.....
Predictive markets says 10/3 odds he's out in 2019. Spiked since he cowed to Putin on camera.
I say no, he won't be re-elected.
If there's a place and a way to place bets on whether Trump is in office in 2019, I will be happy to bet on the side that is wagering "Yes, he will be in office in 2019!" |
|
|
|
"Hillary Clinton crimes" would be the most often searched for term.
NOT, NEVER "Hillary Clinton cries."
Do you have data to support that? I wouldn't search for either of those but I'm not going to say NEVER. Someone could have searched for Hillary crying about losing the election. And perhaps "crimes" isn't such a hot topic outside of your bubble, or maybe people search for more specific terms. You can't seriously use autocomplete as some sort of proof of bias. Just ask Santorum. For Trump in my case six of the ten resulting suggestions from Google include the word "crimes."
I didn't look much further down the list but I think I had "Trump crime" at #3 or 4. Again, that doesn't prove anything. Even Fox News can have "Trump" and "crime" in a header and it could be about Trump being tough on crime. Yes, bias in Google auto-complete has been proven by researchers. Check this article as one example. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785801/Is-Google-manipulating-autocomplete-results-favor-Clinton.html |
|
|
|
Try it yourself.
Type into Google "Hillary Clinton cri" and check the results of the autocomplete.
Then try "Trump cri".
Then try Yahoo and Bing. The bias is right there. Right out in the open.
Or perhaps autocomplete reflects what people are searching for most often. But that wouldn't make a good conspiracy theory. BTW I got "Hillary Clinton cries" and "Trump Crimea" so not sure what your point really is. "Hillary Clinton crimes" would be the most often searched for term. NOT, NEVER "Hillary Clinton cries." For Trump in my case six of the ten resulting suggestions from Google include the word "crimes." Anybody that does not believe that Google, Facebook, Youtube and Twitter do not actively censor, shadow ban, preferentially auto complete, and use all other tactics in their book to promote their own ideology is foolish. But try it out yourself, don't take anyone's word for it. And remember, it's not who they discriminate against today. It's the fact that tomorrow, it could be you. |
|
|
|
He can't use his brain correctly then why should someone blame him about accusing everyone of censoring him!
google search results could be rigged to give boost to google adsense websites or google results are bad and unreliable. I agree, Google has some limit and even some censorship but this isn't the spirit of what Trump is seeking. The worst POTUS wants to see people blindly supporting him, as said before he wants loyal citizens just like any other dictator. Hopefully, we aren't anymore in 1939... Try it yourself. Type into Google "Hillary Clinton cri" and check the results of the autocomplete. Then try "Trump cri". Then try Yahoo and Bing. The bias is right there. Right out in the open. |
|
|
|
A carbon dioxide filter for cars works for 4 weeks so it costs $500/year to use these filters
It works for 4 weeks? Eigth grade chemistry will show this is false. Look only at the purported chemical reactions, then to the molar volume of gasoline, the output molar volume of CO2, and the amount of NAOH.... |
|
|
|
....
First of all Google uses algorithms that can't be rigged...they can be swayed by popular searches but it's not rigged internally.
Secondly, Google is a private company so they can do whatever they want. If they were publicly-owned then they have a responsibility to be impartial but as a private company then can do/say whatever they want.
I've definitely seen rigged Google results. It's been noted on this forum in the past. But certainly you can not say "xyz uses algorithms that can't be rigged" unless you can present the algorithms for examination and prove that those were the routines used for a given search. You can do neither. The question is, is what you're seeing "rigged" from Google themselves or is the algorithm being manipulated externally? Because it's definitely possible to do the latter. If I make a post saying "Keanu Reeves is the best actor" and I'm able to send it around and people share it and link it around then in a couple weeks when someone types "who is the best actor?" into Google, Keanu Reeves will pop up. It doesn't mean that it was rigged internally from Google, it just means the algorithm was manipulated. Trump seems to think it's Google doing it themselves but I don't think that's the case. I'm not taking any political sides but we know that there's a LOT of negative articles about Trump so of course Google's algorithms are gonna put those higher than any of the good articles written about him. That's just how it works. This is an interesting question because otherwise intelligent people are willing to BELIEVE that Google is impartial, or they are not. Neither you or I would accept that with a random number generator in a crypto program we use to create private keys. We would require it to be open source and subject to review. Now, having said that, let me ask a simple question. What do you KNOW, versus what do you BELIEVE? Side note: We KNOW Twitter and Facebook act against conservative writers, it is not a belief. |
|
|
|
....
First of all Google uses algorithms that can't be rigged...they can be swayed by popular searches but it's not rigged internally.
Secondly, Google is a private company so they can do whatever they want. If they were publicly-owned then they have a responsibility to be impartial but as a private company then can do/say whatever they want.
