I totally disagree with the idea that a school can stifle the speech of its employees however. An employee of the school, such as a professor, who is a subject matter expert, should be completely free to speak, provided it's clear that he/she does not speak for the institution as a whole. If the bill requires professors to take neutral positions on issues, it's garbage. It would be absolutely ridiculous if professors couldn't write books and papers which touch on political issues.
That is the most likely intention of the authors of the bill.
Sorry Math isn't safe, and the regressive left are trying to fuck that up too. No this article is not Poe's law in action. Liberals need to get their shit together because you've got a whole fucking pile of actual crazy on your side right now. You're where the right was in the 1990's "there's no problem."
Your comments tell me you either didn't fully read or didn't understand the blog post you linked to.
You were the one who was white-knighting for her so hard I could see you shining across the Atlantic. I figured I'd just keep you up to date so you could go run to her defense, while claiming she doesn't harass anyone like you normally do.
Dude, what you're doing here is creepy obsessive. Go outside, forget that Quinn ever existed and everybody will be happier, especially you.
It should be pointed out that while Woody Allen's behaviour may be gross, it's not paedophilia. He started a fling his girlfriend's adopted daughter, Soon Yi, when she was in her late teens. Paedophiles, by definition, are attracted to pre-pubescent children. Soon Yi was definitely not pre-pubescent when their sexual relationship began. It might still have been illegal, if she was below the age of consent, but it's not paedophilia, by definition.
The Roman Polanski case is a bit different. Until I read up on it, I didn't realize that Roman Polanski had actually served time for his crime, and undergone a psychiatric review, as had been agreed to in his plea bargain, and that he only fled the country when the judge presiding over the case decided to retro-actively revoke the plea bargain (after the time had been served) and sentence him to 50 additional years in prison and then told Polanski's lawyer what he was going to do. So he committed a crime, plead guilty, and admitted fault and then a judge decided to double cross him. Apparently, even the victim of his crime doesn't think Polanski has been treated fairly by the U.S. Lastly, the victim was thirteen at the time, and while that's clearly unacceptable abuse, it would not have been textbook paedophilia since she would have been pubescent at the time of the assault.
My simple point is that it not reasonable to distort the facts just to win a tenuous argument... Now do you have any actual examples?
Violence is the refuge of people who understand that their ideas don't have any merit, so they must use physical force to intimidate anyone who might oppose them.
Somehow I doubt that your statement is ever true. People just don't work the way you think they do. Your statement, however, is appallingly arrogant and condescending. Do you understand that normal people have these things called emotions? Do you understand the normal people often act on their emotions without thinking through the consequences? Do you understand that this type of behaviour is particularly common among people between the ages of 15 and 23?
The sad state of affairs is that Ann Coulter is a right wing troll and that instead of collectively ignoring her, the most easily manipulated members of our society are being deliberately exposed to her. It's literally her job to rile people up and make them angry, and people are surprised when there are consequences? They are surprised when people act on their anger? We should all know what's going to happen when someone throws a lit match into a powder keg and none of us should be surprised by the consequences.
You didn't read anything more than the title of that article, did you? If you'd actually read it, you'd realize that you are completely wrong. Of course, that implies that you actually care about the facts, but then I'd bet that you don't as long as you can post your moronic opinions..
Who cares about interference if it has no effect? You could say Obama interfered in brexit poll by calling to vote yes, but in the end it did not matter.
That is interference, but it is acceptable because it is open and transparent interference. You know it was Obama, you know what he recommended and you can decide whether you care. The Russian interference was not, it was disguised so you wouldn't know if it was ordered by Putin and it wouldn't be obvious that he clearly preferred Trump, and then hundreds of fake news stories were released against the candidate he did not want to win, many of which people still don't understand were either entirely false or grossly exaggerated. If you can't understand that there is a difference in kind here, then you're hopeless.
Speaking as a New Zealander, I'd rather Russia were in charge instead of 'Murica.
Then you're probably a fool. America has many, many problems, but "Russia in charge" is much, much worse, unless you're a fan of sham elections, political assassinations and state sponsored propaganda campaigns.
Russia under Putin as a bad actor all right, but what I don't get is how can they really be a threat to the West, or at least a semi-unified West.
I think, Militarily, they are not really a threat, except to their immediate neighbours. The larger threat lies in espionage and destabilization. Russia literally operates entire armies of propagandists to maintain order in Russia, and they are starting to see the benefits of directing that propaganda power outside of their country to sow chaos among their enemies. Crimea, for example, was a the result of a several years long propaganda campaign by Russia followed by with a small, clandestine, military action. But I don't know if they will ever be able to pull it off again, but they will likely try, even though it obviously didn't work as well on the Ukrainian border...
