Because the host star as well as many of these other confirmed exoplanets are red dwarf stars, the possibility of life is reduced because the star and its system is likely to have a less rich mix of elements compared to our yellow G-type Sun.
Doesn't that depend on the history of the parent stars that came before them? Perhaps they are less likely to have lots of elements, but since there are more red dwarfs, the total quantity coming from a "rich" parent(s) should be higher. But perhaps they are comparing per given star system.
Another alleged problem with red dwarf systems is that planets are more likely to be tidally locked, with the same face pointing to its sun all year. This may result in fewer habitable areas, unless the planet is lucky enough to have a thick, windy atmosphere.
I don't condone such mischief, but if by chance something went wrong to foul up Trump's self-aggrandizing rants, I'd play a violin so small that Intel would beg to license its miniaturization technology.
Now people just have to live where it's "happening". Nobody wants to live in Boise - it's gotta be the bay area, or Austin, or New York.
Part of this is a self-fulfilling prophecy: when people start moving out, the local economy gets depressed, making even more people want to move out. It's roughly analogous to the bigger problem of the rich getting richer and everybody else getting hosed. There's a positive feedback cycle when a town or area "crashes".
1970's kid is doing all this on one salary. His wife/partner/other half is likely at home [saving money on food and services]
But jobs were more stable back then such that the "bread winner" could remain the bread-winner for decades. Now you need two potential careers at least as an emergency spare. When the dot-com crash hit Calif IT hard in the early 2000's, my wife's salary helped pay the bills while I was scraping by on cheapo contracts. Her having a different kind of career immune to tech bubbles gave us options that saved our caboose.
The cause of the reduction in career stability is hard to say, but I suspect it's partly because technology has sped up the pace of change, partly because of stock owners valuing short-term profits over the longer run, and partly because of the growth of international competition.
I didn't say "stagnated" for TX and KS. Being "gutted" is not necessarily "stagnated". An extreme example would be a bustling 3rd-world town that has a lot of economic activity and jobs, but full of dirt roads, leaky infrastructure, bad schools, and is highly polluted. "Bustling" and "good" are not entirely the same thing.
But there could be tricky trade-offs between employment rate, infrastructure, and the ability to afford consumer goods. It may not be possible to optimize all 3 at the same time. Politics is the art of trade-off management.
However, the Japan suggestion was one of multiple. The other suggestions could perhaps reduce the down-sides of that one. It's like having several slider knobs: by setting the right level for each of the sliders, we could come reasonably close to optimizing all the typical metrics.
Indeed it could be the case that the gap between "industrialized" countries and "3rd-world" countries is narrowing due to communication technology evening out the playing field: we are stagnant while they grow.
But, rather than being a zero-sum game, I feel that with more stimulation of some sort, the tide will rise for both boats (rich and poor nations). Now that machines and 3rd-world labor are able and willing (at least able) to make more stuff, if we collective pour more cash and/or stimulus into the economy, then our natural desire for more stuff and services will juice the world economy as a whole.
For example, custom cars, landscaping, and interior decorating are in demand in "mature" nations. If the economy gets strong enough, more people will have money to purchase such local services. We'll be analysts, coordinators, and liaisons; while machines and the 3rd world labor do most of the repetitive and grunt work (perhaps remotely).
Of course, we'd expect most of the tax money to go to the poorer end of the spectrum, no?
There is a second reason to tax the wealthy beyond just economics: They are so rich they can practically buy the laws they want. They have so much more influence over the political process than the 99% that we are effectively no longer a democracy, but a plutocracy.
If the voters were well-informed, this may not be the case, but in practice they are not well-informed, leaving too much room to buy the laws and policies the rich want, by direct bribery of politicians (perfectly legal per Citizens United ruling etc.), and by flooding the media with their side of the story via ads and paid shills.
Further, if we spent the extra tax revenue to fix our rotting infrastructure, it would employ many on the poorer end of the spectrum and perhaps even "trickle up", by putting more money in consumer pockets, stimulating the economy for everybody, including the rich.
It's time to stop blaming this directly on politics and realize the nature of the economy is evolving, and that past economic patterns are probably dying.
