Microsoft lets you download a restore disk for free. Why can't you hire someone to download the image and copy it to a disk for you? Or one small step further, buy one from someone who has already made the copy ahead of time?
Advocating for change of the law is good, but it doesn't help the poor guy whose life is destroyed by "proper" application of an existing unjust law. That's where things like prosecutorial discretion and jury nullification come in.
Another example of this is the phrase "SJW". No-one can agree on exactly what it means, which is why it's so successful. It means whoever the reader disagrees with and thinks is an idiot, basically a cheat code to make everyone agree with you.
I keep hearing people claim this, but it doesn't make any sense. It has a pretty specific and widely accepted definition.
From Urban Dictionary: "Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation"
Now you may argue that some abuse the pejorative nature of the term to undermine legitimate advocacy for social causes, but the term itself is not poorly defined. And arguing about who should be considered an SJW is idiotic anyway. It's like trying to draw distinct boundaries around who is and who isn't a fuckwad.
I know this area well. The satellite view is a bit deceiving. It looks like you should have a clear field of view, but there are hills and trees that can obscure visibility of a pedestrian until they are fully on the sidewalk. And if they are coming across from the park or median quickly, there could be very little time to react. So it's still plausible that there was no way for the a vehicle to avoid the collision.
Google maps says my ~15 mile rush hour commute by car is 40min (It's 22min in low traffic times). Public transit is 1hr 38min* on the fastest route which utilizes both bus and light rail. I sometimes ride my bike to work for the exercise and it takes about 50 minutes or so then I shower and change in another 35. Even counting the shower time, that's still faster.
I'll keep checking, but I doubt that public transit will ever be the best option for my commute. And if it is, it likely means that traffic has gotten so bad that I need to move somewhere else.
*This is about 20min faster than the last time I checked, which was a few years ago. It's likely due to a light rail extension that was finished in that time that brought it as close as it will get to my house.
How is this any different than any other currency? If people stop using the dollar as a currency, it doesn't have any intrinsic value. So what keeps that from collapsing in on itself? As long as blockchain coins have value, miners will be incentivized to mine. Maybe there should be some additional safeguards put in place to keep the mining pool distributed and healthy, but I think that's a more easily solved problem than things like counterfeiting or abuse of central bank manipulation powers.
I haven't read the full study yet, but it's coming from the "Computational Propaganda Project" at Oxford and this is the about description on their website:
The Computational Propaganda Research Project (COMPROP) investigates the interaction of algorithms, automation and politics. This work includes analysis of how tools like social media bots are used to manipulate public opinion by amplifying or repressing political content, disinformation, hate speech, and junk news.
We use perspectives from organizational sociology, human computer interaction, communication, information science, and political science to interpret and analyze the evidence we are gathering. Our project is based at the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford.
Note that they don't state that they are trying to minimize propaganda, just study it. And how better to do that than create it yourself?
That's actually not that bad of an idea. You could use blockchain as the backend for a distributed media trading/rental system. It would work essentially like the physical media form of Netflix, but all transactions would be peer to peer. The company just facilitates shipping between them for a small fee.
Thank you for actually reading the memo and having an open mind about it. I find the reaction to it to be more interesting than the memo itself. One side effectively lynching someone who is promoting their own cause which spurs the people Damore was originally against coming to his defense. While anyone rational who supports the message is forced to sit on the sidelines confused whether to support the memo and be lumped in with the misogynists or decry it and betray the actual cause you support. Oddly, the only people who win here are the misogynists.
When he used the power and communications of his office, to push those whom he hired and can fire to take action against individuals who broke no law, he went beyond the law.
> isn't an impeachable offense.
Who can he hire/fire that can take away the tax breaks that apply to the NFL? Congress would need to alter the tax laws to do what he suggested and he has no authority over them. If he had directed the IRS to audit them specifically or the FBI to investigate them based on their protests, then you'd have a case.
As for the 25th amendment approach, that's not on the table right now. He's nowhere near unpopular enough for that to work. And I don't think it's worth the effort anyway. If it were to succeed, Pence is President who is likely to be more effective and also has more extreme policies. If it fails, you validate Trump's rhetoric of being the outsider who is "shaking up Washington" and it probably gets him re-elected. I think it's better to wait it out and put up better choices in the primaries next time around (on both sides of the aisle). I just hope this whole ordeal sobers people up a bit to the weaknesses of our political system, inspires more people to participate more actively and to make some changes to limit the powers we give to these people.
