That you elected a lying bitch instead of a lying asshole? That you elected someone who has no real accomplishments because the other guy has no real accomplishments?
Their extreme view of it is that all 650,000 emails were relevant, and that therefore it should have taken 18 months * 650,000 emails / 80,000 emails = 146.5 months to review them.
Had it actually taken that long, they would have claimed that there was a conspiracy to delay an indictment.
Let's face it, the rest of the English-speaking world is more liberal than the USA. The problem here is US politics which has a conservative bias, not Wikipedia.
The problem isn't even so much liberalism vs conservatism, which in a sane world is a legitimate difference of opinion about which set of policies most contributes to the greater social good. The problem is more that American "Conservatism" is for all intents and purposes defined by the primacy of ideology over any kind of objective reality. It is no longer, for example, of any importance whatsoever if the outcomes of political decisions are outright destructive. Look at the Senate blockade of any and all SCOTUS nominations, for example, or the refusal of so many states to accept expanded Medicaid funding, or to administer their own Obamacare programs. Look at Kansas' completely collapsed economy and state budget. Look at the conspiracy-theory refusal to accept the science of climate change.
Conservatism has a long and often respectable intellectual history. American "conservatism" is an infantile parody.
I wish I could say that was true. But, I want to make clear to you the training that federal employees receive in terms of law: They are told there are four types of law: statute law, case law, treaties, and executive agreements.
There is no distinction made at all, except for the primacy of treaties and executive agreements. So, whatever the actual status (and the Supreme Court made some decision back in the 70s validating Executive Agreements), the people working for the government think they are law.
Well, it is the law that government employees are obligated to act in accordance with executive orders. What do you expect, some shmo at the EPA to decide that he can thumb his nose at directives from his boss unless Congress specifically ratifies them?
What the fuck systemd? You just decided you needed to clean up my/tmp file system for me? Well fuck you. stuoid systemd deleting my files from/tmp fuck you
Oh, please. Show me one person who has called for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers.
Does Google not work in your country? I can't be bothered to copy and paste the results for you here, but just do a search for your own phrase "criminal prosecution of climate change deniers" (without the quotes). I am pretty sure you will find more than one.
Tried that. Got a bunch of links to Breitbart and the Washington Times. Which is sort of its own fact-check, in a sad way.
My car has "climate" controls; not "weather" controls.
Your car has "Automatic HVAC" which your vendor has chosen to market to you under the name "climate control" — I am in the same situation, but I do not mistake this for having some relevance when discussing climate change.
No, no, the button in my car says it controls the climate: when I set it, the whole planet changes temperature to suit my comfort level. I saw it on TV./
Sorry, the California Unfair Competition law is not criminal prosecution. It's a civil suit: "The UCL allows the court to prevent the use of unfair competition and to restore money or property to victims of unfair competition. Essentially, this provision allows for both monetary damages and injunctive relief where necessary".
Yeah, if you knowingly engage in false advertising in the course of commercial activity, then the state can sue you for damages resulting from that act. So what?
Many people do not trust any science with a political agenda, and when they see all of the usual suspects lining up behind it, they rightly assume it is a scam like the rest of the things these people do.
Or maybe, just maybe, you will see that the usual suspects are lining up behind it because they accept the truth of the science, and are reaching reasonable conclusions about policy based on the evidence. And then maybe, just maybe, it will start to dawn on you that "these people" have never been scamming you, and that your conspiracy theories were all illusions.
I keep seeing zealots on this side calling for everything incredibly invasive (in terms of liberties) public policy, to criminal prosecution of "climate change deniers."
Oh, please. Show me one person who has called for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers.
And what "liberties" infringed, for example, by a carbon tax, or a cap-and-trade energy market? If your conception of liberty includes unrestricted license to foul other people's air, then I would suggest that the word "liberty" doesn't mean what you think it means.
What a shame that even very minor reanalysis papers get politicized.
There's something about Engineering education that convinces engineers that they know everything about everything, and scientists are all a bunch of morons. I'm always amazed and saddened when I see a group of people who fancy themselves science and tech enthusiasts display such deliberate ignorance of actual science. You have to actually work at it to be that stupid.
