The Constitution was written to mean, if this doesn't say they can do it then they can't do it.
It now means, if this doesn't specifically disallow it, they're good to go.
That is not a distinction without difference. In fact, it's pretty much backwards from the intent. There's a line in there that I like but people like to pretend it doesn't exist. Now, I'm not some fancy Constitutional Scholar or anything but I'm pretty sure it mentions something about those rights not granted by the document are reserved for the individual or the State. I might be reading it wrong and listening to the wrong people but I'm pretty sure that means they should have a hell of a lot less regulatory power than they do have.
I can't even count the number of times that I've heard people say that it's okay because the Constitution doesn't prohibit it. That one makes me kind of scratch my head. It's said so frequently that it is I who must be mistaken.
Like you, I'm kind of glad there's an EPA and FDA. I do think they should have actually gotten out a pen and made that sort of thing official. I'd like to see the individual States actually have the stones to make the feds listen. We kind of stomped that idea into the pavement back when we decided that those States weren't allowed to leave the Union.
But no... I am not one of those there fancy Constitutional Scholars so I'm probably missing something and wrong. While I do hold my doctorate, it sure as hell isn't in anything important like Political Science or even one of those Social Sciences. Yeah, I got a stupid degree in Applied Mathematics. I'm not smart enough to study the social sciences. I've never even taken a course in underwater basket weaving!
At any rate, I'm sure that someone's convinced that it's me who has it all wrong and that... Let me check, I happen to have one in my pocket - right now...
Hmm... My pocket version seems to have all of the words but it might be missing a few. They also used some of that fancy Roman Numeral stuff. Still, I looked at #9 and #10 and gave them a quick read, just to make sure I was on the right track and not thinking of some other country's Constitution. I dunno, they looked to be pretty plain English to me. It almost looks like they were written in such a manner so that they can't be easily misinterpreted. It's almost like they felt it was important so didn't want to be mistaken.
Yeah, it's gotta be me. Anyhow, I'm busy again today and may not get the chance to return and reply.:/ I'm preparing to head back home. It's getting too hot down here.
This is only tangentially related. You have a slew of people, even here, who will not want their spouse or whatever to access their phone. So, they'd have to unlock it instead of just handing it to them. That's crazy, in my eyes, and yes I have had some very horrific relationships. Shit, we weren't even dating when I'd had the phone to the missus and ask her to send a reply or even read a text to me. I sure as hell wouldn't have a relationship with someone I don't trust to handle my phone. I'm pretty sure she knows every password I have, or how to get them, and I like it that way. If we break up, and we might, then I'll change things.
Hell, she has her own debit card now. If she wants to rob me blind then now's the time to do it. Then again, I also have an accountant. The odds of me noticing she was spending a bunch of money are pretty damned low, however. I'm pretty sure my accountant will spot it in short order and, it being a debit card attached to but one account, there's a limit to the damage she can do. She could just as easily ask for the money and I'd just give it to her. I can make more. She's seemingly not the scamming and thieving type. At the least, she's not meandered off with a bunch of money yet. It'd probably save me money, in the long run, if she were to just take a bunch and meander off. She'd be much better off with a long-con and finding a way to get it out from under my accountant's notice and mention.
LOL Yup, you're the only one that I know of. And I may well avail myself of your offer to lend a hand. I'll be returning to Maine soon. My request to visit Cuba is not going to make it through the red tape for another month. So, I'm getting things squared away down here and will be returning to Maine soon. I'll probably leave early, stop back in at a few places on the East Coast, and then be home a couple of weeks after I take off. Yay! More hotels!
Ah well... I've got some friends to see along the way. I don't know when I'll be able to route around this way again, not with any certainty, so I might as well shamble over while I have the chance.
There are many different kinds of attention and varied degrees to maintain for a modicum of safety to be had. Absolute safe means I get to kick you off the road. We'll never have absolute safety.
I did drive drunk - for a very, very long time. I've never caused an accident and I have no moving violations on my record for well over 30 years. I don't drink any more but I was a functional alcoholic for years. Did you know that you can kind of see straight if you close one eye when you're seeing double? Did you know that it's really hard to do that for like 20 miles of rural driving? Yeah... I have no idea how I didn't hurt myself of someone else but I didn't. My bad, I've learned my mistake and don't do it anymore.
It gets worse...
I was a professional driver for a while. I'm an automotive enthusiast, I've taken somewhere close to 100 different driving courses (I'm not kidding or exaggerating), and I've actually traveled for the express purpose of driving certain roads and taking further instruction. Example: I spent almost two weeks in Germany, the first four days were in a classroom and then I had two days of driving lessons. Then, I spent the remainder of the time renting exotics and even paid for further instruction - to do laps on the Nurburgring. I also worked, quite specifically, in traffic modeling and that means a lot of attention to safety. I've driven on tracks and off-track. I've driven down highways and I've used block and tackle and worked my way to the top of a mountain and back down. And more... Much more...
So, I knew better. I still did it. Shit, I've driven with my knees so that I can snort a line of coke. Though, I'm not sure coke has much debilitating effect. It does increase your paranoia, however. So, it might lead you to make stupid choices that result in harming someone else.
We're also not really allowed to do much testing. We can't just get people trashed and let them drive around a closed course or anything. It's not allowed and it's illegal to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated - even if on private property or in a closed environment. So, we use simulators and I've driven a bunch of simulators and they're not very realistic. I kind of miss getting drunk and driving in snowstorms but it's actually a pretty stupid thing to do.
We have really moved away from the "not your child" thing. For better or worse, that's how it is. Initially it was people who were legitimately abusing their child. Now? I see articles about people getting arrested for letting their kid play in a nearby playground (visible but maybe 500 feet away, if I had to guess based on the picture in the last article I saw) and having their kid taken away.
The KKK is mostly a paper tiger. ISIS can fight back and are deadly if they find out who you are. So, I suppose it really does depend on your priorities. Anonymous went after the Sinaloa Cartel (Mexican drug gang - with ties into all sorts of things, including military and politics) and, quietly, decided that they'd no longer be interested in attacking that target. Rumor was that a couple of someones disappeared but we'll never really know 'cause anonymity is a funny thing like that.
I need to say this *really* carefully lest I be completely misunderstood and you (or anyone else) ascribe things to me that I did not say nor even hint at.
And that is this:
Nor do stereotypes exist in a vacuum.
Yup. I said it. I'll point out, again, that I'm part black and very clearly not white. The problem is that ignorant people believe that stereotypical folks, those belonging to that group, are *all* like that and are that way because of some genetic make-up. Other problems are that they'll see the differences as inferiorities. It should be noted that this is being said *in addition to* your post and is not meant to contradict it in any way.
You, you personally, are just as guilty of prejudice as anyone else. Would you like me to prove it to you? I will...
