Would Trump actually admit under oath that he had been tricked by an internet video and hadn't bothered to do the most superficial bit of research to confirm if it was true or not? I think more likely he would just settle for a few million rather than lose face.
The Democrats have been struggling to effectively oppose Trump because they are relying on appeals to truth and reality. Trump is post-truth and everyone knows he lies about everything so pointing that out isn't very useful.
The danger is that the centre ground (where the Democrats are) goes post-truth as well.
In post-truth politics the assumption is that everyone lies all the time. There is no objective truth, only lies of one shade or another. You can see people stating that matter-of-factly in this very discussion.
So all that is left is to pick whose alternative facts you prefer. It's also why Trump gets away with habitually lying about even the most trivial stuff. People aren't looking for truth any more, they are just looking for comfortable lies.
You mean the fake news about Fake News. The deranged conspiracy theory that Putin knew years in advance that a failed game show host could be president, and set out to get him elected by spending a few thousand dollars on Twitter trolls in a $9 billion election.
Yep, that's the one, a ridiculous conspiracy theory thrown out to discredit the criminal investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. You know, the one that Trump isn't even denying any more. He's switched from "it didn't happen" to "I didn't know about it" to "it wasn't illegal". I guess the next logical step is a Nixon style "It's not illegal if the president does it".
I see you haven't actually read any Sartre. I recommend Existentialism and Humanism as a starting point. The whole book is about solving problems in your life, when religion and science don't offer the answers.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
You can't "push" intersectionality because it's just a way of understanding the world, like a branch of physics. It doesn't propose or require any particular actions.
"The left" isn't even a thing, any more than some kind of homogenous "the right" exists.
You actually illustrated one of the biggest problems: imaginary monsters under the bed. Entire networks pumping out fake news exist to convince you they are real.
Really? I thought it was mostly because the last mile infrastructure is so expensive that if there is an incumbent other companies don't want to risk that major investment.
In other countries doing this kind of thing they enact laws to encourage it. Incentives for clean energy, disincentives for dirty energy.
It then becomes quite difficult for their successors to retract them. Businesses and jobs build up around them, people object to things that make their quality of life worse etc.
Plus it's California, can't see that state swinging hard right.
He said his storage is 90% Google Docs, i.e. he creates documents on Google Docs. For basic video editing you can do it with YouTube. Photo editing can be done online. Some of the online stuff can even be more powerful, e.g. there is no desktop solution for automatic subtitles on videos that is close to what YouTube offers.
The divide is more between people who want all their stuff stored locally and those who are happy to live in the cloud.
Windows has shadow volumes, which basically means an app can say "I need a snapshot of this file" and Windows will preserve that as long as it is needed, while still allowing other apps to read/write a live version. It's used heavily for this kind of backup scenario.
Many moon hoaxers believe in a grand conspiracy that was actually more complex than just going to the bloody moon. All this audio, the faked radio transmissions, the empty rockets sent up, the robot probes that laid out all the stuff that's been left up there...
So a few thousand hours of audio is nothing to them, compared to the amount of work they think went into that deception.
Wages in London seem incredibly low. I see "senior" positions advertised at £50k. Maybe some people are willing to put up with several of hours of hell commuting a day, but not me.
Why can't you shout "fire" in a theatre? Why can the government prosecute you for revealing secrets through speech? It's because of the consequences of that speech.
Clearly the constitution does allow for what amount to restrictions on speech if the consequences of that speech are dire. So the question is, does distributing CAD files to manufacture fairly crappy guns constitute a dire enough consequence to warranty stopping it?
Note: personally I support DD here, I'm just refuting the argument that it's a simple 1st Amendment issue.
Some significant percentage of the original Chromebook Pixels were given away for free at Google events or to developers. It was speculated at the time that the sale price didn't include any profit, it was just an at-cost device designed to encourage influential people/devs to take up the platform.
No, I was just pointing out the flaw in the argument that certain rights laid out in the constitution are inalienable, when clearly there are many examples of them being restricted.
This is certainly new territory for the law. A machine that prints guns on demand isn't something that really fits with either the "build it yourself" or "manufacturer" models.
Google's search results are also influenced by how many other sites link to a given article. Theory being that well linked articles are considered good by other people. When offering up evidence people tend to link to sources with a reputation for impartiality (aka "extreme far left bias").
Google weights links from less reputable sites lower too, so all those blogs and forum links don't really help Trump supporting sites.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing to do with people getting offended, it's just a stupid language filter that sees the word "cunt" in her name.
Ironically the only human who is offended here is Mr. AC, who is offended by the notion that someone else might be offended.
Would Trump actually admit under oath that he had been tricked by an internet video and hadn't bothered to do the most superficial bit of research to confirm if it was true or not? I think more likely he would just settle for a few million rather than lose face.
