Who gives a flying shit what HRC-the-hasbeen wants?
Her political power came from access and her ongoing connection to power.
After two failed runs at the presidency - including a loss to the biggest caricature on the planet - I can't imagine Qatar is going to be sending her and Billy $1 million dollar birthday presents. Nor will her brother "pick up" any other gold-mining concessions.
In fact, if the Clinton Foundation is allowed to just quietly close its doors and go away without being prosecuted for RICO crimes, that's about the most she can hope for.
The word you're looking for is "mistaken" http://english.stackexchange.c... From the New Oxford American Dictionary: "For complex historical reasons, prove developed two past participles: proved and proven. Both are correct and can be used more or less interchangeably: this hasn't been proved yet; this hasn't been proven yet. Proven is the more common form when used as an adjective before the noun it modifies: a proven talent (not a proved talent). Otherwise, the choice between proved and proven is not a matter of correctness, but usually of sound and rhythmâ"and often, consequently, a matter of familiarity, as in the legal idiom innocent until proven guilty"
No, you lost, get the fuck over it. Stop trying to change the rules every time you lose.
As Mr Obama famously replied in 2009? 2010 when confronted by a GOP senator during a budget summit, that his proposals weren't much of a compromise: "I won" (get over it)
If the democrats learn a single lesson from this election, it's that: Democracy is compromise. Starting a negotiation with the premise (stated stridently and repeatedly) that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is a complete and utter fucking moron doesn't make you right. It makes people hate you.
...as it may set a major precedent regarding the sustainability of the EU.
Because, as we all should know by now, the crucial key to any long standing political enterprise is: who controls the MONEY.
Of course the corollary to money in a geopolitical context is...sovereignty.
Ireland, if it's actually a sovereign state, should be able to set its own tax policies. Now if it is in a voluntary agreement with the EU to deprecate it's otherwise-sovereign power for the good of the EU megastate, that's fine. But if it breaks the rules it agreed to, IT (and solely it) should be punished for that (ie paying a massive fine, whatever). How it then decides to recoup this penalty is up to it.
However, if the EU can say "Ireland, you broke the rules, you have to make THAT OTHER GUY PAY for your mistake" that essentially takes away any agency from the Irish government at all. They become little more than a tax-collection engine for Brussels.
I have to imagine that there remains some remaining sense of identity within European peoples, and that this - if the bureaucrats can't keep it carefully within the confines of the backroom - will spur a flare of quasi-nationalism that could shake the whole thing soundly.
Or, I'm totally wrong, millenial Euros are entirely adrift and amalgamated into the EU identity and things like "countries" in Europe will become little more than quaint names for administrative districts.
...the human ability to bullshit, and to obfuscate that bullshit, is evolutionary: there's a direct and obvious competitive advantage to anyone who can do so.
To detect it would take massive heuristics capable of dealing with vagueness and uncertainty, and coming to conclusions that are at best only probable; I suspect that any such algorithm would ITSELF be vulnerable to confirmation bias, just like a person.
Having such a system boil it down to a shorthand "this article is rated as 4 our of 5 stars of truthiness!" is not only absurdly reductionist, it ultimately adds another 'gameable' for those looking to take advantage of lazy people who just want someone to tell them what to think.
Sorry, evaluating "truth" in statements - like "I do not have a private email server" or "OK I have a private email server, but I didn't use it for official emails" or "well I used it for official emails but nothing secret" or "OK, yes, I used it for secret emails but nothing really secret"* - is something you as a human ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO THE OLD-FASHIONED HARD WAY.
*I'm sorry, were you thinking of another candidate whose statements need constant validation? Does it matter which I'm talking about? Or did my use of that example ALONE color your valuation of my words? Do I lose a truthy-star in your estimation?
This isn't rocket science, we certainly didn't need Snowden's input to recognize that emails are simply data, and crunching data is easy.
Now, I would point out that it seems curious that HRC turned over (anecdotally, I'm not going to waste my time digging out precise numbers) her servers, and the number of emails "discovered" or "turned over" or whatever was about 33,000.
(This was a laughably low number, given that she was SecState for years...my OWN email totals at my little job were around 400k for that same span...but whatever)
Now, found on the Wienermobile, there's purportedly 650,000 emails. To filter out her 33k previous - trivial. To evaluate the other 620k-some emails as to if they had anything to do with Hilary, the Clinton Foundation, or whatever? Put 100 folks EXCLUSIVELY on it, that's reviewing nearly 700 emails each per day. Certainly, the FBI would have the resources to do this, in a crash-effort. But that's a lot of emails to review.
How many barrels of oil (energy) is needed to generate the reaction? If it eats 10bbl of oil to make 2 bbl of biooil, I'm not sure that's super interesting...
Now, of course, if we could ever get fusion going.. I hear it's only about 30 years away.
