"...he graduated from Cornell University's School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering."
Wouldn't that would make him an engineer and not a scientist? Of course, he's still significantly more intelligent than Palin or any of her kinfolk, he's just not a scientist.
I wouldn't call someone with a physics PhD who writes generic software a scientist, would I call someone with an engineering degree who did original engineering work in aerospace and later specialized in science education a scientist? I'm not sure, I guess it's it's a bit of a philosophical distinction.
Either way he's clearly far more of a scientist than most people, Palin especially.
Actually they ARE doing it for financial reasons -
Zuckerberg heads up a PAC which is trying to open up more immigration and H1Bs - because, y'know, he *cares* about the people and it has nothing at all to do with getting cheaper tech labor into the states. That goes for all the tech CEOs listed here.
Trump is adamantly against that so he must be taken down.
More likely they're just terrified by the prospect of a Trump presidency for the same reason everyone else is, but instead of posting on a message board they're able to reach a far wider audience.
Much for the same reason rich people dabbling in politics is hardly new, if anything tech CEOs have been a bit unusual as they previously tried to stay out of mainstream party politics.
Several experts told POLITICO that in light of the legal obstacles to a case and the Justice Department’s track record in such prosecutions they are confident Clinton won’t face charges.
“Based on everything I’ve seen in the public media, not only don’t I see the basis for criminal prosecution, I don’t even see the basis for administrative action such as revoking a clearance or suspending it,” said Leonard, the former director of the Information Security Oversight Office.
“Looked at as a potential criminal case, this would be laughed out of court,” said William Jeffress, a Washington attorney on the defense team for former Bush White House aide Scooter Libby during his trial for lying in a leak investigation. “There hasn’t been any case remotely approaching a situation where someone received emails that were not marked classified, who simply receives them and maybe replies to them and a criminal prosecution is brought,” Jeffress said.
Step back and apply a bit of common sense, she wasn't trying to sell the secrets, leak them to the press as part of a hatchet job, or anything else evil. She was trying to do her job and took some bad short cuts.
This was so uncontroversial that she did it completely in the open as was obvious to everyone she exchanged emails with and no one even thought it was an issue for years!!
Ordinary people get reprimanded for screw ups like that, they don't go to jail.
Yes, that is established fact. It is also on record where Hillary was having trouble receiving classified information via secure methods. She specifically instructed one of her staff members to remove the classification markings and send the material to her in an unsecured method.
Apparently “Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” translates as "Make a version without the sensitive information and send that over unsecured communications" and is a common and accepted practice.
"And as for actual trans-people or other women who look completely male I'm sure they're grown up enough to handle awkward situations."
Well, women aren't grown-up enough to handle themselves? Where's the line supposed to be drawn here?
Women can handle themselves, but if they want a harassment free cab service they should be allowed.
As for trans-people they're constantly dealing with and navigating around issues with gender assumptions. Once in a blue moon there will be an awkward situation, oh well.
And as for my example being "convenient",
Actually "contrived".
well, I'm a test engineer.
[...]
If you don't see a problem here and dismiss a potential problem as a "convenient" example to disprove my point, well, all I can say is you must be a lawyer and a licking your lips over the influx of discrimination suits that will come your way when my "convenient" example is used by someone to fuck with someone else.
[...]
And, lest you think no one would actually DO that to tweak the nose of the system, need I remind you, and readers of this site, that there was a story posted here not too long ago about a woman who went to court so that she could wear a colander on her head in her driver's license picture because she was an adherent to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Actually I'm a software developer, and as a software developer I recognize why the software development mindset is a terrible thing to apply to law and the society.
In software every edge case needs to be handled properly because the system doesn't care if if it's a contrived example, it just has to happen once and it will corrupt the db or let in an attacker.
The real world doesn't work like that, there are infinite test cases and the solution isn't to handle all of them, it's to optimize the common path, address the major exceptions, and let individuals figure out the remaining edge cases on the fly.