In regards to altering the outcome, all they did was publish the dirty laundry of Hillary and the DNC.
No, that was not all they did, they also have been shilling, and spying, among other things. And the neat little insinuation that there was any dirty laundry to expose is not supported by the facts.
Indeed during the election, I was interested in reading some of this supposed "dirty laundry" but time and again the claims were not backed up by actual facts. They relied of extremely tortured interpretations of sentence fragments from emails. For example, there was one about "Hillary hates Catholics", which Trump actually tried to use in his speech at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. The actual email was between two staffers, Hillary was not involved as either a recipient or a sender and the staffers were gossiping about a pair of trust fund young Republicans. One them said neither attended Catholic churches, and thus were more Evangelical than Catholic but couldn't officially change religion because they'd lose access to their Trust funds. That was heralded as conclusive proof that Hillary Clinton hates all Catholics.
I looked at half dozen other claims and they were all the same, some bit of something from an email twisted beyond the point of recognition into "conclusive proof" of some outlandish claim. After the fact, it seems like there are indications that many of those sites were part of the propaganda efforts put together by the Russian propaganda agencies. The only question is whether the posters who posted links to them on Slashdot were useful idiots or paid propagandists.
If they had such an option they would probably want to return to a point in time to prevent Bremer from disbanding the Iraqi army and delaying Iraqi's from taking control of the government. These two decisions by Bremer, a career diplomat who served numerous administrations, essentially started the insurgency and created an opportunity for al-Queda in Iraq.
Bremer says those weren't his decisions. He says he was ordered to do so, that order came from Rumsfield's office but Rumsfield also says he was ordered to do so but won't say by whom. It seem likely that the order originated from Cheney's office and was made on the recommendation of Chalabi, who wanted to install his own army and government in Iraq. If that's the case, then it wasn't a mistake, as much as it was a deliberate betrayal of America and Iraq's common interests to profit an ally of Dick Cheney.
His reasoning with the Clinton investigation was spot on. I bet his reasoning here is too. We just don't know why he is doing it and what he knows. It's really scary that he's trying to tell us something without telling us. But he wants us to find out.
I understand his reasoning in the Clinton investigation, but I don't agree with it or think it was "spot on". It's pretty clear that he made a grave error in judgement and in trying to do the right thing, he did the wrong thing. In trying to avoid Charybdis, he steered America straight into Scylla.
The real question is "Is Comey going to jail for violating the Official Secrets Act" The rest is a sideshow. Flynn spoke to the Russian Ambassador? Big deal. Its the NSA chiefs jobs to talk to foreign leaders and representatives and normal during the transition. He lied to Pence about it? Big deal . The VP is NOT the President and not Flynn's boss and he was not under oath. However Comey leaking a conversation with the President which took place in the White House? Definitely jail time if not a treason charge with a possible death penalty.
I am somewhat concerned that you might actually believe the horse shit that you're writing. If that's the case you either need to start taking your medications, or stop self-medicating.
It becomes a Ponzi scheme when one or a small group of people benefit from the wealth, and the value of current bitcoins is driven by a constant flow of new buyers.
Actually, it becomes a Ponzi scheme when the investments of new buyers are used to pay the returns on the investments of the earlier buyers.
Since cryptocurrencies do actually pay any returns, they can never actually be a Ponzi scheme. Though you could, in theory, run a Ponzi scheme that uses cryptocurrencies... You could also try to argue that the entire marketplace for cryptocurrencies is a Ponzi scheme, but it doesn't fit the definition very well. The central problem is that new investments aren't actually paying the returns (profits) of earlier investors, instead the new investments are buying the inherently worthless numbers that the earlier investors own, which is generally considered a bubble.
And to answer the submission's question, the proper value for a cryptocurrency is however much the collection of people who want to buy them are willing to pay for them. They have no inherent value. They're the opposite of gold-backed currency, they're demand-backed currency. If next week everyone decided that cryptocurrencies were a fad, they'd all be worthless. It's not likely to be that extreme, but buyer beware.
No it's not, but the West Wing was well researched and they drew on the experience and history of actual political insiders to craft the setting and environment. But you don't need to be a fan of The West Wing (which I'm not) to understand how ignorant someone has to be to think that Trump's staff started making co-ordinated public statements without (at least) first clearing the story with the President. It's far more likely that Trump told them what to say, he may even have lied to them and told them that the reason given was the actual reason, only to undermine his own people when he couldn't stick to the story.
