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.
provided they are directed at Yaakov's arguments rather than at Yaakov himself.
Yeah but what I got is more of a "This is the most likely scenario" when the list really reads like "This is the most likely to kill humans if it happened."That's not what the OP implied.These numbers look like a "What COULD kill us all" rather than a "what WILL kill us all".
Yeah, that's kind of the entire point.What do you think is going to kill off humanity?
Kinda implies "could" and personal opinion.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a14381/this-nanoinjector-inserts-dna-into-cells/A nanotech weapon is so sci-fi that we have no clue how to deal with it. And like the atom bomb, we'd likely make the weapon before we figured out how to stop it. And since our fleshy bodies are likely not able deal with a nanotech, it could wipe us out before we can deal with it. Remember, washing your hands won't stop the nanites.
Do we have anything similar to nanotech at this time? I always thought nanomachines and the like were in the realm of sci-fi.
That's not what the OP implied.These numbers look like a "What COULD kill us all" rather than a "what WILL kill us all".
Yeah, that's kind of the entire point.
I was making a pun.Because everyone knows he's a failure.
There's a few things he has done right and a few things he has done horrifically wrong, just like... well, every other president ever.
Because everyone knows he's a failure.The president isn't in the line of succession, because he's already the president. He's hardly going to succeed himself if he dies or is removed from office.
How do you know he doesn't succeed himself every day? You don't.
What if the pig was genetically modified to have no legs?If you took some cud from a cow, and fed it to a pig, and the pig chewed it, does that mean that you could eat it?Leviticus says no because the pig's feet still aren't acceptable. Something about ugly toes.
It is a vague question, no doubt. But that's their jobs: to take all the various question and impacts and condense it into a Yes or no vote. "Are we safer" is just a short form of "Does the Department of Homeland Security do the tasks they are assigned better than the various departments acting as they did before." It's a question he should be able to answer, especially as someone who needs to vote on justifying how much (if any) money should be spent on it.I don't know if he can. But the inability to answer a question does not make it a dumb question. Someone may be able to answer it. Or maybe no one can. Either way, I think it's a question we should ask. Do we need the DHS or is the system we had before good enough?
It is a dumb question. It's asking him to, at worst, predict the future, and at best, be fully aware of the department's subjective impact on its own roles without ever having worked in that department. If the person asking was really interested in the DHS' impact, they probably should have referred to a specific role it plays and how that function has or hasn't changed since its inception. Asking a vague question like "ARE WE SAFER?!" makes no sense. It's the difference between asking if Border Patrol makes the country more or less safe... or asking if the Border Patrol statistically lowers the amount of illegal immigrants. One is a vague, open ended question that is just conjecture, the other is a real topic.
I don't know if he can. But the inability to answer a question does not make it a dumb question. Someone may be able to answer it. Or maybe no one can. Either way, I think it's a question we should ask. Do we need the DHS or is the system we had before good enough?Why was the question dumb? It boiled down to "do we really need the DHS?" Which I think is rather valid.Rushy admires the art of saying nothing.
I admire his ability to bluntly put that the question was dumb. Most politicians are too busy telling people the question is dumb without just saying it. I guess it just goes to show you that giving a long answer that says nothing really does pull the wool over people's eyes. Politicians treat the public like children and hilariously enough the public gets mad when it doesn't get treated that way.
Do you think he can answer that question? I don't.
Why was the question dumb? It boiled down to "do we really need the DHS?" Which I think is rather valid.Rushy admires the art of saying nothing.
I admire his ability to bluntly put that the question was dumb. Most politicians are too busy telling people the question is dumb without just saying it. I guess it just goes to show you that giving a long answer that says nothing really does pull the wool over people's eyes. Politicians treat the public like children and hilariously enough the public gets mad when it doesn't get treated that way.
Rushy admires the art of saying nothing.Would you prefer that he make up some sort of bullshit response or dodge the question entirely like pretty much any other politician presented with such an asinine question?
That's exactly what he did, isn't it?
He did, but not in the traditional political way. The traditional political way is to draw out a five minute response about topics tangentially related to the question.
>AMD graphics<--- has AMD CPU, south bridge, and GPU. Working great since 2009.
>AMD CPU
I hope your smoke detectors work.