He's in the wrong because he got information that wasn't redacted as it was supposed to be by the law.
No, that's a problem with the people who failed to do the redacting.
The NS government though, now has a serious privacy breach problem and is in violation of not only provincial laws, but federal laws privacy laws. Which could lead to an awful lot of lawsuits.
And tax payers are going to keep paying the government employees that failed to redact, their lawyers, the lawyers for the people filing the suits, and the damages to the people whose information wasn't redacted. Everybody walks away richer from this, except for the taxpayer.
The problem is that here in Canada, we have stringent privacy laws.
My leaving my front door unlocked does not mean you aren't guilty if breaking and entering if you open the door, walk in, and take something that isn't yours.
But if you are a public government office and the front door is unlocked, people may assume that they are free to enter. And if you then have documents sitting there right on a table that says "public information" when people come in, people may assume that they can read them.
Including all the opponents in the Republican nomination process? That's an awful lot of opponents to loath.
Yes, pretty much. Trump's Republican opponents were largely establishment candidates.
This is 2018. There's plenty of time for a candidate to establish himself or herself.
Good luck with that. Any of the people I have seen aren't going to make it.
Besides, it would appear that the Democrats should win as long as the candidate isn't loathed by too many gullible people.
Gullible people almost let a war mongering, corrupt, incompetent, corporatist, homophobic psychopath take the presidency; fortunately, that didn't happen. Hopefully, people will remain at least that smart.
But what then? The city gradually grinds to a halt as people can't actually get around? They might be expensive but there's not a whole lot of other options for a dense urban environment.
Cities are in an equilibrium between the cost of infrastructure and the benefits of proximity, and there are diseconomies of scale that limit the size and complexity of cities. As the article indicates, NYC may be at a point where the cost of new infrastructure isn't justified by its benefits; that is, if they raise taxes for it, people leave because of high taxes and if they don't do anything people leave because of traffic jams. Once that point is reached, there are no "options". (NYC may also be far beyond that point, in which case it will have to shrink rather painfully.)
No, there is simply often no option at all; that is, economics and technology determine outcomes, and government intervention can't change it.
The city alone would sit comfortably as the #3 state in terms of GDP
And that's why attempting to change NYC's future through government intervention is futile. It's like trying to stop a sixteen wheeler with police tape before it goes off a cliff.
Who are you to suppose you know everyone's motivation?
I didn't bring up people's motivations, you did. I simply said that "Working for the good of humanity isn't going to get you tenure or a directorship.". What gets people tenure and directorships is satisfying the requirements of their peers, review boards, and funding agencies; that's not a matter of opinion and doesn't require making guesses about people's motivations, it's how career advancement in the sciences actually happens. Therefore, it is the motivations of peers, review boards, and funding agencies that matter, not the motivations of the individual scientist.
How do you know (or have the arrogance to believe) that you are not indoctrinated?
Of course I have very much been indoctrinated, just like you; that's just a statement of fact about media and education in Europe: they are carefully and overwhelmingly controlled by government. The difference between us is that you still repeat the beliefs and ideas you have been indoctrinated with and believe that I can't have "ever lived in Europe" because my beliefs differ from those you take for granted.
I am not sure what this 'new liberalism' is, as I am referring to the old and continuing liberalism.
Who said anything about the liberal tradition being tied to current parties?
That's what we are discussing: "What is different about the US is that it has a strong liberal center that keeps the leftists and the theocrats in check, something is pretty much entirely missing in Europe."
If European liberals are not represented in any of the political parties or party programs, then Europe does not have a "strong liberal center" or a "liberal tradition". The barely liberal "social liberals" are minority parties in most of Europe, and classically liberal parties don't exist. That's consistent with European voter preferences, who reject classically liberal ideas and principles by wide margins. Hence my comment that liberalism in Europe is essentially dead.
Why does there have to be an alternative? What NYC and what it will become is determined by its geography, by available technology, and by population movements. If New York can only function with more subways but New Yorkers can't pay for it, then the city will slowly decay. For some reason, that seems to bother you. Why?
