Delta1212

A large percentage, if not outright majority, of the land that the US-Mexican border cuts through is privately owned. Which is one of the reasons that the proposed wall is unrealistic.

And while you are supposed to have a right to a speedy trial, the prosecution can request a postponement as many times as it likes as long as the new date is within the next couple months. Which does a fat lot of good for anyone who winds up stuck in jail for years after several shorter postponements.

And what does the fact that Trump won his primary and Sanders didn't win his tell you about the effectiveness of those respective strategies, unfortunately?

Thin-Skin Donald seems like it would really cut to the core of his biggest and most effective weakness.

Trump would be a repeat of W cranked up to 11, but without the slightly endearing personability.

Honestly, I don't think that it's. I think he's just a compulsive liar. He's not just lying about the effects of policy positions. You almost expect politicians to overstate the benefits of their plans. But that's not what he's doing. He's lying about literally everything. Even little trivial things that don't matter and are easily checked, like the size of his private jet. He has seemingly deep seated need to be perceived as the greatest, and the way that he has figured out how to get that is to simply keep telling everyone that he is the greatest, that he has the greatest of everything and that there is no part of his life and nothing associated with him that is not extremely impressive. He's not lying in order to win. He's lying because he wants to look good. It's why he tells stupid lies about stupid things. It's why he directly responds to every criticism leveled against him personally. It's why he does such sudden about faces on other people, attacking them brutally when they criticize him and praising them effusively when they compliment him, sometimes days apart and in direct contradiction to what he previously said about them. He's not lying for the reasons politicians typically lie. He's lying for the reason that Mean Girls in high school lie. The whole thing is an ego trip.

Personally, I'm not sure what my parents are registered as if anything. The only votes I know for a fact that my father has cast are for independents and third party candidates, and our Representative was a Republican and I'm pretty sure they both voted for him at some point. They didn't talk to my sister and I much about partisan politics, and my dad is a journalist who feels that it's important for him to try to stay above the fray, so to speak. That said, they raised me to have certain values, and to behave in a certain way towards other people, and that informs a lot of my political views, so when politics come up, I tend to agree with them about a lot of things. But not everything, and that is important. Just because someone is your parent does not mean they are any smarter or wiser than any other random person, and what their political opinion is should have little if anything to do with how you come to your own opinions about things. I was lucky enough to grow up in a household where we were largely encouraged to come to our own conclusions about things without being told by our parents what the correct political views to have were, and I'm grateful for that because not everyone gets that as a kid, and I think the fact that they don't leads to a great deal of the "sportification" of politics, where many people support or revile certain people and political groups because that was how they were raised rather for any particularly articulable reason or belief on their own part.

If you dig hard enough, I suspect you would be hard pressed to find many people you know who don't believe something you think is crazy. We all assume our own beliefs are reasonable, and therefore assume that if we meet a reasonable-seeming person, that their beliefs must mostly align with our own, at least for important things. This is almost never the case in reality.

Yes, I'm sure that Kalif Browder, who was held in jail without trial for three years starting at the age of 16 because he and his mother couldn't afford the $3,000 bail on a robbery charge that was eventually dropped because there was no evidence that he actually did it was super glad that he got food while he spent 400 days in solitary confinement after trying to kill himself because of the beatings and abuse he got from other inmates and guards. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law It's not in the article because it happened afterwards, but he committed suicide. The ultimate result of bail bonds is that judges tend to set bail higher because they know the funds will be available, which means that a fair number of people can't afford the percentage they need to stake themselves which they won't get back in the event that it turns out they were innocent and are acquitted or the charges are dismissed. Bail bond is effectively a tax on people who are too poor to put up the stake themselves, and people often wind up pleading guilty to minor charges just to avoid having to go to trial and remain in jail for the intervening period. New York especially relies on this because they don't have the man-power to physically process the number of people that go through the court system of they all had to go to trial. It's cheaper for many people just to take a misdemeanor charge and fine than to post bond or risk losing a job or custody of children while they are stuck in jail awaiting a trial that may be years away in some extreme cases, despite this being very much against the spirit of the Consirution and potentially against the letter as well, depending on how you view the loopholes they use to get around this.

I have serious issues with the bail industry but for pretty much the opposite reason. It makes it too difficult for poor people who absolutely don't belong there to get out.