Frankly, I'm not even sure if Trump understands why firing Comey (because he didn't stop an investigation that Trump asked him to drop) could be a problem. It's entirely possible he told his staff to lie about it because that was what his advisers told him to do, but that Trump himself never actually understand why they were lying about it. So, when the interview came around he threw in his little comment simply because he never understood why they were lying about it in the first place. Increasingly, it really does seem like Trump is showing the early signs of dementia...
If your subordinates are lying their asses off, even if it is supposedly to your benefit, it is wrong. As a good leader, you should man up and set the record straight with the truth. Even if it supposedly might put you at some imaginary risk of being prosecuted in court.
Trump ordered them to lie, then after ordering them to lie for his benefit, he undid the benefit by forgetting that he was supposed to tell the same lie.
How stupid do you have to be to not understand that Trump knew they were lying for his benefit and could have stopped them at any time? Do you understand nothing at all about how the president's staff works?
Why do you think Russia wanted Trump to win the election? The Russian government wants to break the west and destroy NATO and Trump is childish enough to give them everything they want, whether he knows it or not.
Any article that starts out calling anyone who disagrees with it a shill is not getting my time to read it. If you can't make an argument without resorting to insults from the very beginning then your argument is flawed and weak and you know it.
That interpretation of the article's pre-amble is so divorced from the actual text that it makes it seem like you were reading a totally different article. Of course, we all know the real reason is that you didn't want to read it in the first place, so you seized the very first reason you could find to ignore everything that runs counter to your pre-existing beliefs.
Come on, you know as well as I do that if Russia invaded Paris while Trump was president, America would officially congratulate Russia on their bold, humanitarian actions.
Blaming Trump is vacuous. We the People have spoken and it is what it is.
Except, you know, the people spoke and what they said was actually "Clinton", but because of the electoral college, the candidate with the second most votes won... Again...
Slashdot Mirror
I totally disagree with the idea that a school can stifle the speech of its employees however. An employee of the school, such as a professor, who is a subject matter expert, should be completely free to speak, provided it's clear that he/she does not speak for the institution as a whole. If the bill requires professors to take neutral positions on issues, it's garbage. It would be absolutely ridiculous if professors couldn't write books and papers which touch on political issues.
That is the most likely intention of the authors of the bill.
Sorry Math isn't safe, and the regressive left are trying to fuck that up too. No this article is not Poe's law in action. Liberals need to get their shit together because you've got a whole fucking pile of actual crazy on your side right now. You're where the right was in the 1990's "there's no problem."
Your comments tell me you either didn't fully read or didn't understand the blog post you linked to.
You were the one who was white-knighting for her so hard I could see you shining across the Atlantic. I figured I'd just keep you up to date so you could go run to her defense, while claiming she doesn't harass anyone like you normally do.
Dude, what you're doing here is creepy obsessive. Go outside, forget that Quinn ever existed and everybody will be happier, especially you.
It should be pointed out that while Woody Allen's behaviour may be gross, it's not paedophilia. He started a fling his girlfriend's adopted daughter, Soon Yi, when she was in her late teens. Paedophiles, by definition, are attracted to pre-pubescent children. Soon Yi was definitely not pre-pubescent when their sexual relationship began. It might still have been illegal, if she was below the age of consent, but it's not paedophilia, by definition.
The Roman Polanski case is a bit different. Until I read up on it, I didn't realize that Roman Polanski had actually served time for his crime, and undergone a psychiatric review, as had been agreed to in his plea bargain, and that he only fled the country when the judge presiding over the case decided to retro-actively revoke the plea bargain (after the time had been served) and sentence him to 50 additional years in prison and then told Polanski's lawyer what he was going to do. So he committed a crime, plead guilty, and admitted fault and then a judge decided to double cross him. Apparently, even the victim of his crime doesn't think Polanski has been treated fairly by the U.S. Lastly, the victim was thirteen at the time, and while that's clearly unacceptable abuse, it would not have been textbook paedophilia since she would have been pubescent at the time of the assault.
My simple point is that it not reasonable to distort the facts just to win a tenuous argument... Now do you have any actual examples?
Violence is the refuge of people who understand that their ideas don't have any merit, so they must use physical force to intimidate anyone who might oppose them.
Somehow I doubt that your statement is ever true. People just don't work the way you think they do. Your statement, however, is appallingly arrogant and condescending. Do you understand that normal people have these things called emotions? Do you understand the normal people often act on their emotions without thinking through the consequences? Do you understand that this type of behaviour is particularly common among people between the ages of 15 and 23?
