You're going to see a steady conversion rather than some sudden leaps-and-bounds shifts. Step by step, crop by crop. Even the picking of fruits, nuts, olives, etc is increasingly starting to be done by machines. Even things you'd think would be too delicate for machines, like grapes.
Ag tech always starts out expensive, but it gets cheaper the more people who use it.
A mere 97% of people who are actually active, publishing climatologists accept it.
You know, if I go to 30 doctors, and all but one tell me I have a serious disease, but the other one says "Meh, you're fine, take a few aspirin and you'll feel better", I always trust the latter one, don't you?
There were various fundraisers over there so I'd be careful on the "never met her" part, I'm not 100% sure on that either way.
Yes, he's raised money for her. And? You have a strange conception that "raising money for a political candidate" means "personal friend of said candidate".
None of the people pushing the conspiracy theory has ever put any evidence that they've ever met. He denies having ever met her. But I guess that just means it's a secret friendship and all the more evil, right?;)
Re, the "pictures of kids" - the Snopes article says: "However, the photographs that the Instagram account purportedly hosted were instead, apparently, taken from the pages of various people who "liked" the restaurant's page on Facebook... Some of the photographs were apparently taken from random web sites"
(Apparently according to your page, Podesta is a cannibal also? Seriously people?)
The "children tortured" reference on that page is because A) Podesta owns a painting by Biljana Djurdjevic, and B) Biljana Djurdjevic has also painted an unrelated painting of a child hung on a wall; therefore, C) Podesta supports the torture of children. Clearly, it all makes sense! Djurdjevic has also painted a guy trying to get a thorn out of his foot, a dentist using laughing gas, people sewing in their underwear in the middle of a forest, and an overweight guy wearing floaties in a bathtub. Clearly Podesta's plot is to use laughing gas to drug everyone, scatter thorns around so they can't run away, steal their clothes and enslave them deep in forests while fattening them up to make into soup in giant bathtubs!
Of course you would say that, "Anonymous Coward". We all know that members of Anonymous launched #OpTrump to try to attack him, clearly on behalf of Clinton, and here you are, choosing to post in their name. So now that we know you're a personal lifelong friend of the Clintons, probably helping in the murder of Vince Foster, the question becomes: why is Slashdot supporting your part in the Clintons' conspiracy? How much are the Clintons paying them?
1) Alefantis is not a "friend" of Clinton; he's just a supporter. He's never met her.
2) The art in his restaurant is weird, but it's not "kids being tortured or placed in sexual poses"
3) The case in Haiti was 10 Baptist missionaries from Idaho trying to rescue children after the earthquake without permits. The missionaries had previously planned to build an orphanage and school in the Dominican Republic. There are Podesta emails that mention Silsby, but in the context of current events and how the US government should handle what had become an international diplomatic issue between the US and Haiti (aka, Hillary's job). Example here. Silsby is in no way a "friend" of Clinton.
You all have a strange way of declaring everyone to be a "friend" of Clinton.
And what state were you in? Both of those incidents are premised on the concept that the second you leave your previous location with no intent to return, you must immediately register in the new location. Which is rarely what the law actually states. For example, the first hit that comes up when googling laws for registration after moving is Massachusetts, which says:
Changing Your Address
You must update your voter registration every time you move. If you have moved, you may update your registration by filling out a new voter registration form. If you move after the deadline to register to vote in a state election or primary, you should wait to update your registration until after the date of the election or primary, and return to vote at your previous polling place in Massachusetts. State law allows you to vote from a previous address in a state election for up to six month after you have moved, as long as you have not registered elsewhere.
Neither, furthermore, represent any sort of double-voting.
Wouldn't most Americans say something like "I don't wanna go to the store" or "I'm not up to going to the store" or "I don't feel like going to the store" rather than "I can't be bothered to go to the store"? Or when you say "other side of the pond" do you mean British? We're sort of in the middle of the pond here;)
I strongly suspect that NASA is suddenly going to find need for a bunch of new, advanced "weather satellites";)
Anyway, as for this article: POTUS can't just "scrap" some random part of NASA. NASA's budget is determined by congress. He can threaten vetoes, but he has to work with congress on the budget.
