He can't declare himself dictator as that would be a violation of the constitution, Particularly the rule that says you can't suspend habeus corpus(with the exception of invasion), thus subjecting the President to removal from office, one way or the other. I also still contend he would lose with Congress holding the most powers in the fact the US Congress is given the right to declare war(which gives them the right to order a stop of any ISIS bombings in theory), Congress can remove a President, and there is a ruling that says orders given to the military by their superiors can be ignored if they violate the constitution, US v. Keenan where they claimed to only be following orders when murdering civilians and the court found that was not lawful and should not have been carried out, thus upholding a murder conviction against the soldier.

Now we come to the fun of Nuclear weapons, while the President has authority to order a nuclear strike unilaterally, he can't do it alone, it's actually bilateral because the Secretary of Defense must also agree, should he say no, the president can then fire him and ask his replacement to agree, so on and so forth until someone agrees with the President. While that is going on the Vice President, cabinet and congress also have the ability to invoke the constitutions unfit clause and remove the President from office.

He may be everything you fear, but I doubt it though. As to civil war, that's probable no matter what given the polarization of the US population now, we are sitting at roughly 40/40/20(Left, Right, Other) in terms of politics.

I also know since the Korean war they've used a work around to avoid congress and war powers by claiming as Head of the Military the President can move troops at will for defensive purposes, but I figure with a Trump the supreme court will finally rule in favor of the constitution and not the Presidential office that only congress can start the conflict/action not the Head of the Military/President. Yet, there is also the War Powers Resolution 1973 requires within 60 days for congress to approve any actions. I will concede the WPR basically says congress can vote to stop a war but the President can veto that bill, thus continuing their war, so long as they have 34 Senators willing to block an override of the veto.

I wish someone would explain to me how it is any of the government's business when one person needs a ride and another offers one. If money changes hands, as long as the taxes are paid, it really should not fall under the purview of government. But, if you ask a government official they would tell you that every aspect of our lives should be controlled by government, so there is that.

Someone I know wanted to switch all their lights on and off from a server in their house. I could only ask: why? What problem does this solve? Why make things even more complicated than we have already and potentially prone to failure and data leaks.

Thank you. I believe my kids will change the world. Each in their own unique manner but they will have an impact.

There doesn't seem to be any other underlying issues with her but she is a child of surprises so I never say never. The CBT group and the psychologist will certainly pick up on anything they have concerns about.

She will deal with her anxiety and she'll cope with the separation of her parents but the main thing I want for her is to be herself. If she stays a she, becomes a he or chooses to be gender neutral, all I can ask is she's happy, safe and, most importantly, it is her decision.

""Last December, a doctor told me to get an MRI and see him again three weeks later to go over the results. I wanted to scream, 'Do you understand what it’s like to schedule an MRI?'

I did - I had done it three months earlier. I knew it would require his office putting together a justification for the scan and sending that to my insurance company. That usually took a few days or a week. Then the insurance company would need to pre-approve the scan. That usually took a week or so - and another few days before I received a letter notifying me of the decision. Only then could I schedule the procedure.

But for my doctor, getting an MRI was simple - he just had to ask me to do it.""

My primary doctor's office gets the pre-approval, makes the appointment for the MRI and notifies me, usually within 3 or 4 business days. This guy needs a more patient-focused doctor.

The employees did not do a great job either it is not unreasonable for them to ask for their money back.

They asked drivers and got a predictable response. What happens if you ask passengers?

I can see how physical activity is connected to hunger. I mean, we do indeed burn calories when we do physical things, so naturally the body will ask for nourishment faster if it's depleting it faster. Makes sense.

Uhm... that's all fine and well but aren't we kinda nitpicking over semantics? I mean tonight I will fall asleep and for hours on end cease to exist yet tomorrow I will awake and recall my name, age, procedures to tie shoelaces, use a knife and fork, construct sentences in two languages etc etc etc you get the picture. To say that I don't remember any of this because my brain doesn't have memory but I do recall it because the brain is... is not an explanation at all. It's just stating an observation.

