KipIngram

Ok, I will see if I can turn up something of the sort I'm talking about. Give me a little while - I'm at work right now. The sort of thing that I'm talking about takes the general form of "little people" (like a small farmer or something) suddenly being told they can't use their land the way they've been using it for decades, or generations, because of some regulation. But I'll see if I can find something definitive. And btw, I don't think it's required for an agency to make *zero* mistakes - we should always be trying for that, but perfection is pretty rare in the world. And yeah, I'm right there with you on the DEA. The "war on drugs" is one of the most misguided things we've ever done, and the DEA regularly (like, every few days) uses its "emergency authority" to add new things to the list of controlled substances. Empire building at its finest.

Then what is the point of being together? People make mistakes sometimes - and are also free to correct them. My first marriage ended in divorce; my ex wife just treated me *terribly*. I was very young when we got together and it took a long time for me to get up the emotional fortitude to end the marriage. I've often found myself glad that it was as bad as it was, because if it had been "bad but less bad" I'd likely have let the situation continue. And then I never would have met my current wife, which I think would be tragic. If you're going to share your very life with someone, you deserve for it to be someone who is overjoyed with sharing theirs with you. You should be each other's biggest fan. When it's good it can be very very good, and that's what I'd wish for you.

I'm totally with you on those bits of "Republican criticism." They've always tendency to want to impose morality on us and things like that - things that are just not the government's business. I think if agencies have been created for specific purposes then they should be managed in a way that most effectively achieves those purposes. Even if a politician thinks there's a better way to get that job done he or she should still support "the way that's in place," even while pushing for an overall change. Trying to "force failure" so that you can then point and say "See, that was flawed from the start" is dirty pool. But then again an awful lot about politics is dirty pool from the get-go. Very little "honor" in that game. I honestly do think, though, that some of these agencies get carried away with themselves and get into "empire building" mode. Anything, even good things, can be overdone, and I think that shows up in a lot of agencies (EPA and DEA spring to mind). I'm working right now and don't have time to dig up examples, but I hope you know what I mean. If you truly believe that every single thing the EPA has ever done is grand and glorious, and that they've never been too heavy handed, then do feel free to tell me I'm wrong. I'm just taking the position that even though these agencies fulfill a valuable purpose in general, they do make mistakes sometimes too.

In at least one way he's not (doing what he said he would). During the campaign he advocated a tax (I believe he said 35%) to penalize companies that send American jobs overseas. I was delighted to hear that - I think such things are part of the right solution. Of course, that was notably *missing* from his tax proposal, and instead corporate America just got Christmas months early.

Well, I think the whole tweet business itself is silly. Irregardless of what I think, though, I certainly agree with those that point out what a mess the guy is making of his operation (his immediate staff, handling of "business as usual" issues, etc.) Clearly successfully running a business does NOT translate into successfully running the White House. You'd think he'd get over wanting to send tweets - it's clear that he's going to get torn to shreds over literally any misstep he makes. So no, I don't think covfefe means that Trump's becoming senile. But he clearly has the maturity of a twelve year old boy. He's accustomed to getting his way in business by being a bully, and he's trying to bring that same mind set to the White House. I'll tell you what was the most telling thing to me re: his intelligence - the fact that he seemed absolutely gobsmacked that he got opposition from the courts and so forth on the immigration bans. WHAT DID HE EXPECT? I think what he expected was for everyone to roll over for him just like they did in his business empire. I'll also tell you what raised my concerns more than anything else. A few weeks ago he did an interview, and the report of the interview I read quoted him as saying something like "the system of checks and balances put forth by the Constitution made it hard to get anything done, and that was bad for the country" (emphasis mine). I later decided the quote wasn't precisely accurate - there was a ... somewhere in it and it looked like the media organization involved had crafted the quote to look as bad as possible. But nonetheless the tone was in that ballpark and I wound up with a deep concern re: Trump's respect for constitutional government. Putting all the above together, I wound up suspecting that what he really wants is to be a dictator, just like in his business empire, and I am beyond happy that he's not able to be.

