"The United States is a geopolitical invention. The 13 original colonies were very different from each other. As the nation expanded westward, even more exotic states became part of the union. Constantly alienating smaller states through indifference could undermine the national interest. The Senate and the electoral college both stop that from happening, or at least limit it. Any state can matter in any election.
You might charge that this is undemocratic. It is. It was intended to be. The founders did not create a direct democracy for a good reason. It would have prevented the United States from emerging as a stable union. They created a republican form of government based on representation and a federal system based on sovereign states. Because of that, a candidate who ignores or insults the “flyover” states is likely to be writing memoirs instead of governing."
The left had hoped throwing labels on people would prevent them from supporting Trump openly and it worked, but the ultra downside of it is people didn't support Trump in the polls either and the left got confident they would win. In reality is Trump must have been ahead for a while before the election.
The President is right! We should not allow misinformation to spread. FB algorithms should check each post for truthfulness and hide the unacceptable ones, and issue a warning to the poster. Three strikes and your account is blocked, or you are placed on a watchlist. Same goes for email, people spread misinformation via email, and gmail, yahoo and other providers should use similar algorithms. In fact they should all use the *same* algorithm, provided by a department in the government, let's call it Ministry of Truth, and they should be required by law to do so.
Yes Trump has a history of bombing other nations, even cutting out own military from making a peace deal (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/hillary-clinton-undercut-on-libya-war-by-pentagon-/), so why should we think he's learned from his mistakes if he wins?
I imagine the best they could have possibly done is they've shrunk Hololens to the size of chunky regular glasses. Technologically that would be a great achievement but I'm not sure that would be all that important.
George Friedman writes, if they even delay Brexit for too long, let alone void it, they will paralyze the government, causing more problems than if they leave the EU.
/. is good. You should see Arstechnica. Anyone posting any comment against Hillary in any way gets downvoted to oblivion. And these are supposedly rational people.
Russia needs to be as far to the west as it can for survival. It doesn't have a great mountain range or great rivers that would stop the enemy like France, Germany, or European allies from invading it and reaching Moscow. All it can have is depth, the land which it must trade for the enemy's blood. The only reason the US and allies didn't go in for the kill in the late 1990s and early 2000s and break apart what was left of Russia was that Europe was tired and America was preoccupied with Afghanistan and Iraq.
When the Apple Watch came out I bought an 80s-style digital watch as a sort of protest to what I saw as hipster culture, but now I really like my $14 Timex watch, makes me feel more organized when I'm out and about. That was the first time I wore a wristwatch again after 10+ years.
Two policemen have been injured in Chicago as a result of the Foval's group planned actions to provoke violent reaction. I don't know if that makes Foval's actions illegal, but in my eyes that makes the people who hired him sleazy. Also shows they don't believe they have a strong enough core message if they have to resort to such tactics.
I think it is clear to Trump's base what kind of change he offers: a move towards nationalism, compared to Clinton's continuing globalism. What Bernie had in common with Trump is they are both nationalists -- American citizens come first, even if it may hurt some of our trading partners in other countries and ordinary people who work hard there. The details of the platform differ significantly but that is the same general direction. Nationalism means let's increase the relative buying power of those below the median, even at the cost of higher GDP. Globalism says the economy overall is most important even though lower levels of society have to absorb the costs.
I personally think that which one is better or worse depends on the time in history. In my opinion there was a time when globalism lead to significant growth and progress, but it appears it's time to reverse the cycle for several years to preserve and repair the societal structure. It's like how recessions are necessary in economy to clean up inefficiencies, otherwise the more you prolong it, the higher the price you pay.
Washington Post, which is the left Breitbart only boring, is doing its work to expose Trump. It's only fair that Wikileaks is exposing Hillary. Besides I don't think there's anything to bash Trump with except sexual stuff and I'm sure he didn't write emails about it.
Strange, when you speak of evil I think of Hillary laughing at Gaddhafi's being impaled on the stake by the mob to which she delivered him.