Yes, because when I want to learn about climate science, I don't turn to climatologsts, I turn to former TV weathermen funded by the Heartland Institute.
The first instance of fraud I observed was in Durham, NC in the early 1990s. A woman in line to vote in front of me had moved house but voted in her former district. This was apparent because she initially gave an incorrect address, but then amended her answer to her old address when the new one didn't work. From her reactions and mannerisms, it was plainly apparent to all that she we lying about where she currently lived.
Wow, a person stumbled over their address, clearly they're lying! FYI, I often stumble over my legally registered address because I live in a different apartment than the one I'm registered to.
In the second instance occurred 10 years later, shortly after I myself had moved to a new city. A local politician in my former town mailed me an absentee ballot and told me to fill it out and send it back in. (I declined).
And they knew you had registered your move yet how...? You had just moved. How did they get your new address?
Right. You would have risked an extremely massive fine and jail time for something that could have been readily proven fraudulent, in order to cast a single vote?
To follow up a bit further on that, there are some concepts that take whole sentences, paragraphs or more to describe. Back in the day I had a Japanese song, with English lyrics... except that one word in the middle remained untranslated ("Our satori are just floating in the core"). I asked a professor about what it means and it ended up as a whole lecture on Buddhist concepts and Japanese relations between the true self and the self that one presents to others in different contexts.
In Icelandic for me it often comes up in terms of geological terms. For example, someone will ask, "What does Reykjavík" mean, and I usually just give a quick "Smoking Cove" or "Smoking Bay" or something like that. But that's not really right, English doesn't really have a word that describes a "vík". A "vík" is where the coastline "víkur". To víkja is to give way, like if someone's tailgating you on the road and you pull off to the side to let them past. So where the coastline "víkur" - on a certain scale, at least - that's a "vík". It's often where a river empties out, but not all river mouths end in víkur, and not all víkur are river mouths, some are more like coves or small bays. But you wouldn't mistake a "vík" for a "fjörður" or anything like that. We divide "field" up into "akur", "tún", "völlur", maybe even more depending on the concept (melur maybe, if it's rocky? garður even in some contexts? Lots of possibilities). So, I mean, we can just pick a random word, but you'll lose context - and when you translate back you can come up with something that's just wrong.
Even the "smoking" part isn't quite right, as most people in English hear smoke and think of burning things, but "reykur" in Icelandic place names is often used to denote geothermal steam - even though it technically means smoke.
My favorite mismatched concept has to be the verb "nenna", generally used in the negative (e.g. "Ég nenni ekki!"). In the negative it's sort of like "can't be bothered to do X", "not in the mood to do X", "don't waaaanna do X", "it's not worth my time/effort to do X", or just plain "Meh". A lazy translation is often "can't be bothered", but it sounds weird as English speakers don't usually talk like that. I've noticed some people who learn Icelandic end up taking that verb back into English, or even noun-ifying it ("I don't have the nenn to do that right now...")
But for example... if I train you that cat = gato in italian, and that cat = chat in french. And then ask you to spit out the french if give you the "gato" that's not exactly magic. It looks up 'gato' in italian and sees a reference to "chat"... the neural network is still basically encoding that chat (french) = cat (english); and cat (english) = gato (italian)
That would be nice if translating sentences was the same as looking up words in a dictionary. It's not. So pointing out that there are words that have correspondences is meaningless.
Languages have a fuzzy haze of concepts and ways to parse them. I could say "I feel sick" or "I am sick" in English and they're not the same, the latter expresses certainty. But in Icelandic you'd generally say "Ég er lasin(n)" or "Ég er veik(ur)" - aka, "I am sick" - for both of them. Not "I feel sick". You *can* say "I feel as if I'm sick", but that gives a sort of connotation as if you're doubting yourself, more than "I feel sick" does in English. The latter case is "Mér líður eins og ég sé veik(ur)", which is literally "Me (dative, not nominative) feels same and I would-be(pres.) sick (depends on gender)" There's an awful lot going on in there that a word-for-word translation just doesn't catch. Even if you catch phrases, like "eins og" -> "like" rather than literally "same and", you still don't have anything close to a one-to-one mapping.
