She has months of gaps in her emails. That's not credible.
There is no way she sent no official emails while head of the state department for months.
As to your ad hominem on Fox news... it doesn't matter who says a thing. If the devil himself stood before you and said 1+1=2... is he lying?
Saying that it is from fox so is wrong is equally stupid. It is ad hominem. Do better.
As to requirements to use the US government servers, yes she is required to use them. She can use private email if she BCCs or CCs all the email to the government account. Otherwise she can't do it.
And even then that is frowned upon.
If on top of that she destroyed government documents then that is a felony.
She has MONTHS of gaps in her emails. Which means she's either filtering mails in sensitive periods of time to carefully redact information she doesn't want to reveal or she actually deleted them.
I suspect it is the first option. The server should have been ceased and gone over by independent computer forensic investigators. Same thing you'd do if you were auditing a corporation that wasn't cooperating with discovery.
She'll almost certainly get away with it. But that is more because she's powerful and has powerful friends rather then because she didn't do anything.
In regards to auditing text messages, they've not come up in investigations of the government yet. You could be right. However I don't think they're retained indefinitely the same way that emails are in the government servers.
As to shiny... I feel your pain. However, BB should have made an iPhone clone that was every bit as pretty. You can't let apple claim the pretty crown.
And I am not suggesting I have the power personally to throw her in jail.
However, if the current information as we know it is accurate then she's almost certainly a felon. And even if she didn't destroy any information, it is still against the law to not use the government email servers for government correspondence.
This is both for security reasons and for investigative reasons.
What she did was indefensible for someone in her position.
NSA isn't cooperating with anyone outside of the oval office. They've directly lied to congress a couple times. So I'm not holding my breath that they'll be any help.
She is on record saying she didn't like email because it could be audited. Since that recording she apparently figured out that she could self host.
That is almost certainly why she was doing it.
And added to that, many members of the government are being encouraged to use text messages instead of emails etc because they can't be audited.
There is a concerted effort throughout government to communicate in manners that cannot be audited.
All of which is against the spirit of the law regardless of whether it is against the letter of the law.
Its the fucking IRS issue all over again. They said they didn't have her emails or they were destroyed. Turns out that the IRS emails were actually backed up the whole time and the IT department that had them had received no queries for them at any time. Revealing that the IRS in fact never looked for them.
Its just deceit deceit deceit.
And for those that will reflexively say this is just a republican thing... it isn't. This is fucking bullshit regardless of what party is doing it. Stop being such shills and realize that if you accept this then the republicans are going to start doing it. And then MAYBE you might grasp why this is unacceptable.
And the destruction of government records is a felony.
news at 11.;)
Her email records were sopeniaed by congress in the middle of that bengazi thing and they were never provided because the state department didn't have them despite by law having a right to have them.
If government officials can use private email servers to host government emails then there is no way to know who said what to whom when. The whole point was to have the records with a trusted third party that could be audited.
Because she self hosted her own email there is no such third party and we have to "trust" that she didn't delete government emails.
Given that there are gaps of MONTHS in the records she provided there is no way that she didn't unless she didn't send a government email despite being the head of the state department for months.
How fucking likely is that?
I'm not saying she's going to jail. She's too powerful and her political allies are too powerful. That doesn't mean she isn't as of this moment almost certainly a felon.
You've got literally nothing backing up your position. I cited recent efforts to stop strong encryption in the UK that were shut down and I pointed out that your policies have not even been imposed in Iran and China.
If your policies do not address needs and conditions in an area then you are ignoring them. What is more you just tried to defend a policy of ignoring them.
Then cede 90 percent of the land which isn't cities to a different authority. You won't mind apparently.
The government has to serve the interests of everyone. If you say "well more people live in cities" that's fine but that doesn't excuse ignoring the rest of the country.
That attitude is why we have a federated government in the first place. Your city has its own government. Then your county has its own government which includes your city and the suburbs around it. And then your state has a government which includes not just your city, and your county, but also the areas beyond it.
