Support NeoGAF

[FyreWulff]

https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/646427267699208192?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

TIL the "majority of Nebraska residents" = environmental extremists


Nebraska does not want the keystone pipeline

there are very few supporters of it here

our governor supports it but our governor is also a fucking tool puppet of the national GOP and only got the job because the last guy got term limited

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Well.

I believe she said this last year...

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Well, you have to be careful in how you describe physics because the vocabulary does not match up with common parlance, especially if you treat quantum cosmology as equivalent with cosmology (which they are not). The quantum vacuum is not "nothing" in the traditional sense; particles pop in and out of existence precisely because of the existence of energy fluctuations within the vacuum. You can still describe the characteristics of the quantum vacuum and it adheres to mathematical/physical laws; that's a far cry from the traditional understanding attached to nothingness. A better description than 'nothing' would be the vacuum as a local/global minimum energy state.

Expanding on this point, that particles may arise uncaused within spacetime does not imply that spacetime itself was uncaused. And even the word uncaused here is likely misleading, as it's being used in a way that's more akin to something like predictability. Even so, when people invoke the principle of 'nihil fit ex nihilo', what they are getting at is the continued presence of required physical states and conditions, not whether the emergence was probable or not. For a particle to emerge from the quantum vacuum necessitates the existence of those physical states, but such conditions are not sufficient for the particle to exist (in terms of guaranteeing the event's occurrence). The appearance of the particle might be spontaneous and unpredictable, but not uncaused in the classical sense.

EDIT BELOW:

I have no problem with criticisms of theoretical models that may lack corresponding physical attributes. It is perfectly fine to criticize a multiverser or vacuum-verser on the basis that the evidence for their claims is intrinsically different from that of traditional cosmology (redshift, background radiation, etc). Faith is being put in mathematical constructs (for the more outlandish or grandiose claims anyways), but if you're unnaturally perturbed by words with religious origins then I can see how you would get defensive about it. It's not a bad word by itself; I have faith in my friends, I need not make religious distinction when I say that. Metaphysical and physical evidence are different, and while cosmology usually runs on the latter, you can't often say the same of quantum cosmology and its ilk.

Basically I find it really annoying when people conflate Big Bang stuff with multiverse crap as if they're in the same league.

 

[brainchild]

This is the meat, and I agree.

I did tangent off to the idea that the origins of the universe, and what if anything came before the big bang aren't exactly nailed down. That's on me.

No it's fine. It's a perfectly valid argument. However, this argument is always what's brought up when discussing the validity of the big bang.

I'm sure you know the difference, but many people don't, which is why I wanted to clarify that.

 

[NobleXenon]

Man, I need to become an elected official. I just need to say and do dumb things in a safe district, then never do my job and collect 5 to 6 figures. What the hell have I been doing with my life? First Kim Davis and now another (likely) government shutdown.

 

[PantherLotus]

Only bible thumpers and similar types think scientists believe 'something came from nothing.' What a shameful discussion anyway.

 

[ivysaur12]

I believe she said this last year...

Nope. She's been noncommittal until now.

 

[Third Strike]

How will Cruz be affected if the government shuts down? Would it tank his chances at the presidency, or would it simply elevate him?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Come on guys.

 

[Wilsongt]

Man, I need to become an elected official. I just need to say and do dumb things in a safe district, then never do my job and collect 5 to 6 figures. What the hell have I been doing with my life? First Kim Davis and now another (likely) government shutdown.

I always said that if you want to get rich quick, become a Republican and run for president.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Rubio

As immigration and social safety nets (ss, medicare, welfare) are my two biggest issues its quite said to see how Trump as completely eliminated the possibility of Immigration reform. Its why I can't stand people who say "he's not that bad compared to the others"

You know Rubio and Bush think this is bullshit and we should give people an opportunity to at least become permanent residents (they don;t want them voting though) but Trump as gotten the racists so riled up they can't help but go far far right.

