Leaderboard

Trump says far worse things nearly everyday than Hirono has every said. Your equivalency is absurd.

More specifically, it is not a proper litmus test as it does not challenge judicial procedure. At all. On a broader scale, perception of folks have never been been under any rule even close to the judicial system. There is no due process involved in forming the opinion of one person. In addition, harmful claims made in public are not protected by free speech laws. Thus libel or slander laws can be applied. So while metoo has gotten a lot of press, there is no indication that a) baseless claims of assaults have increased meaningfully in number and b) that folks faced legal consequences without due process. So either way, the answer seems quite clearly and resoundingly that no, there is no indication that #metoo has caused any of the claimed effects. However, it did contribute to a shift to what we as society consider to be decent behaviour, especially with regard to harassment with power imbalance.

As per your own link due process protects individuals from the powers of the state. That above example is a specific law that allows legal discourse in cases of discrimination. I.e. it would be the same as claiming that non-stealing is part of due process due to the existence of anti-theft laws. It just does not make sense. Please take a look at your own link: It is a protection of liberties from the actions of the government. Here, we have a Senate hearing with no legal consequences. How does due process get involved here? There are no civil or criminal proceedings at all. There is no prosecution from the state or the feds.The call for due process and presumption of innocence sounds good, but both have a specific meaning in relationship to the judicial process. Otherwise we may as well claim that cutting line at a fast food joint is a breach of due process.

So if the process we've been following has not interfered with Due Process, then why have we been talking about it for 21 pages? When Ten oz says he believes Ford would not be likely to falsely accuse someone, there does not have to be proof he is guilty of anything to not vote for him. No proof is necessary he committed assault. If the process we follow to confirm or deny does not involve Due Process, then it needs to be removed from our conversation, and it should not be used as a shield for Kavanaugh.

Depends on one’s perspective and motivation. If the intent is to unnecessarily divide people who otherwise largely agree, then conflation is a great tactic. Warring at the margins... If, however, the intent is to find common ground and come together as a people, then you’re quite right. Avoiding conflation is important. Focus on common ground. Readers must decide for themselves who falls where.

I think one of the things folks are hung up is that they think in terms of the alleged assault as the subject of the investigation rather than conduct and suitability of the person for the supreme court (which, as xth reminder, is the actual mechanism at play). Within the realm and scope of the hearing, we do have learned that BK has issues as a candidate, to an extent where legal scholars as well as a retired supreme court justice have raised issues. Not about the fact that he attempted sexual assault, but because of his performance, including open partisanship with more than a hint of conspiracy theories, lack of commitment to judicious inquiry as well as temperament. As such, and I am repeating myself here, due process and presumption of innocence are mechanisms that are irrelevant to those questions. Whether the alleged assault happened is a different matter, though it was early in this thread conflated into one already early in this thread. Now, it is rather obvious that it would be very difficult to validate the records of either party, considering only three people could really testify to the events and none of them being impartial (i.e. Kavanaugh, Judge and Blasey Ford). The whole talk about due process seems to try to shift the discussion to ascertain that as long as Kavanaugh does not get convicted in court, Blasey Ford must be a liar. And why many folks react negatively to that is because of the overall larger issue mentioned before that this burden not only lets rapists go free (which due to lack of evidence may be inevitable), but also then presents victims with unsuccessful claims as liars. I just can't believe how often that has to be repeated.

With all due respect, I think it is you who is missing the point. The Kavanaugh hearings were not a trial. Due Process has absolutely nothing to do with any of this unless charges are filed. Presumption of innocence is not necessary. Even if the Judiciary Committee believed Kavanaugh they could have decided not to move him forward for a vote for any reason, such as that they thought he was too divisive. The "status quo" you mention is not that the Senate follow Due Process, but that they use their own judgement on how to vote. This was a job interview, not a trial. EDIT: Spelling and grammar.

Just one hour ago, directly in response to you, he said exactly this: “An investigation is what I have advocated. Believing the women to me means having a real investigation” This shouldn’t be so hard...

