Zeropoint

I'd like to take this moment to repeat that, in my opinion as an IT and cybersecurity professional, elections should be paper and ink only.  No hackable voting machines, no badly written caucus apps, no easily deleted centralized databases.  Ever.  The mere existence of these opaque technologies can only reduce the perceived legitimacy of any election.

By world standards, Bernie Sanders IS centrist.
 
Feel the Bern!

By world standards, Bernie Sanders IS centrist.
 
Feel the Bern!

By world standards, Bernie Sanders IS centrist.
 
Feel the Bern!

Not even the return of Seven of Nine will do that.  If they had focused on Ryker commanding The Titan with a few characters from Deep Space Nine and Voyager it would have kept the franchise going, especially if they skipped Enterprise and Star Trek Nemesis.  What we get now it Zombie Entertainment.  The mindless body of our beloved Series and Movies hungering for rating or box office only to be shot in the head by the utter indifference of the audience.
 
 

What radical elements? The ones that think that taxation should return to Eisenhower levels? The ones that think that cops should be penalized for bad behavior? That health care shouldn't be for-profit? That violent people shouldn't have access to guns? That corporations shouldn't be allowed to ruin the environment (or the economy) for their own profit? That the government should provide some sort of post-secondary education? That we fight in too many damn wars? That corporations get subsidized for doing what they would do anyway?  That government should help people that need help? That all US citizens should be allowed to vote?

Not only does BMI completely fail to account for variations in lean muscle mass and differences in build, it is also biased against tall people: it measures mass divided by height squared, when (proportions being equal) mass should track with height cubed. Also, because of the square-cube law, taller people need to have proportionally thicker limbs to maintain the same strength to weight ratio. With a height of 6' 4", I don't think I could get down to a "normal" BMI without looking kind of scrawny . . . and BMI says I'd have to get down to 151 pounds before I'd be considered "underweight". That's absurd.

Not only does BMI completely fail to account for variations in lean muscle mass and differences in build, it is also biased against tall people: it measures mass divided by height squared, when (proportions being equal) mass should track with height cubed. Also, because of the square-cube law, taller people need to have proportionally thicker limbs to maintain the same strength to weight ratio. With a height of 6' 4", I don't think I could get down to a "normal" BMI without looking kind of scrawny . . . and BMI says I'd have to get down to 151 pounds before I'd be considered "underweight". That's absurd.

But we did know of his strong anti-intellectualism and the way he managed to run more than one casino into bankruptcy and the way he managed to make a New York real estate business have worse ROI than an index fund. We knew he didn't care for best practices and that this disdain hurt his operations.
 
 
His fixation on the Central Park Five and his continuing insistence on their guilt after their exoneration clearly demonstrated his refusal to accept evidence.
 
 
Uh . . . I can only assume that you, not being American, didn't pay much attention to his presidential campaign. His virulent racism was quite openly displayed. We watched him "inflame the social and racial divisions within American society to his own benefit" during that campaign. That was his main strategy.
 
 
His disregard for the law was evident. I don't know why anyone would expect that he'd treat the Constitution any differently.
 
 
He was well known as a fraudster and someone who refused to honor agreements when there was a financial benefit to be had. New York contractors made no secret of including a "Trump tax" in their dealings with him to ensure they got paid enough up front, because they knew he'd refuse to pay the rest of the bill after the work was done.
 
 
I'll give you . . . half of this. It's true that we didn't know just how much power Russia has over him, but we did know he was in bed with them.
 
 
Like the snake in the old story, we knew what he was when we picked him up. Anyone who expected him to dramatically change who he is and how he operates just because he got elected was a fool.

Trump's presidential term hasn't revealed anything about him that we didn't already know. I absolutely can and do blame Americans who voted for him the first time, because we--the nation, collectively--had all the information we needed to know exactly who and what he was. The people who voted for him did so out of either a willful and culpable choice to remain ignorant of his qualities, or awareness of those qualities couple with a decision that those qualities were either excusable or even desirable. No one is in a position to say, "Yeah, he's bad, but I didn't know." We all knew. The people who voted for him knew what they were voting for.

