Oh, that explains a lot. The closer you get to downtown and to UT, the rent/sale value rises exponentially on houses I wouldn't let my pets live in. I've seen crappy 1940's houses that are falling apart listed for 400k and up that close to UT.

Yeah, Austin is pretty tame. I live in one of the sort of 'bad' areas and we never have had any issues. The closest I've ever come to real trouble is when I walking away from a music venue in south-east Austin a few years back. Three guys asked if I wanted to buy a knife and I, like a total idiot, was like "Sorry, I might have but I spent all my cash inside the club."

It was only after finished walking to my car and left that I realized they were kind of attempting to mug me.

Edit: On the flip side though, unless you live in a district the city keeps the taxes artificially low in (IE, east Austin), you get reamed. Our house is from the late 50's and is valued at 215k, but our yearly property/school taxes run over 4k. Since they just took out another huge bond, I expect next years will be closer to 5.

Although i find it hard to forgive him for his ego, which saw an end to the best band that Earth has ever produced, you can't deny he was a huge part of the engine of Pink Floyd when you see it executed like that.

The whole was exponentially greater than the sum of its parts. Roger's problem was that he would never be seen as a Syd Barrett style prodigal genius, despite being one in his own right.

A comment above reminded me that a friend of mine had tickets to the reunion they did for Live8, but they never used them. They told me a week after when i brought it up and said i could have had the tickets if i wanted. Wanker knew i was a huge Pink Floyd fan. We haven't spoken much since.

@transmorpher
then i mispoke,or you didn't understand.
i was addressing large swaths of history,so if it appeared i was making 'all things are fair,and equal" argument.

i apologize.

how about this:
at this point in history,it is islam that is by far the greatest threat to liberal democracies across the globe.they are threat to the process of democracies,and an even greater threat where they hold positions of political power.

the impetus and motivations that help promote,and therefor create a religious form of an echo chamber,which exponentially increases populations vulnerable to fundamentalist interpretations.either by force or fear,must be challenged.

always,and without reservation.
because to sit back and do nothing.....
/points to the dark ages.

that better?

i have no fear of drawing MO,nor calling out bad theosophy and even worse politics.

i am a man of faith,and my faith dictates my politics.

so i hoped i cleared that last bit up,and was clearer with my words.
goodnight man,i am whooped.

And western intervention made those problems exponentially worse and directed their anger outwards towards us.

Ignoring the many factors that historically and consistently radicalized people from many religions to demonize one is the right being dishonest.

Islam has a problem. It's the same problem all religion has, it's easily abused to foster hatred of non/incorrect believers and violence towards them. It just happens that this problem is most pronounced in Islam today. That has not been the case for much of history, including recent history.

If the wall would stop, or even reduce illegal immigration, that would be a tangible benefit. Unfortunately, around half of illegals entered legally and just stayed, and it's fairly well proven that making border crossing more difficult just means fewer go back home, leading to more illegals, not fewer.

If illegal immigration from Mexico is a problem, the ONLY way to solve it is to make it easier to get a good job in Mexico than in America....ending NAFTA is going to increase it exponentially, building a wall is going to increase it, their plans to stop immigration are totally ass backwards. Edit: fining employers that hire them might help, but that's also totally off the table for Republicans, God forbid they take responsibility for their part in creating the problem.

Trump has no problem ignoring his promises, Mexico paying for the wall, for instance, off the table already, prosecuting Clinton, off the table. "Trump promised" is meaningless.

'It's useless, but not the worst waste of money we're guilty of' is hardly a reason to spend tens of billions on a project that hurts us internationally for little to no benefit, no? I would rather we try to end the worse abuses instead of creating new ones.

Yes, it could be much better, but who is it that rails against living wages or even raising the minimum wage?
The dismal growth of the last 8 years, which was in fact the longest continuous period of job growth in our history, was way better than we saw under either Bush, exponentially better....more than that, since Bush2 lost jobs. Wages have outpaced inflation for hourly workers under Obama as well, yes they are still not a living wage, but they did have an improvement under him, even when adjusted for inflation. (Pay increased at a rate of 2.8% per year while inflation was 1.3% last year and only .1% in 2015)


Sorry, your facts are just wrong.

A great example of why you should only hire licensed and bonded electricians and plumbers, and never rely on the city's inspection to be sure they did things right and safely.
Being cheap and going with the lowest estimate often ends up more expensive and exponentially more frustrating.