The stupid thing about this position of waiting 10-12 years is what do you do in the mean time? You can't just focus on the border because the people are here (they're not coming anymore, they're net numbers are like zero). The only possibility is deportations, status quo (AKA Obamas shredding of the constitution), or a regression back to the early Obama/Bush years which was just fear hanging over immigrants

 

[Wilsongt]

Rubio


As immigration and social safety nets (ss, medicare, welfare) are my two biggest issues its quite said to see how Trump as completely eliminated the possibility of Immigration reform. Its why I can't stand people who say "he's not that bad compared to the others"

You know Rubio and Bush think this is bullshit and we should give people an opportunity to at least become permanent residents (they don;t want them voting though) but Trump as gotten the racists so riled up they can't help but go far far right.

The stupid thing about this position of waiting 10-12 years is what do you do in the mean time? You can't just focus on the border because the people are here (they're not coming anymore, they're net numbers are like zero). The only possibility is deportations, status quo (AKA Obamas shredding of the constitution), or a regression back to the early Obama/Bush years which was just fear hanging over immigrants

Rubio ruined himself with the Latino community when he shat all over them in favor of taking up the racist GOP narrative. He could have been a bridge for latinos and the GOP.

 

[PhoenixDark]

This would happen regardless of whether Trump ran or not. Cruz and Walker were going to be the immigration heels before Trump stunned everyone by running.

The only way immigration could possibly happen in the next 5 years is with a republican president strong arming his own party. Which isn't gonna happen, but it's the only potential path because lord knows they won't let a democrat do it.

 

[thefro]

Pope Frankie have arrived

Less than 2 days until the speech to Congress.

 

[Basileus777]

This would happen regardless of whether Trump ran or not. Cruz and Walker were going to be the immigration heels before Trump stunned everyone by running.

The only way immigration could possibly happen in the next 5 years is with a republican president strong arming his own party. Which isn't gonna happen, but it's the only potential path because lord knows they won't let a democrat do it.

Yep, immigration reform was never going to happen with a Republican house anyway. We're going to be stuck with the status quo for a while.

 

[benjipwns]

Lots of people I talk to forget W. Bush had multiple pieces of immigration legislation he was eager to put his signature on if they could be sent to him from a Democratic Congress, with names like McCain, Kennedy, etc. attached. And they all died in massive flames.

That's probably why they didn't even try in 2009-10.

 

[Retromelon]

Well.

What year is it!

 

[PhoenixDark]

Yep, immigration reform was never going to happen with a Republican house anyway. We're going to be stuck with the status quo for a while.

Census is in 2020 but I don't really expect some massive shift in democrat's favors. If immigration reform is going to happen it'll be after that redistricting.

Democrats would have to have solid majorities in the senate and house to get it done, and with the way districts are playing out I don't see that happening.

 

[brainchild]

Well, you have to be careful in how you describe physics because the vocabulary does not match up with common parlance, especially if you treat quantum cosmology as equivalent with cosmology (which they are not). The quantum vacuum is not "nothing" in the traditional sense; particles pop in and out of existence precisely because of the existence of energy fluctuations within the vacuum. You can still describe the characteristics of the quantum vacuum and it adheres to mathematical/physical laws; that's a far cry from the traditional understanding attached to nothingness. A better description than 'nothing' would be the vacuum as a local/global minimum energy state.

Expanding on this point, that particles may arise uncaused within spacetime does not imply that spacetime itself was uncaused. And even the word uncaused here is likely misleading, as it's being used in a way that's more akin to something like predictability. Even so, when people invoke the principle of 'nihil fit ex nihilo', what they are getting at is the continued presence of required physical states and conditions, not whether the emergence was probable or not. For a particle to emerge from the quantum vacuum necessitates the existence of those physical states, but such conditions are not sufficient for the particle to exist (in terms of guaranteeing the event's occurrence). The appearance of the particle might be spontaneous and unpredictable, but not uncaused in the classical sense.

There are no absolute definitions to words or terms. If people misunderstand the terms due their ambiguity, we can clarify the distinction.

Anyway, the particles you're referring to are virtual particles, and this distinction is important because it relates to the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Now you'll have to allow for some oversimplification to accommodate for everyone reading this, but...

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is not just about our inability to simultaneously and precisely measure both the momentum and position of a particle/wave. It also has to do with the instability of 'existence' itself, which is apparently 'uncertain'. We call virtual particles virtual in the first place because we can't directly observe them, but when doing the math on the quantum fluctuations in a vacuum, it would seem as if the virtualization of these particles account for the fluctuation of energy within this field.