I like it. The wiki-method would be perfect for this.
Tracked changes, author/authority indicated, and logged indelibly for all to see, forever.
Then again, that would require us bringing a government that barely functions at a 20th century level into the 21st, when (I'm guessing) a significant fraction of congresspeople still have their emails printed every morning.
"Follow the money" means to find out who ultimately benefits. It does NOT mean "follow the money until it comes to someone you don't like and then reflexively oppose it because you just don't like them"...
And, honestly, the US says it even more loudly, in even more contexts.
The US is uninterested in handing over any sovereignty to organizations that aren't nominally American. So should any country be, if it's responsible to its citizens.
If Denmark, for example, is willing to hand over its sovereign choices as a state to the EU (wherein, say, the tiny population of Denmark can be outvoted completely by Germany), then literally the question is: how is Denmark even a state anymore, and not just a bureaucratic subdivision?
The "hot air" we should worry about are the empty promises, as always.
From TFA "The carbon emission curbs put forward by countries under Paris are not legally-binding but the framework of the accord, which includes a mechanism for periodically cranking those pledges up, is binding. "...to which I'd add: while the framework is allegedly 'binding', I can't for the life of me find any consequences for breaking the pledges, so is a "legal framework" meaningful without punishment?
(Recognizing, of course, that a lack of actual enforcement mechanism is precisely why this 'agreement' exists in the first place...it's just nice words with nothing behind it.)
...there is no intrinsic necessity that the arctic be iced over. The earth has had extended periods in which the arctic has been ice free, and it will have them again. In fact, some might point to the fabled northwest passage that claimed so many explorers as probably a time when it was in fact ice free within human memory, at least seasonally.
...I already can't say "check out this picture" on my phone without him wanting to hold the phone (so he can see it), which invariably means he grabs it with a thumb somewhere on the face, thus closing/changing/fsking up whatever I'm trying to show him.
I think he thinks he's losing his mind, half the time I try to show him something the screen ends up blank.
I wasn't even going to touch on his assertion that voting for Trump was basically his litmus test for insanity.
While I'm absolutely certain that many here on/. would agree that's true, I guess I'd caution people about living in such a neatly categorical world if ROUGHLY 50% OF THE POPULATION (whether he wins or loses) are by your definition insane.
I'm not sure holding such a degree of sneering contempt for half your society is constructive, healthy, or even rational.
I'd recommend watching Jim Gaffigan's thoughtful "Disagree with someone? Calling them a moron won't help." https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2... "Climate One program at the Commonwealth Club of California, recorded Oct. 21, 2016. Greg Dalton, moderator." 7:58+ "Truthfully...white people are the problem"
I'm curious in what context such a statement (applying any other ethnicity, or special interest group) could be uttered without the speaker immediately (& rightly) being castigated and socially outcast?
Let's see: "Truthfully...black people are the problem" "Truthfully...gays are the problem" "Truthfully...jews are the problem"
And one wonders how the "Climate Change" message doesn't seem to resonate with the majority of Americans?
Perhaps patronizing racism *isn't* the kind of thing with which one builds consensus?
Yesterday, I heard on NPR (I believe it was a climate forum) one of the talking "experts" opined "well, basically, white people are the problem" followed by chuckles and murmurs of assent.
I'm curious in what context such a statement (changing any other ethnicity, or special interest group) could be uttered without the speaker immediately (& rightly) being castigated and socially outcast?
"well, basically, black people are the problem". "well, basically, gays are the problem". "well, basically, jews are the problem".
EDIT: aha found it. http://www.mprnews.org/story/2... "Climate One program at the Commonwealth Club of California, recorded Oct. 21, 2016. Greg Dalton, moderator." 7:58+ "Truthfully...white people are the problem"
And damn you all for making me listen to that crap AGAIN to find it.
Did some research this weekend, and it wasn't Comey, it was AD McCabe. And quite honestly, I can't tell from the coverage if a) he's a shill for the Clintons, defending them against their enemies b) he's a shill for the Republicans, baselessly attacking the Clinton camp c) he's a guy trying to do his best between the millstones of public opinion while getting pressure from the DoJ (which IS obviously politically motivated).
Slashdot Mirror
Who gives a flying shit what HRC-the-hasbeen wants?
Her political power came from access and her ongoing connection to power.
After two failed runs at the presidency - including a loss to the biggest caricature on the planet - I can't imagine Qatar is going to be sending her and Billy $1 million dollar birthday presents. Nor will her brother "pick up" any other gold-mining concessions.
In fact, if the Clinton Foundation is allowed to just quietly close its doors and go away without being prosecuted for RICO crimes, that's about the most she can hope for.
She's done.
It's just an information channel.
If people are stupid enough to believe it, it doesn't matter if it arrives by FB, telegram, or pigeon.