Once in a while someone gets screwed over, other times they claim a colander is religious apparel, and that's fine, society didn't get corrupted and we didn't have to reboot western civilization.
A quick scan of local on-line arrest records shows a majority of blacks committing violent crimes even though the black population is a minority. So the next logical step will be a white only version of Uber. Just for safety purposes, of course.
However, absolutely NO ONE should have the authority demand "papers, please" on that particular condition. Thus, it presents a problem when any male-presenting man asks for a ride in a female-only rideshare claiming to be a pre-transition MtoF and the woman driving says "hold on, prove it". How do you do that without creating a situation where the woman won't feel threatened (by a potential liar) and the man won't feel discriminated against?
The answer's simple: don't create a situation where discrimination is implicit within the ground rules.
So women can't have this service because of an extremely contrived example you just created?
male-presenting man asks for a ride in a female-only rideshare claiming to be a pre-transition MtoF and the woman driving says "hold on, prove it"
Your doomsday scenario is a guy claiming to be a woman so he can... sit in the backseat of a woman-only taxi? Maybe after he used a stall in a ladies room?
I'm willing to bet 99% of the cab harassment isn't pre-planned attacks but drunk passengers or passengers/drivers who are just in the habit of saying/doing really inappropriate stuff. If a really weird predator manages to sneak in and the driver doesn't figure out in time to take counter-measures that sucks, but it's manageable.
And as for actual trans-people or other women who look completely male I'm sure they're grown up enough to handle awkward situations.
OK, isn't it interesting though that the same type of service aimed only at white customers or only for a specific religion would cause a massive outcry and also would be illegal?
The world isn't fair. I'm sorry if attempts to make it more fair are sometimes applied inconsistently.
Discrimination against non-whites has been, and continues to be a massive problem in society.
As such I have no hesitation about banning services that are for whites only.
Discrimination by women has never been a problem except in the imagination of men's rights activists, on the other hand women being harassed or assaulted by men has also been a huge problem forever.
I have no issue with a woman only service giving woman a ridesharing service where they feel safe from harassment.
Such a library necessarily contains every work that has ever been (or will ever be) written.
The problem with such a library (and the problem with All Prior Art) is that of search. Finding prior art that disrupts a patent that you need to make "go away") is just as impossible as finding the cure for cancer in the Library of Babel,
So the important question is whether you can go to a court of law and say "My opponent's patent is provably invalidated because it's already explained in the Library of Babel"? If that's a valid legal argument - then perhaps this is of use. But I strongly suspect it's a complete waste of time.
Even assuming they could generate stuff that was recognizable as prior art (which I doubt) I'm dubious a court would treat it as such.
An invention is an idea, the patent is part of your reward for sharing the idea with the world. But if the invention was generated by a machine and never read by a human being then the idea doesn't exist.
Or to put it another way, you can't have discovered something if you don't even know it exists.
Scott Adams seems to think Trump is a "master persuader" and I do agree he seems to have some genuine talent to appeal to his base that other candidates lack but I don't think it's necessarily intelligence.
I really think the core of his appeal is just saying the first thing that comes to mind and not care about offending people. That's why he's able to come up with memorable insults (or uncommon yet popular policy positions), it's because he's saying the things everyone has noticed but hasn't said out of politeness or practicality. I think the reason we haven't seen other people use this strategy is the problem he's hitting now. Offending so many people creates a ceiling of support and it's really tough for him to get more votes (or have a future in politics if that were his career).
As for his intellect in general, I think he's at least average intelligence, he did get a university degree and probably became pretty competent in real estate and some aspects of business, but otherwise I don't see any evidence of high intelligence, especially not in what he says.
The fact he shares 25% of his genes with a smart physicist is an interesting tidbit, though it doesn't really mean he's smart himself.
OK, so in order to remain a loyal Clinton follower and still look yourself in the mirror, you're deliberately staying uninformed. That's your choice. But please don't do anything important like voting, OK?