Yeah, me too. I don't know exactly what swath of the government the phrase "civil service" applies to, but I take your meaning. To me that's exactly why such a communication channel does need to be known about by other parts of the government. I'm a huge fan of "checks and balances," regardless of whether the guy in the White House is "my guy" or "the other side's guy." I'm not into choosing from day to day what the limitations on the President should be depending on whether I like him or not. Shortly after the election I read an editorial someone wrote imploring President Obama to "dismantle the intelligence state" before it could fall into Trump's hands. It was pretty clear that person was just fine with the government monitoring our every move while Obama was in office, but not fine with it when Trump was in office. Personally, I had never been fine with it, regardless of who was in office. But I sure do see a lot of that sort of hypocrisy.

Yes, that was my point. There's certainly enough possibility of a fire or few that we should take a good hard look.

Yes, that is exactly what I'd expected. I really do wish we had a "centrist" part of some kind. I don't consider myself "aligned" with either party these days. The Democrats are too "pro big government," and the Republicans are too "pro big business." I'm really a fan of free enterprise, but "unsupervised" it winds up concentrating too much power in the hands of a small number of big corporations. "The folk" wind up out in the cold.

Ken, I think there has been enough stuff implying that Trump has business ties to Russia to make kicking the tires here a worthwhile thing to do. Contrast that to the 1960's hotline Kennedy had; first of all, it was known about by other parts of the government, and second there were NO signs that Kennedy had any "leanings" toward "cozying up" to Russia. Trump is different - it's undeniable that has ways of personally benefitting from working with Russia in inappropriate ways, and such a thing is too important to ignore. I don't really want to think that he's crossed that line, but a "hidden channel" to Russia is concerning enough to investigate, in my opinion. Hopefully the investigation will reveal nothing, but even that won't alleviate everyone's concerns, given that he has so much of the government on his side right now. I figure if he gets impeached it will be almost certain that he deserved it, whereas if he doesn't we still won't know for sure. We'll just have to hope.

I missed that part. I just saw that by the time I woke up the morning after he'd done it people were already carrying on - had they already mounted a response that quickly? By, I guess, 7am the following morning, Eastern time?

I always questioned whether NASA was the right place for that work, but it ought to be happening in *some* agency. Re: NASA I'd prefer to see them focused on space exploration. The EPA always seemed like a better fit for climate work to me. I certainly understand the usefulness of satellite-based methods for measuring and monitoring stuff, but the actual ownership of the program could still be housed somewhere else. Back earlier in the year I heard some NASA official make a comment to that effect (i.e., that Trump didn't regard NASA as the right place for that work). But I'd be hugely surprised if he does anything other than just quash it. I do think politicized science is a problem - when the answer you get to a scientific question depends on the political leaning of the administration, there's a problem.

Ok, now that's just idiocy. Who here has not had text entered into a phone get funky on them because of auto-correct??? I'm perfectly willing to listen to real, meaningful criticisms, but getting all hot and bothered over an autocorrect is just ridiculous. Anyone here who it's never happened to, feel free to criticize it, but I'm definitely not on that list - it's happened to me plenty of times. Please, you only make yourself look ridiculous when you stretch things that far.

So's your personal credulity. None of us at in the loop on this aside from media-crafted message. That's why there's official investigation underway, right?

So based on that I'd say read and study. Not just programming languages, but also algorithm and data structure theory and so on - computer science stuff. As well as stuff related to the biology / evolution field you're interested in. Depending on where you are now you may need to start on the ground floor on the algos / structures stuff, but there are lots of references out there you can find, I'd think. Some algorithms in the bio area do well on GPUs (graphics processing units). You've got CUDA and similar frameworks which are oriented toward programming stuff on GPUs, so that would be a good thing to become familiar with too.

Are you sure you're using consistent units for the various quantities? That is, mks units for everything, or similarly consistent values in some other system? If your speed of light is in meters per second and your h in Joule-seconds and your wavelength in meters, then your energy should be in Joules, I believe.