I've definitely seen rigged Google results. It's been noted on this forum in the past. But certainly you can not say "xyz uses algorithms that can't be rigged" unless you can present the algorithms for examination and prove that those were the routines used for a given search. You can do neither. On your second claim I'm quite dubious. Please take a moment to review this snip. It's exactly when an internet service starts to EDIT communications it is acting as an "Internet Content Provider", and it no longer has the immunity provided under the Communications Decency Act (USA law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act) In February 2012, the Ninth Circuit decided in THE FOLLOWING 2008 RULING, that Roommates.com did not violate the FHA because Roommate selection is protected under the first amendment and dismissed the case. This decision did not find the prior 2008 ruling to be reversed Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC, 2012 WL 310849 (9th Cir. February 2, 2012). Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).[57] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected immunity for the Roommates.com roommate matching service for claims brought under the federal Fair Housing Act[58] and California housing discrimination laws.[59] The court concluded that the manner in which the service elicited information from users concerning their roommate preferences (by having dropdowns specifying gender, presence of children, and sexual orientation), and the manner in which it utilized that information in generating roommate matches (by eliminating profiles that did not match user specifications), the matching service created or developed the information claimed to violate the FHA, and thus was responsible for it as an "information content provider." |
|
|
|
Of course it's real. It's part of a natural cycle. However, we accelerate the process with our egocentric behavior. Promoting global warming will probably end up in a collapse quicker than expected. We reached a certain point in the cycle where "the day after tomorrow" it's possible anytime, which will probably be devastating, but won't extinguish humanity.
There are certain factors reaching critical levels, like the rain and boreal forest, permafrost, the antarctic and greenland ice and so on, which can hold a lot of carbon (Postsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research). A change within one element could lead to a unstoppable feedback-loop promoting global warming in enormously since this planet is such an interconnected system (Yes, and there will probably come an cooler period afterwards, not a real ice age though). There is no guarantee at what point this will happen, but we should really ask ourself, if we are ready to take a chance?
An unstoppable feedback loop? Really? Potsdam Institute is not a credible source. |
|
|
|
You missed the part where this isn't the 'real socialism' and that they failed in their 'development' and the 'wrong people are in charge'
People don't understand that this is what a government FULLY entrenched in socialism is a government that is ALWAYS going to end up like Venezuela.
....It's usually a nation that was beautiful and booming before too, sad.....
... the defenders of European socialism always come out, and that's where the socialists have been great, in converting European Humanism, in socialism by definition, to use them as a possible example, in none of those "socialisms" is there talk of nationalization, limitation of freedoms, or permits to buy food. They have been great in Marketing Communism, as socialism, to mix it with that humanism that was called socialism. In the end, the result of socialism, if it is the one that has been seen, Total failure. There's currently a great silence over the election of a Marxist president in South Africa, and his implementation of the plan to confiscate all the farms owned by "white farmers." Want to guess how that's likely to turn out? |
|
|
|
Trump's Presidency is one of the weirdest things in the world presently. Trump might be anything but to call him a puppet will be doing him a lot of injustice. The man is just absolutely unpredictable. Too unpredictable to be a puppet in my opinion. The way he is even consistently attacked by the media simply reflects that he is hurting some strong power base. His relationship with Putin however is incomprehensible. He literally becomes a totally different man when he's around him. There's definitely more to his Presidency than we all know.
I have the reverse opinion, Trump comes across as a real person because almost all the other politicians are puppets. |
|
|
|
Technologically we are far away from being capable of colonizing another planet. Yes, we may visit, we may even establish a small settlement there, but making it habitable or reaching one in the "Goldilocks" zone (habitable zone, not too far, not too close to a star) is not possible in the foreseeable future.
If one could glimpse into the future, it would be interesting what man accomplishes in space in the next thousand years. |
|
|
|
No they have not. I also saw news reports that misrepresented the actual scientific findings. Huge progress has been made in determining planets that lie in the "habitable zone" of other star systems, and even inferring a bit about their overall chemical composition. That's not nearly enough to guess at whether they can support human life. But here's the latest research, which is really mind boggling. They've got frikking thousands of candidate planets.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_potentially_habitable_exoplanetsI was actually talking about that potentials. If you do talk about potentials then that does mean as well right that those planets were listed really are capable of supporting human lives and of course the only thing we could actually do that is by progressing the research within the potential planets. I have seen another article about a new discovered planet that happens to have a little bit of similarity within the earths surface. https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/15/world/new-earth-size-exoplanet-life-potential/index.htmlAgain, the headline and the writing mis interprets the actual scientific findings. It's a real stretch to think that anything orbiting a red dwarf could support life as we know it. But yeah, if you studied 1000 possibilities like this one, out of that 1000 there might be 1-10 that were "real possibilities." |
|
|
|
.....
What is interesting to me is that if the left gets their wish and Trump is somehow impeached, Pence is probably fucking 10 times worse.
