*pResident tRump is a bully The GOP are bullies

Fer fucks sake, if tRump was my child he'd get "a good talking to" for this tRump is an asshole. Again.

"No, little Donny, you can't push your friends down on the playground. It's not nice."

It's inescapable, tRump is an embarrassment. We're better than him. We're ALL better than himself. Even tRump supporters. *pResident tRump is the shining shit-storm on the hill. An already-proven disaster.

Someone on Bill Maher last Friday said "Hillary's better than tRump" and the reply was "that's a pretty low bar." I absolutely agree.

AFAIC, Hillary was a POS candidate.

But tRump? Jeebus, off the charts! There's no way this guy should have EVER been given the nuclear codes. "Hey, dictator of the Philippines, responsible for the deaths of thousands in a "drug war", wanna know where our nuclear submarines are?" Yeah, he did that.

Hey Russia, wanna know where we get our information? Here's some information that can EASILY be traced back to the source, that asked us not to reveal it. Yeah, he did that.

The idiot in chief's performance at the NATO country meeting is embarrassing to me, as an American. If it's not, to you, you're an idiot. We can get into how the GOP supports the POS POTUS later. Suffice it to say, they'll do anything, and I mean ANYTHING, to avoid the veto pen on the heinous legislation they want to pass. This is a fight. Don't let the bullies win.

“Fake News”

Uni, you either don't understand, or you're trying to hijack the tRumptwitter thread. Either way, I'm providing this thread for you to rant and rail about "fake news", a phrase that originated with your hero, Donald J. tRump. Allow me to respond to the last barf-inducting spew that you hurled in that thread:
"But you see, you are believing the fake news from meanstream media. At some point in your mind, you must have a internal crap detector somewhere going off on all those stories you read… from both sides of the spectrum. You should listen more closely for it."
Apparently, you've forgotten that I'm a trained scientist. Scientists are skeptical by nature. Just ask Pons and Fleischman. (OK, i googled it, you lazy fuckers) If a source tells me something SURPRISING, about something I CARE about, I'm going to perform their experiment and see if I can reproduce their results, or at least look to other sources to see if their claim to discover is believable.
If a source tells me something that's completely believable, and predicted by existing theory, I MAY not, but I always can if something pushes this all sideways.
But you see, you are believing fake news is 100% of reality, 100% of the time. <=== See what I did, there?
"Fake news" is a tRumpian term, further proving (at least to me) that you're a tRump supporter. Not saying you voted for him, just saying I can't respect that. Anyone who still supports tRump is an idiot. I have no reason to argue with tRump supporters. It's like wrestling a wet pig. I end up smelling like a wet pig, and the pig's not going to change it's mind.
"Was it Marcus or Seneca the younger who said that all is opinion?"
Who cares? Whoever it was, was wrong. EXCEPTION: whoever wins the war writes the history.
"Don’t take the news as anything but opinion and you will be able to rise above the chaos in DC."
2 + 2 = 4 is ONLY YOUR OPINION!
"Why on earth do people take for fact the reports that come from unnamed people? If it doesn’t have a real name to the report, why even consider it?"
See above.
If a source tells me something that's completely believable, and predicted by existing theory, not so much. Fake news is NOT 100% of reality, 100% of the time. DON'T try and walk back your high-and-mighty opinion that it is.

Legal Terms You Need to Know

Consciousness of Guilt
Evidentiary rules allow a prosecutor to introduce testimony that tends to show that the defendants actions prove he knew he was guilty (at least of something). This is sometimes referred to as “consciousness of guilt”.
I don't believe this will apply to tRump's impeachment proceedings because I believe it will be easy to prove he doesn't know ANYTHING about ANYTHING. All the same, I think he's guilty of obstruction of justice. BTW, "evidentiary rules" means "evidence that is judged as FACTUAL evidence by the judge".

