We ARE rational actors. When we stick our finger into a lightbulb socket, we eventually learn not to do it because we are rational. We see the connection between the act and the pain.
Our hardest decisions require us to do what's rational despite what our emotions say. I didn't want to put my 13-year-old dog down, but I let rationality win over emotion.
Also, ""Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me" mode is already available on plenty of computer systems. Just try running any command that you don't have the right privileges for. Or ask an ATM to give you money when you don't have any in the account. Or you punch in the wrong PIN 3 times and it swallows your card, no matter how much you shout "NO!".
Emotions are there for us to enjoy, and when we don't enjoy them we either seek psychiatric help to change our distorted view of our situation (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy), or we eventually change our position viz. the situation when we've had enough. These are both rational choices. And then we are free to enjoy our emotions again, and preferring enjoyment over suffering is also a rational choice, one that, in cases such as suicide, it's a real battle to overcome the emotions and get help. Some people fail, but that doesn't mean that those who get help are acting on their emotions. They're acting DESPITE their emotions.
Now, when you write:
you wouldn't want an IRRATIONAL intelligence making decisions about your life, right?
... since we have emotions, we must, according to you, act irrationally. This "irrational intelligence" is going to continue to make decisions about her life. But I'm wondering, since you have emotions and are therefore irrational, who or what is making decisions about YOUR life?
From the US point of view, all the Nordic countries as well as Canada are pretty damn communist. Socialized universal health care that "takes from each according to their ability, and gives to each according to their needs." And yet they're not integral partners with organized crime.
As just a few examples where organized crime is taking a hit, Canada will be legalizing pot, taking away organized crime's lucrative monopoly. Sex work is legal, so women don't need the "protection" from organized crime (the Supreme Court found existing laws unconstitutional in 2013, and the replacement laws are also going to be found unconstitutional for pretty much the same reasons - they infringe on people's constitutional charter rights). The courts are a check on government, not their slaves. Quebec has public subsidized day care as low as $7.55 a day (those families netting $50,545 or less after taxes), half that for the second child, free for the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. Families earning over $158,820 have their contribution capped at $20.70. In other words, "takes from each according to their ability to pay, gives to each according to their needs." Oh, and just as you get to choose your doctor, you get to choose your day-care.
It's so, so terrible living in a socialist country (NOT!).
WTF? "Unions are fundamentally communist organizations to begin with." Try telling that to a room filled with members of the the United Steelworkers. (at your own peril, of course).
Do you also define companies that share the wealth among shareholders as communist organizations? After all, both unions and companies are organizations that are formed to give their members more money, leverage, and benefits. Companies have the means of production owned in common by all their shareholders, not any one individual or group. Anyone can join and own a piece of the means of production by buying or trading a share. Come to think of it, any democracy must also be communist if it works for the benefit of its' "shareholders" (citizens) as opposed to the current oligarchs in the USA and Russia.
Companies (groups of shareholders) are free to sell their products in the marketplace. Why not other people grouping to sell their products (labour and skills and expertise) in the same marketplace? Sounds to me like unions are workers employing the same capitalist tactics (supply and demand, negotiations and bargaining, etc) as companies. Both are working to get the best returns for their shareholders.
Ignores the point that a lot of legal research has been farmed out to machines. And so has a lot of pre-trial legal production. Everything that a human can do, a machine can do - including lying, cheating, and making wrong decisions.
Just because it "sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the U.S. government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities" doesn't mean that it's going to be limited to foreign countries. Stop being naive. The CIA wasn't supposed to do any domestic spying either.
Better watch it - you're going against the narrative. Of course, the ones who profit from this narrative are the ones pushing it.
The barrier doesn't exist. Computers are ubiquitous. There are tons of free development tools, tutorials, forums to ask questions. If you really want to get into it, you'll already be playing around with code.
The fact is that programming is a shit field over the long term. If I had to do it over again, I would have just kept it as something to toy around with.
Doesn't matter how many women you try to push in the field - the vast majority change to another field within 10 years.
Over the long term, it's better than being forced out in 20 years by the beancounters because you're perceived as too old (both sexes) and they can get someone younger cheaper.
