But how come no story on Susan Rice having unmasked multiple people in the Trump camp.
Because/. doesn't cover every non-story put out by the Trump camp.
It should be noted that she stated "she didn't do it, and had no knowledge of it." And of course that was proven untrue.
Citation? My hunch is the usage of this quote doesn't match the context.
And now we're seeing the claims making the rounds of "It wasn't political" but why wasn't the FBI involved then?
Because the US has multiple intelligence agencies.
Why did she do something that was outside of the preview of her job(advise the President and consume intelligence summaries)? Why does this appear to have been a case of her setting a new precedent(the unmasking).
That's not only within the realm of her job, it's a great example of actually doing your job.
People affiliated with an incoming administration are having clandestine meetings with agents for foreign powers who helped decide the election? Some unmasking is warranted.
Why were they unmasked by her, when all 3 letter agencies could do this on their own if they're conducting an investigation.
For the same reason the NSA decided to approve her request, because the unmasking was warranted.
And of course, why are so many of the media silent on this. When they were all over other major events similar to this and licking their chops like a dog seeing a steak. Well you can all have fun now.
Because they recognize it's just another attempt by Trump and his defenders to distract from his completely made-up claims that he was wire-tapped. And to distract from the many, many, unsettling ties from his camp to Russia.
Seriously, you think this was political shenanigans? Then why didn't it come out during the election? Tons of these links were being investigated during the election but it was only the media who actually uncovered anything. The closest thing we saw to a leak from the government was Democratic Legislators complaining that there were incriminating things not being released. Meanwhile, we heard non-stop about the investigation into Clinton and her emails, including leaks. One of the reasons Comey apparently announced the temporary re-opening of the investigation just before the election is that he didn't think he could stop his office from leaking!
If the investigations into Trump were politically motivated you would have heard about them in October.
No, it's not ridiculous. The problem is that the Left has bastardized "science"...and now it will be forced to have the "conclusions" survive in the sunlight.
"Is a study based on a particular disaster replicable? What about a study based on historical climate data? Or a long term health study? There is a lot of legitimate research that is difficult to reproduce."
All of those are replicable - simply hand over your raw data, explain your methodology, and allow other scientists to confirm your conclusions. That's how science works.
So 24 hours after the Fukushima disaster I send out my team to a nearby shoreline we've been studying and we find that algae species X is 10x prevalent than any other time we've measured, and within a week the levels are back to normal.
So we write up our findings and publish.
I think that could be very useful research, particularly to the EPA who has to potentially deal with Nuclear accidents. But is that really reproducible science?
I can give you my data, but you can't recreate the conditions that generated the data so you can't properly reproduce the findings.
Under this new law the EPA might be forced to ignore the results of that research.
Another issue is the open data requirement. It's a nice idea, but a lot of studies are done with proprietary data, and even for the ones with open data the EPA is going to have to jump through a lot of red tape to satisfy the requirements.
I can see that side of the question, but in the end, if EPA can promulgate regulations without revealing the underlying data, we're accepting the argument, "Trust us, we're your government." Are we really willing to go there? We're forced into that situation with our spy agencies. How well has that worked out for us?
This bill isn't about forcing the EPA to publish its own data, it's about not letting the EPA cite studies that don't make all of their data publicly available (according to the standards of the bill).
It's telling the EPA that it has to ignore the majority of the scientific research.
More transparency in public policy. Good, right? Wait, the Republicans are pushing it. There clearly has to be something bad going on.
I'm confused. Could somebody tell me if I am supposed to be for or against this?
Sadly that's not a ridiculous assumption, when Republicans get involved with science it's generally not on friendly terms. Lamar Smith in specific is a dedicated AGW skeptic who really wants the EPA to stop regulating fossil fuels and discredits scientists to do so. To think he's actually trying to improve the quality of science at the EPA is naive.
