Embedded swamp Trump. Yes, that sounds right.
Trump and his people have all been guilty of what he called swamp behavior to an extreme never seen in America, so many removed for abuse of office and theft, most while being praised by Trump. He didn't remove any for their crimes, he's only removed people for not properly kissing his ass and repeating his lies. Those removed for criminal malfeasance were often removed against his wishes and with his praise.

These are his people...the "individuates" he chose and hired. I agree he did the right thing firing most of those he did fire, but absolutely the wrong thing when he hired them and the wrong thing again with those he replaced them with who are usually worse....and worst of all he didn't remove the swamp monster in chief, you know, the one pumping stagnant feculant water into Washington by the metric ton.

No Bob, many were treasonous crimes, all were intentional crimes of moral turpitude. Hiding tens of millions paid to you by Russia and testifying you have no ties to them, that's not a process crime as you pretend, and was happening during and after his campaign and 100% for Trump's benefit.
Flynn, you can't trap someone who isn't committing a crime. They only trapped him into lying under oath about the crime he had already committed for Trump and at Trump's direction....subversion....when they already had proof he had done it. Duh.

How many of Trump's "best people" are convicted of being unreported foreign agents? How many in Obama's administration were?

Please stop spouting moronic lies, Dimitri, and give us back the Bob that knows English, please. When you start spouting clear insanity like this paired with losing your grasp of what you claim is your native language, we know another agent is posting as "Bob" today, and he's the one who's like an angry 6 year old trying to make political arguments with no knowledge whatsoever besides which party the players belong to.

this right here is what drives me absolutely bonkers.

you proceed from a false premise:
that "wealth" translates to being less corruptible.

blindly ignoring what wealth actual not only IS,but what it represents to the elite class in America.

power.

so could we please STOP with how much trump is actually worth,as if it has any inherent meaning in terms of power?


i do not understand wasting time with an ideologue,or dissecting his obviously conflicting comments as somehow expressing a clear and definable philosophy.these people play in the realm of cult of personality,spectacle and magical thinking.

their adoration for a particular public figure is cultish,and has very little to do with reality but more how their idol represents an ideal that they feel very strongly about.

so are we really surprised that bob will give Alexandria ocasio cortez a nod for exposing how easy it is to corrupt the system,but then conveniently excuse his idol and give him a pass based on the flimsiest of reasons:wealth.

when it was Alexandria ocasio cortez's lightning round that exposed how it is actually EASIER for the executive branch and the president to sell their influence for money.

but to bob,and how he sees things,the very idea that trump would ever engage in a breach of morality,and break his promise to the American people...is preposterous,...because trump already has money,why would he sell his integrity?

because BOB has integrity.
because BOB would never break a promise.
this is basic projection of ones morality onto a figure they admire.
we can apply the exact same metric to those who voted for Obama.same thing.same results.

you will never get bob to admonish his hero,because that hero represents the IDEA of what bob is projecting,not the actual reality.

fundamentalists engage in the exact same magical thinking.

so how can i get mad for bob,and the other trumpsters of the world?
i pity them.
because delusional dreams always crash on the shores of the real eventually.

and that is going to be a sad day for bob.

Cedars are very bad for the environment. They are water hogs and produce a metric shitton of pollen. Glad to see these trees go.

Probably not most Democrats, but some. Democrats are far worse at ignoring disqualifying foibles and voting for their team no matter what, which cost them the last election. If you had slapped a red tie on Charles Manson's corpse and made him the candidate, most Republicans would have voted for him.

Totally agree about his message being an obvious lie, and that people bought the lie and ignored reality.

Not viewed that way by everyone. Carter is by far my favorite president of my lifetime, before, during, and after holding office he beats each and every one easily by any metric. That man almost single handedly eradicated the guinea worm, he's a God damn planetary hero.....and the last honest man in American politics.

Don't sell your kind short. By most metrics, you have been since before there were humans.

It was clear he was going to win once the democrat mafia forced Hillary down our throats again. There were a metric fuckton of people who were forced to either sit out the election or sadly vote for the worst possible person just because the dems wouldn't fairly let a candidate be selected.

