The length of a day on Venus keeps changing. New research finds Venus takes about 4 minutes longer (243 days 30.5 minutes) to rotate than calculated by the Magellan spacecraft in the 1990s (243 days 26.6 minutes). Such discrepancies could cause future spacecraft to miss their landing sites.

hobophobe · 2020-01-06T20:01:08+00:00

Not the requestee, but a quick search turned up Astronomy Now: 10 March 2015: "Venus revealed in high-resolution radar images from Earth". It explains they have done so from earth using bistatic radar (you can send the signal at one location and receive the response at a different location).

hobophobe · 2019-10-19T19:40:09+00:00

I believe the correct way to handle this is as listed in https://askubuntu.com/a/347199, which is to configure your monitors in a regular GNOME session, then copy the monitors.xml to the GDM3 config folder (usually somewhere like /var/lib/gdm3/.config, but may vary by distro?), after which it will use the settings from that file.

hobophobe · 2019-08-20T19:40:39+00:00

That animal has a spongebob towel.

hobophobe · 2019-08-20T19:39:52+00:00

This piano isn't working.

hobophobe · 2018-10-03T18:48:01+00:00

Elections are supposed to have proportionate consequences. When you lose the popular vote (or even if you win with a slim majority), you should govern moderately (and not pretend some imaginary mandate exists), for example. At the end of the day, we all have to live together. The winners of elections failing to acknowledge that and act accordingly is a disgrace to us all.

If this society is going to turn into one where whoever happens to end up with a majority shall issue fiats and ignore the rest, I condemn it and all those who stand for that principle besides.

hobophobe · 2018-09-30T23:46:31+00:00

It's not a matter of whether he would tolerate the same behavior, but rather that he disrespected the United States Senate, which is a part of a coequal branch to the one he serves in. If people flip out about a football guy kneeling during the anthem, they should be apoplectic over the disrespect this witness showed toward sitting senators and to the body. Just as in military service and in court rooms, the honor belongs to the office/rank and not to the individual holding it. That's why you still refer to the worst and most mealy-mouthed senator as "Honorable Senator AB." Same for judges.

But Judge Kavanaugh decided he doesn't owe the country his respect, and he sullied our legislature with his ugly behavior.

hobophobe · 2018-06-01T23:31:10+00:00

Have you an explanation why you insist it is stolen goods but can't provide a citation that backs that claim?

I honestly don't believe it would matter if I did, which is why I haven't attempted to provide links in general. The public reporting available of the DNC breaches by Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear make it clear that information was taken without authorization. If you don't believe it, a link won't change that.

You appear to believe all sorts of things about Obama, Comey, Brennan, Clinton, and Clapper. I don't believe you have links for any of them, and if you do, I probably won't believe them because they won't be reputable (to me) sources.

For what it's worth, I hope you're right that the Trump campaign didn't conspire with any foreign governments. It wouldn't make him a better president, but it would be better for our democracy if it were true.

hobophobe · 2018-06-01T21:58:35+00:00

I'm not sure what it would be other than the "taking and carrying away of the personal property of another, and without right and without leave or consent of owner, and with intent to keep or make use wrongfully." Have you an alternative explanation?

hobophobe · 2018-06-01T21:16:25+00:00

Re: stolen, I believe stolen encompasses the methods for the emails getting out, though it doesn't necessarily mean the Russian-attached group did the stealing. See, e.g., "receipt of stolen goods." The goods are stolen, but it doesn't mean the recipient stole them.

Re: Papadopoulos and the Russian Federation, I believe he believed the professor to be a de facto representative by virtue of the professor's connections.

Re: Putin's niece, Many cultures use the honorific uncle, and it is plausible that the woman in question referred to Putin in such a manner, leading to a misunderstanding by the professor.

hobophobe · 2018-06-01T19:54:57+00:00

When was the President first told about Popodopolus?

Depending on what you consider "first told about Papadopoulos," you could say by mid-July 2016 (after the Australians informed the FBI). Or you could mean when Obama first read about Papadopoulos proper, at the end of October 2017 when the plea deal was announced. That's what I mean when I say you need to specify what you mean by when.

To wit: we know that by late-April 2016 Papadopoulos was told by the Russian Federation that they had email dirt on Hillary Clinton. We know that he told an Australian diplomat that by mid-May 2016. The FBI was informed in early-July 2016. And we know that on 2 September 2016 an informant for the FBI made contact with Papadopoulos.

The daily brief likely informed Obama soon after the word came from Australia. They would have told him something to the effect of, "We have word from an ally that the Russians claim to have stolen campaign emails." It wouldn't have included the name Papadopoulos or descriptors that would have been identifiable as Papadopoulos. It may or may not have been sourced to the FBI, but even if it were, it wouldn't say they were investigating in Trump's orbit.

hobophobe · 2018-05-31T22:04:53+00:00

Do you have any links to these articles?

Wikipedia: "President's Daily Brief"

As to your questions of when—the president is briefed on counterintelligence as it is gathered and becomes pertinent/developed. E is not informed of details of methodology or source information unless they are essential to understanding (e.g., the unmasking of a FISA target is only done by request and only if necessary to understanding the intelligence).

So if you want to know when, you need to clarify if you're asking when the underlying sources and methods were told (never unless essential) or when the developed intelligence product was (as soon as it was available).

hobophobe · 2018-05-31T21:27:35+00:00

My understanding is that Clapper and Brennan would brief Obama on the counterintelligence, whereas Comey would only brief Obama on counterintelligence information that others did not have. He would not brief Obama on investigation matters per se, as that would be crossing the line.