What we do know is that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is fundamental to existence/non-existence, so you cannot separate it from space or nothingness. Considering the reality of this principle, there is no need to account for the causation of virtual particles, because according to the principle, virtual particles have always been a part of nothingness.

In essence, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, nothing inevitably leads to something, since it (being a physical construct in itself) cannot permanently remain in a state of nothing. It's the fundamental nature of existence/non-existence.

 

[benjipwns]

HILLARYYY DOOOOMMMEEEEED: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...on-hp-samsung-hsbc-hp-mastio-column/72336094/

More bad news for the Clintons. With Hillary's presidential campaign slipping in the polls against Sen. Bernie Sanders and facing a potential fresh challenge from Vice President Joe Biden, six giants of the corporate world are bailing out on the Clinton Global Initiative.

On Sept. 26, CGI, a branch of the Clinton Foundation, convenes its 11th annual meeting with a star-studded cast. Bill and Chelsea Clinton will be joined by Ashley Judd, Charlize Theron, Edward Norton, Ted Danson, Tina Brown, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sir Richard Branson, Bill Gates and George Soros. What will be missing is more than a million dollars from a who's who of corporate behemoths that sponsored the meeting last year. Six high-profile firms ended their cash donations, to be replaced with only one similar high-profile corporate donor so far.

USA TODAY has confirmed that sponsors from 2014 that have backed out for this year include electronics company Samsung, oil giant ExxonMobil, global financial firms Deutsche Bank and HSBC, and accounting firm PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers). Hewlett-Packard, which just announced major layoffs, will be an in-kind donor instead of a cash contributor, and the agri-chem firm Monsanto has cut back its donation. Dow's name is missing from the donor list as well, but the chemical company's exit is not confirmed.

High-profile corporations might not be the only key supporters backing away from association with the Clinton family's charitable arm. In 2014, eight national leaders, kings, presidents and prime ministers, appeared on the program for CGI's annual meeting, including the president of the United States and the prime minister of Japan. This year, only leaders from Colombia and Liberia are currently on the program.

The Obama administration is backing away as well. In 2014, the cabinet officials heading the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Commerce, as well as key White House adviser Valerie Jarrett spoke at the conference. This year no Obama administration appointees as prominent are on the program.

 

[Basileus777]

Census is in 2020 but I don't really expect some massive shift in democrat's favors. If immigration reform is going to happen it'll be after that redistricting.

Democrats would have to have solid majorities in the senate and house to get it done, and with the way districts are playing out I don't see that happening.

It'd be a fight even with a Democratic majority as there would be a lot of representatives in unsafe districts that wouldn't want their name tied to immigration reform.

 

[j_k_redtail]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=178225136&postcount=553

You don't have long. Entry ends next Friday.

Yeah... gonna have to go with Bush

 

[PhoenixDark]

HILLARYYY DOOOOMMMEEEEED: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...on-hp-samsung-hsbc-hp-mastio-column/72336094/

They'll all be appearing at the Iran Global Initiative instead, with Jarrett being the keynote speaker.

 

[Plinko]

HILLARYYY DOOOOMMMEEEEED: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...on-hp-samsung-hsbc-hp-mastio-column/72336094/

But Ted Danson is there, so everything is ok.

 

[benjipwns]

But Ted Danson is there, so everything is ok.

He'll be doing his act:

 

[Aaron Strife]

I found out that nc reps make 150k min and if they serve one term they get that salary for the rest of their lives. How can politicians hate social security bUT they have alternate pension systems like this?

What

Brb moving to North Carolina to run for office

 

[benjipwns]

I think somebody added a zero.

