This didn't take long. I'm not sure there is anyone that the Berners think is more evil than Hillary Clinton-probably not even Hitler. After all, Hitler was a populist against bad trade deals too and he even embraced the socialist label.
We have Jane Sanders and HA Goodman pleading with the FBI to convict Hillary for using a private email-same as Colin Powell did.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/jane-sanders-hillary-clinton-fbi-222624
Jane Sanders did this on Fox News. Sure, she has the party's best interests at heart. Meanwhile Goodman, fittingly, had this post in Salon.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/please_fbi_youre_our_last_hope_the_democratic_partys_future_rests_upon_your_probe_of_hillary_clintons_emails/
So he's actually asking the FBI to conduct an investigation in a way that Goodman and Jane Sanders finds politcally advantageous. Indict her for political reasons. That sounds on the up and up. Let alone the fact that she isn't being investigated.
It's fitting that it's again Salon that is publishing such Hillary hating garbage.
"There are perhaps no three words more jarring to liberals than “President Donald Trump.” The GOP front-runner and presumptive nominee has undoubtedly made enemies with his nativist rhetoric and bellicose persona. That said, now that the race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, with the former secretary of state essentially guaranteed the nomination, many liberals and progressives are preparing, once again, to vote for the lesser of two evils. The choice may not be as clear as some Democrats believe — especially if Democrats can take back the Senate and assure themselves of a check on a GOP House."
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/29/a_liberal_case_for_donald_trump_the_lesser_of_two_evils_is_not_at_all_clear_in_2016/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
Sure. It's better for Democrats to be a check on the GOP House than to have a Democratic President. And using Bernie logic, if Trump were to win, it might just be a 'political revolution'-if Trump who the betting odds gives a 15 percent shot at winning actually won. You might expect him to have some coattails making the chance at a Democratic Senate much less likely.
"Once you’ve let that sink in, try this: There is a liberal case to be made for Donald Trump. The prospect of Trump defeating Clinton this November is not necessarily the apocalypse that some would lead you to believe. Here are some of the reasons why."
Well it will be an apocalypse for some. Certainly if you're a woman who relies on the healthcare services of Planned Parenthood or an African American who faces voter suppression. Currently, a Dem win would enable us to finally tip the balance of the Court back.
This is something we've been waiting for 30 years for. If we did, then a Hillary Clinton Supreme Court could reverse the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. But hey, missing that is not an apocalypse. If you're not a black person living in a Red State.
If you're a Latino, it might be an apocalypse for you. But the writer, Walker Bragman isn't worried about this. Trump won't get to do all that much as Congress will check him, he reasons.
Right. I'm sure Hispanic Americans the nation over take comfort in that. Even if they won't-and how do you know that some GOPers won't, under pressure from their voters, take some draconian steps in cracking down on Latinos, even if short of building a wall and deporting 11 million people?
Has Bragman never hear of the Upton Window? If Trump won, we wouldn't see everything he calls for but a number of 'compromises' we previously considered unacceptable might become acceptable.
Remember that after the terrorist attack in Paris late last year, the House initially passed a law that cracked down on Syrian refugees-with some Dem support as well, unfortunately.
With a President Trump with a GOP Congress, they might well give him just 15 percent of what he wants in terms of Hispanics and a Muslim ban. That would still be for many an 'apocalypse.'
It boggles the mind. The Berners think Hillary Clinton is Cruellla Daville for advocating a $12 federal minimum wage which is currently $7.25. Because Saint Bernie wants to do a $15 MW. She does support states that do $15 but it's a litmus test for the Berners.
Meanwhile, they will embrace a man who says that American wages need to come down. They figure Trump was just joshing about that.
Bragman is impressed by the fact that Trump 'Changes the conversation and speaks his mind.' So did Hitler.
Just because you change the conversation doesn't mean it's in a good way. He's changed it alright-now a Muslim ban, deporting 11 million immigrants, and declaring that Hillary would be at 5 percent if she were a man.
I'm sure Bragman, HA Goodman, and Seth Abramson all actually like that line by Trump. They themselves believe this is the only reason Hillary is supported too.
Like Al Sharpton said on Wednesday, women sure are privileged. They make a whole $.75 for every $1 a man makes.
He is also changing the conversation by suggesting he might use nuclear weapons-but doesn't want to say either way. If he used nuclear weapons, at least it wouldn't be apocalyptic. Oh wait.
Bragman's problem is he has this conceit that Trump won't be so bad. Just wait until 2020 and then he can have Elizabeth Warren or whoever the current liberal saint is then. What damage can be done in 4 years? Considering that a number of SJC vacancies could be coming, a lot.
