You have stated the falsehood being pushed. "The other side is dirty... look over there!!" Nobody in the Clinton campaign met with Russian agents or has deep ties to Russian money laundering. Steele went to the FBI himself (not at anyone's request) because he thought crimes were being committed and just giving the info to the other political campaign was not appropriate. And I think the deep irony of this memo is that, if anything, the FBI didn't pursue this vigorously enough.
I think the parent post linked article also eludes to trouble in mentioning that answers may be an "artifact of the experimental setting". If a student were presented with this question in a context in which every other problem has been soluble, the more logical assumption is that the problem just has an error in it and one should guess what the error is and try to answer anyway.
No, false-flag operations are not "free speech". They are fraud and should be exposed. Which has nothing to do with who won.
You are pushing a fallacy: We shouldn't sort out what disinformation there was because Trump won for other reasons. That has so little logical coherence that is tough to believe that you aren't a troll paid to push that talking point.
You have missed the point of your own argument. By your argument the real message and the test one should be worded mostly differently so that there is NO confusion. The problem here is that the test message contains a message, a moniker that the message is not a test message, and a moniker that it is a test message. That's madness! In order to convert the test message to the real message you remove some extra words, which, as you say, easily causes confusion. The test message should be something like "in place of this message you would hear information about the real emergency". That is sufficient to test the system and will never be confused with an actual emergency message. I hear that sort of thing all the time on government and institutional warning systems. It really appears that whoever is in charge of this warning system in Hawaii really has insufficient expertise in this area.
To complete the summary... The actual caller, Tyler Barriss from LA, had a history of helping people perform swattings, and so appears to have helped Casey Viner by calling in the swatting on the made-up but real address in Kansas where the guy ended up being killed. Given Barriss' apparent history, including bomb threats, *two dozen* swattings or hoax calls, he really should have already been in jail.
While I agree with others that the action of the police are insane and should be punished, one should keep in mind that this is not just one swatting case. Out of hundreds or thousands of swatting incidents, one finally went totally bad.
Also if you are surprised by this, you have no idea of how many people killed by the police in the U.S. Basically someone unarmed (white or black) is killed by police every few days. Yes every few DAYS. The only ones that make the news are the few that happen to have something novel about them or have a video, otherwise they just happen.
I would agree -- we talk alot about how facebook etc are import in all of this, but it's not like crazy people have never been put in power by a populist movement before.
Wow, so talk radio shock jocks are "finding the truth." Your argument reduces to nobody is perfect so everybody is evil, except your beloved "conservatives" of course. That is so obviously fallacious that I don't honestly understand how you can't be a troll.
Haha, but your logic means there is a floor below which reducing the tax rate no longer increases investment because there are no other alternatives that have a lower risk-adjusted return. In fact it may reduce investment (since less is needed for a fixed return) or artificially encourage overly risky investments. hmm... have we had some recent problems with overly risky investments? More generally, this is one of the problems with overly concentrated wealth -- the holders of the wealth cannot effectively manage it and it ends up being wasted. Wait, weren't we talking about a company that has so much cash on hand that they can't figure out what to do with it? They'd rather it sit offshore doing nothing than repatriate it and let some of it go back into the economy through the government.
While I don't really like asset forfeiture rules generally, for this guy it looks like the trial is basically just figuring out how many life sentences he will be serving. The judge did have to sign off on this, the cops couldn't do it all by themselves, that's the due process. This guy is accused of running a business making fake pills. That kills people about as sure as if he were shooting at random buildings.
Right, the banksters "took over" by figuring out that using a deflationary currency is a Really Bad Idea(TM). You have just successfully argued that Bitcoin is no better than any finite resource. We could just declare all first-run pokemon cards the new gold standard (haha, get it) and it would all be good right? As I say, we figured out a long time ago that using something like that for currency is unstable. If you want to store value long-term it should NOT be in currency because currency has NO INTRINSIC VALUE, as compared to, for example, part-ownership of an actual functioning business. Trying to "get off" fiat currency is chasing a madman's dream where the world owes you something for nothing. The blockchain is a great innovation for decentralized ownership tracking. But why not use that for ownership of worthwhile stuff rather than just "virtual coin" number x out of y.
A lot of recent sport innovations have been simply excluded from the sport, compared to many being allowed during the middle part of the 20th century. Cycling is a great example. A cyclist on a recumbant cycle (feet-first rather than upright) is much faster and better, but that bicycle design has been excluded by the rules. Why are completely new materials for bikes, tires, etc, electronic training monitoring and similar allowed but not completely different designs? It's somewhat arbitrary really. A lot of sports have these kinds of things. Why aren't springloaded shoes allowed but poles in pole vaults changed vastly? Technique innovation can have this also. In swimming there are rules about how far down the pool a swimmer can dolphin kick. So a lot of the current caps on "athletic performance" have as much to do with the interaction of the innovation with the sport's rules as they do with the ability of the athletes. Much the same is true in auto racing where the speed of the cars is mostly set by the rules, not the state of the art.