Earning and employment problems are plaguing almost ALL "mature" (industrialized) nations, not just the socialistic or capitalistic nations. Switching to be more socialistic or more capitalistic is not solving it, at least not in terms of wages and job growth.
I believe a combination of automation, and easy access to cheap educated 3rd-world labor via the internet is the main culprit.
We may have to experiment to find solutions rather than keep fighting over doctrine. These experiments include but are not limited to:
1. Tariffs on "lopsided trade" countries to encourage them to normalize their currency and/or allow more local consumption. Dictatorial countries favor employing their population (so they don't riot) and disfavor consumption and/or outside products. We gotta push them harder, or they won't budge. Tariffs are not to start trade wars, but encourage balanced trade. Crank the tariffs up slowly, if they don't comply, to avoid market shocks.
2. Tax the rich to either provide subsistence for those without good jobs, and/or to stimulate the economy by putting more cash in consumer pockets.
3. "Helicopter Money", which is essentially printing more money and giving it to regular folks and/or spending it on infrastructure. Inflation has been lower than expected, suggesting there is enough spare capacity in the global economy to absorb more cash in an orderly fashion. (QE, a cousin of HM, mostly trickled into the rich, not down.)
4. "Make work" programs, such as cleaning up trash, landscaping, day-care, etc. Make-work programs, in part because of inefficient/outmoded office practices, have kept Japan's employment rate high, although arguably have stagnated economic growth: people in Japan can buy less, but at least have jobs. There may be a trade-off between jobs and stuff.
Most conservatives say that "less regulation" is the key. That's doubtful.
States that have tried it, such as Texas and Kansas have had very questionable results. While their unemployment rate has remained relatively strong; wages, infrastructure, medical, pollution, and education have suffered. They get slightly more employment but gut their state in exchange.
They are essentially competing with the 3rd world by becoming more like the 3rd world. I hope that's not our only option.
The problem is that calling something an "experiment" is political suicide. Voters want "decisive" leaders, not tinkerers; it's one reason why Trump has risen: "Mr. Do-it". But sometimes the right solution involves first admitting you have no ready answer.
That you are so certain what intelligence experts do or don't do without offering a teeny smidgen of actual evidence beyond personal speculation.
I'm curious why that gap is not blatantly obvious to you. What logic processes are flowing through your mind to accept such non-evidence so strongly?
Don't you think in a court-room if one made a claim about what intelligence experts do or don't do (or actually did in this case), the other side and the jury would want to know how you determined such patterns or events beyond "I guess that they..."?
View this as a logic debugging session instead of political argument and let's see what comes of it this time around.
There's no way intelligence assessments changed that much between...
Do you have explicit evidence of this? It appears to be mere guessing on your part, to me.
As I mentioned before, H probably should have attached caveat words like "probably" and "probably not" to her interpretations of the intelligence reports, but that's a sin of poor wording, NOT lying per se.
Translation: Trump would do something about importing cheap H-1B workers while Her Majesty wouldn't.
That's probably true and I hope Trump defends himself by pointing that out and giving plenty of examples and details in speeches.
I won't vote for Trump because I believe his "awkward" diplomacy will likely get us in trouble with the world.
But, I'm glad he's running and glad he speaks his mind and doesn't fear offending the establishment or donors, even if half of what he says is nutzo. Raw honesty can be beautiful and ugly: he's a laxative to the political system; it needs it.
That the intelligent assessments (made by professional intelligence analysts) had changed over time. For example, a known terrorist group appeared to claim responsibility on social media, but later it turned out to be a forged claim inserted by a troll.
I have seen no definitive evidence that H's statements were out of sync with (the changing) intelligence reports issued to her.
I could be argued she was sloppy in how she re-conveyed the reports to others, but that's NOT the same as intentionally lying.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't that depend on the history of the parent stars that came before them? Perhaps they are less likely to have lots of elements, but since there are more red dwarfs, the total quantity coming from a "rich" parent(s) should be higher. But perhaps they are comparing per given star system.
Another alleged problem with red dwarf systems is that planets are more likely to be tidally locked, with the same face pointing to its sun all year. This may result in fewer habitable areas, unless the planet is lucky enough to have a thick, windy atmosphere.
