Raider5678

I said nothing of the such. You said Trump politicized the FBI and the DOJ. I simply pointed out it's highly likely they were politicized long before Trump. What do any of your other statements you just said have to do with that? It's not a tangent of debate I was trying to start, I simply stated something.

Hillary Clinton was not investigated solely on the insistence of Republicans.

Considering the FBI is controlled by people, humans, who's job is closely tied to politics in many areas, they were politicized long before Trump came along.

Read again. Higher-ups. Not the FBI. Essentially, the people in control of the FBI. And you know that's what I said. I was not referencing everyone in the FBI.

http://www.businessinsider.com/low-unemployment-wage-increases-gig-economy-2017-5 Sorry, nope. Not according to Economics 102. If that's not enough, more history. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/07/business/wages-versus-unemployment.html http://prospect.org/article/low-unemployment-doesnt-increase-wages-it-used http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-wages-stagnant-low-unemployment-20171208-story.html https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2014/december/are-wages-and-the-unemployment-rate-correlated https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/18/real-wages-fall-despite-low-levels-of-unemployment Again, not to be rude, but they have to do better then saying "dynamics" Especially when these dynamics are extremely complicated.

I believe this is because some of the magnetisim is "rubbing" off on the iron filings. Try testing it twice. Once with the same magnetic tape twice, and once using two separate pieces of magnetic tape each time. My hypothesis is that the second experiment will result much like the first, pointing to the idea that the iron filings are actually getting slightly magnetized.

Great. Now both sides can join the #fakenews #lies campaign. No offense to you iNow. However, as soon as an article says "People A said this, but we believe B, so People A are lying, It's actually because of B. " That I begin to lose trust in it. In this case, the first sentence quoted. Additionally, the article quotes "dynamics" like it explains everything. Not to be rude, but what does that even mean? What historical reference does it refer to? Where does this happen? They just kinda said it's not because of Tax Cut's, it's because of low unemployment rate. Then that was correlated because of dynamics. How? I'm sure there's an explanation, but still.

This isn't exactly the case, it's a lot more complicated. Republicans support cops, police officers, swat, etc. Stuff like that. Once you get to the higher-ups in the FBI which is closely tied to political gains, they're essentially politicians in most Republican's eye. They're not demagoguing law enforcement, they're demagoguing politicians. And the customary disclaimer. I'm not saying they're right to do so. But you do have to make a distinction between what they're saying and what you think they're saying.

Fair enough. Also, for reference, JP Morgan just announced the increases last Tuesday, so it probably wasn't them that said it several months ago. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/jpmorgan-to-raise-pay-hire-staff-in-20-billion-investment-push.html As for Wal-mart according to them, it's for efficiency purposes. Which, I'm told, is another way of saying firing bad workers. I don't know if there's any truth in the statement, but that's what I'm told. I doubt it, but just felt like mentioning that. Additionally, this link covers the layoffs and bonuses. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wal-mart-has-announced-thousands-of-layoffs-since-publicizing-bonuses-and-benefits-expansion-2018-01-30

I, for one, don't believe money brings happiness. But that's just me. A poor guy whos mantra doesn't matter.

Hello, I was commissioned at work to design, engineer, and build, an electromagnet prototype that has a dial on it that can be turned up or down to increase/decrease the power of the magnet. It needs to be able to lift 30 pounds. So I've gotten the formula that the strength of the magnetic field is related to turns times amps. However, how can I relate this formula to newtons of force applied at a given distance? Ironically, my boss didn't specify if it needs to be able to lift a weight of 30 pounds from 12 inches away, or direct contact. So I'm assuming he wants 30 pounds from 3 inches away. That I believe can be plugged into the formula for distance, because I feel that distance would definitely play a role in the strength of the magnetic field. Let's assign that the variable of D. So, given that T = turns, A = amps, D = distance, how can you find N = newtons of force? I'm assuming there are more variables, but this is a general idea. Additionally, another question I have is the resistance of the wire thickness. Thinner wire has higher resistance, however, it allows you to get more turns onto the magnet, so what would be an idea gauge? I think I can figure this out using the algebra on a graph and find the point that the two lines connect to each other, but a formula would be nice if I don't have to make one on my own. And, a final question is does anyone have any ideas on how to keep the magnet cool? The electricity passing through the thin wire would create a lot of heat, and I know that's bad. But I'm at a loss on how to cool down a portable electromagnet. Also, if I can successfully do this I'll get a lot more jobs like this. So it's fairly important to me.

