In many ways it's too bad USA banned them from the current station (ISS) due to possible military-related secrets.
ISS requires a lot of maintenance such that there's not much time left for science. If China participated, then there would be more time-slots for science instead of fixing toilets, etc.
By now the ISS's technology should be old enough to not be secret: it's decades old. Plus, Russia already has access to it and they trade secrets with China anyhow.
Why did US put sensitive tech in ISS to begin with? We F'd up.
"everything H.R.C. touches she kind of screws up with hubris."
As somebody who will probably vote for her because I cannot stand Trump, this is probably a good summary. Hillary doesn't know how to get gum off her shoes, just spreads it to both legs by not nipping things in the bud by coming fully clean.
Bush's admin had email mishandling problems also, but managed to not have it turned into endless hearings. Most politicians are jerks, but some know how to be Teflon jerks; not H.
I've had multiple run-ins with multiple big telecoms. If you are a lawyer specializing in suing slimy companies over "ghost upgrades" and other billing games, the telecoms are prime pickins'
perhaps they need to get their shit together like conservatives did and get rid of the extremists
Please elaborate.
wanting to ban things on the internet that have viewpoints contrary to their opinions. Remember it was Hillary and Tipper Gore that wanted to ban "rap music" and "video games" not people on the right.
They wanted to require ID's for age check, not outright ban. And many on the right were interested in that also.
And Howard Stern has said it was mostly the evangelical right who harassed him for controversial talk radio statements through the FCC. It's largely why he left broadcast radio.
I will agree, though, that there are censor-happy people on both sides, but they tend to target different kinds of content.
However, this is mostly off-topic in terms of education and knowledge. Explicit censorship has nothing to do with climate change, evolution, interpretation of the Bible, etc.
That's because you've been indoctrinated to trust the scientific establishment.
No, I just find them more reliable when I look into specific issues as a spot check. I don't have time or skills to check every claim, but I can randomly select parts to dig in fairly deep.
For example, I looked at some of the anti-evolution claims of the creationists in more detail. The creationist arguments using the second law of thermodynamics are totally bogus. The Sun supplies energy into the system. I've found no justification for excluding sunshine.
However, the relative rapidity of the Cambrian Explosion is still a legitimate puzzle in my opinion, and I give a creationism a point or two for it*. But overall, the fossil evidence shows gradual evolution and re-use of existing parts for new functions, such as fins becoming arms.
I looked at roughly 10 issues in the debate, and creationists flunked 9.
One can do the same with guns, climate, and email laws.
* One has to be careful to assume it's a dichotomy: God OR evolution. It's possible there's a 3rd option we haven't discovered yet, and/or a combo.
even when "analysis" done by the FBI and CDC show that firearms-related homicides are down by 50% since the 1993 peak and non-fatal injuries associated with firearms-related crime are down by nearly 70% over the same time period?
What's your point here exactly? Crime in general has been dropping. The disagreement is over the cause.
From what I've seen, leftists believe in government just as fervently as monotheists believe in their old books and deities.
Science and gov't are not necessarily the same thing. A lot of published science comes from private (commercial) universities, for example.
It's all about observation, evidence, and open debate. Science is a tool, not a club.
It would be interesting to see what would happen to the entertainment industry if copyright enforcement and/or laws were very weak.
Would it depress the economy overall, or just shift where entertainment money is spent?
For example, it's possible that big-budget movies would mostly disappear, but more yet smaller-budget movies would appear with embedded product placements. China seems to have been shifting to the second model rather than fight piracy harder. And their movie industry is doing fine.
Perhaps they wanted to make it sound like they had a ground crew when they really didn't because they are cheap or late. There's many possibilities besides kissing H's ass.
(By the way, if it's humid, 78 degrees *is* hot in my opinion.)
Sorry, that's not what I see. For example, she's apologized for her "super predator" and "half are deplorable" comments, or at least re-stated them to narrow the scope. Trump usually doubles down.
As far as "lies", Trump's Polifact accuracy score is far worse than H's. If you claim Politifact is biased, show us what falsehoods it points out that are not really falsehoods.
Perhaps that's because science and logic ultimately indicate that most conservative positions are either full of bunk or based on questionable theories that have competitive alternatives.
Conservatives often seem to value (what they see as) "common sense" over scientific analysis, and/or go by religion alone. That's essentially anti-education. It's partly why they reject man-made global warming. If global warming is not in (their interpretation of) the Bible, then it must be false. You don't need college and education to apply that kind of "reasoning".
The difference is that H usually apologizes when she says something offensive or questionable. T rarely apologizes. T is essentially implying he meant what he said.
only 7% of the US media identifies as republican. And nearly 30% identify as democrats
That's probably because education makes one less conservative in general, and most reporters are well-educated.
If you have a good education, you are less likely to believe climate change is a scientific conspiracy, or that the world is 6k years old, for example.
And due to your critical thinking skills, you learn to actually check the Bible to see if homosexuality is condemned more often than greed & gluttony rather than just accept a pastor's weighting.
Indeed. GOP probably realizes their documents are not so secure either, and they'll look like flaming hypocrites if they push for DNC trials, then everyone finds out they were doing the same.
Then again, GOP has not been so longer-term thinking since the Tea Party movement; they usually jump at the chance to score here-and-now political points.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but currently we rely on Russia to be our Astro-Uber. It's embarrassing and gives Putin more ways to mess with us.
In many ways it's too bad USA banned them from the current station (ISS) due to possible military-related secrets.
ISS requires a lot of maintenance such that there's not much time left for science. If China participated, then there would be more time-slots for science instead of fixing toilets, etc.
By now the ISS's technology should be old enough to not be secret: it's decades old. Plus, Russia already has access to it and they trade secrets with China anyhow.