I DID NOT want Trump to be President. At the same time, I COULD NOT vote for Hillary Clinton. Had Bernie ran, I would have jumped ship and voted for him like I did for Obama. I am willing to bet there were a lot like me. The sad thing is, as much as I dislike Hillary, if she is forced on us again I will have to vote for her. I don't want to, but at that point it will be the lesser of two evils again.

At first I thought that Hawaii had switched to the metric system... then checked and it's a CBC broadcast.

So... having an armed guard didn't deter this shooter... and this shooter, unlike many others, did not have a death wish, he went peacefully once found.

It's impossible to know how many shootings ARE deterred by armed guards.

But, we can know how many school shootings were stopped by armed guards... My quick search shows one shooting was stopped by an armed guard just days after, but nobody seems to have any statistics on how many armed guards stop shootings... If you're going to make the assertion that "guards are effective at engaging threats", you need to show numbers. Certainly, with as many politicians who want this to be the solution, and with the monumental rise in school shootings over the last decade, there should be someone, somewhere, capturing metrics on this sort of thing.

My position: Schools have a hard time paying teachers a reasonable salary... I doubt they're going to be getting top-of-the-line security guards... They'll be hiring retired, ex-military cooks who've had weapon training but never been shot at.

Gupta then talked about his interaction Tuesday with Trump's doctor, Navy Rear Adm. Dr. Ronny Jackson.


"It was interesting when I spoke to Dr. Jackson. At first he said he passed all the tests with flying colors," Gupta said. "When I asked him specifically about that test, he did then concede that, in fact, the president does have heart disease."
"They're going to be increasing the medications, including the cholesterol-lowering medications to try and combat that, but there's no question, by all standards, by all metrics, anyway a doctor or cardiologist will look at it, the president does have heart disease."

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/369287-sanjay-gupta-by-all-standards-trump-has-heart-disease

The video is right that pretty much the number one most important question is the weight of the truck (basically tare weight, which is actually the tractor plus empty trailer). When I watched the announcement, I thought Musk was slightly cagey about that, but I thought that he said that it would be in the ballpark of a normal ICE semi. Guess I should watch again.

I think Musk made some semi-optimistic predictions about battery tech improvement and economy of scale. Frankly, I think he's earned the right to be semi-bold with his predictions, given his and Tesla's track record (paying off govt. loan very early, single handedly pushing forward battery tech and production, etc. etc.). His optimistic predictions have a tendency of panning out.

The average American is never going to switch to an electric car purely or even largely for "green conscious" reasons. The switch will happen when the electric car is better than the ICE alternatives in concrete metrics like performance, reliability, and operating cost. Musk is pushing that date forward at an incredible pace. Arguably it is already true for many use-cases at the high price-point range of the Model S, but that price point limits the scope of the impact quite a bit. He knows that to really shake things up, he's got to get that price point down, and he knows that to do that he's got to improve the economy of scale on battery tech. Which he's doing by expanding it into adjacent markets like home batteries, etc.

I think he deserves a lot of credit for "walking the walk" when it comes to working hard to protect/improve the environment, as opposed to Al Gore et al. "talking the talk".

Um...but, again, before Ford made internal combustion viable, the electric car was center stage, almost alone on the stage....even with the horrible batteries they had in the 1800's. Granted, there weren't many other options besides steam.

It's well past time for it to return imo.

It's not just sad it's criminal that before it got a second shot it had to prove it could beat combustion engine vehicles in every way, not just ecologically and economically, but in every performance metric as well. Now that it has, I still expect major pushback from both car and oil companies and their lackeys. Fingers crossed that they fail this time to rig the system again.

PS, are you using speech to text, is there a problem with the Russian to English translation program you've been issued, or should we be worried about Wernicke's aphasia? ;-)

TL;DW! I jest, I jest! I remember I used to read metric (yes, METRIC) tons of books during my formative years. Novels, fiction, non-fiction, comics... I read Times & Maclean's (Canadian equivalent of Times) magazines front-to-back... like over 90% of all articles every week. But high-speed internet & smartphone happened then I don't read prints very much anymore. Still read/watch news too much though, but it's now more depressing than educational with the stuff I read online. The journalistic standard is way down.
Much harder to find really enlightening long-form reporting these days.

