rkbabang

You might be right, given it was a Radical Islamist shooter. On the other hand, maybe, just maybe, people might wake up to the fact that the bigger problem was that there was an assault rifle used which made it so much more worse than if it had been a regular gun. Or heaven forbid, had there been no gun at all. There are many things I hate about Hillary Clinton but I have great respect for her stance on gun control. As someone who hates both candidates, this attack made me lean a bit more towards her. Really? Really? The biggest problem is the type of gun used? Not the fact that Obama has been terrorising the world for the past 8 years and Bush for the 8 years previous? Not the fact that Madeleine Albright said that the 500,000 men women and children Clinton murdered in Iraq was "worth it"? There's an elephant in the room that no one is talking about and it isn't an AR-15. The western world has been messing around in the middle east since the end of WWI, one hundred years of killing and other shenanigans isn't going to go away anytime soon. Orlando, Paris, Boston Marathon, London subways, etc, these things are not going to stop. And neither building walls nor passing gun control is going to do anything to stop them. But please continue with what you want to believe.

I kind of like the hyperloop tech for intercity traveling at much greater speed than 150mpg (600-700 mph) in evacuated tunnels and drones for intracity short distance travel. This would leave airports for intercontinental travel only, at least until they put hyperloop tunnels under the oceans.

I don't think you will ever see the type of flying car that most people picture (runway and pilots license needed to fly, highway/road capable on land). These are two very different vehicles with very different requirements. If someone does ever come up with a viable vehicle, it will be far to expensive to be anything but a curiosity. It will be cheaper to own and operate a Cessna and a regular car. Also it is unrealistic to think many people will get their pilot's licenses to fly them. Yes large VTOL's to carry hundreds of passengers long distances are much further down the road and I'm not sure having a runway requirement for long trips is that much of an inconvenience/expense to make it worth it. I'm talking about 2-4 people at a time with minimal cargo locally (30-60 minutes in the air). A family car replacement (like uber in the sky) Not something to get you from NY to Beijing. If you were going from NY to Orlando though and wanted to avoid the hassle of an airport, you could always summon a new drone every hour until you get there. It would be quicker and easier than driving that distance is today. You probably couldn't get across oceans without going to the airport though, just as you can't today.

Isn't flying hugely energy-inefficient? Even after accounting for road-building-maintenance costs? Unless you expect the cost of energy to drop to marginal zero based on cheap fusion/whatever. At current technology, my friends who drive and fly pretty much say that flying-cars are bad cars and bad planes combined into a bad hybrid. But sure I'm all for spending money on flying car R&D. Better than spending it on 140 characters. ;) For your first point about efficiency, I wonder if you factor in lost time spent going over land vs flying on top of the road-building/maintenance costs/labor if flying wouldn't be superior. Your second point is undoubtedly true, but only if you have to meet government regulations for both airplanes and automobiles. Certainly none of those regulations make any sense at all factoring in vertical landing, hover capable, autonomous drones which will be far safer in the air than the planes the current regulations have been created for and they will never be driven on the land, so they aren't really cars at all. If you have to make some kind of transformer which starts out as a plane that needs a runway to get from airport to airport then converts itself to an automobile which drives on the roads and highways, I don't think that will ever be feasible, cost effective, nor desirable. But if you could summon a drone which would land in your yard, on your driveway (which could really be more like a small helipad not necessarily connecting to a road), or on top of your building, and bring you to your location safely through the air, that would be more efficient, quicker and safer. Certainly the technology exists to create the crafts today, the AI flying algorithms probably don't, but could exist in the near future.

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but as I said earlier in this thread not only will self driving cars replace human driven ones, but self driving cars are only a stop gap measure to the real future of transportation: Autonomous flying drones. Why even have roads? The need to build and maintain millions (billions?) of miles of asphalt roadways seems awfully inefficient to me when you have so much sky overhead. Passenger drone taxi cleared for take-off in US trials Welcome to Larry Page’s Secret Flying-Car Factories

Please. As good as that website is, Donald Trump would have better words. The best words.