Which part of I grew up and spent half my life in Europe did you find too hard to understand?
Your problem is the same problem of most Europeans: you have been so indoctrinated from birth that you don't even know what liberalism is. You are so confused that you actually think that the "New Liberalism" of the UK or the "ordoliberalism" of Germany are liberal political ideologies. And even if these parties were actually "liberal", they have become less and less important relative to conservatives and socialists.
The question isn't whether I have lived in Europe (far too long, sadly), the real question is whether you have ever managed to get over your European arrogance and ignorance and looked beyond the border of your decaying continent.
The subway’s cost-induced construction paralysis becomes more severe with every passing decade. We must learn from history in order to break it.
In different words, subways are too expensive to build and maintain and voters are not willing to approve either the fare increases or the tax increases to pay for them. It's unclear what the authors want to "learn" from that. In fact, it's more likely that more subway lines will get closed over time, instead of new ones getting opened.
What it means is that there is inequality of opportunity [in the progressive sense]. One individual will not have the same opportunity as another due to sex or race. I picked the example because it was well-documented, not because it was major.
Again, so what? Your implicit assumption is that if government passes laws to try to reduce "inequality of opportunity" (in your sense), then somehow society will improve. But it won't: we have many decades of experience with this from around the world.
One individual will not have the same opportunity as another due to sex or race.
One individual will not have the same opportunity as another, period. That's true for all individuals.
The Civil Rights Act did indeed make society more fair.
And what did that "more fair" society achieve? Blacks as a group have deteriorated massively on many social indicators. You want to impose tolerance, fairness, and decency on people at the barrel of a gun and that simply doesn't work.
Speaking from personal experience and from mentoring and supporting other immigrants and minorities, the only way minority groups can advance is for minorities to recognize that life isn't fair and deal with it. It means having to work extra hard, overcoming obstacles that other people didn't have to overcome. It's what makes us strong.
I'd suggest that it isn't your politics that turn people off so much as your doctrinaire near-religious beliefs.
My "doctrinaire near-religious beliefs" are based on decades of living as a minority and immigrant, and succeeding despite of it.
I'd suggest you should be more concerned about "your doctrinaire near-religious beliefs", which seem to be rooted in the same kind of progressive fantasy world that many wealthy American techies inhabit. And you should be aware that in real life, people like me just roll our eyes and walk away when encountering people like you.
Which had no reference to geography, except that S&Ls insured under FSLIC were restricted in issuing mortgages to property over fifty miles from their principle place of business
Although informal discrimination and segregation had existed in the United States, the specific practice called "redlining" began with the National Housing Act of 1934, which established the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).
A very sweeping statement. Got any empirical support for it?
Yeah: a few centuries of history (you should learn some history!) and a few decades actually living under an authoritarian regime.
It's the kernel. You can't do incompatible API changes. Does that mean Linux should be on version 1.387.4?
Sure you can, happens all the time, both with Linux and with other kernels. For Linux, those changes have simply been so haphazard that the rest of the Linux ecosystem assumes little and tries to compensate for them.
Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:
MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible manner, and PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes. Additional labels for pre-release and build metadata are available as extensions to the MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH format.
So, while Linux kernel version numbers may be meaningless, it would perhaps be better if they were actually meaningful.
(4) An excellent judge of character in spotting a mob boss who gained office
Actually, what his "mob boss" comment shows is that he is someone who misuses the authority of his office and fails to fulfill his job function properly.
(5) Someone with the moral integrity not to give a personal oath of loyalty to an "El Presidente" figure.
You have to completely lack moral integrity yourself to think that Comey's corrupt and partisan conduct amounts to "moral integrity".
Personally I can't wait until Mr. Mueller subpoenas his emails and makes him eligible for the extended jail service he so tantalisingly keeps evading.
For what? For consensual sex? For talking to foreign leaders about the US election? There is nothing Trump has done that the Clintons (or the Kennedys for that matter) haven't done in spades, and they don't seem to be in jail.