The Breitbart page is simply hosting the incriminating video. But OK how about Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/politic.... FoxNews is in fact most decent coverage now, since they are not too keen on Trump. WashingtonPost is the left Breitbart, and CNBC et al aren't far.
Others news sites have picked it up too. In fact the two Democratic operatives recorded in the video have just resigned.
Political violence that was paid for by Hillary's campaign and the DNC to provoke unrest also counts. Paying homeless and other desperate people to stay in a hotel and shower and shave to prepare them for making trouble in the waiting lines at Trump rallies. In the words of the organizer recorded on the video, not inside because then they are covered by the Secret Service but in the waiting line.
Her "dream of open borders" -- and dream is a strong word -- together with "private and public policy" is all you need in times where a lot of people believe that globalism hurts their livelihoods.
Hillary no doubt has a high IQ yet look at the consequence on her decisions on Libya -- an entire country destroyed due to her reckless decision to kill Gadhaffi.
You're right. I instinctively see your view of anti-discrimination as over-protective and ideological. And if someone came and said anyone should be able to discriminate against black and disabled and not give them jobs if they don't want to, I'd consider that to be under-protective and harmful and also ideological. But who is to say that I am right and that you and that the other guy are not?
Ultimately though, there is no answer. We have democracy because we are unable to see the future, so we act on evidence we have or on a hunch if there's not enough evidence. For me, there is sufficient evidence that discrimination against the poor is harmful as it puts their existence in danger. At the same time, there's not enough evidence that discrimination against those who are in a relatively good life position (Asian programmers) is harmful for the society or puts there existence in danger. My hunch is that it isn't, in fact that such a move by the administration is harmful for the society, and so I'm choosing to vote against people who want to push such policies.
It's actually the opposite, the only ground for going after lawbreakers in a world with limited resources is using a sense of what is productive and not using politics and ideology, the latter being what seems to be going on in this case. As you know there are too many laws and most of us are breaking several of them at any given time. If you drive 47mph in 45mph zone you are breaking the law. Should the cop who sees you pull you over and give you a ticket? It depends. If you are driving on a long stretch of road where there's nothing around, it would be silly to do so. If you are close to the residential area and there are large groups of pedestrians around and it's night and it just started raining, he should.
So, you're saying that they're qualified, but Palantir doesn't want them. That sounds discriminatory to me.
Yep. Deal with it. The non-44% (again, !!!) of rejected Asian candidates may have been qualified on paper but a paper cannot capture all it takes to join a team. News flash, that kind of discrimination happens everywhere, every day. And their economic prospects were not hurt, they could get a job anywhere else. The laws are meant to prevent an individual's economic ruin, such as when a black person couldn't get a job anywhere, they are not put in place to protect someone's feelings that they can't always get what they want.
This administration's move is either trying to hurt this business for political points, or out of SJW-ing gone wrong, or both. Things have been taken too far and it's unlikely to be good for them in the coming elections.
This is an incredibly unproductive move by the Administration. I imagine if I were an Asian already working for Palantir -- like 44% of them! -- the sense of belonging to the team is now in danger if not gone. It is us vs. them, the Asians vs. the white guys.
The non-discrimination laws were designed to prevent systematic or blatant discrimination. If there really was some bias against Asians (I'm assuming American-born), it's not like those people can't get good jobs in any other engineer-hungry Valley company. And it does sound like if it was place where you mostly got hired by referrals where white guys would recommend mostly other white guys and occasional Asian friends.
And if they are talking about non-American-born Asians not being accepted to essentially an espionage company, this lawsuit is pure idiocy.
Hillary offers only disastrously bad interventionism. This is not an exaggeration -- look at her track record. Who among us can put destruction of an entire country on the resume?
What that really means is her interventionism is low-threshold. Trump's interventionism is high-threshold. The latter is a safer strategy for the world even if it misses a few false negatives.
What's interesting is that seems perfectly analogous to medical interventions. Would you rather have a doctor who sends you under the knife frequently, even for injuries that eventually self heal, or a doctor who prescribes surgeries very conservatively?