By most measures I'm actually quite well informed, well informed enough that when I accuse someone of lying I can generally bring up specific examples. Or when someone is BS'ing me by throwing out unspecific generalizations instead of facts I'm able to smell it.
I'll happily admit Clinton is far from perfect but that's hardly disqualifying since all politicians have serious flaws. But this overall sentiment around her just looks like the results of a smear job.
How about any of the lies she's told about Bernie Sanders?
Remember how she claimed that Bernie Sanders did nothing to help push health care reform in the 90s, and then people later pointed to pictures and televised speeches of both her and Bernie Sanders talking on that issue?
Possibly a lie, could also have been subjective opinion (ie she thought he didn't do enough) or she simply forgot.
Or the more recent thing where she tried to white-wash Bill's involvement in mass incarceration of black people?
White-washing does not equate lying.
I mean for crying out loud, you've seen what she'll do in her lust for power to members of her own party!
You mean run a primary campaign?
Even if you ignore Benghazi and the email scandals
I'm not ignoring them, I'm not aware of any lies there, certainly poor judgment and a potential crime with the email but I don't recall any deception involved.
you've still seen the lies she'll throw out against her opponents in her own party. How blind can you possibly be?!
Your post contained one specific example of something that might be a lie.
Heck, just a couple days ago Sanders said “She [Hillary Clinton] has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, quote unquote, not qualified to be president." except Clinton didn't say that.
"Bends" the truth? She completely fabricates all sorts of things about minor personal anecdotes and major policy and security-related matters.
No examples here.
Her entire ability to be in political power is based on her willingness to have trashed the reputations of the women her husband abused.
A valid example only if she knew that the women were telling the truth, which I see no evidence of.
She's thrown subordinates and peers under the legal bus for decades.
Again insinuations with no actual examples. Also throwing people under the bus isn't lying.
Her handling of her time as SoS was a debacle, in terms of judgement, but specifically showcased her willingness to lie about how she handled her official affairs.
Bad judgment is a matter of opinion, I asked for examples of lies.
What I read is more insinuation without any examples.
She didn't "bend" the truth about it, she outright lied, repeatedly, and is still doing so.
And yet you've somehow failed to list a single actual lie.
ANY truth out of that campaign would be a breath of fresh air, so it might as well be about the lack of aliens. Which of course nobody who thinks there's hidden information will believe, so they might as well lie about that, too.
Do you have some specific examples?
It seems like everybody hates the Clintons and thinks they're some kind of ruthless Machiavellian schemers and I honestly don't get it.
Sure she bends the truth sometimes, gets a little too cozy with lobbyists, etc. But that just makes her a politician with a 20+ year record of saying stuff that's dissected and recorded by the media.
These days it is patronizing but back then I imagine it was fairly remarkable but, maybe not. Looking into this, many of the "computers" back then were women. What I do find slightly offensive is the notion that she was "black". The woman appears more caucasian than african but our society treats anyone with even a smattering of african blood as "black". This strikes me as deeply racist.
As to whether she's black I'd ask if she self-identifies as black.
As for the focus on female humans computers and her race you can be certain in a Hollywood movie based on the moon landing the mathematicians calculating the orbits would either be absent from the script or a bunch of white guys. It's exactly what people mean when they talk about "whitewashing" in Hollywood, these stories are important to point out that even in the past there were prominent women and minorities.
I don't disagree here. The law is poorly written and the courts should overturn it. However I really believe that we have many other pressing problems in this country and we should not be focusing on transgendered bathrooms. There are 1,000,000 problems in the country and men who identify as females is 999,998 on the list.
On most issues I'm a pragmatist who tends to agree.
But on some issues you have to hold to a principle and this is one of them. You can't just stand by and let people explicitly target and persecute a minority for no reason but bigotry.
To put it simply this law has nothing to do with protecting women from perverts and everything to do with punishing transgendered people for being transgendered.
Right now, the people with the male organs should use male bathrooms and female organs should use female bathrooms. What's is this punishing to transgendered people?