Rational thought went out the window long ago. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats want a rational voting population. And of course, everyone went for the bait - shoot the (purported) messenger instead of looking at the message. Who cares where they came from? Clinton and Podesta can release their copies (Clinton certainly has her speeches - she allowed only 1 copy to be made, and it was exclusively for herself).
Her defense is the same as what Trump would say if his tax returns were leaked - to divert attention to the source, even though he could just release them and clear up any questions.
Does anyone expect either of these two to respect the rule of law?
(iii) When the offense in respect of which extradition is requested is of a
political character, or the person whose extradition is requested proves
that the extradition request has been made for the purpose of trying or
punishing him for an offense of the above-mentioned character. If any
question arises as to whether a case comes within the provisions of this
subparagraph, the authorities of the Government on which the requisition
is made shall decide.
Additionally, Canada can refuse to extradite in cases where the death penalty is in play unless the US agrees beforehand not to seek it, of if such judgment is made, not to follow through with it. And in the case of minor children, extradition can be refused if it is determined that such extradition
ARTICLE 5
If a request for extradition is made under this Treaty for a person who at
the time of such request, or at the time of the commission of the offense
for which extradition is sought, is under the age of eighteen years and is
considered by the requested State to be one of its residents, the requested
State, upon a determination that extradition would disrupt the social
readjustment and rehabilitation of that person, may recommend to the
requesting State that the request for extradition be withdrawn, specifying
the reasons therefor.
ARTICLE 6
When the offense for which extradition is requested is punishable by
death under the laws of the requesting State and the laws of the requested
State do not permit such punishment for that offense, extradition may be
refused unless the requesting State provides such assurances as the
requested State considers sufficient that the death penalty shall not be
imposed, or, if imposed, shall not be executed.
It can be argued pretty easily that Snowden, Manning, and Assange all have a defense under Article 2.1(iii) to have safe haven in Canada, since the whole mess has taken on a HUGE political angle, overshadowing everything else. Unfortunately, Obama'skill listhas no geographical limit - it's fine to kill Americans anywhere in the world, even in the USA, in violation of their constitutionally protected right to due process. Looks like Obama is taking a page from Bush's "the constitution is just a damn piece of paper" playbook and ran with it.
It would be very easy to defend. As I pointed out, Gitmo breaks international treaties (it also breaks US law, but that's another matter). It also promotes the propagation of terrorism by making it easier to get recruits, and to portray America as the great Satan. This isn't speculation.
Females can have colour blindness as well. It's just a lot rarer.
Of course, which is why I said that males have a higher risk, not that it was limited to males. The higher risk means that if someone is color-blind, they're more likely to be male, so eliminate all color-blind people and you're disproportionately eliminating males. Or limit yourself to color-blind people, and you'll have a preponderance of males. Either way, it is an indirect method of discriminating by sex.
Anyone who accepts getting DNA test to get a job is by definition a follower, a brown-nose, a suck-up, not a leader.
Employers don't really want too many leader types - they tend to call out bullshit instead of bending over and taking it.
And if you want grovelers, there are easier ways to screen for them. Just tell them the interview is at 1 PM sharp, and then keep them waiting a few hours. Those that wait it out have demonstrated that they'll put up with being treated like crap, and will probably also say okay to unpaid overtime and weekends, etc. "These are the proles you're looking for."
Also, the test is clearly arbitrary, invasive, and unproven. Any company that asks for this is a place you don't want to work for (unless you're a submissive prole, of course). It's also illegal - a blood sample will also reveal genetic diseases such as Type 1 diabetes, making it easy to discriminate against "those people" based on a hidden physical handicap. The presence or lack of a Y chromosome can also out transsexuals. The presence of a Y chromosome also carries with it a higher risk of color-blindness, A Y chromosome also generally means a shorter life span, so lower pension costs. XX means the chance of medical costs for pregnancies, miscarriages, abortions, and more unplanned time off to deal with the kids.
IEven if they use anonymous evaluation in the hiring process, and don't test specifically for XX or XY, the genetic presence of color-blindness unmasks males, making it somewhat easier to choose whichever sex you want to discriminate against.