I think he's yanking your chain. Just seeing how far his fan boys will go to defend him. Even for his own company that mass is more valuable as a test platform than just dead weight. The publicity stunt is now.
No, what you say is originalist bullshit. Even at the time the constitution was drafted there was a debate about whether the right to bear arms should be codified as a collective or an individual right. The "well-ordered militia" language that actually went into the constitution was a compromise.
No, this shows the dangers of regulators and operators prioritizing their own benefit over public safety. (That is stated multiple times in that report.) That report finds things almost entirely related to corruption and dysfunction in Japan's nuclear industry and regulation: "NISA (the regulator) did instruct TEPCO to conduct an anti-seismic backcheck, but by not completing the backcheck as originally scheduled, TEPCO effectively invited the accident that followed." The regulator should have put TEPCO out of business long ago, but that doesn't change the fact that the greedy bastards at TEPCO ignored their responsibilities to public safety to make more money.
The actual quote from the report is:
This conceit was reinforced by the collective mindset of Japanese bureaucracy, by which
the first duty of any individual bureaucrat is to defend the interests of his organization.
Carried to an extreme, this led bureaucrats to put organizational interests ahead of their
paramount duty to protect public safety.
Only by grasping this mindset can one understand how Japan’s nuclear industry managed
to avoid absorbing the critical lessons learned from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; and how
it became accepted practice to resist regulatory pressure and cover up small-scale accidents.
It was this mindset that led to the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant.
Specifically, your broadening from "Japan's nuclear industry" to the world's nuclear industry is inappropriate and misleading.
Fukushima wasn't dangerous because it was old. That's just dumb. It was dangerous because the operator, TEPCO, didn't re-site the backup generators to higher ground or raise the seawall when the regulator told them to. And, as another poster here points out, their protocol for (not) venting was just dangerous. If the operator had done any of these things the way they were supposed to, the accident would not have happened, despite basically the worst possible tsunami disaster, though there might have been a minor release of radiation if venting was necessary. I hope nobody listens to you when you "remind" them of the things you say because you don't know what you are talking about.
No colleges are just trying to educate scientists, doctors, engineers, journalists, etc. You are having your ignorant elected officials cut funding of higher education so much that the tuition-backed system becomes ridiculous just as predicted. I know I'm willing to pay enough taxes that these critical professions actually have people to do them rather than having the US slide down into 2nd-world country status.
So, per your own argument, tuition has not skyrocketed because of student loans, it has skyrocketed because government massively cut direct funding to universities. You seem oblivious to the fact that essentially all people who advocate that there be government-backed student loans would also prefer direct university funding instead, but the neo-cons cut that off and the response was to move to a student loan-based system. If we returned to direct government support of schools, the student debt problem would vanish.
Your proposed course of action is ridiculous. If you remove loans from the mix, tuition will skyrocket even more and access to higher education in the US for anyone except the hyper-rich will disappear overnight. Even by your own arguments you are advocating for the wrong thing. You should be advocating for a return to a direct funding model for universities -- that will not destroy the education system and will obviate the need for large student loans, exactly per your arguments.
You, sir, are out of touch. The way to make college affordable is to support it directly at the government level, as was done for a long time. But you libertarian idiots decided that wasn't free-market enough and all taxes are evil. What we have now is the system you wanted, and now you complain about it because it is working exactly as predicted. Universities used to have stable, predictable funding with the burden spread out over the whole society that was benefiting from the graduates being well-educated. If you want only the students to bear that funding burden guess what -- the cost to each student will be quite high and many will have to "mortgage their future" to make it work. i.e. you are replacing the system of having everyone pay for a good education system trough taxes, to having a smaller subset of people pay for a good education system through lifetime loans.
Stop it with the false equivalence. Yes, a luxury sports car and an advanced education are REALLY different, and one of them is tax advantaged for a reason.
Strawman. Nobody ever said those "others" should taxed for this either. Investment in education should be tax-advantaged. This is much the same reason that you are not taxed on capital gains until you actually SELL the asset. It encourages investment.
BS. The fact that you have an office to work in at the company is not a taxable benefit regardless of how much the business is paying for that office space. There are plenty of other "loopholes" that are just common sense, and many more that have to do with incentivising things that are desirable for the country. You appear completely blind to the benefit to society of not taking money spent on education in the name of "no loopholes". It's not like all the loopholes for the rich are going away. You can take your libertarian wet dream to some third world dictatorship where it belongs.