As for the bill itself, one issue is what is meant by "replicable". Is a study based on a particular disaster replicable? What about a study based on historical climate data? Or a long term health study? There is a lot of legitimate research that is difficult to reproduce.
Another issue is the open data requirement. It's a nice idea, but a lot of studies are done with proprietary data, and even for the ones with open data the EPA is going to have to jump through a lot of red tape to satisfy the requirements.
The basic function of the bill is that it makes it really tough for the EPA to cite research, and if the EPA can't cite research it has a much more difficult time justifying regulations.
- Different people from different viewpoints are almost invariably GOOD for an organization. Those that don't have diversity tend to wither and die due to stagnation.
Proof?
How about I just give you a solid argument because you surely realize that the statement "Different people from different viewpoints are almost invariably GOOD for an organization" is fundamentally hard to test.
A predominately male workplace will tend to breed a culture with misogynistic behaviours, Uber is a great example of this.
An organization where certain groups are under-represented will tend to do things that offend or otherwise harm those groups because there's no one internally to advocate for those groups.
An non-diverse organization will create a culture where people aren't aware they are offensive, where they get in a habit of making offensive jokes because there's no representatives of that group around to be offended. This is really bad when your organization has to deal with another organization and all your people come off looking like assholes.
People with diverse life-experience tend to have diverse skill-sets, the more diverse your organization the more likely you are to have people qualified to deal with unusual situations you experience. People working with different prior experience means you're also more likely to get a bigger set of potential solutions when trying to solve problems.
Well when the political commentator cites actual climate scientists (not the 99 out of 100 selected by climate alarmists) to back up their claims, there's a kernel of reliability present.
So your definition of "actual climate scientist" is the 1 person out of 100 who is willing to agree with you?
Start with that. The best hardware on the planet is useless if you can't think due to noise and interruptions.
Or at least high cubicle walls. A developer's most valuable resource is their attention, and other humans are extremely good at demanding one's attention. Even the reflection of someone walking by behind me is enough to cause a momentary distraction and a dip in productivity. It's no mistake I do my best work when I'm the only one around, to optimize productivity give people the ability to cut off distractions.
Who anointed these people to be the arbiters of the English language?
No one, they're simply making a suggestion, in fact, their business is making suggestions. You're free to ignore them just like we're free to consider their guidance.
Everyone say goodbye to dissenting opinions on YouTube.
Disagreement is now harrassment.
Mockery is now hate speech.
Offense is now trauma.
Criticism is now abuse.
Compelling criticism is now violence.
Anyone who talks about subjects the MSM wants to suppress is now a troll.
Anyone at random is a racist/sexist/white supremacist/nazi/etc if they say so.
The use of this alarmist (and usually, simply wrong) language is ubiquitous and deliberate. It's all a pretense to justify a disproportionate censorial "response," especially when they know no response is warranted at all. It's also a brazenly transparent tactic, especially since Twitter/Reddit/etc rarely seem to use it against users that properly align with their politics.
A popular tranny just had two of her YT videos demonitized, one that criticized Islam, and another that criticized feminism:
Is there a fringe group on the left that is guilty of the things you allege? Of course, you can find crazies in any movement.
But it's not the significant problem you suggest, and that's not what we're talking about here.
This story is about really unambiguously racist videos and the companies who don't want their ads appearing in conjunction with those videos, the only surprising thing is that Google made this screw-up in the first place.
I'm sure that in one hundred years this sort of reaction - blaming the software for an inattentive driver failing to yield - will be seen in exactly the same way.
The two situations are not comparable.
When the automobile was invented it wouldn't take more than a handful of real world experiments to determine that red flag laws were unnecessary.
But demonstrating that current self-driving car technology is as safe as a human driver is a much tougher challenge, and I'm not convinced that it's a challenge they're taking seriously.
