Ten oz

As if there is something wrong with studying. We should all strive to be life long students.

Trump or one of his companies were plaintiffs in 1,900 lawsuit many of which were for defamation. Many of his defamation suits just be B.S. like the suit against former Trump University student Tarla Makaeff, after she joined the class action lawsuit and publicized her classroom experiences on social media. Trump University was later ordered by a U.S. District Judge in April 2015 to pay Makaeff and her lawyers $798,774.24 in legal fees and costs. Trump is also a notorious user of non-disclosure agreements. A tool he uses to throttle friends, family, and employees ability to speak about him openly and honestly. As President he regularly attacks the media and only gives interview to friendly pundits. It is pretty obvious that Trump DOES give a damn about the false narratives and image being projected. iNow took that time to provide you a response which included information to support the claim of contradiction. Lets you can do is be respectful enough to address the merits. Vague snarky questions about board issues which weren't referenced are not useful.

Do you have a citation for this? I already provided evidence to the contrary. I am not being argumentative; I just haven't seen this in any of the research I have done.

Yeah, who needs people that are actually subject matter experts and good at their job....

Dems lost over a thousand seats nationally during Obama's tenure. That didn't mean Obama lost any of his supporters.

True, however those who gave him higher approval post Election in December didn't necessarily vote for him. Approval for every President initially rises post Election day as people both search for catharsis and don't want to be sore losers; the later being something Trump supporters often play up. In my opinion the question is whether or not those who voted for him in 2016 wouldn't today if they had the choice again and it doesn't seem like a significant amount of them would vote any different which means his support (real voting support) is nearly unchanged. Hopefully I am wrong.

Raider5678's comment was that many of those who "originally supported Trump" no longer do. That references Election day support? Trump is as favorable today or more so than he was at any point leading up to election day or on election day itself. None of his "original" support seems to have changed. In context to what I'm responding to I think I am being accurate?

True, however most of any group does not commit suicide. Even among people working in careers with the highest rates of suicide it is only 85 per 100,000 thousand who commit suicide. I think calling something a "bad predictor" because most don't do it is too simple. Clearly certain groups have higher rates and with those groups there needs to be more focus. "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that farmers, lumberjacks and fishermen kill themselves most often. High rates were also seen in carpenters, miners, electricians and people who work in construction. Mechanics were close behind, according to the study, which showed enormous differences of suicide rates across jobs." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/these-jobs-have-the-highest-rate-of-suicide/ Is it the best researched part; do you have a citation? For starters antidepressants might induce suicidal behavior in some patients (link below). To receive antidepressants in the first place one must have access to healthcare. In those cases the treatment from mental health care professionals itself might be a risk factor. Additionally if we look at careers with the highest rates of suicide it is clear economic status (a good predictor of access to healthcare) isn't a definitive factor. For example Police and Fire Fighters have more than double the suicide rate of cooks and food service workers yet we all know Police and Fire Fighters as local govt employees receive more pay and benefits. Doctors themselves have double the suicide rate of barbers. Surely Doctors have more access to care than Barbers? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC193979/ If this hypothesis were true than doesn't that make introspection itself a risk factor since the way one views their situation is purely relative? Like the old Chris Rock joke goes; Oprah would kill herself if she only had the amount of money I have. BTW, the speculative nature of multiple hypotheses is why I put the thread I posted in speculation. Doctors and Policeman commit suicide at higher rates than cooks and barbers. I do not believe low income is an accurate risk factor. Also I think drug abuse is too large an umbrella. Daily heroin use is probably a much greater risk factor than daily marijuana. It this hypothesis is correct why are the suicide rates for white females increasing while the suicide rate for black males in decreasing? It is also worth noting that white women have a higher average salary than black males. I mention it becomes you listed low income as a risk factor. Citation showing salary by race and gender below. "The number of suicides increased among all racial groups except for black males, who saw an 8 percent decline in suicide rate from 10.5 to 9.7 per 100,000 between 1999 and 2014. Native Americans had the sharpest rise of all racial and ethnic groups, with rates rising 89 percent for women and 38 percent for men. Suicide rates among white women and white men increased 60 percent and 28 percent, respectively, and white middle-aged women had an increase of 80 percent." https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate-surges-to-a-30-year-high.html Salary by gender and race: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/01/racial-gender-wage-gaps-persist-in-u-s-despite-some-progress/ I disagree with the risk factors outlined for the above stated reasons.