http://www.ncleg.net/ncgainfo/educational/funfacts/legpay.html

G.S. CHAPTER 120, ARTICLE 1: Apportionment of Members; Compensation and Allowances.
120-3.Pay of members and officers of the General Assembly.
(a) The Speaker of the House shall be paid an annual salary of thirty-eight thousand one hundred fifty-one dollars ($38,151) payable monthly, and an expense allowance of one thousand four hundred thirteen dollars ($1,413) per month. The President Pro Tempore of the Senate shall be paid an annual salary of thirty- eight thousand one hundred fifty-one dollars ($38,151) payable monthly, and an expense allowance of one thousand four hundred thirteen dollars (1,413) per month. The Speaker Pro Tempore of the House shall be paid an annual salary of twenty-one thousand seven hundred thirty-nine dollars ($21,739) payable monthly, and an expense allowance of eight hundred thirty-six dollars (836.00) per month. The Deputy President Pro Tempore of the Senate shall be paid an annual salary of twenty-one thousand seven hundred thirty-nine dollars ($21,739) payable monthly, and an expense allowance of eight hundred thirty-six dollars ($836.00) per month. The majority and minority leaders in the House and the majority and minority leaders in the Senate shall be paid an annual salary of seventeen thousand forty-eight dollars ($17,048) payable monthly, and an expense allowance of six hundred sixty- six dollars ($666.00) per month.

(b) Every other member of the General Assembly shall receive increases in annual salary only to the extent of and in the amounts equal to the average increases received by employees of the State, effective upon convening of the next Regular Session of the General Assembly after enactment of these increased amounts, except no such increase is granted upon the convening of the 1997 Regular Session of the General Assembly. Accordingly, upon convening of the 1997 Regular Session of the General Assembly, every other member of the General Assembly shall be paid an annual salary of thirteen thousand nine hundred fifty-one dollars ($13,951) payable monthly, and an expense allowance of five hundred fifty-nine dollars ($559.00) per month.

 

[NeoXChaos]

What

Brb moving to North Carolina to run for office

Is he sure? according to this site it is 14k.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/2014-ncsl-legislator-salary-and-per-diem-table.aspx

 

[benjipwns]

You have to be 65 and served five years or 50 and served 20 years to be eligible for a state pension.

It appears they do get a free or real nice health care package for life though after enough years. Congress is the same iirc.

 

[Jack Remington]

How will Cruz be affected if the government shuts down? Would it tank his chances at the presidency, or would it simply elevate him?

He'll probably remain pretty steady at around 6-8% in the polls.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It'd be a fight even with a Democratic majority as there would be a lot of representatives in unsafe districts that wouldn't want their name tied to immigration reform.

The rubio bill was going to pass if it was allowed a vote even in a GOP house people want immigration reform. They're are likely votes even today. If bohner picks up the bill.its the hastert rule not numerical opposition which is stoping us.

It's not a hard lift. There are votes there. Trump changed that by allowing racists out in the open.

Lots of people I talk to forget W. Bush had multiple pieces of immigration legislation he was eager to put his signature on if they could be sent to him from a Democratic Congress, with names like McCain, Kennedy, etc. attached. And they all died in massive flames.

That's probably why they didn't even try in 2009-10.

The politics of immigration were different. As dems hadn't decided to own the issue and again. It was a GOP house that killed the bill with the hastert rule (don't know why they didn't try after the dems won the house back)

This would happen regardless of whether Trump ran or not. Cruz and Walker were going to be the immigration heels before Trump stunned everyone by running.

The only way immigration could possibly happen in the next 5 years is with a republican president strong arming his own party. Which isn't gonna happen, but it's the only potential path because lord knows they won't let a democrat do it.

No it wasn't because Cruz carries to much baggage for him to make immigration a defining issue. Nobody was going to talk about that when you could demagogue on Isis, jobs, wages and obamacare. Nobody thought immigration was going to be that big of and issue and in fact the GOP was likely to endorse some legalization (second class citizenship) with their eventual nominee. And walker pivoted right but never went crazy and could always pull back.

But trumps Mexican comments and talk of repealing birthright citizenship emboldened aa group of voters who had been marginalized and made them demand more from other GOP candidates.

With out trump immigration would not be as crazy as it is. We were never going to get them to endorse Rubios bill and thry were likely to go right but Trump alone caused this. I mean were openly talking about mass deportations! Of legal citizens too!

And it's not just about getting a bill. A president can keep dapa and daca. Now the likely GOP candidate is going to repeal both and have to be seen rounding people up and deporting them.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You have to be 65 and served five years or 50 and served 20 years to be eligible for a state pension.

It appears they do get a free or real nice health care package for life though after enough years. Congress is the same iirc.

As should everyone

 

[brainchild]

As should everyone

Damn straight.