The oath isn't meaningless and neither is the President's power to lead the executive branch or make appointments. It's just that what he says and does outside of his executive duties are personal activities and even if they are things I disagree with or find distasteful, he has as much right as anyone to voice his opinion.
By the way, I never said I agreed with what Trump has said. I don't. And don't take my rebuttal as defending what he has said or done on moral grounds. I don't like the man at all and think he's a pretty terrible person with no moral standing. It's just that saying stuff that I don't like isn't an impeachable offense. That requires a crime, which speech should not be except in extreme circumstances.
I understood that the president speaks on behalf of the country, and is always the president, which is a office of the federal government, and thus covered by the constitution, where am I wrong? If constitution thus applies, he is not allowed to direct through his office, using his official communication channel to call to violate the constitutional rights of individual citizens. He has taken a oath to do the opposite, to make sure they do not.
That whole statement is wrong. Only the powers enumerated in the Constitution are granted to the President. Sure, he gets a lot of attention because of his position, but unless it's a command to the military, signing of a treaty or he's issuing an executive order (which only apply to executive branch offices) it doesn't carry the weight of law. Making decrees isn't an official power. He isn't King.
Again, outside of acting in his capacity to execute the official duties of the Presidency, his statements are just his opinions. They carry no more legal weight than my own. He just has a bigger audience due to that office.
The President is precisely as justified in using his job as a platform to voice his personal opinions as the NFL players are. Or does somehow holding political office make it unconstitutional for a person to have an opinion? Now if Trump attempts to use the official powers of his office (not just his status) to silence others (not just voice disagreement with them), then we can start looking into impeachment and removal from office.
Then Facebook came along and made it clear to both of us that there were many, many Americas full of people doing things I wish they weren't doing.
This mentality is a big part of the problem. Everyone thinks they know better than everyone else how those other people should live their lives and they are all vying for the power to make everyone else think like they do. But there's a simple (if difficult) way out of that. Stop telling everyone else they're wrong and start listening to them. Feel free to provide an alternative viewpoint while being willing to accept theirs even if they aren't willing to listen to yours. It's not as immediately satisfying as shouting them down or calling them names, but it keeps the dialogue open and peaceful. If you really are right, maybe they'll eventually listen. But in the meantime, if you come across as the levelheaded well-reasoned one, your points will be heard by all of those who are listening on the sidelines.
To add on to that, if there's an endless number and quantity of toys, they will only be played with in the ways they were intended to. Once a kid gets bored with a toy and can't just grab a new one, only then do they start making up their own games with them. That means the kids with lots of toys have less opportunity for the independent creativity and thought that makes free-play so much fun.
You want private people and the organizations they build to be forced by the government to give a platform to people with whom they disagree.
Yes, this is exactly what I want if those people are in control of a medium for information exchange. Whether it's phone calls, websites, mailing letters or slashdot posts, I do not want the person or company who has control of the delivery mechanism to control what I or anyone else can say through it.
You want the government to control your own editorial decisions, instead of you doing that according to your own standards..... you're interested in a powerful, intrusive nanny state, and a lot of people don't want the government even more involved in their day to day lives that they already are.
This doesn't follow from the point above. I want an extremely limited government, but one of the few things that I believe is a critical role for that government is to mandate that no one has editorial control of any speech except their own. Once you agree to provide a communication medium, you have the responsibility to provide that platform to those who you disagree with. Otherwise the free market is no longer free. If communications providers can choose what you can and can't say, then they have the power to control what you can and can't hear. Information asymmetry is the Achilles heel of free market economics. If you remove the requirement to pass on all communications, then you're giving over the same "big brother" control to corporations that you and I are so loathe to give to the government.
So pass an amendment that gives the federal government those authorities. Undermining the constitution, even for good reasons, still weakens our rights and threatens the fundamental concept of consent to govern. How can we feel represented when the fundamental rules of our government are ignored whenever it's convenient for whoever is in power?
I don't need a self-driving car that works in Norway and Spain. I need one that works where I live (Phoenix). Oh hey, look at that, the one from Google seems to fit the bill.
You don't have to solve every corner case to have a useful product.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft lets you download a restore disk for free. Why can't you hire someone to download the image and copy it to a disk for you? Or one small step further, buy one from someone who has already made the copy ahead of time?
Advocating for change of the law is good, but it doesn't help the poor guy whose life is destroyed by "proper" application of an existing unjust law. That's where things like prosecutorial discretion and jury nullification come in.
I actually just had this happen in San Diego.
Head west on Mission Bay Drive ...
in 1/4 mile turn right at the Starbucks
Never mind that giant fucking wooden roller coaster across the street.
