I can't stop playing this damn Cepheus thing! HALP!

(two more games to get to ten, post them, and then try to forget the damn thing exists)

If it left this weekend it would have to average better than .1c to get there in 40 years. lol

That article is pure comedy. A 100 jigawatt laser? That DOESN'T blow a hole straight through a sail, not to mention the chip, wherever it's going to sit? It would make an Abrams tank armor look like tin foil in comparison.

The physics is solid but lots of the technology barely exists or is a ways away from existing. The sail would obviously have to be very highly reflective to avoid melting/vaporizing since heat transfer is pretty sucky in space. In 20 or so years such a project might be feasible. 40 years is probably a more realistic time frame. That's probably okay, I doubt the Proxima b inhabitants are going anywhere...

Just read the Vox article on Gorsuch. Democrats need to pick a better fight, guy sounds +1 SD from expectation.

No need to flame away on a post that's only marginally cogent and sorely lacking in factual objectivity. If the intent of your post was to engender 'discussion' that might cause Doug or BBB to nuke an otherwise civil discourse, I hope you fail.

After all, reasonable people can debate differing views and, occasionally, both sides can learn something in the process.

The Senate didn't "ignore" Obama's nomination; they just didn't allow it to come the floor for a vote. There's nothing remotely unconstitutional about that.

Your characterization of this being a "horrible scandal" because the Court was not at capacity for nearly a year seems over-reaching. Scalia's death removed a potential tie-breaking vote of the Court, one that surely would have benefited the conservatives had he not died. Iow, the lack of a conservative replacement tilts the Court in favor of the liberals, at least for the time being.

The Senate majority, rightly or wrongly (but not unconstitutionally), decided to defer and delay a vote on any nominee until a new President was seated. That certainly deprived Obama a notable footnote in his legacy; but, ironically, would have allowed Hillary her first apointee had she been elected.

I reckon Trump just hit his gut shot, or maybe even a two outer.

I think that was priced in to Trump's chances in November. The Court vacancy was almost certainly designed to get conservatives to get out and vote for a Republican President. If there weren't an immediate vacancy on the line, I think more than a few people would have stayed home rather than vote for Trump.

And the vacancy being Scalia's definitely motivates conservatives more than liberals (people are more motivated to go protect a majority they already have than to go claim a majority they don't already have).

I doubt it matters how reflective anything is. The whole premise is that if enough light is thrown at something there is a kinetic effect, implying light photons have mass. It would basically be like throwing a cannonball at the sail at 186,000 miles per second. There is probably not a man-made object on earth that wouldn't be penetrated by that. (A depleted uranium sabot round out of an Abrams cannon travels at ONE mile per second.)

Waiting for Lurshy to blame the Republicans for Scalia's death.

I like to think of myself as one of the more level headed players, particularly when things go badly. However, it bugs me when I lose and then my opponent feels the need to ask such questions:

"you mad?"

"why you mad?"

"why you acting weird?"

"why you being like that?"

etc.

All I said was good game man. If you really feel bad about winning, then I'll gladly take my money back.

Will Ginsburg hang on another 4 years is the question.

Photons have momentum but no rest mass. Momentum is conserved in a collision, so if a photon is reflected it transfers momentum to the object from which it was reflected (mirror, or solar sail in this case). If a lot of photons are reflected then a lot of momentum can be transferred.

If this election has shown anything, it's the power and the organizational capabilities of national political parties.

Clearly the work of a conspiratorial masterminds.

Wake up sheeple.

Anyone who wishes death on another human being just because of political disagreements is just wow.

Liberals who cheered when they heard of Scalia's death are included in that.

How does this kind of argument get any play here?

"You think this thing is wrong (refusing to have hearings on a nomination)? Oh yeah? What about this other unrelated wrong thing (questionable judicial rulings)?"

That's a total non-sequitor and has no bearing on the original claim. Come on.

On a lighter note, I threw ubuntu on my work machine and it's life changing over Windows. I'm pretty sure doing development work on Windows is correlated to alcoholism (hence why the curve is named after Steve Ballmer).

If Hilary had just barely won but the Republican majority Senate stayed in place, what makes you think that they would have acted on her nomination? If they were willing to allow the court to go short for a year, I think it is not a stretch for them to try to allow it to be short for 5 years, or indefinitely, until they lose the majority (if ever).

As a practical matter, either side can get a short term pass while acting in their own political interests. But the notion of non-action for an extended period of time in a matter as important as a Supreme Court Justice appointment would be political suicide for the offending party.

Obama was a lame duck. Hillary would have been a sitting President for at least four years. The Republicans, as a practical matter, would certainly have "acted" on her nominee to the extent that hearings would have taken place and a vote ensued. Hillary would only have had to convince three Republicans to vote for her nominee to get the nod. Assuming a Democratic filibuster and voting along party lines, the Republicans are going to need eight Dems to jump ship to end the filibuster and force a straight-up vote.

Well see, I considered a year to be "an extended period of time" without a properly functioning supreme court, so I was surprised that this wasn't already political suicide for the republicans. I didn't follow it much more because I got sick of politics and politicians of both parties long ago, but honestly this tactic of stalling on a supreme court nomination for a year offends my sensibilities more than anything else the congress has done in my lifetime.

Well there's going to be a ****-ton of momentum then, and it's going to obliterate whatever it hits.

In unrelated news the ban on my son attending Berkeley remains active

you can't be a strict textualist (even though Leo has pointed out why it's wrong) in order to try and get a justice elected then later expect that very judge to ignore the constitution or treat it as a constantly evolving document. That's my problem with abortion legislation, it's not that it against it (although I clearly am) it's that it's some of the most absurd reasoning/decision making I've ever seen and basically the main reason I don't practice law.

Also to clarify my position, it's not that abortion should be illegal . It's that it should be up to each individual state to pass legislation that makes abortion legal or illegal. Then you use the democratic process to elect legislators that will pass the legislation you agree with.

What if he attends to give a speech about trolling the left?

The "stalling" may offend your sensibility, but the end result would have been the same had they allowed hearings and a vote.

During a lame duck presidency, it is quite common- even ordinary- that certain matters are deferred until the new President is installed. The lame duck time period also varies depending on the circumstances. It's longer for a President that cannot be elected to another term, e.g., Obama. For Bush, it was the time between his loss of the election (Nov) and Clinton's inauguration.

I don't blame you for getting sick of the status quo of politics and not following it so much. I do think, however, that you wouldn't be as surprised or offended at current events had you remained more informed of the political landscape. (That was not intended as criticism.)

Are you serious? Bush didn't lose to Obama, he was in the same boat as Obama at the end of his 8 years (although apparently his lame duck period started later than Obama's for no apparent reason). Obama defeated McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012

I was also referring to G.H.W. Bush, not his son.

Also nice to see you posting again.