Trump's favorable/unfavorable is better today than it was on election day. https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html We can play around with which dates to look at but ultimately Trump have more favorable polling or at least as good today than he did at any point leading up to election day.

While the odds of this President using Nuclear Weapons is far greater than that of his predecessor it isn't the only risk. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan saw hundreds of thousands die and no Nuclear Weapons were used. It doesn't take the worst case scenario to achieve terrible results. He lost the popular vote by 3 million. Not exactly. The U.S. doesn't have a direct representation system for President. I rather see my fellow citizens rise up and remove him or at the very least take control of Congress and contain him before we get to that point.

I started a thread about Male suicide a couple years ago: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92821-white-male-mortality-in-the-us/ It is an interesting issue. There has been a measurable increase in suicide. Specific among white males. I researched it a bit in the past but never got to a place where I understood why or even had any good theories. That is why I put the thread I made in Speculation. Your specific question in this thread is about a possible relationship between suicide and sexism. I don't think sexism is a large factor as race seems to play a bigger role and sexism exists across racial lines. "In 2015, the highest U.S. suicide rate (15.1) was among Whites and the second highest rate (12.6) was among American Indians and Alaska Natives (Figure 5). Much lower and roughly similar rates were found among Asians and Pacific Islanders (6.4), and Blacks (5.6)." https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/

Do on to others as you'd have them do unto you is a comically simply standard of behavior everyone over the age of 5 understands. The way the President is treating world leaders, media, and anyone who doesn't kiss his @ss is in a manner no one wants done unto them. The presidents even abuses his own staff via twitter: challenging Sec of State Tillerson to an IQ test, saying he should fire Attorney General Sessions, trashing FBI Deputy Director Mcabe, and etc. The behavior is terrible. It goes beyond any degree of partisan grandstanding. The President is actually, not just rhetorically, a sick person. The threat having leaders who exhibit the behaviors Trump exhibits is dangerous. History has proven it again and again and again. This will not end well for the United States and everyone who cares about the United States more so than the Republican Party should be outraged.

It isn't just Republican vs Democrat. The current administration takes an angrily divisive approach with leaders around the world threatening to hurt then whether through economic or purely violent means. "President Trump suggested on Wednesday that the United States could withhold foreign aid for countries that vote in favor of a United Nations (U.N.) resolution calling on the U.S. to withdraw its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Speaking at a Cabinet meeting, Trump echoed a comment made by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley a day earlier, saying that the U.S. would take stock of the countries that voted for the resolution, which is set to go before the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday"

It seems like more people dislike him but the polling doesn't show it. Also Trump was never well liked in the first place. He lost the popular vote and held high unfavorable ratings all Election season. So I think there is a certain amount of confirmation bias at play when people saying "more" people dislike him.

Post 9/11 people rallied around the President. Bush had overwhelming support for about a year.

Define "many". His base appears to be holding solid in polling. If you go to Real Clear Politics which average all polls Trump's approval has been 38% +/-2 since the last fall.

Many people claim both sides do it to come across as fair or more pragmatic. By definition blaming bothsides is neither fair (by rules & standards) or Pragmatic (sensible & realistic). Anyone who has followed politics for more than a few years and is capable of being honest understands that the current state of this divisive political climate is coming for just one side; not both. Sadly it isn't just internal partisanship either. Today our (U.S.) ambassador threaten other sovereign nations at the U.N. ahead of a vote saying that we (USA) will be taking names of those who vote in a manner we disagree with. It is discussing behavior I am deeply saddened and embarrassed by. This isn't the Dunning-Kruger effect either. It is uninhibited selfishness where everyone suffer equally so that a lonesome don't have to be miserable alone.

Trump supporters are just happy their side won. They don't really care what type of leader Trump is.

The irony! after years of conservatives whipping themselves into a manic rage over everything related to emails............... "A lawyer representing President Trump’s transition team claimed Saturday that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III improperly obtained a trove of transition emails as part of the inquiry into Russian influence in the 2016 election and other matters." https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mueller-unlawfully-obtained-emails-trump-transition-team-says/2017/12/16/6162f350-e2cc-11e7-8679-a9728984779c_story.html?utm_term=.1d4c34620b3d

Are you seriously questioning Tesla's contribution to radio?

LOL, Tesla is zero. Tesla is responsible for pretty much everything you reference in the above quote. Marconi was the first to patent radio but it was all based on Tesla's work. Tesla's work applied to communication is the gold standard I thought you were saying wouldn't be exceeded yet Tesla gets zero? I am confused as to which advances in knowledge and technology you consider relevant. It is perhaps time for me to leave this discussion as I cannot wrap my mind around Tesla being a zero.

