Anonymous is just some people you can't identify. So these are certainly currently a branch of Anonymous. That they may not have been before they started publishing this material is irrelevant. It's not a groups with a central management and membership cards.
I seem to recall a firm of auditors called something Young that materially misrepresented their clients. And got caught, but how often does that happen.
And the point is I have no way of knowing how often that happens. And I doubt that you do either, even if as an auditor and a CPA. The people who want to hire a shady auditor won't hire someone unless they already have a pretty good idea that their ethics are flexible.
Ok, you need to be a bit careful here. The first thing to remember is that Anonymous isn't an organization, it's a name applied to a bunch of people who don't have any connection to each other.
You should NEVER trust anything said by Anonymous. That's like trusting something posted by "Anonymous Coward", which is the same kind of entity. But likewise you should never automatically disbelieve it.
Secondly, even the most highly regarded analytics groups make mistakes. Sorry, but they do. So Anonymous Analytics making mistakes wouldn't be at all surprising.
Thirdly, many traditional "analytics" groups have a long history of falsehoods. Consider Gardner. You can't prove that it was lying, because they may have believed what they said. But I consider many of them less reliable than a magic 8-ball. (That, of course, is just my opinion. I've got nothing to back it up.)
Fourthly, read A Random Walk Down Wall Street http://www.amazon.com/Random-W... , or check out the elephant at the Chicago Zoo who used to make better than average stock predictions. There was also an ape, but I can't remember where, or whether it was a chimp or a gorilla.
As stated the question can neither be answered yes nor no. There's too many edge cases.
If the DRM requires access to a validating server, then the items should be freely re-sellable....and anyone who buys them should realize that they are getting a volatile good. But they usually *don't* realize that. It's usually sold as if it were permanent.
If the DRM doesn't require access to the internet, isn't limited to "so many plays", etc., then it should be vendible. But what's the life of the storage medium?
If there is no DRM, then it should not be vendible while the publisher is selling or offering for sale copies...even at unreasonable prices. (But he's actually got to be prepared to make the sale. A "print on demand" setup would suffice. [I know, we aren't talking about actual print, but the analog.]) This is the one case where copyright law makes any sense, but it needs to be different because of the ease of duplication. One limitation: If you can prove that no copy has ever been made, then it should be vendible.
66 feet is much more believable, but 66 feet wouldn't affect Iceland? 66 feet would affect California, and much of the rest of the US. I don't really know how elevated Iceland is, but a quick look at a map of elevation shows that it's likely to be strongly affected. Probably half the living area would go away, unless the shore is extremely steep. (The map said 0-500 feet, which makes this a guesstimate.) But the edges are nearly certain to be lower than the more central part, and the edges are larger than the center. I would guess that people generally live where the slope is less steep, and those are the areas most likely to be flooded. It's also probable that storm surges will be stronger, which means that the rivers will flood more often, but if the land is steep enough that may not be significant. (OTOH, I do remember fighting a flood on a hillside about 50 years ago, so with a really hard rain, steep hillsides aren't invulnerable.)
And the fact that the CURRENT average midsummer high at the South Pole is -26C doesn't imply that it's going to stay that cold if the ice starts melting from the edges in. Which it's already doing.
It's a lot easier to be cold if the area around you is cold. The melting of the Arctic should be seen as a clear warning of what is in store in the long term for Antarctica unless something changes. Oceans just move heat around faster than solid chunks of ice, and Antarctica just has more thermal mass. So the changes will be slower. If you go back far enough there were temperate style forests growing in Antarctica, and the continent was then in the same position.
I did overstate the case when I said the Tethys Sea would reform in California. The land has risen where the Tethys Sea used to be (now it's the central valley), but it *would* be under water, just not very deep water. Probably no more than 15-30 feet on the average. It's hard to tell because searches for maps of elevation just gives me maps of subsidence.