The federal government which the FCC is a part, has responsibility for ALL the land. Not just your city. If you want them to give up authority for everything but your city, then your notion would make some sense. Absent that, they need to take seriously administering their territory in a fashion that is functional for all those situations and not simply ignoring everything that isn't a city.
1. Segregate the parts of the computer with networked access from the portions of the car that actually involve driving. Brakes, acceleration, engine timing firmware, etc. All of that should be airgapped from the GPS OnStar stuff.
2. Make the storage media that those systems use both physically accessible from the inside of the car AND compatible with conventional computer technology. The internal storage of these systems should be on an SD card or a USB 3.0 Flash drive or a little SSD hard drive. The point is that if something goes wrong with my on board computer, I want to be able to pull its drive and re flash it with factory defaults. There is no reason for on chip storage the same way cell phones do it in a car. The reason you do that in a cell phone is to save space. In a car, you're not that hard up for space so you can make the storage media a little more bulky,
3. Install a firewall. Nothing fancy and let people configure it.
4. "What about people that want to start their car engine with a smart phone app?" Well, first I think this is a stupid feature. But assuming you want to keep it, you can have one way conditional communication across the airgap so long as that communication cannot pass executable code OR endanger the safety of the driver. So certain commands under specific circumstances should be fine. For example, if the engine is off, and the onstar system sends a "start engine command" that doesn't endanger the driver. If the engine is already on then the command will be ignored and so far as I know there are no other commands people want to issue to cars through their smartphones. If you want to mess with the headlights etc... perhaps have the condition that the transmission be in "park" or that the emergency brake is activated. If you put these conditions on very specific commands and only permit those commands to be passed. Then a hacker with total control of your onstar system won't be able to endanger you while you drive.
I actually read this to see if you had even tried to make a point. You didn't.
You haven't from what I've seen this entire time ever tried to make a falsifiable argument.
And that is why I'm done with you. Not because I disagree with you but because it is impossible to reason with you if you do not present your reasoning.
You have not done so even once. Absent that, it is not possible for ANYONE to reason with you.
I suspect to some extent this is a defensive tactic on your part. You don't want to be proven wrong or have your logic questioned so you just don't expose it.
While that works, it also means we can't have a discussion because you won't open up about your position. And until you do that, no one can have a discussion with you on this issue or any issue where you likewise do not expose your position.
No, the evidence that I'm right came through recently. The UK government was talking about banning Tor and banning strong encryption and forcing VPNs to go through some sort of government check system.
And the parliament just came back from deliberation and said "no."
So... no.
The corps and other interests with enough power to get the politicians to pay attention need to keep secrets as well. And their needs will ultimately serve ours because in protecting their right to keep secrets they will passively protect ours.
They need VPNs and strong encryption as well. Not only that, but they're actually under international attack from intelligence agencies all over the world with people trying to get access to their systems. They need the security. And they're not giving it up.
And if they have it, then it wont' be illegal and if isn't illegal then you can have it too.
You want to make an argument? Back it up with something. I just cited that the UK parliament which is contextually relevant to the topic because it was the UK government asking the question has just rejected policies that would make cracking down on piracy more possible.
The bribes are frequently pivotal. Portland gave an exclusive contract for the city in return for getting free gigabit internet for the capital building.
You see other ones where they'll do it in return for providing free internet access to public schools. etc.
And then there are campaign contributions to local politicians often of around 5,000 dollars which is a lot for a local politician in a small town. Less so for a mayor in a major city but they tend to not bribe those people. They focus on the city council.
As to the murder definition... you're both saying my definition was inadequate without any justification and saying that merely by offering even a sentence definition means that you're right about definitions needing to be made.
We're done. Your position is so manifestly desperate to salvage an argument you lost before you even started that I really have just lost patience with you.
You want to play rhetorical games and you have not throughout this entire discussion summed up your position in a logical fashion. Not fucking once. I prompted you to do so repeatedly and you tried to give reasons for why you wouldn't and then presumed to question my logic.
