I assign a more than 50% chance that Donald Trump or people close to him have engaged in criminal acts related to collusion with Russia to deliberately interfere in US elections by illegal means. RICO would be one of a number of potential statutes that are relevant. However, that's not "treason." Treason is defined in Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Since the US has active trade and diplomatic relations with Russia, it is extremely hard to call interacting with them treason.
More generally, it is a bad idea to label people are "traitors" because they disagree with you on who a traitor is. The recursion here gets very bad very fast.
I'm in general against exposing anonymous people without major justification, but it is misleading to call releasing a name by itself "doxxing." When people use that term they often mean things like releasing home addresses, personal telephone numbers, social security numbers etc. That's not the same.
If cutting their emissions by 1% will somehow disproportionately lower global temperature by a noticeable amount, then hooray!
No single measure will have a massive impact on climate change but many of them together will.
Otherwise why take away efficient heating from people in a freezing-cold country? Won't this likely increase the mortality rate among the sick, elderly, etc. come winter?
Welfare in Norway is good enough that this isn't an issue.
A very very few of you know that Russia attempted to hack every state, managed to disable specific precincts voting machines, created large scale disruption, and altered reporting systems for electronic-only non-paper-trail counts, and also maintained large scale social media attacks. This is very true, but most people, sadly, think it's false.
Enforcement is a completely different claim. Are you at all able to acknowledge that your initial claim about where the money would come from is wrong? You also appear to be completely missing the point that this system was set up to encourage more startups with more jobs. That helps the people who aren't rich.
"You have your talking point to spin on for keeping your two tiered system only for the rich, I have my points for explaining why you are being dishonest. "
It is unfortunate that you presume that anyone who disagrees with you must have nefarious goals and be dishonest. It may help to realize that reasonable people can disagree.
"No, it is 30 (+30) month visas for people with $250,000, nothing else."
This is completely wrong. The $250,000 has to come from US investors, not the person in question.
This is ridiculous. Even if you have a problem with cheap H-1B visas replacing American workers, this isn't that. This is welcoming in business people with new ideas which will create new jobs and new opportunities. Nor is there any sort of safety issue whatsoever. This is a combination of xenophobia (immigrants are apparently scary), along with Trump's generally zero-sum understanding of how things work (which contributes to a lot of what he does), and frustration that his earlier immigration bans failed in the courts (so doing this feels like he's blocking at least some immigrants, never mind that they are exactly the sort of immigrants he claimed he wanted earlier).
Ok. So let's be clear. First of all, you have dropped your claim that this is somehow related to "capitalism" but are now claiming that the technologies will be kept artificially expensive but haven't explained how that will happen. Moreover, this presumes that a) that people will have the ability to keep them expensive while history suggests that barring a few rare exceptions, cartels for technologies almost invariably fail or fail after a few years b) that the people in charge will be willing to kill off many other people in a way that causes them to *get less money*. That means you are presuming that people are not only sociopathic but more willing to part with their money if it means more poor people will be killed. What evidence do you have for this whatsoever? Moreover, what at all makes you think Elon Musk thinks this way other than your own reflexive cynicism and desire to dislike the rich?
Uh, what? I don't know how you are defining "capitalism" but it seems you are using it in a very nonstandard way. Look again at the internet and TV and cell phone examples: people *bought* the goods in question. As more people bought the goods in question, the goods became cheaper (both due to economies of scale and due to research making them cheaper). Eventually many people could afford them. Why do you think life extension will be any different?
Huh? I don't follow what you mean at all. Enforcing what rules? Are you imagining that we're going to have life extension technology but there will be laws outlining who can get it?
Many goods, like cell phones and TVs start off just for the wealthy. Their prices go down over time and they become available to everyone. In the early 1990s there were were people worried about how there would be a permanent underclass made up of people who could not afford internet access.