"You know the rule: "i" before "e," except after "c." A rule that is immediately followed by a metric butt-ton of exceptions: "either," "neither," "weigh," "neighbor," "caffeine," "weird," "protein," "feisty," "conscience" ... and then approximately 10,000 more words. So it's less a rule than a thing that ... just happens, sometimes. Like a tornado."

As a former employee under both Jobs and Cook, I can tell you exactly what is wrong with Apple.

When I started with Apple, every thing we were concerned with was innovating. What could we come up with next? Sure, there were plenty of misses, but when we hit, we hit big. It was ingrained in the culture of the company. Managers wanted creative people, people who might not have been the best worker bee, but that could come up with new concepts easily. Sometimes corporate rules were broken, but if you could show that you were actively working towards something new, then you were OK.

Fast forward to when Cook started running the show, Steve was still alive, but had taken a backseat really. Metrics became a thing. Performance became a watchword. Managers didn't want creative thought, they wanted people who would put their nose to the grindstone and only work on things that headquarters suggested. Apple was no longer worried about innovating, they were concerned with 'maintaining'.

Two examples which might help illustrate further:

1. One of the guys I was working with was constantly screwing around in any free moment with iMovie. He was annoyed at how slow it was in rendering, which at the time was done on the CPU power. Did some of his regular work suffer, yeah. But he was praised because his concepts helped to shift some of the processing to the GPU and allow real time effects. This functionality made iMovie HD 6 amazing to work with.

2. In a different section of the company, the support side, a new manager improved call times, customer service stats, customer satisfaction, and drastically cut down on escalations. However, his team was considered to be:

a. making the other teams look bad

and

b. abusing the use of customer satisfaction tools, like giving a free iPod shuffle (which literally costs a few dollars to make) to extremely upset customers.

Now they were allowed to do all of these things, no rules were being broken. But Cook was mostly in charge by that point and he was more concerned with every damn penny. So, soon after this team blew all the other teams away for the 3rd month in a row, the new manager was demoted and the team was broken up, to be integrated into other teams willy-nilly.

Doing smart things was no longer the 'thing'. Toeing the line was. Until that changes, nothing is going to get better for Apple. I know I personally left due to stress and health issues from the extreme pressure that Cook kept sending downstream on us worker bees. My job, which I had loved, literally destroyed my health over a year.

No Netflix for me, and no luck on a quick search of torrents, but I'll keep my eye out for that show/series.

Many metrics to compare. Ecologically, that system sounds great for static locations with enough of an elevation gradient and reservoir areas to make it work. On the other hand it seems like the ecological damage done by constructing batteries, factories, and disposing of them is likely quite small compared to many other alternatives, particularly fossil fuels (which also have long-term scarcity concerns on top of plenty of other issues).

A major advantage of battery tech over hydro storage would be mobility. If the thing consuming energy doesn't sit in one place, hydro storage won't work. Another somewhat less significant advantage is the ability to install anywhere -- a battery farm recharged by mains and/or a solar/wind farm could be installed in places where hydro storage couldn't. And for one more item in favor of batteries, I'd wager that the land area footprint required for batteries is much smaller per kWH stored, although that might be wrong for extremely large reservoirs (ie. a hydroelectric dam, pretty much). But by the time you're getting to that large scale, the location requirements and ecological disruption are also much more extreme.

Anyway, I don't mean to pooh-pooh the idea of hydro storage -- it really does seem like a very good and ingenious idea where it would be applicable. But there's certainly room for improved battery tech, too. I don't think that we're going to get fully or even significantly weaned off of fossil fuels quite as fast as the video would have us hope for, either. Fossil fuels were the primary tool in our toolbox for a LONG time. And as the saying goes, since all we've had is that "hammer", we've started to think of everything as a nail.