 

[benjipwns]

The politics of immigration were different. As dems hadn't decided to own the issue and again. It was a GOP house that killed the bill with the hastert rule (don't know why they didn't try after the dems won the house back)

There wasn't one bill, there were like five that all died off during 2005-2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2006 was the last with a GOP Congress.

They didn't get cloture in the Democratic Senate for the last attempt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007

 

[thepotatoman]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=178225136&postcount=553

You don't have long. Entry ends next Friday.

I've been pretty adamant that this prediction is an absolute crapshoot, and since it's a crapshoot, I think I might as well go for the hail mary and pick Kasich.

I think a lot of us agree he's the scariest one to go against in the general, and I don't think that fact can be discounted in the primary. If republicans are going to go with their hearts, they'll go with Trump or Carson or Cruz, but if they're going with their brain, they might as well skip Rubio and go with Kasich.

Granted, right now his only foothold is New Hampshire, and he'll end up an early drop out like Walker if he loses that, but he can use that foothold to come out top from the pandemonium that Trump and Carson's collapse would cause, assuming such a collapse might happen.

I also think it's very likely that Trump will not collapse, but Trump's category is a little cluttered and Kasich deserves at least one prediction.

 

[PhoenixDark]

He'll be doing his act:

It's ok Benji. He's just trolling, like Sarah Nyberg.

 

[Aaron Strife]

If immigration reform was voted on in the House and Senate today it would probably pass. 14 Senate GOPers voted yea in 2013, plus all 46 Senate Dems (every Dem voted yea last time) would equal 60.

If there really is a mid-session Speaker vote I really think Democrats need to get a huge concession from Boehner, meaning a floor vote on a bill of their choice. Doesn't even have to be immigration reform. Obama's community college or pre-K proposal, infrastructure spending package, restoring the VRA, increasing the minimum wage (and indexing to inflation so we never have to have this stupid fight ever again), something big and something concrete. If Boehner expects Pelosi and the Democrats to bail him out and vote to keep him Speaker and then immediately go back to his "We've got to repeal Obamacare!" crap he's even dumber than I thought.

 

[RustyNails]

Rubio


As immigration and social safety nets (ss, medicare, welfare) are my two biggest issues its quite said to see how Trump as completely eliminated the possibility of Immigration reform. Its why I can't stand people who say "he's not that bad compared to the others"

You know Rubio and Bush think this is bullshit and we should give people an opportunity to at least become permanent residents (they don;t want them voting though) but Trump as gotten the racists so riled up they can't help but go far far right.

The stupid thing about this position of waiting 10-12 years is what do you do in the mean time? You can't just focus on the border because the people are here (they're not coming anymore, they're net numbers are like zero). The only possibility is deportations, status quo (AKA Obamas shredding of the constitution), or a regression back to the early Obama/Bush years which was just fear hanging over immigrants

If you come to US on F1 or H1 visas, it can easily take a decade (or more) to get a green card, and that's after jumping through a million hoops.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

There are no absolute definitions to words or terms. If people misunderstand the terms due their ambiguity, we can clarify the distinction.

Anyway, the particles you're referring to are virtual particles, and this distinction is important because it relates to the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Now you'll have to allow for some oversimplification to accommodate for everyone reading this, but...

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is not just about our inability to simultaneously and precisely measure both the momentum and position of a particle/wave. It also has to do with the instability of 'existence' itself, which is apparently 'uncertain'. We call virtual particles virtual in the first place because we can't directly observe them, but when doing the math on the quantum fluctuations in a vacuum, it would seem as if the virtualization of these particles account for the fluctuation of energy within this field.

What we do know is that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is fundamental to existence/non-existence, so you cannot separate it from space or nothingness. Considering the reality of this principle, there is no need to account for the causation of virtual particles, because according to the principle, virtual particles have always been a part of nothingness.

In essence, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, nothing inevitably leads to something, since it (being a physical construct in itself) cannot permanently remain in a state of nothing. It's the fundamental nature of existence/non-existence.

I thought I was decently clear so I'm not sure exactly what you're responding to or trying to clarify. I'll try to reword I guess. The quantum vacuum is not nothing. Energy fluctuations within the quantum vacuum is not nothing. Even accepting that wording, that something can 'emerge' from the quantum vacuum on a micro scale does not logically lead to the conclusion that the universe emerged from nothing on macro scale. That the quantum vacuum is said to be eternal does not make it immune to the standard logical complaints of causation.