Massive Global Computer Hacks – Make Sure You Are Fully Patched NOW

"The malicious software -- called 'ransomware' because it encrypts systems and threatens to destroy data if a ransom is not paid -- is spreading among computers that have not been patched, experts said." http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/hospitals-across-england-report-it-failure-amid-suspected-major-cyber-attack/2017/05/12/84e3dc5e-3723-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html

In the dumps

25 years ago today Spain's high speed rail wan innaugurated. I was hired to put together the commercial system, including pricing, fares, tariffis, distribution, and basically how the whole thing was sold. I was 28 when hired, in order to implement a revenue management system to overcome the prevailing mileage-price system which was static and anachronistic. I actually relocated from the US for this purpose. Well, I did my job, on time and well within budget, having a team of 187 people under my aegis. But of course, I wasn't a politician but a technocrat, and the very day in which the AVE started service, I was given my walking papers. I wasn't surprised - just about all of my workmates were political connections. Only we "technocrats" were let go once the job was done. In my case, a "manager" position was replaced by 3 "director" positions, all earning more than I did, with a fraction of responsibility, but hay, that's life. I wasn't particularly bitter about my ousting (I was relatively well repaid, though it certainly wasn't a golden handshake. But I was under 30!). What's pissed me off is that on this 25th anniversary, with lots of news stories in the national press, is that it brought me to look at what my footprint was. I didn't expect much, and saw what I expected, next to nothing. But what amazed me was a few very highbrow studies on my speciality, pricing, faring and yield management.   It appears that a bunch of PHD's have studied the pricing of Spain's AVE, down to arcane formulas to explain the range of prices and profitability. Swedes, Brits, Germans and Americans have chimed in, making some outlandish (from my POV, who actually did the work) claims. I am in shock.   The pricing of Spain's AVE were based on price elasticity and nothing more. The AVE was up against air travel, conventional rail, buses, and cars. With door-to-door travel (that is to say, from home to destination, including intermediate stops such as metros, taxis or whatnot), the AVE was in a direct tie with air transportation, so the AVE had to be cheaper than airfares. At the same time, it was far more comfortable to travel from a midcity rail station to another, so the price differential didn't have to be so great. I contributed in segmenting the market through motivational factors - a businessmen, for example, would be willing to pay more for fare flexibility while a liesure traveller would be willing to have more travel restrictions in exchange for lower fares.   Beforeand, rail pricing in Europe was based on mileage, with fixed discounts for students, family discounts and such. It was in the stone age.   What shocked me was the utter inanity of the PHD's who studied the results of the AVE without considering its origins. They have crafted many articulate and even elegant mathematical formulas that entirely miss the point. The formulas "express" the success of the idea, while obviating the basis of the same. I'm sure that Timbuk will appreciate the scientific inference here. But as a lay historian I'm almost as shocked as I am as an unappreciated "technocrat". IMHPOV, history should be the interpretation of cause and effect. "Such and such was the situation, resulting in this and that". Historians should seek this, but always be open to other interpretations. However, with regards to AVE, a piece of history of which I took a not insignificant part in, a large number of the "intelligentsia" took a sophistic view of things, completely missing the mark. I'm not too bummed out for having been fucked over after 25 years, believe me. I'm no longer the materialistic and amitious man I was back then. I'm sure that if I had continued on that course of life I'd be dead by now, and if not, far less happy... so this isn't a personal rant. For a moment I was tempted to do, in a serious way, what I'm doing here in a casual way - to show up those idiotic PHD's who were too narrow-minded or too set in their ways to look outside the box and actually INVESTIGATE instead of PONTIFICATING. That is to say, they should have gone beyond their navel. As a lay historian I've been reading Ammianus of late, the penultimate classical historian. Being a tangent part of recent history and a travesty of interpretation, I respect the bastard far more. If I extrapolate the failures of today's PHD's regarding AVE and consider what passed for journalism in today's day and age, we're truly and absolutely fucked.  
  Aside to Timbuk, as a scientist who I respect, what do you think of the works of such "scientists" that are so scholastic as to obviate personal experience and rely on theory? Is this prevalent?  
End of rant.