And here we're talking two Germanic languages.
A neural net that can handle translations in a way where the results aren't terrible must have a concept of the fuzziness, the interplay of how different concepts are presented in different languages. And indeed, that's what the graphic that they show seems to suggest, where you have these branching clusters with varying pathways that dart between them for different languages. Perhaps calling that internal representation a "secret language" is a stretch, but it's most definitely nothing like having "English as a bridge language".
Meh, it's the standard difference between the parties' approach, and I'd be shocked if you didn't actually know why.
* Republicans focus on voter fraud because stricter restrictions on what people need to vote most often discourage or prevent youth and minority turnout.
* Democrats focus on disenfranchisement, not fraud, for precisely the same reason.
To be fair to Democrats, cases of confirmed voter fraud are exceedingly rare (31 cases between 2000 and 2014 - rarer than being struck by lightning), while cases of confirmed erroneous disenfranchisement are not (tens of thousands erroneously removed from the rolls). The reason that voter fraud (impersonation) is rare is because the risks vastly exceed the reward. You don't throw an election by casting one extra vote for your candidate at the risk of facing a $10k fine and jailtime if you're caught - per case. Even most of the extremely-reported cases of "dead people voting" in recent history have turned out to be clerical errors (e.g. wrong date on the death certificate). With millions of people dying every year, these sorts of errors will happen at a given rate every election.
As for the particular example of Voter ID laws: Not everyone in the US has a photo ID. Those who don't are proportionally younger (e.g. haven't registered yet, haven't gotten a driving license yet, etc), poorer (no money for a car so no driving license; not traveling so no need for passport, etc), often minorities, Native Americans, etc - groups that tend to be overwhelmingly Democrats. So it shouldn't be much of a surprise that Republicans support these laws and Democrats oppose them. The courts have generally gone against them because they proportionally disenfranchise certain groups, and more to the point were often explicitly planned to do so. In the case of North Carolina, for example, the legislature explicitly requested data on different methods of voting by race, and then explicitly crafted legislation to target African Americans based on that data.
If the US could get its act together and issue everyone a national ID, the situation would be different. But I know Americans are often against things like national IDs involving national databases and other scary things.
I'd actually like to see their data before I make up my mind. If it's just a correlation, that could just be a correlation between where voting machines tend to be located in a state and thus what demographics of voters will use them. 7% difference wouldn't be unreasonable in such a case. On the other hand, if they're controlling for that, it is concerning.
There were a number of reports in both directions (some places were reporting favoring Clinton, others Trump). In each case they were found to be poorly calibrated touchscreens - aka, the click position is off from where the user intends. In no case that's been reported did it lead to mis-cast votes, as you have to confirm your selection.
If you were looking to rig an election, showing the person that you've changed their vote and asking them to confirm it would rank near the top of the "Idiotic Approaches" list.
As per the actual findings of the FBI, only three emails were marked as containing classified information, and they were not marked with the full headers that are generally presented to top officials, but a "(c)" ("portion marking") that they determined was likely that Clinton would not be familiar with. All of the other "classified" emails were retroactively classified - as each email was checked, they did an assessment over whether the contents and whether the email should be classified. Those were then subsequently classified.
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information
That's a pretty tough standard. In all cases it means that they have to be able to prove that the sender knew information was classified (without classified headers, nothing involved demonstrates this). The recipient has to be an unauthorized person, but most of the emails of interest were between authorized individuals. The alternative is to prove that Clinton was trying to harm the US or aid foreign governments - again, good luck with that tack in court.
