So going by this logic politicians should just shut up and let their record stand for itself.
Which shows the problem with news in this country: even if it were better, people are so damn lousy at thinking they'll believe any dichotomy no matter how ridiculous (e.g. either you promote false news stories or you give politicians a pass).
Geographic density doesn't matter, it's the number of voters per machine and the procedures used to secure each machine. Where voters are spread out machines are spread out too; where voters are concentrated so are the machines. So if you want to tamper without producing statistically obvious results it's still a big job involving lots of devices.
Now the machines in Harris County are particularly braindead from a security standpoint. However as the machines are physically sealed after being configured it would have to be done by (a) the Republican County Clerk or (b) someone at the precinct. It'd take a lot of precincts to swing Texas to Clinton, because Trump is polling 9.4% ahead of Clinton. If Clinton wins Texas by tampering, it'll be fishy in an obvious way.
The best target for machine tampering, by far, would be North Carolina. It is currently a dead heat there and it has exactly enough EVs to swing the election to Clinton, which means its the smallest state where you could theoretically pull this off. Still, we're talking about a state where 4.5 million people cast their vote in 2012. Even if the polling is statistically tied, it'd take a lot of subverted machines to exceed the margin of error. Watch the exit polling.
I'd say that given the bar is 270 EVs and Clinton has 252 save EVs, anything over, say 300 EVs means that tampering wouldn't have made any difference. And given that Clinton has her own stats geeks working on this she'd have a pretty good idea if she was heading for a decisive victory. If she tops out at
Still, everyone should go to optical scan ballots. They're practically tamper-proof, auditable, and can be tallied fast enough for all practical purposes.
Except the US government does not have custody of or access to the machines. The machines are owned, operated, and secured by local governments.
Thus an effort to by the US government to hack the machines would entail clandestine physical access to the machines -- a "black bag job". And to throw the electoral college you need to do a lot of burglaries in a big state, or a lot of burglaries distributed across multiple small states. In 2000 it could have been done by hacking a single precinct (about 2500 voters in FL), but nobody could have known it would be quite that close; so you'd really need to hack a lot of machines to be sure, and if you're doing something like that you want to be very sure. It's a cost/benefit calculation: hack too little you risk getting caught and undermining a legitimate victory; hack too much and your risk of getting caught goes up rapidly as more people and places are involved. Nobody could know in 2000 that the margin would come down to 537 out of eight million registered voters.
And in 2016 the risk/benefit math is dominated by this fact: if you add up all the safe states for each candidate, Clinton has to win just 18 EVs from the remaining contended states; Trump needs to win 107. If Clinton wins just one of the five largest contested states she wins the electoral college; this amounts to five rounds of single elimination for Trump. On top of this there is a massive disparity in ground game. Trump only started to organize get-out-the-vote (GOTV) infrastructure in the final weeks of the campaign, making it difficult for him to score upsets over polling. Clinton has been preparing her ground game for years.
So it makes no sense for Clinton (supposing she had friends in the FBI or CIA to help her) to risk undermining the legitimacy of an election she is very, very probably going to win.
All that said, voting machines DO pose a serious threat to the legitimacy of local elections. Also, voting machine malfunctions could well throw the presidential election one way or the other.
Well, maybe he's no Salinger, but he's not quite the talentless hack you paint him to be. He was very influential in establishing the look and story for many iconic characters -- Iron Man, Spider-Man, and of course Doctor Strange.
I think a lot of people don't care for Ditko because of his politics -- he's an Objectivist. But the thing about really creative people is that there always a "where the hell did that come from?" aspect to their work. In that he's quite a bit more interesting than as an artist than Rand herself.
Well, SFTP and FTP can be run over a secure channel like a VPN or SSH tunnel -- in fact SFTP was designed to run that way as it provides no authentication capabilities of its own. In which case wireshark does you no good because you're looking at packets full of gibberish.
Second it is possible to get access to a machine without having access to the network segment it is on, in which case wireshark doesn't do you any good.
Third, it is possible to get access to a disk without necessarily having the ability to install a keylogger. For example the disk could be recycled; or your malware may have the ability to send files but not the privileges needed to install a keylogger.
This is really a broken way to think about security. Yes, security is only as reliable as its weakest link, but the existence of a single weak link doesn't mean it's OK to have holes all over the place. If that's the case if there's more than one vulnerability it's nobody's job to fix his bit until everyone else fixes theirs.
Well, I've seen H-1Bs across the spectrum, from utter incompetents to people I'd hire in a heartbeat. Just like anyone else.
