Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - cherrypoptart

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: Today at 03:46:12 PM »
Just a good article that makes a lot of sense especially about the false dichotomies and the layered defense approach.

Just one example of many the article highlights.

"Showiness is often mistaken for effectiveness. The coronavirus mostly spreads through air rather than contaminated surfaces, but many businesses are nonetheless trying to scrub and bleach their way toward reopening. My colleague Derek Thompson calls this hygiene theater—dramatic moves that appear to offer safety without actually doing so. The same charge applies to temperature checks, which can’t detect the many COVID-19 patients who don’t have a fever."

General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 22, 2020, 07:11:49 PM »
But are they saying we should wait until after the election because Republicans control the Senate and the President is a Democrat or do they mean that in any case no matter who controls what no Supreme Court nominee should get a vote within a year of an election?

There is no hypocrisy in what most of them said. We shouldn't hold the vote now and should wait until after the election. That in itself is not hypocritical if it's understood that the reason is because Republicans control the Senate. That's just common sense.

Isn't it true that most of time when that type of situation came up, Senate of the opposite party as the President and an open Supreme Court seat in an election year, that the issue wasn't resolved until after the election? Like 80% of the time?

Not that past precedent means much anymore, to anyone. As I'm sure the Republicans will all remind everyone, "that was then and this is now." And I'm just as certain the Democrats will be saying the same thing when they're back in charge.

General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 22, 2020, 04:48:49 PM »
Only a handful of Republicans said specifically that they disagreed with voting on a nominee just because it was close to an election. Rubio is one who's comment really puts him in a box here.

Mother Jones has a good recap on what they said:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term — I would say that if it was a Republican president .”

So that leaves him essentially no wiggle room to get out of his own hypocrisy trap.

Some were vague on precisely why they were opposed to a confirmation vote and Cornyn specifically mentioned the divided government, President of one party and Senate of the other.

"...Confirming a new Supreme Court Justice during a presidential election year for a vacancy arising that same year is not common in our nation’s history; the last time it happened was in 1932. And it has been almost 130 years since a presidential election year nominee was confirmed for a vacancy arising the same year under divided government as we have today."

I"m not seeing where Graham made the same commitment as Rubio either.

"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election”

If they don't specifically say like Rubio did that they oppose confirmations in an election year as a general rule then such an assumption that they do is stretching it when a more reasonable conclusion is that they don't support confirmations when they have a majority in the Senate and don't have to support or even vote on the nomination of the opposite party's President but if it was there own party's President it's a matter of course that they'd vote and confirm.

General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 22, 2020, 12:02:44 PM »
I don't suppose there is any chance that a nominee like the wishy-washy somewhat middle of the road Kennedy could get any support from Democrats, could she? Sure Trump may be able to ram through a hard core conservative but is there any middle ground available here, anyone the Democrats might be able to go along with that the Republicans could also support?

You know that gets back to the issue of the arbitrary, capricious, and totally political nature of our judiciary. It seems like there is no underlying foundation that supports their decisions. I mean each justice has their own underlying foundation but for all of them together, and the judiciary as a whole, there isn't one. It's all personal. The proof is how many split decisions there are on the Supreme Court and the lower courts, decisions divided strictly along party and ideological lines. That much being open to interpretation and personal opinion really seems to fly in the face of any claim to consistency or predictability in our system of laws.

General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 21, 2020, 07:52:48 PM »
Thinking again about principles it's interesting that none of the Democrats are holding to their own here. None of them are saying, you know what, yeah we did get cheated out of a Supreme Court justice but when we said that the President did deserve to have his choice voted on in the Senate, we meant it. And now we're going to prove it by insisting that Trump's nominee get her vote just like Garland should have. And next time when the situation is reversed again we hope the Republicans will remember our magnanimity. I mean we don't even hear a few Democrat voices calling out from the wilderness with something like that even knowing that the Democrats in charge wouldn't let it fly so there is nothing to lose by standing by their so called principles, the ones they insisted on before. That's interesting. Fairly predictable but still interesting. Everyone's supposed principles seem to only exist when they provide a tangible benefit and are advantageous, both for Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats: "So uh... yeah. You Republicans didn't really believe any of what you were saying about how nominations shouldn't be done during an election year now did you?"

Republicans: "Well you got us there. I guess we really didn't. But you Democrats never did believe any of what you were saying either about how even in an election year a nominee deserves an up and down vote, did you?"

Democrats: "Nope."

General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 20, 2020, 11:11:18 PM »
A nice article here with lots of quotes from the various players.

Pelosi refused to rule out impeaching Trump for the total non-crime of nominating a Supreme Court justice.

Schumer suggests an openness to expanding aka packing the Court.

Obama apparently doesn't see the irony in his statement, "A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment." That's exactly what the Democrats are doing here, applying rules they don't even agree with because of what's advantageous in the moment.

That goes for Bill Clinton's statement too: "Today it seems that Senator McConnell has lost his faith in the judgment of the American people and wants to hurry up and put somebody on the court." So Bill Clinton is saying that Obama and the Democrats including Pelosi had lost faith in the judgment of the American people when they wanted to hurry up and put Garland on the court? Knowing history makes his premise preposterous.

McConnell made the most sense when he said that, "there was not a contradiction in his two stances because the Senate and White House were under control of differing parties at that time, where as now Republicans control both. In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia's death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president's second term," he said in a statement. "We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year."

Exactly so.

And does anyone deny that the Democrats would do anything in their power to put their person in no matter what?

Just like this observation in the article: "Republicans countered that if Democrats held both the White House and Senate, they too would move forward with a nomination — regardless of circumstance."

Truer words were never written.

And the talk about packing the Court? So if Republicans win the House, Senate, and Presidency maybe they should put a hundred justices on the Supreme Court, or a thousand, or a million? Down that path lies insanity.

General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 20, 2020, 09:22:45 AM »
That I agree with. No doubt the Republicans who took that position back then and are changing it now because their guy is President are hypocrites. I understand the Democrats on that and fully concur. But I see at least a few of them being a little bit misleading now and acting like they've changed their minds too when they really haven't.