So you agree there is still massive amounts of knowledge to be obtained but question the value of that knowledge compared to the Theory of Relatively? I am not sure how to even address information over time on a personal value judgement scale. Where would you rate Tesla's contributions compared to Einstein's contributions? Your source was an opinion piece dealing with heat in CPU's. I provided an opinion piece addressing heat in CPUs. Are you claiming it is wrong and that research isn't underway to find possible resolutions? I never said it did.

A human has not set foot on another planet yet, we do not know how life came to exist, if life exists elsewhere, how the universe came to be, if there was other universe before this one, if there will be one after, what's happening in black holes, and extra. We have theories and ideas but there is tremendous room for knowledge to expand as we are able to collect increasing amounts of actual data. When humans finally get to Mars and set up labs their "millions of paper" won't merely be "finer points" but rather a legitimate increase in what's empirically known. Same goes for if and when we get to Europa. The only way knowledge is limited is if information is limit. I personally belief in a finite universe but I don't know for a fact it isn't infinite. Could there is some beyond the universe we know? Either way there are still incalculable amounts of information out there for Humans to collect and covert to knowledge. The link was about heat and addressed that there is debate among experts. I read nothing that indicated limits have been reached based on individual atoms. Your link was about heat in central processing units. My point about materials is that different materials could resolve that issue. It is something people are working which also means more information and knowledge is being learned. "The basic problem with faster processors is the wires, not the transistors. If we scale a processor down to smaller physical size, the transistors get faster (which is good) and leak more (and thus produce more heat). FinFETs, which are those “3D” transistors, strained silicon, and exotic non-silicon semiconductor layers grown on top of the silicon are all ways to improve speed and reduce leakage. The wire capacitance * wire resistance, on the other hand, remains constant. Capacitance times resistance is time, in this case the RC time constant of those wires. As you scale a processor down, the wires don’t speed up at all. Modern CPUs are dominated by wire delays. Please note that these wire delays are not dominated by the speed of light. They do get within an order of magnitude of the speed of light, so that limit isn’t so far away, but resistance and capacitance remain a much larger problem." https://www.quora.com/Could-we-reach-a-1-THZ-processor-and-if-so-is-there-a-limit-on-clock-speed First we must establish if there are things which move at those speeds and the answer is yes: "In the simple newtonian model, gravity propagates instantaneously: the force exerted by a massive object points directly toward that object's present position. For example, even though the Sun is 500 light seconds from the Earth, newtonian gravity describes a force on Earth directed towards the Sun's position "now," not its position 500 seconds ago. Putting a "light travel delay" (technically called "retardation") into newtonian gravity would make orbits unstable, leading to predictions that clearly contradict Solar System observations." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html Could gravity be used to communicate; I don't know. Theoretical Physics (Quantum Gravity) isn't there yet. A lot still isn't understand which is why there are so many different models like string theory and loop quantum gravity. If the problem of time is ever resolved that would open the door to any number of new disciplines within physics and models of existence....and yes, forms of communication over distance. "In physics, the problem of time is a conceptual conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics in that quantum mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute, whereas general relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative.[1] This problem raises the question of what time really is in a physical sense and whether it is a truly a real, distinct phenomenon. It also involves the related question of why time seems to flow in a single direction, despite the fact that no known physical laws seem to require a single direction" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

"Although precise measurement of the process of scientific discovery is difficult (Bettencourt et al. 2008), it is well-known that scientific output, whether measured by scientific papers, number of scientific journals, or even the number of new universities, is considered to be one of exponential growth" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3277447/ I find this challenge particularly ironic considering the nature of this thread and the arguments about how far we have come technologically. Theoretical limits provided we continue to use the same relative materials. Limits would have already been reached decades ago had we stayed with vacuum tubes.

Is there uneven anecdotal evidence to show that it isn't? Humans have continuously acquired new knowledge for hundreds of thousands of years and at a rate which has been increasing. With AI coming online there is good reason to assume the rate will increase even more. I think it is a fair anecdote. Consider the rate at which micro-processing has grown and the impact that has on our ability to expand the rate at which we process information. The below scale is just since 1971. Your smart phones is over a million times more powerful than the computers NSA was using in the 1960's. Assuming you believe human can still move forward at least far as we have already come I think a couple grains of sand on a beach in fair. Anecdotes are not used for accuracy but rather for perspective.