The real problem is that the people behind this don't see IT as a profession, like a being a lawyer or a doctor; they see IT expertise as a commodity, like pig iron. You go with the lowest price supplier, and tough luck to the higher priced ones.
But even pig iron comes in different grades, and if all you do is go with the lowest price thing called "pig iron" chances are you won't be getting a bargain if your requirements are high -- which they should be in the case of something like IT, given how deeply IT is entwined with every aspect of how a modern enterprise runs. And given that level of involvement it makes sense to cultivate a long term workforce rather than a transient one.
If you go for the lowest price you can get you're going to create a problem, whether that is with domestic or immigrant labor. In reality you want to go for the best people you can get, and retain them for as long as you can because they only perform better with experience.
The judge in the Polish workers case ruled that the Trump organization, at least, knew about them and took an active part in using them. This eventually forced the Trump organization to settle out of court on undisclosed terms.
So, does this means Trump knew about them? No. That evidence comes from an investigation conducted by Time Magazine, which showed that Trump "sought out the Polish workers when he saw them on another job, instigated the creation of the company that paid them and negotiated the hours they would work," and when they sought their unpaid wages attempted to blackmail them over their immigration status. [citation].
Does this disprove the idea of Trump as a champion of the working man? No, because that's an article of faith with people who still believe it. There is literally nothing that Trump could have done that will shake that belief.
They probably are descended in part from the ancient Macedonians. As is practically everyone else in Europe.
It's silly to stake a genetic claim to the heritage of a people from 2300 years ago -- if you are European. Europe had a little thing called the Migration Age which shuffled the entire continent's genetic deck. That's why you see a haplotype that's believed to have originated around the Volga River in a broad swath from the Caucuses through Greece, Southern Italy and Spain, with pockets in all kinds of odd places like Lapland. You find "Norse" DNA in the Near East too -- thanks to the crusades.
All those 19th Century eugenic theories were based on philological reconstructions; they assumed that common language and stories meant common ancestry; ethnicity turns out to have very little to do with genetics. It's a stupid argument anyway; by that standard I'm English, even though my ancestors were from China. Or contrariwise, because my ancestors were Chinese I somehow "own" Shakespeare less than some British soccer hooligan who flunked his O levels.
The dispute is over cultural appropriation of Alexander the Great; however given the phenomenon of pedigree collapse nobody really has much of a claim to a culture that existed 2300 years ago unless they practiced very strict endogamy (e.g. the Jews) over all that time. It's a bit like the Italians going after Cincinnati for appropriating Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.
Sure, but they aren't describing a volumetric substance; they're describing a parameter -- sea ice extent. Sea ice volume is a different parameter.
These two parameters are of course correlated, but not in a simple way. For example wind can blow ice away from regions of ice formation, resulting in much greater extent and volume, but less volume/extent (e.g. thinner ice). This by the way is why sometimes Antarctic ice extent increases as temperatures increase -- because winds can also increase.
The primary interaction surface of a phone is the screen. Once a basic level of performance and functionality is met, the things that mattered the most to me is:
This is true; but it is fashion, not functionality that is driving the bezel-less thing. Sacrificing a few percent of the face area for structural reasons isn't going to make any measurable difference in objective HCI terms; the difference is how the way the thing looks makes you feel. I'm not saying this is stupid or anything like that; it's just the way people are. If something makes us feel good we overlook its faults and exaggerate its virtues.
Well, consumers are tricky. Give them what they say they want, and they still aren't satisfied. Yet sometimes they love something that they never really asked for.
This is why engineers typically aren't any good at design. They expect people to be rational in their specifications and to judge results by how well the work meets those specifications.
Jobs was quite a way short of being infallible, but one thing he understood was that selling a design wasn't about checking off items on a punchlist or defending choices to leave things out. It's about telling a compelling story. So rather than dwelling on why the iHammer doesn't tighten nuts he'd get you to picture how great it would be to whack nails with the thing.
You know, people who think that scientists don't like controversy probably don't know many of them. Shifting consensus is how reputations and careers are made. And if there were some credible line of inquiry that promised we could burn as much fossil fuel as we wanted, it wouldn't be hard at all to find funding for it.
For that matter, I'd personally like it if we could burn as much fossil fuel as we wanted -- with local pollution controls of course. But that's wishful thinking.
