There's reasonable evidence that many of the primary elections were rigged. There doesn't seem to be proof. And Sanders doesn't seem to be interested in even going there.
Now the question in *my* mind is "Were they rigged independently by local supporters or was there central sponsorship?". I don't expect that question to ever be answered.
I think you are assuming that there is, must be, some way of making the elections fair. I don't believe this is true.
What I propose instead is a registered voter list, where anyone can "vote" for anyone and change their minds an unlimited number of times all the way up to the election. Some way to fraud-proof this would be needed, and political parties could still support candidates, but would have NO funds allocated to do so, and would not be eligible for non-profit status or any other benefits. I'd really rather have candidates chosen by lottery, but some people really are too incompetent. (Unfortunately, the current process clearly doesn't weed them out.)
But the point is there would be no official list of candidates. You wouldn't be presented with a piece of paper and a requirement to "choose one of these". It's too bad a fractional presidency wouldn't work, where you'd have multiple presidents each of which would have a fraction of the authority, which the fraction depending on how many people currently were signed up behind them as opposed to behind one of the other fractional presidents. But I can't see any way to make that work. A fractional legislative body, however, would seem to be a good idea, so if some measure comes up you can switch your representative to someone who shares your views on that particular matter.
FWIW, I'm rather convinced the Bernie knew in advance that he was the designated loser in this election, and decided it was worth playing the part anyway.
He must have known before I did, and I knew it by the time of the Democratic candidate debates.
The trouble is this is mistaking one year's records for climate. Climate is more long term. To get this to reflect climate you need to spread your bets over at least 10 years, and more is better. But people tend to discount both future gains and losses. So it still won't get people to evaluate correctly.
Of course, if the climate is warming each succeeding year will have a higher probability of being warmer than the previous one, but that's just a probability, and even with a rapidly warming climate will occasionally come out negative.
Additionally, if people were rational gamblers, Las Vegas would go out of business.
Presumably these cells have a different set of requirements and outputs. Also presumably there'll be lots of cases where they aren't an improvement. But it's possible that there will be lots of cases where they *are* an improvement.
Additionally, the outputs generated are different. E.g. there's no mention of synthesizing cellulose. This is both good and bad, depending on your needs.
All that said, it's my guess that the process will require catalysts that aren't cheap, so in most use cases this will be inferior to an appropriately selected plant.
Still, this is RESEARCH. It's not engineering. It's my guess that the main purpose of the research was to understand the exact details involved in photosynthesis, despite the way the summary was written. (I believe that the summary reflected the original article, because it's rather similar to the snippet I saw in Science News. That also took a "Gee-Whiz, New Stuff" approach that I suspect the researchers would have considered unwarranted.
Do remember that *part* of that is the learning curve. Not, admittedly, all. Additionally, the last time I checked there were some add-on tools for PhotoShop that weren't available for The GIMP. (I don't check often, so this information may be stale...but I doubt it.)
But do remember that saying "it breaks the intent of the law" isn't the same as saying "it breaks the law". And the problem with "intent" is that it's no explicitly demonstrable. It like handwaving during a mathematical proof. Perhaps the step is justified and perhaps it isn't. I wasn't there when they passed the law, so for me to claim to know their intent would be inaccurate, but I'm cynical enough to suspect that many who helped write the law were aware of precisely this loophole, and if that were true, would using it really be against the intent?
If you were claiming that doing this was unethical I'd have no problem. Laws, however, *should* be explicit. Of course they should also be readily understandable, and there shouldn't be so many of them that nobody could reasonably be expected to know them all. There are lots of valid criticisms of both the system and of Hillary, but this doesn't sound like one of them...not as a legal point.
I was claiming precisely the opposite of "Europe has a FULLER political spectrum.", so no, your response doesn't satisfy me.
Now as for your claim that "pretty much all of them represented in power in one country or another", I've got to give you that. I'm not certain that it's true, but it looks a lot truer than a similar claim made about the US. Partially this is because the US really *is* one country, and the EU isn't. But I'm not really sure that's much of an advantage either way.
You don't understand the degrees of right-wingness. I think of Hillary as right wing, but among US politicians she's rather centrist.
Your point about the, neutrality, of the media is, however, quite valid. What people don't seem to understand is that the reporters tend to be leftists, but the editors tend to be slightly right wing, and *their* policies are controlled by the owners to tend to be much more right wing. This produces a stream of news with a variety of different spins applied to the politics, and every single one of those spins is designed to make the stories more "news worthy".