Not to pile on here, but... There were also at least 40 other people who spoke up and (several) said they could corroborate Fords story, but all of whom were ignored completely by the FBI. https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/10/03/more-than-40-potential-sources-have-not-been-contacted-by-the-fbi-in-kavanaugh-investigation/23549713/ But, I suspect I'll just be accused of hating the republican party and defending democrats tooth and nail, because that's just a whole lot easier to attack than the content of what I'm actually discussing.

I didn't neg rep you, but I've seen a trend about the types of posts that seem to generate them for you. It's when you decide conspiratorial thinking is okay, or when you speculate and post about completely unfounded things like this: Also, embellishing may have been a better word choice since embroidering sounds like she was knitting a doily.

In stating that the investigation was a "delay" they are essentially claiming Ford was a Democrat shill. Demoguaging sexual assualt victims is beyond an innocent difference in opinion. It is an unsubstantiated claim which is hurtful to victims of sexual assualt.

To the neggers: Can we stop with this indiscriminate negging just because he doesn't agree with you? It's not like he's being an arsehole.

It would entirely be dependent on the overall ecological niche. One big issue here is that since we do not have any living velociraptors or gorgonopsia, it is very difficult to ascertain what their precise physiology is. For example, they may be vastly different successful depending on what prey they face. Or some of them are better in conserving energy, which would be a selective advantage if food is more limited. Dealing with changing temperatures may vary, and success could be dependent on which climate you throw them in. They may be susceptible or or resilient to particular diseases and so on.

Thanks CharonY. You are correct.

According to some posters you just ruined his life, you are a liar (given context that seems actually to be the case) and you should be put in jail for the same sentence as someone having conducted assault. Either that, or you missed the entire point. Just as a note, in case you are unaware. In a job interview you can talk to folks that have interacted with a candidate. Often it is supervisors and/or colleagues. From their statement you get a view on the candidate that you can use as you (or the committee) sees fit. There is no need for them to present evidence for their claims (positive or negative) there is no requirement for due process and there is no legal procedure involved.

Awareness of what? Is a deaf blind person less intelligent?

That is not quite correct and probably requires that I qualify my previous statement. First, mitochondria are obviously present in cells, meaning that if you do not have nuclear DNA you also won't have mitochondrial DNA. However, you have more copies of the small mitchondrial genome in a given cell than nuclear DNA. Here is where my qualifying statement comes in. Cells found in hair shafts are dead and thus DNA is heavily degraded, if at all present. However, due to the abundance of mitcohondria, there is a better change to scavenge enough mitochondrial DNA out of hair samples to get e.g. a PCR going.

Directly in my post... the one you quoted in your reply... I openly acknowledge that it's possible some senators did this. Why does this have to be so hard? We surely agree on 95+ percent, yet get stuck for 20 pages on the other 5...

It depends what those negative opinions are, surely. Does hate speech not deserve a negative vote? And that is not a “for example” - I haven’t read much of the thread, but some of mistermack’s comments are grossly offensive and can only be categorised as hate speech. The only reason I can see for people disagreeing with that is because they are not aware of the regular and systemic abuse that women receive, and so think it is OK because it is “just an opinion”. Would it be “just an opinion” if someone said a particular racial or ethnic group were lazy/stupid/criminal? I am slightly surprised he hasn’t been censured (or even banned) and that the thread is still open.

I would prefer that. But I can also think of reasons why someone might not want to participate in certain threads, but still want to register their feelings about some posts. e.g. if someone shows up and posts some sexist or racist or otherwise questionable remark, I might not wish to engage them, but still register my displeasure at their post. (now, I have other tools at my disposal to deal with some actions, so I wouldn't bother with a downvote if a rules violation were occurring, and I were in a position to act as a moderator. But that isn't always the case.)