The word you're looking for is "mistaken"
http://english.stackexchange.c...
From the New Oxford American Dictionary:
"For complex historical reasons, prove developed two past participles: proved and proven. Both are correct and can be used more or less interchangeably: this hasn't been proved yet; this hasn't been proven yet. Proven is the more common form when used as an adjective before the noun it modifies: a proven talent (not a proved talent). Otherwise, the choice between proved and proven is not a matter of correctness, but usually of sound and rhythmâ"and often, consequently, a matter of familiarity, as in the legal idiom innocent until proven guilty"
No, you lost, get the fuck over it.
Stop trying to change the rules every time you lose.
As Mr Obama famously replied in 2009? 2010 when confronted by a GOP senator during a budget summit, that his proposals weren't much of a compromise: "I won" (get over it)
If the democrats learn a single lesson from this election, it's that:
Democracy is compromise.
Starting a negotiation with the premise (stated stridently and repeatedly) that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is a complete and utter fucking moron doesn't make you right. It makes people hate you.
Wut?
You haven't been paying attention for the last 6 months: the GOP establishment likes him only slightly less than Hilary.
Just because they happen to have (R) in their positions, don't believe that the House/Senate and Trump are "on the same side".
...eventually, the earth will be *covered* with water, and all the bible literalists will be proved right.
SUCK IT SCIENCE!
...as it may set a major precedent regarding the sustainability of the EU.
Because, as we all should know by now, the crucial key to any long standing political enterprise is: who controls the MONEY.
Of course the corollary to money in a geopolitical context is...sovereignty.
Ireland, if it's actually a sovereign state, should be able to set its own tax policies. Now if it is in a voluntary agreement with the EU to deprecate it's otherwise-sovereign power for the good of the EU megastate, that's fine. But if it breaks the rules it agreed to, IT (and solely it) should be punished for that (ie paying a massive fine, whatever). How it then decides to recoup this penalty is up to it.
However, if the EU can say "Ireland, you broke the rules, you have to make THAT OTHER GUY PAY for your mistake" that essentially takes away any agency from the Irish government at all. They become little more than a tax-collection engine for Brussels.
I have to imagine that there remains some remaining sense of identity within European peoples, and that this - if the bureaucrats can't keep it carefully within the confines of the backroom - will spur a flare of quasi-nationalism that could shake the whole thing soundly.
Or, I'm totally wrong, millenial Euros are entirely adrift and amalgamated into the EU identity and things like "countries" in Europe will become little more than quaint names for administrative districts.
...the human ability to bullshit, and to obfuscate that bullshit, is evolutionary: there's a direct and obvious competitive advantage to anyone who can do so.
To detect it would take massive heuristics capable of dealing with vagueness and uncertainty, and coming to conclusions that are at best only probable; I suspect that any such algorithm would ITSELF be vulnerable to confirmation bias, just like a person.
What happened to MS's Tay? She turned into a nazi sex robot within 24 hours. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec...
Having such a system boil it down to a shorthand "this article is rated as 4 our of 5 stars of truthiness!" is not only absurdly reductionist, it ultimately adds another 'gameable' for those looking to take advantage of lazy people who just want someone to tell them what to think.
Sorry, evaluating "truth" in statements - like "I do not have a private email server" or "OK I have a private email server, but I didn't use it for official emails" or "well I used it for official emails but nothing secret" or "OK, yes, I used it for secret emails but nothing really secret"* - is something you as a human ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO THE OLD-FASHIONED HARD WAY.
*I'm sorry, were you thinking of another candidate whose statements need constant validation? Does it matter which I'm talking about? Or did my use of that example ALONE color your valuation of my words? Do I lose a truthy-star in your estimation?
This isn't rocket science, we certainly didn't need Snowden's input to recognize that emails are simply data, and crunching data is easy.
Now, I would point out that it seems curious that HRC turned over (anecdotally, I'm not going to waste my time digging out precise numbers) her servers, and the number of emails "discovered" or "turned over" or whatever was about 33,000.
(This was a laughably low number, given that she was SecState for years...my OWN email totals at my little job were around 400k for that same span...but whatever)
Now, found on the Wienermobile, there's purportedly 650,000 emails. To filter out her 33k previous - trivial.
To evaluate the other 620k-some emails as to if they had anything to do with Hilary, the Clinton Foundation, or whatever? Put 100 folks EXCLUSIVELY on it, that's reviewing nearly 700 emails each per day. Certainly, the FBI would have the resources to do this, in a crash-effort.
But that's a lot of emails to review.
How many barrels of oil (energy) is needed to generate the reaction?
If it eats 10bbl of oil to make 2 bbl of biooil, I'm not sure that's super interesting...
Now, of course, if we could ever get fusion going.. I hear it's only about 30 years away.
