Another potential error is that the political ideologies of the parties have shifted wildly over time, most notable the polar shift (pun intended) after the civil rights act of 64.

"the blues reminds us.." HAH!! That's rich, bitch!!" When has your, AfroHawaiian-ass ever had to deal with any blues??! Obama, you are whiter than the rooms where PCU's are manufactured and about as black a fucking Polar Bear!

Oh, and pick an Allman Brother alumni to represent the "blues" why don't ya!? Exactly what a fucking uncle Tom like yourself would be expected to do!

This kinna shit criminals do to save face-"Hey Obama. FEMA trailers to NYC yesterday, how about stuffing your blues up your ass??!!

The final months before the election is not the time to take a strong stance on any issue as polarizing as gun control (or abortion, immigration or taxes for that matter.) Both sides know this as evidenced by the dramatic shift to the center by both parties in the 3rd debate. Moore is a bit of an attention whore for bringing it up.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^criticalthud:
i'll vote when the system isn't rigged and bought,... and our supposed democracy isn't just a dramatic diversion from reality.

If everyone that used this excuse were to go and vote for a 3rd party candidate, so that they got >5% of the popular vote, they would qualify for federal campaign funding.


it's not an excuse. it is a purposeful action/inaction.
i voted for most adult life. and i've even been an attorney for the federal government, seeing the machine from within. But the futility of changing the system by the rules of the system is a reality. The rules of the system are such that they are intended to preserve the status quo.
...
"Divide and conquer" is a fundamental strategy of the ruling elite to control the masses. Our 2 party system is an extension of this. To make a 3rd party candidate viable requires more than just a vote...it requires an education into how the political system works and an understanding of how it is purposefully polarized. While I am happy to push for a greater understanding of the political system, I am fairly against participating in an ongoing charade.

Quality and science - all the way. Good sift!

By the way - the light is polarized, so try wearing polarized sunglasses the next time you watch a rainbow (or use a polarized filter for your camera), and by rotating the polarized glass you can make the rainbow disappear - or appear twice as bright, compared the background..

I imagine it's a result of various forces and circumstances (I don't think it's a coincidence that the droplets were soapy water which would increase it's surface tension/bubble strength).

Also keep in mind that a droplets surface would be a mesh of the outermost water molecules held together by their polar attraction. As the sphere bounces and moves its surface would have mini waves and ripples along it that would push against and then move away from the molecules on the water surface below it as the kinetic and polar forces acted.

If you imagine that every sphere of water had portions of its surface moving away from the water surface below and then oscillating back towards the surface while the molecules on the spheres surface that had been touching the water surface below would begin to oscillate back into the sphere.

This would create many points of contact oscillating against and away from the water surface below and thus there might not be enough contact/pressure between the 2 surfaces for it to coalesce at any given time. Imagine bugs whose feet are tiny enough for them to "stand" on water due to surface tension and the principle would be the same. It'd be like an infinite number of these bugs legs jumping up and down on the water at a microscopic level.

Also I'm not familiar enough with how water molecules align themselves while at the surface of something so perhaps the alignment of their atoms helps as well?

Thats all a guess though I'm sure you could google the real answer.

The parties are not similar enough that I would vote for BHO, nor you for Romney.

As civilizations go the choice is between a dictatorship or a semi-plutocracy. There's more freedom under the latter and an improved standard of living, even if it's not spread equally.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
There's very real difference between the two parties, otherwise "increased polarization" would not be an issue.
When you don't vote, you vote for someone else's vote to be made stronger. Hope you agree with them.

"Increased Polarization" is an issue because it's played up by the PR industry. It's not a reality, the two parties are incredibly similar when you look at the actual policies. They're both for the wealthy of America and they're both for the constant control of the worlds resources with our military.

>> ^quantumushroom:

There's very real difference between the two parties, otherwise "increased polarization" would not be an issue.
When you don't vote, you vote for someone else's vote to be made stronger. Hope you agree with them.