We're done. I gave you ever opportunity and you kept trying to dance even after I explained to you at great length that such rhetorical games do not work on me. At all.
You use logic on me or you might as well be making animal noises.
And no, I'm not asking for that anymore. That opportunity has expired. We're done.
Another point is that without an open source engine the AAA engines might not be offering themselves for free.
They're clearly trying to compete with the cheaper/free open source engines.
And one has to wonder why they're doing it? Can they sustain FREE forever? I question that. They might be thinking that they'll kill the open source community by dropping their price and then jack it up once it starts to fall apart.
I'd suggest keeping it active because sooner or later the AAAs will want to get paid.
As to whether such agreements must contain a bribe... never seen one that didn't.
Put yourself in my place... lets say you saw a pattern of 100 percent.
Now you want to claim that in some small percentage of cases it isn't just a bribe keeping it going? Okay... but if the overwhelming majority of them are... then who cares.
As to rest, you're just arguing over some semantics that I've made repeatedly clear don't especially matter to me. You say murder has to be clearly defined? Really?
The intentional killing of another human being excluding killing done during war against enemies or when required to defend another life.
Explain how I didn't just define murder in one fucking sentence.
Now you might say "what about manslaughter, and second degree murder, and first degree murder?"... want to bet I can sum each up in a sentence too? Its not that fucking complicated.
The issue is that people are always trying to cheat the system by being as obtuse as possible. And rather than train judges to be better at their jobs we specify things to an absurd degree so as to help incompetent judges where the edges of the law are and where they are not.
Maybe I've unreasonably high expectations of judges. But were they more the philosopher scholars we need this level of specification wouldn't be required. And frankly with the amount of specificity required you might as well replace a lot of them with automated AIs. When the legislature specifies every little condition there isn't much to judge.
Its the difference between a chief and guy slamming burgers together at burger and fries joint. The one is a culinary expert with a grasp of cooking... able to innovate and grasp the depth of complex culinary concepts. The other is some kid following a set of instructions by route. And the more you write your legal system that way the more you're expressing the opinion that your judges are burger flippers.
And I don't disagree to a certain extent. A lot of them are ignorant cretins. But it doesn't have to be that way.
As to proving your point because the locals will define things. I never said they wouldn't. I just said I didn't care. They'll learn to write their codes as to not run afoul of the prohibition or learn to regret it.
And really 100 percent isn't really absolutely required. I just want everyone to get the most good they can out of the available spectrum. If 80 or 90 percent get used and no one wants to use what is left including some random person that just wants to do whatever personal thing on it... then fine. But really opening it up like this is going to cause it to get nearly 100 percent exploited practically everywhere. And that's to the common good.
Here someone might say "but what if we need space for something?"... well... either buy people's leases out or eminent domain it... or have be a clause that you don't have to renew someone's lease indefinitely even if they are using. If you need it for something else... fine.
But if it is just sitting there idle because some fucking corporation gave the FCC a pile of money then fuck that. The point of the FCC is not to raise money. The point is to regulate the airwaves. The collection of money is secondary to their primary goal which is seeing that the spectrum is used properly. And selling it all to a couple corporations that mostly just sit on it and dont' do anything with it is fucked up.
I agree that it should only be rented. I referred to it as leasing.
I also described in some posts a process by which earning the lease required actually using the bandwidth and that if it were not used for a specific period of time then the lease would automatically expire whether or not the company had kept current on payments.
No they won't. Corporations and other interests that need a level of privacy will prevent that from happening. These interests are so strong that even in Iran VPNs are used commonly without much trouble.
You are telling me that your new order is going to be more restrictive than the Chinese and Iranian models?
Come now.
It seems like not only have the politicians learned nothing... but neither have you.
We're done... I don't respect you in this discussion anymore and if I continue talking to you in it, then I'm going to be rude since that respect threshold was just crossed.
So in the interests of maintaining what civility I have left, I will say "Good day, sir."
In what way is my characterization of the law inaccurate?
You can make a clear statement with defined variables or continue to fail to make a coherent argument.
The choice has always been yours.
