The main thing to understand about all computers, is that they just crunch numbers. They don't (yet) make up new theories, or come to conclusions which their programmers haven't thought up.
When a computer finds an answer which is CORRECT, that wasn't previously available, it is always because the NUMBER CRUNCHING was previously too complex and multi-threaded for a human to manage the calculations on by themselves.
Earthquakes are not predictable, because the mechanisms which lead to them are only partly known, and more important, only partly KNOWABLE. It is only relatively recently that it came to be generally recognized that the Earth's outer crust is NOT rigidly glued to the inner regions, and past that, that some regions of the crust are moving in different directions, and at different speeds than others.
We don't have a complete and detailed map of all these regions at this time, which is the "partly known" aspect. Even more significantly for the sake of making predictions, we don't have ANY detailed maps of ANY of the detailed intersections of the various chunks of the crust. That's the "unknowable" part of the situation.
If we knew the EXACT details of the mechanical structure of the intersections of the various crust plates in a given region, then we could use existing knowledge of friction and the effect of pressure on various rock structures, to make a reasonable calculation about the relative movement of two crust plates in a given region.
But we don't have ANY subsurface sensors, at a depth that would be required to get that information, and no DEEP STRATA maps of sufficient detail of any regions that would be needed to make predictions.
I don't know what y'all are facing downunder. Up here, the problem is that most businesses depend on having RELATIVELY open borders. Plus that there's a tradition, supported by well-meaning laws, telling us to take in refugees.
Up here at least, most of the "bad guys" who we've had to deal with, either came in the old fashioned way (pretending to be normal visitors or students), or were "radicalized" after growing up here their whole lives.
So the big fuss up here about the refugees, is sort of difficult to easily work out. Especially for the politicians, eager to make themselves look righteous. Do they try to appear "nice," at the risk of appearing weak on terror by taking the refugees in... or do they try to appear "tough on our nations enemies," at the risk of appearing to be telling women and children to suck it?
I wish I could forget the first one I felt that deeply about. She was a fabulous poisonous disaster. Damaged me intensely and deeply, and apparently permanently.
I DID instigate the final break. My only regret, that I didn't do it a lot sooner. Maybe not as much damage that way.
If she were to reappear today, I would cross a freeway to get away.
The fact that one or both people are on the rebound, has the effect of blinding themselves to the accuracy of their own emotions and perceptions. If by chance, they happen to latch onto someone extremely compatible, who cares about them enough to remain with them through the time of blindness and confusion, things can work out well. The thing is, that it is far more common for emotionally blinded people to latch on to non-compatible people, and/or start punishing them for the wrongs of the lost mate. Hence the chances tend to be low.
I'm skeptical at the idea that entire continents are "evolving" rapidly in a unified way. My first thought is that when someone thinks that huge groups of people are changing, that it is actually themselves who is doing the changing. But if i works for you, have at it.
I am focusing on the slow and very difficult nudging of my own life, to try get to the point where I can be desirable as a permanent mate for someone again. It aint easy in this economy, and at my age.
Well, lots of us do. If you haven't noticed, it's because neither the major news media, or the leaders of either political party have made any great effort to respond to it.
And, as a matter of additional fact, lots of politicians HAVE objected to all sorts of foreign aid.
Now: how is it that we don't turn everyone out of office who votes in favor of any of those foreign aid thingies? This is because, in the U.S. at least, neither political party offers us enough candidates who oppose these payments. I would love it if they did, I would vote to terminate a ton of foreign aid, even though it is such a small part of our budget that it wouldn't affect me financially at all.
But I also know, that some payments to countries we really don't like, is at least intended to get them to be slightly LESS of a problem to us. Does it work? I have no way to know, since we can't know "what would have happened if" for ANY situation.
But anyway, back to the question as posed, it assumes facts that are incorrect that you ask it. There is opposition to any and all foreign aid you can name. It just isn't enough opposition to stop it all. But some of it IS stopped, every year.
