I can never remember Emil Minty for whatever reason. I call him Mint Smiley instead. I like it better that way.
You mean the thing with all the cables going to it that the gondolas are riding on? No idea what that could be.
Just out of curiosity, which groups are allowed to lie? Are you supposed to lie? Do you consider yourself a Christian? If you go around lying to people all day does that make you feel good? What does this have to do with a religion? Do you feel like you need religion to lay the rules for how to interact with other people? What the hell ever happened to the Golden Rule?
"Everyone trying to manipulate search results"
Sorry if I don't neatly fit into one of your proscribed boxes.
I agree with that statement. But one problem is that a president generally tends to push their decisions on other people. If I don't trust the ability of a certain person to make decisions that I agree with, then it's a problem for me if that person becomes president.
How is it relevant? It points to his decision making processes, among other things. He looks at science and religion and concludes that creationism is a real thing that actually happened. I think that's relevant. I want a leader to be able to look at the same set of information that I have and reach a similar conclusion. When someone looks at the same information that I have and they come to a conclusion that is wildly different than my own, then obviously one of us is seriously mistaken. On this issue in particular, I think that all available evidence is so overwhelmingly on one side that I find fault with the decision-making abilities of people who take the opposite conclusion.
There is a fairly large group of people in this country who will not vote for an atheist for whatever reason, maybe they just don't trust them. I'm in the opposite camp, when people hold religious views that I find to be frankly ridiculous, and even contrary to physical evidence, I have a hard time trusting their decision-making abilities. I doubt that they can be trusted to make a good decision when they are faced with evidence that goes against their religious beliefs.
Paul's belief in creationism I believe is also tied to his views on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. If he is president when a bill comes across his desk to legislate things like that, I don't think he's going to represent my views. At best he's going to say to leave it to the states, and at worst he's going to make something illegal on a federal level which I do not agree with.
And how precisely would libertarians defend civil rights and personal choice
I don't know the answer to that, but I know this for a fact: both the Republicans and Democrats have proven, year after year, that they do not give a shit about neither civil rights nor personal choice. Both of them are in bed with corporations and lobbyists, and that's where their loyalties are. Are Libertarians going to be any different? I don't know, but I'm not willing to cast my vote for one of the actors that has already proven to be at fault. I would rather vote for an unknown then get another 4 years of the same old bullshit.
That being said, if Bernie Sanders ran with Elizabeth Warren, under any party, I would vote for them.
But we face the long hard task of the individualistic libertarians out there coming together in large enough numbers to begin to make a difference.
It just takes a little education. In the 2012 election I had a few friends wearing their Ron Paul shirts and things like that, expecting some sort of revolution if they voted for a Republican. I pointed out that Ron Paul is a creationist and suggested they look at Gary Johnson instead (most people hadn't heard of him - thanks, media!). My friends who appreciated the more libertarian views of Ron Paul decided to vote for Johnson instead, contributing to Johnson's 1.27 million votes (more than all other minor parties combined, the most successful third party since 2000, and the highest total for the Libertarian party ever).
I think that if younger people see the bickering and fighting going on in the 2 major parties, and they notice that when either of them are in power the people get fucked in some way or another, then they'll consider a third party a viable vote. People who have grown up watching the past 10 elections or so may be of the mindset that a third party vote is a wasted vote, which is complete bullshit and hopefully the younger folks won't be afflicted by the same kind of apathy. I don't expect to see a groundswell of support for third parties in 2016 necessarily, maybe they go from 1% of the vote to 2%, but I think that the numbers talked about in TFA are unrealistically skewed in suggesting that new voters will automatically vote for one of the major parties. They aren't affected by the same kind of thinking as old voters, and they very might well believe that neither of the major parties really represents them. They would be correct, also.
Couple years ago we had a referendum and opted out of the state's blocking of municipal broadband services.
Wait, you can do that?
I wonder what would happen if such a referendum passed in a state capitol.
Also, what other laws can you opt out of?
there's no reason why a local municipality shouldn't be able to collectively decide that they want to take a crack at creating something better.
No, you see, "local municipality" is just a codeword for "big government", so the problem is that you don't want big government doing things like running utilities, because fascism, and when you have big government (i.e. a council of a town with a population of 1,000 people) competing against the free market and small business (i.e., Comcast), then that's unfair because monopoly. Not Comcast's monopoly, the monopoly that big government would have (because it's the government, duh). Also, small businesses like Comcast could not compete with big government like the council of a town with a population of 1,000 people.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Designs for Navy vessels now have to focus more and more on supplying power (as in electricity).
I believe the DDG-1000 series was supposed to address that, I remember reading about the power system and how it was modular enough to allow virtually all power to be directed to any particular system. "All power to weapons."
That was my impression also. I don't think the purpose of the specific system being designed and tested right now is to allow a ship to destroy an ICBM. Maybe start with one that can destroy Iranian dinghies, then one that can shoot down incoming mortars and drones, then one that can acquire and destroy incoming tank or artillery rounds, then missiles launched from planes, then larger boats and planes, before you can scale the size down while keeping the same power required to track and destroy an ICBM. It seems like if they could do that, then they're probably pretty close to also having a version small and powerful enough to mount on a tank. It may not be powerful enough to destroy an ICBM, but if you had a tank that could fire at other tanks and also shoot down incoming anti-tank rounds then you probably wouldn't need very many of them.
So where do I make an error ?
At such a 50kW Laser at 95% reflectance would mean 5% absorbance or only 2.5 kW. That means to give the same amount energy at the same distance for the same surface you need 20 time the same time.
You're assuming that the entire time while the laser is striking the mirror, and the mirror is absorbing some amount of energy, that the reflection stays constant.
Trying to decide whether or not I am surprised that someone carrying so much gear would not include condoms.