Leaderboard

Starting in the summer of 2016 it was popularly known that Russia was trying to influence the election in Trump's favor. There was numerous media reporting on it. Here is a Wired report From June of 2016 detailing the DNC hack. As the media were reporting on what was happening Trump aggressively denied the reports. Repeatedly Trump publicly argued that China or anyone else may have been responsible for the hacks. During this same time, summer of 2016, Trump won the nominee and was provided Secret Service protection well as security briefs. Candidate Trump was briefed by U.S. intelligence that the Russia was responsible for cyber attacks against Democrats. Candidate Trump continued to publicly claim it could be China. On Oct. 7th 2016 the Intelligence community released a Joint Agency statement saying Russia had cyber attacked Democrats in an attempt to influence the election. Trump continued to deny it. As President Trump continued to deny Russia's involved and pushed back against attempts by Congress to apply sanctions against Russia in response. Trump even stood at a podium just several months ago next to Putin and said he did not see any reason why Russia would have interfered and that he believed Putin. The Mueller report, which we have not seen, isn't claimed to exonerate Trump of lying to the U.S. public for years about Russian interference. It is claimed that Trump himself didn't knowingly coordinate his efforts with Russia. Do you not believe there are any other relevant ethical questions left to be answered? You honestly do not believe that Trump lying about the intelligence aided in Russia's operation? Do you honestly think it is acceptable for a candidate or President to so brazenly ignore National Intelligence and lie to the public? Under Trump's leadership nothing has been done to educate the public about Russia propaganda. Nothing has been done to protect against further attack. You characterize the Mueller Report as "unprovable" allegations yet it investigated real crimes. Whether or not Trump was knowingly involved in conspiracy doesn't negate that the attacks happened, by design were meant to help Trump, and that Trump and his team knowingly have misled the public about it for years.

Time always passes at one second per second, period, in your own frame of reference. It is only when observing the passage of time in another frame that dilation and length contraction occurs. And in that other frame, according to whoever resides there, he or she will like you see time also passing at one second per second in that frame. Like you though, if he observes your passage of time, he will see it dilated and length contracted. Each frame of reference is as valid as the other.

Just bought a new router, and learned how to boost the WiFi signal. Thought I'd share it. Indoor WiFi uses a weak radio signal (I knew that), so to get the best usage, you need to know where to put the router, and how to adjust your antenna(s). The antenna(s) broadcast in the opposite angle of themselves. If they point upwards (vertical), they transmit horizontal. Like this: So to cover the most of your house, you'll need two antennas forming an "L" shape, like this: The best place to put the router is in the middle of the house, elevated with air around it - never hidden away, and preferably not close to any electric devises, like a monitor/screen. Your security settings can also influence the WiFi performance. The most optimal setting to use is: WPA2 - AES If you choose other settings, it will slow down your speed significantly. Hope this was useful to some of you. PS. Remember that all new routers have the same default login and password, so remember to change it, or anyone can hack your network and abuse it!

After Benghazi there was an FBI investigation, Five House Committee investigations, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigation, State Department Accountability Review Board review, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs investigation, and a House Select Committee investigation. There were 33 public hearing held. Hillary Clinton and the Sec. of Defense testified under oath publicly. Nothing was discovered. Hillary Clinton's emails saw a FBI investigation, Internal State Department investigation, a Senate probe into possible interference by the Attorney General, and a Senate Judiciary Committee inquiry into the Attorney General. Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the FBI Directory all testified publicly under oath. Nothing was discovered. The Mueller Investigation was initiated by Trump's own DOJ. Not by Democrats. It has led to over 30 indictments including members of Trump's team (Flynn, Cohen, Manafort, Gates, etc). Several individuals have plead guilty to felonies. Trump was never directly questioned by Mueller and has provided squat in the way of public testimony of any kind.

no shit...

If it exonerates him then why hide anything? If it exonerates him as claimed then it won't contain 'un provable' allegations will it? If they had been aloud to investigate properly rather than only being restricted to interviewing certain people maybe they could have 'proved' the allegations false or true or whatever the natural run of a fair investigation would have throw up. If you are going to cover it all up then it just looks like a farce... especially when you look at their track record for straight out lying.

Good explanation. +1 Note that the photon is not a valid frame of reference in relativity. As far as I know the math of SR and GR does not describe what is happening from the photons point of view.