Or maybe they would get mad at Congress because Congress is responsible? "They won't allocate the money to close the prison, it's in violation of international law, its' existence provokes more people to become terrorists... do you really want to help ISIS by keeping it open, because that's what Congress is doing."
There is NO presumption of innocence in civil cases because there is no verdict of guilt or innocence. That's why cases are decided on the preponderance of the evidence, not "innocent until proven guilty." When you say "guilty based on peponderance of evidence" it shows you don't get it - there is NO finding of guilt because NO CRIME HAS BEEN ALLEGED, and that's why the standard for winning is only the preponderance of the evidence. Nobody is found guilty in a civil trial, just liable. Go argue a few criminal and civil cases in court like I have and maybe you'll learn the difference.
Stop with the court bullshit. We are not in a court of law, but rather the court of public opinion, and public opinion has always been that she's power-hungry and people don't trust her (68% say she can't be trusted, and only 38% like her).
32% saying she's trustworthy is nowhere near the "balance of probabilities" to win a civil case, if you insist on a court analogy. So the real question is, WTF happened to your electoral process to produce two of the worst candidates possible, candidates that the majority simply don't trust. It's not hard to figure out - Citizen's United. Unlimited 3rd party funds. Nobody can even hope to run unless they can raise a billion bucks during their campaign - and that's no guarantee of winning. Both Obama and Romney spent over a billion last time around.
Also, "Why are you prosecuting Hillary on nothing but stolen garbage" - it would be very easy to disprove the email dumps - just release her and Podesta's copies. Of course, the reason why that's not going to happen is because the email dumps are accurate. Obama produced his birth certificate, but the Clinton campaign won't release their copies any more than Donald Trump would release his tax returns - it would confirm they are both liars.
You're missing the point that the only way to make ANYTHING that removes carbon out of the atmosphere long enough to make a dent is to actually physically remove the product from the environment by sequestering it. There are simply not enough mines to dump enough cellulose, same as with trees or any other carbon-bearing material. Part of the problem is density - oil and coal contain a lot more carbon that the same volume of trees. You can't just put either one into landfill either - it will generate methane gas as it rots. Same with silage. Plants and their byproducts are simply not a solution. Planting trees for carbon credits is one huge fraud, since forest fires just put that carbon right back into the air as CO2, same as anything else wood that burns. The Fort McMurray fire by itself contributed up to 10% of all Canada's greenhouse gas emissions this year. There are forest fires burning all over the world.
What next - suggest that we print up books like crazy and dump them into mine shafts to sequester the carbon in them? (there was a sci-fi short story about exactly that - with the idea being submitted to the government as a joke, and the government approving and funding it).
If we stop adding to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, natural processes will slowly remove it, but turning it into sediments that form limestone takes longer than our species will exist. The only viable solution is reducing the human population. Everything else is not a solution, but foolish attempts to avoid the reap problem. There are way too many of us. We need to lose 2/3 or more of the human race.
The US and Russia may actually achieve that in the next few years... too bad we probably won't live through it.
You know that theory about how we're in a multiverse? Well, somewhere, it IS going to be true, since all possible outcomes have to happen. Maybe it will be our turn.
Ever hear of the saying "don't make promises you can't keep"? And why couldn't he just release them all and let Congress sort out their shit? It's not like keeping Gitmo open is doing anything except making more converts to terrorism. Kind of counter-productive, unless you really want to prolong the "war on terror." Then again, it's been quite profitable for certain parties... follow the MONEYYYYY!
Hey moron, this has nothing to do with the espionage act. Intent doesn't enter into it according to the plain text of the law. People have been convicted with NO proof of intent presented, because it's not needed. So much for your "reasoning." You're argument has no basis in fact because that's not the law that Clinton broke.
As for the "defendant" and "accused" being the same, they simply are not. You are only the accused in a criminal case. You are NOT the accused in a civil case. Here's what I wrote, again...
There is no "accused" in civil courts. It's a civil, not criminal, proceeding. Only defendants in criminal proceedings are referred to as "the accused." In civil cases, there's the plaintiff and the defendant.