Democrats have no power in Congress. The Senate Judiciary committee is majority Republican. It is Republicans who who controlled the hearings, the FBI investigation and the confirmation vote. What exactly did Democrats do which you feel I should be upset at? An investigation is what I have advocated. Believing the women to me means having a real investigation which doesn't ignore all but one accuser, puts a timeline on the investigation, and doesn't allow for interviews of the people involved. In my opinion one would only ignore accusers and scratch them from being interviewed if one doesn't believe them.

p.s. I have “Reg” on ignore (Sturgeon’s law) so I only see his idiocy when others quote him. This is still a dangerous level of exposure!

The Salary in the House of Representatives in $174,000 dollars. Many political figures own cars worth more than that. Many members of Congress are millionaires some are worth hundreds of millions. I do not think many of then are worried about their political career and public image. That is the problem. Rather they are worried about networking with special interest groups and business so they can get high paying lobbyist jobs and and insider investment information. In my opinion there should be a Constitutional amendment which prohibits Politicians from owning businesses, stock , or receiving money for paid speaking while in office or for at least 2yrs (a single Congressional election cycle) after. We also need public financed elections. Imagine the sort of pro-populist messaging politicians might champion if they didn't have billionaires financing their campaigns for them. The problem isn't that Politicians can't win elections if they speak of amending the Constitution. The problem is politicians won't get rich if the do.

You are talking about children... people lie to them about Santa and Tooth fairies all the time - it doesn't make them objective reality and you know that - why even put that forward as a support to your argument? If you are willing to accept any old crap then, fine - the tooth fairy or Cthulu did it or whatever - but don't expect to be taken seriously. No point in discussing anything with you if you are going to claim that whatever your mum told you about fairies and monsters is true. Very poor. I was expecting better somehow. Bye. I won't waste my time anymore then.

Wow so much confusion in one post! Beecee has done much of my work for me. Here is my response. Claiming something is "a miracle" is no explanation at all, it says nothing about how something happened. In fact ALL the evidence that Jesus was the "son of God" (whatever that mumbo jumbo means) is not actually evidence at all. Walking on water, changing water into wine (likely a cheap party trick), claiming to feed thousands with a few loaves and fishes, and all the rest of it are all "non sequiturs" - the conclusion does not follow from the argument. Even if they were all true (and not hyperbole introduced by ignorant scribes not there at the time) , they STILL ALL don't prove that Jesus was the son of God. Lots of good party tricks but that's all they are. The times were ignorant, if Jesus had a simple electric torch, which he could switch on and off, no doubt everyone would have gone "wow this guy really must have the power of God he can create light itself!" . God himself is complicit in all this mumbo jumbo, he himself does not seem to understand what evidence is, his "proofs" through various acts and revelations are not in fact proofs at all. He seems to be uneducated and pretty stupid. Many of his acts pointless others are jealous and selfish and horrible. Take Jesus's curing of lepers. First science has cured a lot more lepers that Jesus ever did. Jesus and God only cured a few, the rest they let to rot. God, whom it is claimed created everything, created leprosy, along with a lot of other horrible diseases, and various torturous forms of suffering that go on every day for all creatures with God. presumably, whistling Dixie and proclaiming "tell them I work in mysterious ways". God is Love, God is Omnipotent, God is Omniscient, Christians claim. Yet the facts of life are ignored, just like they ignore the uglier passages of the Bible. the bible, the Quaran and most other religious texts are the psychobabble of peoples that had no grasp of what is true and what is not true, what is verifiable and what is not. Visions and revelations are nowadays treated with antipsychotics. They are not 'proof' of anything.

That is fair, but afaik I have not seen (or have overlooked) posts that outright state that Kavanaugh is a rapist or assaulter. Rather the tone is similar to yours, i.e. that Ford is believable. Yet early on and before the hearing the opposite is true. Folks have, without evidence stated outright that Ford is lying and is just out to ruin someone's life. And btw. BK was free to state that he forgot. He chose a different approach instead.