I think that implying that some people should be subject to eugenics programs because they don't live in the U.S. or Europe is pretty profoundly offensive, yeah. Extra points for giving the First-Worlders tax breaks at the same time.
Population growth is a huge problem, and it's a fact that most of it is taking place in the Third World, but it's also a fact that most of the resource consumption is taking place in the First World. The best way to stem population growth is via prosperity: middle-class people don't have as many children, which is why population growth is practically negative in places like Europe and Japan. Economic justice is in the First World's interest, and we would do well to export prosperity, not just condoms and bullets.
I'm more worried about the current ongoing mass extinction than I am about climate change per se. (Yes, I realize that climate change is a major contributor to the mass extinction). Sea level rise is going to be catastrophic, but not an existential problem for human civilization. But our agriculture depends on a lot of non-human species (bees, for example). An agricultural collapse brought on by a combination of climate change and mass extinction would be an existential threat to humanity.
effective at what exactly and to whos benefit? not the american people thats for sure
Well, let's see:
- Strengthening the Affordable Care Acts is to the benefit of the American people. - Increasing taxes on the very wealthy to close the deficit is to the benefit of the American people. - Strengthened bank legislation is to the benefit of the American people. - Sensible gun control legislation is to the benefit of the American people. - Wider access to women's health care (including abortion) is to the benefit of the American people. - Appointing non-right-wing Supreme Court justices is to the benefit of the American people. - Supporting LGBT rights it to the benefit of the American people.
I could go on. I am going to be very pleased to have Hillary in the White House.
Slashdot Mirror
Four years from now, we're all going to be living in the rubble and cooking squirrels over oil barrels.
That you elected a lying bitch instead of a lying asshole?
That you elected someone who has no real accomplishments because the other guy has no real accomplishments?
All I can say is: may the best woman win.
Their extreme view of it is that all 650,000 emails were relevant, and that therefore it should have taken 18 months * 650,000 emails / 80,000 emails = 146.5 months to review them.
Had it actually taken that long, they would have claimed that there was a conspiracy to delay an indictment.
It would be very easy via automation to tag the emails which are dupes of ones already in the data set.
Which, apparently, was all of them. No shit, Sherlock.
Liberal wennies think biased liberal sources are not actually biased. Pay $10 to watch what you want to hear
Right you are. Stick to Conservapedia instead.
Let's face it, the rest of the English-speaking world is more liberal than the USA.
The problem here is US politics which has a conservative bias, not Wikipedia.
The problem isn't even so much liberalism vs conservatism, which in a sane world is a legitimate difference of opinion about which set of policies most contributes to the greater social good. The problem is more that American "Conservatism" is for all intents and purposes defined by the primacy of ideology over any kind of objective reality. It is no longer, for example, of any importance whatsoever if the outcomes of political decisions are outright destructive. Look at the Senate blockade of any and all SCOTUS nominations, for example, or the refusal of so many states to accept expanded Medicaid funding, or to administer their own Obamacare programs. Look at Kansas' completely collapsed economy and state budget. Look at the conspiracy-theory refusal to accept the science of climate change.
Conservatism has a long and often respectable intellectual history. American "conservatism" is an infantile parody.
Appeal to popularity still taught in the ivory tower?
Yep. And so is false equivalence.
I wish I could say that was true. But, I want to make clear to you the training that federal employees receive in terms of law: They are told there are four types of law: statute law, case law, treaties, and executive agreements.
There is no distinction made at all, except for the primacy of treaties and executive agreements. So, whatever the actual status (and the Supreme Court made some decision back in the 70s validating Executive Agreements), the people working for the government think they are law.
Well, it is the law that government employees are obligated to act in accordance with executive orders. What do you expect, some shmo at the EPA to decide that he can thumb his nose at directives from his boss unless Congress specifically ratifies them?
What the fuck systemd? You just decided you needed to clean up my /tmp file system for me? Well fuck you. /tmp
stuoid systemd deleting my files from
fuck you
It deleted your porn, too. Only the furry stuff.
https://memegenerator.net/inst...
Does Google not work in your country? I can't be bothered to copy and paste the results for you here, but just do a search for your own phrase "criminal prosecution of climate change deniers" (without the quotes). I am pretty sure you will find more than one.