PD started off this tangent by getting at larger issues regarding causal chains and cosmological origins (although perhaps not quite so explicitly). We were not simply discussing the semantics of what nothing means. His complaint was quite clearly directed at the common logical refrain about who created God being applied to naturalistic origins. We complain about question begging when God is invoked as a First Cause, but then the same argument structure is trotted out unironically when it comes to naturalistic explanations; see your bolded for a pretty blatant case of it.

A debate about the proper way to describe the particles is largely immaterial to this particular point because the importance is about the underlying process which is giving rise to it in the first place. Why is the quantum vacuum, along with all its associated physical conditions and mathematical laws, there in the first place? That's the crux of the issue that I think PD was getting at; that answers to that question often evoke the same circular reasoning as the religious.

 

[Tarkus]

There are no absolute definitions to words or terms. If people misunderstand the terms due their ambiguity, we can clarify the distinction.

Anyway, the particles you're referring to are virtual particles, and this distinction is important because it relates to the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Now you'll have to allow for some oversimplification to accommodate for everyone reading this, but...

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is not just about our inability to simultaneously and precisely measure both the momentum and position of a particle/wave. It also has to do with the instability of 'existence' itself, which is apparently 'uncertain'. We call virtual particles virtual in the first place because we can't directly observe them, but when doing the math on the quantum fluctuations in a vacuum, it would seem as if the virtualization of these particles account for the fluctuation of energy within this field.

What we do know is that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is fundamental to existence/non-existence, so you cannot separate it from space or nothingness. Considering the reality of this principle, there is no need to account for the causation of virtual particles, because according to the principle, virtual particles have always been a part of nothingness.

In essence, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, nothing inevitably leads to something, since it (being a physical construct in itself) cannot permanently remain in a state of nothing. It's the fundamental nature of existence/non-existence.

I'm a biology major and remember doing extracurricular reading on quantum and all that shit. Much respect. Bless your soul

 

[Gotchaye]

There are no absolute definitions to words or terms. If people misunderstand the terms due their ambiguity, we can clarify the distinction.

Anyway, the particles you're referring to are virtual particles, and this distinction is important because it relates to the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Now you'll have to allow for some oversimplification to accommodate for everyone reading this, but...

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is not just about our inability to simultaneously and precisely measure both the momentum and position of a particle/wave. It also has to do with the instability of 'existence' itself, which is apparently 'uncertain'. We call virtual particles virtual in the first place because we can't directly observe them, but when doing the math on the quantum fluctuations in a vacuum, it would seem as if the virtualization of these particles account for the fluctuation of energy within this field.

What we do know is that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is fundamental to existence/non-existence, so you cannot separate it from space or nothingness. Considering the reality of this principle, there is no need to account for the causation of virtual particles, because according to the principle, virtual particles have always been a part of nothingness.

In essence, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, nothing inevitably leads to something, since it (being a physical construct in itself) cannot permanently remain in a state of nothing. It's the fundamental nature of existence/non-existence.

I think the more important point there was that this is not what most people really mean by "nothing" (even if they think of empty space as containing nothing) and the kind of language you're using sort of obscures the thing people are trying to get at. Lawrence Krauss does this professionally and it's super-annoying that he keeps doing it after so many people have pointed it out. All the "how did something come from nothing?" pseudo-religious talk is getting at the ultimate why of things. Sure, maybe you can explain stars and planets ultimately in terms of virtual particles and quantum fields and "the fundamental nature of existence". But obviously it makes sense to then ask why it is that the fundamental nature of existence has these properties which allow it to eventually give rise to stars and planets and all that. You've not explained how it is that something can come from nothing; you've explained that what we ordinarily look at and think of as "nothing" actually isn't - there are these rules baked in to spacetime. But why those rules and not others? Why rules at all?

This is a really natural move for anyone who would have originally asked the question about origins. It's not goalpost-moving - it's what they were asking the whole time except that they misunderstood the nature of empty space. Thus multiverse theories. Also God. People find these to be plausible explanations that might not themselves require explanation.