So you want a man with a flat chest and beard to use the ladies room because he hasn't had a surgically created penis?
What about people with ambiguous sexual organs? Not everyone fits into neatly defined categories.
In the future, you could install two additional bathroom types -- the first for males who have a female identity and a second type of bathroom for females with male identity.
I'm assuming that's intended as a joke because it's ridiculously infeasible as a solution.
Whose freedom is more important? The transgendered man who wants to use a woman's restroom or the women who don't want to share their restroom with a transgendered man? Who should prevail? You can't make one happy without making the others unhappy. This is the nature of politics. You have to decide and say "you get your way, and you, just deal with it."
The governor of NC chose to side with 51% of his state over probably 0.001% of his state. Sure, there are women who would agree with sharing the restroom. The governor can't know how many. All he probably knows is that he's likely never met a woman in his state except a few activists that like the idea. Therefore he is doing precisely what we ordinarily value which is letting the majority rule.
To put it simply this law has nothing to do with protecting women from perverts and everything to do with punishing transgendered people for being transgendered.
Whose freedom is more important? The transgendered man who wants to use a woman's restroom or the women who don't want to share their restroom with a transgendered man? Who should prevail? You can't make one happy without making the others unhappy. This is the nature of politics. You have to decide and say "you get your way, and you, just deal with it."
The governor of NC chose to side with 51% of his state over probably 0.001% of his state. Sure, there are women who would agree with sharing the restroom. The governor can't know how many. All he probably knows is that he's likely never met a woman in his state except a few activists that like the idea. Therefore he is doing precisely what we ordinarily value which is letting the majority rule.
If you want to play by strict majority I guarantee you I can find some issue where you're the minority and I'll create a popular rule you really won't like.
As for this law it's not protecting women from sharing bathrooms with men, it's forcing them to share bathrooms with men, men who either used to be women or were wrongly identified as women at birth.
To the tiny extend that men pretending to be women to infiltrate washrooms for perverted purposes happens it's already illegal. This law does nothing to fix it, all it does is subject transgender people to ridicule and stigmatization by forcing them to choose between using an inappropriate bathroom or breaking the law. The law is a horrendous expression of bigotry and ignorance.
As much as I would like to believe he won't get the nod, the reality is that they will run Trump if he gets enough votes. He's got too many votes to ignore him. The only chance they have is if every single other delegate and important member of the party gets behind one already serious candidate (realistically, only Cruz meets the criteria) and try to upset the convention.
Delegates are only bound on the first ballot, if Trump doesn't achieve a majority they're free to abandon him for another candidate.
Some will stick around but some are anything but Trump supporters who are bound by party rules to vote Trump on the first ballot.
If they're smart they could even manage the narrative because of how much Trump benefited from the split field.
If it comes down to Trump vs Alternative and there's very good evidence that Alternative would have won 60% of the votes in a 2 person race is it really undemocratic to nominate Alternative?
I know a number of Trump supporters, people that actually call themself a supporter. They're sick of both parties and the political correctness BS. Need to dial people back. Not take offense to take offense.
I'd love it if someone would create an "other" party tomorrow. Complete from the President all the way down to local school boards. Sick of R and D? Vote for O! Vote 'em all out!
Of course that may simply mean that we have a whole new set of people to steal from us and they start from nothing.
Sorry but I find this whole anti-PC nonsense to be completely hypocritical. Trump is notoriously thin-skinned, he's constantly complaining about the media and saying he's going to sue people for criticizing him. Somehow the freedom to offend only applies to Trump and never his opponents.
Then you'd lose $100. If I were an American I'd vote for Hillary Clinton, she's flawed but I prefer a moderate in any election and she's by far the most competent of the lot.
>... from what I've seen the most fervent supporters of Trump are the people who haven't had the professional success they expect and are looking for somewhere to put the blame. lol nope.
What I've seen is that his supporters, just like OP, want the law to be enforced. Illegal immigrants are actually illegally in the country but it's no longer right to even call them out on it? Come on...