The Democrats have been struggling to effectively oppose Trump because they are relying on appeals to truth and reality. Trump is post-truth and everyone knows he lies about everything so pointing that out isn't very useful.
The danger is that the centre ground (where the Democrats are) goes post-truth as well.
It's more subtle than that.
In post-truth politics the assumption is that everyone lies all the time. There is no objective truth, only lies of one shade or another. You can see people stating that matter-of-factly in this very discussion.
So all that is left is to pick whose alternative facts you prefer. It's also why Trump gets away with habitually lying about even the most trivial stuff. People aren't looking for truth any more, they are just looking for comfortable lies.
You mean the fake news about Fake News. The deranged conspiracy theory that Putin knew years in advance that a failed game show host could be president, and set out to get him elected by spending a few thousand dollars on Twitter trolls in a $9 billion election.
Yep, that's the one, a ridiculous conspiracy theory thrown out to discredit the criminal investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. You know, the one that Trump isn't even denying any more. He's switched from "it didn't happen" to "I didn't know about it" to "it wasn't illegal". I guess the next logical step is a Nixon style "It's not illegal if the president does it".
I see you haven't actually read any Sartre. I recommend Existentialism and Humanism as a starting point. The whole book is about solving problems in your life, when religion and science don't offer the answers.
I'm not making this up.
You are.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
You can't "push" intersectionality because it's just a way of understanding the world, like a branch of physics. It doesn't propose or require any particular actions.
"The left" isn't even a thing, any more than some kind of homogenous "the right" exists.
You actually illustrated one of the biggest problems: imaginary monsters under the bed. Entire networks pumping out fake news exist to convince you they are real.
Books have gatekeepers, the publishers. The cost of mass producing your own book and distributing it limits the reach of unsanctioned works.
There is still a lot of rubbish but the publishers and the fact that books aren't free makes them very different to web publishing.
Really? I thought it was mostly because the last mile infrastructure is so expensive that if there is an incumbent other companies don't want to risk that major investment.
Given the state of grid scale batteries today, what do you think they will be like in 2046?
In other countries doing this kind of thing they enact laws to encourage it. Incentives for clean energy, disincentives for dirty energy.
It then becomes quite difficult for their successors to retract them. Businesses and jobs build up around them, people object to things that make their quality of life worse etc.
Plus it's California, can't see that state swinging hard right.
He said his storage is 90% Google Docs, i.e. he creates documents on Google Docs. For basic video editing you can do it with YouTube. Photo editing can be done online. Some of the online stuff can even be more powerful, e.g. there is no desktop solution for automatic subtitles on videos that is close to what YouTube offers.
The divide is more between people who want all their stuff stored locally and those who are happy to live in the cloud.
Windows has shadow volumes, which basically means an app can say "I need a snapshot of this file" and Windows will preserve that as long as it is needed, while still allowing other apps to read/write a live version. It's used heavily for this kind of backup scenario.
Many moon hoaxers believe in a grand conspiracy that was actually more complex than just going to the bloody moon. All this audio, the faked radio transmissions, the empty rockets sent up, the robot probes that laid out all the stuff that's been left up there...
So a few thousand hours of audio is nothing to them, compared to the amount of work they think went into that deception.
Wages in London seem incredibly low. I see "senior" positions advertised at £50k. Maybe some people are willing to put up with several of hours of hell commuting a day, but not me.
It's not really a First Amendment issue though.
Why can't you shout "fire" in a theatre? Why can the government prosecute you for revealing secrets through speech? It's because of the consequences of that speech.
Clearly the constitution does allow for what amount to restrictions on speech if the consequences of that speech are dire. So the question is, does distributing CAD files to manufacture fairly crappy guns constitute a dire enough consequence to warranty stopping it?
Note: personally I support DD here, I'm just refuting the argument that it's a simple 1st Amendment issue.
The lack of citations for Fox News being horseshit is because people don't fall for your "prove water is wet first" tactic.
It runs Linux well because Linus bought one back in the day and fixed all the issues with it.
Some significant percentage of the original Chromebook Pixels were given away for free at Google events or to developers. It was speculated at the time that the sale price didn't include any profit, it was just an at-cost device designed to encourage influential people/devs to take up the platform.
Thanks for that detailed explanation.
No, I was just pointing out the flaw in the argument that certain rights laid out in the constitution are inalienable, when clearly there are many examples of them being restricted.
This is certainly new territory for the law. A machine that prints guns on demand isn't something that really fits with either the "build it yourself" or "manufacturer" models.
Google's search results are also influenced by how many other sites link to a given article. Theory being that well linked articles are considered good by other people. When offering up evidence people tend to link to sources with a reputation for impartiality (aka "extreme far left bias").
Google weights links from less reputable sites lower too, so all those blogs and forum links don't really help Trump supporting sites.