Oh, Brawndo came back. Well, maybe two perspectives helps clear this up.

 

[RustyNails]

Guys, this is a science-free zone.

 

[Retromelon]

Guys, this is a science-free zone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysxG5jFeTME

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I think the more important point there was that this is not what most people really mean by "nothing" (even if they think of empty space as containing nothing) and the kind of language you're using sort of obscures the thing people are trying to get at. Lawrence Krauss does this professionally and it's super-annoying that he keeps doing it after so many people have pointed it out. All the "how did something come from nothing?" pseudo-religious talk is getting at the ultimate why of things. Sure, maybe you can explain stars and planets ultimately in terms of virtual particles and quantum fields and "the fundamental nature of existence". But obviously it makes sense to then ask why it is that the fundamental nature of existence has these properties which allow it to eventually give rise to stars and planets and all that. You've not explained how it is that something can come from nothing; you've explained that what we ordinarily look at and think of as "nothing" actually isn't - there are these rules baked in to spacetime. But why those rules and not others? Why rules at all?

This is a really natural move for anyone who would have originally asked the question about origins. It's not goalpost-moving - it's what they were asking the whole time except that they misunderstood the nature of empty space. Thus multiverse theories. Also God. People find these to be plausible explanations that might not themselves require explanation.

Oh, Brawndo came back. Well, maybe two perspectives helps clear this up.

This is a much cleaner and more readable post about the point/issue I was trying to explain. It's funny cause I was reflecting, "Damn I know there's got to be a better way to explain this since I must be misjudging my own clarity, why I am so fixated on this particular language instead of breaking it down into simpler terms or wording"...then I saw your post and was like, oh duh XD

 

[Y2Kev]

Voters running away from ha like Lana Del Ray.

what is this filth

 

[Retromelon]

It's Lana Del Rey, not Lana Del Ray smh ffs tbh ~wince~

 

[NeoXChaos]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-22/fbi-said-to-recover-personal-e-mails-from-hillary-clinton-server

The FBI has recovered personal and work-related e-mails from the private computer server used by Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, according to a person familiar with the investigation.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s success at salvaging personal e-mails that Clinton said had been deleted raises the possibility that the Democratic presidential candidate’s correspondence eventually could become public. The disclosure of such e-mails would likely fan the controversy over Clinton’s use of a private e-mail system for official business.

 

[Jack Remington]

How would her personal correspondence become public? Surely FOIA (which was nothing but trash and should be repealed) wouldn't apply to them?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-22/fbi-said-to-recover-personal-e-mails-from-hillary-clinton-server

Wow they recovered emails! What's the story here? do they think Clinton destroyed the server. If she had stuff that was damning shes either stupid or would have destroyed them. She handed the server over. Of course emails would be on it! Do they not know of HDD drives work?

This story is really getting on my nerves. If there is something new then tell us. But these stories which preclaim to "undercut Clinton's narrative" are obnoxiously attempts to take her down (Clinton rules). It's insane how this story has gone to such great heights but things like Roves emails never bothered the media. Or how they play along with trump, ignore the impossibility or GOP proposals and "both sides" everything.


These lines are what most bother me

The disclosure of such e-mails would likely fan the controversy over Clinton’s use of a private e-mail system for official business.

This doesn't provide any necessary detail and directly alights which a desired narrative.

Why can these sentences be written like this:

This disclosure is part of an ongoing investigation into Clinton's use of a private email sever while Secretary of State that has become a constsnt issue in her presidential campaign.

The former is a cheering of a "controversy" the later includes the needed information without the value judgements or the unneeded GOP operative quotes

 

[Jack Remington]

As I have a free WSJ subscription, I read far too many of their op-eds.

It's always a bunch of shit about how "We now know that when Clinton said X on Y date, she was factually inaccurate. Her narrative is crumbling before our eyes."

Extra points if they include "Petraeus was indicted for less."

The whole case is a house of toothpicks that amounts to jack shit even under the most charitable assumptions. It's more about keeping her name in the media while associating her with some vague "scandal" that no one can really explain and that doesn't even make any sense unless you start with the assumption that Hillary Clinton is at the center of a vast criminal enterprise, and this email story is only the first domino to fall.