Seems like making the decision before hundreds of people die is probably better. Even the article summary mentions that they have done actual research to base the recommendations on.
Slashdot Mirror
You have stated the falsehood being pushed. "The other side is dirty... look over there!!" Nobody in the Clinton campaign met with Russian agents or has deep ties to Russian money laundering. Steele went to the FBI himself (not at anyone's request) because he thought crimes were being committed and just giving the info to the other political campaign was not appropriate. And I think the deep irony of this memo is that, if anything, the FBI didn't pursue this vigorously enough.
I think the parent post linked article also eludes to trouble in mentioning that answers may be an "artifact of the experimental setting". If a student were presented with this question in a context in which every other problem has been soluble, the more logical assumption is that the problem just has an error in it and one should guess what the error is and try to answer anyway.
No, false-flag operations are not "free speech". They are fraud and should be exposed. Which has nothing to do with who won.
You are pushing a fallacy: We shouldn't sort out what disinformation there was because Trump won for other reasons. That has so little logical coherence that is tough to believe that you aren't a troll paid to push that talking point.
You have missed the point of your own argument. By your argument the real message and the test one should be worded mostly differently so that there is NO confusion. The problem here is that the test message contains a message, a moniker that the message is not a test message, and a moniker that it is a test message. That's madness! In order to convert the test message to the real message you remove some extra words, which, as you say, easily causes confusion. The test message should be something like "in place of this message you would hear information about the real emergency". That is sufficient to test the system and will never be confused with an actual emergency message. I hear that sort of thing all the time on government and institutional warning systems. It really appears that whoever is in charge of this warning system in Hawaii really has insufficient expertise in this area.
To complete the summary... The actual caller, Tyler Barriss from LA, had a history of helping people perform swattings, and so appears to have helped Casey Viner by calling in the swatting on the made-up but real address in Kansas where the guy ended up being killed. Given Barriss' apparent history, including bomb threats, *two dozen* swattings or hoax calls, he really should have already been in jail.
While I agree with others that the action of the police are insane and should be punished, one should keep in mind that this is not just one swatting case. Out of hundreds or thousands of swatting incidents, one finally went totally bad.
Also if you are surprised by this, you have no idea of how many people killed by the police in the U.S. Basically someone unarmed (white or black) is killed by police every few days. Yes every few DAYS. The only ones that make the news are the few that happen to have something novel about them or have a video, otherwise they just happen.
I would agree -- we talk alot about how facebook etc are import in all of this, but it's not like crazy people have never been put in power by a populist movement before.
Wow, so talk radio shock jocks are "finding the truth." Your argument reduces to nobody is perfect so everybody is evil, except your beloved "conservatives" of course. That is so obviously fallacious that I don't honestly understand how you can't be a troll.
Haha, but your logic means there is a floor below which reducing the tax rate no longer increases investment because there are no other alternatives that have a lower risk-adjusted return. In fact it may reduce investment (since less is needed for a fixed return) or artificially encourage overly risky investments. hmm... have we had some recent problems with overly risky investments? More generally, this is one of the problems with overly concentrated wealth -- the holders of the wealth cannot effectively manage it and it ends up being wasted. Wait, weren't we talking about a company that has so much cash on hand that they can't figure out what to do with it? They'd rather it sit offshore doing nothing than repatriate it and let some of it go back into the economy through the government.
While I don't really like asset forfeiture rules generally, for this guy it looks like the trial is basically just figuring out how many life sentences he will be serving. The judge did have to sign off on this, the cops couldn't do it all by themselves, that's the due process. This guy is accused of running a business making fake pills. That kills people about as sure as if he were shooting at random buildings.
Right, the banksters "took over" by figuring out that using a deflationary currency is a Really Bad Idea(TM). You have just successfully argued that Bitcoin is no better than any finite resource. We could just declare all first-run pokemon cards the new gold standard (haha, get it) and it would all be good right? As I say, we figured out a long time ago that using something like that for currency is unstable. If you want to store value long-term it should NOT be in currency because currency has NO INTRINSIC VALUE, as compared to, for example, part-ownership of an actual functioning business. Trying to "get off" fiat currency is chasing a madman's dream where the world owes you something for nothing. The blockchain is a great innovation for decentralized ownership tracking. But why not use that for ownership of worthwhile stuff rather than just "virtual coin" number x out of y.
A lot of recent sport innovations have been simply excluded from the sport, compared to many being allowed during the middle part of the 20th century. Cycling is a great example. A cyclist on a recumbant cycle (feet-first rather than upright) is much faster and better, but that bicycle design has been excluded by the rules. Why are completely new materials for bikes, tires, etc, electronic training monitoring and similar allowed but not completely different designs? It's somewhat arbitrary really. A lot of sports have these kinds of things. Why aren't springloaded shoes allowed but poles in pole vaults changed vastly? Technique innovation can have this also. In swimming there are rules about how far down the pool a swimmer can dolphin kick. So a lot of the current caps on "athletic performance" have as much to do with the interaction of the innovation with the sport's rules as they do with the ability of the athletes. Much the same is true in auto racing where the speed of the cars is mostly set by the rules, not the state of the art.