General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 20, 2020, 07:40:17 AM »
Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but Democrats have NEVER been in favor of waiting until after an election to decide on a new Supreme Court justice. Even Justice Ginsberg said that Garland should get his vote in the Senate. Democrats still feel that seat on the Supreme Court was stolen from them. None of them have ever indicated that if the situation came up again they'd be in favor of waiting until after the election.

I was going to say that's hypocrisy but technically, I'm not so sure. It seems like it's just a little off from that.

hypocrisy - a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel. The definition of a hypocrite is a person who pretends to have certain beliefs, attitudes or feelings when they really do not.

Are Democrats even pretending to believe in what they are preaching? I don't know.

Do they really believe that justices shouldn't be decided upon until after an election when it's coming up soon?

Or have they never even said that's what they believe and instead only insist that we wait this time because they feel the Republicans cheated them out of Garland, because a few Republicans said last time they believed in not deciding so close to an election, and just because it's to their political advantage right now?

It's not hypocrisy when you don't believe in something at all, you insist loudly and vociferously that you are completely opposed to it, and yet you also insist that the other guy abide by rules you detest anyway. Is there a name for that?

General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 19, 2020, 07:55:54 PM »
I don't know about lying. That all depends on which voters they were respecting. They delayed out of respect for Republican voters. Totally true. Yes it was purely partisan. No doubt. That's why they were elected, to be partisan and do a good job for the people who voted them into office. The Democrats do the same thing for their own voters. It did no damage to a co-equal branch of government. Congress isn't a rubber stamp for the President. Maybe if Obama had nominated someone more middle of the road that person would have gotten a vote and even confirmed. Sure he can try to ram through a hard leftist but there is no reason the Republicans in the Senate have to allow a vote then. If the Democrats feel so strongly about it which of them is proposing a Constitutional Amendment to make sure the same rules apply for everyone all the time? I wouldn't be in favor of such an Amendment but it seems like the Democrats want to have it both ways. Hypothetically again, if Hillary had won and the Democrats had the same majority in the Senate the Republicans do now, would the Democrats hold off until after the election to put in the new Supreme Court justice? Of course not. They don't even say they would. Never have said anything so absurd. And good for them. And yet that's the standard they want to hold the Republicans to?

If they want that to be the standard then it can't apply just to one party. It can't just apply to the Republicans. How would that make any sense? How would that be fair? Why would Republicans allow such a thing?

General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 19, 2020, 07:24:56 PM »
"If we can't even ask the Republicans to live up to the standards they themselves set"

What's so absurd about asking people to live up to your own standards when your own standards are lower than theirs?

How do Democrats have the nerve to insist on Republicans doing what the Democrats refused to do?

And what they don't even say they're going to do in the future?

I fail to see the source of the outrage. Like when an atheist goes to Amish country and just walks up to an elderly Amish man and slugs him, hard. Then the Amish man hits the guy right back. And the guy is outraged. Outraged I tell you! How dare he?! How dare that Amish man not live up to his own standards? What is the world coming to?

Like with McCain and public financing again, hypothetically if McCain had backed out of it after Obama did and then Obama and the Democrats and the media acted all shocked and outraged. After all a man's word is his bond. McCain made a promise and he should stick to it. We need to hold him to the standards he set himself. And then someone points out that Obama did the same thing and they say that's just whataboutism. That's Obama. We're talking about McCain here. Don't change the subject. Is he a man of his word on not? Can't we even ask and expect him to live up to the standards he himself set?

Maybe Democrats should be flattered. I don't off hand recall the arguments they made for Merrick deserving his up or down vote in the Senate but apparently after a few year's worth of reflection and consideration those arguments are finally persuasive. The Democrats have convinced the Republicans that the Democrats were right. Congratulations?

General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 19, 2020, 07:04:25 PM »
"Ignoring for a minute the moral/ethical aspects of filling RBG's seat prior to the next administration taking over..."

According to the Democrats there are no moral or ethical problems with it.

Sure some Republicans had a problem with it when it was Merrick but since when did Democrats ever care about Republican morality?

This seems like another situation where Democrats try to use Republican morality/ethics/religion against them all the while the Democrats don't share any of it like when non-Christians try to use religion against Christians.

To be sure, there is something to be said for holding people to their own standards but there is also something to be said for not holding people to standards higher than your own, like when Obama and McCain both promised a Presidential campaign with public financing and then Obama reneged but McCain stuck to it and in the Presidential race was a loser. The cynic might think Obama could have planned that all along so McCain is stuck either being a liar like Obama or sticking with his word and public financing and losing. Just like the cynic might think that the Democrats while being willing to do anything to win and fighting no holds barred for power turn right around with a straight face and remind the Republicans that they promised to fight with both hands tied behind their back. Needless to say the Republican voters are sick of it which is why they picked a dirty fighter like Trump. Losing with grace is still losing and winning by throwing sand in the other guy's face is still winning. Democrats have always been dirty fighters, just like the Obama public campaign finance trick illustrates. The kicker is that while fighting dirty they act outraged when the other guy uses some of their own tricks. Goose meet gander. Pot meet kettle. And karma bow and dance. Needless to say it's quite amusing to see the Democrats getting hoisted by their own petard.

General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 19, 2020, 03:38:00 PM »
But the Democrats don't agree with that "rule" do they? Which Democrat was it again that supported the Republicans not allowing a Senate vote on Merrick?

So now the Democrats want a so called rule followed even though they vehemently disagree with it? How does that make any sense?

As for Harry, remember who pushed the button on the nuclear option? When you start a war you don't always get to decide how and why it ends. If Harry hadn't started it then it wouldn't have ended up with his idea applying to the Supreme Court too. That's right. I said it. He started it! (And Mitch finished it.)

If the Republicans held off on the appointment this time and next time when the positions are reversed would the Democrats hold off too?

I may have been born at night but it wasn't last night. I don't even hear any Democrats making such a pledge.