Well, I think it's a little on the intentionally naive side, to locate a political quote like "Al-Qaeda's on the run!! They have their backs against the wall!!" , and claim that it's something for anyone to be held accountable for, as though it was a formal factual report. If nothing else, it would be well answered by the infamous "Mission Completed" nonsense, and the original claims of the Bush Administration that the Iraq war would literally pay for itself (at least monetarily).
Too bad you chose to refer to the President inaccurately as a "captain," as a part of your attack/framing of a conspiracy theory. It always detracts from anyone's pretense to be making a rational argument, if they indulge in pejorative or facetious name calling while making it.
As for ending our heavy occupation of Afghanistan, as far as I have heard, there has never been a proposal by either party, that we remove every single military element or involvement there, for all time, and without regard to changes which might occur as we progress. Frankly I would have it that we DID pull out entirely, and use our remote technology and air power as/if needed to deal with new threats.
So in total, I would say that this is reaching way past reasonableness, as an attempt to try to make Obama look bad.
I can't make the time to read all the responses, so if I'm doubling someone else, ignore me.
The title of the thread is a fraud, or at least extremely misleading.
Forty-seven states did NOT revolt against ANYTHING. A small group of citizens of forty-seven states have thus objected. So to start with, this is as foolish a title as if one were to similarly point out factually, that people from all FIFTY states, have spoken out in SUPPORT of more gun control laws.
As for why I suspect there hasn't been even more tumult, especially in advance of the announced suggestions for change, that would be because there are a surprising number of at least average intelligence people in the U.S (yes, even amongst the most intensely paranoid groups). I know that I don't myself have the time or energy to work actively to form or support political movements BEFORE there is an actual proposal to deal with.
As to the proposals themselves; most of them are actually attempts to REVIVE previous restrictions. The main new ideas I've heard, are to use the increased power of the internet to permit us to require checks be made by ALL sellers of firearms, and the suggestion to restrict availability of high capacity magazines.
I don't know if the first proposal is as possible to carry off as is described, I will have to wait to hear/read how they intend to carry it off. As to magazines, the only reasonable opposing thought I've heard so far, is that there are a few instances (certain kinds of vermin control situations)where exceptions would have to be made possible. So for that proposal, I can't see that 99.9% of Americans would even notice it was in place.
Finally, since we have had some form of gun control in place in the U.S. for all but the first years of it's existence, the repeated paranoid claim that any laws at all would lead to an end to democracy, or freedom, or the American way of life as we know it, is obviously nonsense.
Nor is any claim that the Second Amendment must "continue" to be held sacred, valid in any way, since it has NOT been held thus inviolate, pretty much from the time it was written. We have ALWAYS had restrictions on who could own certain things. As more weapons have been invented, and as we have progressed as a nation, we have had to make a number of adjustments to "the right to keep and bear arms." Therefore anyone who claims that any change at all, is the start of an inevitable run down a slippery slope, is speaking from near total ignorance of American History.
Now: when I see the exact proposals, I would be surprised if I didn't see problems, since finding a practical way to limit things that have been available to everyone for a very long time, is bound to be extremely difficult at best.
In the same way, I recognize in advance, that there really is no way, in the society we live in, to make sure of preventing any and all crimes of any kind. But since we also can't stop all crimes against property, and crimes of any other kind, by restricting either people or objects, the fact that some miscreants will always find a way to injure us, is NOT IN THE LEAST a valid reason to say that no effort should be made.
I suspect that he is exaggerating, or talking about a situation where he told the truth, but the truth was that he did something very wrong, in the understanding of the person he told it to. Or, that the WAY he told the truth, was insulting, or mean, or hurtful, or just without consideration for how it would make others feel.
That is always the way with telling the truth. Even though people might always want you to tell it, that does not mean that they will enjoy it, or like you better for it.
I don't support most of the gun control proposals I have seen, because they are unrealistic.
However, the notion that "history shows that gun control is always bad," is ludicrous.