This compounding of distortions of the news generally makes the news less reliable than a magic eight-ball...but a lot more spectacular and specific.
I'm not sure that either counts as a traitor by the definition given in the constitution. Neither, however, seems particularly concerned with honesty, honor, or trustworthiness. Or adhering to their oaths of office.
They have probably both committed major felonies, but neither seems likely to be prosecuted for it. (Clearly inviting a major foreign power to intervene in our elections should be a major crime, but I'm not certain that it is, and, IIUC, it would only be treason if we had declared war against them or they had and invasive army on US ground.)
From your explanation is sounds like she carefully didn't break the law, but rather exploited flaws in it. I may not be understanding this correctly, though, and yesterday a less explicit post *did* claim that documents in the Wikileaks release *did* show she broke the law. You have caused me to wonder whether that poster was just confused rather than either accurate or lying.
(I'll admit I didn't follow your link. This isn't something that's going to change either how I vote or how I feel about her, but perhaps you could rethink either your explanation or your opinion.)
But only anonymously, which means you don't allow small numbers of votes to be reported. Only aggregates.
For that matter, I'd be in favor of paper ballots being the official vote, but electronic counts (possibly via a scanner system) being used to collect "exit polls". And interview based exit polls by an independent party being used to validate the official exit polls.
No conspiracies are *needed*. I'll agree with that. But there are existing conspiracies that would quickly take advantage of the increased scope for their exercise. Two of the conspiracies exist within the Democratic and the Republican parties, but I have no reason to believe there aren't others.
Sharpies are definitely better. Even better would be Bingo Markers (easier to put a big dot of ink in the right place.)
I *think* the GPs suggestion of No. 2 pencils was a joke. Those are definitely erasable, though there is usually a mark left even if you use an art-gum eraser followed by an India-rubber eraser.
You're confusing knowledge with ethics. He's following the rule "If I can do this without penalties exceeding the gain I hope to get...".
I hate feeling this way about the government I was raised to trust and honor....but it's been downhill ever since Kennedy. (Kennedy was no plaster saint, but he did seem to *try* to run an honorable, if not honest, government.) Well, OK, Carter tried to be honest and honorable too. He was just less successful.
Hillary appears to be a statist-centralist, i.e. one who believe in increasing the power of the central government (i.e., state meaning nation). Trump appears to be an ego maniacal dictator worshiper, who hopes to mold himself into his hero.
Neither one appears to be a reasonable choice, but were I to choose between them I would pick Hillary, as being less likely to start a mega-war. There is little fainter praise than saying that someone appears to be better than Trump.
As it is, I live in a blue state, so I'll probably vote for Jill Stein. Unless Hillary comes out *convincingly* against the TPP. A promise to "see a bill introduced" doesn't count as convincing. She doesn't even need to be lying for that to be worthless.
NOBODY has the full political spectrum...in power. Among those out of power the US has everything from Anarchists to Totalitarians, and from Religio-Communists to monopolists. Come up with another axis and we probably have those, too.
Among those in power I believe that the EU has those further to the "left" (to use a term from the French Revolution) and the US has those further to the "right", with a nearly bell curve spread within the extremes.
Left and right are, of course, stupid linearizations of the actual political stances, but they are the idiocy on which most political thinking seems to be done. The stupidity is on a par with thinking that Trump represents the "little people", but it makes for quick sound bites and easy snap judgments.
Well, you've demonstrated that you don't understand Marxism, but the rest of what you said may be correct. (I don't have any direct knowledge of recent versions of MS software, so I can't say for sure.)
IIUC, the government certifies OSes and if they certify it you are indemnified against and OS initiated violations of the HIPAA. I presume that means the government agrees not to prosecute you rather than that you aren't breaking the law, but the first-level effect is the same.
Well, and FWIW, if the OS doesn't insist on calling home, you can run it in a virtual machine for as long as you want. Be sure you have updated backups, though, because the virtual machine partitions are HUGE files, and can become unreadable, or experience undesirable degradation due to actual bit rot. You may also want to forbid Internet access to the virtual machine, to allow for security issues not being fixed.
Slashdot Mirror
You're cherry picking. The Nazis expropriated EVERYONE. Look into how the Volkswagen was financed.
Given a reasonable definition of "liberal" and "conservative", none are running in this presidential election.
