But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837

Even if this had microwave parts it would not be able to cause any sort of radiation poisoning because microwaves are also non-ionising.

While it uses enough power to run a microwave, there are no microwave parts. The main diode arrays are from home movie projectors.

The amount of energy being transmitted into that plant to make it too hot to touch that quickly, think of how much longer it would take to do the same in your 1000W microwave.....

The problem of evil is the "biggest problem in theism"?

No, the biggest problem in theism is that the concept of god is a paradox.

Omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence.... they're all paradoxical.... the old "Can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cannot eat it?".

Nothing we have learned in all of human advancement has ever demonstrated such a paradox.

As for the "problem of evil", no, Hank I won't be thinking about it. It's actually only a problem if you really want to believe in god. For the rest of us, it's just another nail in the coffin of religion.

Reports of the GOP's death have been greatly exaggerated.

I predict them sinking to even more glorious depths before the general election. Stock up on microwave popcorn everybody, this implosion is going to be one for the ages...

There are also issues of monoculture -- all one variety of carrot. There are lots of "hippy" issues about this kind of farming.

And. With scales this large, this is why carrots are so cheap. And showing up in all the microwave dinners.

I guess that explains why there are carrots in every microwave dinner these days.

I was unfortunately surprised to learn that my butcher block home workbench, or more likely the varnish (looks like polyurethane to me) in many spots has a very low resistance (<0.5 ohm/in as I measure). Fried a PCB I was working on, which I took a lot of shit for, everyone assuming I'd just done something stupid. Anyways, the moral is don't assume your wooden bench is actually an insulator.

Oh, and I also don't recommend playing with a a transformer out of a microwave unless you really know what you're doing. Though it's probably safe enough, 2kV will arc pretty far through air, so you don't even have to actually touch it to have a bad day.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Fresh-Microwaved-Plasma-Balls-Easy-Recipie

Plasma Ball in Microwave Experiment has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

Fresh Microwaved Plasma Balls - Easy Recipe has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

I dunno, the camera doesn't need to be extremely high end, and plenty of things with wifi tech aren't prohibitively expensive.

I'm thinking that once economy of scale kicked in, those two bits might add as little as $20-$30 to the price. Add in the LCD screen and it could still be well under $100 (beyond the price of base microwave).


Basically, IF the price was right, I'd be interested. If not, I probably would be again after the early adopters covered the initial economy of scale problem. Or it wouldn't ever catch on, and I'd still be out nothing... But, I like the idea.

Need a steerable phased array of microwave emitters, along with the IR-camera. Could evenly heat food with varying water concentrations. A good use of that military radar tech.

I agree that having a screen on the front would be silly. If a wifi+FLIR camera can be added for App viewing, and adds maybe $100 to the cost of the unit, I would consider it. but my guess is it will cost a lot more.

Plus, it seems like the microwaves emitted inside would wreak havoc with the CMOS or CCD of the IR camera... and anything that would shield those, would also block the IR (why you can't use through glass)