The sad state of affairs is that Ann Coulter is a right wing troll and that instead of collectively ignoring her, the most easily manipulated members of our society are being deliberately exposed to her. It's literally her job to rile people up and make them angry, and people are surprised when there are consequences? They are surprised when people act on their anger? We should all know what's going to happen when someone throws a lit match into a powder keg and none of us should be surprised by the consequences.
For example: Prozac Nation Is Now the United States of Xanax. Basically a drug ad for Xanax. The 90s were about Prozac! The 21st century is about Xanax!!
You didn't read anything more than the title of that article, did you? If you'd actually read it, you'd realize that you are completely wrong. Of course, that implies that you actually care about the facts, but then I'd bet that you don't as long as you can post your moronic opinions..
Who cares about interference if it has no effect? You could say Obama interfered in brexit poll by calling to vote yes, but in the end it did not matter.
That is interference, but it is acceptable because it is open and transparent interference. You know it was Obama, you know what he recommended and you can decide whether you care. The Russian interference was not, it was disguised so you wouldn't know if it was ordered by Putin and it wouldn't be obvious that he clearly preferred Trump, and then hundreds of fake news stories were released against the candidate he did not want to win, many of which people still don't understand were either entirely false or grossly exaggerated. If you can't understand that there is a difference in kind here, then you're hopeless.
Speaking as a New Zealander, I'd rather Russia were in charge instead of 'Murica.
Then you're probably a fool. America has many, many problems, but "Russia in charge" is much, much worse, unless you're a fan of sham elections, political assassinations and state sponsored propaganda campaigns.
Russia under Putin as a bad actor all right, but what I don't get is how can they really be a threat to the West, or at least a semi-unified West.
I think, Militarily, they are not really a threat, except to their immediate neighbours. The larger threat lies in espionage and destabilization. Russia literally operates entire armies of propagandists to maintain order in Russia, and they are starting to see the benefits of directing that propaganda power outside of their country to sow chaos among their enemies. Crimea, for example, was a the result of a several years long propaganda campaign by Russia followed by with a small, clandestine, military action. But I don't know if they will ever be able to pull it off again, but they will likely try, even though it obviously didn't work as well on the Ukrainian border...
In regards to altering the outcome, all they did was publish the dirty laundry of Hillary and the DNC.
No, that was not all they did, they also have been shilling, and spying, among other things. And the neat little insinuation that there was any dirty laundry to expose is not supported by the facts.
Indeed during the election, I was interested in reading some of this supposed "dirty laundry" but time and again the claims were not backed up by actual facts. They relied of extremely tortured interpretations of sentence fragments from emails. For example, there was one about "Hillary hates Catholics", which Trump actually tried to use in his speech at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. The actual email was between two staffers, Hillary was not involved as either a recipient or a sender and the staffers were gossiping about a pair of trust fund young Republicans. One them said neither attended Catholic churches, and thus were more Evangelical than Catholic but couldn't officially change religion because they'd lose access to their Trust funds. That was heralded as conclusive proof that Hillary Clinton hates all Catholics.
I looked at half dozen other claims and they were all the same, some bit of something from an email twisted beyond the point of recognition into "conclusive proof" of some outlandish claim. After the fact, it seems like there are indications that many of those sites were part of the propaganda efforts put together by the Russian propaganda agencies. The only question is whether the posters who posted links to them on Slashdot were useful idiots or paid propagandists.
If they had such an option they would probably want to return to a point in time to prevent Bremer from disbanding the Iraqi army and delaying Iraqi's from taking control of the government. These two decisions by Bremer, a career diplomat who served numerous administrations, essentially started the insurgency and created an opportunity for al-Queda in Iraq.
Bremer says those weren't his decisions. He says he was ordered to do so, that order came from Rumsfield's office but Rumsfield also says he was ordered to do so but won't say by whom. It seem likely that the order originated from Cheney's office and was made on the recommendation of Chalabi, who wanted to install his own army and government in Iraq. If that's the case, then it wasn't a mistake, as much as it was a deliberate betrayal of America and Iraq's common interests to profit an ally of Dick Cheney.
Remember kids: Thoughtless design is bad design. It's why lambda's are completely borked.
If prefer the aphorism: "When you fail to plan, you plan to fail."
Dear lord. What if there are people who take them both seriously?
His reasoning with the Clinton investigation was spot on. I bet his reasoning here is too. We just don't know why he is doing it and what he knows. It's really scary that he's trying to tell us something without telling us. But he wants us to find out.