Apple is no shinning light of good here. I don't place them in the same garbage can as MS, but I don't like them much either. I'll agree that: Because Apple sells hardware. Because Apple doesn't have a history of absolutely rampant customer abuse. Because Apple has motivation to keep their ecosystem good. Because Apple has legitimate ways to make money. Because Apple doesn't hunt down and delete your old version of Solitaire, put a special flag that doesn't let it run in its most modern OS, offer a new version of Solitaire with ads, and then offer a subscription. but that puts too favorable a light on Apple and it's past actions. Apple is the company that I first noticed slipping a license modification in as a security update. Apple has (intentionally?) broken software that they sold to cause an upgrade to a later version. Etc. Nothing that MS hasn't done more frequently, but Apple isn't innocent.
It was the license modification that got me to remove internet access to my Apple computers and switch to Linux, so that was about 2000. Possibly a year or so later. Since then I've basically ignored them.
If you want to say MS is worse, you'll get no argument from me, but that doesn't mean that Apple is "Lawful Good".
Nobody pays for anything themselves. All wealth is social wealth.
OK, that's a slight overstatement. Kalahari bushmen probably still pay for most things themselves, but even they have (well, had a century ago) an immense amount of social wealth.
This is not to say that everyone contributes equally. That's clearly not true. But the wealthy are at least as likely to misappropriation and misspending (social) wealth as anyone else. And you can't even define "misappropriate" or "misspend" in an objective way. You can make laws about it, of course, but that is just abuse of (social) power, and (social) power is one kind of social wealth.
I'm temperamentally a libertarian (small "l", please), but I'm also a practical observer of human nature. If you remove laws from an area, the strong (in that area) will use their power to abuse the weak in that area...unless there are repercussions that they wouldn't like. This is not, however, a global assertion. Many people would behave morally, and not abuse power. But many would.
So. There's a real problem. If the wealthy can hire people to work for them at starvation wages, they will. And those who don't want to will be disadvantaged. If they can't, they won't. One of the features of a basic income is that people won't need to accept unfair wage deals. Some people consider this a disadvantage.
FWIW, I'm in favor of a linear tax system. Straight percentage of all income with NO EXCLUSIONS. Simple, easy to honestly administer, and doesn't require much bureaucracy. I'm also in favor of a "guaranteed baseline". y = mx + b. m is the tax rate, x is the income, and b is the negative of the poverty level, and is adjusted yearly. But only if commercial sponsorship of lobbying is illegal. This includes corporations, unions, political action committees, everyone. Now this doesn't mean that they aren't allowed to ask you to send in a letter or e-mail or phone call supporting them, it means they aren't allowed to pay you anything to do that in any way. And I didn't say anything about "while in office". It would also be illegal to promise to hire them afterwards. (Well, perhaps it should just be illegal to hire them afterwards? They *do* get pensions don't they?) This would cover ALL transfers of funds to anyone holding government office, or who has held government office. I didn't say anything about "but not if they worked for it", because that's not what I meant. Allowing government officials to be paid for non-governmental work sets up a strong perverse incentive, and this is true even after they leave the government. Let them subsist on their retirement package and the basic income. Or run for office again.
And that brings up the question about bribes offered before the person assume office...but I don't have a good answer there. (Well, I sort of do, but the best I could come up with is have office holders chosen by the selective service.)
"Needs to be turned off"? How can you be sure it's turned off? Facebook has been known to flip settings from private to public without either asking permission or notifying you.
The only way to be secure from it is to avoid it. Even then you aren't secure against indirect links via third parties.
He successfully made lots of people slightly more paranoid, and accepting of government "protection" in areas where they hadn't previously felt the need. So he's done his job well.
I don't think you realize how much complete melting of the ice would raise sea levels. I've seen estimates that it would raise is nearly a kilometer. I find this hard to believe, but expect it to be substantial, not just a meter or so. There might be a few ex-mountain peaks left of Iceland after the complete melt, but not many.
The "If you really live in Iceland" is because your answer sounded like a joke. I was actually assuming that you lived in some place that was fairly cold, like, say Newfoundland. But a complete melt would put almost anywhere that people currently live in large numbers under water. California could expect the re-appearance of the Tethys Sea. The Great Salt Lake in Utah would probably be re-connected to the Mississippi River. Other things in other places. Central South America would again be flooded by the oceans. Etc. I can't be very explicit because I don't know most of the world that well, but even if the rise was only a couple of meters, no place that people live would be unaffected. In fact, no place on the surface of the earth.