I like it.
The wiki-method would be perfect for this.
Tracked changes, author/authority indicated, and logged indelibly for all to see, forever.
Then again, that would require us bringing a government that barely functions at a 20th century level into the 21st, when (I'm guessing) a significant fraction of congresspeople still have their emails printed every morning.
"Follow the money" means to find out who ultimately benefits.
It does NOT mean "follow the money until it comes to someone you don't like and then reflexively oppose it because you just don't like them"...
And, honestly, the US says it even more loudly, in even more contexts.
The US is uninterested in handing over any sovereignty to organizations that aren't nominally American. So should any country be, if it's responsible to its citizens.
If Denmark, for example, is willing to hand over its sovereign choices as a state to the EU (wherein, say, the tiny population of Denmark can be outvoted completely by Germany), then literally the question is: how is Denmark even a state anymore, and not just a bureaucratic subdivision?
The "hot air" we should worry about are the empty promises, as always.
From TFA ...to which I'd add: while the framework is allegedly 'binding', I can't for the life of me find any consequences for breaking the pledges, so is a "legal framework" meaningful without punishment?
"The carbon emission curbs put forward by countries under Paris are not legally-binding but the framework of the accord, which includes a mechanism for periodically cranking those pledges up, is binding. "
(Recognizing, of course, that a lack of actual enforcement mechanism is precisely why this 'agreement' exists in the first place...it's just nice words with nothing behind it.)
Yes, dictatorships are usually more efficient at that sort of thing.
Some people might at least question the value of the tradeoff?
...there is no intrinsic necessity that the arctic be iced over.
The earth has had extended periods in which the arctic has been ice free, and it will have them again.
In fact, some might point to the fabled northwest passage that claimed so many explorers as probably a time when it was in fact ice free within human memory, at least seasonally.
...I already can't say "check out this picture" on my phone without him wanting to hold the phone (so he can see it), which invariably means he grabs it with a thumb somewhere on the face, thus closing/changing/fsking up whatever I'm trying to show him.
I think he thinks he's losing his mind, half the time I try to show him something the screen ends up blank.
I wasn't even going to touch on his assertion that voting for Trump was basically his litmus test for insanity.
While I'm absolutely certain that many here on /. would agree that's true, I guess I'd caution people about living in such a neatly categorical world if ROUGHLY 50% OF THE POPULATION (whether he wins or loses) are by your definition insane.
I'm not sure holding such a degree of sneering contempt for half your society is constructive, healthy, or even rational.
I'd recommend watching Jim Gaffigan's thoughtful "Disagree with someone? Calling them a moron won't help." https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I actually said nothing about the delivery (how it was said) nor the syntax (the construction of the sentence).
Do you understand how English works?
You seem to believe that since it's justifiable logically, it's ok to say? I'll bite. Would that be equally ok to say about blacks and crime then?
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2...
"Climate One program at the Commonwealth Club of California, recorded Oct. 21, 2016. Greg Dalton, moderator." 7:58+
"Truthfully...white people are the problem"
I'm curious in what context such a statement (applying any other ethnicity, or special interest group) could be uttered without the speaker immediately (& rightly) being castigated and socially outcast?
Let's see:
"Truthfully...black people are the problem"
"Truthfully...gays are the problem"
"Truthfully...jews are the problem"
And one wonders how the "Climate Change" message doesn't seem to resonate with the majority of Americans?
Perhaps patronizing racism *isn't* the kind of thing with which one builds consensus?
Yesterday, I heard on NPR (I believe it was a climate forum) one of the talking "experts" opined "well, basically, white people are the problem" followed by chuckles and murmurs of assent.
I'm curious in what context such a statement (changing any other ethnicity, or special interest group) could be uttered without the speaker immediately (& rightly) being castigated and socially outcast?
"well, basically, black people are the problem".
"well, basically, gays are the problem".
"well, basically, jews are the problem".
EDIT: aha found it.
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2...
"Climate One program at the Commonwealth Club of California, recorded Oct. 21, 2016. Greg Dalton, moderator." 7:58+
"Truthfully...white people are the problem"
And damn you all for making me listen to that crap AGAIN to find it.
I'm going to correct myself.
Did some research this weekend, and it wasn't Comey, it was AD McCabe.
And quite honestly, I can't tell from the coverage if
a) he's a shill for the Clintons, defending them against their enemies
b) he's a shill for the Republicans, baselessly attacking the Clinton camp
c) he's a guy trying to do his best between the millstones of public opinion while getting pressure from the DoJ (which IS obviously politically motivated).
"Actually it's rather bizarre that Comey would throw a bombshell like this 11 days before the election."
I know, right?
You'd figure $600k to Coney's wife's political campaign would have settled the issue once and for all, no?
To be clear, the correct url is http://www.getpaint.net/index....