If you want to create some kind of grand social dynamics theory of climate change science, you should at least take time to familiarize yourself with the literature on AGW. If you go into Google Scholar you'll see that the consensus in the 1950s was that the Earth was entering a cooling period. It took fifty years to shift that consensus and the substance of how it shifted is worth studying before engaging in armchair sociology.
We're in a warming trend (actually overdue, given the rock and ice records).
Actually we should be in a cooling period. You can't just plot out the cycles and infer a period, the main driver of the cycles is the interaction of the Earth's orbital and rotational precession, which is why scientists used to think we were heading into a cooling period that should last for about the next twenty-thousand years.
The very nature of climate and the history of this planet is not enough evidence to prove that climate changes, sometimes DRASTICALLY without humans even existing?
... The data shows that the earth has cycles, some attribute it to solar cycles, some to other factors.
OK, I'll handle just one of your points; the rest I'll leave to you to work out for yourself.
Yes, climate scientists have known about the solar cycles you speak about -- the Milankovitch cycles -- and have known about them since the 1920s. This in fact was the basis for the 1950s consensus that the Earth was heading in a cooling phase. The changes were are experiencing are going in the opposite direction than what the orbital factors that drive ice ages would predict. As for other changes in solar output -- those are measurable with instruments, particularly orbital instruments, which we have had in place since the 1970s. These show very minor fluctuations in luminosity -- on the order of fifteen hundreths of a percent.
Climate change is real. It's always BEEN real. The part about us "breaking" the world is what we need to put on the shelf and talk about CLIMATE change, rather than it being "our fault." You attract more bees with honey than with vinegar.
What people would like to be true (honey) and prefer not to be true (vinegar) is irrelevant. It's not a case of "breaking" the world, it's a case of changing the world faster than we can adapt to it. I refer you to the obligatory xkcd explanation.
Suppose you write a scientific paper which states, offhand, that T-Rex was a cold-blooded theropod dinosaur of the late Cretaceous period, about 70 million years ago. Since the thermoregulation of dinosaurs is currently still an open question, you have to support any definite an unqualified claim of cold-bloodlessness with evidence. However you don't have a burden of proof on the taxonomic classification or geological period because those questions are currently settled and everyone knows the evidence supporting those conclusions.
Now suppose I write a paper that says T-Rex was a warm-blooded theropod dinosaur which went extinct 4000 years ago because it wouldn't fit on Noah's ark. I could actually do that. I wouldn't have to justify saying T-Rex was a theropod dinosaur, but if I wanted people to take me seriously (i.e., publish me in an actual scientific journal), I'd have to supply proof for every other claim in that sentence. I'd have a burden of proof to show that dinosaurs are warm-blooded (because that's an open question), that they lived 4000 years ago (because that contradicts settled science) and that the Noah's ark story is factually true (because that contradicts settled science).
Science is never settled. It's always open to re-evaluation upon presentation of new evidence.
You don't seem to understand what "settled" means. "Settled" doesn't mean that new evidence is rejected; it means we've reached the point where the burden of proof is clearly on one side of a question.
If you invent a perpetual motion machine, a physicist isn't obliged to consider your position carefully. He just says, "That violates conservation of energy." and he's done. This is useful, and indeed necessary feature of the way science works; otherwise scientists would spend all their time re-litigating well-established results because some crackpot had a brainstorm.
Nonetheless it is possible to mount a credible attack on settled science. Retroviruses turned the whole "central dogma of molecular biology" on its head. Yes, they actually called it that. And there are serious attempts at overturning conservation of momentum using quantum theory. An attack on a well-established theory has to be narrow in its specific claims and impeccably supported. If it succeeds, then the burden of proof is subsequently altered.
We've reached the point where it's unreasonable to demand scientists spend their disproving your beliefs about what is happening to climate and why. It doesn't mean you can't attack the theory of anthropogenic climate change, you just do it from a point where the burden of proof is on you.
Oh, I do. I just don't think cutting the corporate tax rate will work.
Your logic somewhat escapes me. I'm saying the marginal change in the corporate tax rate to match the Netherlands won't bring many jobs back. Just because it won't do what you intend it to do doesn't mean it won't do anything; it'll do a mix of good and bad things. Same with going with China's neo-mercantilist policy of giving breaks to specific industries.
Slashdot Mirror
So going by this logic politicians should just shut up and let their record stand for itself.
Which shows the problem with news in this country: even if it were better, people are so damn lousy at thinking they'll believe any dichotomy no matter how ridiculous (e.g. either you promote false news stories or you give politicians a pass).