You mean that they want the species to live. That's the important part; Musk is deeply concerned about the survival and prosperity of humanity as a whole. That's part of why one of his big projects is electric cars and another is solar panels. Heck, even his rocketry architecture is done with sustainability in mind; SpaceX's next generation of engine, the Raptor, uses methane. This is for two reasons: first, it is easy to produce on Mars. But second, it is easy to produce on Earth using the same process so one can in the long-run have carbon neutral rockets. And if you talk to the people pushing for life extension, they want it for *everyone*. I'm amazed how there are many billionaires who get private islands and similar junk, but the vitriol is somehow reserved for those who are actually trying to help.
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the current record keeping rules are very broad and would include this, especially given Spicer's other comment that they consider Trump's tweets to be official Presidential announcements. So this seems unnecessary and more grandstanding than anything else (which is reinforced by the name chosen).
The pre-launch briefing was live yesterday and a recording is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?... . It has a lot details both about the Dragon and its cargo.
Disclaimer: I'm one of these terrible, no-good, lazy, overspending millennials. I have actually a pretty good job situation, but that doesn't mean I'm going to lie to myself that somehow I've done better because I'm somehow a better person. I've been very lucky, and a lot of millennials are being screwed over through no fault of their own at all.
Sigh. Please note that I didn't say that this was a compelling argument for censorship. In fact, if you look above you'll see that the first post on this entire thread is my comment saying that such laws are *bad.* That doesn't change the fact that the AC's claim about the motivation of the laws is false as is their claim that such laws only exist for Holocaust denial. Facts matter, and if we're going to prevent censorship we need to understand the actual motive of the people advocating censorship.
Thank you for completely missing why these laws exist. They exist because the concern is that Holocaust denial will make similar atrocities in the future more likely. As to your claim that "In fact, this is the only historical topic that is regulated by penal law"-that's not a fact at all. Genocide denial laws aren't that uncommon. Rwanda has one for example. Some countries have also criminalized denial of the Armenian genocide.
So, that's a really valid point: I've in fact expressed similar concerns before about people applauding Uber breaking the rules. And the point about corporations has some validity as well (although the distinction isn't as clear cut as one would like- at the end of the day corporations are composed of individual people acting as a whole). But I suspect that there would be a point where even you would think a corporation breaking a law might be a good thing. For example, what if it is 1955 in a specific US state and there's a law forcing segregation and restaurant refuses to have separate sections for blacks and whites? Or what if a corporation right now with the cooperation of archeologists and museum professionals helps smuggle out artifacts from ISIS controlled areas? Etc. At a certain point, the concerns and rights involved will override the local legal framework. The question then becomes when and how do we tell?
These laws are not a good thing. Once you censor one thing it becomes easier to censor other things. And not everyone agrees with what is bad or unacceptable speech. I'm happy that Facebook isn't complying with these laws any more than it absolutely needs to. My grandmother went through Auschwitz and had a number on her arm. There are few things I find more despicable than Holocaust denial, and it is especially because the speech is so horrific that it must be protected. It isn't impressive to support free speech when it is speech you agree with or only mildly disagree with.
You mean that the United States isn't a perfect representation of what the rest of the world wants? I'm shocked! Newsflash: Outside the US (and to some extent Australia), issues of global warming aren't nearly as politicized or controversial as they are in the US. Heck, previous studies have shown that even in the US the majority of Americans think that global warming is a serious problem http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/. The fact that many Senators and Congresspeople don't is to a large extent a reflection of how two aspects of our government system (the ability to gerrymander congressional districts, and the fact that senators are elected by state and many low population states lean right) distort what our elected government ends up looking like compared to what it would on a strict population basis.
Exposure of email addresses just isn't that big a deal. You should in most circumstances be operating under the assumption that email addresses are not private to start with. Nevertheless, this is exactly the right response by Twitter by promptly alerting people. I'm not a fan of Twitter at multiple levels, but this seems exactly correct from both a security standpoint and a PR standpoint.
Essentially you can either use the same improvements to make the cars more efficient in terms of gas usage or you can make them have more total horsepower. Unfortunately, many of the people buying cars prefer the second, so this is what we end up with. The long-term results of this are going to be not at all good.