My friend has gotten all wound up recently over some bunch of people out there right now that call themselves "Tengri." One of the things he sent me about it was a supposedly ancient document written in code. Associated with this was "clear text" with a bunch of multi-level "magic square" diagrams that were claimed to show the advanced intellect of the authors. That is, the ability to write those figures down showed "nearly impossible" intellectual power. I showed him in about ten minutes the arithmetic that would have been involved in producing one of the diagrams. But as you noted, it's like talking to a wall. The "decoding process" turned out to be substituting element symbols for atomic numbers. Even pointing out that those symbols didn't exist at the time the document was supposedly written didn't make a dent. It's sort of depressing, because he's a really nice kid and seems to be amazingly hard working and so on. But he's very loose with his money, and winds up carrying credit card debt around because he's bought boatloads of electronics parts to build this or that. I feel sure that sooner or later someone from the "industry" I cited above is going to fleece him. He's not mine to protect, but I still wish I could, somehow. The other thing that's quite amazing is the trouble the people perpetrating these things will go to - that Tengri stuff had to have taken a long time to produce. :-|

Generally speaking, one earns a PhD by making an "original contribution" to the research of your chosen field. Your supervising professor will assist you in identifying an appropriate scope, and then monitor your progress as you use the skills you've developed in your prior education to plan, organize, execute, and document (your dissertation) the research program and the results. Depending on the field, I wouldn't get too attached to the idea that having a PhD will boost your career income. If you're fortunate enough to distinguish yourself in some major way then it might, but no guarantees. I'm very happy to have mine, but honestly the most lucrative work of my career has had nothing to do with the field in which I conducted my research nor with the fact that I have those "letters after my name."

Sure - even not too long ago in the US, especially in small towns, you could get socially "marked" if you didn't show up in church on Sunday. Things have gotten a lot better on that front the last few decades, but I bet you could still find it here and there if you looked hard enough. You're right about it not being just religion. I can't think of a good example right now, but my wife is constantly paying attention to how our kids will be affected in their own social circles by various things. I consider myself lucky in that somewhere along the way I just got over caring what other people think about me. It's my life - I plan to live it as I please.

I have an acquaintance on IRC that would likely be one of those people. I've decided that some people seem to have an almost desperate desire to believe "fringe science." It seems like an almost religious fervor. The mind set usually includes being totally convinced that the "mainstream science community" is engaged in what would have to be the most far-flung conspiracy that's ever been pulled off to suppress "the truth." Pointing out that someone, somewhere along the way, would have abandoned the "cover up" to grab a Nobel prize or something does no good whatsoever. Then of course you have your "industry" that's grown up to take advantage of such people. This acquaintance linked me a web page a while back by this guy that promotes what he calls "the electric universe." I was positively agog at the stuff he claimed on the page.

I wouldn't know exactly what a nuclear plant uses compressed air for, but I have read that the lion's share (by a large margin) of the equipment associated with nuclear plants is usually related to the safety systems as opposed to the actual energy producing part.

That's a meaningless question. I assume you mean "in its entirety," and you can assign all parts of the universe a shared constant velocity and it changes nothing. Ok, maybe not "meaningless," but irrelevant.

I think WW2 in particular was an example of us showing our ability to work together to solve a problem. Granted, the problem was of human origin, but it was dealt with. I'd more say the manner in which we dealt with the aftermath of WW1 showed a lack of wisdom - we made the German people ripe for the picking for a madman like Hitler.

Quite a few *hundreds*, I'd imagine, since we've done so for many many thousands so far.

Not justifying it - just noting that we don't have any paricularly high moral ground to claim here. And I agree with you - I'd prefer a world where we never cheated and never broke the rules and thoroughly showed those that did so with us that they never should again. You wanting us to go to war with Russia over it or something? I'd rather not - it doesn't rise to that level. But Trump is the topic of conversation here, right? If he was complicit in such things in any way, then let's rid ourselves of him and fast. And in the meantime, let's *do* improve our ability to defend against such intelligence breeches, because it's certainly not going to be the last time some other nation tries to do it.

I'm plenty nationalistic. But for me the focus here isn't on what Russia did or did not do - it's what Trump may or may not be doing. I'm perfectly glad appropriate investigations are underway, and if he crossed the line I'd like to see him ousted. But re: Russia, I'm nationalistic but not hypocritical - it's hard to brand them the Antichrist of nations for doing something that we've done plenty of times. The US has a long history of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. I expect other nations to try to do the same, and I expect our intelligence community to be good enough to stop it. It's a shame if that wasn't the case this time - we need to do better.