One misunderstanding in how you think of natural selection; Mutations arise randomly (although not entirely with equal chances (some nucleotide's have a larger chance of mutating etc, yet it still remains random)), any mutation which is better for that organism in that environment has a higher chance to spread through the population. The mutations do not form in response to the environment. So let's say that I have a stack of cards, if I randomly arrange, then sometimes I will build (part of) a house of cards right? There is no reason why this house of cards has formed, but if it turns out that this configuration is beneficial it will spread. Mutations can give both benefits and negatives so it is possible for a particular set of mutations to come together. And while over time things that serve no purpose will eventually die off, it doesn't mean that, by chance, an organism with a currently useless feature cannot thrive. -Dagl Edit: I think that a more detailed explanation/discussion is necessary as it most likely is better to walk through the entire thing in more detail but I am currently not in a position to do so (and a little distracted with some other stuff).

Hmm, so to be sure I am not misunderstanding your question, but you wonder how the initial eye development (for instance) would start? I will give an example (which most likely isn't true, but I feel like it should give a conceptual idea of progression from 0% to 0.0000001%): Let's say we have, through random variation, the first production of a protein which imports calcium through the membrane of the cell. After a while, through more variation this protein is changed ever so slightly and now reacts to light; only letting calcium through after it has been hit by light, this change does not provide any benefit yet but let's now say that high concentrations of calcium lead to inhibition of the movement apparatus, now this organism will move towards light as the movement apparatus on the "dark" side will be more active due to lower amounts of calcium. Maybe places with light have a larger amount of food and this organism will be fitter than its peers. That could be a conceptual beginning of the eye, slight changes which lead to more and more complex mechanisms that react to light, with each step of the way increasing the fitness or maintaining the fitness of the organism. Slowly over time this organism may be able to evade predators more easily due to its eye or find food better than without an eye. Does that answer your question or did I completely miss the mark here? -Dagl Edit: fixed sentence

Your immune system kills living microorganisms cells the all day long to protect you against bacteria..

Do you think this is an accurate or descriptive way to depict those concerned with climate change, that they march behind some kind of popular banner? I've looked into climate science and read enough expert findings to trust that we need active measures to reduce the impact of what humans have already done, and I really don't need somebody to raise a "banner" to follow. I suppose I resent such an image because it implies a kind of mindlessness, a willingness to follow a piece of cloth rather than an ideal you've researched and followed to its conclusions.

Since vegetarianism is well-known, can I assume you include eating plants as cruel (to the plants)? I think, at some point, you need to recognize the necessity for the biological process of nourishment, and resolve to minimize the cruelty involved in your eating behavior. Honor the meat by preparing it well, thank the plants for sustaining you. Make the very necessary process meaningful for yourself. Your present perspective can never be positive. If you look at natural nourishment as cruel murder, you're going to make yourself sick.

I think people are a bit cavalier about uses and implications of Planck units. The Planck mass, for example, is about 20 micrograms, and correspondingly the Planck energy is about 2 GigaJoules, but there is no question about there being smaller units of mass or energy. As one approaches the Planck scale, one needs a quantum theory of gravity if one wishes to discuss gravity. I'm not sure of the extrapolations one can make beyond that. However, time is part of relativity, so one implication would be that you can't intelligently discuss intervals smaller than the Planck time without a quantum theory of gravity being involved, and we don't have one.

Ahh my bad, I was arguing from the assumption that there are basically a near infinite amount of "events" happening and that thus we would almost always see a certain configuration. But I understand your point and see that it is never a certainty (However I don't think that should matter for the evolution debate, as there are enough events happening for us to say that the calcium-pump protein will at some point come to exist right?) Fair enough, thanks for the improvement!

I'm still waiting for anything that shows that GDPR actually caused a problem.

Regarding the alleged plenty of scientific evidence and experiments confirming the special and general relativity, the summary list of which is presented in the article "What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?", available on the link: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html , it is not possible to treat this list of experiments as confirmation of the truth of the SR. A significant part of the experiments quoted there concerns the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and many other similar experiments. In any case, these experiments can not be a confirmation of the truth of Special Relativity, because in fact their null results are due to the Doppler effect, and not from the alleged contraction of the longitudinal arm of the interferometer as the SR claims. Another large part of the experiments cited in that article concerns the delaying of clocks (light clocks !) in motion, which is also not a relativistic effect, because the delay of light clocks results directly from classical physics. The mathematical proof in this regard is presented in the article available on the link: URL deleted It must be emphasized here that presenting GPS as the SR proof is unfounded. The required factory offset for clocks in GPS satellites is entirely based on classical physics. It is also worth noting that a significant part of the description contained in the article, refers to "Experiments that Apparently are NOT Consistent with SR / GR", which in itself does not require additional comments.