In other words, "the universe is a simulation" is an unevidenced assertion, much like the multiverse. Yes, there may be some extrapolations of the underlying math that might point in such a direction, but at the moment, it's simply a cool-sounding idea with absolutely no experimental evidence at all. Of course, I feel the same way about string theory, though one thing string theory has produced is some pretty useful mathematical tools, so even when a theory is wrong or indemonstrable, it can still be of some use.
The evidence for the multiverse is the math and the theory that implies a multiverse, these theory have been tested and will continued to be tested in ways designed to break them. What's lacking is a way to test the multiverse hypothesis in a way that separates it from other hypothesis. But that's not a fundamental issue with the concept, just the current state of our science.
The evidence for living in a simulation is... the existence of extremely primitive computers. There's no evidence that computers could be powerful enough to simulate reality, nor are there characteristics of the universe that imply a simulation. There's no real reason to think we're living in a simulation other than it's a fun idea.
Worse than that the theory is unfalsifiable, for any test I construct to see if we are in a simulation you can simply reply that the simulation was designed to take that into account. Even if we prove the laws of physics don't allow a computer that could simulate the universe... well you could simply reply that our universe was simulated with different laws of physics.
Not sure "pair programming" qualifies as something every programmer should know. Though perhaps every programmer should know that a few programmers are rather fanatical about it.
Knowing it doesn't mean you need to practise it.
The list is basically a giant list of suggestions and perspectives, not every one is applicable to every situation, but knowing the list means you have a much better chance of knowing the ones that are applicable to your situation.
These days I avoid flying if I can. I'd rather drive 10 hours then put up with lines in security, getting molested by the TSA, sitting in a tiny seat in a tin can with a dozen screaming babies and sneezing people...
But, those small seats are why some people can afford to fly. I'd like larger seats, sure - but I'd rather see that solved by the airlines instead of the government sticking their nose into the market yet again.
Imagine this:
Enjoy our spacious, comfortable seats on your flight with a full two feet of leg room. With no children under thirteen, you can be assured that your flight will be completed in peace. We still serve complimentary drinks and snacks and offer free pillows, so you'll be refreshed when you land. Why suffer? Fly NottaCrap Airline for only $100 more. Enjoy the experience. (tm)
They'd have people stampeding to get tickets.
If you're presented with two options for a flight, and one ticket costs $20 less, then you're probably going to buy that ticket.
However, if you got to actually sit in both seats first, and realized that one seat was a little bigger and more comfortable, you might be willing to spend the extra $20.
The problem is that even if you really care about the size and comfort of your airplane seat it's really tough to judge it when you buy the ticket, so the airline has a strong incentive to reduce the price of the ticket by shrinking the seat and using cheaper materials.
I think it's quite possible that consumers never wanted the trade-off of smaller seats for cheaper prices, and if we could have properly evaluated seats at the time of purchase they would have gotten bigger instead.
If the market forces governing airplane seats are broken then it's exactly the kind of scenario where government should step in and regulate.
Misleading investors with information you know to be false is a bad thing because it causes them to make investments based on your lies, if those emails show that Tillerson knew he was lying it could be a very bad thing.
Agreed. It also occurs to me that your sentence could be valid in so many more ways.
Misleading _voters_ with information you know to be false is a bad thing because it causes them to make investments based on your lies, if _records_ show that _the president_ knew he was lying it could be a very bad thing.
Then again, I suppose there is no penalty for lying your arse off in record and breathtaking ways to get elected, and then keeping it up when your in power.
There should be though. There should be. The impeachment criteria literally mean whatever the congress thinks it means. In no other job in the world would his behavior be acceptable, but it is okay for the president? Really?
All politicians lie to some extent, Trump is unusually egregious but they all try to mislead.
Ultimately it's the responsibility of voters to hold politicians to account for their honesty. Trump was an exceptionally dishonest candidate, any voter who voted for him either accepted his lies as part of the bargain, wasn't paying the slightest attention to the campaign, or was a complete idiot.
I can create all the email account I want for my company... the Government has no constitutional power to complain.