Depends on who you listen to. Last year Lockheed was predicting that it could be within the decade. (Well, ok, within the decade *is* within 50 years.)
OTOH, that could just have been PR, as I haven't seen any progress reports since then. But then I'm not an investor in that project.
As with all fertilizers, it's a fertilizer if it's supplying something the lack of which is inhibiting growth. Otherwise it's at best neutral, and likely to be a poison.
It is true that a higher proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere allows plants to keep their stomata closed more of the time/more tightly, and thus limit their loss of water via transpiration. This results in a lower concentration of minerals in the plants, and thus not only weaker stems, etc., but also weaker nutritional value. It will, however, probably increase it's production of carbohydrates, i.e., starches, sugars, and fiber. Which means that proportionally it's also lower in proteins. This isn't good for the plant, but it's worse for whatever eats the plant. Like you. Or the cow that got made into that hamburger. OTOH, it's probably impossible for Twinkies to get any worse nutritionally than they already are.
All the problems that he lists are accurate, but this doesn't mean that they can't be solved, merely that it's a very difficult problem. And he didn't even mention the platinum catalysts.
Currently batteries are a much better approach, and hybrids are a better approach. I have my doubts that solar powered cars are a better approach. I keep hoping that the super capacitors will get the bugs worked our, and improve their storage, but that also seems to be a difficult problem.
If Lockheed's fusion plant actually works, then electricity prices need the plants should drop, until using them to generate hydrogen is practical. If zeolite storage can be made to work, than storage and transport (and slow release) of hydrogen can be solved. (Well, there are other possible solutions...none are yet working.) If nano-scale catalysts that aren't dependent on heavy metals can be made to work, then another problem will be solved. There are other problems, but none look to me as if they are guaranteed insoluble. It's just that they aren't yet solved. So people who are currently pushing fuel cells, except for specialized applications, are vastly premature. And it's quite possible that by the time all the problems have been solved, something else will be doing the job better.
Unfortunately, I used to use proprietary software, and my experience during that time was a hideous mess of proprietary and undocumented file formats that couldn't be shared between applications, and caused trouble when an associate switched to a newer version of the software.
So I think it's a very poor suggestion.
Since I switched to Linux I've had very few problems with incompatible file types across different version of the software. This is far more desirable. Your mileage may vary, but please compute it over a period of years, not just at one point in time.
While I only dispute your assertions to the extent that I date it the conflicts back to the 1950's, and probably consider the Korean War to be the start of it, that's not what anyone who uses the term WWIII means. As you probably knew.
The conservatives say they don't want big government, but when conservative candidates get in they just make different parts of it bigger. And most of the conservative voters don't consider the subsidies they get to be "part of big government". But threaten to cut those subsidies and they let you know that's not what they meant.
Now one problem here is that the phrase "conservative voters" hides a multitude of different constituencies. Each one has it's own set of subsidies that are "that's not what I meant by big government", and there are even a few that just don't want subsidies. But that number is a lot smaller than you would think once you actually start talking about cutting subsidies. There have been times before when the "conservatives" were both in power and trying to cut big government. Just about everything they tried to cut caused huge howls of rage from some group of their supporters, so we ended up with an even larger government. Just because one vocal group of conservatives have some targeted place where things should be cut doesn't mean that all the other groups agree with them.
For that matter, in principle I'm in favor of a much smaller government. But the places where I favor cuts don't match those of the conservatives, because I'm socially a liberal, and I don't expect most people to be able to hold down a job in the next 15 years. And I feel that society works best if everyone feels that they are better off with it than without it. (Yeah, that's an impossible ideal. But one can aim for as few rejectionists as possible.)
I really doubt that Trump would intentionally start WWIII. But he might insult someone else enough that it got started because of him.
FWIW, Hillary has apparently come out against TPP, so I'll probably grit my teeth and vote for her is Sanders loses. Otherwise I'll vote Green. It doesn't really matter, the state I live in is going to go Democrat no matter how I vote.