Oh yes, great example. Obviously the investigator lady is the fuckwad because she looks more wad-shaped.
Another example of this is the phrase "SJW". No-one can agree on exactly what it means, which is why it's so successful. It means whoever the reader disagrees with and thinks is an idiot, basically a cheat code to make everyone agree with you.
I keep hearing people claim this, but it doesn't make any sense. It has a pretty specific and widely accepted definition.
From Urban Dictionary: "Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation"
Now you may argue that some abuse the pejorative nature of the term to undermine legitimate advocacy for social causes, but the term itself is not poorly defined. And arguing about who should be considered an SJW is idiotic anyway. It's like trying to draw distinct boundaries around who is and who isn't a fuckwad.
Why can't it be about both? There's nothing more satisfying than padding your wallet and ego simultaneously.
I know this area well. The satellite view is a bit deceiving. It looks like you should have a clear field of view, but there are hills and trees that can obscure visibility of a pedestrian until they are fully on the sidewalk. And if they are coming across from the park or median quickly, there could be very little time to react. So it's still plausible that there was no way for the a vehicle to avoid the collision.
Google maps says my ~15 mile rush hour commute by car is 40min (It's 22min in low traffic times). Public transit is 1hr 38min* on the fastest route which utilizes both bus and light rail. I sometimes ride my bike to work for the exercise and it takes about 50 minutes or so then I shower and change in another 35. Even counting the shower time, that's still faster.
I'll keep checking, but I doubt that public transit will ever be the best option for my commute. And if it is, it likely means that traffic has gotten so bad that I need to move somewhere else.
*This is about 20min faster than the last time I checked, which was a few years ago. It's likely due to a light rail extension that was finished in that time that brought it as close as it will get to my house.
Why would the page for humans be any different?
None of those things gets pissed off when they feel like they are either miscategorized or excluded. Humans are unique in that way, at least.
How is this any different than any other currency? If people stop using the dollar as a currency, it doesn't have any intrinsic value. So what keeps that from collapsing in on itself? As long as blockchain coins have value, miners will be incentivized to mine. Maybe there should be some additional safeguards put in place to keep the mining pool distributed and healthy, but I think that's a more easily solved problem than things like counterfeiting or abuse of central bank manipulation powers.
I haven't read the full study yet, but it's coming from the "Computational Propaganda Project" at Oxford and this is the about description on their website:
The Computational Propaganda Research Project (COMPROP) investigates the interaction of algorithms, automation and politics. This work includes analysis of how tools like social media bots are used to manipulate public opinion by amplifying or repressing political content, disinformation, hate speech, and junk news.
We use perspectives from organizational sociology, human computer interaction, communication, information science, and political science to interpret and analyze the evidence we are gathering. Our project is based at the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford.
Note that they don't state that they are trying to minimize propaganda, just study it. And how better to do that than create it yourself?
That's actually not that bad of an idea. You could use blockchain as the backend for a distributed media trading/rental system. It would work essentially like the physical media form of Netflix, but all transactions would be peer to peer. The company just facilitates shipping between them for a small fee.
Thank you for actually reading the memo and having an open mind about it. I find the reaction to it to be more interesting than the memo itself. One side effectively lynching someone who is promoting their own cause which spurs the people Damore was originally against coming to his defense. While anyone rational who supports the message is forced to sit on the sidelines confused whether to support the memo and be lumped in with the misogynists or decry it and betray the actual cause you support. Oddly, the only people who win here are the misogynists.
Only if you define "Discrimination" in a discriminatory manner.
When he used the power and communications of his office, to push those whom he hired and can fire to take action against individuals who broke no law, he went beyond the law.
> isn't an impeachable offense.
Who can he hire/fire that can take away the tax breaks that apply to the NFL? Congress would need to alter the tax laws to do what he suggested and he has no authority over them. If he had directed the IRS to audit them specifically or the FBI to investigate them based on their protests, then you'd have a case.
As for the 25th amendment approach, that's not on the table right now. He's nowhere near unpopular enough for that to work. And I don't think it's worth the effort anyway. If it were to succeed, Pence is President who is likely to be more effective and also has more extreme policies. If it fails, you validate Trump's rhetoric of being the outsider who is "shaking up Washington" and it probably gets him re-elected. I think it's better to wait it out and put up better choices in the primaries next time around (on both sides of the aisle). I just hope this whole ordeal sobers people up a bit to the weaknesses of our political system, inspires more people to participate more actively and to make some changes to limit the powers we give to these people.