There's reasonable evidence that many of the primary elections were rigged. There doesn't seem to be proof. And Sanders doesn't seem to be interested in even going there.
Now the question in *my* mind is "Were they rigged independently by local supporters or was there central sponsorship?". I don't expect that question to ever be answered.
I think you are assuming that there is, must be, some way of making the elections fair. I don't believe this is true.
What I propose instead is a registered voter list, where anyone can "vote" for anyone and change their minds an unlimited number of times all the way up to the election. Some way to fraud-proof this would be needed, and political parties could still support candidates, but would have NO funds allocated to do so, and would not be eligible for non-profit status or any other benefits. I'd really rather have candidates chosen by lottery, but some people really are too incompetent. (Unfortunately, the current process clearly doesn't weed them out.)
But the point is there would be no official list of candidates. You wouldn't be presented with a piece of paper and a requirement to "choose one of these". It's too bad a fractional presidency wouldn't work, where you'd have multiple presidents each of which would have a fraction of the authority, which the fraction depending on how many people currently were signed up behind them as opposed to behind one of the other fractional presidents. But I can't see any way to make that work. A fractional legislative body, however, would seem to be a good idea, so if some measure comes up you can switch your representative to someone who shares your views on that particular matter.
FWIW, I'm rather convinced the Bernie knew in advance that he was the designated loser in this election, and decided it was worth playing the part anyway.
He must have known before I did, and I knew it by the time of the Democratic candidate debates.
Despair isn't actually the same as apathy.
The trouble is this is mistaking one year's records for climate. Climate is more long term. To get this to reflect climate you need to spread your bets over at least 10 years, and more is better. But people tend to discount both future gains and losses. So it still won't get people to evaluate correctly.
Of course, if the climate is warming each succeeding year will have a higher probability of being warmer than the previous one, but that's just a probability, and even with a rapidly warming climate will occasionally come out negative.
Additionally, if people were rational gamblers, Las Vegas would go out of business.
Don't bet on it being simpler. Most artificial processes require exotic catalysts that are quickly poisoned and need to be regenerated.
But I don't think the gadget was the point of the operation, I think they were studying the mechanism.
Presumably these cells have a different set of requirements and outputs. Also presumably there'll be lots of cases where they aren't an improvement. But it's possible that there will be lots of cases where they *are* an improvement.
Additionally, the outputs generated are different. E.g. there's no mention of synthesizing cellulose. This is both good and bad, depending on your needs.
All that said, it's my guess that the process will require catalysts that aren't cheap, so in most use cases this will be inferior to an appropriately selected plant.
Still, this is RESEARCH. It's not engineering. It's my guess that the main purpose of the research was to understand the exact details involved in photosynthesis, despite the way the summary was written. (I believe that the summary reflected the original article, because it's rather similar to the snippet I saw in Science News. That also took a "Gee-Whiz, New Stuff" approach that I suspect the researchers would have considered unwarranted.
Do remember that *part* of that is the learning curve. Not, admittedly, all. Additionally, the last time I checked there were some add-on tools for PhotoShop that weren't available for The GIMP. (I don't check often, so this information may be stale...but I doubt it.)
But do remember that saying "it breaks the intent of the law" isn't the same as saying "it breaks the law". And the problem with "intent" is that it's no explicitly demonstrable. It like handwaving during a mathematical proof. Perhaps the step is justified and perhaps it isn't. I wasn't there when they passed the law, so for me to claim to know their intent would be inaccurate, but I'm cynical enough to suspect that many who helped write the law were aware of precisely this loophole, and if that were true, would using it really be against the intent?
If you were claiming that doing this was unethical I'd have no problem. Laws, however, *should* be explicit. Of course they should also be readily understandable, and there shouldn't be so many of them that nobody could reasonably be expected to know them all. There are lots of valid criticisms of both the system and of Hillary, but this doesn't sound like one of them...not as a legal point.
I was claiming precisely the opposite of "Europe has a FULLER political spectrum.", so no, your response doesn't satisfy me.
Now as for your claim that "pretty much all of them represented in power in one country or another", I've got to give you that. I'm not certain that it's true, but it looks a lot truer than a similar claim made about the US. Partially this is because the US really *is* one country, and the EU isn't. But I'm not really sure that's much of an advantage either way.
You don't understand the degrees of right-wingness. I think of Hillary as right wing, but among US politicians she's rather centrist.