The whole idea that just because it's close to the next elections we need to wait for the voters to decide makes no sense anyway. I agree with the Democrats on that. The voters in the last election have just as much right to have their voices heard on the new Supreme Court nominee as the voters in the next election. And I don't recall ever saying anything to the contrary.  My understanding is the rule is always "power rules". If you have the power, you make the rules. If one party has the Presidency and the Senate they get to decide on the new justice for the Supreme Court. If one party has the Presidency and the other has the Senate then it's up for grabs. If the party with the Senate can hold on until after the election then that's just the way it is. If they can't because the election is too far out then that's how that goes too. Are there any Democrats who say any different or are they all just hanging their hats on holding the Republicans to a position the Democrats not only disagree with but would never hold to themselves?

Now admittedly some Republicans did say that. But they work for the voters and the voters are telling them to get that nomination done.

General Comments / Re: read any good books lately?
« on: September 18, 2020, 07:38:54 PM »
I didn't read this lately but I did like one off the beaten path a bit when I was a teen called Anvil of the Heart by Bruce Holmes. About ten years ago I looked him up on the internet and bought his music cd for a dollar for the shipping cost from him directly and even though it's not generally the kind of music I listen to I liked it anyway as it offered a further connection to the author. I remember one thing about the book and that is the running. Now that I'm getting back into running since the gym is out it made me remember.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: September 18, 2020, 08:00:30 AM »
That really would have been nice to have those masks early on. We see so many times that the people in charge are always trying to "handle" the public because they fear a panic more than anything else. Even on 9-11 there were idiots on bullhorns at the towers saying don't panic, don't leave the building, go back to your desks. Everything will be fine. That's our government though on so many issues.

Going back to the anonymous testing one more time, ideally by now we'd have tests at home that would cost a dollar and give quick results like a pregnancy test. I don't see how that would be any different than allowing people at the drive-thru sites to receive their results anonymously too. Even if you didn't know exactly who tested positive you'd know how many people in a given area tested positive which would be very useful information that we're not getting enough of now. People would also be more likely to get tested just because of the convenience. You're driving around and you pass by a testing site so you just drive up and get tested, no registration or appointment required, and it takes less time than the drive-thru line at the In and Out Burger. And if people want to give their information that's incentivized by taxpayer funded medical services to pay for any Covid-19 treatment required. Trying to control it with an iron grip like we are now is giving the same result Leia warned Tarkin about, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more Covid-19 information will slip through your fingers."

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: September 17, 2020, 11:38:03 AM »
The point is a lot of people aren't going to get themselves tested because they aren't willing to go into the full quarantine but if they knew they had it they'd be more careful about their conduct. I mean you're right that if they aren't going to violate their quarantine then they don't have to worry about it. The corollary is that if anyone is hesitant about getting themselves and maybe their families and even some of their friends and coworkers quarantined then their best bet is just not to get tested. And they won't. So how does that help?

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: September 17, 2020, 05:20:08 AM »
Driving around town I see numerous drive up testing sites and signs there indicate that you need to pre-register online for the test and get your confirmation number. If the tests were anonymous and anyone could just drive up or even walk up and get one would that really be such a bad thing?

We see people getting arrested at the beach and for going out in public because they got a positive result on a Covid test and apparently people are watching them and reporting them. Couldn't that kind of thing be deterring a lot of people from getting tested?

I can see the concern because of course when people test positive they should try not to spread it. But discouraging the testing so asymptomatic people who have it and spread it never know their status because they are afraid of the getting put on the government's list after a test doesn't seem to be the right answer either. If people anonymously got tested my sense of it is that would be better than what we have now. The vast majority would take steps to protect their friends, family, and the public that they aren't bothering with now because they have no idea of their status.

General Comments / Re: Plastic recycling a lie?
« on: September 14, 2020, 09:15:17 AM »
I just read that yesterday too and it really struck me as well. I thought about posting it but didn't know what to add. What a scam. When they got to the part about how they are trying to run the same scam all over again today I couldn't help but think that though they failed in recycling plastic at least they may succeed in recycling the same old scam again.

One thing I did wonder about though was if it's a different story in Japan. They are a lot more serious about recycling and making sure everything goes into the proper recycling bin.

I also wonder if for most plastic items there might be some kind of standard instituted so that it would be easier to recycle them.


"LA County Sheriffs
Replying to @LASDHQ
To the protesters blocking the entrance & exit of the HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM yelling "We hope they die" referring to 2 LA Sheriff's ambushed today in #Compton: DO NOT BLOCK EMERGENCY ENTRIES & EXITS TO THE HOSPITAL. People's lives are at stake when ambulances can't get through."

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: September 10, 2020, 10:36:03 AM »
There is no doubt that Trump and our government at almost every level bungled the response to the pandemic. But I wondered into the internet if a Democrat in charge would have handled things better and would have had a better outcome with Covid-19. A pretty good article popped up.

The author made some good points but one big one he left out is the open border and the tens of thousands of people crossing it every month. Democrats want to bust it wide open and it's already wide open as it is. People rightfully point out that the Sturgis Covid Rally was a super spreader event but there is total silence about the hundreds of thousands of illegals who have crossed the border since Covid-19 started. I honestly can't say whether or not they have had any effect on the pandemic because there is no information about it coming out from anyone at all.

This article summed it up pretty well: "But the coverage is evasive, factually challengeable, and threads the needle around questions the American public deserves to know about this new influx development..."

General Comments / Re: read any good books lately?
« on: September 09, 2020, 11:49:18 PM »
Are we counting audio books?

I listened to the Solo audio book. The narrator Marc Thompson made it extraordinarily good because of his style. I almost thought they got Woody Harrelson to voice Tobias Beckett. Can't go wrong with the Jack Reacher books though it's been a few months since I finished the last one. Just finished Howard's Conan "Beyond the Black River", more of a short story but reading it was good for a quick sword and sorcery fix.

So it seems like we basically agree then. There is one main difference between then and now. Trump.