The witch hunt to file some sort of criminal complaint because I dare to talk about climate change or deny climate change.. is simply that.
The problem isn't that he used a secret email address.
The problem is that he used that secret email address to hide communications.
Those communications were allegedly about a scheme to mislead the public (and investors) about the state of climate science.
Misleading investors with information you know to be false is a bad thing because it causes them to make investments based on your lies, if those emails show that Tillerson knew he was lying it could be a very bad thing.
Finally a study that shows percentages.The politicals have have claimed that climate change is either 100% man-made or 100% natural, depending upon which side of the argument they were on. Reasonable people knew that it had to be a bit of both, but there never seemed to be any studies that showed what the percentages of each it was.
Globally almost 100% man-made is accurate because natural climate variations simply aren't that fast enough to be a big contributor.
However, local climates are more variable, particularly the Arctic, so percentages come into play. From the article it sounds like previous research simply didn't have enough data to make useful percentage estimates.
Trump nearly immediately denounced David Duke. The only reason it was nearly, and not just immediately is because he didn't even realize who was being spoken about. The environment was apparently noisy and he didn't hear what the interviewer asked. So, no Trump didn't fail to criticize anyone.
It strains credibility to claim that Trump didn't heard the original question clearly because he actually said the name "David Duke" in his answer. But, even if he were somehow confused about the question on Sunday it still took him till Thursday to disavow Duke, and when he did it was a very dismissive denial, far less hostile than his criticisms of virtually anyone else. Many actual racists saw that and thought "he's disavowing because he has to, but his heard isn't in it", and I can't disagree with them.
So yes, when I say he is "extremely reluctant to criticize actual racists" that is what I'm talking about it.
Won't that just push more people onto the side streets?
More than Waze already does?
Well yeah, tolls work by reducing traffic, where do you think that traffic goes?
Besides, it might even be more regressive as a lot of working poor do have jobs that require a lot of driving to get to them.
If they can't afford to get to work, their employers will have to pay more if they want their toilets cleaned and their grass cut.
Meaning that fewer employers will actually employ them, so fewer jobs will be available and the jobs that are available will be less profitable due the toll costs.
When a freeway is congested, good old-fashioned Supply & Demand says it's because the price is below market equilibrium. That's easy to fix, and as a bonus it provides a revenue source to pay for freeways that's less regressive than the sales tax.
Won't that just push more people onto the side streets? Besides, it might even be more regressive as a lot of working poor do have jobs that require a lot of driving to get to them.
Are the roads paid for by public taxes? They're public roads. I used to do this all the time with the old paper maps. Looks like a road stoppage? Find a parallel city or state road. Follow the speed limits and other rules of the road and you're legally allowed to drive on them.
Want a gated community with private roads? Pay to live in one.
There are legitimate reasons not to want high volumes of traffic cutting through neighbourhoods. That's why many new subdivisions are unnavigable, so people can't use them as short-cuts.
I don't like the idea of an app expediting the tragedy of the commons.
In general, people who look at child pornography are people who have a sexual interest in children. And if you're trying to find people who are sexually abusing children then finding people with a sexual interest in children is a great way to start.
By the same argument, anyone who looks at porn involving adults is a potential rapist.
Nope, because two adults can have a consensual sexual relationship.
Slashdot Mirror
But how come no story on Susan Rice having unmasked multiple people in the Trump camp.
Because /. doesn't cover every non-story put out by the Trump camp.
It should be noted that she stated "she didn't do it, and had no knowledge of it." And of course that was proven untrue.
Citation? My hunch is the usage of this quote doesn't match the context.
And now we're seeing the claims making the rounds of "It wasn't political" but why wasn't the FBI involved then?
Because the US has multiple intelligence agencies.
Why did she do something that was outside of the preview of her job(advise the President and consume intelligence summaries)? Why does this appear to have been a case of her setting a new precedent(the unmasking).
