Things have gotten worse for the working class even though the economy as a whole is booming. Of course, the policies put in place by Trump (lower taxes on the rich) and the policies he fights for (dismantle the healthcare system for non-wealthy people) make the situation worse, not better. The tragedy and danger of electing Trump is that his policies exacerbate the economic problems of the working class, generating more fear and causing more people to turn to Authoritarianism as a way out.

Too bad there is no Easy way to find distros that don't use systemd.

The #2 (MX Linux), #11 (ReactOS), and #15 (antiX Linux) distros don't use systemd.

The problem is that with those higher powers you get much larger sources of noise and interference. You need to use significant plumbing to pipe the microwaves into the cavity. In addition, you have to deal with more interference from heating, etc. All the while you are try to measure the force needed to levitate a snowflake.

IMO it is not a coincidence that the EM-Drive prediction is devilishly hard to test. I'm not claiming the designer was malicious. But if it were easy to test then it would have been tested thoroughly years ago and either be debunked or verified. Cold fusion was easier to test so it got debunked sooner. The "face on Mars" required a new mission to the red planet in order to be tested and debunked so that "signal in the noise" idea was rampant for years.

No problem ... we can use a big EM-Drive to move the Earth along with us! We'll power the whole thing with safe, efficient cold-fusion.

So the spin was that the government implemented ObamaCare and Obama had nothing to do with it? Right ...

Furthermore, the current administration seems hellbent on undoing most of the big things Obama got credit for. Your claim that Obama didn't get credit/blame for these things seems utterly ridiculous. The pattern I see is that your own bias is showing loud and clear.

Bullshit. I am not bought and paid for. I never was. All you seem to do is insult those around you without providing any evidence at all that your theory has any value.

My view is I want to support you but you need to provide me with some evidence that your theory has value. If you want to replace the standard model and general relativity and so much more, that's fine but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But I'm not asking for extraordinary evidence, I'm asking for a shred of evidence. Instead of pointing me to that shred, you insult me for offering to help promote your theories.

As for the lists of unsolved problems, it does not make the standard model useless or invalid or unsound. The standard model has made many predictions that later came true. This is the true test of a theory. That is basically what I'm asking you to show with your theory. Show me how to use it to make predictions. If it can't do that then it is not even wrong. It is not even physics.

Didn't you say you've already solved a bunch of the unsolved problems? If so then show me one of the solutions. If you want to replace theories that make, sometimes fantastically accurate, predictions then your new theory has to be able to make the same or better predictions, otherwise we need to keep the current theories.

Even if your new theories can't make predictions, I still honestly want to understand them. I spent time on your web site and I couldn't find anything except very vague arm waving. I got tired of wading through the arm waving so I asked you to point me in the direction of the good stuff so I could understand what you are talking about. Despite your tirades and insults, I still want to understand what you are talking about, if that is possible.

I looked at some of the pages on your site trying to find an example of an actual prediction of spring-and-loop theory, not just a bunch of hand waving. For a theory that you claim solves so very many problems while the existing theories are trash, it shouldn't be so hard to come up with one explanation.

So please, point me to an example of how to use SAL to make a numerical prediction. Since you claim to have a better replace for pretty much all of the existing mainstream physics theories there should be a plethora of worked examples that make numerical predictions. The deflection of light by the sun, the perihelion precession of Mercury, the radius of a hydrogen atom, its energy levels, the fine structure constant. The list is almost endless.

Your saying that most of the existing theories are trash even though they make amazingly accurate predictions about many aspects of the natural world around us makes it appear you are a crackpot. The apparent lack of any numerical results from your new theory that replaces them seems to seal the deal. I think it would be really really cool if you have come up with a better theory. If you can show me a worked example then I will convince mainstream physicists whom I have worked with that they should stop working on string theory and the standard model and general relativity and instead follow your lead. It would be by far the biggest shake up of physics in history. You will almost certainly win a Nobel Prize.

But until I see a worked example, you seem to be just another crackpot who is muddying the waters in order to garner undeserved attention.

Turns out, the number one thing you can do to get laid more often is to put your tv in your bedroom. According to a poll in Britain, couples with a tv in their bedroom have sex twice as often as couples who do not.

While back in the real world, Donald Trump has been accused of raping a 13 year old girl. I'm not saying we should condemn people because of accusations against them but Donald Trump is not free from rape allegations.

Yes, in a non-technical sense there is evidence of something. In the technical sense (see for example Bayesian Probability for the technical meaning used in the hard sciences) there is still no evidence that indicates the EMDrive works as advertised. If there had been such evidence then scientists across the world would flock to reproduce the results of the successful experiment just like people rushed to reproduce the results of Pons and Fleishman.

A more precise statement might be to say that even though all of the experiments reported some unexplained thrust, there is no agreement between the experiments and none of the experiments have been able to show a clear signal or lack thereof above the noise floor. Contrast this with the Pons and Fleishman experiment which did show a clear signal way above the noise floor (which ended up being non-reproducible) or the CERN experiment which showed that neutrinos traveled faster than light, again way way above their noise floor. Those CERN experimenters had the honestly and humility to say they didn't think their clear signal was real because the experiment was very complicated and there was probably something in the experimental setup they were not accounting for. The reason they said this is because if their clear signal had been real then it would have thrown a huge monkey wrench into established theoretical physics. It turns out that they eventually found their mistake, in one place in the experimental apparatus a longer cable was used instead of the short one they assumed was used. This caused an extra delay in their measurement of the light signal and thus cause the erroneous results.

