As I said, I did not mean the only argument. I should have been more clear. At least I can admit it.

Ha!!! Muphry was spot on. Mea culpa.
"Donald J Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims coming to the United States....."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=viDffWUjcBA

Close enough, or do I need to find a video of him saying the words "Muslim ban"? From what I'm reading, any videos or statements he made with those words have been removed from his websites, so may be hard to find.

As I've said before, not banning ALL Muslims (yet) does not hide the clear intent any better than the targeted banning of Israelis hid the Jewish ban for some other countries.
Trump publicly stated that Christians from the "banned" countries, including Syria, would essentially be exempt and given preferential treatment, another legal indicator the ban is targeted at Muslims, not nationalities. I'll look to see if I can find a link to that.
http://time.com/4652367/donald-trump-refugee-policy-christians/

Obama never halted immigration from them, he implemented stringent vetting, but didn't revoke any visas like Trump, and extreme vetting has been the norm for years, it's not some new Trump idea requiring a travel ban until he figures out what's happening.

Saying he (Jim) didn't make an argument, when his argument is actually one of those offered in court against the ban, defends Trump's position, therefore him, intentionally or not.

Correct, "fuck off" is the retort, and proper retort when replying to a lying twat like him, the argument followed.

Not yet being a complete and total ban on Muslims coming into America, as Trump promised, does not mean it's not a Muslim ban. You don't have to ban ALL Muslims to be banning and/or targeting Muslims. It's worth noting that Trump already said he'll make exceptions and give priority to Christians from those countries. He's far too much of a pussy to actually halt immigration from countries whos citizens have attacked Americans and only went after weaker countries he's not in business with and that don't sell us much oil. Watch what happens if he's forced to divest himself from his businesses, suddenly some more countries will be on that terrorist/Muslim ban list.

I agree, our culture is barbaric, and getting more so. We're already discarding our culture's core pillar, that citizens have the right to believe in any religion they want....or none. I fully expect atheists to be the next targeted group, we're easy, a small (by comparison) group with little political power, and we're distrusted by the right, but not supported fully by the left, and we're an acceptable target for ridicule and distrust by almost all religious people. I ain't goin to no camp.

We (Americans) hold our prejudice tightly, and are worried about anyone different from ourselves, seemingly ignorant of the fact that we are (almost) al immigrants, and that our nation is built on the idea that different cultures together are stronger than any one.
We let Irish in while the IRA called for death to Brittan and tried to give it to them, without any extra vetting. What's different about these people....hmmmm? A different culture that, in your words, is barbaric? I guess you have an incredibly short memory, because until the mid 90's, terroristic barbarism was mostly reserved for Christians, yet no one suggested halting Christian immigration or extra vetting. Historically, Christian culture is far more barbaric and anti-intellectual.

No, the next president will halt construction immediately, assuming the construction ever actually starts, which it most likely will not.

He really was a man who left this world too soon. The day he died, the gaming world came to a grinding halt and it didn't matter what kind of gamer you were.

He really was that influential of a man, and he will continue to be missed be all.

@newtboy
If the locals were already doing their utmost legally to halt the invasion in the 30's, it was clear the immigrants were not welcome...except by the 11%
Jews weren't the only ones relocating to Palestine you know, Arab population growth was being driven up as well. For some strange reason a lot of people were relocating en mass in between WW1 and WW2. Seems disproportionate to me to be the concerned exclusively with the Jewish ones. Doubly so given within that time frame they undoubtedly had better reasons for concern.

My Texas-California comparison stands...
Except for the holocaust part.

Here's the example you want. During the Rwandan genocide, let's pretend we saw a mass exodus of Africans seeking refuge in America. As the genocide in Rwanda was being sifted through, let's pretend that White America decided to ban all land sales to black people, and started refusing to conduct any business with black people. Let's pretend white folks even got up in arms and started committing a few massacres of Black towns and Black people did the same back in defense and retaliation. Now, while all this fighting takes place lets see it escalate to an all out war, and the black population declares independence and accepts a UN mandated solution where they keep Missippi, Alabama and Florida or something. The day after that however, America and NATO announce a joint declaration of war and the president of the USA declares that he's going to drive the Africans into the sea. Now you've got a made in America analogy.

No, I did not know that...but it further supports my point that Palestine was the wrong place for them to go. If the locals were already doing their utmost legally to halt the invasion in the 30's, it was clear the immigrants were not welcome...except by the 11%. My Texas-California comparison stands, and the theory they were trying to 'escape' the anti-Jewish sentiment of Europe also evaporates if it existed in Palestine too, more so if it existed there before the Nazis began their war against the Jews, which you seem to indicate it did.
Edit: they were right to be worried. How about a settlement where Israel pays Palestine for the stolen territory now?
It makes sense that they would do that...and again you're wrong about the immigration numbers, they were rising precipitously in the 20's and 30's. I would not be surprised to find that this set of rules was in response to the massive immigration already occurring, or that it only applied to immigrants. That would be perfectly reasonable, and is the case today in many countries....in fact, isn't that the case in Israel today, but reversed? The Israeli treatment of the Palestinians has consistently been exponentially worse than the treatment they receive from Palestinians. As I understand it, non Jewish people can't vote in Israel, among many other rights lost.
Thank you for coming around to the fact that they were immigrants, not refugees. It's an important distinction....not that any nation is REQUIRED to accept refugees, but none of them accept uncontrolled massive illegal immigration.