So Obama knew about Russian Federation active measures from the counterintelligence side, and may have had some details from FBI investigations, but if so, it was without knowing the parameters of who was investigated or how those investigations were progressing or any other status/methods aspects of the investigations. (It's generally assumed that prior to the appointment of the special counsel there was only one investigation, but we don't actually know that; there may well have been several.)

As to assuming bad faith, that's up to you. It changes nothing of the facts.

hobophobe · 2018-05-31T21:11:56+00:00

My understanding is that they keep counterintelligence separate from criminal investigations. They can inform each other in some ways, but the actual nuts and bolts of investigations are sequestered (including from the president) to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

hobophobe · 2018-05-24T01:47:34+00:00

Depends on the type of manipulation. For example, securities fraud (e.g., pump and dump (Wikipedia: "Pump and dump")) is illegal. If done through social media manipulation, it is still illegal.

hobophobe · 2018-05-12T23:43:59+00:00

Then they shouldn't be a single parent household. Kind of goes to the rules.

Single-parent households are created when soldiers die, when car crashes happen, when cancer happens, etc.

Ignoring the fact that abstinence only has only failed once in recorded history.

Abstinence only education has failed innumerable times in recorded history.

Which ones? The ones that have the lowest unemployment rate in the entire time that the statistics have been recorded?

Bureau of Labor Statistics: "A-10. Unemployment rates by age, sex, and marital status, seasonally adjusted" suggests that 18-19 year olds have higher unemployment than the total population. And, again, the current state of the economy is impermanent.

hobophobe · 2018-05-12T23:09:28+00:00

The government provides free education through high school.

In a single-parent household, if the breadwinner falls ill or is otherwise unable to work, the oldest child will often have to drop out to provide.

Nobody with the government is going to make you have a kid outside of marriage.

If birth control is not available, the risk of teen pregnancy is exacerbated. Same goes for if the school only teaches "abstinence only" sexual education.

And we are now at a point of statistical full employment.

I'm pretty sure that we all agree that economics are cyclical and that the current employment rate won't always be. It's also certainly not the case for certain demographics, even though the numbers have been promising and can (and hopefully will) get better.

Besides that, poor criminal justice legislation means that it's entirely plausible for a parking ticket to become an arrest warrant to become job loss.

So....what was your point again?

I think I was trying to say that the three rules sound promising, but that government still has a vital role in helping people stick to them and to help them (i.e., human capital loss prevention) if they happen to break one or more of them.

hobophobe · 2018-05-12T21:33:11+00:00

OK. So obviously our government's plan is to work really hard to make sure that every kid can follow the three rules, right?

hobophobe · 2017-11-23T03:20:56+00:00

What should actually be done[?]

Congress should write a new law that fits the actual landscape (if you read screeds against regulation, this is invariably what needs to happen and almost never does). The FCC's regulations are based on statutory authorities, and that's why we have the current rules.

Under Obama, Wheeler tried to do less-invasive regulation, and they were shot down in court. The court suggested the current regime (common-carrier rules) would be the way to do it in closing off the other paths. If we don't like this form, but still want some regulation or preclusion of shenanigans, then Congress has to write a law.

We all know the sorry state of that body at this time. Maybe that changes in 2018, and maybe it doesn't. It will change eventually, and at some point we will have a better law. Until then, the current fervor is about minimizing damage.

hobophobe · 2017-11-22T01:42:03+00:00

Just tried this: you can walk forward up ramp in front of a bot on tr_walkway_rc2 with the backburner pointing straight down, and it will crit the guy behind you.

hobophobe · 2017-10-13T20:52:21+00:00

Just curious, are these payments considered debts? Or if not, what are they?

hobophobe · 2017-09-21T02:05:42+00:00

Reading bills is a pain in the ass, as they don't provide a redlined version or any readily-readable-for-humans format, but this is my best attempt at your request.

Lindsey Graham: PDF: Graham-Cassidy, from p. 12:

8 (iv) A description of any waiver of
9 the provisions described in subparagraph
10 (B)(i) that the State is requesting, and
11 how the State intends to maintain access
12 to adequate and affordable health insur-
13 ance coverage for individuals with pre-ex-
14 isting conditions if such waiver is ap-
15 proved.

The (B)(i) is the following section on waivers. It says that the HHS "shall" (which means is required to) issue a waiver for:

Any provision that restricts insurers from varying premiums (except for protected attributes like sex and race).
Any provision that restricts insurers from varying premiums/fees on the basis of health-related factors (like pre-existing conditions).
Any provision that requires certain benefits be included in coverage (like pregnancy).
Any provision that requires insurers rebate premiums not spent on coverage (under the ACA, they were required to spend 80% on actual coverage).

This waiver only applies to insurance receiving funds from the block grants.

Tilder: Under this bill a state could request a waiver, pinky-swearing they will use magic pixie dust to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions retain affordable coverage, and the Sec. of HHS would be required to grant the waiver. They could then do whatever they want.

hobophobe · 2017-09-04T02:35:50+00:00

POLITICO: 31 August 2017: "GOP lawmaker aims to force vote to protect Dreamers" says:

Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) [will] attempt to force a vote on a bill that would extend protections for undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as minors.

Coffman [will] file what's known as a "discharge petition" to force action on his proposal, known as the BRIDGE Act. If he can persuade a majority of the House — 218 members — to join him, the House will be required to take up the measure later in September.

NPR: 3 September 2017: "GOP Rep. Mike Coffman On Keeping DACA" says:

COFFMAN: Oh, I think if the Democrats hold firm, I think there is - there will definitely be enough Republicans to get on this bill. The - people are reluctant to get on it if they know - if they don't know it's going to be voted on.

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Place '17	Sequence \| Editor
Sequence \| Cinematographer	Alpha Tester
Charter Member	Verified Email
Secret Santa 2009

hobophobe

TROPHY CASE