It's a problem but his solution ranges from a police state (you can't deport the volume he wants to move without one) and fantasy (Mexico would never pay for a wall). Besides, the discussion was about HB-1s.
>He'd be a disaster for free speech. Because you think so? Ok then...
No, because of the exact reasons I stated.
>... yet when it comes to cheap labour coming in and injecting extra wealth into the economy it's suddenly a disaster. You seem to forget also all those extra expenses that the illegal immigrants you so conveniently refer to only as "cheap labour" put on the system. And come on, hit me with that "net immigration is negative" stat that only takes into account LEGAL immigration.
My wife is an elementary school teacher. Out of her 22 students, a whooping 18 are illegally in the country. If you think building schools, hiring teachers and feeding those kids doesn't cost money then you're deluded. Oh yeah, the school does feed those kids btw.
There are quite a few other examples of expenses and lets not talk about the fact that illegal immigrants send a good chunk of their earnings back to their country of origin so that's money that leaves the US economy.
Keep those goalposts in place. This discussion was about HB-1s who are legal and do pay taxes.
I agree stuff should be done to reduce illegal immigration, but what Trump suggests is massive overkill.
You're not going to get very many good workers that don't like Trump. It's been my observation that those who work hardest, and have the most skill either don't care about politics at all, or they like Trump.
I disagree strongly, in fact from what I've seen the most fervent supporters of Trump are the people who haven't had the professional success they expect and are looking for somewhere to put the blame.
Also, he has a softer stance on intellectual property restrictions than Obama (or any democrat for that matter) does, which is important to both open source and freedom of speech. He did come out on the wrong side of the encryption debate, but in his defence... it's a complicated topic.
Trump is pushing some kind of authoritarian nationalism, he's repeatedly talked about changing liable laws so he could sue people who criticize him and threatening the media. He'd be a disaster for free speech.
He's also called for less fraud, waste, and abuse in government, which means more and better software for the plebs like us that write the stuff. And that means more work.
He built his career off of crony capitalism, why do you suddenly expect him to clean up the system that kept him rich?
The wall he's proposing is also employment positive for programmers, nerds, and IT, as is Keystone XL, which he's in favor of.
Ehhhh, that's some very dubious reasoning. You claim any big project is a boon for programmers through secondary benefits, yet when it comes to cheap labour coming in and injecting extra wealth into the economy it's suddenly a disaster.
I understand the populist Left, but they have yet to propose anything that benefits me as a common programmer and knowledge worker personally. Trump has proposed a dozen unrelated things that do. And I think the overwhelming majority of the tech community is smart enough to see that.
With the industry the way it exists today, my honest feeling is that less domestic competition from people who would rather go to Canada, than stick it out is a good thing.
For someone criticizing the populist left you have a remarkably populist anti-capitalist understanding of economics.
The standard understanding is that more workers, more competition, means more wealth in general. There can be some specific losers when you open markets, in this case it might be American programmers. But for the US as a whole it's a benefit.
Sure, it's easy to say they would take the tech workers. But would Canada gladly take the 10 million illegal immigrants who may not be as skilled? Those are the ones who really want to flee Trump.
I'm not sure how we'd react to the illegal immigrants, but we are inviting 25,000 Syrian refugees. Considering that Canada has a population of 35 million and you have ~320 million it's equivalent to you taking in about 225,000.
Remember citizens, 'conspiracy theorists' are just nutjob losers who want to blame the reptilians or whatever for the fact that their lives suck and their tinfoil hats are too tight. The world is, in fact, basically decent and as-described. Carry on.
You might as well hand the conspiracy theorists credit for saying that WWE is fake. It's common knowledge that the super-rich hide assets, especially the politically elite in countries with weak democratic institutions.
Twelve national leaders are among 143 politicians, their families and close associates from around the world known to have been using offshore tax havens. Among national leaders with offshore wealth are Vladimir Putin, Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan's prime minister; Ayad Allawi, ex-interim prime minister and former vice-president of Iraq; Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine; Alaa Mubarak, son of Egypt's former president; and the prime minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davio Gunnlaugsson.