The only way I could see it working as described is if the Tesla really has that good of object-detection onboard, was already tracking all objects, and was just that accurate in determining the speed of the impacted SUV and the rate of decreasing distance between it and the car that hit it.
Even if that were the case, I suspect the sensors on these cars get exponentially fidgety at longer distances and with more extreme angles (like measuring changing distance between two 'overlapping' objects directly ahead), it's really unlikely it was predicting the collision.
All that to say: Yeah, I agree. You're most probably right.

Here is the problem, Mr. Schlosser is a journalist, not a Nuclear Scientist. He does not understand, or has chosen to ignore for propaganda reasons, that an unarmed warhead is EXTREMELY unlikely to perform the exact sequence of events that need to take place to have a nuclear reaction happen.

Yes, he is fully correct in that we have had numerous 'butt-clenching' moments in which we could have started WW3 due to a malfunction or human error. But in the other cases he mentions, such as the bombs that landed on Spain, the lightning bolt on the tower, and the wrench on the rocket, the chance of the warhead going up while being unarmed is infinitesimal. They simply don't go 'boom' because of a collision or explosion. Now you could have a 'dirty bomb' type incident where the radioactive materials could be spread and come into contact with humans, but that is about it.

The cases that have been officially listed as Broken Arrows were because they involved an active bomb, like the one in Florida. Everything else he mentions in this video is his 'belief' and is conjecture.

Now, before I get unloaded on, I wish we didn't have nuclear weapons. I don't agree with Trump that we should renew the arms race, I think he is nuts since we have more than enough weapons to blanket the cities of the world more than a couple of times. If you add all the nukes from the Big 3 (USA/Russia/France...yes, France) there are enough to cover every single inch of the world.

The problem is, who bells the cat? If we give up all of our weapons, we are at risk. I wish we weren't, but we would be. If we bring down our numbers gradually, there are still other countries that may not, like North Korea. How do we trust the other country is actually following through? In a perfect world, we would all lay down our weapons and sing kumbaya, but as Heinlein wrote: "...Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."

PS...Yes, I know Starship Troopers is a controversial novel with overtones of Militarism and Fascism. However, there are quotes that ring true no matter what 'ism' people attach to the overall story. If you doubt that, look at the utter disbelief and depression that overcame liberals when Trump won. "He simply was supposed to, it was impossible, not like this, we have no hope, etc" were the feelings of the people who gave him no hope of winning. I, having lived and read enough to get a fair picture of how fucked up we are as a species, had little doubt he could pull it off. We elected a former Wrestler as governor, a former actor as governor, and a former actor as President. We overlook mass genocide in other countries. We ignore climate change. We spend hundreds of billions on defense and less than 10 on space exploration, all the while living on a planet that is already critically overpopulated (and is growing almost exponentially).

Call it what you will. To me, massive illegal immigration with the goal of territorial control is invasion...no matter why they invaded. Invaders always have a reason.

The Jewish population didn't want to be mixed, nor did the Arabs by then from my readings, so there was no chance of peaceful coexistence.

Wait...what?! So...after the Nazis were gone it was too late to go home?!? How do you figure? Many if not most of them were still in Europe then.
They didn't need a promise, they needed to return to their properties, then demand reparations. They weren't promised anything by Palestine either....right?

They should have said that when the Nazis showed up, not after they were defeated...and should have fought the Nazis, not the mostly blameless (for the atrocities) Palestinians.

Again, civil wars are between native populations, not immigrants. Immigrants fighting natives is called invasion. Period.

HA!!!!! So, when neighbors and allies try to secure their borders that are being crossed by invaders, you call THEM invaders, but not the immigrant army. WTF, man?

EDIT: Should I think you call Turkey an invader of Daesh, and you a supporter of Daesh? They were in the same boat as the Jews, being ostracized and destroyed around the globe, until they came together in an area where a small portion of the natives gave them support and the majorities ignored their rise to power, they grasped territories and power, formed their separate nation, and since then have simply 'defended' themselves from the aggressive natives....right? Um....no.

No...far from the most open place, Palestine was openly hostile to them, but incapable of stopping the invasion. The U.S. was open...if they could get here. There was no separate Jewish Palestine then. I have sympathy for the European Jews until the day they tried to become a separate nation by force. Since that day, they've been the aggressive invaders doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to them without the gas chambers.

Perhaps you don't know that >90% of rockets are fired at expansionist settlements in Palestine, not Israel, met with exponentially more force against civilians. (And before you balk, there's no such thing as an Israeli civilian, they are all, 100%, military....by law).