Mouse, of course, is the only one that can be categorically distinguished from all of the others by the question "Is it bigger than a bread box?"

In which case, maybe he was dealing with non-Euclidean geometries, just because. If you're omnipotent, you can bend space to make Pi 3 if you really want to.

The answer they're looking for snake. The rest are mammals. But yeah, you could pick literally any of those animals and make a case for it being the odd one out. That's the problem with pattern recognition tests, frankly. There is always a pattern if you look hard enough. These kinds of questions are less tests of pattern recognition and more tests of whether you can figure out what answer a test maker wants you to give. I always try to find ways of making alternate answers fit a pattern whenever I do tests like this. It's especially fun with series of numbers and shapes, because they're the ones people least expect their to be alternate patterns for but there always are if you look for them hard enough.

Elephant. It's the only one that can't jump, can't fit through a typical doorway and always has at least one foot on the ground while moving quickly.

...A lot of that was creepily relatable? I'm always suspicious of statements like that that I relate to, because I can never tell how much is unique to me and how much is common to everyone (the "horoscope effect" if you will). But then, that was a point that was brought up.

I tried googling "Long 2010" and got nothing.

Not strictly true. If the mountain is colliding with you at 0.9c, that also means you are colliding with the mountain at 0.9c, and at that speed, both you and the mountain would be completely destroyed by the collision.

I'm not sure if hypocrite is the right word, although posting your own above average IQ in a rant about how people should stop doing that comes across that way a bit, I'll allow some leeway given the context, though it probably would have been better to wait for someone to actually bring up the expected "You're just jealous because you don't have a high IQ" argument that that was probably meant to pre-empt. In any case, that seems fairly true, if a bit harshly put. Obsessing about your IQ and the IQs of other people is fairly pointless. Smart isn't something you are it is something you do. Actions are smart or dumb. People can do smart or dumb things. Without corresponding action, it's an empty metric. Bragging about a high IQ you haven't used for anything is, at best, bragging about having wasted potential. Bragging about having a high IQ when you have used to it accomplish things is like Stephen Hawking bragging about his high school test scores. At that point, why even bother?

A photon is released towards you one light minute to your left. Another photon is released towards you simultaneously one light minute to your right. It will take each photon one minute to reach you as they are each traveling at c. The starting distance between the two photons is 2 light minutes. Speed = distance / time Two light minutes divided by 1 minute to close the gap between the photons equals a closing speed of 2c. It cannot be less than 2c, otherwise it would take each photon longer than one minute to travel one light minute. Same principle applies to everything else in this scenario. If a mountain is coming at you at 90% of the speed of light from a distance of 90% of a light minute, it will take one minute to reach you. That is true no matter what direction the mountain is traveling from. If you have two mountains traveling at you from opposite directions at 90% of the speed of light, each 90% of a light minute away from you, it will take each of them one minute to reach you, by definition of how fast they are going. The starting distance between the two, in your frame, will be 1.8 light minutes or 180% of a light minute. The distance of 1.8 light minutes is closed in one minute, so the closing speed is 1.8c.

If it's based on descent, I guess we're all Africans.

What's the total area of land you're using for this set up?

What does less regulation on business look like? What is the purpose of having less regulation on business? What does that accomplish? Personally, when developing any system of rules, I think you should have in place the rules you need to accomplish what needs being accomplished and no more, but also no fewer.

Yes, you are correct, and I should have caught that myself for similar reasons.

I do think there is a greater selection pressure on males in many species, however, because the reproductive cost in terms of resources spent and time taken out of the reproductive cycle for each instance of reproduction is generally higher for females than it is for males. There is less evolutionary cost to a male choosing a bad mate than there is for a female, because it's easier for a male to quickly move on to a more optimal one than it is for a female.

Raider posted more links, not more studies. One was a Newsweek opinion piece that included almost no numbers and failed to cite sources for a few assertions that I most wanted to follow up on. One was a study from a federal anti-drug enforcement organization. Two were reports on that same study and one was a very long police study that he admits he didn't even read, and until someone does, we have no idea where it falls. He also posted one report saying that the program was a success, which Phi also cited. So in total, we have exactly one study for each side and one report that nobody bothered to read, plus some links to various news organizations referring to one or the other previously mentioned study. That's why I think we need some actual numbers posted in the discussion.