The only remotely surprising one on that list is the Icelandic Prime Minister, there's a smaller bombshell in:
Six members of the House of Lords, three former Conservative MPs and dozens of donors to UK political parties have had offshore assets.
But again it's not that surprising, even in well developed western democracies there's corruption, the question is how many and who. It isn't even evidence that the rich are corrupt, middle class folks steal and cheat as well, there's no reason to think that getting a boatload of money magically makes people honest.
Slashdot Mirror
"...he graduated from Cornell University's School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering."
Wouldn't that would make him an engineer and not a scientist? Of course, he's still significantly more intelligent than Palin or any of her kinfolk, he's just not a scientist.
I wouldn't call someone with a physics PhD who writes generic software a scientist, would I call someone with an engineering degree who did original engineering work in aerospace and later specialized in science education a scientist? I'm not sure, I guess it's it's a bit of a philosophical distinction.
Either way he's clearly far more of a scientist than most people, Palin especially.
Actually they ARE doing it for financial reasons -
Zuckerberg heads up a PAC which is trying to open up more immigration and H1Bs - because, y'know, he *cares* about the people and it has nothing at all to do with getting cheaper tech labor into the states. That goes for all the tech CEOs listed here.
Trump is adamantly against that so he must be taken down.
More likely they're just terrified by the prospect of a Trump presidency for the same reason everyone else is, but instead of posting on a message board they're able to reach a far wider audience.
Much for the same reason rich people dabbling in politics is hardly new, if anything tech CEOs have been a bit unusual as they previously tried to stay out of mainstream party politics.
The irony is for the rest of us it would be an epic screw up but there's never be a discussion of actual charges.
At least according to common practice:
Several experts told POLITICO that in light of the legal obstacles to a case and the Justice Department’s track record in such prosecutions they are confident Clinton won’t face charges.
“Based on everything I’ve seen in the public media, not only don’t I see the basis for criminal prosecution, I don’t even see the basis for administrative action such as revoking a clearance or suspending it,” said Leonard, the former director of the Information Security Oversight Office.
“Looked at as a potential criminal case, this would be laughed out of court,” said William Jeffress, a Washington attorney on the defense team for former Bush White House aide Scooter Libby during his trial for lying in a leak investigation. “There hasn’t been any case remotely approaching a situation where someone received emails that were not marked classified, who simply receives them and maybe replies to them and a criminal prosecution is brought,” Jeffress said.
Step back and apply a bit of common sense, she wasn't trying to sell the secrets, leak them to the press as part of a hatchet job, or anything else evil. She was trying to do her job and took some bad short cuts.
This was so uncontroversial that she did it completely in the open as was obvious to everyone she exchanged emails with and no one even thought it was an issue for years!!
Ordinary people get reprimanded for screw ups like that, they don't go to jail.
Yes, that is established fact. It is also on record where Hillary was having trouble receiving classified information via secure methods. She specifically instructed one of her staff members to remove the classification markings and send the material to her in an unsecured method.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01...
Apparently “Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” translates as "Make a version without the sensitive information and send that over unsecured communications" and is a common and accepted practice.
"And as for actual trans-people or other women who look completely male I'm sure they're grown up enough to handle awkward situations."
Well, women aren't grown-up enough to handle themselves? Where's the line supposed to be drawn here?
Women can handle themselves, but if they want a harassment free cab service they should be allowed.
As for trans-people they're constantly dealing with and navigating around issues with gender assumptions. Once in a blue moon there will be an awkward situation, oh well.
And as for my example being "convenient",
Actually "contrived".
well, I'm a test engineer.
[...]
If you don't see a problem here and dismiss a potential problem as a "convenient" example to disprove my point, well, all I can say is you must be a lawyer and a licking your lips over the influx of discrimination suits that will come your way when my "convenient" example is used by someone to fuck with someone else.
[...]