Geographic density doesn't matter, it's the number of voters per machine and the procedures used to secure each machine. Where voters are spread out machines are spread out too; where voters are concentrated so are the machines. So if you want to tamper without producing statistically obvious results it's still a big job involving lots of devices.
Now the machines in Harris County are particularly braindead from a security standpoint. However as the machines are physically sealed after being configured it would have to be done by (a) the Republican County Clerk or (b) someone at the precinct. It'd take a lot of precincts to swing Texas to Clinton, because Trump is polling 9.4% ahead of Clinton. If Clinton wins Texas by tampering, it'll be fishy in an obvious way.
The best target for machine tampering, by far, would be North Carolina. It is currently a dead heat there and it has exactly enough EVs to swing the election to Clinton, which means its the smallest state where you could theoretically pull this off. Still, we're talking about a state where 4.5 million people cast their vote in 2012. Even if the polling is statistically tied, it'd take a lot of subverted machines to exceed the margin of error. Watch the exit polling.
I'd say that given the bar is 270 EVs and Clinton has 252 save EVs, anything over, say 300 EVs means that tampering wouldn't have made any difference. And given that Clinton has her own stats geeks working on this she'd have a pretty good idea if she was heading for a decisive victory. If she tops out at
Still, everyone should go to optical scan ballots. They're practically tamper-proof, auditable, and can be tallied fast enough for all practical purposes.
This is a key element of conspiracy theories: they have to be large and the secrecy is assumed to be perfect.
Except the US government does not have custody of or access to the machines. The machines are owned, operated, and secured by local governments.
Thus an effort to by the US government to hack the machines would entail clandestine physical access to the machines -- a "black bag job". And to throw the electoral college you need to do a lot of burglaries in a big state, or a lot of burglaries distributed across multiple small states. In 2000 it could have been done by hacking a single precinct (about 2500 voters in FL), but nobody could have known it would be quite that close; so you'd really need to hack a lot of machines to be sure, and if you're doing something like that you want to be very sure. It's a cost/benefit calculation: hack too little you risk getting caught and undermining a legitimate victory; hack too much and your risk of getting caught goes up rapidly as more people and places are involved. Nobody could know in 2000 that the margin would come down to 537 out of eight million registered voters.
And in 2016 the risk/benefit math is dominated by this fact: if you add up all the safe states for each candidate, Clinton has to win just 18 EVs from the remaining contended states; Trump needs to win 107. If Clinton wins just one of the five largest contested states she wins the electoral college; this amounts to five rounds of single elimination for Trump. On top of this there is a massive disparity in ground game. Trump only started to organize get-out-the-vote (GOTV) infrastructure in the final weeks of the campaign, making it difficult for him to score upsets over polling. Clinton has been preparing her ground game for years.
So it makes no sense for Clinton (supposing she had friends in the FBI or CIA to help her) to risk undermining the legitimacy of an election she is very, very probably going to win.
All that said, voting machines DO pose a serious threat to the legitimacy of local elections. Also, voting machine malfunctions could well throw the presidential election one way or the other.
Well, maybe he's no Salinger, but he's not quite the talentless hack you paint him to be. He was very influential in establishing the look and story for many iconic characters -- Iron Man, Spider-Man, and of course Doctor Strange.
I think a lot of people don't care for Ditko because of his politics -- he's an Objectivist. But the thing about really creative people is that there always a "where the hell did that come from?" aspect to their work. In that he's quite a bit more interesting than as an artist than Rand herself.
Everybody can get hacked eventually. A moment of distraction, a zero day exploit, a trusted partner or source getting undermined...
If you think you are too smart to get hacked, you are a fool.
Security is the one place where your very best effort ought to be the norm.
Well, SFTP and FTP can be run over a secure channel like a VPN or SSH tunnel -- in fact SFTP was designed to run that way as it provides no authentication capabilities of its own. In which case wireshark does you no good because you're looking at packets full of gibberish.
Second it is possible to get access to a machine without having access to the network segment it is on, in which case wireshark doesn't do you any good.
Third, it is possible to get access to a disk without necessarily having the ability to install a keylogger. For example the disk could be recycled; or your malware may have the ability to send files but not the privileges needed to install a keylogger.
This is really a broken way to think about security. Yes, security is only as reliable as its weakest link, but the existence of a single weak link doesn't mean it's OK to have holes all over the place. If that's the case if there's more than one vulnerability it's nobody's job to fix his bit until everyone else fixes theirs.
