J.C.MacSwell

Strong stuff!

Isn't Pascal's principle only an approximation during any fluid transfers, and only exact statically? Doesn't the fact that your device won't actually work highlight that?

Apologies. Thanks to INow.

Thanks Ten oz

What exactly is approval in this context?

The one advantage would be loading the bones to reduce atrophy. A vest may work to do the same without restricting the arms and legs from having to accelerate/decelerate so much mass every time one moved them. But adding 5 times your mass might be a bit much, (better to make the moon wear it as per Phi...just warn your friends on Earth about the new tidal zones...)

balanced by the fluid above the final levels of the weighted surfaces?

I was not as aware of Fox at that time, which prompted my question. Also makes it hard to judge your humour.

Yes normal being in quotes. The actual News side of Fox is still "normal" in this respect, but I don't think it gets the same viewership as the entertainment/opinion/advertising for Trump side. I can't remember the same level of "support" for G W Bush.

I'm not a fan of G W Bush either, but wasn't Fox News more of a "normal" conservative news source at that time? Not questioning the premise that Fox could have made the difference foe Bush also, but if replaced by another conservative news source I don't think it is quite as clear.

The term already is in use as something other than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest

Useful or important to the public. There is no implication in the term that they would be interested, or need or wish to know or not know. It could be in the best interest of the public that they don't get to know, for some security reason or such thing. You can work in the best interest of someone in a coma. Same idea.

Finally someone who wants to do something about climate change...about time

Some of his statements sounded like he was trumpeting the Democrat horn in a way that added nothing new. I actually not just wondered about that (or getting parole early), or even still working for Trump...the rational being that he could be hiding stuff he knows while seeming to be saying everything possible against him. "see how much I hate Trump, I must be singing everything I know", when in fact he is only singing what is known that he knows. It seems silly...but if he eventually pardons Cohen on the way out of office ("see how magnanimous I am, I'm not just pardoning all my friends...) OK...it is silly...but the thought came to mind while Cohen added well known anti-Trump talking points where he really had no more to add than what was already out there. Did he say anything else that is actually legally damning to Trump? I hadn't heard the portrait thing before...which essentially I think was theft of money he himself anonymously donated. Was that already known?

The hilarious part of this is that Trump would not even see that he did anything immoral when he did that, and believe it should be "no harm no foul" legally, which of course it is not.

I'm not, but if a lady named Yin runs, he'd make a great running mate... ...and I'll see myself out...

I think it's because I took the extreme view that it wouldn't hurt Booker and Harris with Democrats, that Republicans would make more of it than it really deserved, and that Harris and Booker might learn something from it...a totally preposterous position even if exactly true (though I claim it as opinions not facts) given that hate crimes of the alt right are on the rise, and Trump does much worse than what Harris and Booker did, and on a much more regular basis (both of which pretty much everyone agrees with).

I said they rushed to judge. I didn't say their error was directed at a specific person. It was asked if it would hurt them. My stance is not for the Primaries with Democrats but possibly beyond that with others. Does that not seem possible? Personally I don't think it is a big deal on it's own. Smollett sucked them into it. I'm not saying that any hurt it may cause them would be fully deserved.

They rushed to judge the two white MAGA hat wearing Trump supporters in Smollett's almost certain narrative.. They were not aware the two did not actually exist.

Which is in part why it won't hurt them with Democrats, and, again in part, rightfully so. But only in part. Their rush to judgement however, isn't absolved by not making further mistakes. Did it hurt them with you? No doubt they will overplay it, or try to make it to be more than it is. Republicans are far from unique in doing that type of thing for political gain. If it was was an isolated case of believing the victim to the fullest extent (Both Harris and Booker called it a "modern day lynching") due to the nature of the narrative (which it almost certainly turns out that it is) it would be relatively minor on it's own. Beyond that it is less clear. How will they react next time something comparable comes up? What will they have learned from it? Will they still speak up immediately? Almost certainly...and they should...but hopefully not rush to judgement on the specific case.

It won't hurt them with Democrats.

Can you give an example of a change? I am surprised sometimes what is allowed (or seems to be) and what is not, but I would be very cautious when adding any limits. Now three...

Well one is a start, but I don't think it will get far on it's own.

I don't think you will get everyone to agree on exactly what this should mean, never mind agree or make the personal decision to uphold it.

How would you propose this be brought about?