What do you think of when I say the word, "Grandmother?"
Unless you thought of one particular person, you're guilty of prejudice and stereotyping. The problem is when it's bigotry and stereotypes become hate or an excuse to oppress or, still, an excuse to remain ignorant or dishonest.
You just view your prejudices as being good. I mean hey, who doesn't like grandmothers? Insert any other word in there you want. You know you're guilty of it - every single human on the planet is guilty of it. Why? Because stereotypes exist for a reason.
What I did not say, and what I have not said, is that the KKK is populated by good members. In fact, I've not opined on that at all but it's pretty obvious that I'm not a fan of them - nor would they be a fan of mine. Instead, what I have opined on is that there's a part to this that people do not like to acknowledge. That part is that we're innately prejudiced and that we naturally want to belong to a group. So, we emulate other members of that group.
I think, now that I have thought about it a bit more, that it's better to say that life does not live in a vacuum. Really, the majority of grandmothers are nice old ladies who will make you chocolate chip cookies and give you a glass of milk. Well, the majority of grandmothers that I know are like that. Unfortunately, this is one of those knee-jerk topics and I must dance around it because we have people who truly look for reasons to be offended. I'm not sure I understand their thought process but there it is. Reactionary, angry, and seeing perceived slight where none was intended is surely no way to go through life.
How young are you? When I was young, the Democrats were the ones who (literally) didn't want me going to school with their children.
My point is that it was not "hundreds" of years ago. Hell, when I was a kid there were still people alive who could remember bits and pieces of the American Civil War. It wasn't that long ago that they were rolling out the red carpet for Strom and the other guy - both avowed KKK members. I think one was Grand Wizard at one point. This was, what, in the 2000s?
There are still a ton of racists who align with the political left though, I suppose, that's a topic for another day.
You're correct in that the KKK has nothing to do with the Democrats today. That is correct. However, it was not that long ago when they were certainly happy to take the votes from those who were. It's no longer politically expedient for them to be racists in that particular manner. That's the reason for the change, not any underlying beliefs.
To touch on that, I'm sorry but that shit called Affirmative Action is just saying that minorities can't do it on their own and need help to be competitive. There was a time when it was necessary, perhaps, because they were given no opportunity. Those generations are now not in charge - and they haven't been for a while. The belief in inferiority is still there. It's just expressed differently. It's called pandering. Specifically, pandering to a voting bloc. It'd appear lots of people are dumb enough to fall for it - that's not an accusation of you, not at all. That's in reference to the larger subject which is, unfortunately, going to take more time than I have available.
It should be interesting when one of their number goes to the federal pen and they learn that one of the first things a new inmate will face is people looking into the charges to see if they're "solid." When they find out what they are convicted for they will surely let the guys on G-Block know about it. Who are the guys on G-Block? Well, I don't really know but, in my head, that's where they house the confirmed members of the Aryan Nation or Aryan Brotherhood. In other words, the prison gang that's the equivalent of "Extreme Difficulty Level" of the KKK is what is housed on G-Block.
Some staffer (I kind of doubt they still call 'em screws like a 60s movie) will probably find some entertainment value in ensuring that this pasty kid (who's probably white) gets housed on the afore-mentioned G-Block. If there's one thing the Aryan Nation or Brotherhood really, really, really like it is the people that they consider to be "race traitors." About the only time these White Supremacy groups interact with people of other races is when they want to collect rent, go to war, or buy/sell drugs. It's also not gay if it happens behind bars.
Now, I am not saying that I wish that to happen. I am saying nothing of the sort. I'm saying that, if convicted at the federal level and sentenced to serve time, that's the probable outcome. No, the days of a "hacker" being a privileged inmate and being housed in the white-collar pods are long over. These guys aren't Kevin Mitnik and they're not afraid that they can chitter like a MODEM and set off nuclear weapons. The government is well aware that they're just script kiddies with LOIC and broadband. They're just common criminals in the eyes of the government.
It's not right that the staff will amuse themselves by tossing these kids into G-Block to be their new plaything but that's what's going to happen. They may even just make sure that a copy of the kid's paperwork gets dropped off. They also, these G-Block residents, make it a point to only admit member who are rather well built and rather violent - as in, requiring proof of past violence or acts of violence as a condition of entry. The slang, "Blood in, blood out?" Yeah, that's not a joke. That's not just a slogan for marketing purposes. I'm thinking that these "hackers" have not actually given a whole lot of thought to the potential consequences of their actions. Alternatively, they are completely ignorant of the consequences of their actions.
I think the clarification actually needs to go a bit further. It's not the freedom of speech, not really. It's the right to free speech.
To put this in perspective, I have the freedom to punch you in the mouth. I do not have a right to do so. Or, if you prefer, I am not at liberty to punch you in the mouth.
You have a right to free speech. That right, like any other, can be limited. As I may not be able to reply, I will to make it clearer. Try to communicate with a certain class of prisoners. Try saying something that is a credible threat concerning a politician. There are other examples but those are a couple of easy ones.
The "Freedom of Speech," as it is popularly known and phrased, really is no such thing. Freedoms are taken by force and, typically, through restraint. Thus, it is a right to free speech. That is not a distinction without difference but an often overlooked aspect that leads to some rather odd beliefs about the purpose of the legislation. Many, many people do not actually even know what freedom is and what liberties are. Ironically enough (or perhaps not ironic at all) they're often the most vocal of people.
At any rate, I'm of the opinion that this move by this "hacker collective" is asinine and, for the record, I'm lots of things but white is not one of those things. I'm kind of brown(ish) and partially black. So long as their speech does not translate into action, they've any right to say what they wish. One does not have a right to commit criminal offenses in order to silence them, no matter how much one dislikes them. Their rights, clearly enumerated in the Constitution, trump their non-existent right to commit crimes. It's pretty bad when someone is in a fight with the KKK and they're the loser on the morality side. It's pretty bad when they're less ethical than the KKK. It's usually pretty bad when one is worse than their enemy but this is all the more disgusting when that enemy is the KKK.
So, you're saying that someone should be able to refuse to do business with someone because they said they were gay? You'd say that someone should be able to refuse to do business with someone because they said they were black? (Maybe it was them calling for a pizza and the guy mentioned he'd be waiting for the pizza delivery man outside because he's in a locked apartment building and that he'd be the black man with the red jacket.)
Or, is it only okay if they said something *you* don't like?
Err... I'm not sure if I'll be around to respond to any replies. I've been very, very occupied lately.
> (you can't really keep a job if you are drunk all the time)
Hmm... This should be a novella but I lack time, patients, and motivation. In short, you're actually wrong. *You* might not be able to work drunk. *You* haven't built up a tolerance to rival even the stereotypical drunken Russian. I not only worked while drunk, I owned my own (successful) company and dealt with politicians and municipal workers on a daily basis. Hell, I sold my company and retired 8 years ago. I didn't stop drinking until about 3.5 years ago.