I'm sorry, but much as I enjoy occasional articles from the DailyKos, I would never consider it a reasonable source of news. It often presents grossly slanted stories. In fact, I think I'd have to rephrase that as "it only occasionally presents stories that aren't grossly slanted", but that's a bit too far in the other direction.
I don't like the right wing, and am not sympathetic to their version of reality, but this doesn't mean they're always wrong. And being sympathetic to the left wing doesn't mean that they're always right. Just that I enjoy their stories more.
Actually I think both sides intentionally mislead their listeners, even though it was only FOX that went to court to establish their right to do so. You didn't see any of the other media in that case with amicus papers saying "Please don't say news organizations are allowed to intentionally lie about what the news is.".
If they did intentionally lie to the court in a manner likely to affect the course of the trial, then they deserve to be disbarred. If it can be proven that they did so, then they should be disbarred.
But that's not up to the judge. He can only forbid them from ever appearing before him again. I'm not sure about the requirement of an ethics class, though. It it was intentional lying, then an ethics class isn't likely to do any good. They knew what they were doing. This isn't one of your edge cases.
That said, lawyers appear to often lie to the court, or at best argue deceptively. While I feel this should be grounds for disbarment, I doubt that the bar associations would agree, when it appears that more than half of their membership regularly engages in the practice.
FWIW, my wife doesn't like any show with violence in it. So the answer, in her case, is just about any. But she just doesn't watch them, she doesn't review them.
Tor is a program running on computers. It's almost certainly corruptible if you can control both the software and the machine that it's running on. The US Govt is said to run many Tor nodes.
Mind you, this might not break the system, but only weaken it enough that it would be relatively easy to break in individual cases. It could facilitate route tracing, e.g., but cutting the length of the paths that need to be traced in half. Etc. (I'm no cryptographer, but that kind of thing seems obvious to me.)
Slashdot Mirror
Well... The Swiss used to be serious about the privacy of financial information too. Then they stopped.
Well, Apple might disagree with you. Of course you realize the 4th amendment only restricts the government and not the corporations.
Anonymous is just some people you can't identify. So these are certainly currently a branch of Anonymous. That they may not have been before they started publishing this material is irrelevant. It's not a groups with a central management and membership cards.
I seem to recall a firm of auditors called something Young that materially misrepresented their clients. And got caught, but how often does that happen.
And the point is I have no way of knowing how often that happens. And I doubt that you do either, even if as an auditor and a CPA. The people who want to hire a shady auditor won't hire someone unless they already have a pretty good idea that their ethics are flexible.
Ok, you need to be a bit careful here. The first thing to remember is that Anonymous isn't an organization, it's a name applied to a bunch of people who don't have any connection to each other.
You should NEVER trust anything said by Anonymous. That's like trusting something posted by "Anonymous Coward", which is the same kind of entity. But likewise you should never automatically disbelieve it.
Secondly, even the most highly regarded analytics groups make mistakes. Sorry, but they do. So Anonymous Analytics making mistakes wouldn't be at all surprising.
Thirdly, many traditional "analytics" groups have a long history of falsehoods. Consider Gardner. You can't prove that it was lying, because they may have believed what they said. But I consider many of them less reliable than a magic 8-ball. (That, of course, is just my opinion. I've got nothing to back it up.)
Fourthly, read A Random Walk Down Wall Street http://www.amazon.com/Random-W... , or check out the elephant at the Chicago Zoo who used to make better than average stock predictions. There was also an ape, but I can't remember where, or whether it was a chimp or a gorilla.
As stated the question can neither be answered yes nor no. There's too many edge cases.
If the DRM requires access to a validating server, then the items should be freely re-sellable....and anyone who buys them should realize that they are getting a volatile good. But they usually *don't* realize that. It's usually sold as if it were permanent.
If the DRM doesn't require access to the internet, isn't limited to "so many plays", etc., then it should be vendible. But what's the life of the storage medium?
