Raider5678

Yet in my eyes, by taking Crack and Cocaine, and putting them on a 1:1 ratio when it comes to punishments, would be a good step in the right direction. And there are numerous other steps we could take, including repealing minimum sentencing laws that prevent judges from using their judgement, and instead requires them to issue a minimum sentence.

I've had to do a lot of it with absolutely no commenting. I'd actually venture to say that descriptive variable names are more useful(But this doesn't mean that comments shouldn't be used!!!!!!!!!! Just that they're not as helpful as descriptive variable names.) . Using your code example: For example #1. I'll read the words above. That'll take me 17 words. I'll then read the code below it. That'll translate to me as: "If fuel level is smaller then the minimum fuel level, ring the alarm bell." (14 words) I still would have had to read the 14 words of code. The comments simply would have made it take twice as long to read. However, had it been extremely complicated to understand the code, such as parsing out delimited data, comments are definitely warranted.

I do have to question the benefits of decreasing the density of solar panels, and how much more that increases the cost for each watt hour capacity you add.

This is true. I'm not entirely advocating we use poverty as the only thing to push for in reparations, though I can definitely see how my posts would come off like that. What I'm trying to say with my posts, is that we should focus on fixing the things that are holding African Americans back if you want to pay them reparations. This does not however, require that you include race in those measurements. For example, we need criminal justice reform. That will disproportionately help African Americans. But it is still race blind in practice. It's just not as race blind when you're picking out what to fix. Additionally, as I was trying to explain earlier, I'd venture to say that Americans are more likely to support race blind initiatives, even if they'll primarily benefit African Americans, then they will non race blind. This may be an extremely unfair comparison, however a quick example is the support behind criminal justice reform(~90%) vs the support behind affirmative action(~60%). While both enjoy the support of the majority, Criminal justice reform is supported much more, while still being race blind. This is an example, in my opinion, that you don't need reparations to focus on race. Criminal justice reform will help everyone. It just won't help everyone equally. And I'm fine with that.

*Car driving down the road with the driver asleep.* Indian driver: "Crud. I just lost connection." *Car runs over someone.* *Connection comes back* Indian driver: "Ah. There we go." Breaking News: Man arrested after hit and run. Blames Indians.

And that's a very valid disagreement. My view may be biased. I grew up in a largely conservative area, and heard a lot of people complaining about affirmative action being unfair, and how it puts into question the qualifications of those who get those degrees. What good does the degree do you, if people question it's legitimacy because there are policies in place that use your race? Now, I fully understand affirmative action(it's an easy thing to use as an example) has nothing to do with how they get degrees(You still need to make the grades). But it seems that for some reason that matters little to people if they don't think the person got in fairly in the first place.

As would I. However not if it just hurts the African Americans more.

Imagine having a lag spike while you're turning at a red light.

Sorry, I misread this. I thought it was talking about fully autonomous driving. Exactly. It's late, I just finished college classes after working all day, and I'm tired. I probably should be sleeping, as evident by that.

I agree. Well. Actually. Now that I'm thinking about it. Insurance companies perfect driver is someone who never gets tired, doesn't drink and drive, doesn't speed, has almost instantaneous reaction time, can see 360 degrees in all directions, and never get's distracted by cell phones. They're not equal to human drivers yet, but I don't imagine it's far.

If the poverty policies are seemingly only benefiting only white rural communities, then they're obviously not race blind. Additionally, most of those policies that I'm aware of, are localized policies. I.E. A county institutes some new policies to focus money on poorer townships, etc. However, the counties that have money to do this, tend to be primarily white. As a result, they primarily help white people in their counties. A country focused poverty initiative that truly focused on helping our poorest communities, would obviously benefit African Americans proportionately more. Unless of course, they are biased. Which I'm not claiming they're not. However, I still stand by my other point. Creating race focused policies only leads to more people complaining about "reverse discrimination" (And they're logically correct in doing so), which in turns usually just widens racial divides. Larger racial divides almost always helps the majority, not the minority. This in turns dilutes the effects of the race focused policy in the first place. And in an economy where hiring practices play a large part in who is impoverished and who is not, not creating a larger racial divide is key. I don't think discrimination will flat out disappear either. It won't, and I understand that. However adding more fuel to a fire you're trying to extinguish is a bad idea, even if there is just other fuel the fire will feed on.

Perhaps, but the government is funded by the people. So it always comes back to us paying the reparations. Either way though, it doesn't matter who's guilty, looking at my post. In my opinion reparations will simply be ineffective/simply cause more discrimination. We need to change how people think. And that'll start with ensuring people are actually treated equally, regardless of race. And that means reparations, such as affirmative action, are changed to not use race to determine anything.

Uh huh. I don't think jet engines work the way you think they do. They take air, speed it up, and use that to create thrust. However, that requires intake of air, which you can't achieve hovering because you have to be either moving at high speed to get that much intake or you need to have some sort of fan type of thing(and then you question where that's getting it's intake.) Jet engines won't work unless it takes off like a plane. And the hard part here is mathematically calculating how much thrust you'd achieve from Wheels with air blades inside of them. What rotational speed are we talking about? What drives the wheels when they rotate? It obviously can't be the drive shaft connected to the axles, otherwise they couldn't rotate. Maybe electric motors, but then you have the issue of whether or not they can spin it fast enough and over come the resistance required to produce that much thrust. As for the submarine idea, how do you equalize the pressure? How do you prevent it from sinking too far, since you already aluded to it naturally sinking below the surface due to the weight?

