Ten oz

I assume you mean knowledge and not physical? In either case I disagree. If knowledge were sand on a beach everything humans know represents a couple of grains of sand. Humans are from a state of diminishing returns with regards to reaching down and picking up more sand. I am confused as to why you'd feel otherwise? In response to what I had highlighted I was saying that there is still much to be discovered and used it as an example of a process we've observed but do not yet understand.

From your link: "In a recent paper in Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, Christopher Chyba and I argue that it is a mistake to try to define 'life'. Such efforts reflect fundamental misunderstandings about the nature and power of definitions. Definitions tell us about the meanings of words in our language, as opposed to telling us about the nature of the world. In the case of life, scientists are interested in the nature of life; they are not interested in what the word "life" happens to mean in our language. What we really need to focus on is coming up with an adequately general theory of living systems, as opposed to a definition of "life." Your link is more of arguments pro and con (mostly pro) for the value in attempting to define non- terrestrial life. It isn't a clear definition. A hypothesis formulated entirely based on Earth's life and never tested or applied in any practical way to non-terrestrial life for the simple and obvious reason that life else where is a giant missing value as it hasn't be discovered or is known to exist. A judgement made with the advantage of hindsight. In real time people didn't believe their assumptions had little to no reason. Who knows what those looking back hundreds of years from now will think of our reasons; I think no one alive today can answer that with any certainty. I didn't say it was.

What is decreasing?

Decreasing in absolutely time? What is your context?

There is nothing either of us can know about the future beyond what little we live to see.

That is my point. We don't know what we don't know and every century for 10,000 years our knowledge base has collectively increased. So I see no reason to assume it is anymore likely that something will exceed our use of radio than it is something won't. Radio has existed through all of humanity yet it took humans hundred of thousands of years to notice it. Why assume there are other things also hidden in plain view all around us?

It isn't merely an empty assumption to acknowledge the historical trend. Human have moved from the discovery of fire to Nuclear Fusion. There is no reason to assume invention and discovery will stop or has reach any sort of natural limit. The technology you are referencing has only been used for the last 80yrs or so which in perspective in a blimp on humanities timeline. Without exception every century of human existence has brought with it change. It is only logical to assume the next century will as well. "Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance—instead, a quantum state must be described for the system as a whole. Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, and polarization, performed on entangled particles are found to be appropriately correlated. For example, if a pair of particles are generated in such a way that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a certain axis, the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, will be found to be counterclockwise, as to be expected due to their entanglement. However, this behavior gives rise to paradoxical effects: any measurement of a property of a particle can be seen as acting on that particle (e.g., by collapsing a number of superposed states) and will change the original quantum property by some unknown amount; and in the case of entangled particles, such a measurement will be on the entangled system as a whole. It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair "knows" what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Why no? After centuries of people like Leonardo da Vinci and Sir George Cayley working on human flight man final accomplished it in 1904 just over a hundred ago. Since then we've broken the sound barrier and left Earth's atmosphere. Motion picture camera's were invented in 1890. The first movies people watched were black and white and lacked sound. Today we watch movies which integrate motion picture in color with computer generated images which the average person isn't capable of distinguishing from reality. My grandmother passed in 1996 at 87yrs of age. She has been born just after the turn of the century in Nebraska. She literally grew up without running water or electricity in her home. At the time of her death she had running water, electricity, cable TV, and dial up internet. Technology has the ability to out pace any individual humans wildest projections. I bought my first cell phone in 2000. At that time cell phones did nothing; they just made phone calls. Putting a camera on a phone was consider a major step back then. In my opinion I see no reason to assume that in another hundred years society wouldn't have change and new technologies replaced old technologies.

Why wouldn't there be? I don't think we (humans) have a definition for life which could be applied beyond earth. All life on Earth has the same number of DNA base pairs. We only know of one type of life and any thing which deviates from earth life would possibly be either unrecognizable or classified as some sort of autonomous chemical machine. This is a point which has always stuck me. Why hasn't there be other genesis of life here on earth? If we are truly in a "Goldilocks" zone and "Earth-like" planets are most ideal places life might form than why has it only happened once here on earth? This points to one of your arguments; no shame in admitting we don't know.

At the end of the day people choose with their wallets to support big corporations. Those who still pay for companies like Time Warner, Comcast, and etc well enable to problem. It is one thing to complain but another all together to act. A legitimate boycott of services never seems to materialize. Companies caught cheating like Wellsfargo recover. People don't abandon them. People tweet about how terrible big banks are yet continue to use their services rather than local credit unions and what not. End of the day we consumers are greedy as the corporations. We claim to care about issues but ultimately won't sacrifice anything to force change. How many of the millions of people concerned about FCC still give their money willing to 20th Century Fox and Disney? Sure net neutrality matter but god forbid we all miss the now Star Wars movie.