If there is no DRM, then it should not be vendible while the publisher is selling or offering for sale copies...even at unreasonable prices. (But he's actually got to be prepared to make the sale. A "print on demand" setup would suffice. [I know, we aren't talking about actual print, but the analog.]) This is the one case where copyright law makes any sense, but it needs to be different because of the ease of duplication. One limitation: If you can prove that no copy has ever been made, then it should be vendible.
66 feet is much more believable, but 66 feet wouldn't affect Iceland? 66 feet would affect California, and much of the rest of the US. I don't really know how elevated Iceland is, but a quick look at a map of elevation shows that it's likely to be strongly affected. Probably half the living area would go away, unless the shore is extremely steep. (The map said 0-500 feet, which makes this a guesstimate.) But the edges are nearly certain to be lower than the more central part, and the edges are larger than the center. I would guess that people generally live where the slope is less steep, and those are the areas most likely to be flooded. It's also probable that storm surges will be stronger, which means that the rivers will flood more often, but if the land is steep enough that may not be significant. (OTOH, I do remember fighting a flood on a hillside about 50 years ago, so with a really hard rain, steep hillsides aren't invulnerable.)
And the fact that the CURRENT average midsummer high at the South Pole is -26C doesn't imply that it's going to stay that cold if the ice starts melting from the edges in. Which it's already doing.
It's a lot easier to be cold if the area around you is cold. The melting of the Arctic should be seen as a clear warning of what is in store in the long term for Antarctica unless something changes. Oceans just move heat around faster than solid chunks of ice, and Antarctica just has more thermal mass. So the changes will be slower. If you go back far enough there were temperate style forests growing in Antarctica, and the continent was then in the same position.
I did overstate the case when I said the Tethys Sea would reform in California. The land has risen where the Tethys Sea used to be (now it's the central valley), but it *would* be under water, just not very deep water. Probably no more than 15-30 feet on the average. It's hard to tell because searches for maps of elevation just gives me maps of subsidence.
Depending on context, yes. Here the context was "It'll get hot, but I live in a small cold place".
Apple is no shinning light of good here. I don't place them in the same garbage can as MS, but I don't like them much either.
I'll agree that:
Because Apple sells hardware.
Because Apple doesn't have a history of absolutely rampant customer abuse.
Because Apple has motivation to keep their ecosystem good.
Because Apple has legitimate ways to make money.
Because Apple doesn't hunt down and delete your old version of Solitaire, put a special flag that doesn't let it run in its most modern OS, offer a new version of Solitaire with ads, and then offer a subscription.
but that puts too favorable a light on Apple and it's past actions. Apple is the company that I first noticed slipping a license modification in as a security update. Apple has (intentionally?) broken software that they sold to cause an upgrade to a later version. Etc. Nothing that MS hasn't done more frequently, but Apple isn't innocent.
It was the license modification that got me to remove internet access to my Apple computers and switch to Linux, so that was about 2000. Possibly a year or so later. Since then I've basically ignored them.
If you want to say MS is worse, you'll get no argument from me, but that doesn't mean that Apple is "Lawful Good".
Nobody pays for anything themselves. All wealth is social wealth.
OK, that's a slight overstatement. Kalahari bushmen probably still pay for most things themselves, but even they have (well, had a century ago) an immense amount of social wealth.
This is not to say that everyone contributes equally. That's clearly not true. But the wealthy are at least as likely to misappropriation and misspending (social) wealth as anyone else. And you can't even define "misappropriate" or "misspend" in an objective way. You can make laws about it, of course, but that is just abuse of (social) power, and (social) power is one kind of social wealth.
I'm temperamentally a libertarian (small "l", please), but I'm also a practical observer of human nature. If you remove laws from an area, the strong (in that area) will use their power to abuse the weak in that area...unless there are repercussions that they wouldn't like. This is not, however, a global assertion. Many people would behave morally, and not abuse power. But many would.
So. There's a real problem. If the wealthy can hire people to work for them at starvation wages, they will. And those who don't want to will be disadvantaged. If they can't, they won't. One of the features of a basic income is that people won't need to accept unfair wage deals. Some people consider this a disadvantage.