There is NO "presumption of innocence" in civil cases. As long as one side can show their case is even the slightest more probable than the other, they win. "Presumption of innocence" is a much higher standard. In civil courts, NOBODY is presumed to be "innocent" or "guilty." If you make a civil case against someone, and they show up but refuse to argue because they think that there's a "presumption of innocence" working in their favor, and you haven't overcome that "presumption of innocence", you will have your ass handed to you pretty much by default. You HAVE to show that your version of events is more likely than the other side - whoever does that wins, even if it's only by a fraction of 1%.
If Cuba is next, it's because of decades of US stupidity in the face of almost universal criticism of the blockade - the only other nation to support the blockade at the UN was Israel (and the US and Israel are always pulling each other's strings).
Now would be the ideal time for Russia to invade the Baltic nations - they would be in control of the capitals within 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 days, and there's nothing much that NATO can do about it. And that's assuming the tanks only move at the glacial pace of 5 mph (see link elsewhere to RAND Corp study). Of course, the ideal time to do it isn't yet - the day before the next president takes the oath of office, or that day, would be much more effective.
And since the US has openly said they're going to break into Russian computer systems (like the US hasn't been doing so all over the world - ha!), Putin could say that the original order was generated by hacked communications systems, but that once it started, the best option for the Russian people was to see it through to the end.
Same as if the US accidentally launched a nuke directed towards Moscow - many in the US would feel that, given the high likelihood of a massive retaliation, better to follow through with everything you've got rather than go "oops - sorry, won't happen again."
Your link doesn't support your contention. Even Snopes says that the originals from Wikileaks don't contain the phrase you're complaining about as "proof".
Not long after that WikiLeaks dump hit the Internet, multiple Twitter users claimed it documented that Clinton had called progressive voters a "bucket of losers" during one paid speech:
What twitter users have to say about something in no way detracts from the authenticity of the original leaked materials. You might want to go back and look at the title of the article you linked to, or actually READ the article instead of just posting a link that has nothing to do with the question of whether the originals are valid or not.
Slashdot Mirror
We ARE rational actors. When we stick our finger into a lightbulb socket, we eventually learn not to do it because we are rational. We see the connection between the act and the pain.
Our hardest decisions require us to do what's rational despite what our emotions say. I didn't want to put my 13-year-old dog down, but I let rationality win over emotion.
Also, ""Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me" mode is already available on plenty of computer systems. Just try running any command that you don't have the right privileges for. Or ask an ATM to give you money when you don't have any in the account. Or you punch in the wrong PIN 3 times and it swallows your card, no matter how much you shout "NO!".
Emotions are there for us to enjoy, and when we don't enjoy them we either seek psychiatric help to change our distorted view of our situation (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy), or we eventually change our position viz. the situation when we've had enough. These are both rational choices. And then we are free to enjoy our emotions again, and preferring enjoyment over suffering is also a rational choice, one that, in cases such as suicide, it's a real battle to overcome the emotions and get help. Some people fail, but that doesn't mean that those who get help are acting on their emotions. They're acting DESPITE their emotions.
Now, when you write:
you wouldn't want an IRRATIONAL intelligence making decisions about your life, right?
... since we have emotions, we must, according to you, act irrationally. This "irrational intelligence" is going to continue to make decisions about her life. But I'm wondering, since you have emotions and are therefore irrational, who or what is making decisions about YOUR life?
From the US point of view, all the Nordic countries as well as Canada are pretty damn communist. Socialized universal health care that "takes from each according to their ability, and gives to each according to their needs." And yet they're not integral partners with organized crime.
As just a few examples where organized crime is taking a hit, Canada will be legalizing pot, taking away organized crime's lucrative monopoly. Sex work is legal, so women don't need the "protection" from organized crime (the Supreme Court found existing laws unconstitutional in 2013, and the replacement laws are also going to be found unconstitutional for pretty much the same reasons - they infringe on people's constitutional charter rights). The courts are a check on government, not their slaves. Quebec has public subsidized day care as low as $7.55 a day (those families netting $50,545 or less after taxes), half that for the second child, free for the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. Families earning over $158,820 have their contribution capped at $20.70. In other words, "takes from each according to their ability to pay, gives to each according to their needs." Oh, and just as you get to choose your doctor, you get to choose your day-care.