No, you can keep a job if you're drunk. You can even do your job fairly well while drunk. You just need to maintain and not get shitfaced. You'd be surprised at the number of functional alcoholics out there.
Of course they'll want to cut the price, and mandate it by law. Why? It's not their money. There's a very good chance that there's someone who thinks he's charging too much for a good or service that he's providing. His feelings would certainly be different if the topic was forcing him to make less money.
I own some rental property. It's not nearly as lucrative as one might think. I'd go into the reasons for ownership but they boil down to being a safety net (for me, obviously) and being a really good way to lose income, quickly, if need be. It's a long story but there are times when one might want to be in a position to lose money on paper.
Yeah, I call it the, "If I had a million dollars..."
See, they say stuff like, "If I had a million dollars, I'd do something about it!" Well, lots of people have a million dollars. They all said the same thing. The few that actually did something probably don't have a million dollars any more.
If they were going to start a business then they'd have done it already - or be working towards that goal.
"I'd climb that mountain if you'd lift me 99% of the way there and there weren't any risk involved." That's what they're really saying. Basically, they either want a photo op at the top of the mountain, the rewards without the risks and effort, and the accolades without the accomplishment.
Hmm... When I sold my business, I decided that I wanted to make the world a better place. Homelessness turned out to be an interesting issue and I looked into seeing if there was anything that I could do to, meaningfully, lend a hand. The answer, if you're curious, is that there wasn't actually a whole lot and I didn't have enough money anyways. I settled on donations (including time - yes, I've gone and spent a summer building) for Habitat for Humanity.
But, I learned a bunch about homelessness. What you say is, as near as I know, very unlikely to be true. The typical example of homelessness lasts no longer than 6 months, is often covered by "couch surfing" or staying with friends, and they get back on their feet within that time. Yup. What you're addressing are those who are chronically under-housed or homeless. They're a whole other bowl of wax and many of them actually have a small income and make a bit more money than you might think. They're just a bit crazy and like to get wasted. They also have poor impulse control - probably because they're a bit crazy.
At any rate, no... People get back on their feet from homelessness all the time. Unless you're talking about India or South-Saharan Africa, or something. There, from what I've seen, they'll just go find some more plastic, bits of wood, and some corrugated sheet metal and build a new shanty attached to another shanty. They might even risk life and limb and hook up power.
But, seriously, I can't think of anywhere where what you say is true. There are even people on Slashdot who attest to having been homeless and then rebounded with a bit of work. I've never been homeless but I've spent some time with them and I've spent some time learning about homelessness. A huge number of people end up homeless at least once in their lives. You don't see it because they look just like you. You only see the crazy guy down on the corner. The vast majority of homeless people don't sleep outside. They sleep on couches and floors with friends and relatives. Some sleep in their car, some in shelters, and some are street people.
In that particular case, I'd say it's that you're both unaware that they've been ripping people off for years. They were making a handy profit 30 years ago, when they were that same price. They're still making a handy profit now. In fact, the production costs have dropped.
Something to consider. I've got a couple of bucks and already own rental property. Oh, I could already charge more for my rents. Y'all go ahead and raise your rents to X+1 dollars. I'll be raising mine to X-1 dollars. I'll even be offering more amenities.
No, I'm not a great humanitarian. I just want each unit full and happy renters. Happy renters don't trash the place. Happy renters respect your stuff.
That really depends on what you use as predictors. Tech may have changed. I can assure you, we humans have not. Our basic human needs and desires are the same as they've always been.
If it turns out to be something that does work then I wonder how many people will publicly acknowledge the many, many comments that they have been made about the person who has done this and about their comments as to the impossibility of this - as well as their comments about other people that did not immediately indicate that they too believed this was fraud, the scientist inept, entirely impossible, a violation of the laws of the universe, and things like that.
I'm suspecting that number will be around zero. Sadly.
This is what you get, however, when you practice science like a religion. (No, that is not an advocacy for religion.) That is what you get when you're convinced that scientists are correct, infallible, and have the ego to assume we're at the pinnacle of knowledge (and ethics - but that's a different topic). They laugh at the fundamental religious believers while not realizing the hypocrisy of taking things on faith from people in lab coats instead of from people in cleric robes. (That's still not an advocacy for religion.) It's really quite amusing.
I'll say the same thing I've been saying from day one. I have no idea if this works. I don't understand how it could work but there are many things I do not understand. It will be a game-changer, I think, if it works. I lack the knowledge to be able to opine about the validity of the claims made by the scientists who have made these claims. I could (and probably will) make an effort to understand more about it when and if it's demonstrated to be working and is able to be explained well enough for me to read about it and understand it.
I'm comfortable admitting that I have limits. I do not have the understanding to decry this person's work as fraudulent. I've seen many, many complaints about him. I've seen many personal attacks directed towards him. I've seen many people who have insisted they're qualified to opine and many of them have indicated that this is impossible. I suspect that very few of them will admit this, if it's shown to be true, and that most will attempt to either backtrack or hope that nobody noticed their comments or remembers them. (That last part seems to be a fairly common strategy at this site, for the record.)
I'd say that I don't know why they do this but I think I just might. Either way, it's silly of them. As a lark - a couple of years ago - I started bookmarking a few of the threads that had to do with this subject. I haven't done any more work than that. I'm not that energetic. However, if it does come to pass that this is actually a thing and that it is confirmed then I'll take a few minutes of my time and go through those bookmarked threads and find the users who made all of those comments. I'll then use the copy/paste feature and do some CTRL + F "work" in the new thread(s) on the subject. Then, we'll compare and contrast and see how many are being honest.
And, again, that's still not an advocacy for religion. It's pointing out that treating science like a faith-based belief system is stupid and means you do the same mental gymnastics that you (generic you and not you personally) make fun of when it is done by other people.
Having the immutable record that is the internet is a good thing, no? It's really not hard to admit you're wrong and to learn something new. It's actually easy. It's even easier to admit that you don't know something and to ask questions. It's really not that hard at all. What's amazing is that there are people who think they're smarter than the experts in a huge number of topics. Really, they're not very smart at all but they will happily tell you about all the mistakes that other people are making or things they should have done - or things they'd have done if they were there.;-)
I dunno... I guess I'm grouchy and have been for a couple of days. It's still frustrating and tiresome to see self-proclaimed experts insisting that they're more qualified than the people who are actually experts in the field. Yeah, there are incompetent peop
You can even use elinks and use a mouse, if you want.
Actually, I cruise the web in full retard mode with all third party scripting blackilsted by default and then I whitelist as needed. If I come across a site that displays nothing without enabling a bunch of stuff then I do not ask questions or anything, I just close the tab and move on. There is no site content valuable enough for me to lower my security beyond x-level. I will allow some first party content through, by default even, because I keep things reasonably buttoned down internally. However, I draw the line at third party content. If I need third party content to get the actual content then I might just as well have used the third party content to begin with.