More than anything else, what that long list of "so and so had gun control" things ignores, is that in every single case, that gun control restriction was put into place AFTER THE DICTATORSHIP WAS SUCCESSFULLY SET INTO PLACE.
Thus, the absence of gun control before the fact, utterly failed to prevent those populations from succumbing. That makes the fundamental argument of this post specious, and it's conclusions false.
One other, very minor point from history:
One place gun control was successful, and did NOT result in an end to personal freedom, was the American Old West. The true story of those places and days was, that until town after town instituted gun control, there were robberies and violent crimes almost constantly, and local bands of "businessmen" (i.e. what we would now call Organized Crime), were able to run EVERYONE'S lives.
So as I say, I haven't seen very many gun control proposals that I think would work, but the claim that zero gun control makes life charming is absolute balderdash.
I think it's more complicated by far than who has been President. I myself blame it on a combination of post-ww2 abuses by both business leaders and unions, and was and is being made VASTLY worse, by the "Business Science" majors / "it's all about bean counting" people being put in charge of EVERYTHING.
As long as both political parties continue to pretend that playing games with accounting rules and regulations is more important than reality, things will just get worse.
So, a long time Capitol Hill reporter, tells us that politicians lie, 98% of the time?
This is news?
I would think that any reporters' job, would be to recognize that public statements are ALWAYS going to be written by advertisers and promoters, and so the reporter will actually have to work, to find out what is really going on. Doesn't matter what your political bent might be.
Might as well tell me the shocking fact that if you report on business, and rely on Public Relations statements for your "facts," that you will get pretty much everything wrong.
Hope you noticed that this "unaffiliated", alleged SEALS support organization which criticized Obama, shares offices with Republican booster organizations here in Virginia.
I would hardly credit this as a legitimate measured complaint from a non-aligned, non-political personality.
Besides, Congress sent the money. Funding is what Congress does.
And besides that, there is a difference between someone having alleged affiliation with an enemy, and actually being an enemy.
Now, I'm no more in favor of funding strangers overseas than anyone else, but you are wildly exaggerating when you claim that sending money to any group which might, or might not, spend some of it in ways that might, or might not, please an enemy is an act of either treason, or is breaking that law.
No one "robbed" Social security. Lots of folks of all political stripes used it's coffers as a part of their calculation of the budget, in order to pretend that things were better than they were.
As asked, the question is silly. Of course I believe in the Death Penalty, because it exists. It is verifiable. It is written into law in many places.
Now if you want to phrase the question more intelligently and accurately, and ask if I think that having a death penalty is a positive things, then I would answer:
Only marginally. Having a greater punishment available to try to make the permanently incarcerated think twice before attacking their caretakers, might be necessary.
On the other hand, I always recognize that the only reason we now catch so many serial killers and other sociopaths, is because we STOPPED killing the ones we caught, long enough for us to study them, until we learned how to find the others. That educational value is worth the cost of keeping them alive for further education, to me.
All I'll point out is, that by having them available for study, we can learn how to spot them and stop them ahead of time, instead of simply killing them after the damage is already done.
Thus, cold-hearted permanent incarceration in a facility where they can be used for research would pass my muster.
I do NOT favor anything which requires us to become monsters ourselves, just for a sense of revenge. At the same time, I completely understand the emotional response, and would no doubt try to kill anyone who committed such acts against my own people.
As for the poll, the OP failed to provide me any choices which allowed me to respond accurately, so I did not vote.
It depends upon what you mean by "being honest." If you mean that when asked for factual answers, that you give them as clearly as you can, that's usually not a problem for anyone.
But if you mean that you say exactly what you think, with no concern for anyone else's feelings, fears, or ability to understand what you are saying, then you might be guilty of unnecessary rudeness.
I have known people who thought they were just being honest, but who were actually making guesses about other people, and saying what turned out to be false things about them. From the "honest" person's point of view, they were "honestly saying what they thought was true," but since they actually did not know what was true, what they were really doing was irresponsibly spreading destructive rumors about others.