Just remember not to take these people too seriously. Actually doing what they say could get you arrested. Biden's Shotgun Advice Invoked as Defense by Man Arrested for Shooting Gun in Air 'I did what Joe Biden told me to do,' says Washington state man. "Barton's case is at least the second instance of someone facing criminal charges for using a gun in a manner recommended by the vice president."

He was really likable in 2012 when he told a black audience the Republicans were going to "put them back in chains." Amazing there wasn't hell to pay for that. ( That said, it is true he has relationships across the aisle, so in private he must be OK to work with). Don't forget that Biden said that Obama was an "African-American who is articulate and bright and clean" and "I promise you, the president has a big stick.” Trump has his Mexican, and Biden has his smart and clean African-American with a big stick. Those two are made for each other. Maybe if Hillary gets the nomination Trump should pick Biden as his running mate.

I thought that was a given and didn't need to post examples. That is why I would love to see them debate each other. The best comedy on prime time.

Oh god, please, please let that happen. I'd love to see a Trump/Biden debate. Biden is the Democratic Dan Quayle. He's an idiot of the highest order. Nothing would be funnier than seeing these two try to duke it out in a battle of wits. "Stand up, Chuck, let 'em see ya." –-Joe Biden, to Missouri state Sen. Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair, Columbia, Missouri, Sept. 12, 2008 There's a million of them, if he was a Republican you wouldn't be able to pick up a paper without reading about the ridiculous things he's said and Saturday Night Live would have had a skit on him every week since he started running for office. I'd love to see it, it would be entertaining as hell, but I doubt the Democratic Party will let him run. They aren't that stupid.

Cause obviously "accomplished business people" cannot be wrong. We just need to clone their opinions. Oh wait. Obviously accomplished people in all walks of life can be (and often are) wrong and most people realize this. But what so many tend to not realize is that the "common sense" majority opinions held by most "reasonable people", the things that "everyone knows" to be true, are also often wrong. And these mistakes are not usually realized until entire generations die off and future generations look back and ask "what were they thinking?". Although what is unique about the modern era is that information is shared so quickly that opinions on many subjects are changing within decades by the same living people rather than in centuries by different generations of people. We think of this as normal for public opinion to change so quickly, but it really is something completely unique and new. I suspect that this is accelerating and "decades" will become "years" before you know it. Progress in culture as well as technology is progressing at an accelerating pace. Government however is still mostly static, slow, inefficient, and unadaptable. It is an old model from a past time. This comment is more about your statement about whether it is wise to follow others opinions blindly, then it is about Trump and whether or not he's dangerous. Of course, he's dangerous. Anyone who wants to be president is.

They should put a leader board on their website and list the most generous gifters in order (without saying what they gave), get a competition going for people to move themselves up the list. Email the top 10 to the whole wedding list every day. "Honey can you believe even Great Aunt Mildred gave more than we did? How embarrassing. We have to send them some more."

Very good points and all true. I'd just like to point out that we are also far from the having freedom we think we have. We are somewhere in the middle and (the government at least) is heading in the wrong direction (albeit slowly). This is one of the best articles I've read on the matter. No president has the power to really do anything meaningful (in a good way), but has some power to inhibit good things from happening in the private sector. It is an obsolete system and way of doing things, which if it was every really necessary (this is debatable and I'm not sure I really know the answer), it is certainly becoming less and less so as time goes by. https://fee.org/articles/is-politics-obsolete/ EDIT: The one exception to the point that the president can't really accomplish that much is foreign policy, which is why I think that is the only thing you should really focus on. The president can really muck things up in this area anything from getting thousands killed unnecessarily to starting a world war with the possibility of ending all human life.

I'd say those examples (like my 90year old smoking grandfather) are examples of good genes, not evidence that junk food is OK. Like I said, if it works for WEB that is great for him. I wouldn't use it as a model to recommend though. Nutrition is a lot more complicated than almost everyone assumes. What is good for me, may not be good for you, and it might not be good for me either in 10 years. It is a combination of genetics, epigenetics, hormones, metabolism, lifestyle, age, environment, food quality, micronutrients, macronutrients, contaminants, the quantity and types of bacteria currently inhabiting your digestive system, the condition of your liver, kidneys, and other organs, and probably 50 other variables that I haven't listed. Any studies done or advice given can only tell you about statistically what is probably good for you to eat, it can't tell you what your body actually needs at this point in time. You are an individual not a statistical average.