I wonder how long Dirty Donald will be able to continue to abuse and debase his political office and menace the world.
The way things are going, probably another six years. Debasing the office of the presidency is perfectly fine with a lot of voters, who were tired of Obama's imperial pen-and-phone presidency. And saber rattling as Trump may be, he's still been less of a foreign policy psychopath than Hillary.
Until Democrats wake up and start nominating better candidates than Hillary, Kamala, Elizabeth, Joe, Bernie, or Corey, candidates that run on a platform other than "oppressed minorities are going to take over the country and pay back white hetero cis-males for their crimes, redistribute money from 'the 1%', and fix our social and economic problems through taxing and government spending", Democrats are going to continue to lose, for the simple reason that any sane American doesn't want the whole country to end up looking like Democratic Detroit.
Can you give any examples of cities run by Democrats where you don't have massive inequality, massive welfare dependency, and massive social problems?
Geez, you're just incapable of using Google? Heck, even leftist rags are talking about it in the context of the US Census.
You also said that you do want your country to be a federation of sovereign parts, like Canada and somewhat like the European Union.
The EU is an authoritarian, illiberal, bureaucratic shithole; I know that because I emigrated from there. I'm afraid whatever problems the US faces, it will have to face alone; neither Canada nor the EU have anything meaningful to contribute, beyond serving as examples of what not to do.
That ship sailed in the 1860's.
Oh, these things can be reversed. In fact, I think the way forward for the world will be exactly that: to return to smaller, more local government, and resign big central national governments to the dustbin of history.
but Montana, even with only one seat in the House of Representatives, has way more power then California in that house
Yet, California has more House members than it should because illegal migrants are counted.
In any case, if the federal government returned to its proper functions (national defense, border protection, internal and external trade), none of this would matter.
Here in Canada, we have 1/10th the population and 3/5ths the representatives and every census, it gets adjusted to reflect the changing and growing population.
When people say "here in Canada" in US political discussions, I wonder (1) why Canadians feel like they need to chime in on US political issues and (2) whether they seriously think that that is a recommendation for a policy. I certainly do not want the US to become anything like Canada or Europe.
Comey is the one who brought up the emails a week or two before the election
Yes, and he has personally stated why. He didn't do it to hurt Clinton, he did it because he assumed she was going to win and thought it would help her to deal with this before her coronation.
Comey was a major reason why Clinton lost the election. She was leading by a wide margin before Comey stuck his oar in.
Hillary lost because she was a lying, incompetent, corrupt psychopath with no charisma, no political skills, and no redeeming qualities: she caused life-long Democrats like myself to leave the party in disgust.
Polls showed her leading all the way until election day; the polls were simply wrong. Probably a lot of people who hated her hung up on pollsters, like I did. Why help these people manipulate me?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, unlike the US, they at least didn't shoot his dog.
No, that's a problem with the people who failed to do the redacting.
And tax payers are going to keep paying the government employees that failed to redact, their lawyers, the lawyers for the people filing the suits, and the damages to the people whose information wasn't redacted. Everybody walks away richer from this, except for the taxpayer.
Truer words have never been spoken.
But if you are a public government office and the front door is unlocked, people may assume that they are free to enter. And if you then have documents sitting there right on a table that says "public information" when people come in, people may assume that they can read them.
Now, how about a car analogy?
Yes, pretty much. Trump's Republican opponents were largely establishment candidates.
Good luck with that. Any of the people I have seen aren't going to make it.
Gullible people almost let a war mongering, corrupt, incompetent, corporatist, homophobic psychopath take the presidency; fortunately, that didn't happen. Hopefully, people will remain at least that smart.
Cities are in an equilibrium between the cost of infrastructure and the benefits of proximity, and there are diseconomies of scale that limit the size and complexity of cities. As the article indicates, NYC may be at a point where the cost of new infrastructure isn't justified by its benefits; that is, if they raise taxes for it, people leave because of high taxes and if they don't do anything people leave because of traffic jams. Once that point is reached, there are no "options". (NYC may also be far beyond that point, in which case it will have to shrink rather painfully.)