Slashdot Mirror
Here's an excellent explanation why the system was set up to have an electoral college: https://geopoliticalfutures.co...
"The United States is a geopolitical invention. The 13 original colonies were very different from each other. As the nation expanded westward, even more exotic states became part of the union. Constantly alienating smaller states through indifference could undermine the national interest. The Senate and the electoral college both stop that from happening, or at least limit it. Any state can matter in any election.
You might charge that this is undemocratic. It is. It was intended to be. The founders did not create a direct democracy for a good reason. It would have prevented the United States from emerging as a stable union. They created a republican form of government based on representation and a federal system based on sovereign states. Because of that, a candidate who ignores or insults the “flyover” states is likely to be writing memoirs instead of governing."
The left had hoped throwing labels on people would prevent them from supporting Trump openly and it worked, but the ultra downside of it is people didn't support Trump in the polls either and the left got confident they would win. In reality is Trump must have been ahead for a while before the election.
The President is right! We should not allow misinformation to spread. FB algorithms should check each post for truthfulness and hide the unacceptable ones, and issue a warning to the poster. Three strikes and your account is blocked, or you are placed on a watchlist. Same goes for email, people spread misinformation via email, and gmail, yahoo and other providers should use similar algorithms. In fact they should all use the *same* algorithm, provided by a department in the government, let's call it Ministry of Truth, and they should be required by law to do so.
Actually three strikes is probably too many.
Yes Trump has a history of bombing other nations, even cutting out own military from making a peace deal (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/hillary-clinton-undercut-on-libya-war-by-pentagon-/), so why should we think he's learned from his mistakes if he wins?
I imagine the best they could have possibly done is they've shrunk Hololens to the size of chunky regular glasses. Technologically that would be a great achievement but I'm not sure that would be all that important.
George Friedman writes, if they even delay Brexit for too long, let alone void it, they will paralyze the government, causing more problems than if they leave the EU.
https://geopoliticalfutures.co...
/. is good. You should see Arstechnica. Anyone posting any comment against Hillary in any way gets downvoted to oblivion. And these are supposedly rational people.
Russia needs to be as far to the west as it can for survival. It doesn't have a great mountain range or great rivers that would stop the enemy like France, Germany, or European allies from invading it and reaching Moscow. All it can have is depth, the land which it must trade for the enemy's blood. The only reason the US and allies didn't go in for the kill in the late 1990s and early 2000s and break apart what was left of Russia was that Europe was tired and America was preoccupied with Afghanistan and Iraq.
When the Apple Watch came out I bought an 80s-style digital watch as a sort of protest to what I saw as hipster culture, but now I really like my $14 Timex watch, makes me feel more organized when I'm out and about. That was the first time I wore a wristwatch again after 10+ years.
Two policemen have been injured in Chicago as a result of the Foval's group planned actions to provoke violent reaction. I don't know if that makes Foval's actions illegal, but in my eyes that makes the people who hired him sleazy. Also shows they don't believe they have a strong enough core message if they have to resort to such tactics.
I think it is clear to Trump's base what kind of change he offers: a move towards nationalism, compared to Clinton's continuing globalism. What Bernie had in common with Trump is they are both nationalists -- American citizens come first, even if it may hurt some of our trading partners in other countries and ordinary people who work hard there. The details of the platform differ significantly but that is the same general direction. Nationalism means let's increase the relative buying power of those below the median, even at the cost of higher GDP. Globalism says the economy overall is most important even though lower levels of society have to absorb the costs.
I personally think that which one is better or worse depends on the time in history. In my opinion there was a time when globalism lead to significant growth and progress, but it appears it's time to reverse the cycle for several years to preserve and repair the societal structure. It's like how recessions are necessary in economy to clean up inefficiencies, otherwise the more you prolong it, the higher the price you pay.
Washington Post, which is the left Breitbart only boring, is doing its work to expose Trump. It's only fair that Wikileaks is exposing Hillary. Besides I don't think there's anything to bash Trump with except sexual stuff and I'm sure he didn't write emails about it.
