Right, so, you yern for the days of an ATI Mach64 for 2d video, a pair of 3dfx Voodoo2s in SLI, and a Aureal A3d sound card, or a SB32 with WaveBlaster2 daughterboard.
Those were, indeed, good times, though some of it was through the rosy glasses of nostalgia.
If plant operators had to buy liability insurance on the commercial market, all nuclear power stations would be uneconomic.
Sure, but by the same token, there are large swaths of the continental US of A that, if residents had to buy home insurance on the commercial market, would be utterly uninhabitable.
There is also thirty or forty years of technological advancement in nuclear safety to take into account.
Other countries manage to have independent government elections monitors. It's perfectly doable.
No, the issue here is that the Constitution doesn't specify how the states vote, so there's not much for the Feds to monitor.
Well, the REAL issue here is that the US system didn't work out the way it was intended, and has evolved into a weird chimera system of 'independent states' with a powerful Federal government. But you get my point.
This is the same point I try to make a lot.
There's been a lot of research since WW2 in to what it takes to actually get somebody to be able to respond appropriately in a 'deadly force encounter.' A two day CCW course isn't it. By and large, police training isn't it, either.
Unless you're doing regular training exercises, in real life, using something like simunition, you are very likely to simply be useless when something happens.
Can you show me which quote of Trump's mentions race? I quickly scanned your link and did not come across any mention of any races.
I don't have any evidence of Trump naming or implying any race at any time with any of his various immigration comments.
His focus has been on
- stopping _illegal_ immigration
- stopping the legal immigration of people that are at an increased risk of becoming terrorists
- reducing immigration that appears to have a negative effect on American jobs
There is a tremendous amount of racial confirmation bias about Trump, in part because that's what the left always resorts to, and because he hasn't adopted SJW phrases and talking points.
Contrastingly, there is historical evidence of him breaking _down_ racial and other bigotry barriers in his personal and business life.
Perhaps Mrs. Clinton has observed that discussing any aspect of immigration in a negative way makes her more like Donald Trump -- a man whom she very often implies is pretty much the worst thing ever.
It's a bit interesting that when Mrs. Clinton talks negatively about immigration, she's described as empathetic for Americans.
Contrastingly, when Donald Trump talks about immigration, he's described as a racist.
I think people are wise to be suspicious of anyone running for public office. But, of Clinton, Johnson, and Trump, Trump is the only one that has ever said he wants to limit and reform immigration for the benefit of Americans who are seeking American jobs. He's also the one talking about punishing American companies who engage in behaviors that subvert American workers and jobs so replace them with foreign workers and jobs.
If you are upset with companies abusing immigration law to the detriment of American workers, and you wish someone would finally do something about it, Trump would seem like your candidate.
This election promises to be another "hold your nose" affair, but there do seem to be legitimate differences in what the candidates want to accomplish and how they want to do it.
Semmelweiss, was my reference.
"Organic," however, tends to mean 'disease, parasite and vermin ridden.' Especially 200 years ago.
Beware of the Turing Tar-pit in which everything is possible but nothing of interest is easy.