EdEarl

4 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Technically yes, but sometimes no. Ground is also a conductor (albeit a poor one). When a live high voltage conductor contacts the ground, there's a voltage drop radiating outward from the source, hence voltage is present. If a person was standing near the point of contact it's safe, yet walking away (in strides) can kill you.

This is known as Step Potential.

Electricity used in homes is unlikely to create a fatal step potential. But caution is always warranted when using electricity, especially around water.

The democrats ask for too little, they should have said they wanted lunches for school children, and several other things. Then they might get a few things in compromise. Even if the republicans shut down the government, the dems would appear to be stronger. ATM it seems like the dems are helping the republicans.

For safety, electric circuits are grounded, which means two of the wires on a 3 prong electric plug are attached to a 3 meter rod driven into the ground. It is sometimes called Earth ground.

PS that's a standard 120v ac circuit in the US. 240v ac may be three prong with one prong ground. I think most 240 circuits will have four prong plugs, with two connected to ground

27 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Thank you. 

This holds for the entire United States, not just California right?

I mostly agree, but what do you mean by gentle justice?

My opinion also lies in the fact there are resources designated to helping immigrants. If we divert a portion of those resources to helping illegal immigrants other then those who didn't have a choice but to come here, that's unfair to legal immigrants.

The problem is not money. Hell, the US has a military that is about 10 times as large as any other in the world. It is a cash cow for the military industrial complex, and pleases paranoids. We throw away enough good food to feed every hungry person in the US. People drive half a block to get a cup of coffee. We waste enough to provide for a another country.

4 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Looking at that it seems like it's referencing to legal immigrants, could you point to which chapter and/or study dealing with illegal immigrants crime rates?

 

 

It could. But it'd only work if you agreed to not deport someone if they're blackmailed. At which point in my mind, it becomes counter-intuitive. 

I'd much rather see illegal immigration discouraged. 

 

I'm proposing to make it easier to get into the country while allowing more people in a year.

Making there even less of a reason to immigrate illegally. 

I believe some illegal immigrants are ignorant of our laws, and hopeful they will be treated better than where they came from. I think treating them as criminals, rather than desperate people who need help is inhumane. I'm not suggesting they should be welcomed as if they came legally, merely asking for a bit of gentle justice. If a know criminal is caught, by all means put them in jail.

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

That may be true for the criminal, but clearly, you have to note someone who came here illegally is more likely to commit crimes.

If they're here illegally they're blackmailed, scammed, and numerous other terrible things simply because they can't really go to the authorities for help because they're here illegally.

If anything we should make the immigration process easier, increase the number of immigrants allowed a year, but keep the idea that illegal immigration is illegal.

Could the law be changed so people could not be blackmailed for entering the US without permission?

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

I see what you meant. Some governments might be pissed off not getting money from taxes, when everything is given for free, exchanged by citizens for free..

 

Some governments evict people from their home if they cannot pay taxes.

Yes

Let's hope whoever makes the decision is not a paranoid sociopath.

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Is it?

We don't have a view of the future to know what our decisions will cause; thus, we cannot know for certain. However, we have made ethical choices to the best of our ability, and I judge actions based on mine. To the best of my ability, Trumps immigration policies are rotten.

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

Should the Democratic party hold the line and fight to protect DACA?

Sure, they need some purpose and it is the decent thing to do.

If it weren't for immigration, Trump would not be president.

If it weren't for immigration, 90% of native Americans would not have died from European diseases.

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Nature doesn't design, it solves...

OK, sorry for being politically incorrect.

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It does seem to be an emotional issue; legal immigration is seen as a benefit to society (with no means to judge) whilst illegal immigration is seen as a drain on society (with no means to judge).

A criminal is likely to create trouble whether they come in legally or illegally. However, a Dr. who comes into the US without papers cannot practice medicine; thus, the US cannot benefit from that skilled person. I think the laws are biased towards causing more trouble than good.

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Technically, you have a point, but in the context of this thread, do you? 

I said the following:

On 1/17/2018 at 8:09 PM, EdEarl said:

The very best robot a team of humans can design and make is no comparison to a human. It's not even as good as comparing  a wax orange to a real apple. 

I implied nature was the better designer. Now I am undecided.

Immigration is an emotional issue that divides people into groups that have less power than all of us together. As such, it is being used by the Republicans to stay in power. As Phi said, the US is a nation of immigrants. As Sensei said, the whole world is full of immigrants. As DNA shows, we are all human and there are no races. Our current battle is with politicians and the people who bribe them legally. That law is immoral as is racism. Damn propaganda!

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

That really has mixed the definitions, if you think evolution makes decisions...

I didn't say evolution makes decisions, but considered both that it did and that decisions making was done by an agent evolution created. Both possibilities seem reasonable from one viewpoint or another. I'll let others decide for themselves.

My thoughts about this subject have changed.

Evolution begins with totally random experiments, that evolve life. Life changes evolution because life strives to exist and can make decisions based on conditions. Some decisions will induce changes faster than evolution would find them randomly.

20 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

They're going to need, time, resources and land; to do all that.

Even if the labor is effectively free, the other inputs will cost.

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If the labour is free there are no subsidising others, therefore any other cost is the same for all humans, so irrelevant. 

As dimreeper said, material cost is irrelevant. However, let us suppose that some owner decided to charge for something taken from his property. What can be done.

The robots can make underwater mining equipment and scour the ocean floor for free resources.

The robots can recycle everything and reuse.

The robots might make sea going hexagonal interconnecting barges to float around the equator, manufacture soil from ocean mud, grow things for food, build billions of apartments on the barges, and house humanity. There are no great storms on the equator since there is no Coriolis effect. If for some reason people use up the Earth, the bots can make a Dyson swarm of habitats using asteroids for raw materials. Robot labor makes things possible that are difficult, perhaps impossible, to imagine.

There is about 149M km² land on Earth. The equator is about 30,000 km long. Building barges 250 km north and south of the equator (500 km) would add about 10% livable surface to the Earth. Building up would be enough to put the world's population around the equator.

Bluetooth 5 support 40-400m distances. Each connection is based on a 48-bit code of each device, and spread spectrum is used to assure connections do not interfere with one another. Theoretically it is possible to select a device by its code from billions nearby. One computer can communicate with seven other Bluetooth devices at a time.

1 minute ago, Endy0816 said:

Personally I think a merger is more likely though. Generally we all get up in arms, but then the new world ends up looking alot like the old one.

For most of human history as I understand, jobs were rare and people bartered. By saying the new world ends up looking like the old one that we will be bartering again?

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

That really shouldn't be a politician's job. 

Sometimes I think we would be better off to fire them all.

2 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

They're going to need, time, resources and land; to do all that.

Even if the labor is effectively free, the other inputs will cost.

There are two extremes, everyone gets a handout of necessities from Earth's resources or at least some people starve to death. I expect AI will manage to keep everyone with necessities if possible, rather than let people starve. How they do it is beyond my ability to predict. Another possibility is that AI will leave us for a life in space and we cause a mass extinction.

My expectation is that AI will keep us around because we are a link to their existence, as a souvenir. And, since it is easy, keep all of us and prevent mass extinction. We are potty trained and will work to help survive and thrive.

I've no access to her shows, and when I did have access, I didn't watch her.

Politicians and actors have similar jobs, to make fantasy seem real.

Celebrities have their lives exposed, and suffer lies. I have little evidence, sometimes hear and hope I don't repeat untruths.