Raider5678

Do you realize virtually no doctor ever takes the Hippocratic oath? That has absolutely no meaning to me. There is a LOT more to diagnosing someone with coronary atherosclerosis then simply seeing they have high blood pressure. Additionally, how do you know the doctor didn't suggest that to Trump and simply not put it down? A lot of people like to play doctor because they googled some stuff. They say if you have this and this, you must have this. They say if your blood pressure is this much about this, you must have this. We're not the doctor. We were not there. You CANNOT diagnose someone simply by looking at their weight, height, and blood pressure. The human body is not that simple. Yet, people pretend that it is. And I feel like you've fallen for the internet myth of being able to diagnose someone just by knowing two things about them.

LMGTFY Google doesn't lie(*rolls eyes*) Case closed. He was ordered to lie? Citation? I mean, come on. I understand you're not worried so much about his height as the alleged lying, but is there really that much proof they did lie? Pictures are definitely not reliable. Unless you can prove to me using shadow lengths of both characters and reconstruct a 3d room like some people can to tell us his height exactly, then I don't trust them. Additionally, as you mentioned, shoes, hair, posture, etc. Additionally, his drivers' license and white house physical are two different things. For all you know, the measuring tape on the wall was half an inch off for his driver's license and they just rounded down instead of saying 6' 2.51" and the white house rounded up. Additionally, you don't know if the guy at the driver's license place simply looked at the measuring tape wrong, etc. There are just too many unknown variables, that we can't conclude any hard evidence from this. On top of that, of all the things he's lied about, this is what shatters your faith in the government?

A space suit allows more maneuverability. Climbing alongside a craft with a ladder, getting back in, etc.

Imagine two horses sitting in 1919. Named Tom and Jerry. Tom: I'm worried about these new cars. They're gonna take our jobs. Jerry: Dude. Don't worry. Technology has always made our lives easier. Remember riding into war? Remember pulling those super heavy plows? Remember all that really hard work we used to do? Now we have these nice jobs pulling these light carriages. Technology has always made our lives easier. Even if our current job is taken over by auto mobiles, there will be new jobs we can't even dream of! Tom: You're right. Thanks for making me feel better. Horse population peaks in 1920 and starts a downward trend for the following 90 years. Horses had muscle. Mechanical muscles replaced them pretty rapidly because of how efficient they were. Yet this story also has another premise. "Better technology makes better jobs for horses." It sounds ridiculous to even say aloud. Yet, if you replace horses with humans in that sentence, suddenly it sounds familiar and logical. Mechanical muscles replaced horses. If mechanical minds keep progressing at the current rate, they'll replace a lot of human jobs. Not all of them, but a massive amount of them. - Curtosey of CPG grey.

Just to Balance this out. +1

I had used metal for the balls, it still doesn't work. It's a very simple concept, and all I know is that I'm losing a LOT of energy somewhere. I'm assuming the strings are too large(they're pretty important) so I'm going to restring it with fishing line. I used a 6 1/2 inch by 3 inch by 1/2 inch dark stained block with 4 square pieces. 1/2 by 1/2 inch by 4 inches. Then I used two 6 inch long 1/4 inch dowels and put them between the 1/2inch pieces of wood by drilling a hole. So the woods pretty nice looking, albeit a tiny bit crooked on one side.

Tried making a newton's cradle today and failed horribly. The wooden part holding the strings and balls is fine, but the balls just don't act like a newtons cradle should. Once you pull one side up it just kinda rocks all the balls at once. Tips?

It's news media, I'll forgive them for not being rocket scientists. But obviously yeah, the rocket won't be traveling at the same speed the entire trip. As it exits Earths orbit I assume it'll start slowly falling towards a closer orbit around the sun, or possibly a swing by. Either way, at it's closest point to the sun is where it'll be moving fastest.

I have no idea. However, you also have to note it can simply fall and gain massive speed at the periapsis.

Ah, okay.

POS? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/fastest-spacecraft-record-nasa-solar-probe-plus_n_2762918.html

Fair enough.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/673349/NASA-430000mph-Parker-Solar-Probe-Sun-speed-London-New-York-video If this probe succeeds, it'll be traveling at a whopping 430,000 MPH. For reference, Voyager 1, the current fastest space probe, is traveling at 38,610 MPH.

Grammar Nazi. Kidding. You've never heard that? Diamonds are unique, Diamonds are forever, etc?

Same way some people consider diamonds are a unique jewel(Yes, I know they're a lot more common then people think, it's an example of the strange usage)

Got an actual NASA engineer to confirm this.(turned out to be a lot easier than I thought) Anyways, here's a video he suggested.

Strange is many things, idiot is not one of them. Explain your experiment. Your mathematics can be compared to current proofs supplied from experiments for things from gravitational waves, atomic clocks, etc. If it matches all of those, then it might be true. So, firstly, what does your mathematics predict is the speed of light? Edit: Perhaps attempt to address the questions and points I raised rather then giving a downvote because I didn't agree with you.

Agreed. +1

I'm certain Oprah could probably learn how to become president. However, by the time she learned how to navigate politics, how to convince senators and congressmen to support her bills, by the time she learned how to watch out for all the tiny details in the bill, by the time she learned how to sway some of the opposition, her presidential term would be over. My belief is that pretty much anyone can learn. However that doesn't make them good at it, nor does it mean that it will happen with just a quick briefing. Additionally, it's hard to change your mindset. And running a talk show is definitely a different mindset than being president. Being a billionaire and owning resorts/golf courses is definitely a different mindset than being president. Being a military general is definitely a different mindset than being president. It's my opinion, and I'd imagine a few others in this thread, that the best mindset to have is someone who has already been in office. Someone who's used to the twisted strategies, cunning, etc. However. Just because they have the mindset doesn't mean they're good. I'm just saying for them to be effective, they need the right mindset. Because you have to remember. The president alone can't do anything he/she wants to. The legislative branch plays a huge role in that.

With this, I'm starting to realize that the seat of president is becoming a joke.

Small voting districts were instrumental in electing Trump because they voted for him though. Just because they voted for Trump doesn't automatically make them corrupt. Additionally, it was the voters, not the officials. You're talking supervisors who meet once a week to discuss minor stuff. Now, that's what you said. I'm assuming you meant something different but I'm not sure what.

This is the problem though(not the video, the 24/7 coverage). Trump kept saying the news was turned against him and that it was unfair. The news, in turn, provided 24/7 coverage letting America know which side they were on. Think about it. The basically proved him right on that part, so people stopped trusting said media. Some, not everyone stopped trusting them. But still enough.

Counties in smaller areas are already well rid of most corruption. In the areas around where I live, every county has supervisors that virtually everyone already knows. They're held accountable pretty much directly. But once it reaches state and federal levels, officals are no longer directly held accountable by the people they represent.

Agreed. Luckily, there's a limit to how many downvotes one can give in a day.