And, lest you think no one would actually DO that to tweak the nose of the system, need I remind you, and readers of this site, that there was a story posted here not too long ago about a woman who went to court so that she could wear a colander on her head in her driver's license picture because she was an adherent to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Actually I'm a software developer, and as a software developer I recognize why the software development mindset is a terrible thing to apply to law and the society.
In software every edge case needs to be handled properly because the system doesn't care if if it's a contrived example, it just has to happen once and it will corrupt the db or let in an attacker.
The real world doesn't work like that, there are infinite test cases and the solution isn't to handle all of them, it's to optimize the common path, address the major exceptions, and let individuals figure out the remaining edge cases on the fly.
Once in a while someone gets screwed over, other times they claim a colander is religious apparel, and that's fine, society didn't get corrupted and we didn't have to reboot western civilization.
A quick scan of local on-line arrest records shows a majority of blacks committing violent crimes even though the black population is a minority. So the next logical step will be a white only version of Uber. Just for safety purposes, of course.
I'm sure you meant to write "a majority of violent crimes were committed by blacks" but you may still be wrong. I don't know your locality but in the US more for almost every crime more whites are arrested.
However, absolutely NO ONE should have the authority demand "papers, please" on that particular condition. Thus, it presents a problem when any male-presenting man asks for a ride in a female-only rideshare claiming to be a pre-transition MtoF and the woman driving says "hold on, prove it". How do you do that without creating a situation where the woman won't feel threatened (by a potential liar) and the man won't feel discriminated against?
The answer's simple: don't create a situation where discrimination is implicit within the ground rules.
So women can't have this service because of an extremely contrived example you just created?
male-presenting man asks for a ride in a female-only rideshare claiming to be a pre-transition MtoF and the woman driving says "hold on, prove it"
Your doomsday scenario is a guy claiming to be a woman so he can... sit in the backseat of a woman-only taxi? Maybe after he used a stall in a ladies room?
I'm willing to bet 99% of the cab harassment isn't pre-planned attacks but drunk passengers or passengers/drivers who are just in the habit of saying/doing really inappropriate stuff. If a really weird predator manages to sneak in and the driver doesn't figure out in time to take counter-measures that sucks, but it's manageable.
And as for actual trans-people or other women who look completely male I'm sure they're grown up enough to handle awkward situations.
OK, isn't it interesting though that the same type of service aimed only at white customers or only for a specific religion would cause a massive outcry and also would be illegal?
The world isn't fair. I'm sorry if attempts to make it more fair are sometimes applied inconsistently.
Discrimination against non-whites has been, and continues to be a massive problem in society.
As such I have no hesitation about banning services that are for whites only.
Discrimination by women has never been a problem except in the imagination of men's rights activists, on the other hand women being harassed or assaulted by men has also been a huge problem forever.
I have no issue with a woman only service giving woman a ridesharing service where they feel safe from harassment.
Such a library necessarily contains every work that has ever been (or will ever be) written.
The problem with such a library (and the problem with All Prior Art) is that of search. Finding prior art that disrupts a patent that you need to make "go away") is just as impossible as finding the cure for cancer in the Library of Babel,
So the important question is whether you can go to a court of law and say "My opponent's patent is provably invalidated because it's already explained in the Library of Babel"? If that's a valid legal argument - then perhaps this is of use. But I strongly suspect it's a complete waste of time.
Even assuming they could generate stuff that was recognizable as prior art (which I doubt) I'm dubious a court would treat it as such.
An invention is an idea, the patent is part of your reward for sharing the idea with the world. But if the invention was generated by a machine and never read by a human being then the idea doesn't exist.
Or to put it another way, you can't have discovered something if you don't even know it exists.
Trump is surely a very intelligent person.
I don't know about this.
Scott Adams seems to think Trump is a "master persuader" and I do agree he seems to have some genuine talent to appeal to his base that other candidates lack but I don't think it's necessarily intelligence.