Slashdot Mirror
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Since the US has active trade and diplomatic relations with Russia, it is extremely hard to call interacting with them treason. More generally, it is a bad idea to label people are "traitors" because they disagree with you on who a traitor is. The recursion here gets very bad very fast.
I'm in general against exposing anonymous people without major justification, but it is misleading to call releasing a name by itself "doxxing." When people use that term they often mean things like releasing home addresses, personal telephone numbers, social security numbers etc. That's not the same.
Also relevant that if they are using wood from recent trees then they are close to carbon neutral.
If cutting their emissions by 1% will somehow disproportionately lower global temperature by a noticeable amount, then hooray!
No single measure will have a massive impact on climate change but many of them together will.
Otherwise why take away efficient heating from people in a freezing-cold country? Won't this likely increase the mortality rate among the sick, elderly, etc. come winter?
Welfare in Norway is good enough that this isn't an issue.
In fairness, this administration did reinstate the National Space Council https://www.geekwire.com/2017/president-trump-signs-executive-order-reactivate-national-space-council/. Unfortunately, it appears that they aren't going to do much and what is on their agenda is at best deeply misguided.
The summary is just talking about the approach to anti-trust laws, not a general philosophical ethos.
A very very few of you know that Russia attempted to hack every state, managed to disable specific precincts voting machines, created large scale disruption, and altered reporting systems for electronic-only non-paper-trail counts, and also maintained large scale social media attacks. This is very true, but most people, sadly, think it's false.
Do you have sources/citations for this?
Enforcement is a completely different claim. Are you at all able to acknowledge that your initial claim about where the money would come from is wrong? You also appear to be completely missing the point that this system was set up to encourage more startups with more jobs. That helps the people who aren't rich.
"You have your talking point to spin on for keeping your two tiered system only for the rich, I have my points for explaining why you are being dishonest. "
It is unfortunate that you presume that anyone who disagrees with you must have nefarious goals and be dishonest. It may help to realize that reasonable people can disagree.
"No, it is 30 (+30) month visas for people with $250,000, nothing else." This is completely wrong. The $250,000 has to come from US investors, not the person in question.
This is ridiculous. Even if you have a problem with cheap H-1B visas replacing American workers, this isn't that. This is welcoming in business people with new ideas which will create new jobs and new opportunities. Nor is there any sort of safety issue whatsoever. This is a combination of xenophobia (immigrants are apparently scary), along with Trump's generally zero-sum understanding of how things work (which contributes to a lot of what he does), and frustration that his earlier immigration bans failed in the courts (so doing this feels like he's blocking at least some immigrants, never mind that they are exactly the sort of immigrants he claimed he wanted earlier).
Ok. So let's be clear. First of all, you have dropped your claim that this is somehow related to "capitalism" but are now claiming that the technologies will be kept artificially expensive but haven't explained how that will happen. Moreover, this presumes that a) that people will have the ability to keep them expensive while history suggests that barring a few rare exceptions, cartels for technologies almost invariably fail or fail after a few years b) that the people in charge will be willing to kill off many other people in a way that causes them to *get less money*. That means you are presuming that people are not only sociopathic but more willing to part with their money if it means more poor people will be killed. What evidence do you have for this whatsoever? Moreover, what at all makes you think Elon Musk thinks this way other than your own reflexive cynicism and desire to dislike the rich?
Uh, what? I don't know how you are defining "capitalism" but it seems you are using it in a very nonstandard way. Look again at the internet and TV and cell phone examples: people *bought* the goods in question. As more people bought the goods in question, the goods became cheaper (both due to economies of scale and due to research making them cheaper). Eventually many people could afford them. Why do you think life extension will be any different?
Huh? I don't follow what you mean at all. Enforcing what rules? Are you imagining that we're going to have life extension technology but there will be laws outlining who can get it?
Many goods, like cell phones and TVs start off just for the wealthy. Their prices go down over time and they become available to everyone. In the early 1990s there were were people worried about how there would be a permanent underclass made up of people who could not afford internet access.