Bragman again sounds like Trump:
"Clinton is also one of the weakest candidates ever to secure the nomination for president from either party. As Gallup pointed out, the word most associated with her name is “dishonest.” Her favorability ratings are abysmal, she’s prone to secrecy which opens her up to perceptions of scandal, and she has an FBI investigation hanging over her head. Unlike her rival, Bernie Sanders, but like Donald Trump, she underperforms among Independents — a necessary voting block for any president."
One of the weakest ever. Sure. Is she weaker than McGovern who lost 49 states, or Alf Landon who lost 523-8 in the electoral college, or Goldwater-who like Trump-opened the door to using nuclear weapons?
I think that Bragman is like Trump. They both think Hillary is one of the weakest candidates ever because she's a woman.
Wow. I knew this was coming but this soon?
We have Jane Sanders and HA Goodman pleading with the FBI to convict Hillary for using a private email-same as Colin Powell did.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/jane-sanders-hillary-clinton-fbi-222624
Jane Sanders did this on Fox News. Sure, she has the party's best interests at heart. Meanwhile Goodman, fittingly, had this post in Salon.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/please_fbi_youre_our_last_hope_the_democratic_partys_future_rests_upon_your_probe_of_hillary_clintons_emails/
So he's actually asking the FBI to conduct an investigation in a way that Goodman and Jane Sanders finds politcally advantageous. Indict her for political reasons. That sounds on the up and up. Let alone the fact that she isn't being investigated.
It's fitting that it's again Salon that is publishing such Hillary hating garbage.
"There are perhaps no three words more jarring to liberals than “President Donald Trump.” The GOP front-runner and presumptive nominee has undoubtedly made enemies with his nativist rhetoric and bellicose persona. That said, now that the race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, with the former secretary of state essentially guaranteed the nomination, many liberals and progressives are preparing, once again, to vote for the lesser of two evils. The choice may not be as clear as some Democrats believe — especially if Democrats can take back the Senate and assure themselves of a check on a GOP House."
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/29/a_liberal_case_for_donald_trump_the_lesser_of_two_evils_is_not_at_all_clear_in_2016/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
Sure. It's better for Democrats to be a check on the GOP House than to have a Democratic President. And using Bernie logic, if Trump were to win, it might just be a 'political revolution'-if Trump who the betting odds gives a 15 percent shot at winning actually won. You might expect him to have some coattails making the chance at a Democratic Senate much less likely.
"Once you’ve let that sink in, try this: There is a liberal case to be made for Donald Trump. The prospect of Trump defeating Clinton this November is not necessarily the apocalypse that some would lead you to believe. Here are some of the reasons why."
Well it will be an apocalypse for some. Certainly if you're a woman who relies on the healthcare services of Planned Parenthood or an African American who faces voter suppression. Currently, a Dem win would enable us to finally tip the balance of the Court back.
This is something we've been waiting for 30 years for. If we did, then a Hillary Clinton Supreme Court could reverse the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. But hey, missing that is not an apocalypse. If you're not a black person living in a Red State.
If you're a Latino, it might be an apocalypse for you. But the writer, Walker Bragman isn't worried about this. Trump won't get to do all that much as Congress will check him, he reasons.
Right. I'm sure Hispanic Americans the nation over take comfort in that. Even if they won't-and how do you know that some GOPers won't, under pressure from their voters, take some draconian steps in cracking down on Latinos, even if short of building a wall and deporting 11 million people?
Has Bragman never hear of the Upton Window? If Trump won, we wouldn't see everything he calls for but a number of 'compromises' we previously considered unacceptable might become acceptable.
Remember that after the terrorist attack in Paris late last year, the House initially passed a law that cracked down on Syrian refugees-with some Dem support as well, unfortunately.
With a President Trump with a GOP Congress, they might well give him just 15 percent of what he wants in terms of Hispanics and a Muslim ban. That would still be for many an 'apocalypse.'
It boggles the mind. The Berners think Hillary Clinton is Cruellla Daville for advocating a $12 federal minimum wage which is currently $7.25. Because Saint Bernie wants to do a $15 MW. She does support states that do $15 but it's a litmus test for the Berners.
Meanwhile, they will embrace a man who says that American wages need to come down. They figure Trump was just joshing about that.
Bragman is impressed by the fact that Trump 'Changes the conversation and speaks his mind.' So did Hitler.
Just because you change the conversation doesn't mean it's in a good way. He's changed it alright-now a Muslim ban, deporting 11 million immigrants, and declaring that Hillary would be at 5 percent if she were a man.