The difference between it being a reaction to Trump himself and a reaction to Trump's response to these incidents compared to Obama's response is really no difference at all. These are anti-Trump protests.

Although I doubt there would be any difference if Trump did have the same responses as Obama, both in terms of his lip service or his band-aid so called police reforms. There would be no difference at all. Trump would still be the same racist and the protests would be exactly the same too. Just like #metoo. At their roots these are all just political, contrived, and transparent. Sorry to be so jaded but the antics of the Democrats and the media leave the observant skeptic little choice.

General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: September 05, 2020, 11:38:11 PM »
The thread title says "speak out about Trump", not "speak out against Trump", so I think this qualifies.

Trump has bin Laden's support, the support of bin Laden's niece anyway.

"Ms bin Ladin, who lives in Switzerland, said she’s always been “an American by heart” and would be putting her support behind Mr Trump for the 2020 presidential election.

In the interview, she called the upcoming election the most important in a generation.

“I have been a supporter of President Trump since he announced he was running in the early days in 2015. I have watched from afar and I admire this man’s resolve,” she said. “He must be reelected ... It’s vital for the future of not only America, but western civilization as a whole.”

“You look at all the terrorist attacks that have happened in Europe over the past 19 years. They have completely shaken us to the core ... [Radical Islam] has completely infiltrated our society,” Ms bin Ladin added. “In the US it’s very worrying that the left has aligned itself completely with the people who share that ideology.”

Ms bin Ladin has been an outspoken supporter of Mr Trump, at a time when the president has faced criticism from European countries."


Absolutely the press is providing fuel and oxygen for the fire. During the Obama years they covered the stories with a gentle touch and give them just passing air time if they cover them at all. When there were negative stories of just about any kind they would make sure to keep Obama's name out of it at all costs whereas they do just the opposite now and work Trump's name into anything and everything that on which they can put any kind of negative spin. Under Biden the press will go back to the same kid glove and sweep it under the rug rules they had under Obama. There is really no way to exaggerate how despicably partisan the mainstream media has become, or perhaps always was but how they don't try to hide it anymore.

Police have been killing black people for a long time. They were doing it during the Obama administration too. Mostly criminals of course, but sometimes mistakes are made. The point is this has been happening for a long time. While Obama was in office we didn't have all of these protests. We also didn't have #metoo. So what changed? What finally set these people off and made them blow up with rage? The same thing in both cases. Trump. The underlying issues and problems have been there all along but it wasn't a big deal, well it wasn't as big of a deal as it is now anyway, for only one reason. Trump wasn't in office.

In other words, this is all political and specifically politically targeted against Trump. The grievances are real but the current level of outrage is contrived.

If Hillary had won and especially if the Democrats controlled Congress and we had the same video of Floyd and the exact same other police incidents, all of these protests, the burning, the looting, the violence, wouldn't be happening.

Of course the police should be careful and professional. But understanding this is all an anti-Trump putsch makes taking these people seriously extremely challenging. Just looked up putsch to make sure I got it right: a violent attempt to overthrow a government. Close enough.

General Comments / Re: Patent abuse
« on: September 04, 2020, 01:58:48 PM »
One concern about this is that what if it wasn't NASA that got this patent. What if it had been China? And then instead of charging a modest fee to use it they charged hundreds of millions of dollars?

General Comments / Re: Patent abuse
« on: September 04, 2020, 12:26:01 AM »
No doubt. I wonder though what would happen if somebody, say the Chinese, launched using this principle or maybe even the exact trajectory, so would NASA have a valid claim against them for patent infringement? Would lawyers for China be able to argue that a patent that restricts their route into space without payment is not legal? Sure it's well worth it to take that course as opposed to a straight shot but if someone else can just copy the same course using the same slingshot effect why would they have to pay NASA anything? Even Joe Bob out in his backyard launching a rocket, as a hypothetical. Or someone in their own private spaceship wanting to do a little solar system sightseeing. I expect the patent protection will run out by then but it just doesn't seem like you should be able to patent a route from point A to point B, aka a trajectory.

Looking into the patent criteria, to me this seems to fail on the grounds of subject matter eligibility.

It gets complicated and the courts are still figuring things out but this seems awfully close to also being ineligible on the "abstract idea" basis.

"... but the Federal Circuit has ruled that no matter how innovative, no matter how much of an advance a technique for analyzing, displaying and disseminating financial information using resampled statistical methods may be, such claims are simply ineligible for patenting."

It's a fine line in all this though so I'm not at all sure about it or my opinion. There was this that was a bit confusing but I could see how maybe the trajectory might be patent eligible.

"For example, when evaluating a claim reciting an abstract idea such as a mathematical equation and a series of data gathering steps that collect a necessary input for the equation, an examiner might consider the data gathering steps to be insignificant extra-solution activity in revised Step 2A, and therefore find that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. However, when the examiner reconsiders the data gathering steps in Step 2B, the examiner could determine that the combination of steps gather data in an unconventional way and therefore include an “inventive concept,” rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B."

I wonder if there is any precedent for a similar type of patent on a trajectory calculation or a route from A to B.

General Comments / Patent abuse
« on: September 03, 2020, 04:09:42 PM »

"NASA patented a faster, cheaper route to the moon...

It may seem odd to patent lunar travel, but Burns said it is really no different from any other invention. "It's a creation that was the result of doing numerical modeling of planetary trajectories, he said. "So it is intellectual property."

NASA patents and licenses inventions to achieve the "widest distribution" of a technology, Dan Lockney, a NASA executive, told IPWatchdog in 2018."

So I thought for a moment maybe they are patenting this so nobody else can try to do it and this way they can keep it in the public domain for anyone to use, but that's not it. They are charging for it.

"The agency charges as much as $50,000 to license its patents but typically asks for $5,000 to $10,000, plus royalties. "It is through the upfront fees that NASA seeks to recover some of its investment in the patent filing and maintenance costs," the agency's licensing website says."