That's not only within the realm of her job, it's a great example of actually doing your job.
People affiliated with an incoming administration are having clandestine meetings with agents for foreign powers who helped decide the election? Some unmasking is warranted.
Why were they unmasked by her, when all 3 letter agencies could do this on their own if they're conducting an investigation.
For the same reason the NSA decided to approve her request, because the unmasking was warranted.
And of course, why are so many of the media silent on this. When they were all over other major events similar to this and licking their chops like a dog seeing a steak. Well you can all have fun now.
Because they recognize it's just another attempt by Trump and his defenders to distract from his completely made-up claims that he was wire-tapped. And to distract from the many, many, unsettling ties from his camp to Russia.
Seriously, you think this was political shenanigans? Then why didn't it come out during the election? Tons of these links were being investigated during the election but it was only the media who actually uncovered anything. The closest thing we saw to a leak from the government was Democratic Legislators complaining that there were incriminating things not being released. Meanwhile, we heard non-stop about the investigation into Clinton and her emails, including leaks. One of the reasons Comey apparently announced the temporary re-opening of the investigation just before the election is that he didn't think he could stop his office from leaking!
If the investigations into Trump were politically motivated you would have heard about them in October.
Did the guy agree that his device can be disabled at any time and the server side service is not a given?
Is it legally relevant? Sure.
Is it ethically relevant? Not remotely.
No one reads the TOS, and even if they did the owner throwing a hissy fit and bricking someone's device is still not acceptable behaviour.
No, it's not ridiculous. The problem is that the Left has bastardized "science"...and now it will be forced to have the "conclusions" survive in the sunlight.
"Is a study based on a particular disaster replicable? What about a study based on historical climate data? Or a long term health study? There is a lot of legitimate research that is difficult to reproduce."
All of those are replicable - simply hand over your raw data, explain your methodology, and allow other scientists to confirm your conclusions. That's how science works.
So 24 hours after the Fukushima disaster I send out my team to a nearby shoreline we've been studying and we find that algae species X is 10x prevalent than any other time we've measured, and within a week the levels are back to normal.
So we write up our findings and publish.
I think that could be very useful research, particularly to the EPA who has to potentially deal with Nuclear accidents. But is that really reproducible science?
I can give you my data, but you can't recreate the conditions that generated the data so you can't properly reproduce the findings.
Under this new law the EPA might be forced to ignore the results of that research.
Another issue is the open data requirement. It's a nice idea, but a lot of studies are done with proprietary data, and even for the ones with open data the EPA is going to have to jump through a lot of red tape to satisfy the requirements.
I can see that side of the question, but in the end, if EPA can promulgate regulations without revealing the underlying data, we're accepting the argument, "Trust us, we're your government." Are we really willing to go there? We're forced into that situation with our spy agencies. How well has that worked out for us?
This bill isn't about forcing the EPA to publish its own data, it's about not letting the EPA cite studies that don't make all of their data publicly available (according to the standards of the bill).
It's telling the EPA that it has to ignore the majority of the scientific research.
More transparency in public policy. Good, right? Wait, the Republicans are pushing it. There clearly has to be something bad going on.
I'm confused. Could somebody tell me if I am supposed to be for or against this?
Sadly that's not a ridiculous assumption, when Republicans get involved with science it's generally not on friendly terms. Lamar Smith in specific is a dedicated AGW skeptic who really wants the EPA to stop regulating fossil fuels and discredits scientists to do so. To think he's actually trying to improve the quality of science at the EPA is naive.
As for the bill itself, one issue is what is meant by "replicable". Is a study based on a particular disaster replicable? What about a study based on historical climate data? Or a long term health study? There is a lot of legitimate research that is difficult to reproduce.
Another issue is the open data requirement. It's a nice idea, but a lot of studies are done with proprietary data, and even for the ones with open data the EPA is going to have to jump through a lot of red tape to satisfy the requirements.