I'm sure Bragman, HA Goodman, and Seth Abramson all actually like that line by Trump. They themselves believe this is the only reason Hillary is supported too.
Like Al Sharpton said on Wednesday, women sure are privileged. They make a whole $.75 for every $1 a man makes.
He is also changing the conversation by suggesting he might use nuclear weapons-but doesn't want to say either way. If he used nuclear weapons, at least it wouldn't be apocalyptic. Oh wait.
Bragman's problem is he has this conceit that Trump won't be so bad. Just wait until 2020 and then he can have Elizabeth Warren or whoever the current liberal saint is then. What damage can be done in 4 years? Considering that a number of SJC vacancies could be coming, a lot.
Bragman again sounds like Trump:
"Clinton is also one of the weakest candidates ever to secure the nomination for president from either party. As Gallup pointed out, the word most associated with her name is “dishonest.” Her favorability ratings are abysmal, she’s prone to secrecy which opens her up to perceptions of scandal, and she has an FBI investigation hanging over her head. Unlike her rival, Bernie Sanders, but like Donald Trump, she underperforms among Independents — a necessary voting block for any president."
One of the weakest ever. Sure. Is she weaker than McGovern who lost 49 states, or Alf Landon who lost 523-8 in the electoral college, or Goldwater-who like Trump-opened the door to using nuclear weapons?
I think that Bragman is like Trump. They both think Hillary is one of the weakest candidates ever because she's a woman.
Wow. I knew this was coming but this soon?
I heard the same kind of nonsense Bragman spewed back in 2000, when I had Naderites telling me that George W. Bush wouldn't be so bad as President, that he would be a helluva lot better than Gore (because Gore was going to sell us all down the river). "It's only going to be four years!" they sneered.
ReplyDeleteOf course, right from the start Bush was terrible. And then there was 9-11, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the wasting of the surplus, the Patriot Act, the approval of torture....and that was only in the first four years.
Bragman can go get stuffed.
I thought the same thing-how can you be so confident it will only be four years? Let alone the fact that a lot can happen in four years!
ReplyDeleteTrump could have thrown out the Constitution by 2020
Mike, I got my sample ballot. I'm registered GOP, so Trump it is I guess. Looks like I'll need to order two of those I guess (one for my friend... I'm going to doctor his... Put a few fake orange blonde hairs in it... And a "personal" note from Trump himself).
ReplyDeleteI made an offer to that whole group: first one to correctly answer my question gets a Trump hat (so it looks like I'll be making quite an order). Here's the question (in case you want to give it a shot):
A kangaroo jumps three times in random directions, the same distance each time. What's the probability she ends up within one jump of her starting location?
Good question. I have no idea but I'll guess. 50 percent?
ReplyDeleteNot a bad guess, but no.
DeleteIt's only fair to give you the same hint I gave the others:
Deletehere it is.
That shows the results of running a few trial cases: simply count up all the blue dots inside the red circle and divide by the total number of blue dots. Easy, right? (+_+)
Lol
Sure there aren't too many dots to count or anything. LOL
DeleteWell at least you know 0% and 100% are out the window.
DeleteI thought you'd tell me after I got it wrong. It's a good answer because it's close? LOL
ReplyDeleteHigher or lower? Any hints?
Ok I'm going to come up with two more guesses. Let me know if either is right.
100 percent or 0 percent
Nope and nope. I will give you a 2nd hint though: take a look at my 1st hint and then hit "CNTL +" (control and plus key) on your browser a half dozen times or so: it makes the dots easier to count. ;)
DeleteWithout even counting it looks like maybe 16 percent or so. But let me try counting
ReplyDelete"But let me try counting" ... good man! :D
Delete(better guess BTW)
DeleteWell just looking at it, it's clearly a small fraction of possible jumps.
ReplyDeleteI did what you said but it seems to simply increase the magnification.
Maybe I'm looking at it wrong but it looks like way too many spots to count
Yes, it is. I was joking. (I'll give you a 3rd hint: that's 500,000 trials... you'd be counting for some time... not to mention it's impossible in places where it's a solid mass of blue)
DeleteYou did the right thing by eye-balling it. 16% is the 2nd best answer so far. First (but still wrong) is from a retired physicist I know in his 80s. He tried to work it out analytically, but didn't quite get it. It's really not THAT hard, but I'll give him a pass being in his 80s and all. My dad came up with something in your ball park, but not quite as good.