It's so, so terrible living in a socialist country (NOT!).
WTF? "Unions are fundamentally communist organizations to begin with." Try telling that to a room filled with members of the the United Steelworkers. (at your own peril, of course).
Do you also define companies that share the wealth among shareholders as communist organizations? After all, both unions and companies are organizations that are formed to give their members more money, leverage, and benefits. Companies have the means of production owned in common by all their shareholders, not any one individual or group. Anyone can join and own a piece of the means of production by buying or trading a share. Come to think of it, any democracy must also be communist if it works for the benefit of its' "shareholders" (citizens) as opposed to the current oligarchs in the USA and Russia.
Companies (groups of shareholders) are free to sell their products in the marketplace. Why not other people grouping to sell their products (labour and skills and expertise) in the same marketplace? Sounds to me like unions are workers employing the same capitalist tactics (supply and demand, negotiations and bargaining, etc) as companies. Both are working to get the best returns for their shareholders.
But more importantly, machines don't get to vote in or write laws - only humans get to do that.
For how long?
Also, we always make if/then/else decisions all the time.
Ignores the point that a lot of legal research has been farmed out to machines. And so has a lot of pre-trial legal production. Everything that a human can do, a machine can do - including lying, cheating, and making wrong decisions.
You're right, of course. The Author (Doug Thompson) has since retracted the story.
Just because it "sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the U.S. government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities" doesn't mean that it's going to be limited to foreign countries. Stop being naive. The CIA wasn't supposed to do any domestic spying either.
The barrier doesn't exist. Computers are ubiquitous. There are tons of free development tools, tutorials, forums to ask questions. If you really want to get into it, you'll already be playing around with code.
The fact is that programming is a shit field over the long term. If I had to do it over again, I would have just kept it as something to toy around with.
Doesn't matter how many women you try to push in the field - the vast majority change to another field within 10 years.
Over the long term, it's better than being forced out in 20 years by the beancounters because you're perceived as too old (both sexes) and they can get someone younger cheaper.
Rational thought went out the window long ago. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats want a rational voting population. And of course, everyone went for the bait - shoot the (purported) messenger instead of looking at the message. Who cares where they came from? Clinton and Podesta can release their copies (Clinton certainly has her speeches - she allowed only 1 copy to be made, and it was exclusively for herself).
Her defense is the same as what Trump would say if his tax returns were leaked - to divert attention to the source, even though he could just release them and clear up any questions.
Does anyone expect either of these two to respect the rule of law?
And if it's not a crime in the country where the person being sought is staying, it's generally not extraditable. Canada is one such country where the treat with the US allows Canada to refuse to extradite such a person. Another reason in the same treaty is if the extradition is of a political nature:
Article 4, section 1, subsection iii
(iii) When the offense in respect of which extradition is requested is of a political character, or the person whose extradition is requested proves that the extradition request has been made for the purpose of trying or punishing him for an offense of the above-mentioned character. If any question arises as to whether a case comes within the provisions of this subparagraph, the authorities of the Government on which the requisition is made shall decide.
Additionally, Canada can refuse to extradite in cases where the death penalty is in play unless the US agrees beforehand not to seek it, of if such judgment is made, not to follow through with it. And in the case of minor children, extradition can be refused if it is determined that such extradition
ARTICLE 5
If a request for extradition is made under this Treaty for a person who at the time of such request, or at the time of the commission of the offense for which extradition is sought, is under the age of eighteen years and is considered by the requested State to be one of its residents, the requested State, upon a determination that extradition would disrupt the social readjustment and rehabilitation of that person, may recommend to the requesting State that the request for extradition be withdrawn, specifying the reasons therefor.
ARTICLE 6
When the offense for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting State and the laws of the requested State do not permit such punishment for that offense, extradition may be refused unless the requesting State provides such assurances as the requested State considers sufficient that the death penalty shall not be imposed, or, if imposed, shall not be executed.