No, there is simply often no option at all; that is, economics and technology determine outcomes, and government intervention can't change it.
And that's why attempting to change NYC's future through government intervention is futile. It's like trying to stop a sixteen wheeler with police tape before it goes off a cliff.
I didn't bring up people's motivations, you did. I simply said that "Working for the good of humanity isn't going to get you tenure or a directorship.". What gets people tenure and directorships is satisfying the requirements of their peers, review boards, and funding agencies; that's not a matter of opinion and doesn't require making guesses about people's motivations, it's how career advancement in the sciences actually happens. Therefore, it is the motivations of peers, review boards, and funding agencies that matter, not the motivations of the individual scientist.
Of course I have very much been indoctrinated, just like you; that's just a statement of fact about media and education in Europe: they are carefully and overwhelmingly controlled by government. The difference between us is that you still repeat the beliefs and ideas you have been indoctrinated with and believe that I can't have "ever lived in Europe" because my beliefs differ from those you take for granted.
So you make statements about the relative importance of liberalism in the US and Europe, yet you don't even know the basics about what "liberalism" means in these different places? FYI classical liberalism, libertarianism, social liberalism> , New Liberalism, ordoliberalism
That's what we are discussing: "What is different about the US is that it has a strong liberal center that keeps the leftists and the theocrats in check, something is pretty much entirely missing in Europe."
If European liberals are not represented in any of the political parties or party programs, then Europe does not have a "strong liberal center" or a "liberal tradition". The barely liberal "social liberals" are minority parties in most of Europe, and classically liberal parties don't exist. That's consistent with European voter preferences, who reject classically liberal ideas and principles by wide margins. Hence my comment that liberalism in Europe is essentially dead.
Trump didn't won because people liked him, he won because people loathed his opponents. And Trump's approval rating has actually been going up.
Who are the candidates? Biden? Booker? Warren? Harris? Steyer? Sanders? Good luck with that.
That's like saying that a Tesla is not too expensive compared to a Ferrari. If you can't afford either, you'll have to make due without either.
NYC may simply be living on borrowed time. That is, NYC's problems may not fixable in the long term and the city will gradually decline. Cities die.
Why does there have to be an alternative? What NYC and what it will become is determined by its geography, by available technology, and by population movements. If New York can only function with more subways but New Yorkers can't pay for it, then the city will slowly decay. For some reason, that seems to bother you. Why?
Which part of I grew up and spent half my life in Europe did you find too hard to understand?
Your problem is the same problem of most Europeans: you have been so indoctrinated from birth that you don't even know what liberalism is. You are so confused that you actually think that the "New Liberalism" of the UK or the "ordoliberalism" of Germany are liberal political ideologies. And even if these parties were actually "liberal", they have become less and less important relative to conservatives and socialists.
The question isn't whether I have lived in Europe (far too long, sadly), the real question is whether you have ever managed to get over your European arrogance and ignorance and looked beyond the border of your decaying continent.
Your statement is wrong no matter what.
No, you know a number of people who say that that is their motivation; it's good for the career. Some of them may even believe it.
In different words, subways are too expensive to build and maintain and voters are not willing to approve either the fare increases or the tax increases to pay for them. It's unclear what the authors want to "learn" from that. In fact, it's more likely that more subway lines will get closed over time, instead of new ones getting opened.
Where does it assume that?
And the problem with that is...?
Indeed! Probably because Linus thinks that a lot of standard software engineering "is meaningless".
Again, so what? Your implicit assumption is that if government passes laws to try to reduce "inequality of opportunity" (in your sense), then somehow society will improve. But it won't: we have many decades of experience with this from around the world.
One individual will not have the same opportunity as another, period. That's true for all individuals.
And what did that "more fair" society achieve? Blacks as a group have deteriorated massively on many social indicators. You want to impose tolerance, fairness, and decency on people at the barrel of a gun and that simply doesn't work.