There is information discussed - including by Clinton (over 100 items) - that should not have been discussed through non-governmental channels. Unfortunately, she's hardly the first government official to do this. Powell is often mentioned, but his case was fairly small; the biggest is probably the 2007 Bush email controversy, where a mix of government, political, and private matters were discussed through "gwb43.com" and other private sites (and wherein as many as 22 million emails were deleted). Hopefully the blowup from this latest scandal will manage to dissuade others from doing so.
Trump's threats to cut off NATO and other states that the US has typically defended scares me a lot more. Because the result would be a rapid military buildup in said states. Including an increase in the number of states that have nuclear weapons, and the quantity of weapons therein. Some places that currently rely on the US as their source of Mutually Assured Destruction are particularly concerning to think about: if the US abandoned Saudi Arabia, leaving them exposed to Israel and Iran, how long do you think it would be before they had a nuclear weapon (esp. given that some sources suggest that they helped fund Pakistan's program in exchange for a right to acquire the nuclear technology if they ever needed it)? A nuclear-armed Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, doesn't that sound like a dream? Japan would certainly give up their pacifism and go heavy on militarization; they've already been drifting that way. More military confrontation between Japan and China or North Korea, doesn't that sound like a safe world? South Korea would likewise have to scale up even further from how they currently are, and again, go nuclear. Eastern Europe would be terrified and likely form an anti-Russian alliance with a huge increase in military spending (if they couldn't establish a Europe-wide alliance); Poland would likely be at its core, but it'd likely welcome Ukraine and Georgia.
The further you drill down, the more potential for upheaval you run into. It's really a terrifying concept, what could happen if Trump were to carry out his threats. Much of global stability hinges on countries feeling safe and secure. When countries don't feel safe and secure, they stockpile arms and sleep with one eye open.
Meh, errors happen. The Nimitz class has a design flaw where it lists to the side under a full combat load. The Knox class took damage from heavy seas and were expensive to run. The Cyclone class suffered severe metal fatigue after just 15 years. Every class has some problem or another in development, testing, or active service. At least this problem can probably be fixed relatively easily.
"Many people are saying climate change is a serious issue, many people. Nobody is better at fighting climate change than me. We're going to have the best carbon controls in the world. Obama was a total failure at fighting climate change. Total failure. The rest of the world is laughing at us...."
Maybe someone presented climate change to him as a jihadist terror plot. I can't wait to hear him repeat the phrase "radical Islamic climate change";)
Slashdot Mirror
You're going to see a steady conversion rather than some sudden leaps-and-bounds shifts. Step by step, crop by crop. Even the picking of fruits, nuts, olives, etc is increasingly starting to be done by machines. Even things you'd think would be too delicate for machines, like grapes.
Ag tech always starts out expensive, but it gets cheaper the more people who use it.
A mere 97% of people who are actually active, publishing climatologists accept it.
You know, if I go to 30 doctors, and all but one tell me I have a serious disease, but the other one says "Meh, you're fine, take a few aspirin and you'll feel better", I always trust the latter one, don't you?
Yes, he's raised money for her. And? You have a strange conception that "raising money for a political candidate" means "personal friend of said candidate".
None of the people pushing the conspiracy theory has ever put any evidence that they've ever met. He denies having ever met her. But I guess that just means it's a secret friendship and all the more evil, right? ;)
Re, the "pictures of kids" - the Snopes article says: "However, the photographs that the Instagram account purportedly hosted were instead, apparently, taken from the pages of various people who "liked" the restaurant's page on Facebook ... Some of the photographs were apparently taken from random web sites"
(Apparently according to your page, Podesta is a cannibal also? Seriously people?)
The "children tortured" reference on that page is because A) Podesta owns a painting by Biljana Djurdjevic, and B) Biljana Djurdjevic has also painted an unrelated painting of a child hung on a wall; therefore, C) Podesta supports the torture of children. Clearly, it all makes sense! Djurdjevic has also painted a guy trying to get a thorn out of his foot, a dentist using laughing gas, people sewing in their underwear in the middle of a forest, and an overweight guy wearing floaties in a bathtub. Clearly Podesta's plot is to use laughing gas to drug everyone, scatter thorns around so they can't run away, steal their clothes and enslave them deep in forests while fattening them up to make into soup in giant bathtubs!