For the first 25yrs of my life all I understood about the conflict is that Hamas were terrorist which south to kill Jewish people. That throughout history from Egypt to Germany people had sought to kill Jewish people and that craziness exited today. That was the little bit I put together from school, cable news, and pop culture. Then once I actually started following these issue and do my own reading I realized things like there is no evidence Jewish people were ever in Egypt, Palestinians have been in the territory for several hundreds of years, many of the Jewish people in Israel were actually relocated there from parts of Europe, and etc. It is a very difficult to ignore the beliefs one was raise with. A two state solution would be great but as a westerner raised believing Palestinians were all terrorists it is hard not imagine Israel as the superior state (more land, larger military, more influence) in a 2 state solution. Problem with that is its a nonstarter diplomatically. It is like negotiating to resolve a fist fight between two people by telling one of them to just accept losing. I actually think a strong global commitment to alternative energy will resolve many of the issues. If we look at where a lot of the money in to region comes fro it is oil. If we look at where the money which is funding most of the extremist positions in the region is coming from it is oil. That goes for all sides even the extreme right wing pro Israel evangelical in the west are also big pro oil people. Once that market dies down the meddling in the region will cool and as we already seen in places like UAE and to some extent Qatar there are ruling families that would like to move into other industries and create a more secular and international friendly economies. So I agree we "should stay out of it" but by stay out I mean of all of it which includes their oil and other resources.

In the Alabama Senate race in 2014 for that seat 800k turned out and voted. Last night nearly 1.4 million turned up. Moore won in the same ball park of votes as a Republican in Alabama wins in mid term and off season elections. It was the huge increase in voting than beat him. By the numbers the demographics voted as one would have predicted. Black turnout was Jones over 90% for Jones while 70% of the White vote was for Moore, 83% of evangelicals voted Moore, while 60% of voters under 30yrs of age voted for Jones. In 2016 Clinton got more total votes in Alabama than Jones did last night which shows the level of democratic support we show last night already existed in the State. Turn out was the key. I wish, I hope, one day I witness an election where people in mass actually cross partisan lines and vote. It would be a beautiful thing. Last night wasn't it though. Last night was simply a stronger push to turn people out in already established Democratic districts. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/alabama-exit-polls/?utm_term=.3a1ca52ac7a4

She was more popular than either Biden or Sanders and recovered after the dip. How popular must she be in your opinion? You haven't presented a stander. She was more popular than any Republican candidate was among Republicans.

Context, context, context...you said and have continued to say that many voted for her but may not have actually liked her. You supported the claim with national favorability but is the issue is how popular she is among Democrats why not a poll of democrats? Back in 2015 before the things got nuts Clinton was more popular nationally than Sanders or Biden. As for her image among Democrats it was good for years and temporarily dipped during the campaign before recovering. Nonsense, I mentioned having voted for John Edwards in the 08' primary in an early post. That was clearly a mistake.

In 2 Senate races, 2 primaries, and a general election; five separate elections she received the most votes because people just didn't like their options? Perhaps she is simply more popular than you care to admit. "The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, is a federal freedom of information law that allows for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the United States government. The Act defines agency records subject to disclosure, outlines mandatory disclosure procedures and grants nine exemptions to the statute" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States)#Scope (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;[8] related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;[8] specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;[8] FOIA Exemption 3 Statutes trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;[8] inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;[8] personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;[8] records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;[8] contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions;[8] or geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.[8]

Just look for the question marks. Is the a measurement more powerful than actual votes Politician depend on? I actually haven't seen a single post on this forum from a single member here in the U.S. indicated they wish they could take their vote back. That in itself speaks volumes in my opinion.

Sadly what he stands to gain has more to do with Mississippi and Alabama than with Israel.

Your suspicion doesn't change the facts that law enforcement experts (prosecutors, judges, federal investigators) time and time again determine no crimes were committed. It isn't even partisan. One party controls all branches currently, potus is tweet shaming his own Justice Dept to at against Clinton, and still no charges. You are beating a dead horse. You can not name a single politician more thoroughly investigated in your lifetime. More gish gallop tactics. Put my comment in context by quoting the rest and answer the 2 questions asked immediately following what you quoted. You are playing games with context. You said: " I think that even in the primary she wasn't many democrats first choice but they thought she was more electable"Like wise Clinton is very popular among Democrats. Claiming otherwise is just a bit of character assassination where everything Clinton must be referenced as a negative." You implied that Democrats didn't actually like her. That was the context and I pointed out that no Democrat has ever received more primary votes than Clinton and that Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million. How unfavorable is Trump today in polling; worst ever for a first year President. Would you argue that means he is unpopular with conservatives? I think that would be silly as they are the ones who support him. Trump is very popular with Conservatives. Like wise Clinton is very popular among Democrats. Claiming otherwise is just a bit of character assassination where everything Clinton must be referenced in a negative light.