If only we had a “federal” group, some sort of “bureau,” one that could be allowed (without interference from the politically powerful) to properly follow up on these issues and run an “investigation” so as to help us extinguish these marginal points of seeming disagreement and social rift. Alas, I’m clearly asking for an unreasonable thing (where’s AG Bonaparte when you need him?). It’s so much easier to keep us fighting and mired in the weeds... penny wise and pound foolish... perceived enemies instead of peers and brothers. We surely agree on 95+ percent of what actually matters, but are more easily controlled when focusing on the 5. I have no interest in helping perpetuate that.

Not at all. You said she didn’t know where. The transcript of her testimony clearly shows she said it was “a house in the Bethesda area … somewhere between my house and the [Columbia] Country Club.” You said she didn’t know when. The transcript of her testimony clearly shows she said she couldn’t remember the exact date, but that it was the same summer when Mark Judge worked at Safeway, most probably 1982. You said she didn’t know who was there. The transcript of her testimony clearly shows she said, “There were four boys I remember being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth, and one other boy whose name I cannot recall. I remember my friend Leland Ingham attending." So, you’re either badly misinformed or here intentionally lying. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and there’s no need for me retract anything. But thanks for making me waste time typing what my links already confirmed. You’re a class act. Shall we keep confirming we have a different opinion on this topic for another 15 pages?

I thought you were paying attention to more than just the propaganda. My apologies for overestimating you. Won’t happen again. EDIT: Better link: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/trump-mockery-ford-testimony-sanders-conway-graham.html

If there is no evidence that existing science based understandings could be wrong there is not a lot to question. When such evidence arises it tends to get addressed - and such evidence does get noticed when it arises; scientific careers can be made out of it. Is the evidence valid and significant enough to overturn existing understandings? How do you know? When scientific understandings are widely applied the opportunities to notice things that don't fit are increased, not decreased; it isn't a matter of constant, deliberate searching for things that don't fit - they are an inevitable outcome of using theories that are wrong. If you make your own personal judgement the basis for accepting a theory as valid - and make your not understanding (or remaining unconvinced) the basis for your rejecting it then you are on very shaky ground. Appeals to authority may be a genuine logical fallacy, but presuming you know better than the experts is a fallacy too and it is the fallacy of the fallacy to think appeals to experts make the experts wrong. What sources have you looked to? Do you have competency in the skills needed to make sense of complex arguments? Do you expect random people on internet forums to convince you and do you claim a widely accepted theory is false if they can't? Perhaps their comprehension is lacking, or perhaps yours. Perhaps they are not very good at explaining. Perhaps they are not able to penetrate a fierce determination to admit no mistake or any lack of comprehension or deviate from an existing belief. Perhaps you need to have the skillset that comes with years of undergraduate study followed by years of post-graduate research.

No you miss the point, and have in all threads so far you have participated in on this matter. God, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny are unscientific explanations, without any empirical evidence to support such mythical concepts. Then you pretend you don't accept any ID and/or god in the next breath. It's not scientific therefor it falls short as any explanation worthy of consideration. My apologies to the mods. This is again off topic. Again well said. We may well still call it a theory, but it is far closer to fact, and I believe its simply force of habit and convention that we still call it a theory.

There is already talk of a third term for PPGOTUS in right wing circles...

Evolution is a fact, not a hypothesis, just like it's a fact that your mother begat you, this is not a hypothesis too. Perhaps before we understood how DNA functions and correlates with with Linnaeun classifications of species, nowadays biological morphology classification of genus, before we understand the genome and it's history, then we might say that Evolution was a hypothesis. There are now simply thousands of facts, independent experiments and perspectives which confirm in broad sweep the FACT of evolution. This does not mean that we cannot improve our understanding of this fact

It's plausible if some politician would like to become dictatorship.. e.g. some party would have to have enough seats in senate and congress to be able change constitution to e.g. indefinitely extend presidential term and/or give him/her supernatural privileges and powers. Minority opposition party would not allow for it, and start rebellion. This is what happened in the Roman Republic twenty centuries ago. One man with too large ego, with too large army and civil support can take entire power in some country, and destroy democracy.

Yes, I stand corrected.