You mean that they want the species to live. That's the important part; Musk is deeply concerned about the survival and prosperity of humanity as a whole. That's part of why one of his big projects is electric cars and another is solar panels. Heck, even his rocketry architecture is done with sustainability in mind; SpaceX's next generation of engine, the Raptor, uses methane. This is for two reasons: first, it is easy to produce on Mars. But second, it is easy to produce on Earth using the same process so one can in the long-run have carbon neutral rockets. And if you talk to the people pushing for life extension, they want it for *everyone*. I'm amazed how there are many billionaires who get private islands and similar junk, but the vitriol is somehow reserved for those who are actually trying to help.
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the current record keeping rules are very broad and would include this, especially given Spicer's other comment that they consider Trump's tweets to be official Presidential announcements. So this seems unnecessary and more grandstanding than anything else (which is reinforced by the name chosen).
The pre-launch briefing was live yesterday and a recording is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?... . It has a lot details both about the Dragon and its cargo.
Disclaimer: I'm one of these terrible, no-good, lazy, overspending millennials. I have actually a pretty good job situation, but that doesn't mean I'm going to lie to myself that somehow I've done better because I'm somehow a better person. I've been very lucky, and a lot of millennials are being screwed over through no fault of their own at all.
Sigh. Please note that I didn't say that this was a compelling argument for censorship. In fact, if you look above you'll see that the first post on this entire thread is my comment saying that such laws are *bad.* That doesn't change the fact that the AC's claim about the motivation of the laws is false as is their claim that such laws only exist for Holocaust denial. Facts matter, and if we're going to prevent censorship we need to understand the actual motive of the people advocating censorship.
Thank you for completely missing why these laws exist. They exist because the concern is that Holocaust denial will make similar atrocities in the future more likely. As to your claim that "In fact, this is the only historical topic that is regulated by penal law"-that's not a fact at all. Genocide denial laws aren't that uncommon. Rwanda has one for example. Some countries have also criminalized denial of the Armenian genocide.
So, that's a really valid point: I've in fact expressed similar concerns before about people applauding Uber breaking the rules. And the point about corporations has some validity as well (although the distinction isn't as clear cut as one would like- at the end of the day corporations are composed of individual people acting as a whole). But I suspect that there would be a point where even you would think a corporation breaking a law might be a good thing. For example, what if it is 1955 in a specific US state and there's a law forcing segregation and restaurant refuses to have separate sections for blacks and whites? Or what if a corporation right now with the cooperation of archeologists and museum professionals helps smuggle out artifacts from ISIS controlled areas? Etc. At a certain point, the concerns and rights involved will override the local legal framework. The question then becomes when and how do we tell?
These laws are not a good thing. Once you censor one thing it becomes easier to censor other things. And not everyone agrees with what is bad or unacceptable speech. I'm happy that Facebook isn't complying with these laws any more than it absolutely needs to. My grandmother went through Auschwitz and had a number on her arm. There are few things I find more despicable than Holocaust denial, and it is especially because the speech is so horrific that it must be protected. It isn't impressive to support free speech when it is speech you agree with or only mildly disagree with.
You mean that the United States isn't a perfect representation of what the rest of the world wants? I'm shocked! Newsflash: Outside the US (and to some extent Australia), issues of global warming aren't nearly as politicized or controversial as they are in the US. Heck, previous studies have shown that even in the US the majority of Americans think that global warming is a serious problem http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/. The fact that many Senators and Congresspeople don't is to a large extent a reflection of how two aspects of our government system (the ability to gerrymander congressional districts, and the fact that senators are elected by state and many low population states lean right) distort what our elected government ends up looking like compared to what it would on a strict population basis.
Exposure of email addresses just isn't that big a deal. You should in most circumstances be operating under the assumption that email addresses are not private to start with. Nevertheless, this is exactly the right response by Twitter by promptly alerting people. I'm not a fan of Twitter at multiple levels, but this seems exactly correct from both a security standpoint and a PR standpoint.
Essentially you can either use the same improvements to make the cars more efficient in terms of gas usage or you can make them have more total horsepower. Unfortunately, many of the people buying cars prefer the second, so this is what we end up with. The long-term results of this are going to be not at all good.