Don't get me wrong here. I think it's great work that they are doing. That's a fantastic trajectory and I can appreciate all the time and effort and money and brain power put into it. Nobel Prize consideration is certainly due. I'm just not seeing how it's something that should be patentable, like if you found a way to get across the ocean in a hot air balloon using the most efficient wind currents and different altitudes and locations during your journey, or tried to patent an efficient route across the ocean on your sailboat, or a time saving way to drive through a city or state or country. I'm not seeing in the story that this is a patent they applied for and it's under consideration and might still be rejected. Apparently, it got approved.

Is that how this should work? Any other examples of patent abuse, either upheld or denied, whether or not you agree with this one?

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: September 02, 2020, 03:51:45 PM »

Just general info, but fascinating. Hopefully we're starting to understand this thing.

"Though still an emerging theory, the bradykinin hypothesis explains several other of Covid-19’s seemingly bizarre symptoms. Jacobson and his team speculate that leaky vasculature caused by bradykinin storms could be responsible for “Covid toes,” a condition involving swollen, bruised toes that some Covid-19 patients experience. Bradykinin can also mess with the thyroid gland, which could produce the thyroid symptoms recently observed in some patients."

"Interestingly, Jacobson’s team also suggests vitamin D as a potentially useful Covid-19 drug. The vitamin is involved in the RAS system and could prove helpful by reducing levels of another compound, known as REN. Again, this could stop potentially deadly bradykinin storms from forming. The researchers note that vitamin D has already been shown to help those with Covid-19. The vitamin is readily available over the counter, and around 20% of the population is deficient. If indeed the vitamin proves effective at reducing the severity of bradykinin storms, it could be an easy, relatively safe way to reduce the severity of the virus."

General Comments / Re: Militia in the streets
« on: September 02, 2020, 08:08:07 AM »
When we send troops over to Afghanistan to take out al-Qaeda, are we not defending ourselves?

This guy went over there and was apparently putting out fires started by arsonists. I'm not talking about just defending ourselves as in personal self-defense, although he did end up doing that too after someone tried to set him on fire.  But I'm also referring to defending our civilization, the one that many of these so called protestors seem to want to burn down and destroy. The one that the police are supposed to be defending but are abandoning under orders. It makes a lot more sense for people to try to defend themselves by helping their neighbors than it does to wait until the fight comes right to your own doorstep at which point your back is up against the wall and all it takes is one person to throw a Molotov cocktail through your window and then what are you going to do? Too late to do much of anything at that point. Worst case you may end up having to stop, drop, and roll.

It's amazing to me how confused we seem to be about who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Bad guys set things on fire. Good guys put fires out. Not complicated.

General Comments / Re: Militia in the streets
« on: September 01, 2020, 07:13:49 PM »
If the police are ordered to pull back, stand down, and let it burn ("give them room to destroy"), what are people supposed to do? If innocent drivers just passing through are getting pulled from their vehicles and beaten nearly to death while the police stick their tails between their legs and run away, are the regular citizens just supposed to curl up into the fetal position and take their beatings? Run away while their businesses get burned to the ground knowing insurance if they even have it may not cover their losses? I mean most of us are Americans here and even those who are not understand America well enough to know that's not the way we're made, that's not how we're built or brought up.

It's kind of like Watchmen's Rorschach in prison.

"None of you seem to understand. I'm not locked in here with you... you're locked in here with me!"

Same thing with the police. It's commonly understood that they are protecting the law abiding citizens from the criminals.

Maybe it's actually the other way around.

We see that in some second world countries too with mob justice. When the police can't or won't do their jobs and the citizens are forced to defend themselves, they will, and the criminals will likely pine for a return to law and order instead of anarchy.

I'm not really for or against it but I recognize reality. People will defend themselves if the police won't. They have no other choice except to let themselves be victims. And that's not the American way.

It does seem a little odd though to insist on cracking down on these so called "militias" while giving rioters free reign to burn, loot, and pillage.

General Comments / Re: Jacob Blake
« on: August 30, 2020, 05:01:53 AM »
Assuming that a parent won't harm their own kids is a very dangerous assumption, for the kids.

General Comments / Re: Jacob Blake
« on: August 27, 2020, 10:06:06 PM »
It comes down to whether or not the police should need to actually see a weapon before they shoot. The fact is if they wait until they actually see the weapon, a lot more of them will be dead. It seems like the left wants the rules of engagement to demand that the cop see a weapon before they shoot. Is that reasonable? Both is it reasonable to conclude that's what the left wants as the new standard and would that be a reasonable standard?

I don't know that much about it. Still learning. And it could be different state by state.

I don't know that much about this issue and maybe shouldn't be getting my information from Coulter but in any case here's her input on it. I'm not sure how accurate it is but if the media is saying the vote-by-mail safeguards are the same as the ones for absentee ballots and they are not, that seems like a problem.

"The media hysterically denounce Trump for opposing vote-by-mail, smugly announcing that vote-by-mail is exactly the same as absentee voting, as Chuck Todd emphatically stated on MSNBC this week.
     Look up the absentee voting requirements in your state right now and see if it’s the same as having ballots dumped on your doorstep because you — or someone who once lived there — ever registered to vote.
     In New York state, for example, to receive an absentee ballot, you have to fill out an official form stating:
     1. Name and date of birth of the voter
     2. The address where you are registered
     3. An address where the ballot is to be sent
     4. The reason for the request, and
     5. The signature of the voter
     By contrast, with vote-by-mail schemes, ballots are automatically mailed to every eligible voter without any request at all. Ballots will be piled up outside apartment buildings, college dormitories and homeless shelters."

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 26, 2020, 09:23:54 PM »
Some more info on the hair brained scheme to pull back on testing:

Apparently the rationale is that a negative test might give someone a false sense of security.

"Giroir insisted the change comes because it doesn't do much good to have tests done in an area where there is no evidence of spread. A test result also is only valid for the day it's taken.

"Getting a negative test that three days is not totally meaningless, but pretty close to it. It should not give you a self assurance that you will be negative. It should not give you a false sense of security, you should not engage in risky behavior," Giroir said."