This site, Slashdot, actually has more things *blocked* than it has allowed - here on my computers. With uMatrix, this page indicates that it is trying to load 27 elements. Of those 27, only 10 of them are enabled. The only things that are enabled are from the domains "slashdot.org" and "fsdn.com." The "fsdn.com" is Slashdot's distributed CDN (content delivery network) and, other than that, every other third party request is disabled.
I have, for a short time, allowed additional content through (at this site specifically) so that I might show ads and support the site that way. I changed my mind after some of the ads were moving, slowing things down quite perceptibly (and I have some *very* impressive hardware), and one of the ads was attempting to load something else. I do not know what the something else was (I'm guessing some additional scripting) but it was not something I wanted to take the time to investigate.
It's not that I don't trust Slashdot to not intentionally harm my computer. It is that I don't trust those who provision the ads to have my interests in mind and I don't trust any third party providers of that service to be able to properly vet the material they provision. I do not trust those third parties to be competent enough to not harm my computer, or compromise my computer, through acts of negligence.
I also don't trust that all those random companies are reasonably secure from malicious actors who would willfully harm my computer or compromise my security intentionally.
So, I no longer allow any third party content, of any type, to be loaded.
> If this is ever going to be a serious drive we have to understand how it works.
I dunno... We used a horse before we understood how the circulatory system worked.
In other words, I believe the person you're replying to is indicating that we can still use it (if it works) without actually knowing the principles and all of the functions. You might say that we already do this with everything. We have an understanding that we use and a set of rules that seems to apply but we can't say, for certain, that an ICE doesn't actually work because it's just a combination of things that actually result in magic. Sure, it's absurd to say something like that but we can't actually say that it isn't magical and that we're 100% positive that it's not magical. Just like we can't prove that there isn't an invisible unicorn hiding in my garage...
They're saying, I think, that we can still use something without understanding the fundamental nature of it. I'm inclined to agree - we've done so a whole bunch of times throughout our history. It's reasonable to guess that we understood very little about thermodynamics when we began using fire. We knew very little about the properties of metal when we first forged it - never mind when we actually were still just (probably) using the bits we could find on the ground and hammer into shape - without even refining them further. I'm damned positive that I, personally, used a lever LONG before I understood the concepts of simple machines.
There are people who fly in planes, every single day, without the slightest inkling of how they actually work. I've actually heard some 'interesting' (but serious and truly believed) ways that grown adults used to describe how the plane was flying to children. In one instance, I politely asked the parent if they minded if I explained how the plane really worked and they were quite grateful and paid attention and asked as many questions as the child did. (Obviously, it's magic.) I mention that to point out that we, as humans, may already be trusting things we don't understand as a means of travel. Sure, someone understands how a plane works but does it really matter - so long as it doesn't crash?
From a practical viewpoint, I guess they're correct. If it does, indeed, work and we have a desire to use it then there's really not a whole hell of a lot that stops us from doing so. It either works or it does not. Sure, we might not get maximum benefit but we might still get work and meaningful results. It's a matter of practicality. It's also really unlikely that it's going to rend a hole in the fabric of space and time and cause the universe to collapse. We should be good there.
> This raises serious questions bout the effect on nucleosynthesis etc.
Pfft... Shows what you know! The process by which plants convert sunlight to energy has nothing to do with this conversation and even less to do with the Big Bang. you dummy!
Hmm... Do I really need a/s at the end of that? I kind of hope that I do not but... I'm sure I say some dumb things but they're not usually *that* dumb.;-)
So, when I have a magnet and a piece of iron and the two are attracted to each other then what's the repulsion that's making those two objects appear attracted to one another? I don't get it... I'm not a physicist but I've watched a whole lot of physics-oriented documentaries, read a whole lot of books, and have even done some math to aid physicists in the course of my academic pursuits. I thought I had a reasonable grasp on physics, certainly above that of most people. I even have an inkling of a clue about quantum mechanics/physics - to the point where I can name a half-dozen published scientists whose works I've read, specifically in that specific field. Then there are countless documentaries on the subject and I've seen a whole bunch of them, paid attention to them, and even paid attention to the point where I mostly understand them.
I mean, yeah, I get that when I lean against a wall then it is not moving because it's pushing back against the forces that I'm applying to it. I get that the reason my car doesn't collapse into a flat object is because it's exerting force against the forces of gravity and that force that it exerts is strong enough to resist the force of gravity. In fact, I even understand physics well enough to explain parts of it to other people - from Newtonian to General Relativity to Greene or Susskind, I've a fairly decent understanding of physics - I thought... (((Even to the point of being able to wrap my head around quantum physics - to some extent!)))
But what you're saying makes no sense to me. It looks good but I'm not sure you're right. Specifically, this:
Everything you think of as 'attraction' is really repulsion from something else.
Show your work and don't be afraid to use the math. I can understand mathematics fairly well, actually. I might be a bit rusty but I'll figure it out.
Like you, I don't generally watch the news. However, I have had the chance to see it lately. I won't (for once) bore you with the details but your guess, that it is worse now, appears to be spot on. It is in a rather sorry state and they appear to be concentrating on whatever bad thing they can find - until the next big and bad thing comes along. They seem fond of taking things out of context and relying on a whole lot of "person on the street" opinions but those opinions are actually gathered from online users more than they are from a beat reporter out on the scene with a microphone in-hand.
There also seem to be a whole lot of opinion pieces. More so than I remember and I'm not actually sure that the people giving opinions are competent to actually opine - at least not with any level of expertise and authority. The Animal Control Officer may well have an opinion on quantum mechanics and the existence of dark matter - but I'm not entirely sure that their opinion on the subject carries any weight. Their local hard-line politician, of whichever end of the spectrum, may well have an opinion on weighty matters such as the political proceedings in Afghanistan but, again, I'm not sure their opinion carries any weight. The owner of the coffee shop probably does have an opinion on "if the FBI can 'crack' the terrorist's iPhone" but I don't think they actually know the FBI's capacity and I'm positive that their opinion on the technical merits of such matters is irrelevant.
Oh, it's great that they have an opinion. It's fantastic that more people are involved in paying attention to government and current affairs at the international level. However, I'm not entirely sure they've opinions that are worthy of news time and I'm reasonably certain that those opinions that they do voice are not representative of anything important. I'm also reasonably sure that the opinions of a journalist are not really significant. There's a lot of talking-head shows...
No, it hasn't improved in the past decade. You're better served consuming your news in text format and from a variety of sources.
Slashdot Mirror
The Constitution was written to mean, if this doesn't say they can do it then they can't do it.
It now means, if this doesn't specifically disallow it, they're good to go.