FWIW, I'm in favor of a linear tax system. Straight percentage of all income with NO EXCLUSIONS. Simple, easy to honestly administer, and doesn't require much bureaucracy. I'm also in favor of a "guaranteed baseline". y = mx + b. m is the tax rate, x is the income, and b is the negative of the poverty level, and is adjusted yearly. But only if commercial sponsorship of lobbying is illegal. This includes corporations, unions, political action committees, everyone. Now this doesn't mean that they aren't allowed to ask you to send in a letter or e-mail or phone call supporting them, it means they aren't allowed to pay you anything to do that in any way. And I didn't say anything about "while in office". It would also be illegal to promise to hire them afterwards. (Well, perhaps it should just be illegal to hire them afterwards? They *do* get pensions don't they?) This would cover ALL transfers of funds to anyone holding government office, or who has held government office. I didn't say anything about "but not if they worked for it", because that's not what I meant. Allowing government officials to be paid for non-governmental work sets up a strong perverse incentive, and this is true even after they leave the government. Let them subsist on their retirement package and the basic income. Or run for office again.
And that brings up the question about bribes offered before the person assume office...but I don't have a good answer there. (Well, I sort of do, but the best I could come up with is have office holders chosen by the selective service.)
"Needs to be turned off"? How can you be sure it's turned off? Facebook has been known to flip settings from private to public without either asking permission or notifying you.
The only way to be secure from it is to avoid it. Even then you aren't secure against indirect links via third parties.
He successfully made lots of people slightly more paranoid, and accepting of government "protection" in areas where they hadn't previously felt the need. So he's done his job well.
I don't think you realize how much complete melting of the ice would raise sea levels. I've seen estimates that it would raise is nearly a kilometer. I find this hard to believe, but expect it to be substantial, not just a meter or so. There might be a few ex-mountain peaks left of Iceland after the complete melt, but not many.
The "If you really live in Iceland" is because your answer sounded like a joke. I was actually assuming that you lived in some place that was fairly cold, like, say Newfoundland. But a complete melt would put almost anywhere that people currently live in large numbers under water. California could expect the re-appearance of the Tethys Sea. The Great Salt Lake in Utah would probably be re-connected to the Mississippi River. Other things in other places. Central South America would again be flooded by the oceans. Etc. I can't be very explicit because I don't know most of the world that well, but even if the rise was only a couple of meters, no place that people live would be unaffected. In fact, no place on the surface of the earth.
If you really live in Iceland, that kind of climate change would put you below sea level. You'd need to move to Greenland.
Depends on who you listen to. Last year Lockheed was predicting that it could be within the decade. (Well, ok, within the decade *is* within 50 years.)
OTOH, that could just have been PR, as I haven't seen any progress reports since then. But then I'm not an investor in that project.
As with all fertilizers, it's a fertilizer if it's supplying something the lack of which is inhibiting growth. Otherwise it's at best neutral, and likely to be a poison.
It is true that a higher proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere allows plants to keep their stomata closed more of the time/more tightly, and thus limit their loss of water via transpiration. This results in a lower concentration of minerals in the plants, and thus not only weaker stems, etc., but also weaker nutritional value. It will, however, probably increase it's production of carbohydrates, i.e., starches, sugars, and fiber. Which means that proportionally it's also lower in proteins. This isn't good for the plant, but it's worse for whatever eats the plant. Like you. Or the cow that got made into that hamburger. OTOH, it's probably impossible for Twinkies to get any worse nutritionally than they already are.
All the problems that he lists are accurate, but this doesn't mean that they can't be solved, merely that it's a very difficult problem. And he didn't even mention the platinum catalysts.
Currently batteries are a much better approach, and hybrids are a better approach. I have my doubts that solar powered cars are a better approach. I keep hoping that the super capacitors will get the bugs worked our, and improve their storage, but that also seems to be a difficult problem.
If Lockheed's fusion plant actually works, then electricity prices need the plants should drop, until using them to generate hydrogen is practical. If zeolite storage can be made to work, than storage and transport (and slow release) of hydrogen can be solved. (Well, there are other possible solutions...none are yet working.) If nano-scale catalysts that aren't dependent on heavy metals can be made to work, then another problem will be solved. There are other problems, but none look to me as if they are guaranteed insoluble. It's just that they aren't yet solved. So people who are currently pushing fuel cells, except for specialized applications, are vastly premature. And it's quite possible that by the time all the problems have been solved, something else will be doing the job better.