I understand his reasoning in the Clinton investigation, but I don't agree with it or think it was "spot on". It's pretty clear that he made a grave error in judgement and in trying to do the right thing, he did the wrong thing. In trying to avoid Charybdis, he steered America straight into Scylla.
The real question is "Is Comey going to jail for violating the Official Secrets Act" The rest is a sideshow. Flynn spoke to the Russian Ambassador? Big deal. Its the NSA chiefs jobs to talk to foreign leaders and representatives and normal during the transition. He lied to Pence about it? Big deal . The VP is NOT the President and not Flynn's boss and he was not under oath. However Comey leaking a conversation with the President which took place in the White House? Definitely jail time if not a treason charge with a possible death penalty.
I am somewhat concerned that you might actually believe the horse shit that you're writing. If that's the case you either need to start taking your medications, or stop self-medicating.
Bitcoin is backed by the value of billions of encrypted files. Hard to estimate that value, but that's what it is worth.
It's worth 0, it's not hard at all to estimate that value.
It becomes a Ponzi scheme when one or a small group of people benefit from the wealth, and the value of current bitcoins is driven by a constant flow of new buyers.
Actually, it becomes a Ponzi scheme when the investments of new buyers are used to pay the returns on the investments of the earlier buyers.
Since cryptocurrencies do actually pay any returns, they can never actually be a Ponzi scheme. Though you could, in theory, run a Ponzi scheme that uses cryptocurrencies... You could also try to argue that the entire marketplace for cryptocurrencies is a Ponzi scheme, but it doesn't fit the definition very well. The central problem is that new investments aren't actually paying the returns (profits) of earlier investors, instead the new investments are buying the inherently worthless numbers that the earlier investors own, which is generally considered a bubble.
And to answer the submission's question, the proper value for a cryptocurrency is however much the collection of people who want to buy them are willing to pay for them. They have no inherent value. They're the opposite of gold-backed currency, they're demand-backed currency. If next week everyone decided that cryptocurrencies were a fad, they'd all be worthless. It's not likely to be that extreme, but buyer beware.
West Wing isn't actually a documentary.
No it's not, but the West Wing was well researched and they drew on the experience and history of actual political insiders to craft the setting and environment. But you don't need to be a fan of The West Wing (which I'm not) to understand how ignorant someone has to be to think that Trump's staff started making co-ordinated public statements without (at least) first clearing the story with the President. It's far more likely that Trump told them what to say, he may even have lied to them and told them that the reason given was the actual reason, only to undermine his own people when he couldn't stick to the story.
Frankly, I'm not even sure if Trump understands why firing Comey (because he didn't stop an investigation that Trump asked him to drop) could be a problem. It's entirely possible he told his staff to lie about it because that was what his advisers told him to do, but that Trump himself never actually understand why they were lying about it. So, when the interview came around he threw in his little comment simply because he never understood why they were lying about it in the first place. Increasingly, it really does seem like Trump is showing the early signs of dementia...
If your subordinates are lying their asses off, even if it is supposedly to your benefit, it is wrong. As a good leader, you should man up and set the record straight with the truth. Even if it supposedly might put you at some imaginary risk of being prosecuted in court.
Trump ordered them to lie, then after ordering them to lie for his benefit, he undid the benefit by forgetting that he was supposed to tell the same lie.
How stupid do you have to be to not understand that Trump knew they were lying for his benefit and could have stopped them at any time? Do you understand nothing at all about how the president's staff works?
He skips the big words.
And the medium-sized words, and most of the small words...
Why do you think Russia wanted Trump to win the election? The Russian government wants to break the west and destroy NATO and Trump is childish enough to give them everything they want, whether he knows it or not.
Any article that starts out calling anyone who disagrees with it a shill is not getting my time to read it. If you can't make an argument without resorting to insults from the very beginning then your argument is flawed and weak and you know it.
That interpretation of the article's pre-amble is so divorced from the actual text that it makes it seem like you were reading a totally different article. Of course, we all know the real reason is that you didn't want to read it in the first place, so you seized the very first reason you could find to ignore everything that runs counter to your pre-existing beliefs.
Come on, you know as well as I do that if Russia invaded Paris while Trump was president, America would officially congratulate Russia on their bold, humanitarian actions.
It should have been clear to individual voters 18 months before the election that this guy was unfit for office. Certainly by 12 months. Or 6 months.
You can divide Trump voters into three groups:
Group 3 is surprising large.
Blaming Trump is vacuous. We the People have spoken and it is what it is.
Except, you know, the people spoke and what they said was actually "Clinton", but because of the electoral college, the candidate with the second most votes won... Again...