@newtboy and @fuzzyundies

I know you at least had an emoji on proselytizing but...

Discussion of Christmas is no more proselytizing than discussion of Hanukkah or Ramadan. And in discussion of any of the 3, referencing the actual religious origins isn't really an 'escalation'.

And I get it's 'fun' to point out, but I can't believe anyone seriously feeling the exact date being inaccurate as a 'credibility' issue.

And surely wouldn't the failure to note that Fauci from March 2020 probably agrees with Fauci months later be the real big concern. FOX news for pity sake still tries to run the narrative of Fauci flip-flopping on masks using this exact footage...

The fact the sate had to essentially fire two DA's for not wanting to pursue the case before it finally was moved forward is the sad tag line underneath the correct verdict being reached in spite of that.

Maybe I can illustrate better.

The 'answer' they give is less clear than it could be for illustrating that purpose. That is to say, the very small electric current that is transferred 'wirelessly', would work exactly the same if your wire were never connected to each other period. Making it a loop as the example, then ignoring the transmission of force on the electrons along that connected wire is unduly complicating the example. If you want to illustrate that current in a wire generates a mag field, and that mag field in turn can induce a current in another wire is much better done by pointing out the result is the same if the wires are not connected.

It also avoids re-inforcing the very common misconception people have about electricity in wire not being subject the the speed of light...

This is also a trick question, and in a way that I kinda dislike because it additionally confuses matters by the setup.

Specifically, any change to the electrical field in the wire triggered by something like flipping the switch IS always limited to propagating at the speed of light, and as such WILL take 1s to travel the ~300,000km through the wire.

There's a bait and switch here though, were if the wires are close enough, and the power on the wire is high enough, there is a strong enough magnetic field in the wire to reach across the 1m distance to the end of the wire by the light bulb. That magnetic field will induce a very small electric field on the wire as well. Calling that 'lighting' the bulb though is 100% a trick question though as no existing light bulbs are sensitive enough to light up from that little current unless the 'live' side of the wire is both in very close proximity and running very high voltage.

The part I dislike, is too many people believe that electricity running in a cable is 'faster' than light, and the trick here kinda re-inforces that rather than helping to clear that up for people.

All true, and all things he hopefully is being tried for and will be found guilty of.

If you look at the nytimes breakdown of the video evidence though, it looks very possible his self defense argument gets him off of murder charges: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

In the first shooting, they document some one else(not rittenhouse) firing a handgun before Rittenhouse fires. As that first shot is fired, someone lunges towards Rittenhouse, who then fires at them.

Now, everything you've pointed out already makes Rittenhouse guilty of putting himself in a bad situation, and already having broken multiple laws. Still, under the circumstances, you have entire crowds of folks all breaking curfew, at least one other random person in the area firing a handgun, and someone lunging at an armed Rittenhouse.

There's a lot of terrible, stupid things all going on at once here. Evidence wise though, it looks like self defense, after breaking many laws and putting himself in harms way, is still factually part of the night.

I hope he gets a lot of jail time for all the laws he did break, but am not holding my breath on an impartial jury rejecting the self defense angle base on the nytimes footage,

@newtboy,

Those have been attacked by extremely tiny, but vocal minorities on the very far left, not main stream leftists nor centrists. Just as all on the right aren’t raving lunatic Trumpists that gladly put orange daddy before reality, country, and democracy, all on the left aren’t as you’ve described them….very few are.

@newtboy,

thanks for clarification.

So in your view, do you see the left objecting to any of the following things that kinda speak to Maher's point, and I think fits to the point of the 'left' being upset with him,

-Defending Chapelle which left would decry invoking their definition of dog whistle, transphobia...
-Pointing out a correlation between violence and Islamic extremism which left would decry as islamophobia
-Believing sports/olympics should divide competitors based on biological sex rather than gender identity == Transphobia
-(Big any famous celebrity accused of sex crimes) and suggesting they deserve a fair trial == failure to believe victims/survivors

Those are all things that have been pretty commonly defended by large groups of the left from what I've been seeing. Am I wrong?