Why did US put sensitive tech in ISS to begin with? We F'd up.
As somebody who will probably vote for her because I cannot stand Trump, this is probably a good summary. Hillary doesn't know how to get gum off her shoes, just spreads it to both legs by not nipping things in the bud by coming fully clean.
Bush's admin had email mishandling problems also, but managed to not have it turned into endless hearings. Most politicians are jerks, but some know how to be Teflon jerks; not H.
I couldn't confirm that. Do you have a link?
Tea Party was full of them. If GOP tried to expunge them, they failed badly.
Not: http://www.politico.com/story/...
Anyhow, there's always going to be wacky positions on both ends of the spectrum. The extremes don't tell us very much.
Behold! A new Rule of Acquisition!
It's just freaky when a bank states this. Ranks up there with Microsoft Lingerie.
Let's feed him more just to make sure.
Sorry, but by my observation Trump apologizes less often and lies more often.
I've seen no evidence Politificact is significantly biased. Although not perfect, they WANT to be considered credible by everyone.
I've had multiple run-ins with multiple big telecoms. If you are a lawyer specializing in suing slimy companies over "ghost upgrades" and other billing games, the telecoms are prime pickins'
Please, sue the living #!@&* out of em!
Please elaborate.
They wanted to require ID's for age check, not outright ban. And many on the right were interested in that also.
And Howard Stern has said it was mostly the evangelical right who harassed him for controversial talk radio statements through the FCC. It's largely why he left broadcast radio.
I will agree, though, that there are censor-happy people on both sides, but they tend to target different kinds of content.
However, this is mostly off-topic in terms of education and knowledge. Explicit censorship has nothing to do with climate change, evolution, interpretation of the Bible, etc.
Shallow trolls exist on both sides. That's not news.
Because many people still like to get out and go to theaters. But pirating is rampant there in terms of the after-market.
No, I just find them more reliable when I look into specific issues as a spot check. I don't have time or skills to check every claim, but I can randomly select parts to dig in fairly deep.
For example, I looked at some of the anti-evolution claims of the creationists in more detail. The creationist arguments using the second law of thermodynamics are totally bogus. The Sun supplies energy into the system. I've found no justification for excluding sunshine.
However, the relative rapidity of the Cambrian Explosion is still a legitimate puzzle in my opinion, and I give a creationism a point or two for it*. But overall, the fossil evidence shows gradual evolution and re-use of existing parts for new functions, such as fins becoming arms.
I looked at roughly 10 issues in the debate, and creationists flunked 9.
One can do the same with guns, climate, and email laws.
* One has to be careful to assume it's a dichotomy: God OR evolution. It's possible there's a 3rd option we haven't discovered yet, and/or a combo.
What's your point here exactly? Crime in general has been dropping. The disagreement is over the cause.
Science and gov't are not necessarily the same thing. A lot of published science comes from private (commercial) universities, for example.
It's all about observation, evidence, and open debate. Science is a tool, not a club.
It would be interesting to see what would happen to the entertainment industry if copyright enforcement and/or laws were very weak.
Would it depress the economy overall, or just shift where entertainment money is spent?
For example, it's possible that big-budget movies would mostly disappear, but more yet smaller-budget movies would appear with embedded product placements. China seems to have been shifting to the second model rather than fight piracy harder. And their movie industry is doing fine.
GOP is trying to re-animate Reagan, using Disney's Abraham Lincoln technology
I'd suggest applying Hanlon's razor.
TV news are all rush-job cheap-skate slop-heads.
Perhaps they wanted to make it sound like they had a ground crew when they really didn't because they are cheap or late. There's many possibilities besides kissing H's ass.
(By the way, if it's humid, 78 degrees *is* hot in my opinion.)
Unlike you, I'm not going to pretend to be a mind-reader.
Trump got caught also, but still didn't apologize. My point stands.
But we are effectively stuck with only 2 choices, and I'll go with the least evil: the one who CAN apologize.
If it's a choice between a D and an F grade, I'll vote the D.
(The rest of your statements are off-topic.)
Plutocracy at work:
Rape, stab, murder = yawn
Copy My-Little-Pony vid = SLAMMER FOREVER!
You can stab people, just not profits.
Sorry, that's not what I see. For example, she's apologized for her "super predator" and "half are deplorable" comments, or at least re-stated them to narrow the scope. Trump usually doubles down.
As far as "lies", Trump's Polifact accuracy score is far worse than H's. If you claim Politifact is biased, show us what falsehoods it points out that are not really falsehoods.
Perhaps that's because science and logic ultimately indicate that most conservative positions are either full of bunk or based on questionable theories that have competitive alternatives.
Conservatives often seem to value (what they see as) "common sense" over scientific analysis, and/or go by religion alone. That's essentially anti-education. It's partly why they reject man-made global warming. If global warming is not in (their interpretation of) the Bible, then it must be false. You don't need college and education to apply that kind of "reasoning".
The difference is that H usually apologizes when she says something offensive or questionable. T rarely apologizes. T is essentially implying he meant what he said.
That's probably because education makes one less conservative in general, and most reporters are well-educated.
If you have a good education, you are less likely to believe climate change is a scientific conspiracy, or that the world is 6k years old, for example.
And due to your critical thinking skills, you learn to actually check the Bible to see if homosexuality is condemned more often than greed & gluttony rather than just accept a pastor's weighting.
Indeed. GOP probably realizes their documents are not so secure either, and they'll look like flaming hypocrites if they push for DNC trials, then everyone finds out they were doing the same.
Then again, GOP has not been so longer-term thinking since the Tea Party movement; they usually jump at the chance to score here-and-now political points.
"Welcome to Guinea Pig Taxi Co., please buckle up."