"Increased Polarization" is an issue because it's played up by the PR industry. It's not a reality, the two parties are incredibly similar when you look at the actual policies. They're both for the wealthy of America and they're both for the constant control of the worlds resources with our military.

There's very real difference between the two parties, otherwise "increased polarization" would not be an issue.

When you don't vote, you vote for someone else's vote to be made stronger. Hope you agree with them.

@KnivesOut

@shinyblurry "I think he is polarizing because he actively works to divide people across political, economic and racial lines." Citation needed.

Here is Obama demagoging the wealthy in a speech he made in Kansas in late 2011:

"The free market has never been a license to take whatever you can from whomever you can,” and “Their philosophy is simple. We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules"

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/11/opinion/la-oe-mcmanus-column-obama-kansas-speech-20111211

Here is Obama saying republicans don't care about their neighbors or communities:



Here is Joe Biden telling people that Mitt Romney was going to put them back in chains:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/joe-biden-supporters-mitt-romney-put-back-chains-195904387.html

Don't you think the Republicans would do exactly the same thing in the same situation? Three branches of government, voted into control of all three branches... Jeopardy theme song... Seriously?

I have no doubt that the republicans would do the same thing. It isn't a question of what the republicans would do though, it is a question of the personal integrity of President Obama. It was President Obama who made it a major theme of his campaign that he wouldn't act unilaterally, but rather he would reach across the aisle and heal the bitter partisan divide in Washington. You seem to think it's okay that President Obama got elected under false pretenses, by misleading the American people about the type of president he would be. Because you hate the republicans, you don't seem to mind that he broke that promise; apparently in your eyes it is justified. Perhaps you view it as a necessary evil, something a candidate has to say to get elected. But this goes back to your original commentary, that it's amusing to you that someone would call President Obama on his promises. I think a man should live up this word; perhaps you feel differently.

@shinyblurry "I think he is polarizing because he actively works to divide people across political, economic and racial lines." Citation needed.

"And are you trying to tell me that President Obama tried to negotiate with the republicans and was holding out an olive branch to them in those first two years but they wouldn't listen so he had no choice but to act unilaterally?" Yes, exactly.

Whether you have a party or not is irrelevant. You still won't answer the question that I've asked.

Don't you think the Republicans would do exactly the same thing in the same situation? Three branches of government, voted into control of all three branches... Jeopardy theme song... Seriously?

Obama compromised significantly on the final state of the Affordable Care Act. If he hadn't, we'd have had the single payer public option that would have actually forced real competition into a market dominated by private insurers colluding with each other to fix prices.

It wasn't a compromise, it is a trojan horse for the single payer system. The architect of Obamacare admitted that publicly:



The reason he changed it is because his plan was too radical even for a democratically controlled congress to vote for. Also, the original point is that he didn't negotiate with the republicans at all.

He's only the most polarizing president in history because he's the first black one. Were he a white guy named Steve Smith he'd be the most conservative democrat to ever hold office.

You think he's polarizing because everyone is racist? Do you seriously believe that? I think he is polarizing because he actively works to divide people across political, economic and racial lines. From his extensive class warfare rhetoric, to comments from his mouthpieces like "theyre gonna put y’all back in chains", Obama has worked supremely hard to divide the country.

Again I ask you, if your party holds the majority, and the minority simply refuses to compromise or meet with you on ANY issue, then what else can your party do?

I don't have a party; I'm an independent. And are you trying to tell me that President Obama tried to negotiate with the republicans and was holding out an olive branch to them in those first two years but they wouldn't listen so he had no choice but to act unilaterally? Do you also have a bridge you want to sell me?

@shinyblurry Obama compromised significantly on the final state of the Affordable Care Act. If he hadn't, we'd have had the single payer public option that would have actually forced real competition into a market dominated by private insurers colluding with each other to fix prices.

He's only the most polarizing president in history because he's the first black one. Were he a white guy named Steve Smith he'd be the most conservative democrat to ever hold office.

Again I ask you, if your party holds the majority, and the minority simply refuses to compromise or meet with you on ANY issue, then what else can your party do?