The basic function of the bill is that it makes it really tough for the EPA to cite research, and if the EPA can't cite research it has a much more difficult time justifying regulations.
- Different people from different viewpoints are almost invariably GOOD for an organization. Those that don't have diversity tend to wither and die due to stagnation.
Proof?
How about I just give you a solid argument because you surely realize that the statement "Different people from different viewpoints are almost invariably GOOD for an organization" is fundamentally hard to test.
A predominately male workplace will tend to breed a culture with misogynistic behaviours, Uber is a great example of this.
An organization where certain groups are under-represented will tend to do things that offend or otherwise harm those groups because there's no one internally to advocate for those groups.
An non-diverse organization will create a culture where people aren't aware they are offensive, where they get in a habit of making offensive jokes because there's no representatives of that group around to be offended. This is really bad when your organization has to deal with another organization and all your people come off looking like assholes.
People with diverse life-experience tend to have diverse skill-sets, the more diverse your organization the more likely you are to have people qualified to deal with unusual situations you experience. People working with different prior experience means you're also more likely to get a bigger set of potential solutions when trying to solve problems.
Well when the political commentator cites actual climate scientists (not the 99 out of 100 selected by climate alarmists) to back up their claims, there's a kernel of reliability present.
So your definition of "actual climate scientist" is the 1 person out of 100 who is willing to agree with you?
Who would listen to that nutcase? Read Mark Steyn's book to see that bit of scientific nonsense totally eviscerated
Because political commentators are the best source of reliable scientific information.
Start with that. The best hardware on the planet is useless if you can't think due to noise and interruptions.
Or at least high cubicle walls. A developer's most valuable resource is their attention, and other humans are extremely good at demanding one's attention. Even the reflection of someone walking by behind me is enough to cause a momentary distraction and a dip in productivity. It's no mistake I do my best work when I'm the only one around, to optimize productivity give people the ability to cut off distractions.
I'll write however I damn well feel like.
Go ahead, no one is stopping you.
Who anointed these people to be the arbiters of the English language?
No one, they're simply making a suggestion, in fact, their business is making suggestions. You're free to ignore them just like we're free to consider their guidance.
Everyone say goodbye to dissenting opinions on YouTube.
Disagreement is now harrassment.
Mockery is now hate speech.
Offense is now trauma.
Criticism is now abuse.
Compelling criticism is now violence.
Anyone who talks about subjects the MSM wants to suppress is now a troll.
Anyone at random is a racist/sexist/white supremacist/nazi/etc if they say so.
The use of this alarmist (and usually, simply wrong) language is ubiquitous and deliberate. It's all a pretense to justify a disproportionate censorial "response," especially when they know no response is warranted at all. It's also a brazenly transparent tactic, especially since Twitter/Reddit/etc rarely seem to use it against users that properly align with their politics.
A popular tranny just had two of her YT videos demonitized, one that criticized Islam, and another that criticized feminism:
https://twitter.com/MsBlaireWh...
Is there a fringe group on the left that is guilty of the things you allege? Of course, you can find crazies in any movement.
But it's not the significant problem you suggest, and that's not what we're talking about here.
This story is about really unambiguously racist videos and the companies who don't want their ads appearing in conjunction with those videos, the only surprising thing is that Google made this screw-up in the first place.
I am reminded that when cars were first invented, there were laws put in place mandating that someone walk ahead of any self-propelled vehicle waving a red flag, for fear of scaring horses and making people uncomfortable.
I'm sure that in one hundred years this sort of reaction - blaming the software for an inattentive driver failing to yield - will be seen in exactly the same way.
The two situations are not comparable.
When the automobile was invented it wouldn't take more than a handful of real world experiments to determine that red flag laws were unnecessary.
But demonstrating that current self-driving car technology is as safe as a human driver is a much tougher challenge, and I'm not convinced that it's a challenge they're taking seriously.