If any of the EMDrive experiments provided real, scientific evidence of the EMDrive mechanism working then the scientific world would be in an uproar like they were after Pons and Fleishman. For the EMDrive experiments thus far we have the worst of both worlds. On the theoretical side, the EMDrive would upturn the world of theoretical physics much more than the faster than light neutrinos; on the experimental side, all the experimental results (except the refuted ones from China) are consistent with there being no EMDrive effect at all. This is what I meant. I didn't mean there was no evidence, I meant there was no evidence that the EMDrive actually works as advertised.

By refuted I mean the early experiments in China that were not done in a vacuum. Their thrust measurements were orders of magnitude greater than the results in any of the experiments that were done in vacuum.

As for citations, read the actual papers published by the experimenters. If we discount the earlier paper from China which has been refuted, none of the others demonstrate clearly that the EMDrive mechanism produces a specific measurable, reproducible, amount of thrust. When you look at all the experiment results combined, it actually looks worse than any single experiment because while each of them measured some unaccounted for thrust, the results are not consistent across experiments which indicates that each one was not accounting for a different source of noise.

If any one of the experiments had been a success then the next step would have been to reproduce the same results in a different lab, just like people rushed out to reproduces the results of Pons and Fleischman. Instead, after each paper people try to make a new and different experiment with more signal and less noise that will conclusively show that the EMDrive mechanism produces thrust. This Slashdot article is a perfect example. If any of the previous experiments had been a success then the next step would have been to repeat that experiment to confirm the results. Instead, it is suggested they continue to try to beat back the noise floor by greatly adding to the cost and the inconvenience (to say it mildly) by conducting a brand new experiment in outer space.

ALL of the experiments that have not been totally refuted have completely and utterly failed to demonstrate a consistent and a repeatable signal that is higher than the noise threshold. Being unable to track down all sources of noise is not the same thing as getting a reliable signal that can be replicated in other experiments. When we look at all of the experimental evidence taken together it is completely consistent with zero signal and only noise.

If you are measuring this as performance art, then sure, it has been a rip-roaring success but if you are measuring it in terms of science and engineering then all the experiments have totally failed to demonstrate that the effect is real.

Just because all of the experiments thus far have either failed or been refuted, with some experiments getting a signal in the opposite direction of the one expected, and others getting as much signal when vital parts of the apparatus are missing, and yet other early experiments claiming a signal many orders of magnitude greater than anything seen in the more controlled experiments, doesn't mean the effect does not exist. It just means that no matter how carefully they look, somehow, by some miracle, the signal is always buried in the noise. When you reduce the noise by a factor of 1,000, that darned signal also gets reduced by a factor of 1,000.

There is absolutely no coherent theoretical explanation for why this should work. That doesn't mean it can't work but the fact that this "new force of nature" with numbers that were pulled out of a hat just happens to always require an apparatus that creates enough noise to mask the effect is highly suspicious. Basically they need to pipe in and dissipate 1,000 Watts of microwaves in order to create enough thrust to keep a single snowflake from falling. Certainly it would be great if this worked but so far there is no theoretical explanation and no experiment evidence to indicate it does actually work. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

The signal they are looking for is so darned small, it is almost impossible to account for all the possible sources of noise. Claiming that what is left over after all known sources of noise have been eliminated must be the real signal is ridiculous. This is why they see the signal in the wrong direction or see a signal 1,000 times greater in the earlier experiments when the noise floor was 1,000 time greater.

The reaction to the EMDrive is very similar to the reaction to the "face on Mars" which was also a signal that was down at the noise threshold. Scientists who tried to explain this to the public got castigated and got sent tons of hate mail and some may have lost their jobs over it. When higher resolutions photos were eventually taken, the doubting, cautious scientists were right and the wisher and dreamers were wrong.

Whoosh!

I think you raise an interesting question, especially if we focus on the outlet of the urges and not the urges themselves.

Just like in (my) software development, there is an ideal solution and then there are the solutions we can complete given time, money, and person-power constraints. Of course, we may not be able to agree on any of these.

I look at the abortion issue this way too. In an ideal world there would be little need for abortions except for medical reasons. Unfortunately our world is very far from ideal, especially around many of the situations where an abortion seems like a good option for someone.

I think it is essential to look at porn in the same way. IMO in an ideal world there would be very little need or demand for it because almost everyone would be getting their urges met with other consenting adults. But just like a high demand for abortions indicates a world that is far from ideal, so does a high demand for pornography. It is not useful to ask if viewing pornography is harmless or not. The useful question to ask is if it is more or less harmless than the alternatives.

Some people maintain that sexual repression in the West is tied to its exploitive, capitalistic structure. I'm not saying they are necessarily right but it is hard to deny that sexual repression is deeply ingrained in our society. I also think the high demand for porn is linked to this systemic sexual repression.

YMMVG but IMO the ideal solution involves getting rid of the sexual repression so people in general get laid more often. I really thing this would have a huge impact and make the world a much better place. For example, I wonder if the mass shootings (or shootings in general) would be diminished if the would-be shooters were getting laid more often.

Unfortunately, sexual repression is deeply ingrained in our society so we are not going to get the (my) ideal solution anytime soon. If it is true that pent up sexual frustration causes some people to lash out violently against strangers then of the many non-ideal solutions to wide-spread pent up sexual urges, it could well be that making porn widely available is the least harmful of the lot.

If only there were some way to make a solar cell to strip off the carbon from C02 in order to free up some oxygen. Seriously though, the missing ingredient here is hydrogen, not oxygen. Perhaps water in the soil could provide both oxygen and hydrogen.