While that's not outside the realm of possibilities, arguably a plausibility, it is not "essentially" doing that. If he is getting neg reps for understanding the difference, where you don't, there is something wrong with that.

But that's their opinion. We shouldn't 'shout down' peoples legitimate opinions with negatives; better to express it with a written response.

Yes ,the glaciers are revealing new bodies, of mountaineers and skiers quite frequently now with them melting. George Mallory's body, who died climbing Everest in 1924 was discovered last year.

In my opinion the problem with the exploitation of Supreme Court is actually rooted in the dysfunction of Congress. Many things which end up decided by the Supreme Court (gun laws, abortion, healthcare taxes, marriage, etc) could be resolved in Congress if members were willing to tackle them. The matters only remain legally ambiguous enough to head to the Supreme Court because Congress intentionally puts them off in hopes that courts will decide. In turn that makes it critical that judges are political ideologues and not apolitical centerists. Neither the portion of the public which follows politics or politicians view justices as impartial. People in the U.S. are resigned to the fact that abortion, gun laws, and etc are court battles rather than legislative ones. This is because in the U.S. democracy itself dysfunctional. Republicans have lost the popular vote on 6 of the last 7 national elections yet control every branch of govt. That shouldn't be possible in a healthy Democratic system. Because Republicans control Congress (have so for a decade) but do not have the popular support of the nation they are unable to advance policy. Instead they work to stall policy and look to the courts much as possible for assistance. Things like legalizied pot, govt managed healthcare, gun control, and etc have overwhelming public support yet Congress won't act and the matters.

I am not quite sure what you mean by an 'angle vector' can you provide an example? Meanwhile consider this. Much use is made in field and potential theory of 'shells' of the quantity of interest. The three variables, [math]{\rm{r,}}\;{\rm{\theta }}\;{\rm{and}}\;{\rm{\varphi }}\;[/math] specify a point on such a shell. The theta and phi specify the direction of the outward normal at that point. As Timo has already pointed out integrating over all space will give a flux through that shell so we can applu Gauss' theorem The thing is that we often wish to go further than this and place an active (test) particle at the specified point. By active I mean that it interacts with the flux passing through the shell so it may have momentum, a magnetic moment or whatever. This interaction needs to be described with another vector, different from the outward normal. (This interaction includes the case of zero net action for a second vector orthogonal to the outward normal.) Differential equations in the three variables [math]{\rm{r,}}\;{\rm{\theta }}\;{\rm{and}}\;{\rm{\varphi }}\;[/math] can often be solved by the method of separation of variables, leading to Legendre's equation for instance. This applies most particularly to Laplace's equation which leads to spherical harmonics when the separation is applied.

Maybe that is a topic up for discussion. Me and my friends talk about masturbation all the time, we don't consider it private. That is subjective view. And yes I believe there is some medical interest in it for me as well so if Staff/Admin could move this question to correct place that would be awesome.

May I ask why you are so interested in publically (discussing) habits most people would consider private? Posting in the lounge suggests this is not a medical (and therefore scientific) interest.

Yep. That’s mature.

How much can you warm the polyurethane parts with say warm air? I assume your release agent is some sort of silicone grease. So can you warm it up and wipe it off? (polyurethane material is good to 100oC Alternatively you could try some liquid siloxane http://dept.harpercollege.edu/chemistry/msds/Silicone oil Fisher.pdf Either way use proper ventilation and safety techniques.