Emphasis mine. I disagree to an extant. Good journalists know you can strive for objectivity. You are right that ultimately anyone paying attention can figure your slant eventually, but the longer it takes the more respect you earn. It makes people notice all the more when you are clearly choosing words and editing material to moderate rather than polarize your newscast. When good communicators do it well, often it's the middle ground that becomes accepted by a plurality. Reconciling seemingly antagonistic viewpoints helps us to see the third way.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^lantern53:
The media on the left doesn't think they are slanted, because they think they are right.
the media on the right doesn't think they are slanted, because they think they are right.

sorry, reality isn't quite so binary.
yet another false equivalence argument. Everyone is biased, you can't not be. Science and the history of our government have shown time and time again that there is no one "way" of getting to the truth. This idea that liberalism is correct vs conservatism is correct is a bullshit way of framing things, and the smart people know it. It's just another charade to keep you distracted.
yet another failure of the two party system. compromise is perceived as weakness

>> ^Kalle:

One serious question that bothers me is.. why isnt it possible to use gravity as an energy source?
Would such a machine be a perpetual motion machine?


Gravity is REALLY weak. Like 36 orders of magnitude less than the electromagnetic force. 36 orders of magnitude is massive...larger the the total number of stars in the known universe. For instance, a fridge magnet is defeating the ENTIRE gravitational force of the earth AND the sun. Gravity makes for a great way to bind the macro-universe together, but it is shit as an energy source.

Also, gravity has only one polarity...and it doesn't turn off. So for the EM force, we have 2 poles that can be switched around via electrical current to make lots of different energy related things. But for gravity, you just have one ground state, and once you are there you need to input energy to get away from that ground state...no way around that. However, what has been done and is done in certain areas is to have a closed system where you apply energy at certain time and store that energy for later. The example most commonly used is in dams, where the will pump a large volume of water back up stream (potential energy) and store it (a gravity battery if you will) and release it as a later time when demand is high. This is always a loss based way to make energy; your going to spend more pumping it back up (heat loss and other losses including evaporation) than you will when you get it back...so it is just a way to cause demand shifting towards other hours with additional entropy.

You have 4 fundamental forces to draw energy from; and 3 of those are the only practical ones. Strong (nuclear) force, the EM force, and the gravitational force (the weak force is actually the force that powers the earths core, but isn't useful to use in power generation for a similar reason gravity isn't).

The EM force is what we use in internal combustion engines and electrical motors. Chemical reactions are rearrangements of the electron structures of molecules, which makes gasoline engines possible via liquid to gas expansion pressures. Generators deal with EM fields, polarity and current which is what drives thermal reactors like coal or can drive a car with a motor via conversation of stored electrical energy(just a backwards generator). Nuclear reactors deal with the strong (nuclear) force, and combine that with kinetic/thermodynamic forces of same flavor as coal and other thermal plants.

Even gravity isn't perpetual, the orbits of ALL celestial bodies are unstable. Gravity is thought and reasonably well satisfied to travel in waves. These waves cause turbulence in what would seem calm orbits, slowly breaking them down over time...drawing them closer and closer together. Eventually, all orbits will cause ejection or collision.


As to what energy is best, I personally believe in the power of the strong force, as does the sun . When you are talking about the 4 forces and their ability to make energy for us, the strong force is 6 orders of magnitude greater than other chemical reactions we can make. The EM force is not to much weaker than the strong force, but the practical application of chemical reactions limits us to the electron cloud, making fuels for chemical reactions less energetic by a million to a billion times vs strong force fuels. Now, only fission has been shown to work for energy production currently, but I doubt that will be true forever. If you want LOTS of energy without much waste, you want strong force energy, period. That and the weak force are the 2 prime movers of sustained life on this planet. While the chemistry is what is hard at work DOING life, the strong and weak force provide the energy to sustain that chemistry. Without it, there are no winds, there is no heat in the sky nor from the core, no EM shield from that core. Just a cold, lifeless hunk of metals and gases floating in the weak gravitational force.

Sorry for the rant, energy is my most favorite current subject



(edit, corrected some typos and bad grammar)