Trump is a zombie?
Well, it would explain those eyes and the off skin colour.
Exactly.
As for the first post, it's just standard Clinton-style disinformation. They're everywhere, trying to throw you off from the plot.
Of course you would say that, "Anonymous Coward". We all know that members of Anonymous launched #OpTrump to try to attack him, clearly on behalf of Clinton, and here you are, choosing to post in their name. So now that we know you're a personal lifelong friend of the Clintons, probably helping in the murder of Vince Foster, the question becomes: why is Slashdot supporting your part in the Clintons' conspiracy? How much are the Clintons paying them?
1) Alefantis is not a "friend" of Clinton; he's just a supporter. He's never met her.
2) The art in his restaurant is weird, but it's not "kids being tortured or placed in sexual poses"
3) The case in Haiti was 10 Baptist missionaries from Idaho trying to rescue children after the earthquake without permits. The missionaries had previously planned to build an orphanage and school in the Dominican Republic. There are Podesta emails that mention Silsby, but in the context of current events and how the US government should handle what had become an international diplomatic issue between the US and Haiti (aka, Hillary's job). Example here. Silsby is in no way a "friend" of Clinton.
You all have a strange way of declaring everyone to be a "friend" of Clinton.
And what state were you in? Both of those incidents are premised on the concept that the second you leave your previous location with no intent to return, you must immediately register in the new location. Which is rarely what the law actually states. For example, the first hit that comes up when googling laws for registration after moving is Massachusetts, which says:
Neither, furthermore, represent any sort of double-voting.
Wouldn't most Americans say something like "I don't wanna go to the store" or "I'm not up to going to the store" or "I don't feel like going to the store" rather than "I can't be bothered to go to the store"? Or when you say "other side of the pond" do you mean British? We're sort of in the middle of the pond here ;)
I strongly suspect that NASA is suddenly going to find need for a bunch of new, advanced "weather satellites" ;)
Anyway, as for this article: POTUS can't just "scrap" some random part of NASA. NASA's budget is determined by congress. He can threaten vetoes, but he has to work with congress on the budget.
Yes, because when I want to learn about climate science, I don't turn to climatologsts, I turn to former TV weathermen funded by the Heartland Institute.
"Nearly 2 billion" is not 40% of $19,3B
Wow, a person stumbled over their address, clearly they're lying! FYI, I often stumble over my legally registered address because I live in a different apartment than the one I'm registered to.
And they knew you had registered your move yet how...? You had just moved. How did they get your new address?
Right. You would have risked an extremely massive fine and jail time for something that could have been readily proven fraudulent, in order to cast a single vote?
The risk just doesn't correspond with the reward.
I found that remark very strange as well. This person clearly is not trilingual ;)
To follow up a bit further on that, there are some concepts that take whole sentences, paragraphs or more to describe. Back in the day I had a Japanese song, with English lyrics... except that one word in the middle remained untranslated ("Our satori are just floating in the core"). I asked a professor about what it means and it ended up as a whole lecture on Buddhist concepts and Japanese relations between the true self and the self that one presents to others in different contexts.
In Icelandic for me it often comes up in terms of geological terms. For example, someone will ask, "What does Reykjavík" mean, and I usually just give a quick "Smoking Cove" or "Smoking Bay" or something like that. But that's not really right, English doesn't really have a word that describes a "vík". A "vík" is where the coastline "víkur". To víkja is to give way, like if someone's tailgating you on the road and you pull off to the side to let them past. So where the coastline "víkur" - on a certain scale, at least - that's a "vík". It's often where a river empties out, but not all river mouths end in víkur, and not all víkur are river mouths, some are more like coves or small bays. But you wouldn't mistake a "vík" for a "fjörður" or anything like that. We divide "field" up into "akur", "tún", "völlur", maybe even more depending on the concept (melur maybe, if it's rocky? garður even in some contexts? Lots of possibilities). So, I mean, we can just pick a random word, but you'll lose context - and when you translate back you can come up with something that's just wrong.