Speaking from personal experience and from mentoring and supporting other immigrants and minorities, the only way minority groups can advance is for minorities to recognize that life isn't fair and deal with it. It means having to work extra hard, overcoming obstacles that other people didn't have to overcome. It's what makes us strong.
My "doctrinaire near-religious beliefs" are based on decades of living as a minority and immigrant, and succeeding despite of it.
I'd suggest you should be more concerned about "your doctrinaire near-religious beliefs", which seem to be rooted in the same kind of progressive fantasy world that many wealthy American techies inhabit. And you should be aware that in real life, people like me just roll our eyes and walk away when encountering people like you.
Oh, FFS, stop talking out of your ass:
Yeah: a few centuries of history (you should learn some history!) and a few decades actually living under an authoritarian regime.
Sure you can, happens all the time, both with Linux and with other kernels. For Linux, those changes have simply been so haphazard that the rest of the Linux ecosystem assumes little and tries to compensate for them.
This is how Semantic Versioning ought to work:
So, while Linux kernel version numbers may be meaningless, it would perhaps be better if they were actually meaningful.
Actually, what his "mob boss" comment shows is that he is someone who misuses the authority of his office and fails to fulfill his job function properly.
You have to completely lack moral integrity yourself to think that Comey's corrupt and partisan conduct amounts to "moral integrity".
For what? For consensual sex? For talking to foreign leaders about the US election? There is nothing Trump has done that the Clintons (or the Kennedys for that matter) haven't done in spades, and they don't seem to be in jail.
The way things are going, probably another six years. Debasing the office of the presidency is perfectly fine with a lot of voters, who were tired of Obama's imperial pen-and-phone presidency. And saber rattling as Trump may be, he's still been less of a foreign policy psychopath than Hillary.
Until Democrats wake up and start nominating better candidates than Hillary, Kamala, Elizabeth, Joe, Bernie, or Corey, candidates that run on a platform other than "oppressed minorities are going to take over the country and pay back white hetero cis-males for their crimes, redistribute money from 'the 1%', and fix our social and economic problems through taxing and government spending", Democrats are going to continue to lose, for the simple reason that any sane American doesn't want the whole country to end up looking like Democratic Detroit.
Can you give any examples of cities run by Democrats where you don't have massive inequality, massive welfare dependency, and massive social problems?
Geez, you're just incapable of using Google? Heck, even leftist rags are talking about it in the context of the US Census.
The EU is an authoritarian, illiberal, bureaucratic shithole; I know that because I emigrated from there. I'm afraid whatever problems the US faces, it will have to face alone; neither Canada nor the EU have anything meaningful to contribute, beyond serving as examples of what not to do.
Oh, these things can be reversed. In fact, I think the way forward for the world will be exactly that: to return to smaller, more local government, and resign big central national governments to the dustbin of history.
Yet, California has more House members than it should because illegal migrants are counted.
In any case, if the federal government returned to its proper functions (national defense, border protection, internal and external trade), none of this would matter.
When people say "here in Canada" in US political discussions, I wonder (1) why Canadians feel like they need to chime in on US political issues and (2) whether they seriously think that that is a recommendation for a policy. I certainly do not want the US to become anything like Canada or Europe.
Yes, and he has personally stated why. He didn't do it to hurt Clinton, he did it because he assumed she was going to win and thought it would help her to deal with this before her coronation.
Hillary lost because she was a lying, incompetent, corrupt psychopath with no charisma, no political skills, and no redeeming qualities: she caused life-long Democrats like myself to leave the party in disgust.
Polls showed her leading all the way until election day; the polls were simply wrong. Probably a lot of people who hated her hung up on pollsters, like I did. Why help these people manipulate me?
The scientific paper may indeed be obsolete.
But magazines like The Atlantic certainly are obsolete.
So what we know about Comey is:
(1) He was politically motivated in Hillary's E-mail case, trying to help her gain legitimacy after election.
(2) He was politically motivated to hurt Trump.
(3) He likes to spy on American citizens.
"A Higher Loyalty" indeed. The FBI started out being run by megalomaniac, corrupt authoritarians, and little has apparently changed.