That is not a distinction without difference. In fact, it's pretty much backwards from the intent. There's a line in there that I like but people like to pretend it doesn't exist. Now, I'm not some fancy Constitutional Scholar or anything but I'm pretty sure it mentions something about those rights not granted by the document are reserved for the individual or the State. I might be reading it wrong and listening to the wrong people but I'm pretty sure that means they should have a hell of a lot less regulatory power than they do have.
I can't even count the number of times that I've heard people say that it's okay because the Constitution doesn't prohibit it. That one makes me kind of scratch my head. It's said so frequently that it is I who must be mistaken.
Like you, I'm kind of glad there's an EPA and FDA. I do think they should have actually gotten out a pen and made that sort of thing official. I'd like to see the individual States actually have the stones to make the feds listen. We kind of stomped that idea into the pavement back when we decided that those States weren't allowed to leave the Union.
But no... I am not one of those there fancy Constitutional Scholars so I'm probably missing something and wrong. While I do hold my doctorate, it sure as hell isn't in anything important like Political Science or even one of those Social Sciences. Yeah, I got a stupid degree in Applied Mathematics. I'm not smart enough to study the social sciences. I've never even taken a course in underwater basket weaving!
At any rate, I'm sure that someone's convinced that it's me who has it all wrong and that... Let me check, I happen to have one in my pocket - right now...
Hmm... My pocket version seems to have all of the words but it might be missing a few. They also used some of that fancy Roman Numeral stuff. Still, I looked at #9 and #10 and gave them a quick read, just to make sure I was on the right track and not thinking of some other country's Constitution. I dunno, they looked to be pretty plain English to me. It almost looks like they were written in such a manner so that they can't be easily misinterpreted. It's almost like they felt it was important so didn't want to be mistaken.
Yeah, it's gotta be me. Anyhow, I'm busy again today and may not get the chance to return and reply. :/ I'm preparing to head back home. It's getting too hot down here.
This is only tangentially related. You have a slew of people, even here, who will not want their spouse or whatever to access their phone. So, they'd have to unlock it instead of just handing it to them. That's crazy, in my eyes, and yes I have had some very horrific relationships. Shit, we weren't even dating when I'd had the phone to the missus and ask her to send a reply or even read a text to me. I sure as hell wouldn't have a relationship with someone I don't trust to handle my phone. I'm pretty sure she knows every password I have, or how to get them, and I like it that way. If we break up, and we might, then I'll change things.
Hell, she has her own debit card now. If she wants to rob me blind then now's the time to do it. Then again, I also have an accountant. The odds of me noticing she was spending a bunch of money are pretty damned low, however. I'm pretty sure my accountant will spot it in short order and, it being a debit card attached to but one account, there's a limit to the damage she can do. She could just as easily ask for the money and I'd just give it to her. I can make more. She's seemingly not the scamming and thieving type. At the least, she's not meandered off with a bunch of money yet. It'd probably save me money, in the long run, if she were to just take a bunch and meander off. She'd be much better off with a long-con and finding a way to get it out from under my accountant's notice and mention.
LOL Yup, you're the only one that I know of. And I may well avail myself of your offer to lend a hand. I'll be returning to Maine soon. My request to visit Cuba is not going to make it through the red tape for another month. So, I'm getting things squared away down here and will be returning to Maine soon. I'll probably leave early, stop back in at a few places on the East Coast, and then be home a couple of weeks after I take off. Yay! More hotels!
Ah well... I've got some friends to see along the way. I don't know when I'll be able to route around this way again, not with any certainty, so I might as well shamble over while I have the chance.
There are many different kinds of attention and varied degrees to maintain for a modicum of safety to be had. Absolute safe means I get to kick you off the road. We'll never have absolute safety.
I did drive drunk - for a very, very long time. I've never caused an accident and I have no moving violations on my record for well over 30 years. I don't drink any more but I was a functional alcoholic for years. Did you know that you can kind of see straight if you close one eye when you're seeing double? Did you know that it's really hard to do that for like 20 miles of rural driving? Yeah... I have no idea how I didn't hurt myself of someone else but I didn't. My bad, I've learned my mistake and don't do it anymore.
It gets worse...
I was a professional driver for a while. I'm an automotive enthusiast, I've taken somewhere close to 100 different driving courses (I'm not kidding or exaggerating), and I've actually traveled for the express purpose of driving certain roads and taking further instruction. Example: I spent almost two weeks in Germany, the first four days were in a classroom and then I had two days of driving lessons. Then, I spent the remainder of the time renting exotics and even paid for further instruction - to do laps on the Nurburgring. I also worked, quite specifically, in traffic modeling and that means a lot of attention to safety. I've driven on tracks and off-track. I've driven down highways and I've used block and tackle and worked my way to the top of a mountain and back down. And more... Much more...
So, I knew better. I still did it. Shit, I've driven with my knees so that I can snort a line of coke. Though, I'm not sure coke has much debilitating effect. It does increase your paranoia, however. So, it might lead you to make stupid choices that result in harming someone else.
We're also not really allowed to do much testing. We can't just get people trashed and let them drive around a closed course or anything. It's not allowed and it's illegal to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated - even if on private property or in a closed environment. So, we use simulators and I've driven a bunch of simulators and they're not very realistic. I kind of miss getting drunk and driving in snowstorms but it's actually a pretty stupid thing to do.
We have really moved away from the "not your child" thing. For better or worse, that's how it is. Initially it was people who were legitimately abusing their child. Now? I see articles about people getting arrested for letting their kid play in a nearby playground (visible but maybe 500 feet away, if I had to guess based on the picture in the last article I saw) and having their kid taken away.
The KKK is mostly a paper tiger. ISIS can fight back and are deadly if they find out who you are. So, I suppose it really does depend on your priorities. Anonymous went after the Sinaloa Cartel (Mexican drug gang - with ties into all sorts of things, including military and politics) and, quietly, decided that they'd no longer be interested in attacking that target. Rumor was that a couple of someones disappeared but we'll never really know 'cause anonymity is a funny thing like that.
> These ideas do not exist in a vacuum ...
I need to say this *really* carefully lest I be completely misunderstood and you (or anyone else) ascribe things to me that I did not say nor even hint at.
And that is this:
Nor do stereotypes exist in a vacuum.
Yup. I said it. I'll point out, again, that I'm part black and very clearly not white. The problem is that ignorant people believe that stereotypical folks, those belonging to that group, are *all* like that and are that way because of some genetic make-up. Other problems are that they'll see the differences as inferiorities. It should be noted that this is being said *in addition to* your post and is not meant to contradict it in any way.
You, you personally, are just as guilty of prejudice as anyone else. Would you like me to prove it to you? I will...
What do you think of when I say the word, "Grandmother?"