I asked him the same question 8 times, and he never answered and instead simply mitigated around it to complain about the Republican party. Hard to have a debate with someone who just ignores what you say. Well, when you don't press charges(Ford Fault) the constitution doesn't guarantee any form of investigation. Moreover, it's a protection of the people to not simply allow investigations into people without an official reason, because the government will abuse it to simply dig up dirt on people. Look what the Republicans did with Hillary. Millions of dollars wasted on fruitless investigations, simply trying to dig up dirt. It was ridiculous, and I'm not interested in seeing it happen again. If Ford pressed charges against Kavanaugh, she and the Democrats would have had their investigation. However, they didn't. So if they want to complain that they didn't get an investigation it will fall on deaf ears for me. The reason they didn't want an investigation is that they knew they wouldn't have found anything based on sexual assault. There was not enough evidence to even investigate for a week, all they could do is simply interview people for character witnesses. The Senate publicly interviewed Kavanaugh and Ford, the FBI didn't need to. Instead, the Democrats wanted an unofficial investigation into Kavanaugh. Not because they wanted the truth about sexual assault, but because they wanted to dig up dirt on him elsewhere. In the U.S, if you're in trial and an investigation is conducted, only things that are found relating to the incident can be used. Otherwise, again, government abuse of power. So all the other dirt Democrats could have found, much of which I suspect would have been speculative(like Fords), wouldn't have been usable. And the Democrats didn't need that. They needed an excuse to simply investigate Kavanaugh without restrictions to try and do everything they could to frame him as a terrible guy to the American public. If it were allowed for investigations to be done without due process, trust me, they'd never get to the end of it. Again, simply refer to Hillary, the Republicans always found a convenient "lead" at the end of it that required them to do more investigations, and they'd scream and cry like children if they didn't get it. That should be illegal in my opinion, but it isn't. The exact same thing would happen with the Democrats. They'd call for an open investigation, they'd find nothing, and then at the end, they've found a convenient "lead" that simply mandates they do another investigation into that charge. And so on and so on. It creates a never-ending cycle where the Democrats would never be happy with the results until they found something to completely destroy the man with, just as the Republicans were never happy with the results. Now, you can disregard my entire argument with "Democrats would never do this" however I assure you they would. Donald Trump, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the supreme court, are steeped in partisan politics that results in just this type of behavior. IT's more important than ever to look at both sides objectively. It allows you to realize the overall strategy easily when you're no longer with a particular side and looking for why they're right. When you look at it objectively and don't assume that one party is simply above doing something, everything they do makes almost perfectly logical sense.

Ten oz. I am sure you think that sounds good, but it just demonstrates that after 19 pages you still don't get the main point with regard to rush to judgement, disregard for due process as we know it, and the presumption of innocence as we know it. Regardless of strategy, honesty, or who is guilty, what Hirono said, implied, and did not qualify...it is a dangerous position that you seem to be advocating. You seem to think that you can turn it on or off for reasons you feel are appropriate. Can you not at least understand that if these fundamental "changes to the status quo" are made, you might not get to choose when and how they are applied...those in power will.

Okie dokie

The Discovery of Neptune | How Le Verrier used Newtonian Mechanics to predict another planet? The Discovery of Neptune in 1846 is regarded as one of the most legendary moments in the consolidation of classical mechanics. Discovering a distant world in the darkness of space by the use of mathematical reasoning became one of the late triumphs of the Enlightenment and Newton's vision. Sorry I'm not a mathematician. The previous video should explain. But let me continue with my mainstream education of you....Newtonian mechanics besides being instrumental and responsible for the discovery of Neptune, is also used in near all space endeavours by NASA and other agencies...particularly the Voyager 1 and 2 rendezvous with 2 and 4 planets respectively. I find it rather ironic that you with your continued misinterpretations, denials and obtuseness, should question me about logic. The irony meter has blown up!

You are in total denial. Uranus'anomaly was predicted to be due to another planet, which using Newtonian mechanics was mathematically pin pointed before it was observed. As Newtonian predicted! If on the other hand, no planet was found to exist in that spot, doubt would have been thrown on the accuracy of Newtonian. Actually Newtonian's limited accuracy was illustrated by the precession in the orbit of Mercury, which was explained by GR in 1919.

The idea of demanding an investigation was to delay the appointment till after the election, when the voting balance might be different. Of course, Kavanaugh didn't want that. That explains the timing of the claims as well. They were only thwarted by the quickie nature of the investigation, which defeated their objective, and that's the reason that they were screaming so loud about it. Cunning plan dashed.