It can be argued pretty easily that Snowden, Manning, and Assange all have a defense under Article 2.1(iii) to have safe haven in Canada, since the whole mess has taken on a HUGE political angle, overshadowing everything else. Unfortunately, Obama's kill list has no geographical limit - it's fine to kill Americans anywhere in the world, even in the USA, in violation of their constitutionally protected right to due process. Looks like Obama is taking a page from Bush's "the constitution is just a damn piece of paper" playbook and ran with it.
It would be very easy to defend. As I pointed out, Gitmo breaks international treaties (it also breaks US law, but that's another matter). It also promotes the propagation of terrorism by making it easier to get recruits, and to portray America as the great Satan. This isn't speculation.
Biofuels don't remove carbon. The fuel still needs to be burned to use it, so the carbon goes right back into the atmosphere.
Females can have colour blindness as well. It's just a lot rarer.
Of course, which is why I said that males have a higher risk, not that it was limited to males. The higher risk means that if someone is color-blind, they're more likely to be male, so eliminate all color-blind people and you're disproportionately eliminating males. Or limit yourself to color-blind people, and you'll have a preponderance of males. Either way, it is an indirect method of discriminating by sex.
Anyone who accepts getting DNA test to get a job is by definition a follower, a brown-nose, a suck-up, not a leader.
Employers don't really want too many leader types - they tend to call out bullshit instead of bending over and taking it.
And if you want grovelers, there are easier ways to screen for them. Just tell them the interview is at 1 PM sharp, and then keep them waiting a few hours. Those that wait it out have demonstrated that they'll put up with being treated like crap, and will probably also say okay to unpaid overtime and weekends, etc. "These are the proles you're looking for."
Also, the test is clearly arbitrary, invasive, and unproven. Any company that asks for this is a place you don't want to work for (unless you're a submissive prole, of course). It's also illegal - a blood sample will also reveal genetic diseases such as Type 1 diabetes, making it easy to discriminate against "those people" based on a hidden physical handicap. The presence or lack of a Y chromosome can also out transsexuals. The presence of a Y chromosome also carries with it a higher risk of color-blindness, A Y chromosome also generally means a shorter life span, so lower pension costs. XX means the chance of medical costs for pregnancies, miscarriages, abortions, and more unplanned time off to deal with the kids.
IEven if they use anonymous evaluation in the hiring process, and don't test specifically for XX or XY, the genetic presence of color-blindness unmasks males, making it somewhat easier to choose whichever sex you want to discriminate against.
Or maybe they would get mad at Congress because Congress is responsible? "They won't allocate the money to close the prison, it's in violation of international law, its' existence provokes more people to become terrorists ... do you really want to help ISIS by keeping it open, because that's what Congress is doing."
Or look at the difference between OJ's not being found guilty in his criminal trial but liable in his civil trial.
Civil trials are about liability only, not guilt or innocence.
Stop with the court bullshit. We are not in a court of law, but rather the court of public opinion, and public opinion has always been that she's power-hungry and people don't trust her (68% say she can't be trusted, and only 38% like her).
32% saying she's trustworthy is nowhere near the "balance of probabilities" to win a civil case, if you insist on a court analogy. So the real question is, WTF happened to your electoral process to produce two of the worst candidates possible, candidates that the majority simply don't trust. It's not hard to figure out - Citizen's United. Unlimited 3rd party funds. Nobody can even hope to run unless they can raise a billion bucks during their campaign - and that's no guarantee of winning. Both Obama and Romney spent over a billion last time around.
Also, "Why are you prosecuting Hillary on nothing but stolen garbage" - it would be very easy to disprove the email dumps - just release her and Podesta's copies. Of course, the reason why that's not going to happen is because the email dumps are accurate. Obama produced his birth certificate, but the Clinton campaign won't release their copies any more than Donald Trump would release his tax returns - it would confirm they are both liars.