Even the "smoking" part isn't quite right, as most people in English hear smoke and think of burning things, but "reykur" in Icelandic place names is often used to denote geothermal steam - even though it technically means smoke.
My favorite mismatched concept has to be the verb "nenna", generally used in the negative (e.g. "Ég nenni ekki!"). In the negative it's sort of like "can't be bothered to do X", "not in the mood to do X", "don't waaaanna do X", "it's not worth my time/effort to do X", or just plain "Meh". A lazy translation is often "can't be bothered", but it sounds weird as English speakers don't usually talk like that. I've noticed some people who learn Icelandic end up taking that verb back into English, or even noun-ifying it ("I don't have the nenn to do that right now...")
That would be nice if translating sentences was the same as looking up words in a dictionary. It's not. So pointing out that there are words that have correspondences is meaningless.
Languages have a fuzzy haze of concepts and ways to parse them. I could say "I feel sick" or "I am sick" in English and they're not the same, the latter expresses certainty. But in Icelandic you'd generally say "Ég er lasin(n)" or "Ég er veik(ur)" - aka, "I am sick" - for both of them. Not "I feel sick". You *can* say "I feel as if I'm sick", but that gives a sort of connotation as if you're doubting yourself, more than "I feel sick" does in English. The latter case is "Mér líður eins og ég sé veik(ur)", which is literally "Me (dative, not nominative) feels same and I would-be(pres.) sick (depends on gender)" There's an awful lot going on in there that a word-for-word translation just doesn't catch. Even if you catch phrases, like "eins og" -> "like" rather than literally "same and", you still don't have anything close to a one-to-one mapping.
And here we're talking two Germanic languages.
A neural net that can handle translations in a way where the results aren't terrible must have a concept of the fuzziness, the interplay of how different concepts are presented in different languages. And indeed, that's what the graphic that they show seems to suggest, where you have these branching clusters with varying pathways that dart between them for different languages. Perhaps calling that internal representation a "secret language" is a stretch, but it's most definitely nothing like having "English as a bridge language".
Meh, it's the standard difference between the parties' approach, and I'd be shocked if you didn't actually know why.
* Republicans focus on voter fraud because stricter restrictions on what people need to vote most often discourage or prevent youth and minority turnout.
* Democrats focus on disenfranchisement, not fraud, for precisely the same reason.
To be fair to Democrats, cases of confirmed voter fraud are exceedingly rare (31 cases between 2000 and 2014 - rarer than being struck by lightning), while cases of confirmed erroneous disenfranchisement are not (tens of thousands erroneously removed from the rolls). The reason that voter fraud (impersonation) is rare is because the risks vastly exceed the reward. You don't throw an election by casting one extra vote for your candidate at the risk of facing a $10k fine and jailtime if you're caught - per case. Even most of the extremely-reported cases of "dead people voting" in recent history have turned out to be clerical errors (e.g. wrong date on the death certificate). With millions of people dying every year, these sorts of errors will happen at a given rate every election.
As for the particular example of Voter ID laws: Not everyone in the US has a photo ID. Those who don't are proportionally younger (e.g. haven't registered yet, haven't gotten a driving license yet, etc), poorer (no money for a car so no driving license; not traveling so no need for passport, etc), often minorities, Native Americans, etc - groups that tend to be overwhelmingly Democrats. So it shouldn't be much of a surprise that Republicans support these laws and Democrats oppose them. The courts have generally gone against them because they proportionally disenfranchise certain groups, and more to the point were often explicitly planned to do so. In the case of North Carolina, for example, the legislature explicitly requested data on different methods of voting by race, and then explicitly crafted legislation to target African Americans based on that data.