If following the always in the middle rule, this should follow, but if you don't want to be a perfect driver, at least when merging, follow what is called the "zipper rule".

The zipper rule looks like it sounds: Allow one person to merge in front of you and one person behind you, like a zipper. If you're merging with one car in front of you and one car behind, allow one car already on the freeway to pass between you and the car merging in front of you. The person behind you should do the same for you and any car behind them.

This is something both cars on the freeway and cars merging onto it have to agree to though, as one asshole spoils it. Of course, if someone is tooooo slow (another problem) the zipper rule doesn't work perfectly either.

But the spirit of the zipper rule remains, despite how it is modified. If someone hogs the road, tailgating the car I should be merging behind, I simply follow the zipper rule after that asshat driver. If I were to fight over my true zipper position, I'd cause an even bigger problem than was already present -- and I gain.. what? One car's distance. That's nothing.

Not even 30 cars distance means a damn (a couple seconds?), so there's zero reasons to constantly weave in and out of a congested road, because you risk your vehicle for mere seconds. A terrible bet to make given the odds, no matter how skilled you are, because the lanes slow down at random intervals based on the random number of idiots weaving through traffic causing phantom intersections. Meanwhile, the lane you weaved out of has cleared and the guy being patient passes you by. Just fucking stay in your goddamn lane until you don't need to be there.

I learned this over time, after deciding to be patient and observe the distance traveled by impatient drivers compared to myself staying in one lane. I find that I will often pass the impatient driver by because they're making so many choices and fewer lane choices are ever more optimal than simply waiting for your lane to clear up, so rather than slowly gaining ground, they make a couple gains and then lane change into a briefly cleared lane that then halt once they zoom up to tailgate the person who has no more distance to travel. If I don't end up passing these impatient lane changers, the minimal distance they gained is only seconds, as when they reach their off ramp, they will be waiting idly by, as I catch up and pass them. If they had simply stayed in the same lane the entire way, they often would have arrived at the same time as if they hadn't changed lanes at all.

That would be AWESOME if he was. But in actuality---because of the tail rotor still spinning and then how the main rotor blades droop as they slow down (at just about the right height-with no visual profile end o- to chop someone driving a semi or a bus in half)---the entire helicopter is a rotating engine of death until everything comes to a halt...
Thus, the duck and run of people getting out from a chopper. And not duck and run towards the tail rotor specifically.

It really is amazing to me, how reviled he is by some.

It's like that thing that is repeated all the time -- you have a right to your own opinion, you don't have a right to your own facts.

Disagree with his policy decisions, sure. Get impatient when he starts to talk haltingly and slow? I get that. But hate him? Despise him? Have zero pride that this remarkably poised, funny, charming, incredibly intelligent and caring man is our country's President?

Inconceivable.

Your video, Game of Thrones: Why Dragons Halt Progress, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The inherently chaotic event that exists in the otherwise predictable / trainable environment of driving a car is the unplanned / unmeasured disturbance. In control systems that are adaptive or self learning, the unplanned disturbance is the killer - a short duration, unpredictable event for which the system is unable to respond to within the control limits that have been defined through training, programming and/or adaptation. The response to an unplanned disturbance is often to default to an instruction that is very much human derived (ie. stop, exit gracefully, terminate instruction, wait until conditions return to controllable boundary conditions or freeze in place) which, depending on the disturbance, can be catastrophic. In our world, with humans behind the wheel, let's call the unplanned disturbance the "mistake". A tire blows, a load comes undone, an object falls out of or off of another vehicle (human, dog, watermelon, gas cylinder) etc.

The concern from my perspective (and I work directly with adaptive / learning control systems every day - fundamental models, adaptive neural type predictors, genetic algorithms etc. ) is the response to these short duration / short response time unplanned disturbances. The videos I've seen and the examples that I have reviewed don't deal with these very short timescale events and how to manage the response, which in many cases is an event dependent response. I would guess that the 1st dead person that results from the actions or inaction of self driving vehicles will put a major dent if not halt to the program. Humans may be fallible, but we are remarkably (infinitely?) more adaptive in combined conscious / subconscious responses than any computer is or will be in the near future in both appropriateness of response and the time scale of generating that response.

In the partially controlled environment (ie. there is no such thing as 100%) of a automated warehouse and distribution center, self driving works. In the partially controlled environment where ONLY self driving vehicles are present on the roadways, then again, this technology will likely succeed. The mixed environment with self driving co-mingled with humans (see "fallible" above) is not presently viable, and I don't think will be in the next decade or two, partially due to safety risk and partially due to management of these short timescale unplanned disturbances that can call for vastly different responses depending upon the specific situation at hand. In the flow of traffic we encounter the majority of the time, would agree that this may not be an issue to some (in 44 years of driving, I've been in 2 accidents, so I'll leave the risk assessment to the actuaries). But one death, and we'll see how high the knees jerk. And it will happen.

My 2 cents.
TB

Your video, Halt and Catch Fire opening credits, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It's a really great one. The design process for it is quite fascinating.

You might enjoy reading this: http://www.artofthetitle.com/title/halt-and-catch-fire/

I love title sequences and the creative process of designing and producing them. I'm so glad Art of the Title exists to write up detailed articles with interviews of the creators.