This is obviously completely absurd. Although it is true that a negative test might give someone a false sense of security and even if people test negative they should still be careful because they could pick it up the next day and there might be a false negative or they could even have just gotten infected and it's not showing up yet, that still doesn't explain pulling back on testing and saying only vulnerable populations need testing.

Our CDC should be going in the other direction and increasing the testing even on people who show no symptoms and are not at high risk, including children, because they are among the people spreading the virus around the most. A negative test doesn't mean you relax but a positive one means you need to pull yourself out of circulation for a while. Not getting those positive tests in for the asymptomatic young and healthy people means we've pretty much given up all pretense at trying for containment. I'm glad some of the states are ignoring this terrible advice.

"Perhaps you didn't read past the retweeted headlines."

Correct. Though I saw it on the yahoo site it is true that I only read the headlines. Since they disabled the comments I read very few of the stories anymore unless they are about science. If they still had the comments someone probably would have pointed out the same things and after reading them I might not have gone off half-cocked.

Going back to Trump possibly refusing to concede and how bad that would be for the country...


The Independent

Hillary Clinton tells Joe Biden not to concede election ‘under any circumstances’"

and Al Gore chimes in:


The Daily Beast

Al Gore: If Trump Refuses to Concede, the Military Would Run Him Out"

It's hilarious that Trump refusing to concede is a political apocalypse but Biden should not concede "under any circumstances".

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 26, 2020, 03:21:23 PM »
It looks like our CDC is missing the point of the tests.

Concentrating only on people who are more likely to die or have serious health effects doesn't do anything to help stop the spread of the virus when most of the spreaders are asymptomatic and won't suffer from it.

It looks like our CDC is going for herd immunity and not worrying so much about people spreading it around but just concentrating on getting early warning and treatment for the ones most at risk.

I take it that was the unstated point of the information so I will just state it bluntly and say our CDC is working against us now, at least against those who worry that shooting for herd immunity too soon is going to get a lot of people killed unnecessarily.

General Comments / Re: Official Party Platforms
« on: August 26, 2020, 01:24:16 AM »
I'm not sure how funny it is but it is largely true and accurate. And for much of it you can take the opposite as the platform of the Democrats.

1. Raise taxes, big time, even if it ends up meaning less revenue gets taken in. Income and wealth inequality can be fought not just by raising the incomes and wealth of the poor but even more quickly by taking the income and wealth of the rich.

2. I'm not going to fight this one because I think the Democrats are more right than a lot of the Republicans about Covid-19. He's right though. The Republicans are taking it too lightly especially when it comes to masks.

3. We should throw trillions of dollars away on climate change just like our ancestors did with virgins by throwing them into volcanoes. It may not accomplish anything constructive but it'll make us feel better because at least we are doing something. On the other hand on this issue also lean more toward supporting the Democrats. Here's honestly another case like with Covid-19 where the Republicans put money ahead of health and safety and human lives. If it takes billions of dollars to keep mercury out of the fish and keep smog from aggravating the asthma of children then show me the money. Now whether or not we can control the climate and stop climate change by throwing money at it remains to be seen but pollution is something that can be controlled with various technologies like better scrubbers, filters, hazardous waste storage, proper disposal, switching to unleaded gas as we did, and so on.

4. China has the Democrats bought and paid for. Apparently Russia has the Republicans.

5. He's right though. Times have changed. I'm not sure about the details but we do need to look at restructuring our arrangements to save money if nothing else. And one good easy way to save money is to get someone else to pay for stuff that you're paying for now.

6. He's right here too. That does seem to be the Republican position. Pretty mercenary. The Democrats though had their shot and they gave us Obamacare. I'm not sure what the solution is but Obamacare wasn't it. The argument against the Democrats though is that they promise big but don't deliver.

7. The voting system we have is not as secure as it should be and probably could be.  I don't know how much fraud there is but it is obvious that the system is not well designed for detecting, preventing, or exposing it.

8. And the Democrat platform is to pass laws that blatantly discriminate against whites in business, especially white men, and Asians in higher education. Fight fire with fire and fight racism with racism.

9. Well I'm not for making abortion illegal but there isn't anything in the Constitution about a right to "women's sexual privacy."

10. Well we see with cancel culture the dangers of any conservative letting anyone know anything about their political positions. Of course the Democrats would like that information exposed and made public, the people doxxed, so they could go after those who disagree with them politically, get them fired from jobs, keep them from getting jobs, harass them at their homes and in restaurants, and discourage people from donating to Republicans.

Just the type of random thing I click on all too often:

13 Things That May Soon Disappear Forever (The Pandemic Edition)
Emerging technologies (and now the COVID-19 pandemic) are putting an end to these familiar items and practices.
by: David Muhlbaum, Kyle Woodley, The Kiplinger Washington Editors
June 9, 2020

10 of 13

Your Neighborhood Mail Collection Box

The amount of first-class mail people are sending is plummeting — particularly when it’s coming from an individual tacking a stamp to an envelope. So, around the country, the U.S. Postal Service has been cutting back on those iconic blue collection boxes. Since it costs time and fuel for mail carriers to stop by each one, the USPS monitors usage and pulls out boxes that don’t see enough traffic.

Some boxes will find new homes in places with greater foot traffic, such as shopping centers, public transit stops and grocery stores. But on a quiet corner at the end of your street? Better dump all your holiday cards and summer-camp mail in it, or prepare to say goodbye.

"And there was plenty of evidence of misandry and bigotry(towards whites) in the DNC if you really want to go down that road."

I was thinking about bringing this up in the Biden platform thread and I still may but since it was brought up here I'm going to second the motion, or observation.

"We will invest in low-income communities, urban and rural areas, and communities of color by
strengthening the Community Reinvestment Act, improving federal support and access to credit
for women- and minority-owned small businesses"

I've seen something along the same lines of promoting and encouraging entrepreneurship by women and people of color.

That's the money quote right there.  "Women and people of color."

Pretty much says it all.