If the US could get its act together and issue everyone a national ID, the situation would be different. But I know Americans are often against things like national IDs involving national databases and other scary things.
I'd actually like to see their data before I make up my mind. If it's just a correlation, that could just be a correlation between where voting machines tend to be located in a state and thus what demographics of voters will use them. 7% difference wouldn't be unreasonable in such a case. On the other hand, if they're controlling for that, it is concerning.
Reference please. This says just the opposite.
There were a number of reports in both directions (some places were reporting favoring Clinton, others Trump). In each case they were found to be poorly calibrated touchscreens - aka, the click position is off from where the user intends. In no case that's been reported did it lead to mis-cast votes, as you have to confirm your selection.
If you were looking to rig an election, showing the person that you've changed their vote and asking them to confirm it would rank near the top of the "Idiotic Approaches" list.
As per the actual findings of the FBI, only three emails were marked as containing classified information, and they were not marked with the full headers that are generally presented to top officials, but a "(c)" ("portion marking") that they determined was likely that Clinton would not be familiar with. All of the other "classified" emails were retroactively classified - as each email was checked, they did an assessment over whether the contents and whether the email should be classified. Those were then subsequently classified.
The law requires:
That's a pretty tough standard. In all cases it means that they have to be able to prove that the sender knew information was classified (without classified headers, nothing involved demonstrates this). The recipient has to be an unauthorized person, but most of the emails of interest were between authorized individuals. The alternative is to prove that Clinton was trying to harm the US or aid foreign governments - again, good luck with that tack in court.
There is information discussed - including by Clinton (over 100 items) - that should not have been discussed through non-governmental channels. Unfortunately, she's hardly the first government official to do this. Powell is often mentioned, but his case was fairly small; the biggest is probably the 2007 Bush email controversy, where a mix of government, political, and private matters were discussed through "gwb43.com" and other private sites (and wherein as many as 22 million emails were deleted). Hopefully the blowup from this latest scandal will manage to dissuade others from doing so.
Trump's threats to cut off NATO and other states that the US has typically defended scares me a lot more. Because the result would be a rapid military buildup in said states. Including an increase in the number of states that have nuclear weapons, and the quantity of weapons therein. Some places that currently rely on the US as their source of Mutually Assured Destruction are particularly concerning to think about: if the US abandoned Saudi Arabia, leaving them exposed to Israel and Iran, how long do you think it would be before they had a nuclear weapon (esp. given that some sources suggest that they helped fund Pakistan's program in exchange for a right to acquire the nuclear technology if they ever needed it)? A nuclear-armed Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, doesn't that sound like a dream? Japan would certainly give up their pacifism and go heavy on militarization; they've already been drifting that way. More military confrontation between Japan and China or North Korea, doesn't that sound like a safe world? South Korea would likewise have to scale up even further from how they currently are, and again, go nuclear. Eastern Europe would be terrified and likely form an anti-Russian alliance with a huge increase in military spending (if they couldn't establish a Europe-wide alliance); Poland would likely be at its core, but it'd likely welcome Ukraine and Georgia.
The further you drill down, the more potential for upheaval you run into. It's really a terrifying concept, what could happen if Trump were to carry out his threats. Much of global stability hinges on countries feeling safe and secure. When countries don't feel safe and secure, they stockpile arms and sleep with one eye open.
Meh, errors happen. The Nimitz class has a design flaw where it lists to the side under a full combat load. The Knox class took damage from heavy seas and were expensive to run. The Cyclone class suffered severe metal fatigue after just 15 years. Every class has some problem or another in development, testing, or active service. At least this problem can probably be fixed relatively easily.
"Many people are saying climate change is a serious issue, many people. Nobody is better at fighting climate change than me. We're going to have the best carbon controls in the world. Obama was a total failure at fighting climate change. Total failure. The rest of the world is laughing at us...."
Maybe someone presented climate change to him as a jihadist terror plot. I can't wait to hear him repeat the phrase "radical Islamic climate change" ;)