Neighbors and allies fighting invaders of their allies are absolutely not more at fault than the invaders for the continuing tragedy...not that I support their rhetoric or actions.
The single cause of the conflict is foreign invaders taking territory by force and constant expansion ever since. Their continuing inhumanity towards the natives is another topic, morality.

The stats were percentage of total population, not individuals. The Jewish (immigrant)population was growing exponentially faster than non-Jewish. The concern is because it was the Jewish ones that decided to permanently relocate in huge numbers (larger than all other demographics put together) across the continent to a single small country that could not stop them, and then take it by force, expelling the natives.
This "refugee from hostility" bullshit is just that as I see it. If, as you claim, the Arab population in Palestine was already hostile to Jews specifically (and I contend that if they were it was a function of massive illegal immigration, often by militants, that pushed them to it), then moving there would do absolutely nothing to alleviate the concern they might have for people that are hostile in Northern Europe. It's a complete red herring argument, ridiculous on it's face, and worse when examined closely.

"except for the holocaust part"....
Tell that to the families of the students murdered by police, or the tens of thousands of Guatemalans fleeing murder squads. State sponsored murder is state sponsored murder, it doesn't require total genocide (although the Jews don't have a monopoly on that either) and Mexicans and others have just as valid a claim that they are oppressed by it (not to the same extent as Jews under the Nazis, no, but as much or more than before the Nazis started their campaigns).

OK, let's play pretend...starting with pretending the rest of the world has an American constitution requiring equal treatment and denying discrimination based on race or religion....but I'll bite.
Almost all that happened in the 50's-60's....in case you weren't aware....without the Rwandan genocide part, or the backing by a foreign nation arming the black side. I think there were even attempts at succeeding by some groups back then....but they got no support, and were 'driven into the sea' in essence, mostly driven into prison, hiding, or a 6 ft box in reality.
Comparing the Arab league to NATO and the US is hardly realistic, unless the black nation in your "example" gets the military backing of Russia, China, Africa, South America, and parts of central America, and NATO only contains the US, Mexico, and Canada, and has no chance against new Africa and it's allies, which beats them mercilessly then expands north for decades. Also, you have to change the immigration from Rwanda, a tiny nation, to black "refugees" from the entire planet...and even then you don't have close to the same per capita immigration problem European Jewish immigrants posed to native Palestinians. All that said...I'm pretty sure some Northern leaders publicly declared they would drive the secessionists into the sea in the civil war, so it would be nothing new here. Also, it would be totally proper to do so in your hypothetical, IMO. Any invaders can be driven out by force by any nation...and that nation gets to decide who's an invader. Keep in mind that in your example, the black nation would expel all non blacks and seize their property....which is usually called theft.

I'll stick with my Mexican analogy, it's vastly more apt, IMO....it's as if you forgot that there are native Mexicans in the US that did have their property rights infringed on and were discriminated against (and still are)...and/or aren't aware that Rwanda is much smaller than the US or even smaller than many individual states, and/or ignored that the Arab League is much smaller and infinitely less capable than the UN or NATO, so not a decent comparison.....or aren't aware of.....well, that's enough, no need to harp.

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.

What?!? Napolitano believes a completely crazy conspiracy theory with absolutely no evidence to back it up based on pure hyper biased conjecture, and is willing to 'report' it as a fact with faux news's backing?!?
This must be a day of the week that ends in "y".

Now, as to the theory.... that a patriotic NSA agent, angry at Clinton's possible lack of safeguards on her emails which might contain sensitive information, hacked in and stole those emails and made them all public, doing exponentially more damage than her actions did, and exactly the maximum damage he was angry she made at all possible....it's just totally bat shit insane and defies all logic....so of course Napolitano and faux viewers believe it.

But....we already do that.
Pollution; soot, sulfur, etc, already cause global dimming, which is exactly what you're describing, blocking 10% or more of sunlight and mitigating as much as 5%, but averaging 2-3% of warming already. I have said repeatedly that instantly switching to real clean energy would actually accelerate global warming exponentially because of this little known effect. That makes most plans to do something actually worse than doing nothing in the short term, and now in the long term too because that rapid temperature rise would absolutely accelerate methane releases (among other cycles) which starts feedback loops, possibly turning us into Venus.
Sadly, because of the size of the areas where the methane is escaping, there's no way possible to capture it. You would have to cover about 1/5 of earth with a sealed plastic sheet or something. It's not possible to tap the deposits and siphon them off, they are not centralized gas pockets for the most part.