It seems to work for him, I doubt it would work for most though. As you said Diabetes and obesity (already pretty bad) would be a lot worse. My grandfather lived until 90 even though he smoked 60 unfiltered cigarettes a day for his last 75 years or so. I wouldn't recommend that either, although it worked for him.

I agree. And remember he wasn't posting this as a possible investment, just as an interesting news story. I had never heard of Theranos until he posted about it here, so I'm glad he did. Geo if you run across any other interesting business news I hope you post it regardless of the negativity of a few here.

I know. I have my own well water now, but when I used to live in Massachusetts we drank bottled water to avoid the fluoride, we had one of those dispensers which take the 5 gallon bottles. Unfortunately that is a political issue on a local level, you'd have to try to get your municipality to stop adding it.

If you have a well, and you've tested your water and know what's in it you should be fine without a filter. If you have town/city water you might want something to get rid of the chlorine. Even the pitcher Brita or PUR filters will do that, or an under the sink activated carbon filter. But if your water has fluoride added to it, you might want something that can remove that as well, I don't think a carbon filter or Brita filter will do. You really need to get your water analyzed to see what exactly it is you want to remove (if anything) then research which type of filter you need.

A little much you guys. This is a private company with little information available other than some stories in the news. At first those stories made her sound amazing and now they are making her sound like a fraud. Not a single person on this board has done any due diligence into this company for investing purposes. Poor Gio was just posting a news story he found interesting. Cut the guy some slack. I know, you want a pat on the back and a "hey nice going" for posting that you were skeptical. OK <pat> <pat> Hey nice going. You're so smart.

Hmm

A man that is willing to cheat on his wife might be willing to do other things...A man that is willing to lie to 330mm Americans might be willing to do other things to. You seriously don't think Billy lying about what was going on in the Oval Office under oath was a serious matter? If push comes to shove, you don't think Bill would lie about other more important issues? He & Hillary have been involved in one shady, crooked, unethical deal after another, after another, after another. If she gets elected, it is simply going to continue. She & Billy need to be in the dustbin of history. So you're theory is that if you only elect the right people your government will stop lying to you? I wouldn't hold my breath. Of course the Clinton's are liars. If they weren't crooked liars and thieves of the highest order they would be doing something honest for a living.

You need to catch up on history if you don't think China and Russia have behaved like this before. And if you mean the bolded, you are one crazy mofo. I would love a third Obama term. The American people should thank God that they were lucky enough to have Obama as their president and be building statues of him everywhere. If they can fund it by raising taxes, even better! YES! Better yet I think we should enslave a bunch of israelites to build a giant pyramid, the largest the world has ever known, to serve as his final resting place for when he passes on to take his place next to Osiris someday. All hail the mighty Obama, drone killer of many children, he who calls forth death from the skies!

I don't think so. In a publicly traded corporation generally you have an ostensibly expert management team making capital allocation decisions. If offered a proposal by shareholders, they can generally choose to reject it if they deem it value destructive or even not an optimal use of capital. Think of it this way. Do you think Apple would have been successful if instead of Steve Jobs at the helm, there was a democratic process in which anyone could make a proposal and the one with the most votes was executed upon? The company would have burned to the ground. fair point...doubt the general crowd will be as good as steve jobs. But can they be slightly better than average CEO? possibly? if the crowd can get anywhere close to the average CEO on execution etc, the market for DAOs in general should increase order of magnitude from here...whether that translates to increased price for the DAO tokens remains to be seen, but seems to be an interesting tech/market none the less Also Apple is an operating company making real products. Most active investment managers earn below market returns. Is it possible that The DAO could do slightly better? I don't know.

Perhaps they already have one. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548 That author seems to have a personal axe to grind with Google. His dispute with Google over their security warning doesn't reflect positively on him. Just to be clear the author isn't saying that Google is doing this, just that his small study shows that they could.

I agree and nothing would be a greater tragedy than someone who is so gifted gave up creating wealth and helping mankind to get involved in something like politics, where the best you can hope to do is not cause as much harm as someone else would have.