In other words, "the universe is a simulation" is an unevidenced assertion, much like the multiverse. Yes, there may be some extrapolations of the underlying math that might point in such a direction, but at the moment, it's simply a cool-sounding idea with absolutely no experimental evidence at all. Of course, I feel the same way about string theory, though one thing string theory has produced is some pretty useful mathematical tools, so even when a theory is wrong or indemonstrable, it can still be of some use.
The evidence for the multiverse is the math and the theory that implies a multiverse, these theory have been tested and will continued to be tested in ways designed to break them. What's lacking is a way to test the multiverse hypothesis in a way that separates it from other hypothesis. But that's not a fundamental issue with the concept, just the current state of our science.
The evidence for living in a simulation is... the existence of extremely primitive computers. There's no evidence that computers could be powerful enough to simulate reality, nor are there characteristics of the universe that imply a simulation. There's no real reason to think we're living in a simulation other than it's a fun idea.
Worse than that the theory is unfalsifiable, for any test I construct to see if we are in a simulation you can simply reply that the simulation was designed to take that into account. Even if we prove the laws of physics don't allow a computer that could simulate the universe... well you could simply reply that our universe was simulated with different laws of physics.
Not sure "pair programming" qualifies as something every programmer should know. Though perhaps every programmer should know that a few programmers are rather fanatical about it.
Knowing it doesn't mean you need to practise it.
The list is basically a giant list of suggestions and perspectives, not every one is applicable to every situation, but knowing the list means you have a much better chance of knowing the ones that are applicable to your situation.
These days I avoid flying if I can. I'd rather drive 10 hours then put up with lines in security, getting molested by the TSA, sitting in a tiny seat in a tin can with a dozen screaming babies and sneezing people...
But, those small seats are why some people can afford to fly. I'd like larger seats, sure - but I'd rather see that solved by the airlines instead of the government sticking their nose into the market yet again.
Imagine this:
Enjoy our spacious, comfortable seats on your flight with a full two feet of leg room. With no children under thirteen, you can be assured that your flight will be completed in peace. We still serve complimentary drinks and snacks and offer free pillows, so you'll be refreshed when you land. Why suffer? Fly NottaCrap Airline for only $100 more. Enjoy the experience. (tm)
They'd have people stampeding to get tickets.
If you're presented with two options for a flight, and one ticket costs $20 less, then you're probably going to buy that ticket.
However, if you got to actually sit in both seats first, and realized that one seat was a little bigger and more comfortable, you might be willing to spend the extra $20.
The problem is that even if you really care about the size and comfort of your airplane seat it's really tough to judge it when you buy the ticket, so the airline has a strong incentive to reduce the price of the ticket by shrinking the seat and using cheaper materials.
I think it's quite possible that consumers never wanted the trade-off of smaller seats for cheaper prices, and if we could have properly evaluated seats at the time of purchase they would have gotten bigger instead.
If the market forces governing airplane seats are broken then it's exactly the kind of scenario where government should step in and regulate.
Misleading investors with information you know to be false is a bad thing because it causes them to make investments based on your lies, if those emails show that Tillerson knew he was lying it could be a very bad thing.
Agreed. It also occurs to me that your sentence could be valid in so many more ways.
Misleading _voters_ with information you know to be false is a bad thing because it causes them to make investments based on your lies, if _records_ show that _the president_ knew he was lying it could be a very bad thing.
Then again, I suppose there is no penalty for lying your arse off in record and breathtaking ways to get elected, and then keeping it up when your in power.
There should be though. There should be. The impeachment criteria literally mean whatever the congress thinks it means. In no other job in the world would his behavior be acceptable, but it is okay for the president? Really?
All politicians lie to some extent, Trump is unusually egregious but they all try to mislead.
Ultimately it's the responsibility of voters to hold politicians to account for their honesty. Trump was an exceptionally dishonest candidate, any voter who voted for him either accepted his lies as part of the bargain, wasn't paying the slightest attention to the campaign, or was a complete idiot.