There are also cases where yo do have to accept that no matter how gently you express yourself, that the truth will disappoint others, and even make them angry with you. That is not a good reason to stop being honest, however. It is instead an important reason to be prepared to accept that you might not always be able to get along well with everyone you would like to.
There are two basic areas of definition of "Gentleman."
One is the old-fashioned one, which is essentially the class-based concept. Being a gentleman in that sense, means a certain level pf education and social training, and the achievement (usually through birth) of a high level of social status. It actually has very little to do with character. This is the least common version in use today.
The second and more common version, is generally a "Discount Store" version of the same thing, but with less of a financial requirement, less if a social circle requirement, and more of a character requirement. It still gets a bit confused, owing to class-, gender- and political-warfare having brought resentments and accusations of nefarious intent into the mix, with the result that men who try to behave themselves in a "gentlemanly fashion" are often accused of
*being toady suck-ups to the Establishment;
*being misogynists, because they hold doors open for women (this is in decline thankfully);
*being weak and wimpy, because they remain calm rather than launching into acts of aggression or violence with little provocation;
The best version, are just men who are aware of, and sympathetic to other people's limitations, and who nevertheless respect and honor them appropriately. They have a sense of honor and honesty, which is NOT dependent upon possible personal advantage, or on how much they like the other people involved. You can rely on them to be consistent, fair, firm and self-knowledgeable, and unafraid to give way to others, because they know that they will not suffer because they do.
I don't know the real reason that guy was sacked. Given Fox's most common behaviors, I would bet more that his ratings had fallen off, and that his desperate increase in ranting to try to bring them up again, didn't work.
That particular rant/speech wasn't at all useful, from my perspective. A long series of "what if" statements, IMPLYING all sorts of things, but providing no supporting facts, and making no direct accusations, is just a lot of paranoia-encouraging fluff.
You can pretend all you want, that this was a champion of freedom, who went down fighting, but that isn't true. he was yet another ostentatious guy, who Fox used like a clown, to appease their target audience thirsting for the illusion that the "bad guys" were being attacked every day (they weren't, those same bad guys, include the ones who own Fox).
yeah sure, there really isn't a major news organization that both reports all the news fairly and accurately, AND manages to remain free of left or right influences. The closest you can come, are the ones who stay impartial , by refusing to report anything insightful at all.
What's sad, is how many great fans of Fox, actually BELIEVE that stations repeated claims to be the most honest and unbiased.
Hint: the more often anyone feels they have to tell you that they don't lie, the more likely it is that almost EVERYTHING they say is untruthful. The Soviets were VERY high on proclaiming that their version of EVERYTHING was the real and true one. Hint.
The entire structure of the US government has been designed from the beginning, to make sure that only the wealthy come into positions of power.
At this point, the ONLY way a so-called third party could have any influence, would be if it were entirely funded by some VERY wealthy backers. This is what started to happen back when Ross Perot created a party just so he could run for President. It's happening now, with the Koch brothers funding the so-called Tea Party, in order to push THEIR agenda.
Since you CAN'T mount a serious campaign without tons of money, there IS no way to counter the influence of the rich.
This is an excellent description of the Tea Party. Is that who you are referring to?
As for the OWS thing, that looks to be a mix of spontaneity and media fluff, with a few provocateurs from both the left AND the right (confirmed interlopers) thrown in.
Is this the beginning of a real revolution? No. It's just another venting by various people. A real revolution wont happen HERE, until and unless it reaches the point where a large enough plurality of people find that they have nothing left to lose. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your politics and/or failure to realize just how destructive revolution actually IS, we are a long way from being THAT bad off.
Intriguingly, there are large numbers on the far right, especially among the wealthy, who are actually working hard to INCREASE the likelihood of a revolution being necessary, by refusing to even LISTEN to suggestions that they pay a share into solutions.