Fair point

The recital was before the murder but I don't want to go any deeper into the details. This thread isn't about OJ. That case was bought up to say not all people who beat charges are innocent as a response to Hillary Clinton not being convicted. In context it was inaccurate because Clinton was never even charged.

OJ was charged with a crime and prosecutors went after him in court. It was a jury (not experts) that let OJ walk. As Comey stated no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against Clinton. So the two situation are not the same. Experts feel OJ was guilty. Experts feel Clinton is not. Even now that Trump's own appointees run the show Clinton isn't being charged. From White Water to Benghazi to her Emails how many times has Hillary Clinton been investigated? How many times have you seen her under oath before Congress being questioned by Republicans? Her taxes going back decades have been made public, her charity financials made public, tens of thousands of her emails have been made public, and etc. I don't think you can name a single politician whom you have seen so much private information on; seriously. Everything has been combed through 10 times over and no crimes found. Despite the "crooked" reputation who is more transparent? You are complaining she deleted some emails before you got to read them as i it is normal to have access to a politicians private emails.....how many thousands of Paul Ryan's, Mitch McConnell's, Bernie Sander's, or etc private emails have you read? How you seen Trump's taxes? This thread is about the truth and the truth is that investigators have looked into all the allegation those who oppose Hillary Clinton have made against her and found none to be a crime. That is a fact. In 2008 Hillary Clinton got more votes than Obama in the primary. The 17.8 million votes Hilary Clinton received in 2008 is the most votes any candidate of either party has every received in any primary. In 2016 she received 16.9 million votes which is third all time among all primaries for either party behind only herself and Obama in 08'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008 I did not vote for Clinton in the primary. I always vote for the most progressive candidate in the primary. In 08' I voted for Edwards (shame on me) in the primary. That said I able to aware that Clinton does have a popular brand. She was elected to the Senate, earned a massive number of primary votes, and did win the popular vote in 2016 by 3 million. Obviously millions of Democrats do like her and the arguments against that reality is merely meant to dismiss her and her supporters. I do not like Donald Trump yet never waste time arguing he isn't popular among conservatives; he clearly is. Meanwhile Clinton, who got millions more votes than Trump, is regularly said to be unpopular. I see that as a bit of propaganda.

Additionally look who is in power now. Those who opposed HRC control every branch of govt yet no charges are being brought against her. Meanwhile numerous members of Trump's campaign have been indicted or already acknowledge guilt in court. You may not like the thing Clinton did but she has already being put put to the screws for it and it has already been determined no crimes were committed. She was investigated and cleared. So it is a statement of fact that the legal professionals empowered to enforce the law believed she was innocent of any claims she had committed a crime. You may not like it but it is a fact all the same.

In 2016 Jewish voters went 71% to Clinton and 24% to Trump. In previous elections they voted 79% Obama, 74% Kerry, and 79% Gore. Jewish Americans don't support the more aggressive pro Israel positions Republican tout. Democrats are for a 2 state solution. Republicans not so much. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/ So if Jewish Americans do not support Republicans who are the Jewish Lobbyist, the "very strong Jewish Lobby" you reference, who do; White Evangelical Christians. It is their position and not that of Jewish people broadly that Jerusalem "de facto" belongs to Israel. It is a chase of Evangelical Christian meddling. "Christians United for Israel (CUFI) is an American Christian organization that supports actively Israel."[1] It is the largest pro-Israel organization in the United States.[2] Operating under the leadership of John Hagee, it provides a national association through which churches, parachurch organizations, ministries, and individuals in America promote support for Israel financially and politically." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christians_United_for_Israel "John Charles Hagee (born April 12, 1940) is the founder and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church, a megachurch in San Antonio, Texas.[2] Hagee is also the CEO of his non-profit corporation, Global Evangelism Television (GETV). He is the 5th of 6 pastors in his family, all of whom were named John Hagee, dating back to the colonial era." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee

Violence is wrong. I am no fan of the Day of Rage. That said good decision making by those in government isn't always based of what people should do but rather must consider what people will do. I think it is a mistake in political discussions when people argue about what should work or should happen rather than acknowledging what has or what is happening. This isn't a perfect world. Ultimately the decision to move the U.S. embassy has created violence which is negatively impacted Palestinians and Israelis alike. People have already died over it and far as I can tell there is nothing gained by moving the embassy.

Asking me to explain how resources are distributed globally and the impact that has on specific individual economies does address anything I posted. It is all research you can do yourself. I find it laughable that after over a decades of the U.S., UK, Russia, and etc being at war on the ground at war all over the middle east you seem to be under the impression that the Middle east has or has had the freedom to do as they please and refuse to acknowledge any of it was done to benefit specific groups over others.