Unless you thought of one particular person, you're guilty of prejudice and stereotyping. The problem is when it's bigotry and stereotypes become hate or an excuse to oppress or, still, an excuse to remain ignorant or dishonest.
You just view your prejudices as being good. I mean hey, who doesn't like grandmothers? Insert any other word in there you want. You know you're guilty of it - every single human on the planet is guilty of it. Why? Because stereotypes exist for a reason.
What I did not say, and what I have not said, is that the KKK is populated by good members. In fact, I've not opined on that at all but it's pretty obvious that I'm not a fan of them - nor would they be a fan of mine. Instead, what I have opined on is that there's a part to this that people do not like to acknowledge. That part is that we're innately prejudiced and that we naturally want to belong to a group. So, we emulate other members of that group.
I think, now that I have thought about it a bit more, that it's better to say that life does not live in a vacuum. Really, the majority of grandmothers are nice old ladies who will make you chocolate chip cookies and give you a glass of milk. Well, the majority of grandmothers that I know are like that. Unfortunately, this is one of those knee-jerk topics and I must dance around it because we have people who truly look for reasons to be offended. I'm not sure I understand their thought process but there it is. Reactionary, angry, and seeing perceived slight where none was intended is surely no way to go through life.
How young are you? When I was young, the Democrats were the ones who (literally) didn't want me going to school with their children.
My point is that it was not "hundreds" of years ago. Hell, when I was a kid there were still people alive who could remember bits and pieces of the American Civil War. It wasn't that long ago that they were rolling out the red carpet for Strom and the other guy - both avowed KKK members. I think one was Grand Wizard at one point. This was, what, in the 2000s?
There are still a ton of racists who align with the political left though, I suppose, that's a topic for another day.
You're correct in that the KKK has nothing to do with the Democrats today. That is correct. However, it was not that long ago when they were certainly happy to take the votes from those who were. It's no longer politically expedient for them to be racists in that particular manner. That's the reason for the change, not any underlying beliefs.
To touch on that, I'm sorry but that shit called Affirmative Action is just saying that minorities can't do it on their own and need help to be competitive. There was a time when it was necessary, perhaps, because they were given no opportunity. Those generations are now not in charge - and they haven't been for a while. The belief in inferiority is still there. It's just expressed differently. It's called pandering. Specifically, pandering to a voting bloc. It'd appear lots of people are dumb enough to fall for it - that's not an accusation of you, not at all. That's in reference to the larger subject which is, unfortunately, going to take more time than I have available.
It should be interesting when one of their number goes to the federal pen and they learn that one of the first things a new inmate will face is people looking into the charges to see if they're "solid." When they find out what they are convicted for they will surely let the guys on G-Block know about it. Who are the guys on G-Block? Well, I don't really know but, in my head, that's where they house the confirmed members of the Aryan Nation or Aryan Brotherhood. In other words, the prison gang that's the equivalent of "Extreme Difficulty Level" of the KKK is what is housed on G-Block.
Some staffer (I kind of doubt they still call 'em screws like a 60s movie) will probably find some entertainment value in ensuring that this pasty kid (who's probably white) gets housed on the afore-mentioned G-Block. If there's one thing the Aryan Nation or Brotherhood really, really, really like it is the people that they consider to be "race traitors." About the only time these White Supremacy groups interact with people of other races is when they want to collect rent, go to war, or buy/sell drugs. It's also not gay if it happens behind bars.
Now, I am not saying that I wish that to happen. I am saying nothing of the sort. I'm saying that, if convicted at the federal level and sentenced to serve time, that's the probable outcome. No, the days of a "hacker" being a privileged inmate and being housed in the white-collar pods are long over. These guys aren't Kevin Mitnik and they're not afraid that they can chitter like a MODEM and set off nuclear weapons. The government is well aware that they're just script kiddies with LOIC and broadband. They're just common criminals in the eyes of the government.
It's not right that the staff will amuse themselves by tossing these kids into G-Block to be their new plaything but that's what's going to happen. They may even just make sure that a copy of the kid's paperwork gets dropped off. They also, these G-Block residents, make it a point to only admit member who are rather well built and rather violent - as in, requiring proof of past violence or acts of violence as a condition of entry. The slang, "Blood in, blood out?" Yeah, that's not a joke. That's not just a slogan for marketing purposes. I'm thinking that these "hackers" have not actually given a whole lot of thought to the potential consequences of their actions. Alternatively, they are completely ignorant of the consequences of their actions.
> Hey look! They've rebranded "racist neo-nazi scumbags" as "Ethno Nationalists". Cool.
It's alright. Wait until you find out what they've done with the phrase "civil rights" and the word "equality."
I think the clarification actually needs to go a bit further. It's not the freedom of speech, not really. It's the right to free speech.
To put this in perspective, I have the freedom to punch you in the mouth. I do not have a right to do so. Or, if you prefer, I am not at liberty to punch you in the mouth.
You have a right to free speech. That right, like any other, can be limited. As I may not be able to reply, I will to make it clearer. Try to communicate with a certain class of prisoners. Try saying something that is a credible threat concerning a politician. There are other examples but those are a couple of easy ones.
The "Freedom of Speech," as it is popularly known and phrased, really is no such thing. Freedoms are taken by force and, typically, through restraint. Thus, it is a right to free speech. That is not a distinction without difference but an often overlooked aspect that leads to some rather odd beliefs about the purpose of the legislation. Many, many people do not actually even know what freedom is and what liberties are. Ironically enough (or perhaps not ironic at all) they're often the most vocal of people.
At any rate, I'm of the opinion that this move by this "hacker collective" is asinine and, for the record, I'm lots of things but white is not one of those things. I'm kind of brown(ish) and partially black. So long as their speech does not translate into action, they've any right to say what they wish. One does not have a right to commit criminal offenses in order to silence them, no matter how much one dislikes them. Their rights, clearly enumerated in the Constitution, trump their non-existent right to commit crimes. It's pretty bad when someone is in a fight with the KKK and they're the loser on the morality side. It's pretty bad when they're less ethical than the KKK. It's usually pretty bad when one is worse than their enemy but this is all the more disgusting when that enemy is the KKK.
So, you're saying that someone should be able to refuse to do business with someone because they said they were gay? You'd say that someone should be able to refuse to do business with someone because they said they were black? (Maybe it was them calling for a pizza and the guy mentioned he'd be waiting for the pizza delivery man outside because he's in a locked apartment building and that he'd be the black man with the red jacket.)
Or, is it only okay if they said something *you* don't like?
Err... I'm not sure if I'll be around to respond to any replies. I've been very, very occupied lately.
> (you can't really keep a job if you are drunk all the time)
Hmm... This should be a novella but I lack time, patients, and motivation. In short, you're actually wrong. *You* might not be able to work drunk. *You* haven't built up a tolerance to rival even the stereotypical drunken Russian. I not only worked while drunk, I owned my own (successful) company and dealt with politicians and municipal workers on a daily basis. Hell, I sold my company and retired 8 years ago. I didn't stop drinking until about 3.5 years ago.