You're missing the point that the only way to make ANYTHING that removes carbon out of the atmosphere long enough to make a dent is to actually physically remove the product from the environment by sequestering it. There are simply not enough mines to dump enough cellulose, same as with trees or any other carbon-bearing material. Part of the problem is density - oil and coal contain a lot more carbon that the same volume of trees. You can't just put either one into landfill either - it will generate methane gas as it rots. Same with silage. Plants and their byproducts are simply not a solution. Planting trees for carbon credits is one huge fraud, since forest fires just put that carbon right back into the air as CO2, same as anything else wood that burns. The Fort McMurray fire by itself contributed up to 10% of all Canada's greenhouse gas emissions this year. There are forest fires burning all over the world.
What next - suggest that we print up books like crazy and dump them into mine shafts to sequester the carbon in them? (there was a sci-fi short story about exactly that - with the idea being submitted to the government as a joke, and the government approving and funding it).
If we stop adding to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, natural processes will slowly remove it, but turning it into sediments that form limestone takes longer than our species will exist. The only viable solution is reducing the human population. Everything else is not a solution, but foolish attempts to avoid the reap problem. There are way too many of us. We need to lose 2/3 or more of the human race.
The US and Russia may actually achieve that in the next few years ... too bad we probably won't live through it.
So you admit that HornWumpus was off topic. Your point is?
So logically she should just release all of them today and be done with it - except that she can't because they would kill her campaign.
You know that theory about how we're in a multiverse? Well, somewhere, it IS going to be true, since all possible outcomes have to happen. Maybe it will be our turn.
Ever hear of the saying "don't make promises you can't keep"? And why couldn't he just release them all and let Congress sort out their shit? It's not like keeping Gitmo open is doing anything except making more converts to terrorism. Kind of counter-productive, unless you really want to prolong the "war on terror." Then again, it's been quite profitable for certain parties ... follow the MONEYYYYY!
Hey moron, this has nothing to do with the espionage act. Intent doesn't enter into it according to the plain text of the law. People have been convicted with NO proof of intent presented, because it's not needed. So much for your "reasoning." You're argument has no basis in fact because that's not the law that Clinton broke.
As for the "defendant" and "accused" being the same, they simply are not. You are only the accused in a criminal case. You are NOT the accused in a civil case. Here's what I wrote, again ...
There is no "accused" in civil courts. It's a civil, not criminal, proceeding. Only defendants in criminal proceedings are referred to as "the accused." In civil cases, there's the plaintiff and the defendant.
There is NO "presumption of innocence" in civil cases. As long as one side can show their case is even the slightest more probable than the other, they win. "Presumption of innocence" is a much higher standard. In civil courts, NOBODY is presumed to be "innocent" or "guilty." If you make a civil case against someone, and they show up but refuse to argue because they think that there's a "presumption of innocence" working in their favor, and you haven't overcome that "presumption of innocence", you will have your ass handed to you pretty much by default. You HAVE to show that your version of events is more likely than the other side - whoever does that wins, even if it's only by a fraction of 1%.
If Cuba is next, it's because of decades of US stupidity in the face of almost universal criticism of the blockade - the only other nation to support the blockade at the UN was Israel (and the US and Israel are always pulling each other's strings).
Now would be the ideal time for Russia to invade the Baltic nations - they would be in control of the capitals within 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 days, and there's nothing much that NATO can do about it. And that's assuming the tanks only move at the glacial pace of 5 mph (see link elsewhere to RAND Corp study). Of course, the ideal time to do it isn't yet - the day before the next president takes the oath of office, or that day, would be much more effective.
And since the US has openly said they're going to break into Russian computer systems (like the US hasn't been doing so all over the world - ha!), Putin could say that the original order was generated by hacked communications systems, but that once it started, the best option for the Russian people was to see it through to the end.
Same as if the US accidentally launched a nuke directed towards Moscow - many in the US would feel that, given the high likelihood of a massive retaliation, better to follow through with everything you've got rather than go "oops - sorry, won't happen again."
Not long after that WikiLeaks dump hit the Internet, multiple Twitter users claimed it documented that Clinton had called progressive voters a "bucket of losers" during one paid speech:
What twitter users have to say about something in no way detracts from the authenticity of the original leaked materials. You might want to go back and look at the title of the article you linked to, or actually READ the article instead of just posting a link that has nothing to do with the question of whether the originals are valid or not.