Well, I've seen H-1Bs across the spectrum, from utter incompetents to people I'd hire in a heartbeat. Just like anyone else.
The real problem is that the people behind this don't see IT as a profession, like a being a lawyer or a doctor; they see IT expertise as a commodity, like pig iron. You go with the lowest price supplier, and tough luck to the higher priced ones.
But even pig iron comes in different grades, and if all you do is go with the lowest price thing called "pig iron" chances are you won't be getting a bargain if your requirements are high -- which they should be in the case of something like IT, given how deeply IT is entwined with every aspect of how a modern enterprise runs. And given that level of involvement it makes sense to cultivate a long term workforce rather than a transient one.
If you go for the lowest price you can get you're going to create a problem, whether that is with domestic or immigrant labor. In reality you want to go for the best people you can get, and retain them for as long as you can because they only perform better with experience.
The judge in the Polish workers case ruled that the Trump organization, at least, knew about them and took an active part in using them. This eventually forced the Trump organization to settle out of court on undisclosed terms.
So, does this means Trump knew about them? No. That evidence comes from an investigation conducted by Time Magazine, which showed that Trump "sought out the Polish workers when he saw them on another job, instigated the creation of the company that paid them and negotiated the hours they would work," and when they sought their unpaid wages attempted to blackmail them over their immigration status. [citation].
Does this disprove the idea of Trump as a champion of the working man? No, because that's an article of faith with people who still believe it. There is literally nothing that Trump could have done that will shake that belief.
Physical beatings are so 20th Century. 21st Century pressure is exerted by cyberstalking.
Except the snozzberries. They always taste like snozzberries.
They probably are descended in part from the ancient Macedonians. As is practically everyone else in Europe.
It's silly to stake a genetic claim to the heritage of a people from 2300 years ago -- if you are European. Europe had a little thing called the Migration Age which shuffled the entire continent's genetic deck. That's why you see a haplotype that's believed to have originated around the Volga River in a broad swath from the Caucuses through Greece, Southern Italy and Spain, with pockets in all kinds of odd places like Lapland. You find "Norse" DNA in the Near East too -- thanks to the crusades.
All those 19th Century eugenic theories were based on philological reconstructions; they assumed that common language and stories meant common ancestry; ethnicity turns out to have very little to do with genetics. It's a stupid argument anyway; by that standard I'm English, even though my ancestors were from China. Or contrariwise, because my ancestors were Chinese I somehow "own" Shakespeare less than some British soccer hooligan who flunked his O levels.
The dispute is over cultural appropriation of Alexander the Great; however given the phenomenon of pedigree collapse nobody really has much of a claim to a culture that existed 2300 years ago unless they practiced very strict endogamy (e.g. the Jews) over all that time. It's a bit like the Italians going after Cincinnati for appropriating Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.
Well, and The Guardian, which broke the Snowden leak story.
And the public should be able to examine the change logs to see whose office put in what to each bill.
Sure, but they aren't describing a volumetric substance; they're describing a parameter -- sea ice extent. Sea ice volume is a different parameter.
These two parameters are of course correlated, but not in a simple way. For example wind can blow ice away from regions of ice formation, resulting in much greater extent and volume, but less volume/extent (e.g. thinner ice). This by the way is why sometimes Antarctic ice extent increases as temperatures increase -- because winds can also increase.
The primary interaction surface of a phone is the screen. Once a basic level of performance and functionality is met, the things that mattered the most to me is:
This is true; but it is fashion, not functionality that is driving the bezel-less thing. Sacrificing a few percent of the face area for structural reasons isn't going to make any measurable difference in objective HCI terms; the difference is how the way the thing looks makes you feel. I'm not saying this is stupid or anything like that; it's just the way people are. If something makes us feel good we overlook its faults and exaggerate its virtues.
and your sociopathic coworkers.
Well, consumers are tricky. Give them what they say they want, and they still aren't satisfied. Yet sometimes they love something that they never really asked for.
This is why engineers typically aren't any good at design. They expect people to be rational in their specifications and to judge results by how well the work meets those specifications.
Jobs was quite a way short of being infallible, but one thing he understood was that selling a design wasn't about checking off items on a punchlist or defending choices to leave things out. It's about telling a compelling story. So rather than dwelling on why the iHammer doesn't tighten nuts he'd get you to picture how great it would be to whack nails with the thing.
You know, people who think that scientists don't like controversy probably don't know many of them. Shifting consensus is how reputations and careers are made. And if there were some credible line of inquiry that promised we could burn as much fossil fuel as we wanted, it wouldn't be hard at all to find funding for it.