Whether Y = Y' or not you did not define either Y or Y' so it isn't useful. I can't evaluate anything you're saying.
You're not making falsifiable arguments. And absent that you're not making logical arguments.
A logical argument must be falsifiable or it is fallacious.
I don't understand why you think playing these rhetorical games is constructive?
Please... present your position... plainly and without pretense.
Explicitly define your variables if you use them. If not, then at the very least make a rational falsifiable argument for your position.
Absent that, common ground is literally impossible. I cannot reason with you if you refuse to reason.
Rhetoric is not reasoning. You're hitting me with a lot of crap that basically looks like this to me:
((Y*X)/X)*M +R = ((Y/M+R)*X)/X
And if you solve that... you get Y=Y
You've got all this shit attached that doesn't actually do or meaning anything to the central argument. Its just there. And if you solve for anything... it just falls away into irrelevance.
Now please... don't again use my final statement as an excuse to not answer my core challenge to you at this point. I will restate it three times now so it is rhetorically impossible for you to ignore it.
1.Please... present your position... plainly and without pretense.
Explicitly define your variables if you use them. If not, then at the very least make a rational falsifiable argument for your position.
2.Please... present your position... plainly and without pretense.
Explicitly define your variables if you use them. If not, then at the very least make a rational falsifiable argument for your position.
3.Please... present your position... plainly and without pretense.
Explicitly define your variables if you use them. If not, then at the very least make a rational falsifiable argument for your position.
I'm trying to find some common ground with you. But absent anything that appears rational... there is nothing I can do here.
Slashdot Mirror
She has months of gaps in her emails. That's not credible.
There is no way she sent no official emails while head of the state department for months.
As to your ad hominem on Fox news... it doesn't matter who says a thing. If the devil himself stood before you and said 1+1=2... is he lying?
Saying that it is from fox so is wrong is equally stupid. It is ad hominem. Do better.
As to requirements to use the US government servers, yes she is required to use them. She can use private email if she BCCs or CCs all the email to the government account. Otherwise she can't do it.
And even then that is frowned upon.
If on top of that she destroyed government documents then that is a felony.
She has MONTHS of gaps in her emails. Which means she's either filtering mails in sensitive periods of time to carefully redact information she doesn't want to reveal or she actually deleted them.
I suspect it is the first option. The server should have been ceased and gone over by independent computer forensic investigators. Same thing you'd do if you were auditing a corporation that wasn't cooperating with discovery.
She'll almost certainly get away with it. But that is more because she's powerful and has powerful friends rather then because she didn't do anything.
It is no kind of fallacy. it is a pre-emptive argument.
It only applies to you if you adopt it.
Don't say it is a republican thing and it won't apply to you.
Think of it like putting land mines on a part of the field before an engagement. It is area denial. :)
In regards to auditing text messages, they've not come up in investigations of the government yet. You could be right. However I don't think they're retained indefinitely the same way that emails are in the government servers.
As to shiny... I feel your pain. However, BB should have made an iPhone clone that was every bit as pretty. You can't let apple claim the pretty crown.
And I am not suggesting I have the power personally to throw her in jail.
However, if the current information as we know it is accurate then she's almost certainly a felon. And even if she didn't destroy any information, it is still against the law to not use the government email servers for government correspondence.
This is both for security reasons and for investigative reasons.
What she did was indefensible for someone in her position.
NSA isn't cooperating with anyone outside of the oval office. They've directly lied to congress a couple times. So I'm not holding my breath that they'll be any help.
sp.
subpoenaed
sorry.
She is on record saying she didn't like email because it could be audited. Since that recording she apparently figured out that she could self host.
That is almost certainly why she was doing it.
And added to that, many members of the government are being encouraged to use text messages instead of emails etc because they can't be audited.
There is a concerted effort throughout government to communicate in manners that cannot be audited.
All of which is against the spirit of the law regardless of whether it is against the letter of the law.
Its the fucking IRS issue all over again. They said they didn't have her emails or they were destroyed. Turns out that the IRS emails were actually backed up the whole time and the IT department that had them had received no queries for them at any time. Revealing that the IRS in fact never looked for them.
