"eventually". It just frontloads the year into a quarter
"eventually". It just frontloads the year into a quarter
End the First Amendment? WTF are you smoking?
The "two party system" that the GP wants to destroy (that's his word) only exists because the First Amendment protects our rights to assemble - you know, into groups like political parties - and then do things like collectively express their political opinions, put forth candidates, etc. How do you intend to destroy those groups without destroying the fundamental thing that protects their right to exist, keeping assembly and speech destroyers from doing just that?
Nanometers may be small, but they're not infinitely small, which is what infinitesimal means. They're barely even any closer to infinitely small than centimeters.
Well, FWIW, *both* of them are infinitely larger than infinitesimal despite the fact that nanometres are closer. So does this mean that the "infinity" between centimetres and infinitesimal is larger than the infinity between nanometres and infinitesimal? Hmmmmmm......
Also, imagine a line of people standing single-file, extending infinitely in both directions. There are, of course, an infinite number of people. Now, imagine each of these people is joined by a partner. Are there twice as many people now? Does this mean there are "2 x infinity" people? But surely you can't do that to infinity. Er...
After your noodle has been baked in the oven at gas mark 5 for 45 minutes, remove and place on a wire tray to cool down. (^_^)
Spoiler; I'm not a mathematician, and don't have the answers, I'm just throwing this out here for amusement. Though I guess someone who knows more about this than I do could explain it if they could be arsed.
Seriously, this is a nerd site, and nerds care about performance.
Some do, some don't.
Maybe some of you want to spend your days looking through open source video driver code, but real nerds want to actually do stuff and get good video performance.
So, someone's not a "real nerd" if they want to spend "days looking through open source video driver code" (sounds pretty stereotypically nerdish to me) rather than just getting stuff done (which was traditionally associated with ordinary, non-nerdish users who saw the technology as just a means to an end)?
Let's face it; you're trying to force a definition of "nerd" that supports your own point of view, a la "No true Scotsman".
the first-past-the-post Presidency
Another thing that is NOT established by the constitution. We are a republic, with great deference given to the individual states. The constitution leaves it up to each state to decide how they will choose their electors in the presidential election. If you don't like how your state does it, work on your state legislators. If you don't like how another state does it, move to that state and work on the legislature there.
The WSJ piece was an obvious force fed piece from the TV industry. It's the equivalent of the Taxi industry writing about Uber. No love.
I'm sure the industry would have kowtowed if Mr. Cue had worn an suit rather than a hawaii shirt and we'd all have skinny bundles and ponies.
Doesn't matter. Hillary has the majority of the people, and come November, she will be winning not just the Oval Office, but both sides of Congress. Once the Bernie supporters realized they have to side with her (only fair play, as the Hillary supporters went with Obama), there is no way she cannot win the White House, as the RNC was not even covered by mainstream media for the most part, while the DNC is covered 24/7.
Hey, look! A Shillary in its natural habitat
Anyone can spike market share by shipping into channels. Indeed if you have the capacity to overship you either are building too much inventory or too much manufacturing capacity.
But is is none-the-less an interesting indicator of possible sales expectations.
The idea that we put people into prison for being addicted to drugs is messed up...
Nobody is put into prison for being an addict. Nor is anybody put in prison for being an asshole. But we sure do put some of each into prison for the things they do. If you steal somebody else's stuff, it really doesn't matter if you did it because you're a drug addict or just a lazy asshole. If you are caught peddling heroin to kids, it doesn't matter if you did it because you're an addict or just an asshole.
So? I consider destruction of the two party system more important than voting for someone I dislike a little less.
And what was your plan, exactly? Are you calling for an end to the First Amendment? People shouldn't be allowed to assemble and express political preferences unless it's done the way you prefer? How would you enforce that, exactly? We don't have a "two party system," we have completely unlikable third parties who can't manage to understand why most people would never vote for them. "That they won't win" is certainly one issue, as people don't like to throw their votes away. But "these people are generally loons" is the more typical rationale. Parties that are absolutely obsessed about weed, or communism, or destroying intellectual property, or disarming the military, etc., don't fail because we have a "two party system," they fail because very few rational people would ever want to give such parties control of the government.
When the third parties stop being so fetishistic about their tiny number of pet issues, and start acting like they understand how many people they have to actually appeal to before they're given legislative and/or executive power, then you'll see a viable third party. But since the people who form and represent those parties DON'T WANT to appeal to most people, by definition, they're never going to get mainstream support. This really isn't very mysterious. You don't need to destroy something, you need to actually create something. How is that not obvious to you?
that's what Bernie Sanders did and he had a huge impact on the Democratic platform, including turning Clinton against the TPP
And what it is about that completely non-binding, strictly aspirational bit of fluff (The Platform) is it that you suppose will somehow alter a candidate's actual value system and the world view, principles, ethics, and policies that they hold dear? Why would you want to vote for someone whose value system is so fragile and so malleable that a party's choice to placate the noisy losing minority in their ranks would actually change the winning candidate's principles? Or are you saying that the Democrat winner doesn't really have any sort of solid value system, and is thus so easily manipulated? Yeah, THAT'S a ringing endorsement.