Economists don't need to "make sense" of it, they are perfectly familiar with asset bubbles.
I think he's yanking your chain. Just seeing how far his fan boys will go to defend him. Even for his own company that mass is more valuable as a test platform than just dead weight. The publicity stunt is now.
I have a funnier reason that AI may not happen: all this hype calling machine training AI will lead to neglect of actual AI.
No, what you say is originalist bullshit. Even at the time the constitution was drafted there was a debate about whether the right to bear arms should be codified as a collective or an individual right. The "well-ordered militia" language that actually went into the constitution was a compromise.
No, this shows the dangers of regulators and operators prioritizing their own benefit over public safety. (That is stated multiple times in that report.) That report finds things almost entirely related to corruption and dysfunction in Japan's nuclear industry and regulation: "NISA (the regulator) did instruct TEPCO to conduct an anti-seismic backcheck, but by not completing the backcheck as originally scheduled, TEPCO effectively invited the accident that followed." The regulator should have put TEPCO out of business long ago, but that doesn't change the fact that the greedy bastards at TEPCO ignored their responsibilities to public safety to make more money.
The actual quote from the report is:
Specifically, your broadening from "Japan's nuclear industry" to the world's nuclear industry is inappropriate and misleading.
Fukushima wasn't dangerous because it was old. That's just dumb. It was dangerous because the operator, TEPCO, didn't re-site the backup generators to higher ground or raise the seawall when the regulator told them to. And, as another poster here points out, their protocol for (not) venting was just dangerous. If the operator had done any of these things the way they were supposed to, the accident would not have happened, despite basically the worst possible tsunami disaster, though there might have been a minor release of radiation if venting was necessary. I hope nobody listens to you when you "remind" them of the things you say because you don't know what you are talking about.
No colleges are just trying to educate scientists, doctors, engineers, journalists, etc. You are having your ignorant elected officials cut funding of higher education so much that the tuition-backed system becomes ridiculous just as predicted. I know I'm willing to pay enough taxes that these critical professions actually have people to do them rather than having the US slide down into 2nd-world country status.
So, per your own argument, tuition has not skyrocketed because of student loans, it has skyrocketed because government massively cut direct funding to universities. You seem oblivious to the fact that essentially all people who advocate that there be government-backed student loans would also prefer direct university funding instead, but the neo-cons cut that off and the response was to move to a student loan-based system. If we returned to direct government support of schools, the student debt problem would vanish.
Your proposed course of action is ridiculous. If you remove loans from the mix, tuition will skyrocket even more and access to higher education in the US for anyone except the hyper-rich will disappear overnight. Even by your own arguments you are advocating for the wrong thing. You should be advocating for a return to a direct funding model for universities -- that will not destroy the education system and will obviate the need for large student loans, exactly per your arguments.
You, sir, are out of touch. The way to make college affordable is to support it directly at the government level, as was done for a long time. But you libertarian idiots decided that wasn't free-market enough and all taxes are evil. What we have now is the system you wanted, and now you complain about it because it is working exactly as predicted. Universities used to have stable, predictable funding with the burden spread out over the whole society that was benefiting from the graduates being well-educated. If you want only the students to bear that funding burden guess what -- the cost to each student will be quite high and many will have to "mortgage their future" to make it work. i.e. you are replacing the system of having everyone pay for a good education system trough taxes, to having a smaller subset of people pay for a good education system through lifetime loans.
Stop it with the false equivalence. Yes, a luxury sports car and an advanced education are REALLY different, and one of them is tax advantaged for a reason.
Strawman. Nobody ever said those "others" should taxed for this either. Investment in education should be tax-advantaged. This is much the same reason that you are not taxed on capital gains until you actually SELL the asset. It encourages investment.
BS. The fact that you have an office to work in at the company is not a taxable benefit regardless of how much the business is paying for that office space. There are plenty of other "loopholes" that are just common sense, and many more that have to do with incentivising things that are desirable for the country. You appear completely blind to the benefit to society of not taking money spent on education in the name of "no loopholes". It's not like all the loopholes for the rich are going away. You can take your libertarian wet dream to some third world dictatorship where it belongs.
Nope you are wrong. If you are sent on a business trip for your company, regardless of where it is, it is not taxable income.
Seems like making the decision before hundreds of people die is probably better. Even the article summary mentions that they have done actual research to base the recommendations on.