But we did know of his strong anti-intellectualism and the way he managed to run more than one casino into bankruptcy and the way he managed to make a New York real estate business have worse ROI than an index fund. We knew he didn't care for best practices and that this disdain hurt his operations.
 
 
His fixation on the Central Park Five and his continuing insistence on their guilt after their exoneration clearly demonstrated his refusal to accept evidence.
 
 
Uh . . . I can only assume that you, not being American, didn't pay much attention to his presidential campaign. His virulent racism was quite openly displayed. We watched him "inflame the social and racial divisions within American society to his own benefit" during that campaign. That was his main strategy.
 
 
His disregard for the law was evident. I don't know why anyone would expect that he'd treat the Constitution any differently.
 
 
He was well known as a fraudster and someone who refused to honor agreements when there was a financial benefit to be had. New York contractors made no secret of including a "Trump tax" in their dealings with him to ensure they got paid enough up front, because they knew he'd refuse to pay the rest of the bill after the work was done.
 
 
I'll give you . . . half of this. It's true that we didn't know just how much power Russia has over him, but we did know he was in bed with them.
 
 
Like the snake in the old story, we knew what he was when we picked him up. Anyone who expected him to dramatically change who he is and how he operates just because he got elected was a fool.

But we did know of his strong anti-intellectualism and the way he managed to run more than one casino into bankruptcy and the way he managed to make a New York real estate business have worse ROI than an index fund. We knew he didn't care for best practices and that this disdain hurt his operations.
 
 
His fixation on the Central Park Five and his continuing insistence on their guilt after their exoneration clearly demonstrated his refusal to accept evidence.
 
 
Uh . . . I can only assume that you, not being American, didn't pay much attention to his presidential campaign. His virulent racism was quite openly displayed. We watched him "inflame the social and racial divisions within American society to his own benefit" during that campaign. That was his main strategy.
 
 
His disregard for the law was evident. I don't know why anyone would expect that he'd treat the Constitution any differently.
 
 
He was well known as a fraudster and someone who refused to honor agreements when there was a financial benefit to be had. New York contractors made no secret of including a "Trump tax" in their dealings with him to ensure they got paid enough up front, because they knew he'd refuse to pay the rest of the bill after the work was done.
 
 
I'll give you . . . half of this. It's true that we didn't know just how much power Russia has over him, but we did know he was in bed with them.
 
 
Like the snake in the old story, we knew what he was when we picked him up. Anyone who expected him to dramatically change who he is and how he operates just because he got elected was a fool.

But we did know of his strong anti-intellectualism and the way he managed to run more than one casino into bankruptcy and the way he managed to make a New York real estate business have worse ROI than an index fund. We knew he didn't care for best practices and that this disdain hurt his operations.
 
 
His fixation on the Central Park Five and his continuing insistence on their guilt after their exoneration clearly demonstrated his refusal to accept evidence.
 
 
Uh . . . I can only assume that you, not being American, didn't pay much attention to his presidential campaign. His virulent racism was quite openly displayed. We watched him "inflame the social and racial divisions within American society to his own benefit" during that campaign. That was his main strategy.
 
 
His disregard for the law was evident. I don't know why anyone would expect that he'd treat the Constitution any differently.
 
 
He was well known as a fraudster and someone who refused to honor agreements when there was a financial benefit to be had. New York contractors made no secret of including a "Trump tax" in their dealings with him to ensure they got paid enough up front, because they knew he'd refuse to pay the rest of the bill after the work was done.
 
 
I'll give you . . . half of this. It's true that we didn't know just how much power Russia has over him, but we did know he was in bed with them.
 
 
Like the snake in the old story, we knew what he was when we picked him up. Anyone who expected him to dramatically change who he is and how he operates just because he got elected was a fool.