@newtboy,

One of Mayers examples is calling out headlines about SAT's being inherently racist as false. Isn't that something you've told me you felt strongly about? I know we had discussion on including race in college admissions, and you against a race/color blind admission process as that was too pro-white. Seems it's not wrong on at least that point to say Maher's ruffling feathers with the left?

Well I guess that's officially it, the end of the world is here.

bobknight and newtboy agreeing on not just something, but on police over reach...

Using an unmarked van, with the side door open to run around drive by shooting civilians with a shotgun and beanbag rounds...

Can anyone explain why this isn't immediately a firing for everyone involved? At the least you have to go up the chain enough to find whomever gave the order, then you need to fire them. Then you also need to take every officer willing to actually follow that order and fire them too.

In what world outside the cliched "in Soviet Russia", is using unmarked vans for drive by shootings something you want law enforcement doing to 'help'???

Honest question for everyone really angry at the lady in the video. Is the problem her manner and attitude alone? That is to ask a second question, do you think it is unreasonable for a parent to not want their young daughter seeing naked penises?

The problem is, it's complicated.

First off, is the legacy of historical damage still scarring aboriginal communities in Canada.

Even disregarding that complexity though, current structure of governance in Canada makes the problem harder to identify and resolve.

Singh's return question is what would you do if Toronto faced the same problem? The answer is the federal government would by and large do nothing, because water supply is a municipal responsibility and the Mayor and city council of Toronto are responsible for fixing it, and thus federal funds don't go in and instead municipal tax money is used to keep the water supply going. Across Canada that model is working pretty decently, by and large.

The real question then is why are reserves having a harder time? Well, afore mentioned historical trauma aside, reserves represent small communities directly comparable in size and make up as municipal communities. However, the reserves are NOT managed like municipalities. Instead Canada still has a two tiered system of governance, one for reserves and another for municipalities.

In term so governance municipalities report to the provinces and the provinces report to the federal government. Reserves report directly to the federal government.

The affects everything related to governance and is responsible for a host of confusion and difficulty.

Services: Education and Health are provincially funded, and so the federal government transfer money to the provinces and tells them to figure out education and health services. Municipalities then just get those services. Reserves however sit outside that, and get entirely different intermediaries.

Taxation and funding: municipal, provincial and federal governments all gather taxes and distribute funds up and down. Reserves only deal with funding though directly to the feds, again cutting out the provincial intermediary.

Both of the above mean making an apples to apples comparison of communities to try and ensure both are treated 'equally' is impossible. It also means that solutions that work on one side don't in the other.

It's a big mess, and just throwing money at the system and saying that will fix it is just wrong. Not only that, it's been TRIED and failed. The above mentioned differences also apply to rules surrounding transparency, accountability and fraud prevention. Meaning there are a great many more loopholes available on the reserve funding side for anyone involved or attached to providing services(be that council members on reserve, or any number of external entities hired in good faith to perform services). That in turn means the amount of money lost to direct and indirect corruption is harder to find/stop.

So fix all that is the next obvious response. The problem is still complex though because when does 'fixing' becoming simply white folks making aboriginals do things the 'right(white) way that was already the source of lingering historical damage I didn't even consider yet...

It's a hard problem to solve and Singh's just trying to score cheap political points peddling easy and false answers to a complex problem.

No, they aren’t upset about Trump starting too few wars. They are upset that the one war he chose to wage was a reigniting of America’s last civil one, capped off with his followers storming the capital building waving confederate flags and chanting for the hanging of the current vice president.

So yeah, the REAL patriots are mad at Trump about that.

Oh come now BOB, surely even you can do better than that.

Before Trump sniffed his chance for power running as a Republican, he had been a big time donor to the democratic party, and even invited the Clintons to his wedding.

Meanwhile Liz Cheney is a multi generational republican, with Dick Cheney's support for the part stretching back to winning his first election as a republican in 1978...

But yeah, they're the Republican's in name only, and Trump is clearly the party loyalist...

Unless you redefine republican as Trump loyalist, none of this makes any sense and is straight up madness.

yes, the answer is yes.