There are systems that support healthy and effective 3rd parties, the US is not one of them.
The US system is completely silent on the matter. The constitution has nothing whatsoever to say about how many political parties there are or should be. The only thing the constitution has to say on the matter is that your right to form a group and express your opinion shall not be infringed. The Democrat party is quite a bit newer than the Republican party, for example. For quite some time during the history of the country, neither party existed. And for quite some time, several other parties have existed and continue to. They're just doing everything they can to be annoying or offensive to a large majority of the voters, and thus never attract enough people to make them form up into a larger gathering, like the two bigger parties have. That's not because we have a "two party system," it's because we have completely unattractive third (and fourth, etc) parties.
They routinely pass law that violates the constitution
And in which suits have you participated, bringing those laws before a judge (or better, the Supreme Court as your way through things) in order to demonstrate this unconstitutionality?
There are plenty of people who go beyond armchair whining about it, on cases both local and federal. Recently: Heller, in DC, over unconstitutional infringement on the second amendment. Citizens United, on unconstitutional infringements on the first amendment. Judges listen, and throw out stuff that's plainly unconstitutional. In those two cases, you've got one party that's glad to see the results, and another party that wants to see more infringement. Now you know who to vote for.
I like the way you specifically address the reports of her lying and corruption, and show how they're not true. A lot of media outlets need to go over your detailed material so they can retract all of those reports. The FBI, also, will appreciate your straightening out the 100+ investigators who clearly don't have your chops when it comes to all of the things they found her to be lying about. Really, give them a call! I'm sure they'd love to hear how they got it all wrong. They didn't find 3,000 more work-related emails that she deleted, no way. They didn't find dozens of threads/exchanges involving classified information - no sir! They were wrong, lawyers DID go over every single email, they were just dumb and couldn't understand them, right? And the FBI can't count. When Hillary says "one device," and the FBI says "multiple," that's just a misunderstand about the difference between "one" and "more than one." Have you considered a career in journalism?
Oh, right. I was thinking of another post. Yours is just smug, lazy ad hominem with no substance. Go team Hillary! If it works, don't change tactics, right? Right!
Taking your guns away once again, I assume?
I certainly don't like her or her party's posture on dismantling the second amendment, no, or her disregard for several of the others. But I was referring specifically for her contempt for the first amendment. That should bother you, too. It's especially funny, though, given how she collects her family's millions in cash.
couple thousand Syrian women and children fleeing
There's lots to talk about that's actually real - why would you just plain lie about something so transparently false? A "couple thousand?" Really? That's how you describe the millions of people who are displaced by the conflict in Syria? Did you actually think that nobody else is the slightest bit informed, and that trotting out such nonsense would somehow score you some rhetorical points with especially low-information idiots? What were you thinking, exactly? Fascinating.
your stupid war
You meant the war between Assad and his own citizens who tried to get rid of him? Or the war between groups like ISIS and those in Syria who don't want to live under orthodox Islam or die because they don't? Is that the war you're thinking of? Yes, it would be much less of a conflict if Obama and Clinton hadn't made it worse, but it's not "our" war that people are fleeing by the hundreds of thousands. It's ISIS's war, and Assad's muddled mess that now includes Russian involvement.
And if you're so obtuse that you can't wrap your head around the fact that the US's immigration problems include an essentially unprotected border across which thousands of illegals regularly flow, a train wreck of an H1-B system, and huge numbers of people abusing our visa system, then please don't bother talking about it, because you're being willfully ignorant and are thus unable to say anything constructive until you gather some information into your head.
As for "dictating where iPhones can be manufactured" - please. Are you really going to pretend you're so uninformed that you can't understand that his point is to illustrate how poorly we (as a country, under the current administration) are handling trade relationships that we're getting screwed by countries like China that abuse that relationship? You don't "dictate where iPhones can be manufactured," you put in trade, tax, and banking policies that make China's corrupt, poisonous, currency-manipulating, repressive, territory-grabbing circumstances less appealing to companies like Apple.
And your attempt to paint a nice, sweet picture of Clinton by trotting out an example of how state, local, and even federal government thirst for tax revenue makes for perverse incentives when it comes to eminent domain (which is asked for thousands of times a year by everyone from parking lot contractors to farmers to classic real estate developers)