"The sky is not blue because of light refraction while photons collide with atmosphere particles while traveling through air molecules but it is blue because I perceive it to be blue"

Hmm... Well... I mean... yeah. The distinction escapes me. But then again I don't do this sort of intellectual naval gazing any longer.

To use IP metaphor or whatever doesn't reflect true brain operations or whatever may very well be but to simply state the brain is also doesn't explain anything at all. I can make a statement like that about anything.

"You are not experiencing agony right now because your nails are being pulled out with pliers but the pain of feeling your nails pulled out is"

Uhm... wut? Aren't we laboring the technicalities of this point a little hard? I mean- who gives a shit about the semantics, either way stop pulling my fucking nails.

If the brain doesn't remember because it has no memory but it does recall because it exists can we still use the word memory? Reason I ask is because computer science borrows terminology we had before computers not the other way around.

Similar with knowledge and information. If the brain doesn't process info, neither does a computer. A computer performs voltage sequence permutations seeing as we are harbinging on semantics. Any information processing or encoded meaning in those permutations is something we infer but a computer simply exists. See? I too can play holyerthanthou pseudointellectual BS.

The bottom line is that metaphors and abstractions away from subatomic particle energy vibrations (which is technically the most accurate explanation we have for all things in existence) are useful way to have a conversation about anything yet we somehow feel uncomfortable using them to talk about consciousness even though we are perfectly comfortable using them to talk about everything else. Emphasizing that taboo in the name of intellectual honesty is hypocritical, ironic and sadly missing the point.

I'd like to know who paid for this study. Doing some research and even though the National Academies has a nice official sounding name they are just a non-profit organization. I'm not saying I believe they'll doom us all, I'm just saying I don't know why labeling laws are so hated by certain groups. If people don't want that GMO food, maybe you shouldn't be trying to hide it's GMO and let the market decide. Maybe move your GMO's to places that need food desperately and would gladly accept them, of course not at the profit margins you were wanting though.

Here is why I ask who is paying them.

Our work extends well beyond fulfilling federal government requests, however. Foundations, state governments, the private sector, and philanthropy from individuals enable us to address critical issues on behalf of the nation.

Me and my wife have a running bit. One of us will ask "Do these jeans/pants make me look fat?" and the reply is "No. Your fat makes you look fat." It's fun to do when trying on clothes at the shops because people never expect that reply. Also you must really love each other to get away with the reply. It's an advanced relationship joke and not for Newlyweds.

Those comparisons are mildly interesting, but BBC´s article feels incomplete since it doesn´t try to answer why is it so expensive or why is it being proposed on a time when nuclear energy is on the decline. Will it provide massive amounts of energy for a long period of time thus paying for itself? Do specialists think that solar and wind power won´t be enough for the UK? Is there a nuclear lobby pushing this plant? These comparisons feel like a simple blog post of someone who looked for data on wikipedia. The info by itself isn´t bad, but I expect more from the BBC.

I'm going to ask a silly question -- I've never held a ceramic knife -- are they lighter feeling? You know how a knife has a feel and weight and balance thing going on, how do ceramic knives compare?

Ok you caught me. It's my old blog. My new blog deals with the illegal use and misuse of funds in the IPLF (International Party of Lemon Farmers) throughout the years. Have a look www.lemonparty. Naw, changed my mind. I cant do that to you.

http://snapzu.com/t/drunksongs/ is really your new blog?

This article nails it on the head. It is the "quick fix" that the media companies are now looking for. For years there has been a norm based on a certain demographic (affluent, female, 30 -65) but the rules changed about 5 years ago. We find that people are more apt to live their life on the go and exchange longer programing/articles for quick articles as they go about their daily lives. Small energetic content creators understand this and it is basically the way they live their lives. But media companies profits do not come from the articles or programs, they come from advertising and it is hard to advertise when people watch a video for 3 min and then get up from the toilet seat. The magic that needs to happen is to convince people to go to a larger more informative article in that 3 min video or blog on their own time and get the advertising then. It makes the user feel like they are doing it for themselves. Unfortunately the magic is not there yet.

For more amazing facts and further discussion please go to my new blog The Art of Piracy in the 21st Century Media Industry WE HAVE CAT PICS ALSO! Gets!

