#1) if you can't see bush wasn't legitimately appointed, then you NOT are capable of supporting a democracy
I wish people could think for themselves... NADER didn't split the vote and cost Gore a clear victory:
1) Gore won by the most conservative count. The supreme court made a corrupt ruling and appointed Bush the winner. It is not hard to figure that one out; but if you can't see it then you are capable of supporting a democracy.
2) Nader only had a tiny portion of the vote; it didn't split the DFL a lot of his people wouldn't vote for Gore. The Communist Party of Florida had more votes than the difference in the count (see #1.) If a portion of the Nader votes went for Gore you would have still had many areas so close it was still likely a mess would have happened.
3) Computer voting was alive and causing errors before anybody even noticed them (but they rushed in some IT people to fix the massive overvote "bugs")
4) Illegal banning of voters who might be black in a really corrupt scheme that should have put somebody in jail; it was intentional. The numbers of people on that were quite significant.
5) Don't forget the ballot which cased a jewish community to vote for a nazi sympathizer. (it only takes half a popcycle stick shove that kind of ballot out of alignment.)
6) Unverified and improper military ballots were counted anyway.
7) Fake directions for election day - the usual things like telling you to vote a day late or wrong location were going around as well. That old trick still happens around the nation.
8) Crazy waiting lines purposely engineered caused some people to turn away.
9) only 1 voting day; no real time off for it... and people propagandized to not vote (except the targeted stuff for certain demographics.)
Forget about Bush's brother, state campaign manager being in charge of the whole foobar process. Don't blame Gore or Nader - everything else was all wrong. A billion dollars was spent to make both candidates seem the same so it would turn out CLOSE which makes it easier to cheat in the tiny margins. In addition, the whole thing is like the Palestinian Government where it really has no power to do anything - it is just there to appease some people into thinking there is a democracy.
A browser we don't need, want and would like to go away gets renamed and we celebrate like something has changed.
I doubt they completely rewrote it. Their marketing department has a long history of talking about IE standards compliance and IE's technology leadership which is well known. So why does the marketing department get a pass this time around?
I'm not going to call it Edge. It's just going to be newer versions of IE to me. They'd be better calling it "web browser" or "browser" and leave it at that. They don't need to market the thing because it hasn't been a selling point for a long long time; it's so bad they had to rebrand it to turn it back into a selling point when everything has a built-in browser on it today.
CO2 + Water + electrolysis = Methanol.
This has been known forever. It is clear and burns extremely cleanly. It is not diesel or clean diesel; however, getting a diesel engine running on it is probably child's play and a flex fuel car is also probably easy (but a poor choice since diesel engines are superior.)
Without a monopoly at the gas station, you'd have had these choices for a long time and they'd be undercutting gas for decades... Maybe we'd have cars that wouldn't fall apart if we converted them! That is what prevents me from converting because it will eat up parts in my car not designed for methanol... it's bad enough with the ethanol being forced into my car... it's harder to find real 100% gas than it is ethanol (but Methanol is nowhere to be found; propane is easier to find.)
Why are they avoiding words like methanol, electrolysis, etc?
Donald Rumsfeld had stock in it, having run the company behind it back before he was appointed to approve it's use without proper testing. (Testing which happened later on - a lot of which was industry funded etc.)
Some people are extra susceptible to the stuff in addition to certain conditions such as heavy exercise making your tolerance level drop.
What we really should know is how they were involved in corruption behind the stevia ban. Also what it took other industries to bribe away that ban in recent years...
Did somebody not get the joke?
If you don't raise your children, something else in their environment will raise them for you
They have little right to complain about the results of giving up their responsibilities or blindly supporting a society which takes away most their time working to support their children.
Not that everybody should home school their children to be selfish pricks who are unable to contribute positively to society... learning civics and ethics are dead already in the schools... as if we don't have enough psychopathy today.
Civics and Ethics are as religion neutral and scientific as one can get; needed far more today given the LACK of similar teachings at home or even at many churches (or the ones I attended as a kid which were largely caught up in dogmatic tripe.)
Perhaps I wasn't strong enough in my phrasing:
The difference between a male ape and a male human is so small it is almost the same distance between a MALE HUMAN and a FEMALE HUMAN! No kidding, go look it up.