They are so proud of their racism and misandry against white men that they boast of it and are running on it as a primary plank in their platform.

It's the crabs in a bucket attitude that believes the only way to get out is to pull or hold somebody else down especially when they might succeed.

It doesn't even make any sense that Joe Biden is running as a white man. By the logic of the Democrats and his own platform he should already have stepped aside to let a person of color do the job like a voice actress who quit her job because she was white and the character she was voicing was only half white and the other half black. I'm not sure what happened with that, if they had to get a half white and half black voice actress to do it or if it was okay for an all black person to take over.

The only way Democrats can think of to help women and people of color is to put a boot on the neck of white men.

Black columnist Walter Williams sees it. The article is from January but the writing has been on the wall for quite a while now. The Democrat platform includes Black Lives matter and Williams has a quote from one of the co-founders that she is "over white men running the country."

"During two of those meetings – the LGBTQ caucus meeting and the Muslim Delegates Assembly – when the pledge was recited, "under God" was omitted, Snopes found. David Brody, chief political analyst at Christian Broadcasting Network, posted both videos to Twitter."

So what he said was partially true. It wasn't taken out most of the times they said it but it was taken out a couple of times that they said it. I wonder why the Muslims wanted to take it out since supposedly they worship the same God as the Christians and Jews. I guess it's understandable why the LGBTQ caucus would take it out though many of them call themselves Christians. And just to have it both ways, it's also interesting that the Democrats every other time kept it in even though it was exclusionary to non-Judeo-Christians and a slap in the face to all atheists and agnostics. If they demand it be taken out of schools then why would they for the most part keep it in their convention?

General Comments / Re: Official Party Platforms
« on: August 21, 2020, 07:24:37 PM »
If Biden doesn't win, most of the platform won't matter very much. The thing about his immigration stance though is that it's quite possible it has an effect on things right now regardless of whether or not he eventually becomes President. His platform encourages illegal immigration right now by people who see the light at the end of the tunnel. The courts including the Supreme Court have tied Trump's hands and signaled that our laws will not be enforced, cannot be enforced. Biden is doubling and tripling down on that and pretty much promises that as long as you don't have an Interpol warrant out on you, if you get in then you stay in. Every country with a gang or drug or terrorist problem opens the doors to America with a play for asylum. Even if the claims eventually got denied they would be here for years before that ever happened and they'd already have established themselves with homes, businesses, and anchor children.

"By Alicia A. Caldwell in Los Angeles and Juan Montes in Mexico City
Aug. 17, 2020 7:50 am ET
Illegal crossings are back on the rise at the southern U.S. border after having plummeted at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, driven by a large increase in single adults from Mexico."

It's hilarious watching the state of New York institute quarantines for Americans from other states while tens of thousands of illegals come into our country and disperse throughout it at will. Who is checking them for Covid-19? Nobody. I've been the first to call out Trump's mistakes on handling the pandemic. I was all over the mask issue from day one. But I also know that travel restrictions are vital too. I'm not against New York state and it's strict quarantines. That's fine and necessary. I'm just laughing at how ineffective they are with our borders spread wide open. Americans who check into a hotel have to give all their information and itinerary while thousands of illegals are scattering themselves throughout the state and nobody knows a thing about them.

Liberal New Zealand was so successful not because of masks but because of strict travel restrictions. Even Canada has them and is cracking down on Americans. Meanwhile our Democrat Party makes a mockery of any serious attempt to contain Covid-19 by encouraging a never-ending stream of people to cross our borders. That's the most important plank of the Biden platform. No containment. The rest of it won't matter if he doesn't win but that matters now, win or lose, because it's a promising enticement and people respond to it immediately.

According to Democrats including Biden there are four main things that are effective at preventing the spread of Covid-19: 1. Masks 2. Social Distancing 3. BLM Protests and now 4. Checking Americans at state borders but not checking illegals at national borders.

General Comments / Re: Official Party Platforms
« on: August 21, 2020, 04:53:58 PM »
Biden's immigration policy is pretty clear.

"The Biden Plan for Securing Our Values as a Nation of Immigrants"

The plan is to secure our values, not secure our borders.

So not going to separate families. Not going to raid businesses using massive numbers of illegals to undercut American wages and benefits. Hospitals and schools are off limits for immigration enforcement. DACA stays so that encourages the next wave who will expect their amnesty too. States are more strictly enforcing visitor quarantines than what we'll have for illegals crossing the border. No quarantine. No health checks. No way to control Covid-19 if we don't have it under control by then.

General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: August 19, 2020, 01:52:39 PM »
No, I've only been able to get the KN95s but the latest one I got had a credible looking thing on its advertisement that it is one of those that have been FDA tested and approved.

"Disposable KN95 Face Masks, Non-Woven 5-Layer Disposable Mask, Elastic Ear Loops, Adjustable Nose Wire, Light Weight, Perfect for Office, 5 Units/Bag
Visit the Unknown Store
4.3 out of 5 stars    179 ratings | 24 answered questions
Price:   $14.99 ($3.00 / Count)  & FREE Returns
Disclaimer: This Disposable KN95 Non-Medical Face Mask is included on the FDA Emergency Use Authorization List. The FDA sampled and CDC tested a limited number of masks from this manufacturer and found that the filtration efficiency was above 95%.
Standard: GB2626-2006
5-Layer Non-Woven KN95 Disposable Protective Face Mask
Designed to offer more protection than a standard disposable 3-Ply mask
Comfortable to fit with elastic ear loops and adjustable nose wire, light weight"

I got it and have been wearing it and it seems okay. I don't have stock in the company so hopefully I won't get in trouble for posting all that. I'm actually looking for better masks too so if there is a problem with this one or people have better ones they know about I'd also appreciate that information.

Now what I do is double up on the masks and wear my copper mask with this KN95 mask, the copper compression mask on top.