This is the natural reaction to the parasitic system established by the scientific publishers. My feeling has always been that information, especially scientific information, and even more especially scientific information resulting from taxpayer funding, should be unconditionally public. But I understand the realities of IP and how making everything open would be hard, so yes, they are nuances to it.

What I don't understand is this weird system where there's these big publishing corps, they get us to do all the research for them (never paying a dime for it, of course), they get us to review papers for them (again, for free), often they get us to do the editing and formatting for them, sometimes they even ask us to pay fees to publish the papers we submit, and then they charge people (including the universities and/or research institutes we work for) unreasonable fees to read those papers that they did almost nothing to publish. This makes absolutely no sense, but the system is fueled by the silly "publish-or-perish" doctrine that has lead to millions of junk papers and the creation of thousands of junk journals (which makes scientific progress a lot harder, since people have to spend a lot of effort sifting through the bullshit instead of doing useful research). If I want to rebel against this by making my research available online for free, I get in trouble because I'm not publishing in high-ranked journals. So I have to bite the bullet and feed the publishing corp machine.

This is not a problem exclusive to academic research, BTW. Pretty much any creative endeavor has a huge parasitic layer on top of it making huge profits off of the creator's work while giving a pittance back to the creator and/or the other people who made it happen. Book writers, musicians, etc. are all victims of this. Given that the government officials are in the pockets of corporations and will do nothing about this (even worse, they'll prosecute the people who do the actual creative work if they rebel against the system), the only reasonable response is to pirate the creative work and make it available for free to everyone. This screws the creators of the content, of course, but it screws the corps responsible for this status quo much more, since they have way bigger profits at stake. Many creative people have noticed this, and you have writers, musicians and, yes, also academics, making their stuff available for free even though they run big career risks by doing that (unless they're already well established). But for the rest of the system, I think piracy is the only reasonable way to make scientists and artists be heard by the general public.

I'm confused, why is Apple not also on the hook here? I assume what they really want is for phones to come like some computers and at each step ask which app you would like to install until you have all the cores installed that you want.

You think this is crazy? Go to zoopla and search for flats for rent in London. Then sort them by highest to lowest price. There are flats that rent for over $300,000/month. Let that number sink.

I always wanted to call and ask if utilities were included just for laughs.

Are these morons looking for 'cool shots' of planes coming and going or something? How seriously dense do you have to be to endanger airliners so you can post a cool photo to your blog?

The author/photographer of this piece was a close friend in high school, and the one childhood friend whose 'grown-up' job I truly covet. Check out more of his adventures on his blog for lots of jealousy-inducing photos and cool travel ideas.

They seem to be documenting themselves very well!

1. It's so obvious they want their privacy.
2. The special super bright light device, is a MIRROR. Notice they can't use it at night.
3. They want to ask about taking down those cameras due to privacy reasons. Cameras are just as effective on the inside of the home if you fear for you life from what seems to be a very delightful looking neighborhood.
4. They are resorting to other tactics because their pleas are being ignored, anyone in their position would be frustrated.
5. As a warning to other folks, don't be that crazy old guy with a half dozen cameras because you think someone is out to get you, you are literally "CREATING" that scenario!

Also, I found another video from the same poster, this is the part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLy6cjYAAOM

In the second part you can see his frustrated neighbors trying to construct a privacy fence around their front yard as they are tired of being recorded. I cant help to think that these two clips were created to troll us and get a reaction. The real bully is the guy documenting the subject here folks, it's clear as day he gets pleasure out of it.

If my hair was not in a pony tail I would look very similar.

These blog posts of articles from other sources and videos are really awkward. "New study says this according to this other news website". Or "According to this video, X is OK." Why not just post the original article or just the original video? The Time article adds nothing and has much less info than the original piece by The Guardian.

Fascinating story! I followed a blog whose owner had a repeating feature called Fabergé Friday. She started off profiling the eggs and segued into other Fabergé jewelry pieces. Definitely worth a look, if looking at antique jewelry pieces is your thing. The Fabergé Fridays start off in the November 2011 archives.

Miss Meadow's Pearls