I think that the entire issue of illegals has always been complicated legally. I agree that IF the feds took enough action, that the States wouldn't have to. HOWEVER, I would also point out, that there are lots of reasons OTHER than corruption or greed or laziness for the relative INACTION of the feds.
First of all, we do NOT have a large domestic Federal police force in place in this country. Most people are pleased about that. We don't have close monitoring BY the Federal Government, of the details of who is hired by private companies to do work. Most people are happy about THAT too. We also do not have any useful National Identification system, that would make it easy to know whether or not someone is a legal citizen or visitor, or whatever.
Therefore, there is no STRUCTURE in place for the Feds to use to DO the sort of job needed to get the illegals out, and further, neither the left, not the right, nor the centrists favor PUTTING such a structure into place.
In addition: there is currently strong OPPOSITION to improving federal response, from the Right in particular (though they disguise their opposition as "avoiding adding to the deficit). There are very probably plenty of people who know full well, as can be seen in Alabama, that a number of american industries are DEPENDENT on illegals to function at the low cost they do. They will continue to resist doing anything about the illegals (unless you include things like Bush's "guest worker" program, which was designed to make sure the illegals kept coming, and working on the cheap).
I will be watching the Alabama situation with great interest.
What SHOULD happen, if the rules of REAL capitalism are followed, is that the people who are finding that they can't get work done, will RAISE what they offer as pay (and raise the price of their products as well). They will, in turn, then want to put pressure on the Feds to adjust import regulations to allow them to SELL at the higher prices.
Either that, or farming will ALSO become a thing of the past in America, just as so much manufacturing has gone away. What, if anything, can replace all of these losses, I have no idea.
Right at the moment, the sheer AMOUNT of media reporting available these days, has had the result that NO party pr group can field what looks like a viable candidate for ANY office.
With the current claim that Obama is sending troops to ANOTHER country, I have myself concluded that NONE of the candidates will do more than headline the continuing disaster that America has become.
MAYBE Romney still has a chance, I don't know. But neither candidates, nor we, have the "protection" that limited media outlets once provided to keep us all blissfully ignorant. Now, we have to cope with wild, yet well crafted lies and distortions from so many different sources, all of which then re-report what each other claimed (and then do NO research to support of refute what is said), and all on our own, try to sort them all out.
It's NEVER been the case that a President was destined to make EVERYONE happier, even finding one who genuinely improved life for all of us, is nearly impossible. Even through the best of times, during which we THOUGHT everything was getting better, things were being done by Presidents we thought were wonderful, that eventually brought SOME of us low.
IgorFrankensteen Forum Posts (63)
RE: Supercomputer Predicts Dangerous Earthquake
The main thing to understand about all computers, is that they just crunch numbers. They don't (yet) make up new theories, or come to conclusions which their programmers haven't thought up.When a computer finds an answer which is CORRECT, that wasn't previously available, it is always because the NUMBER CRUNCHING was previously too complex and multi-threaded for a human to manage the calculations on by themselves.
Earthquakes are not predictable, because the mechanisms which lead to them are only partly known, and more important, only partly KNOWABLE. It is only relatively recently that it came to be generally recognized that the Earth's outer crust is NOT rigidly glued to the inner regions, and past that, that some regions of the crust are moving in different directions, and at different speeds than others.
We don't have a complete and detailed map of all these regions at this time, which is the "partly known" aspect. Even more significantly for the sake of making predictions, we don't have ANY detailed maps of ANY of the detailed intersections of the various chunks of the crust. That's the "unknowable" part of the situation.
If we knew the EXACT details of the mechanical structure of the intersections of the various crust plates in a given region, then we could use existing knowledge of friction and the effect of pressure on various rock structures, to make a reasonable calculation about the relative movement of two crust plates in a given region.
But we don't have ANY subsurface sensors, at a depth that would be required to get that information, and no DEEP STRATA maps of sufficient detail of any regions that would be needed to make predictions.