No, you can keep a job if you're drunk. You can even do your job fairly well while drunk. You just need to maintain and not get shitfaced. You'd be surprised at the number of functional alcoholics out there.
Of course they'll want to cut the price, and mandate it by law. Why? It's not their money. There's a very good chance that there's someone who thinks he's charging too much for a good or service that he's providing. His feelings would certainly be different if the topic was forcing him to make less money.
I own some rental property. It's not nearly as lucrative as one might think. I'd go into the reasons for ownership but they boil down to being a safety net (for me, obviously) and being a really good way to lose income, quickly, if need be. It's a long story but there are times when one might want to be in a position to lose money on paper.
Yeah, I call it the, "If I had a million dollars..."
See, they say stuff like, "If I had a million dollars, I'd do something about it!" Well, lots of people have a million dollars. They all said the same thing. The few that actually did something probably don't have a million dollars any more.
If they were going to start a business then they'd have done it already - or be working towards that goal.
"I'd climb that mountain if you'd lift me 99% of the way there and there weren't any risk involved." That's what they're really saying. Basically, they either want a photo op at the top of the mountain, the rewards without the risks and effort, and the accolades without the accomplishment.
Hmm... When I sold my business, I decided that I wanted to make the world a better place. Homelessness turned out to be an interesting issue and I looked into seeing if there was anything that I could do to, meaningfully, lend a hand. The answer, if you're curious, is that there wasn't actually a whole lot and I didn't have enough money anyways. I settled on donations (including time - yes, I've gone and spent a summer building) for Habitat for Humanity.
But, I learned a bunch about homelessness. What you say is, as near as I know, very unlikely to be true. The typical example of homelessness lasts no longer than 6 months, is often covered by "couch surfing" or staying with friends, and they get back on their feet within that time. Yup. What you're addressing are those who are chronically under-housed or homeless. They're a whole other bowl of wax and many of them actually have a small income and make a bit more money than you might think. They're just a bit crazy and like to get wasted. They also have poor impulse control - probably because they're a bit crazy.
At any rate, no... People get back on their feet from homelessness all the time. Unless you're talking about India or South-Saharan Africa, or something. There, from what I've seen, they'll just go find some more plastic, bits of wood, and some corrugated sheet metal and build a new shanty attached to another shanty. They might even risk life and limb and hook up power.
But, seriously, I can't think of anywhere where what you say is true. There are even people on Slashdot who attest to having been homeless and then rebounded with a bit of work. I've never been homeless but I've spent some time with them and I've spent some time learning about homelessness. A huge number of people end up homeless at least once in their lives. You don't see it because they look just like you. You only see the crazy guy down on the corner. The vast majority of homeless people don't sleep outside. They sleep on couches and floors with friends and relatives. Some sleep in their car, some in shelters, and some are street people.
In that particular case, I'd say it's that you're both unaware that they've been ripping people off for years. They were making a handy profit 30 years ago, when they were that same price. They're still making a handy profit now. In fact, the production costs have dropped.
This is not complicated.
Something to consider. I've got a couple of bucks and already own rental property. Oh, I could already charge more for my rents. Y'all go ahead and raise your rents to X+1 dollars. I'll be raising mine to X-1 dollars. I'll even be offering more amenities.
No, I'm not a great humanitarian. I just want each unit full and happy renters. Happy renters don't trash the place. Happy renters respect your stuff.
That really depends on what you use as predictors. Tech may have changed. I can assure you, we humans have not. Our basic human needs and desires are the same as they've always been.
If it turns out to be something that does work then I wonder how many people will publicly acknowledge the many, many comments that they have been made about the person who has done this and about their comments as to the impossibility of this - as well as their comments about other people that did not immediately indicate that they too believed this was fraud, the scientist inept, entirely impossible, a violation of the laws of the universe, and things like that.
I'm suspecting that number will be around zero. Sadly.
This is what you get, however, when you practice science like a religion. (No, that is not an advocacy for religion.) That is what you get when you're convinced that scientists are correct, infallible, and have the ego to assume we're at the pinnacle of knowledge (and ethics - but that's a different topic). They laugh at the fundamental religious believers while not realizing the hypocrisy of taking things on faith from people in lab coats instead of from people in cleric robes. (That's still not an advocacy for religion.) It's really quite amusing.
I'll say the same thing I've been saying from day one. I have no idea if this works. I don't understand how it could work but there are many things I do not understand. It will be a game-changer, I think, if it works. I lack the knowledge to be able to opine about the validity of the claims made by the scientists who have made these claims. I could (and probably will) make an effort to understand more about it when and if it's demonstrated to be working and is able to be explained well enough for me to read about it and understand it.
I'm comfortable admitting that I have limits. I do not have the understanding to decry this person's work as fraudulent. I've seen many, many complaints about him. I've seen many personal attacks directed towards him. I've seen many people who have insisted they're qualified to opine and many of them have indicated that this is impossible. I suspect that very few of them will admit this, if it's shown to be true, and that most will attempt to either backtrack or hope that nobody noticed their comments or remembers them. (That last part seems to be a fairly common strategy at this site, for the record.)
I'd say that I don't know why they do this but I think I just might. Either way, it's silly of them. As a lark - a couple of years ago - I started bookmarking a few of the threads that had to do with this subject. I haven't done any more work than that. I'm not that energetic. However, if it does come to pass that this is actually a thing and that it is confirmed then I'll take a few minutes of my time and go through those bookmarked threads and find the users who made all of those comments. I'll then use the copy/paste feature and do some CTRL + F "work" in the new thread(s) on the subject. Then, we'll compare and contrast and see how many are being honest.
And, again, that's still not an advocacy for religion. It's pointing out that treating science like a faith-based belief system is stupid and means you do the same mental gymnastics that you (generic you and not you personally) make fun of when it is done by other people.
Having the immutable record that is the internet is a good thing, no? It's really not hard to admit you're wrong and to learn something new. It's actually easy. It's even easier to admit that you don't know something and to ask questions. It's really not that hard at all. What's amazing is that there are people who think they're smarter than the experts in a huge number of topics. Really, they're not very smart at all but they will happily tell you about all the mistakes that other people are making or things they should have done - or things they'd have done if they were there. ;-)
I dunno... I guess I'm grouchy and have been for a couple of days. It's still frustrating and tiresome to see self-proclaimed experts insisting that they're more qualified than the people who are actually experts in the field. Yeah, there are incompetent peop
You can even use elinks and use a mouse, if you want.