Its just deceit deceit deceit.
And for those that will reflexively say this is just a republican thing... it isn't. This is fucking bullshit regardless of what party is doing it. Stop being such shills and realize that if you accept this then the republicans are going to start doing it. And then MAYBE you might grasp why this is unacceptable.
It specifically is illegal actually.
And the destruction of government records is a felony.
news at 11. ;)
Her email records were sopeniaed by congress in the middle of that bengazi thing and they were never provided because the state department didn't have them despite by law having a right to have them.
If government officials can use private email servers to host government emails then there is no way to know who said what to whom when. The whole point was to have the records with a trusted third party that could be audited.
Because she self hosted her own email there is no such third party and we have to "trust" that she didn't delete government emails.
Given that there are gaps of MONTHS in the records she provided there is no way that she didn't unless she didn't send a government email despite being the head of the state department for months.
How fucking likely is that?
I'm not saying she's going to jail. She's too powerful and her political allies are too powerful. That doesn't mean she isn't as of this moment almost certainly a felon.
You've got literally nothing backing up your position. I cited recent efforts to stop strong encryption in the UK that were shut down and I pointed out that your policies have not even been imposed in Iran and China.
To rebut me, you have childish insults.
You lose.
http://heeereswilly.ytmnd.com/
Good day.
If your policies do not address needs and conditions in an area then you are ignoring them. What is more you just tried to defend a policy of ignoring them.
You're saying they're going to impose something that hasn't been imposed in China or Iran.
You're wrong.
We're done. Good bye.
Then cede 90 percent of the land which isn't cities to a different authority. You won't mind apparently.
The government has to serve the interests of everyone. If you say "well more people live in cities" that's fine but that doesn't excuse ignoring the rest of the country.
That attitude is why we have a federated government in the first place. Your city has its own government. Then your county has its own government which includes your city and the suburbs around it. And then your state has a government which includes not just your city, and your county, but also the areas beyond it.
The federal government which the FCC is a part, has responsibility for ALL the land. Not just your city. If you want them to give up authority for everything but your city, then your notion would make some sense. Absent that, they need to take seriously administering their territory in a fashion that is functional for all those situations and not simply ignoring everything that isn't a city.
1. Segregate the parts of the computer with networked access from the portions of the car that actually involve driving. Brakes, acceleration, engine timing firmware, etc. All of that should be airgapped from the GPS OnStar stuff.
2. Make the storage media that those systems use both physically accessible from the inside of the car AND compatible with conventional computer technology. The internal storage of these systems should be on an SD card or a USB 3.0 Flash drive or a little SSD hard drive. The point is that if something goes wrong with my on board computer, I want to be able to pull its drive and re flash it with factory defaults. There is no reason for on chip storage the same way cell phones do it in a car. The reason you do that in a cell phone is to save space. In a car, you're not that hard up for space so you can make the storage media a little more bulky,
3. Install a firewall. Nothing fancy and let people configure it.
4. "What about people that want to start their car engine with a smart phone app?" Well, first I think this is a stupid feature. But assuming you want to keep it, you can have one way conditional communication across the airgap so long as that communication cannot pass executable code OR endanger the safety of the driver. So certain commands under specific circumstances should be fine. For example, if the engine is off, and the onstar system sends a "start engine command" that doesn't endanger the driver. If the engine is already on then the command will be ignored and so far as I know there are no other commands people want to issue to cars through their smartphones. If you want to mess with the headlights etc... perhaps have the condition that the transmission be in "park" or that the emergency brake is activated. If you put these conditions on very specific commands and only permit those commands to be passed. Then a hacker with total control of your onstar system won't be able to endanger you while you drive.
I actually read this to see if you had even tried to make a point. You didn't.
You haven't from what I've seen this entire time ever tried to make a falsifiable argument.
And that is why I'm done with you. Not because I disagree with you but because it is impossible to reason with you if you do not present your reasoning.
