's not like people can't save a little and try to get more education and skills to allow themselves more employment options.
And dozens of people have already been killed by faulty software in cars, while hundreds of people have been killed from faulty software during air travel.
... the number of suicides by those early users of/. Beta may never be known...
The ban is for appointees becoming lobbyists not the other way around (first sentence of article you included). At present the Obama administration has a 2-year wait for lobbyists to join the administration - don't know what Trump will do.
I do agree that we should strive to spread out into space, so as to avoid leaving all our eggs in one basket, but unless its something completely out of our control, like a massive cosmic event, then sorry, I'm not buying the doom and gloom anymore.
The History channel has been running this series, "Doomsday: 10 Ways the World Will End": 1: Killer Asteroid, 2: Black Hole, 3: Rogue Planet, 4: Nuclear War, 5: Solar Storm, 6: Mega Eruption, 7: Gamma Ray Burst, 8: Earth Out of Orbit, 9: Alien Invasion, 10: Deep Sea Disaster
The episodes on Black Hole, Rogue Planet and Gamma Ray Burst are especially cheery.
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a gay couple?... If not, then why is it different for a baker exercising their constitutionally protected religious belief with their private company?
There's a religion that weighs in on gay people and cake?
Despite there being only some protected classes by law, discriminating for any other reason is wrong too as well as dumb from a business standpoint. The baker is not condoning gay marriage (for example) by baking the couple a cake, he's simply baking them a cake. It's the baker that's attaching extra meaning to the transaction. (Or, perhaps, the baker doesn't think gay people should buy/have/eat cake -- all equally stupid.)
Refusing service isn't expressing your religious belief it's discrimination -- unless, of course, your religion says you can't sell cakes to gay people. Just because LGBTQ isn't a "protected class" - yet - doesn't make that discrimination right.
... Pedestrians walking around staring at their smartphones, wearing headphones and/or otherwise not paying attention to their surroundings will be required to emit a "beep, beep, beep" sound to warn other pedestrians and near-by vehicles. Fair is fair people - pay attention or get a Darwin Award -- I'm also talking to you, guy I saw riding a bicycle no-hands while browsing your phone, wearing headphones and smoking a cigarette. (true story)
That the Republicans then talked of further delaying for the next 4 years should Clinton win sends an even more ominous message that they care more about politics than the Constitution, the Country and *all* of its people.
Where in the Constitution does it say there must be 9 supreme court justices?
Will you complain if Trump nominates us up to 11 justices and congress doesn't blanket approve his choices?
Never said otherwise, but there's a fairly long history of having 9 (since 1869) and certainly an odd number is more productive than an even number. It still holds that the Republican's actions on this are simply and purely partisan, not altruistic. As far as the actual number, this was/is actually set by Congress. From Why Are There 9 Supreme Court Justices?
The original U.S. Constitution did not set the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Therefore, it was up to Congress to decide, and in 1801, it set the number at five. But things didn’t stay that way for long.
"The number of Supreme Court justices has changed over the years," Kathy Arberg, spokesperson for the U.S. Supreme Court, told Life's Little Mysteries. "The number of justices has been as high as ten.”
Congress increased the number to seven in 1807, to nine in 1837, then to 10 in 1863.
Then, in order to prevent President Andrew Johnson, who was soon to be impeached, from naming any new Supreme Court justices, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866. This Act reduced the number from 10 to seven. The decrease was to take effect as the seats became vacant.
However, only two seats were freed up by 1869, so there were eight justices. Congress added one seat back in, and decided that there should be nine justices. The Judiciary Act of 1869 officially set the number, and it has not budged since.
Slashdot Mirror
Duh.
Musk and his scientific/engineering teams landed a rocket vertically- more than once. Something that NASA engineers said could not be done and was impractical.
Why do people think NASA engineers are the Gold Standard for engineers? Plenty of equally, if not not better, qualified people work elsewhere (probably for higher pay too). Not trying to dis NASA, just sayin'.
I'm not sure what the motivation is for these attacks. Musk hasn't been particularly political and mainly stayed out of this election.
From the article linked in TFS:
Jaffe says that whoever is behind the attacks is aiming at Musk personally because they fear he could go into politics. He cited the allegations of fraud (emails) and negligence (Benghazi) levied at Clinton during the presidential campaign, charges that cemented the public’s perception of her as shady. “It’s the exact same thing as Musk. There’s a portion of the political spectrum that is scared to death of Musk as politician. They see him as a threat. They’re starting that process.”
Nothing on the Internet is true (including this).
Thanks. You just shut down my androids.
It's yet another Trump hyperbolic promise with no grounds on reality. Has anyone noticed he never elaborates on the how?
He doesn't know how nor does he have the attention span for that.
He better send one of those letters to every Apple shareholder, who actually own the company, too.
Convincing the "Poorly Educated" to vote for you by promising that you will bring Manufacturing back to the U.S is a lot harder then convincing the Highly Educated (CEO's) to actually bring those Manufacturing plants back. For one those CEO's will actually want to see Plans and Details and the Trump campaign lacked either of those.
And convincing the shareholders, who only really care about profits, is even more difficult. For example, from Can Trump Save Their Jobs? They’re Counting on It on Nov 13, 2016:
Carrier isn’t changing its plans.
The Carrier plant here is plenty profitable. But moving to Monterrey, Mexico, where workers earn in a day what they make here in an hour, will increase profits faster.
Even Robin Maynard, a Carrier team leader who enthusiastically backed Mr. Trump, acknowledges that even a phone call from the Oval Office to the company’s executive suite might not be enough to save his job. “Hopefully, he can do something for us,” Mr. Maynard said. “But I think it’s out of the C.E.O’s hands. It’s in the hands of the shareholders.”