Trust me, Windows is a big fat cow.
...Team Rocket is real
Or...
Out of the 200+ Clintonian conspiracy theories floating around, this is my favorite.
I don't condone such mischief, but if by chance something went wrong to foul up Trump's self-aggrandizing rants, I'd play a violin so small that Intel would beg to license its miniaturization technology.
Part of this is a self-fulfilling prophecy: when people start moving out, the local economy gets depressed, making even more people want to move out. It's roughly analogous to the bigger problem of the rich getting richer and everybody else getting hosed. There's a positive feedback cycle when a town or area "crashes".
But jobs were more stable back then such that the "bread winner" could remain the bread-winner for decades. Now you need two potential careers at least as an emergency spare. When the dot-com crash hit Calif IT hard in the early 2000's, my wife's salary helped pay the bills while I was scraping by on cheapo contracts. Her having a different kind of career immune to tech bubbles gave us options that saved our caboose.
The cause of the reduction in career stability is hard to say, but I suspect it's partly because technology has sped up the pace of change, partly because of stock owners valuing short-term profits over the longer run, and partly because of the growth of international competition.
I didn't say "stagnated" for TX and KS. Being "gutted" is not necessarily "stagnated". An extreme example would be a bustling 3rd-world town that has a lot of economic activity and jobs, but full of dirt roads, leaky infrastructure, bad schools, and is highly polluted. "Bustling" and "good" are not entirely the same thing.
But there could be tricky trade-offs between employment rate, infrastructure, and the ability to afford consumer goods. It may not be possible to optimize all 3 at the same time. Politics is the art of trade-off management.
However, the Japan suggestion was one of multiple. The other suggestions could perhaps reduce the down-sides of that one. It's like having several slider knobs: by setting the right level for each of the sliders, we could come reasonably close to optimizing all the typical metrics.
(Please note my nearby "corrections" reply.)
Indeed it could be the case that the gap between "industrialized" countries and "3rd-world" countries is narrowing due to communication technology evening out the playing field: we are stagnant while they grow.
But, rather than being a zero-sum game, I feel that with more stimulation of some sort, the tide will rise for both boats (rich and poor nations). Now that machines and 3rd-world labor are able and willing (at least able) to make more stuff, if we collective pour more cash and/or stimulus into the economy, then our natural desire for more stuff and services will juice the world economy as a whole.
For example, custom cars, landscaping, and interior decorating are in demand in "mature" nations. If the economy gets strong enough, more people will have money to purchase such local services. We'll be analysts, coordinators, and liaisons; while machines and the 3rd world labor do most of the repetitive and grunt work (perhaps remotely).
Of course, we'd expect most of the tax money to go to the poorer end of the spectrum, no?
There is a second reason to tax the wealthy beyond just economics: They are so rich they can practically buy the laws they want. They have so much more influence over the political process than the 99% that we are effectively no longer a democracy, but a plutocracy.
If the voters were well-informed, this may not be the case, but in practice they are not well-informed, leaving too much room to buy the laws and policies the rich want, by direct bribery of politicians (perfectly legal per Citizens United ruling etc.), and by flooding the media with their side of the story via ads and paid shills.
Further, if we spent the extra tax revenue to fix our rotting infrastructure, it would employ many on the poorer end of the spectrum and perhaps even "trickle up", by putting more money in consumer pockets, stimulating the economy for everybody, including the rich.
Corrections:
Re: Most conservatives say that "less regulation" is the key.
Should be: "Most conservatives say that less regulation and smaller gov't are the key."
Re: "While their unemployment rate has remained relatively strong..."
Should be: "While their employment rate has remained relatively strong..."
It's time to stop blaming this directly on politics and realize the nature of the economy is evolving, and that past economic patterns are probably dying.
Earning and employment problems are plaguing almost ALL "mature" (industrialized) nations, not just the socialistic or capitalistic nations. Switching to be more socialistic or more capitalistic is not solving it, at least not in terms of wages and job growth.
I believe a combination of automation, and easy access to cheap educated 3rd-world labor via the internet is the main culprit.