You have not done so even once. Absent that, it is not possible for ANYONE to reason with you.
I suspect to some extent this is a defensive tactic on your part. You don't want to be proven wrong or have your logic questioned so you just don't expose it.
While that works, it also means we can't have a discussion because you won't open up about your position. And until you do that, no one can have a discussion with you on this issue or any issue where you likewise do not expose your position.
Again, good day.
No, the evidence that I'm right came through recently. The UK government was talking about banning Tor and banning strong encryption and forcing VPNs to go through some sort of government check system.
And the parliament just came back from deliberation and said "no."
So... no.
The corps and other interests with enough power to get the politicians to pay attention need to keep secrets as well. And their needs will ultimately serve ours because in protecting their right to keep secrets they will passively protect ours.
They need VPNs and strong encryption as well. Not only that, but they're actually under international attack from intelligence agencies all over the world with people trying to get access to their systems. They need the security. And they're not giving it up.
And if they have it, then it wont' be illegal and if isn't illegal then you can have it too.
You want to make an argument? Back it up with something. I just cited that the UK parliament which is contextually relevant to the topic because it was the UK government asking the question has just rejected policies that would make cracking down on piracy more possible.
Seriously... end of discussion.
Good day, sir.
The bribes are frequently pivotal. Portland gave an exclusive contract for the city in return for getting free gigabit internet for the capital building.
You see other ones where they'll do it in return for providing free internet access to public schools. etc.
And then there are campaign contributions to local politicians often of around 5,000 dollars which is a lot for a local politician in a small town. Less so for a mayor in a major city but they tend to not bribe those people. They focus on the city council.
As to the murder definition... you're both saying my definition was inadequate without any justification and saying that merely by offering even a sentence definition means that you're right about definitions needing to be made.
We're done. Your position is so manifestly desperate to salvage an argument you lost before you even started that I really have just lost patience with you.
You want to play rhetorical games and you have not throughout this entire discussion summed up your position in a logical fashion. Not fucking once. I prompted you to do so repeatedly and you tried to give reasons for why you wouldn't and then presumed to question my logic.
We're done. I gave you ever opportunity and you kept trying to dance even after I explained to you at great length that such rhetorical games do not work on me. At all.
You use logic on me or you might as well be making animal noises.
And no, I'm not asking for that anymore. That opportunity has expired. We're done.
Good day, sir.
Another point is that without an open source engine the AAA engines might not be offering themselves for free.
They're clearly trying to compete with the cheaper/free open source engines.
And one has to wonder why they're doing it? Can they sustain FREE forever? I question that. They might be thinking that they'll kill the open source community by dropping their price and then jack it up once it starts to fall apart.
I'd suggest keeping it active because sooner or later the AAAs will want to get paid.
As to whether such agreements must contain a bribe... never seen one that didn't.
Put yourself in my place... lets say you saw a pattern of 100 percent.
Now you want to claim that in some small percentage of cases it isn't just a bribe keeping it going? Okay... but if the overwhelming majority of them are... then who cares.
As to rest, you're just arguing over some semantics that I've made repeatedly clear don't especially matter to me. You say murder has to be clearly defined? Really?
The intentional killing of another human being excluding killing done during war against enemies or when required to defend another life.
Explain how I didn't just define murder in one fucking sentence.
Now you might say "what about manslaughter, and second degree murder, and first degree murder?"... want to bet I can sum each up in a sentence too? Its not that fucking complicated.
The issue is that people are always trying to cheat the system by being as obtuse as possible. And rather than train judges to be better at their jobs we specify things to an absurd degree so as to help incompetent judges where the edges of the law are and where they are not.
Maybe I've unreasonably high expectations of judges. But were they more the philosopher scholars we need this level of specification wouldn't be required. And frankly with the amount of specificity required you might as well replace a lot of them with automated AIs. When the legislature specifies every little condition there isn't much to judge.