Unfortunately, I used to use proprietary software, and my experience during that time was a hideous mess of proprietary and undocumented file formats that couldn't be shared between applications, and caused trouble when an associate switched to a newer version of the software.
So I think it's a very poor suggestion.
Since I switched to Linux I've had very few problems with incompatible file types across different version of the software. This is far more desirable. Your mileage may vary, but please compute it over a period of years, not just at one point in time.
While I only dispute your assertions to the extent that I date it the conflicts back to the 1950's, and probably consider the Korean War to be the start of it, that's not what anyone who uses the term WWIII means. As you probably knew.
The conservatives say they don't want big government, but when conservative candidates get in they just make different parts of it bigger. And most of the conservative voters don't consider the subsidies they get to be "part of big government". But threaten to cut those subsidies and they let you know that's not what they meant.
Now one problem here is that the phrase "conservative voters" hides a multitude of different constituencies. Each one has it's own set of subsidies that are "that's not what I meant by big government", and there are even a few that just don't want subsidies. But that number is a lot smaller than you would think once you actually start talking about cutting subsidies. There have been times before when the "conservatives" were both in power and trying to cut big government. Just about everything they tried to cut caused huge howls of rage from some group of their supporters, so we ended up with an even larger government. Just because one vocal group of conservatives have some targeted place where things should be cut doesn't mean that all the other groups agree with them.
For that matter, in principle I'm in favor of a much smaller government. But the places where I favor cuts don't match those of the conservatives, because I'm socially a liberal, and I don't expect most people to be able to hold down a job in the next 15 years. And I feel that society works best if everyone feels that they are better off with it than without it. (Yeah, that's an impossible ideal. But one can aim for as few rejectionists as possible.)
I really doubt that Trump would intentionally start WWIII. But he might insult someone else enough that it got started because of him.
FWIW, Hillary has apparently come out against TPP, so I'll probably grit my teeth and vote for her is Sanders loses. Otherwise I'll vote Green. It doesn't really matter, the state I live in is going to go Democrat no matter how I vote.
I'm sorry, but much as I enjoy occasional articles from the DailyKos, I would never consider it a reasonable source of news. It often presents grossly slanted stories. In fact, I think I'd have to rephrase that as "it only occasionally presents stories that aren't grossly slanted", but that's a bit too far in the other direction.
I don't like the right wing, and am not sympathetic to their version of reality, but this doesn't mean they're always wrong. And being sympathetic to the left wing doesn't mean that they're always right. Just that I enjoy their stories more.
Actually I think both sides intentionally mislead their listeners, even though it was only FOX that went to court to establish their right to do so. You didn't see any of the other media in that case with amicus papers saying "Please don't say news organizations are allowed to intentionally lie about what the news is.".
If they did intentionally lie to the court in a manner likely to affect the course of the trial, then they deserve to be disbarred. If it can be proven that they did so, then they should be disbarred.
But that's not up to the judge. He can only forbid them from ever appearing before him again. I'm not sure about the requirement of an ethics class, though. It it was intentional lying, then an ethics class isn't likely to do any good. They knew what they were doing. This isn't one of your edge cases.
That said, lawyers appear to often lie to the court, or at best argue deceptively. While I feel this should be grounds for disbarment, I doubt that the bar associations would agree, when it appears that more than half of their membership regularly engages in the practice.
FWIW, my wife doesn't like any show with violence in it. So the answer, in her case, is just about any. But she just doesn't watch them, she doesn't review them.
Tor is a program running on computers. It's almost certainly corruptible if you can control both the software and the machine that it's running on. The US Govt is said to run many Tor nodes.
Mind you, this might not break the system, but only weaken it enough that it would be relatively easy to break in individual cases. It could facilitate route tracing, e.g., but cutting the length of the paths that need to be traced in half. Etc. (I'm no cryptographer, but that kind of thing seems obvious to me.)