We may have to experiment to find solutions rather than keep fighting over doctrine. These experiments include but are not limited to:
1. Tariffs on "lopsided trade" countries to encourage them to normalize their currency and/or allow more local consumption. Dictatorial countries favor employing their population (so they don't riot) and disfavor consumption and/or outside products. We gotta push them harder, or they won't budge. Tariffs are not to start trade wars, but encourage balanced trade. Crank the tariffs up slowly, if they don't comply, to avoid market shocks.
2. Tax the rich to either provide subsistence for those without good jobs, and/or to stimulate the economy by putting more cash in consumer pockets.
3. "Helicopter Money", which is essentially printing more money and giving it to regular folks and/or spending it on infrastructure. Inflation has been lower than expected, suggesting there is enough spare capacity in the global economy to absorb more cash in an orderly fashion. (QE, a cousin of HM, mostly trickled into the rich, not down.)
4. "Make work" programs, such as cleaning up trash, landscaping, day-care, etc. Make-work programs, in part because of inefficient/outmoded office practices, have kept Japan's employment rate high, although arguably have stagnated economic growth: people in Japan can buy less, but at least have jobs. There may be a trade-off between jobs and stuff.
Most conservatives say that "less regulation" is the key. That's doubtful.
States that have tried it, such as Texas and Kansas have had very questionable results. While their unemployment rate has remained relatively strong; wages, infrastructure, medical, pollution, and education have suffered. They get slightly more employment but gut their state in exchange.
They are essentially competing with the 3rd world by becoming more like the 3rd world. I hope that's not our only option.
The problem is that calling something an "experiment" is political suicide. Voters want "decisive" leaders, not tinkerers; it's one reason why Trump has risen: "Mr. Do-it". But sometimes the right solution involves first admitting you have no ready answer.
That you are so certain what intelligence experts do or don't do without offering a teeny smidgen of actual evidence beyond personal speculation.
I'm curious why that gap is not blatantly obvious to you. What logic processes are flowing through your mind to accept such non-evidence so strongly?
Don't you think in a court-room if one made a claim about what intelligence experts do or don't do (or actually did in this case), the other side and the jury would want to know how you determined such patterns or events beyond "I guess that they..."?
View this as a logic debugging session instead of political argument and let's see what comes of it this time around.
That's funny. The golden humor touch is when they check for themselves. Thanks for the hearty chuckle.
Microsoft has gone into Gollum mode with Windows 10
I'm an asshole, why would I want to meet another me?
Newt too crazy for Trump? That's some level of crazy
Project much? Most readers can spot your fallacy.
Call them, say, Team Rocket.
We seem to be going in circles. I don't know how to clarify myself any further than I have. I question your sanity.
Do you have explicit evidence of this? It appears to be mere guessing on your part, to me.
As I mentioned before, H probably should have attached caveat words like "probably" and "probably not" to her interpretations of the intelligence reports, but that's a sin of poor wording, NOT lying per se.
Innocent until proven guilty.
That's probably true and I hope Trump defends himself by pointing that out and giving plenty of examples and details in speeches.
I won't vote for Trump because I believe his "awkward" diplomacy will likely get us in trouble with the world.
But, I'm glad he's running and glad he speaks his mind and doesn't fear offending the establishment or donors, even if half of what he says is nutzo. Raw honesty can be beautiful and ugly: he's a laxative to the political system; it needs it.
That the intelligent assessments (made by professional intelligence analysts) had changed over time. For example, a known terrorist group appeared to claim responsibility on social media, but later it turned out to be a forged claim inserted by a troll.
I have seen no definitive evidence that H's statements were out of sync with (the changing) intelligence reports issued to her.
I could be argued she was sloppy in how she re-conveyed the reports to others, but that's NOT the same as intentionally lying.
She explained in the hearing. If the explanation was clearly a lie, please present clear evidence of such, not speculation.
was a robotic overfoot, not overlord
That phone call was brought up in the 11-hour hearing. I do remember it.
Maybe the committee only had a summary of the conversation instead of the actual transcripts, but I don't see how that changes anything here.