That is the reason I brought up DNA in the first place. The difference is not as great as it seems when you consider the DNA variation within the human species and the obvious place to look is the genders (which is an average, one could probably increase it more by finding the most opposite two humans of opposite genders and seeing just how big a gap you can find to approach the male primate gap.)
The % means little without a contextual reference point and since we only care about humans, the starting point is to find the widest range of human variability. If any two humans are equal, therefore one can make a DNA based argument based around an ape which fits within a smaller DNA delta... or really close to that delta. Obviously, one would have to set bounds on species allowed for that kind of threshold induction.
I was just aiming for a quantitative argument; qualitatively, animal studies already prove ape cognitive skills are equivalent to small human children. We do not do experiments on the severely mentally retarded who are unable to develop further than an ape. It is a much more "fuzzy" debate.
More accurately, people generally get more selfish as they age. Because they acquire, adapt and invest within the existing system - it's all really about THEIR STUFF.
People who do well with the status quo almost universally become biased to whatever maintains what they have, their stuff. It's a matter of self interest and most will put down other people at the hint of a threat, which clearly makes them selfish. Sure, they have excuses which rationalize their positions and behaviors - I've not met an overtly selfish person over 8 who doesn't cover it up.
The middle classes are quite self-centered with a "conservative" bias too but not as much as the group above them; the lower classes are not a great deal better but because they have less stuff to lose, their demographic is more open to alternative thinking. Still, the lower classes mostly are the same because they want to find ways to get more stuff. Once they move up the economic class system, most will "change" but in reality they never changed their motives, only the ones who really thought different and meant it stay the same.
How about by genetics?
The DNA between a male ape and a male human is so small it's almost the same amount as the difference between the genders! A great deal of fighting was done just to admit women as equals and that hasn't been won worldwide and nobody seems to treat them as equals yet...
Point is, genetically they are really close to an accepted group (majority actually) which wasn't recognized in the past.
Dolphins only have our brain size; their brains are full of fat. literally. the ocean temperature's impact on submerged body temperature is extremely great compared to the wind. They need fat heads for temperature stability since analog brains function around the influence of environmental factors like temperature impacting all those massively parallel chemical reactions. Your body does a great deal to maintain brain temperature so it can function not because neurons are so much weaker.
Sure humans can be exploited bit more than the Chinese, but not a great deal more and not for much more output. Don't forget that very few nations would be willing or capable enough to support what China has done.
The machines are now beginning to replace the lowest human working conditions for mass production.
Labor of Slaves, then unprotected workers, then exploited external workers:
It has always been about how much we can get away with. Now we have reached the point where soon the most desperate humans will be unable to compete against machines. It is the story of John Henry but more broad than ever before.
It need not be 100% machine-- where gamers could be unwittingly helping their parents lose their jobs by providing the tiny bit of intelligence the machine lacks their parents used to provide. Small farmers have been dying off for many reasons and no computers were required; they are an example of empowering 1 person to do the work of dozens. Robots will take that far beyond what machines alone could do... to the point where the human in the equation is only an owner and everything is artificial.
In our lifetimes there will see the 1st 100% artificially run corporation; some private owners will decide to be the 1st, it is not like most CEOs are actually that useful or don't already decide everything based upon stats (which a machine could do with a little input by survey, game, or the owner.)
Why are flying cars stupid? Because energy is not free. All other issues are minor; physics and resources costs come first.
F= ma. So that is ( 100mph horizontal + approximately 100mph vertical fall ) x mass
Packaging is only designed to handle about a 5 ft drop so we are looking at a safety risk.
For safety reasons drones have to SEE that means it will be difficult to prevent alternative uses for the cameras!
Nobody is thinking about the obvious: ROBOT TRUCKS with flying delivery for the last 5-30m from the truck. A flying bees nest of drones begins to make it practical. Robots navigating to doors is incredibly difficult and risky but flying that last 30m makes it a far easier problem. Plus the truck can monitor the whole process (and recharge the drones which will always have limited range since they waste most their energy LIFTING.)
He was recently elected; he isn't getting any points for doing this now - if that were the case he'd wait many years before doing this.
He needs media attention to create pressure and build momentum plus we have the worst congress probably in our history so stuff like this is all that has a chance of passing. It still won't end up with a law during this congress.