Fair enough. So, this tax bill has resulted in layoffs? Again, if you could link this I'd appreciate that. Yeah. And I mentioned that. If you look at the link I've posted they show several sources for them. Apple specifically said it was because of tax cuts and so did FedEx. Now sure we can just deny everything they say as a lie, but then you can't believe anything. Have you ever heard the term don't throw out the baby with the bathwater? I've also acknowledged that there are downsides if you read the entire post. I made an entire section that I realize there are massive downsides to this. If you read the entire post. Did I mention I made a section about the massive downsides and that I'm fully aware of them? Additionally, most links are myopic. They virtually always pick a side, they very rarely go both. So in that essence, should I throw out any link that leads to a particular side? This can be said to literally everything. Rich and poor is not the same thing(I'm not talking about people, I'm talking about the concept.) If there is a millionaire who makes $1,000,000 a year and a middle-class man who makes 20k per year, and we cut both of their taxes by 3%, the millionaire benefits the most. However to say the middle-class man doesn't benefit at all because the millionaire makes more money is a fallacy. The millionaire will save 30k, and the middle-class man saves 600. They've both saved 3%, but we can then say that the millionaire has received 98% of the benefits, while the middle-class man is left with only 2%. Yes, the millionaire will benefit more, but that's relative to how much money he makes. Absolute numbers are not as accurate as percentage points, but we're doing gymnastics with absolute numbers, and then turning them into percentage points. The data becomes more extreme looking, but when you break it down ultimately it is relative. However, I do understand what the link is trying to convey and I do agree with it. I'm just pointing out a lot of these charts are skewed. Republicans have said they have all intentions to renew the tax cuts in 2025. Another thing you have to note is that whether they're "permanent" or not, they can, at any time, be changed by whoever is in office. They don't need to wait until 2025 to renew them, they don't need to wait till 2025 to modify the bill. If Democrats can win the midterm elections, they can fully reverse this bill and change it. They don't need to wait. This is the beauty of legislation and democracy. Very much agreed. A well-made argument, by the way, it wasn't just a rant like I was expecting. +1

I didn't see that. Can you link it? No. But they said due to the promise of tax cuts they're donating the money. Is this bad?

Hillary Clinton was under massive investigation. Was that okay?

On December 22nd 2017 the current in office Potus passed a major piece of legislation relating to taxes. It included massive tax cuts and many people predicted that this tax bill would result in businesses making much more money and the richer getting richer and the poorer getting poorer. However, regarding benefits to lower-income people. https://www.majoritywhip.gov/TaxReformWorks?utm_source=Speaker.gov+Master+List&utm_campaign=b998d88a3d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_01_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3e173f5a25-b998d88a3d-157378765 This link has every single source located at the top, just click the company and you'll get the source. As much as you may disagree with the bill, it is helping lower-income people across the country. Massive companies have raised the minimum wage to $15 or above(Look at the link I provided.) And that's a minimum. Additionally, from the list, I've gotten over 30 companies(including the previous ones) that have raised their minimum wage to $15 or above. These companies include companies like PNC Bank, Capital One, Wells Fargo, and Associated Bank. Additionally, literally hundreds of millions of dollars have been donated to lower-income communities by several companies, like M.B. Financial which donated 7.5 million to the lower income communities it operates in. Or PNC donations of 200 million to the PNC Foundation which helps with education. Multi Thousand dollar bonuses to every employee's retirement plan below senior rank is another common benefit. Apple has said it plans to hire 20,000 new employees following the tax cuts and spend $30 billion in the United States over the next five years. Fed Ex has put 1.5 billion into its employee's retirement pensions overall, making it one of the best retirement programs in the country. Hundreds of millions of dollars in employee pay has been issued since December 22nd in light of the new tax bill. Tens of billions of dollars have been paid out in benefits and donations. Hundreds of millions of dollars in pension increases have been made. And millions of new jobs have been promised over a 5 year period. This tax bill was said to be the apocalypse by some. I'm not sure how much longer we can survive this apocalypse..... Also, this thread was mainly made to just point out there have been benefits with the tax bill. I completely and 100% fully understand the downsides, it does benefit the rich. However, I wanted to talk about the current benefits to the poor. And while one time donations are one time, increases in minimum wage, increased pension plans, better 401k retirement deals, and new jobs(shaky for this one) are much more permanent. I'm gonna get railed for this. Edit: Looking at news articles, many are saying that only 2% of workers in America said they received any benefit, meaning that it was a failure. Just to address this before it goes into the comments this bill is just over a month old. The tax decreases won't even be felt until 2019, let alone in just a month. If they've paid out 2% of workers benefits in the promise of tax cuts alone, it's mostly going to be companies who have the extra cash on hand, at the moment, and can afford to operate as such until 2019 when they make up entirely for lost benefits. So, massive companies. Just to note, I am not saying these benefits are all the benefits that will appear, this is around 2%. But common sense says that if we're seeing benefits before it's actually gone into effect, we'll see benefits after it has gone into effect, and the months leading to it.

I realize you've bolded a question, but many of these threads have shown up. And I don't support Trump, however this is basically a thread to complain about him. It's pointless. Just saying.

The entire world has a shortage of Plutonium. http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-nuclear-battery-plutonium-238-production-shortage-2017-8 At least that particular type.

I've experienced this as well, so have several others it seems. I doubt it's simply confirmation bias. Additionally, through some research I've concluded that both INow and StringJunky are pretty much both correct. The gland which is mainly(not entirely, but mainly) responsible for body odor would be called an Apocrine sweat gland, which genetic differences between races mean it tends to show up less in some races like Asians, and more in others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrine_sweat_gland https://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/hygiene-tips/body-odor2.htm Additionally, diet also plays a role, most notably with garlic and other spices. Spices are a very cultural food, as well as interestingly vegetables. Both things that can cause body odor. Another interesting thing is that body odor changes with age, from pre-pubescent, to pubescent, to middle age, to elderly. Anyone else ever notices your grandma always smells a certain way? Not bad, but definitely different.

So, it was dated because it looked modern?

How was this dated?

Didn't you read the previous comments by Ten Oz? It could be a Hispanic racist. We don't know.

They did. They said it had nothing to do with racism but what they needed on the ISS.