> Misleading investors with information you know to be false
Can you prove that he knows it to be false?
You might be able to prove that it is false. Or you might be able to prove that you know it's false. But how do you prove that he knows it's false?
Possibly by looking at the emails in his secret account.
Moron.... private company != Government
I can create all the email account I want for my company ... the Government has no constitutional power to complain.
The witch hunt to file some sort of criminal complaint because I dare to talk about climate change or deny climate change.. is simply that.
The problem isn't that he used a secret email address.
The problem is that he used that secret email address to hide communications.
Those communications were allegedly about a scheme to mislead the public (and investors) about the state of climate science.
Misleading investors with information you know to be false is a bad thing because it causes them to make investments based on your lies, if those emails show that Tillerson knew he was lying it could be a very bad thing.
Finally a study that shows percentages.The politicals have have claimed that climate change is either 100% man-made or 100% natural, depending upon which side of the argument they were on. Reasonable people knew that it had to be a bit of both, but there never seemed to be any studies that showed what the percentages of each it was.
Globally almost 100% man-made is accurate because natural climate variations simply aren't that fast enough to be a big contributor.
However, local climates are more variable, particularly the Arctic, so percentages come into play. From the article it sounds like previous research simply didn't have enough data to make useful percentage estimates.
the election of a man who is extremely reluctant to criticize actual racists (the KKK, anti-Semites, etc)
Fake news got you down, learn the real news!
a) Stop abusing the term "fake news" to discredit mainstream media stories you disagree with.
b) Not only was I completely aware of the stuff you're referencing, I was actually talking about it.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/...
Trump nearly immediately denounced David Duke. The only reason it was nearly, and not just immediately is because he didn't even realize who was being spoken about. The environment was apparently noisy and he didn't hear what the interviewer asked. So, no Trump didn't fail to criticize anyone.
It strains credibility to claim that Trump didn't heard the original question clearly because he actually said the name "David Duke" in his answer. But, even if he were somehow confused about the question on Sunday it still took him till Thursday to disavow Duke, and when he did it was a very dismissive denial, far less hostile than his criticisms of virtually anyone else. Many actual racists saw that and thought "he's disavowing because he has to, but his heard isn't in it", and I can't disagree with them.
So yes, when I say he is "extremely reluctant to criticize actual racists" that is what I'm talking about it.
More than Waze already does?
Well yeah, tolls work by reducing traffic, where do you think that traffic goes?
If they can't afford to get to work, their employers will have to pay more if they want their toilets cleaned and their grass cut.
Meaning that fewer employers will actually employ them, so fewer jobs will be available and the jobs that are available will be less profitable due the toll costs.
When a freeway is congested, good old-fashioned Supply & Demand says it's because the price is below market equilibrium. That's easy to fix, and as a bonus it provides a revenue source to pay for freeways that's less regressive than the sales tax.
Won't that just push more people onto the side streets? Besides, it might even be more regressive as a lot of working poor do have jobs that require a lot of driving to get to them.
Are the roads paid for by public taxes? They're public roads. I used to do this all the time with the old paper maps. Looks like a road stoppage? Find a parallel city or state road. Follow the speed limits and other rules of the road and you're legally allowed to drive on them.
Want a gated community with private roads? Pay to live in one.
There are legitimate reasons not to want high volumes of traffic cutting through neighbourhoods. That's why many new subdivisions are unnavigable, so people can't use them as short-cuts.
I don't like the idea of an app expediting the tragedy of the commons.
In general, people who look at child pornography are people who have a sexual interest in children. And if you're trying to find people who are sexually abusing children then finding people with a sexual interest in children is a great way to start.
By the same argument, anyone who looks at porn involving adults is a potential rapist.
Nope, because two adults can have a consensual sexual relationship.
But then I realized that Kim Jong Un probably doesn't use Twitter.