The 2/3 vote required in the Senate is impossible to achieve. These days everything is decided in the Senate by just a couple votes one way or the other. This is all fake news. The more fake news express high negativity for Trump, the more certain factions are happy. As the Russia Collusion fabrications fade away, replace with New Bad Trumpies. I can't take anyone seriously who propagates an improper usage of the term 'fake news'. Reporting things you disagree with is not "fake"... fake news is people like Alex Jones, who spreads nonsense about pizza shops until some guy shows up shooting an assault rifle around Alex Jones is about the realest news we get although he's been wrong about a few things. At least he is occasionally correct and makes predictions that no one else made years ago. CNN has gotten less objective than RT (Russia Today) Not just CNN.... |
|
|
|
I heard a thought which sounded about, "Why would anybody need to go to Mars if here's enough hardly habitable territories already?" Yet, going there is more of a possibility to do what you want, as it was in the times of great discoveries. If people get chance to survive on Mars without steady supplies from here they may try to build free world yet again.
That's truly impossible. Consider what things you buy on a daily basis, then assume you are on Mars and what fraction of newcessities/luxuries will have to come from Earth. Basic industrialization of Mars would put the level of local production of product maybe at what could be had or made on Earth in 1850 from NON-LIVING precursors... What that means is that all the things made from plants and animals in 1850 would not be available on Mars because those plants and animals are not there. But there would be the things made from basic dirt and rock and ores. Not much, right? Yeah... like 3D printed houses...  Anything made would have to be 3d printed. There wouldn't be stockyards of lumber, brick, sheets of metal, anything. It's necessary to have advanced 3d printing equipment which does not exist today, but which is plausible. Of course that equipment would have tremendous spinoffs on earth. |
|
|
|
.....
Okay, so the Catholic Church covered those pervs up. Whadd'ya want? Ya want them running around naked? |
|
|
|
I have measured the temperature, it is 37 °C (98.6 °F) in my room, I live in a pretty shady area so the sun doesn't directly warm my room.
Outside the temperature according to local heat sensors + the meteorology service confirmed, it's 42 °C (107.6°F) , the air on average. In sunny areas it can be as high as 50 °C (122°F)
They have also forecasted 45-47 °C for this week in nearby locations as average temperature. In sunny spots it can be deadly heat.
And this is Europe for fuck sake, not the fucking desert. In the desert the temperature may even be 60 °C or higher.
It's a fucking oven, the skin burns off your body it's so hot.
Yet we see motherfuckers who are denying the global warming, how is this possible?
37°C in your room. Global warming confirmed. Unles he's in Texas.  |
|
|
|
 ? No, astronauts have not "already found a planet like earth." no, nobody has made a device that travels that fast without carrying humans. Yup there is a planet , sorry for misunderstanding my statement what I actually mean is that they actually found a planet that can support human lives. As I have said on the device, they already have been created a device that discovered the planet that I was saying. If they were able to do so then later on they can surely create a device that can travel that fast that also carries humans No they have not. I also saw news reports that misrepresented the actual scientific findings. Huge progress has been made in determining planets that lie in the "habitable zone" of other star systems, and even inferring a bit about their overall chemical composition. That's not nearly enough to guess at whether they can support human life. But here's the latest research, which is really mind boggling. They've got frikking thousands of candidate planets.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_potentially_habitable_exoplanets |
|
|
|
We will colonise moon by 2035 with astronauts, then go to mars and build a base there. By 2100 there should be a colony both on mars and the moon. Too bad we wont be around to see it  That timeframe is totally believable. |
|
|
|
...This means that we would have to take life-support along with us if we went. Expensive beyond anything the greedy wealthy would ever give up.  It's not a matter of taking life support for humans. It's a matter of taking life itself as we know it. Most ideas on this involve dna-sequence libraries and machines to produce plants and animals from those, instead of actually hauling all the living things... This is really the practical means of doing Mars and the Moon, not hauling all the stuff from Earth. So that puts those two projects into the 50-500 years category, not 10-20 years. So what. Expensive beyond anything the greedy wealthy would ever give up.More likely expensive beyond anything the greedy poor of socialist nations would want. They wouldn't want their monthly allotments of free stuff reduced to fund space missions. |
|
|
|
If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...
If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE
Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship
Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not
I reject this. Regarding religion. The assertion is an impossibility. "Destroy them?" A huge part of human experience, in it's history, literature, and even grammar cannot be "destroyed." Communist nations have tried to do this, they failed. So you would predicate a logical conclusion on an impossibility. That has no meaning. Regarding science. It's often debated whether math is a science. Many things are called science which do not fit your criteria. "Social sciences," political science...Economics... Many cases can be cited where "science" is influenced by social factors. Examples are the Russian Lysenko and his work, current "climate science," current and past psychology "science." Many, many other examples. 19th century Phrenology, Piltdown Man, phlogiston. Science always reflects the ignorance and superstition of its times. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