I don't believe we should pay reparations to African Americans because of what our parents/grandparents/Great Grandparents have done. However it's probably not for the reasons you think. So please read my entire post(directed at anyone not CharonY in particular) before you assuming I'm just a typical member of the right whining about some other thing that's unfair to White people. The first(but not primary) reason I don't think we should pay reparations to African Americans is because I don't honestly believe we could possibly give enough (when talking direct benefits. I.E. Cash/Housing/College Education) to fix all the disadvantages they've received from generations of systematic abuse. Additionally, I don't think we'd have a good way of giving those reparations fairly. There are hundreds if not thousands of nuances to account for. However, assuming we could pay enough in reparations and could do it fairly, I don't honestly believe a majority of Americans would ever agree to watch millions of people be given massive benefits for something that most of those receiving the benefits never directly experienced, even if they're experiencing side effects of it currently. As for secondary reparations, such as affirmative action, I believe they're causing harm just as much as they're helping. As long as we entertain the idea of "Positive Discrimination", which is just negative discrimination against others that works in your favor, people will continue to complain about unfair advantages of those of a particular race. And in many aspects, it's a logical complaint. If race is being used as a factor in something like college acceptance, then it is a racist system. It is using race, something that nobody can control about them selves, to determine suitability. And I believe a large percentage of people realize that. This in turn just fuels more discrimination. So by practicing "positive discrimination", such as affirmative action, we're just fueling further discrimination against those we're trying to help. At the end of the day I'd be willing to bet it's a net neutral effect(albeit virtually impossible to measure.) And this same concept applies to virtually any case for reparations: By providing reparations to a particular race, you are more then likely increasing the racial divide; further hurting the race you're trying to help. With all that being said however, I do believe we should be doing something to fix the generations of systematic abuse we've caused African Americans. However that help doesn't have to come in a race focused approach. My proposal, which is outside the bounds of this topic because it's not reparations, would be to provide benefits via economic standing. African Americans are disproportionately poor. So a program focused on solely benefiting the poor would disproportionately benefit African Americans. I would also venture to bet that affirmative action based on economic standing would cause far less racial tension then one based on race. Economic standing is something much easier for people to see and comprehend. Much more so then racial based benefits/disadvantages that exist in society. That would then in turn help to reduce feelings fueling discrimination because people wouldn't feel it's as unfair. This same concept should be applied to reparations of any sort. Giving reparations based on race simply won't work(In my opinion only) because it'll simply further fuel more discrimination, resulting in more racial divide and placing us in a position just as bad as where we started. However, what I would propose to do isn't reparations because it's not focusing on race. Therefore, by logical conclusion, I must not be in favor of reparations then.

Starting to wonder if Russia is paying people to join the Democratic Primary Race......

Definitely not. In real life, I ask about 10 times as many questions, I observe and analyze people's behaviors which I don't do online, and I also answer questions a lot more online then I do offline due to my ability to quickly google something if I'm online.

These videos give some good overviews of emergence and levels of consciousness.

Wait, would you still be able to bend it then? Or would the hexagons break/bend or something? And if they break/bend, doesn't that make graphite ridiculously weak?

You mean cities.

Minor correction, It had to do with rates. Yes, 90% of African Americans who are murdered are murdered by other African Americans. Yes, 85% of Caucasians who are murdered are murdered by other Caucasians. However, in total, African Americans makeup just under 14% of the population and commit 50% of the murders, which is where the "black and black" stereotype comes from. Ultimately however it comes down to culture more than anything. The overwhelming vast majority of homicides happen in cities, and it's not just because they're more populated. The rate of homicides are much higher in cities. But regardless, this is kinda off topic. Just figured I'd throw in the correction there.

If only that worked with the Hillary investigations. "We've found no evidence that she's guilty." "What that really means is that she covered her tracks!" My favorite part of today was reading on Facebook about how many people were "disappointed in the results of the Muller investigation." Okay...... Perhaps you'd rather the report tell you your president committed treason? Because that's a good thing? And Republicans changing their mind saying "Muller is a great honest guy" when just a few weeks ago he was "the lowest piece of shit on earth", while my more liberal friends change their mind about him in the complete opposite direction.

The issue with what you're thinking of is that the laser isn't perfectly straight. As a result, it will slowly expand. Except, this is light, and it moves at 300 million meters per second. So "slowly" turns into virtually instantly. So the loop your thinking of, won't "hold" the light after you turn the laser off. It'll simply expand too wide. Also, each time it hits the mirrors, the light will also be absorbed just a little bit. Not enough for you to notice when holding a laser to a mirror, but enough that any form of a loop would almost instantly disappear to the human eye. Then there's also the fact that the protons will occasionally collide when they go to the mirrors which are adjusting their trajectory (when you think about it, it's pretty obvious some protons will have to cross paths, increasing the likely hood they'll collide.) which will then in turn further degrade the purity of the laser.

He means he wants the light to go from through a system similar to this:

If it was in their genes, wouldn't it be in their elbow as well?

It could just be in their head. There's no particular reason we need to prove that same-sex people are somehow a different type of human then we are.