The oath isn't meaningless and neither is the President's power to lead the executive branch or make appointments. It's just that what he says and does outside of his executive duties are personal activities and even if they are things I disagree with or find distasteful, he has as much right as anyone to voice his opinion.
By the way, I never said I agreed with what Trump has said. I don't. And don't take my rebuttal as defending what he has said or done on moral grounds. I don't like the man at all and think he's a pretty terrible person with no moral standing. It's just that saying stuff that I don't like isn't an impeachable offense. That requires a crime, which speech should not be except in extreme circumstances.
I understood that the president speaks on behalf of the country, and is always the president, which is a office of the federal government, and thus covered by the constitution, where am I wrong? If constitution thus applies, he is not allowed to direct through his office, using his official communication channel to call to violate the constitutional rights of individual citizens. He has taken a oath to do the opposite, to make sure they do not.
That whole statement is wrong. Only the powers enumerated in the Constitution are granted to the President. Sure, he gets a lot of attention because of his position, but unless it's a command to the military, signing of a treaty or he's issuing an executive order (which only apply to executive branch offices) it doesn't carry the weight of law. Making decrees isn't an official power. He isn't King.
Again, outside of acting in his capacity to execute the official duties of the Presidency, his statements are just his opinions. They carry no more legal weight than my own. He just has a bigger audience due to that office.
The President is precisely as justified in using his job as a platform to voice his personal opinions as the NFL players are. Or does somehow holding political office make it unconstitutional for a person to have an opinion? Now if Trump attempts to use the official powers of his office (not just his status) to silence others (not just voice disagreement with them), then we can start looking into impeachment and removal from office.
The sarcasm didn't escape me. I just wanted to add emphasis to the point that there's no such thing as a poor Tesla owner.
Would anyone think it an outrage if Mercedez or BMW stopped giving away free gas for commercial use?
Then sell your $100,000 car and you'll be able to eat for several years.
Seriously, no one with a Tesla is going to starve if they can't charge at the free stations.
Then Facebook came along and made it clear to both of us that there were many, many Americas full of people doing things I wish they weren't doing.
This mentality is a big part of the problem. Everyone thinks they know better than everyone else how those other people should live their lives and they are all vying for the power to make everyone else think like they do. But there's a simple (if difficult) way out of that. Stop telling everyone else they're wrong and start listening to them. Feel free to provide an alternative viewpoint while being willing to accept theirs even if they aren't willing to listen to yours. It's not as immediately satisfying as shouting them down or calling them names, but it keeps the dialogue open and peaceful. If you really are right, maybe they'll eventually listen. But in the meantime, if you come across as the levelheaded well-reasoned one, your points will be heard by all of those who are listening on the sidelines.
Agree.
To add on to that, if there's an endless number and quantity of toys, they will only be played with in the ways they were intended to. Once a kid gets bored with a toy and can't just grab a new one, only then do they start making up their own games with them. That means the kids with lots of toys have less opportunity for the independent creativity and thought that makes free-play so much fun.
You want private people and the organizations they build to be forced by the government to give a platform to people with whom they disagree.
Yes, this is exactly what I want if those people are in control of a medium for information exchange. Whether it's phone calls, websites, mailing letters or slashdot posts, I do not want the person or company who has control of the delivery mechanism to control what I or anyone else can say through it.
You want the government to control your own editorial decisions, instead of you doing that according to your own standards. .... you're interested in a powerful, intrusive nanny state, and a lot of people don't want the government even more involved in their day to day lives that they already are.
This doesn't follow from the point above. I want an extremely limited government, but one of the few things that I believe is a critical role for that government is to mandate that no one has editorial control of any speech except their own. Once you agree to provide a communication medium, you have the responsibility to provide that platform to those who you disagree with. Otherwise the free market is no longer free. If communications providers can choose what you can and can't say, then they have the power to control what you can and can't hear. Information asymmetry is the Achilles heel of free market economics. If you remove the requirement to pass on all communications, then you're giving over the same "big brother" control to corporations that you and I are so loathe to give to the government.
So pass an amendment that gives the federal government those authorities. Undermining the constitution, even for good reasons, still weakens our rights and threatens the fundamental concept of consent to govern. How can we feel represented when the fundamental rules of our government are ignored whenever it's convenient for whoever is in power?
I don't need a self-driving car that works in Norway and Spain. I need one that works where I live (Phoenix). Oh hey, look at that, the one from Google seems to fit the bill.
You don't have to solve every corner case to have a useful product.