Strange, when you speak of evil I think of Hillary laughing at Gaddhafi's being impaled on the stake by the mob to which she delivered him.
And betting markets show the same pattern as with Brexit -- more overall money on Hillary, but more individual bets on Trump.
The Breitbart page is simply hosting the incriminating video. But OK how about Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/politic.... FoxNews is in fact most decent coverage now, since they are not too keen on Trump. WashingtonPost is the left Breitbart, and CNBC et al aren't far.
Others news sites have picked it up too. In fact the two Democratic operatives recorded in the video have just resigned.
Political violence that was paid for by Hillary's campaign and the DNC to provoke unrest also counts. Paying homeless and other desperate people to stay in a hotel and shower and shave to prepare them for making trouble in the waiting lines at Trump rallies. In the words of the organizer recorded on the video, not inside because then they are covered by the Secret Service but in the waiting line.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
You may not like the source but the data is there for you to check.
Her "dream of open borders" -- and dream is a strong word -- together with "private and public policy" is all you need in times where a lot of people believe that globalism hurts their livelihoods.
Expose their corrupt politicians.
Hillary no doubt has a high IQ yet look at the consequence on her decisions on Libya -- an entire country destroyed due to her reckless decision to kill Gadhaffi.
and escaped from the lab through faulty air vents in a secret research facility somewhere in a Nevada desert.
... I meant to say occasional, not systematic discrimination against Asian (or any other kind of) programmers.
You're right. I instinctively see your view of anti-discrimination as over-protective and ideological. And if someone came and said anyone should be able to discriminate against black and disabled and not give them jobs if they don't want to, I'd consider that to be under-protective and harmful and also ideological. But who is to say that I am right and that you and that the other guy are not?
Ultimately though, there is no answer. We have democracy because we are unable to see the future, so we act on evidence we have or on a hunch if there's not enough evidence. For me, there is sufficient evidence that discrimination against the poor is harmful as it puts their existence in danger. At the same time, there's not enough evidence that discrimination against those who are in a relatively good life position (Asian programmers) is harmful for the society or puts there existence in danger. My hunch is that it isn't, in fact that such a move by the administration is harmful for the society, and so I'm choosing to vote against people who want to push such policies.
It's actually the opposite, the only ground for going after lawbreakers in a world with limited resources is using a sense of what is productive and not using politics and ideology, the latter being what seems to be going on in this case. As you know there are too many laws and most of us are breaking several of them at any given time. If you drive 47mph in 45mph zone you are breaking the law. Should the cop who sees you pull you over and give you a ticket? It depends. If you are driving on a long stretch of road where there's nothing around, it would be silly to do so. If you are close to the residential area and there are large groups of pedestrians around and it's night and it just started raining, he should.
So, you're saying that they're qualified, but Palantir doesn't want them. That sounds discriminatory to me.
This is an incredibly unproductive move by the Administration. I imagine if I were an Asian already working for Palantir -- like 44% of them! -- the sense of belonging to the team is now in danger if not gone. It is us vs. them, the Asians vs. the white guys.
The non-discrimination laws were designed to prevent systematic or blatant discrimination. If there really was some bias against Asians (I'm assuming American-born), it's not like those people can't get good jobs in any other engineer-hungry Valley company. And it does sound like if it was place where you mostly got hired by referrals where white guys would recommend mostly other white guys and occasional Asian friends.
And if they are talking about non-American-born Asians not being accepted to essentially an espionage company, this lawsuit is pure idiocy.
Hillary offers only disastrously bad interventionism. This is not an exaggeration -- look at her track record. Who among us can put destruction of an entire country on the resume?
What that really means is her interventionism is low-threshold. Trump's interventionism is high-threshold. The latter is a safer strategy for the world even if it misses a few false negatives.
What's interesting is that seems perfectly analogous to medical interventions. Would you rather have a doctor who sends you under the knife frequently, even for injuries that eventually self heal, or a doctor who prescribes surgeries very conservatively?