Your point about the, neutrality, of the media is, however, quite valid. What people don't seem to understand is that the reporters tend to be leftists, but the editors tend to be slightly right wing, and *their* policies are controlled by the owners to tend to be much more right wing. This produces a stream of news with a variety of different spins applied to the politics, and every single one of those spins is designed to make the stories more "news worthy".
This compounding of distortions of the news generally makes the news less reliable than a magic eight-ball...but a lot more spectacular and specific.
I'm not sure that either counts as a traitor by the definition given in the constitution. Neither, however, seems particularly concerned with honesty, honor, or trustworthiness. Or adhering to their oaths of office.
They have probably both committed major felonies, but neither seems likely to be prosecuted for it. (Clearly inviting a major foreign power to intervene in our elections should be a major crime, but I'm not certain that it is, and, IIUC, it would only be treason if we had declared war against them or they had and invasive army on US ground.)
From your explanation is sounds like she carefully didn't break the law, but rather exploited flaws in it. I may not be understanding this correctly, though, and yesterday a less explicit post *did* claim that documents in the Wikileaks release *did* show she broke the law. You have caused me to wonder whether that poster was just confused rather than either accurate or lying.
(I'll admit I didn't follow your link. This isn't something that's going to change either how I vote or how I feel about her, but perhaps you could rethink either your explanation or your opinion.)
But only anonymously, which means you don't allow small numbers of votes to be reported. Only aggregates.
For that matter, I'd be in favor of paper ballots being the official vote, but electronic counts (possibly via a scanner system) being used to collect "exit polls". And interview based exit polls by an independent party being used to validate the official exit polls.
No conspiracies are *needed*. I'll agree with that. But there are existing conspiracies that would quickly take advantage of the increased scope for their exercise. Two of the conspiracies exist within the Democratic and the Republican parties, but I have no reason to believe there aren't others.
Sharpies are definitely better. Even better would be Bingo Markers (easier to put a big dot of ink in the right place.)
I *think* the GPs suggestion of No. 2 pencils was a joke. Those are definitely erasable, though there is usually a mark left even if you use an art-gum eraser followed by an India-rubber eraser.
You're confusing knowledge with ethics. He's following the rule "If I can do this without penalties exceeding the gain I hope to get...".
I hate feeling this way about the government I was raised to trust and honor....but it's been downhill ever since Kennedy. (Kennedy was no plaster saint, but he did seem to *try* to run an honorable, if not honest, government.) Well, OK, Carter tried to be honest and honorable too. He was just less successful.
Hillary appears to be a statist-centralist, i.e. one who believe in increasing the power of the central government (i.e., state meaning nation).
Trump appears to be an ego maniacal dictator worshiper, who hopes to mold himself into his hero.
Neither one appears to be a reasonable choice, but were I to choose between them I would pick Hillary, as being less likely to start a mega-war. There is little fainter praise than saying that someone appears to be better than Trump.
As it is, I live in a blue state, so I'll probably vote for Jill Stein. Unless Hillary comes out *convincingly* against the TPP. A promise to "see a bill introduced" doesn't count as convincing. She doesn't even need to be lying for that to be worthless.
NOBODY has the full political spectrum...in power. Among those out of power the US has everything from Anarchists to Totalitarians, and from Religio-Communists to monopolists. Come up with another axis and we probably have those, too.
Among those in power I believe that the EU has those further to the "left" (to use a term from the French Revolution) and the US has those further to the "right", with a nearly bell curve spread within the extremes.
Left and right are, of course, stupid linearizations of the actual political stances, but they are the idiocy on which most political thinking seems to be done. The stupidity is on a par with thinking that Trump represents the "little people", but it makes for quick sound bites and easy snap judgments.
Well, you've demonstrated that you don't understand Marxism, but the rest of what you said may be correct. (I don't have any direct knowledge of recent versions of MS software, so I can't say for sure.)
IIUC, the government certifies OSes and if they certify it you are indemnified against and OS initiated violations of the HIPAA. I presume that means the government agrees not to prosecute you rather than that you aren't breaking the law, but the first-level effect is the same.
Yes, but marketing and sales are full of liars. You may well end up being the product even if you do pay.
Well, and FWIW, if the OS doesn't insist on calling home, you can run it in a virtual machine for as long as you want. Be sure you have updated backups, though, because the virtual machine partitions are HUGE files, and can become unreadable, or experience undesirable degradation due to actual bit rot. You may also want to forbid Internet access to the virtual machine, to allow for security issues not being fixed.