Actually, I cruise the web in full retard mode with all third party scripting blackilsted by default and then I whitelist as needed. If I come across a site that displays nothing without enabling a bunch of stuff then I do not ask questions or anything, I just close the tab and move on. There is no site content valuable enough for me to lower my security beyond x-level. I will allow some first party content through, by default even, because I keep things reasonably buttoned down internally. However, I draw the line at third party content. If I need third party content to get the actual content then I might just as well have used the third party content to begin with.
This site, Slashdot, actually has more things *blocked* than it has allowed - here on my computers. With uMatrix, this page indicates that it is trying to load 27 elements. Of those 27, only 10 of them are enabled. The only things that are enabled are from the domains "slashdot.org" and "fsdn.com." The "fsdn.com" is Slashdot's distributed CDN (content delivery network) and, other than that, every other third party request is disabled.
I have, for a short time, allowed additional content through (at this site specifically) so that I might show ads and support the site that way. I changed my mind after some of the ads were moving, slowing things down quite perceptibly (and I have some *very* impressive hardware), and one of the ads was attempting to load something else. I do not know what the something else was (I'm guessing some additional scripting) but it was not something I wanted to take the time to investigate.
It's not that I don't trust Slashdot to not intentionally harm my computer. It is that I don't trust those who provision the ads to have my interests in mind and I don't trust any third party providers of that service to be able to properly vet the material they provision. I do not trust those third parties to be competent enough to not harm my computer, or compromise my computer, through acts of negligence.
I also don't trust that all those random companies are reasonably secure from malicious actors who would willfully harm my computer or compromise my security intentionally.
So, I no longer allow any third party content, of any type, to be loaded.
> If this is ever going to be a serious drive we have to understand how it works.
I dunno... We used a horse before we understood how the circulatory system worked.
In other words, I believe the person you're replying to is indicating that we can still use it (if it works) without actually knowing the principles and all of the functions. You might say that we already do this with everything. We have an understanding that we use and a set of rules that seems to apply but we can't say, for certain, that an ICE doesn't actually work because it's just a combination of things that actually result in magic. Sure, it's absurd to say something like that but we can't actually say that it isn't magical and that we're 100% positive that it's not magical. Just like we can't prove that there isn't an invisible unicorn hiding in my garage...
They're saying, I think, that we can still use something without understanding the fundamental nature of it. I'm inclined to agree - we've done so a whole bunch of times throughout our history. It's reasonable to guess that we understood very little about thermodynamics when we began using fire. We knew very little about the properties of metal when we first forged it - never mind when we actually were still just (probably) using the bits we could find on the ground and hammer into shape - without even refining them further. I'm damned positive that I, personally, used a lever LONG before I understood the concepts of simple machines.
There are people who fly in planes, every single day, without the slightest inkling of how they actually work. I've actually heard some 'interesting' (but serious and truly believed) ways that grown adults used to describe how the plane was flying to children. In one instance, I politely asked the parent if they minded if I explained how the plane really worked and they were quite grateful and paid attention and asked as many questions as the child did. (Obviously, it's magic.) I mention that to point out that we, as humans, may already be trusting things we don't understand as a means of travel. Sure, someone understands how a plane works but does it really matter - so long as it doesn't crash?
From a practical viewpoint, I guess they're correct. If it does, indeed, work and we have a desire to use it then there's really not a whole hell of a lot that stops us from doing so. It either works or it does not. Sure, we might not get maximum benefit but we might still get work and meaningful results. It's a matter of practicality. It's also really unlikely that it's going to rend a hole in the fabric of space and time and cause the universe to collapse. We should be good there.
> This raises serious questions bout the effect on nucleosynthesis etc.
Pfft... Shows what you know! The process by which plants convert sunlight to energy has nothing to do with this conversation and even less to do with the Big Bang. you dummy!
Hmm... Do I really need a /s at the end of that? I kind of hope that I do not but... I'm sure I say some dumb things but they're not usually *that* dumb. ;-)
Wait, what?
So, when I have a magnet and a piece of iron and the two are attracted to each other then what's the repulsion that's making those two objects appear attracted to one another? I don't get it... I'm not a physicist but I've watched a whole lot of physics-oriented documentaries, read a whole lot of books, and have even done some math to aid physicists in the course of my academic pursuits. I thought I had a reasonable grasp on physics, certainly above that of most people. I even have an inkling of a clue about quantum mechanics/physics - to the point where I can name a half-dozen published scientists whose works I've read, specifically in that specific field. Then there are countless documentaries on the subject and I've seen a whole bunch of them, paid attention to them, and even paid attention to the point where I mostly understand them.
I mean, yeah, I get that when I lean against a wall then it is not moving because it's pushing back against the forces that I'm applying to it. I get that the reason my car doesn't collapse into a flat object is because it's exerting force against the forces of gravity and that force that it exerts is strong enough to resist the force of gravity. In fact, I even understand physics well enough to explain parts of it to other people - from Newtonian to General Relativity to Greene or Susskind, I've a fairly decent understanding of physics - I thought... (((Even to the point of being able to wrap my head around quantum physics - to some extent!)))
But what you're saying makes no sense to me. It looks good but I'm not sure you're right. Specifically, this:
Everything you think of as 'attraction' is really repulsion from something else.
Show your work and don't be afraid to use the math. I can understand mathematics fairly well, actually. I might be a bit rusty but I'll figure it out.
Like you, I don't generally watch the news. However, I have had the chance to see it lately. I won't (for once) bore you with the details but your guess, that it is worse now, appears to be spot on. It is in a rather sorry state and they appear to be concentrating on whatever bad thing they can find - until the next big and bad thing comes along. They seem fond of taking things out of context and relying on a whole lot of "person on the street" opinions but those opinions are actually gathered from online users more than they are from a beat reporter out on the scene with a microphone in-hand.
There also seem to be a whole lot of opinion pieces. More so than I remember and I'm not actually sure that the people giving opinions are competent to actually opine - at least not with any level of expertise and authority. The Animal Control Officer may well have an opinion on quantum mechanics and the existence of dark matter - but I'm not entirely sure that their opinion on the subject carries any weight. Their local hard-line politician, of whichever end of the spectrum, may well have an opinion on weighty matters such as the political proceedings in Afghanistan but, again, I'm not sure their opinion carries any weight. The owner of the coffee shop probably does have an opinion on "if the FBI can 'crack' the terrorist's iPhone" but I don't think they actually know the FBI's capacity and I'm positive that their opinion on the technical merits of such matters is irrelevant.
Oh, it's great that they have an opinion. It's fantastic that more people are involved in paying attention to government and current affairs at the international level. However, I'm not entirely sure they've opinions that are worthy of news time and I'm reasonably certain that those opinions that they do voice are not representative of anything important. I'm also reasonably sure that the opinions of a journalist are not really significant. There's a lot of talking-head shows...
No, it hasn't improved in the past decade. You're better served consuming your news in text format and from a variety of sources.