What, in terms of what it says is possible and how most of us understand it, is the difference between magic and general relativity? Quantum physics? Multi-dimensional geometry? These are indisputably the product of reason. They're logical, they're mathematically describable; but most of us can't relate them to our perception of reality, and have to take the word of "experts" that they make sense.
 
But please note, I never said that religion is never unreasonable -- it's obvious that its adherents can be very unreasonable, and never more obviously than lately. I only pointed out that reasonable people can have faith, and reason alone can't refute the premises of religion.

It's dumb but I kind of want one.

Streaming services would be great if there were ONE, with all content (at least all that a particular viewer were interested in), for less than what cable costs.
 
When there are a dozen streaming services, and a viewer's desired content is spread across them all, and their aggregate cost is the same or greater than a cable subscription . . . welp, we're right back to pirating being the optimal solution.

Maybe gods don't intervene directly in the mortal world because they're too powerful; or from their perspective, the mortal plane and all that lives there is just too delicate.
 
What would happen if Godzilla tried to fight crime or help at a soup kitchen in downtown Tokyo? Godzilla's mere presence in your city causes massive damage, tens of millions of dollars worth of loss, and probably some injury and death. Even when he's on your side, you don't want him showing up in your home city unless things are VERY dire.
 
How much more powerful is a god than a Godzilla?

Maybe gods don't intervene directly in the mortal world because they're too powerful; or from their perspective, the mortal plane and all that lives there is just too delicate.
 
What would happen if Godzilla tried to fight crime or help at a soup kitchen in downtown Tokyo? Godzilla's mere presence in your city causes massive damage, tens of millions of dollars worth of loss, and probably some injury and death. Even when he's on your side, you don't want him showing up in your home city unless things are VERY dire.
 
How much more powerful is a god than a Godzilla?

I want services from the government. In fact, I want MORE services from the government. I also happen to be perfectly aware that this will require the government to collect more tax revenue (and/or reduce military spending by being less enthusiastic about killing people overseas).
 
However, I'm also aware that the very rich and big business are not paying their fair share of the tax burden. We, as a nation, do not need to raise the tax burden on the middle class or the poor to raise revenue. We can get all the money we need by raising taxes on people who can easily afford it--and who, as demographic groups, were paying far more tax back in the '50s that the right likes so much.

This is a good example of why a voluntary taxation scheme or opt-out system is a very bad idea. All of us, including you, ScottishFox, benefit every day from the advantages of an educated populace. That you would only be interested in paying for the education system when it directly benefits you and yours is disgustingly selfish. Would you also argue that if you don't drive, none of your taxes should go to roads?

This is a good example of why a voluntary taxation scheme or opt-out system is a very bad idea. All of us, including you, ScottishFox, benefit every day from the advantages of an educated populace. That you would only be interested in paying for the education system when it directly benefits you and yours is disgustingly selfish. Would you also argue that if you don't drive, none of your taxes should go to roads?

This is a good example of why a voluntary taxation scheme or opt-out system is a very bad idea. All of us, including you, ScottishFox, benefit every day from the advantages of an educated populace. That you would only be interested in paying for the education system when it directly benefits you and yours is disgustingly selfish. Would you also argue that if you don't drive, none of your taxes should go to roads?

This is a good example of why a voluntary taxation scheme or opt-out system is a very bad idea. All of us, including you, ScottishFox, benefit every day from the advantages of an educated populace. That you would only be interested in paying for the education system when it directly benefits you and yours is disgustingly selfish. Would you also argue that if you don't drive, none of your taxes should go to roads?

This is a good example of why a voluntary taxation scheme or opt-out system is a very bad idea. All of us, including you, ScottishFox, benefit every day from the advantages of an educated populace. That you would only be interested in paying for the education system when it directly benefits you and yours is disgustingly selfish. Would you also argue that if you don't drive, none of your taxes should go to roads?