"Copper Compression Face Mask - 2 Pack - Highest Copper Content Reusable Face Masks for Men and Women (White)"

The more the merrier. I tried with another mask on top of that, a cheap little mask I got for free, but it wasn't comfortable so I'll just go with the two. Part of the problem with the KN95s even if they do filter 95% is that the fit may not be tight enough especially when you use them for a while and the straps get loose so that's where the compression mask may help, to keep the KN95 snug, plus it's another layer of protection. If people have suggestions for added safety, much obliged. Most people are happy with wearing their mask to protect others just in case they have the virus and that's fine but that's not really enough for me. I want to wear a mask that doesn't just protect others from me but also is effective at protecting me from them.

I went to the dollar store one time right when it opened which is when I like to go to stores now to give the viral droplets time to settle overnight and I see the employees all maskless so when I come in they dutifully put on their masks but that pretty much defeated the purpose of my well laid plans.

I got some goggles but they are anti-fog which I thought was good but it turns out that means they have ventilation holes in them. I used them anyway since all I've been using before I got them was just sunglasses and a hat. Now I finally got my face shield so I may wear that next time with the goggles. Hopefully that will be enough. Quite an outfit already. I had someone take a selfie a respectable distance off but I'm pretty sure they did it to get me in the background. Oh well at least I had my mask and hat and stuff so hopefully it protects me not only from the risks of viruses but also from the risk of going viral.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 11, 2020, 02:15:18 AM »

Neck Gaitors:

"The researchers explain how these masks may actually spread more of the virus than not wearing one at all. “We noticed that speaking through some masks (particularly the neck fleece) seemed to disperse the largest droplets into a multitude of smaller droplets ... which explains the apparent increase in droplet count relative to no mask in that case,” they write. These small droplets could prove extremely dangerous in terms of transmission. “Considering that smaller particles are airborne longer than large droplets (larger droplets sink faster), the use of such a mask might be counterproductive,” they add."

Now the valve masks are apparently good at protecting you up to N95 standards but don't protect those around you. I wonder if a work around might be to wear the valve mask to protect yourself and then wear another mask on top of it. I'm thinking I might try that. Just got some goggles too and the face shield too. If that seems excessive someone in my family got the full on gas mask. Went to Costco with it and it was fine.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 10, 2020, 04:36:31 PM »
I'm surprised and disappointed that there still aren't enough N95 masks for everyone. That was something we could have done. Perhaps I don't understand all the logistics of getting them manufactured but hypothetically if a malignant alien race attacked the Earth and they said we need to make them a constant supply of billions upon billions of N95 masks or they would destroy our Sun I think we could do it if hard pressed enough. Sure the other masks help to keep from spreading the virus as much but as everyone knows they aren't as good as the N95s. That's something we could have done. It's something we could still do. There's been talk about the Defense Production Act. I'm not sure why it's still not happening. One problem people have with masks is they say they aren't effective. They don't do much to protect the person wearing it. The virus particles are much smaller than the mask mesh. I understand that the virus rides on droplets but even so better masks would help. I don't like the fact that I have to rely on everyone else wearing a mask, and wearing it properly, as the only hope for my own safety. If everyone could wear N95s that might solve a lot of our problems.

General Comments / Re: NRA getting sued
« on: August 09, 2020, 03:44:08 AM »
How much did Saudi Arabia donate to the Clinton Foundation after she lost the election?

General Comments / Re: NRA getting sued
« on: August 08, 2020, 01:37:15 PM »
I found another example of a charity being shutdown by New York so that's an example that works in favor of the prosecutor here.

"Donors who are overly impressed with low salaries may be disappointed to learn that charities “F”-rated by CharityWatch tend to report far lower salaries than “A”-rated ones. For example, the recently dissolved National Vietnam Veterans Foundation (NVVF) reported salaries of only $65,000 a piece to its President/Chairman and Treasurer/CFO in 2014. NVVF had been consistently “F”-rated by CharityWatch prior to being permanently shut down in 2016 as part of a settlement with the New York Office of the Attorney General (OAG). The former founder and President, John Thomas Burch, Jr., admitted that NVVF had paid 90% of its donations to its fundraisers. Some of the remaining funds ended up being spent by Burch on his personal expenses and entertainment pursuits, according to the OAG. For example, Burch used NVVF funds to pay for foreign and domestic travel; to frequent night clubs and expensive restaurants; and to lavish gifts on women. Burch also misused NVVF’s discretionary “Emergency Assistance Fund” by making payments to his relatives, friends, and personal acquaintances, while legitimate claims by veterans for emergency assistance grants were denied or limited in dollar amount. Had NVVF’s salary reporting included all forms of compensation to Burch, his total earnings would have far exceeded his $65,000 reported salary."

General Comments / Re: NRA getting sued
« on: August 08, 2020, 01:32:12 PM »
Just looked it up and the internet says that if a charity is using "only" up to 25% of donations for overhead then that's actually pretty good. So for a $250 million charity if it was spending up to $62.5 million or so on whatever and the rest on what it's supposed to then the internet would say that's actually not so bad for a charity.  10% overhead is considered outstanding but that would still leave $25 million for other things, which is a lot of weddings and travel and five star hotels.

This is 2011 but it's a pretty good overall view:

Here are a bunch of interesting numbers but I'm not sure how to parse them all. And I don't see the NRA listed. It would be nice to know what the NRA's expense/charity ratio is.

One thing I do notice is that the NRA is reaching out for international donors including foreign gun manufacturers so having numerous meetings on foreign soil like in a tropical island paradise doesn't seem so outlandish. If they get more in donations and form lasting partnerships it could be money well spent. Also, one has to wonder how much the current deficit may be related to the Covid-19 crisis. I'm not sure but with so many out of work and the economy the way it is not to mention if the donations come from more elderly Americans, tens of thousands of whom have now died, that certainly can't be helping their financials and if that's the case, which perhaps it isn't, but if it is this is really kicking someone when they're down. Just looking at the charity being in the red at a time like this when so many others are suffering financially may not make a lot of sense. Perhaps the NRA should pull back on its expensive junkets then? Well if they are wooing big donors that could backfire too and end up costing them even more money.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24