Tried that. Got a bunch of links to Breitbart and the Washington Times. Which is sort of its own fact-check, in a sad way.
Oh, somebody please mod parent up.
My car has "climate" controls; not "weather" controls.
Your car has "Automatic HVAC" which your vendor has chosen to market to you under the name "climate control" — I am in the same situation, but I do not mistake this for having some relevance when discussing climate change.
No, no, the button in my car says it controls the climate: when I set it, the whole planet changes temperature to suit my comfort level. I saw it on TV./
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Sorry, the California Unfair Competition law is not criminal prosecution. It's a civil suit: "The UCL allows the court to prevent the use of unfair competition and to restore money or property to victims of unfair competition. Essentially, this provision allows for both monetary damages and injunctive relief where necessary".
Yeah, if you knowingly engage in false advertising in the course of commercial activity, then the state can sue you for damages resulting from that act. So what?
Many people do not trust any science with a political agenda, and when they see all of the usual suspects lining up behind it, they rightly assume it is a scam like the rest of the things these people do.
Or maybe, just maybe, you will see that the usual suspects are lining up behind it because they accept the truth of the science, and are reaching reasonable conclusions about policy based on the evidence. And then maybe, just maybe, it will start to dawn on you that "these people" have never been scamming you, and that your conspiracy theories were all illusions.
Nah, fuck it. Just vote for Trump. Bigtime!
All three of these things are hopefully undisputable.
You underestimate the power of denial. These are people living entirely in a fact-free zone.
I keep seeing zealots on this side calling for everything incredibly invasive (in terms of liberties) public policy, to criminal prosecution of "climate change deniers."
Oh, please. Show me one person who has called for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers.
And what "liberties" infringed, for example, by a carbon tax, or a cap-and-trade energy market? If your conception of liberty includes unrestricted license to foul other people's air, then I would suggest that the word "liberty" doesn't mean what you think it means.
What a shame that even very minor reanalysis papers get politicized.
There's something about Engineering education that convinces engineers that they know everything about everything, and scientists are all a bunch of morons. I'm always amazed and saddened when I see a group of people who fancy themselves science and tech enthusiasts display such deliberate ignorance of actual science. You have to actually work at it to be that stupid.
Apple Menu -> System Preferences... -> Keyboard -> Keyboard Tab -> Modifier Keys and select Esc for Caps Lock.
I mean, you had that mapped already, right?
PLEASE HELP I THINK I DID IT WORNG
Does the concept of ranking things bother you?
I think that implying that some people should be subject to eugenics programs because they don't live in the U.S. or Europe is pretty profoundly offensive, yeah. Extra points for giving the First-Worlders tax breaks at the same time.
Population growth is a huge problem, and it's a fact that most of it is taking place in the Third World, but it's also a fact that most of the resource consumption is taking place in the First World. The best way to stem population growth is via prosperity: middle-class people don't have as many children, which is why population growth is practically negative in places like Europe and Japan. Economic justice is in the First World's interest, and we would do well to export prosperity, not just condoms and bullets.
I'm more worried about the current ongoing mass extinction than I am about climate change per se. (Yes, I realize that climate change is a major contributor to the mass extinction). Sea level rise is going to be catastrophic, but not an existential problem for human civilization. But our agriculture depends on a lot of non-human species (bees, for example). An agricultural collapse brought on by a combination of climate change and mass extinction would be an existential threat to humanity.
Um.
"lesser countries"?
Lower rents for residents, at the cost of higher hotel prices for visitors. Sounds like a very reasonable tradeoff.
The correct Justice to put on the bench is one who is a constitutional scholar.
Obama it is then.
effective at what exactly and to whos benefit? not the american people thats for sure
Well, let's see:
- Strengthening the Affordable Care Acts is to the benefit of the American people.
- Increasing taxes on the very wealthy to close the deficit is to the benefit of the American people.
- Strengthened bank legislation is to the benefit of the American people.
- Sensible gun control legislation is to the benefit of the American people.
- Wider access to women's health care (including abortion) is to the benefit of the American people.
- Appointing non-right-wing Supreme Court justices is to the benefit of the American people.
- Supporting LGBT rights it to the benefit of the American people.
I could go on. I am going to be very pleased to have Hillary in the White House.