Its the difference between a chief and guy slamming burgers together at burger and fries joint. The one is a culinary expert with a grasp of cooking... able to innovate and grasp the depth of complex culinary concepts. The other is some kid following a set of instructions by route. And the more you write your legal system that way the more you're expressing the opinion that your judges are burger flippers.
And I don't disagree to a certain extent. A lot of them are ignorant cretins. But it doesn't have to be that way.
As to proving your point because the locals will define things. I never said they wouldn't. I just said I didn't care. They'll learn to write their codes as to not run afoul of the prohibition or learn to regret it.
I know right...
And really 100 percent isn't really absolutely required. I just want everyone to get the most good they can out of the available spectrum. If 80 or 90 percent get used and no one wants to use what is left including some random person that just wants to do whatever personal thing on it... then fine. But really opening it up like this is going to cause it to get nearly 100 percent exploited practically everywhere. And that's to the common good.
Here someone might say "but what if we need space for something?"... well... either buy people's leases out or eminent domain it... or have be a clause that you don't have to renew someone's lease indefinitely even if they are using. If you need it for something else... fine.
But if it is just sitting there idle because some fucking corporation gave the FCC a pile of money then fuck that. The point of the FCC is not to raise money. The point is to regulate the airwaves. The collection of money is secondary to their primary goal which is seeing that the spectrum is used properly. And selling it all to a couple corporations that mostly just sit on it and dont' do anything with it is fucked up.
I agree that it should only be rented. I referred to it as leasing.
I also described in some posts a process by which earning the lease required actually using the bandwidth and that if it were not used for a specific period of time then the lease would automatically expire whether or not the company had kept current on payments.
I prefer very much a "use it or lose it" system.
No they won't. Corporations and other interests that need a level of privacy will prevent that from happening. These interests are so strong that even in Iran VPNs are used commonly without much trouble.
You are telling me that your new order is going to be more restrictive than the Chinese and Iranian models?
Come now.
It seems like not only have the politicians learned nothing... but neither have you.
We're done... I don't respect you in this discussion anymore and if I continue talking to you in it, then I'm going to be rude since that respect threshold was just crossed.
So in the interests of maintaining what civility I have left, I will say "Good day, sir."
*tips hat*
*leaves*
In what way is my characterization of the law inaccurate?
You can make a clear statement with defined variables or continue to fail to make a coherent argument.
The choice has always been yours.
Whether Y = Y' or not you did not define either Y or Y' so it isn't useful. I can't evaluate anything you're saying.
You're not making falsifiable arguments. And absent that you're not making logical arguments.
A logical argument must be falsifiable or it is fallacious.
I don't understand why you think playing these rhetorical games is constructive?
Please... present your position... plainly and without pretense.
Explicitly define your variables if you use them. If not, then at the very least make a rational falsifiable argument for your position.
Absent that, common ground is literally impossible. I cannot reason with you if you refuse to reason.
Rhetoric is not reasoning. You're hitting me with a lot of crap that basically looks like this to me:
((Y*X)/X)*M +R = ((Y/M+R)*X)/X
And if you solve that... you get Y=Y
You've got all this shit attached that doesn't actually do or meaning anything to the central argument. Its just there. And if you solve for anything... it just falls away into irrelevance.
Now please... don't again use my final statement as an excuse to not answer my core challenge to you at this point. I will restate it three times now so it is rhetorically impossible for you to ignore it.
1.Please... present your position... plainly and without pretense.
Explicitly define your variables if you use them. If not, then at the very least make a rational falsifiable argument for your position.
2.Please... present your position... plainly and without pretense.
Explicitly define your variables if you use them. If not, then at the very least make a rational falsifiable argument for your position.
3.Please... present your position... plainly and without pretense.
Explicitly define your variables if you use them. If not, then at the very least make a rational falsifiable argument for your position.
I'm trying to find some common ground with you. But absent anything that appears rational... there is nothing I can do here.
I don't see the connection.
Assuming that becomes standard kit, I'd agree. However for the foreseeable future that flexibility isn't likely.
Still, I like the idea.
I mean that "I am inclined to see such organizations as necessary evils" not "I am not inclined".