For that matter, I'd personally like it if we could burn as much fossil fuel as we wanted -- with local pollution controls of course. But that's wishful thinking.
If you want to create some kind of grand social dynamics theory of climate change science, you should at least take time to familiarize yourself with the literature on AGW. If you go into Google Scholar you'll see that the consensus in the 1950s was that the Earth was entering a cooling period. It took fifty years to shift that consensus and the substance of how it shifted is worth studying before engaging in armchair sociology.
We're in a warming trend (actually overdue, given the rock and ice records).
Actually we should be in a cooling period. You can't just plot out the cycles and infer a period, the main driver of the cycles is the interaction of the Earth's orbital and rotational precession, which is why scientists used to think we were heading into a cooling period that should last for about the next twenty-thousand years.
The very nature of climate and the history of this planet is not enough evidence to prove that climate changes, sometimes DRASTICALLY without humans even existing?
OK, I'll handle just one of your points; the rest I'll leave to you to work out for yourself.
Yes, climate scientists have known about the solar cycles you speak about -- the Milankovitch cycles -- and have known about them since the 1920s. This in fact was the basis for the 1950s consensus that the Earth was heading in a cooling phase. The changes were are experiencing are going in the opposite direction than what the orbital factors that drive ice ages would predict. As for other changes in solar output -- those are measurable with instruments, particularly orbital instruments, which we have had in place since the 1970s. These show very minor fluctuations in luminosity -- on the order of fifteen hundreths of a percent.
Climate change is real. It's always BEEN real. The part about us "breaking" the world is what we need to put on the shelf and talk about CLIMATE change, rather than it being "our fault." You attract more bees with honey than with vinegar.
What people would like to be true (honey) and prefer not to be true (vinegar) is irrelevant. It's not a case of "breaking" the world, it's a case of changing the world faster than we can adapt to it. I refer you to the obligatory xkcd explanation.
Perhaps an example would help.
Suppose you write a scientific paper which states, offhand, that T-Rex was a cold-blooded theropod dinosaur of the late Cretaceous period, about 70 million years ago. Since the thermoregulation of dinosaurs is currently still an open question, you have to support any definite an unqualified claim of cold-bloodlessness with evidence. However you don't have a burden of proof on the taxonomic classification or geological period because those questions are currently settled and everyone knows the evidence supporting those conclusions.
Now suppose I write a paper that says T-Rex was a warm-blooded theropod dinosaur which went extinct 4000 years ago because it wouldn't fit on Noah's ark. I could actually do that. I wouldn't have to justify saying T-Rex was a theropod dinosaur, but if I wanted people to take me seriously (i.e., publish me in an actual scientific journal), I'd have to supply proof for every other claim in that sentence. I'd have a burden of proof to show that dinosaurs are warm-blooded (because that's an open question), that they lived 4000 years ago (because that contradicts settled science) and that the Noah's ark story is factually true (because that contradicts settled science).
Science is never settled. It's always open to re-evaluation upon presentation of new evidence.
You don't seem to understand what "settled" means. "Settled" doesn't mean that new evidence is rejected; it means we've reached the point where the burden of proof is clearly on one side of a question.
If you invent a perpetual motion machine, a physicist isn't obliged to consider your position carefully. He just says, "That violates conservation of energy." and he's done. This is useful, and indeed necessary feature of the way science works; otherwise scientists would spend all their time re-litigating well-established results because some crackpot had a brainstorm.
Nonetheless it is possible to mount a credible attack on settled science. Retroviruses turned the whole "central dogma of molecular biology" on its head. Yes, they actually called it that. And there are serious attempts at overturning conservation of momentum using quantum theory. An attack on a well-established theory has to be narrow in its specific claims and impeccably supported. If it succeeds, then the burden of proof is subsequently altered.
We've reached the point where it's unreasonable to demand scientists spend their disproving your beliefs about what is happening to climate and why. It doesn't mean you can't attack the theory of anthropogenic climate change, you just do it from a point where the burden of proof is on you.
Like librussia.dll?
There. Fixed that for you.
Oh, I do. I just don't think cutting the corporate tax rate will work.
Your logic somewhat escapes me. I'm saying the marginal change in the corporate tax rate to match the Netherlands won't bring many jobs back. Just because it won't do what you intend it to do doesn't mean it won't do anything; it'll do a mix of good and bad things. Same with going with China's neo-mercantilist policy of giving breaks to specific industries.