Because Diebold et al have steadfastly refused to provide a verifiable paper trail, claiming it's too complicated, or incorporate any kind of audit log,
Ya, it's not like Diebold makes other things, like ATM machines, that provide all those features. Oh, wait, they do.
... we'll have yet another affirmation of our choice.
From: http://www.usatoday.com/story/... as of Nov 22, 2016:
Q: Who won the popular vote?
A: Clinton's lead of about 1.7 million votes continues to increase, largely due to an influx of absentee and provisional ballots still being counted in California. She has about 63.7 million votes to Trump's 62 million; her margin in California alone is about 3.5 million.
I'm not disputing the election results as per the Electoral College process, but "our choice" isn't as cut and dry as you'd like it to be.
It's more likely about people who have been negatively impacted by the last few decades of policy.
You mean those people with just a high school education, working for $17-$35/hour at a Carrier (or other) manufacturing plant, who never would (or could) get more education or obtain other skills, who are having their jobs move out of country or replaced by automation and are facing being unemployed and/or obsolete in a changing, evolving, advancing work environment?
You can blame "decades of policy" but need to recognize that these people *also* have some responsibility for their own situations. It's not like shareholders wanting lower costs and higher profits is a new thing. It's not like people can't save a little and try to get more education and skills to allow themselves more employment options.
I'm baffled where all the Trump supporters came from.
Trump said over and over that the election was rigged - he just never said which way... It broke his way and he's not complaining, so there you go.
Running for President and being President are two entirely different things.
There's not even objective evidence of what is being claimed. This is just the opinion of four people.
Ya, but they were: Zeus, Athena, Apollo and Hermes -- Hades was busy with the election.
I expect Trump to be worse than his base expects, but better than the melting down, hysterical media and left cries about.
How quickly we normalize. My thought after reading this was "I can live with the lack of Nuclear Armageddon".
Mrs. Lincoln said the play was very nice.
And dozens of people have already been killed by faulty software in cars, while hundreds of people have been killed from faulty software during air travel.
... the number of suicides by those early users of /. Beta may never be known ...
For someone claiming to drain the swamp he sure is bringing on board a lot of established Washington players....
Trump transition team announces 5-year lobbying ban for appointees
The ban is for appointees becoming lobbyists not the other way around (first sentence of article you included). At present the Obama administration has a 2-year wait for lobbyists to join the administration - don't know what Trump will do.
... would we only take scientists, engineers and mathematicians?
Sure, everyone else could go in Ark B
I do agree that we should strive to spread out into space, so as to avoid leaving all our eggs in one basket, but unless its something completely out of our control, like a massive cosmic event, then sorry, I'm not buying the doom and gloom anymore.
The History channel has been running this series, "Doomsday: 10 Ways the World Will End": 1: Killer Asteroid, 2: Black Hole, 3: Rogue Planet, 4: Nuclear War, 5: Solar Storm, 6: Mega Eruption, 7: Gamma Ray Burst, 8: Earth Out of Orbit, 9: Alien Invasion, 10: Deep Sea Disaster
The episodes on Black Hole, Rogue Planet and Gamma Ray Burst are especially cheery.
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a gay couple? ... If not, then why is it different for a baker exercising their constitutionally protected religious belief with their private company?
There's a religion that weighs in on gay people and cake?
Despite there being only some protected classes by law, discriminating for any other reason is wrong too as well as dumb from a business standpoint. The baker is not condoning gay marriage (for example) by baking the couple a cake, he's simply baking them a cake. It's the baker that's attaching extra meaning to the transaction. (Or, perhaps, the baker doesn't think gay people should buy/have/eat cake -- all equally stupid.)
Refusing service isn't expressing your religious belief it's discrimination -- unless, of course, your religion says you can't sell cakes to gay people. Just because LGBTQ isn't a "protected class" - yet - doesn't make that discrimination right.
Embrace
Harrigan apologized for his remarks and said the threats were meant to be a joke: ...
The Secret Service doesn't really have a sense of humor about things like that. (rightly so)
"I wish someone would stuff Trump feet first through a woodchipper" = cool
"I am going stuff Trump feet first through a woodchipper" = not cool
Neither is cool, you stupid fuck.
And, seriously, what does he have against woodchippers?
That the Republicans then talked of further delaying for the next 4 years should Clinton win sends an even more ominous message that they care more about politics than the Constitution, the Country and *all* of its people.
Where in the Constitution does it say there must be 9 supreme court justices?
Will you complain if Trump nominates us up to 11 justices and congress doesn't blanket approve his choices?
Never said otherwise, but there's a fairly long history of having 9 (since 1869) and certainly an odd number is more productive than an even number. It still holds that the Republican's actions on this are simply and purely partisan, not altruistic. As far as the actual number, this was/is actually set by Congress. From Why Are There 9 Supreme Court Justices?
The original U.S. Constitution did not set the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Therefore, it was up to Congress to decide, and in 1801, it set the number at five. But things didn’t stay that way for long.
"The number of Supreme Court justices has changed over the years," Kathy Arberg, spokesperson for the U.S. Supreme Court, told Life's Little Mysteries. "The number of justices has been as high as ten.”
Congress increased the number to seven in 1807, to nine in 1837, then to 10 in 1863.
Then, in order to prevent President Andrew Johnson, who was soon to be impeached, from naming any new Supreme Court justices, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866. This Act reduced the number from 10 to seven. The decrease was to take effect as the seats became vacant.
However, only two seats were freed up by 1869, so there were eight justices. Congress added one seat back in, and decided that there should be nine justices. The Judiciary Act of 1869 officially set the number, and it has not budged since.