I think it's a good puzzle because it's easy to state, and you can find the exact answer w/o exotic math... but it's still a bit more complex that it sounds at first (unless you have a phenomenal geometry intuition).
I'll post the answer in a bit.
If I'm second behind a physicist, that's not too bad. Looking forward to the answer that requires phenomenal geometry intuition
ReplyDeleteI'm having an email exchange right now with my friend who re-registered GOP... here was his guess:
DeleteUhh... 1 in [garbled].
Do I win?
I gave him the same suggestion about counting the dots. Lol
Also I told that whole crew that I hadn't come up with 2nd and 3rd prizes yet... but I have some ideas.
BTW, why didn't anybody ask Alec what 4th and 5th prizes were?? :D
Looking at it again, it looks smaller than 16 percent. How about 12 percent?
ReplyDeleteThat would put you in 3rd by a hair.
DeleteI thought was 2nd before?
ReplyDeleteYes, 12% is a half percent worse than my dad's guess. I'll tell you what: I'll give you hint #4 (practically handing it to you on a silver platter!). ((@_@))
DeleteOh, this is fun. ha.
That silver platter comment was a joke too BTW... I realize that diagram is confusing.
DeleteOK, are you ready for the answer, or do you want to take any more stabs at it?
ReplyDeleteI'm ready for my answer. I could keep guessing but by process of elimination I'd get there eventually.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the answer and how do we get there?
OK, I put this page up for the benefit of that retired physicist in his 80s... I was surprised he stuck with his wrong answer even after I enlightened him... so I put the page up to show you could even do "Monte-Carlo" trials and get my answer (he eventually changed his mind, and came around to my solution).
DeleteSo the algebra is under the spreadsheet (the spreadsheet does the Monte-Carlo trial version of a solution).
Here it is.
That Hint #4 was an actual hint. =)
Ok. There was no hope I would have ever gotten this by doing the math.
ReplyDeleteSo it was 25 percent. I was closer at 16 percent.
I should have known when I got worse when I dropped to 12 percent.
Here's where the amazing geometrical insight could come into play: if you realized that the arc length of the circle around the 2nd landing spot that's inside the circle around the origin is equal to the angle of the 2nd jump (theta), it would be quite easy to solve. I didn't realize that either until later. I was able to write a complicated looking function for it... a function of theta (which I used the Wolfram Alpha website to help me integrate), but it reduces to:
Deletef(theta) = theta
It's possible somebody could see that right away. Once you have that, the rest is pretty easy (though you do have to do one very simple integration):
integral theta dtheta = theta^2/2
I like the fact that the problem is so easy to state, and yet it's a little tricky to solve.
Yeah, so don't feel bad. I asked a mechanical engineer I know and he was way off. He had two answers:
1/(3*4!) = 1/72
1/(3*4!*4!*4!) = 1/41472
He went with the 1st. I have no idea how he came up with factorials (! operators) like that. And he's only designed a few bridges, so you're probably safe. (Joking!... he designs airframes =)
So if you were willing to bet you would have been smart to bet it wouldn't hit the same spot though there is nontrivial chance it would have.
ReplyDeleteBy "hit the same spot" you mean to land withing one jump distance of the starting spot?
DeleteBut if you mean land EXACTLY on the starting spot, that's clearly not impossible (imagine the jumps are the legs of an equilateral triangle), but the probability of that happening is literally zero. An event having zero probability is not (of course) necessarily impossible... but betting on it is a very very bad idea.
No I meant like in the question-landing after three random jumps in the same spot.
ReplyDelete25 percent is a nontrivial chance. But betting you'd take that it wouldn't land there
True: that would be a bad bet.
DeleteMy lawyer friend actually had pretty good reasoning: he figured 1/9 because he was imagining that the frog's possible locations after 3 jumps was a circle of radius = 3, which will have 9 times the area of a circle of radius 1.
The retired physicist's answer was 2/9.
I asked a colleague at work (he's a bright guy, but not a math guy)... I'll see what he does. I know a very bright math guy at work here too... I have no doubt he'll get it. Though he and I used to be on the same pub-darts team... and it was such an embarrassment: neither one of use is very fast at subtracting. I don't know if you've played darts... but subtracting quickly in your head is an essential skill (one which I don't possess). Needless to say our team came in dead last three seasons in a row (though lack of skill in throwing the darts had something to do with it as well I think. Ha!).
For me, I wouldn't get the answer with formal calculations but intuitively. I simply misjudged the size of the circle you sent me.
DeleteIt was a little bigger
Well, if you pass this along to anybody else and they get the right answer, let me know!
ReplyDelete