I really think the core of his appeal is just saying the first thing that comes to mind and not care about offending people. That's why he's able to come up with memorable insults (or uncommon yet popular policy positions), it's because he's saying the things everyone has noticed but hasn't said out of politeness or practicality. I think the reason we haven't seen other people use this strategy is the problem he's hitting now. Offending so many people creates a ceiling of support and it's really tough for him to get more votes (or have a future in politics if that were his career).
As for his intellect in general, I think he's at least average intelligence, he did get a university degree and probably became pretty competent in real estate and some aspects of business, but otherwise I don't see any evidence of high intelligence, especially not in what he says.
The fact he shares 25% of his genes with a smart physicist is an interesting tidbit, though it doesn't really mean he's smart himself.
No examples here.
OK, so in order to remain a loyal Clinton follower and still look yourself in the mirror, you're deliberately staying uninformed. That's your choice. But please don't do anything important like voting, OK?
By most measures I'm actually quite well informed, well informed enough that when I accuse someone of lying I can generally bring up specific examples. Or when someone is BS'ing me by throwing out unspecific generalizations instead of facts I'm able to smell it.
I'll happily admit Clinton is far from perfect but that's hardly disqualifying since all politicians have serious flaws. But this overall sentiment around her just looks like the results of a smear job.
How about any of the lies she's told about Bernie Sanders?
Remember how she claimed that Bernie Sanders did nothing to help push health care reform in the 90s, and then people later pointed to pictures and televised speeches of both her and Bernie Sanders talking on that issue?
Possibly a lie, could also have been subjective opinion (ie she thought he didn't do enough) or she simply forgot.
Or the more recent thing where she tried to white-wash Bill's involvement in mass incarceration of black people?
White-washing does not equate lying.
I mean for crying out loud, you've seen what she'll do in her lust for power to members of her own party!
You mean run a primary campaign?
Even if you ignore Benghazi and the email scandals
I'm not ignoring them, I'm not aware of any lies there, certainly poor judgment and a potential crime with the email but I don't recall any deception involved.
you've still seen the lies she'll throw out against her opponents in her own party. How blind can you possibly be?!
Your post contained one specific example of something that might be a lie.
Here, I'll help you out, there's a few in there, of course Sanders is more-or-less the same.
Heck, just a couple days ago Sanders said “She [Hillary Clinton] has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, quote unquote, not qualified to be president." except Clinton didn't say that.
So wouldn't that qualify as a lie?
"Bends" the truth? She completely fabricates all sorts of things about minor personal anecdotes and major policy and security-related matters.
No examples here.
Her entire ability to be in political power is based on her willingness to have trashed the reputations of the women her husband abused.
A valid example only if she knew that the women were telling the truth, which I see no evidence of.
She's thrown subordinates and peers under the legal bus for decades.
Again insinuations with no actual examples. Also throwing people under the bus isn't lying.
Her handling of her time as SoS was a debacle, in terms of judgement, but specifically showcased her willingness to lie about how she handled her official affairs.
Bad judgment is a matter of opinion, I asked for examples of lies.
What I read is more insinuation without any examples.
She didn't "bend" the truth about it, she outright lied, repeatedly, and is still doing so.
And yet you've somehow failed to list a single actual lie.
ANY truth out of that campaign would be a breath of fresh air, so it might as well be about the lack of aliens. Which of course nobody who thinks there's hidden information will believe, so they might as well lie about that, too.
Do you have some specific examples?
It seems like everybody hates the Clintons and thinks they're some kind of ruthless Machiavellian schemers and I honestly don't get it.
Sure she bends the truth sometimes, gets a little too cozy with lobbyists, etc. But that just makes her a politician with a 20+ year record of saying stuff that's dissected and recorded by the media.
These days it is patronizing but back then I imagine it was fairly remarkable but, maybe not. Looking into this, many of the "computers" back then were women. What I do find slightly offensive is the notion that she was "black". The woman appears more caucasian than african but our society treats anyone with even a smattering of african blood as "black". This strikes me as deeply racist.
As to whether she's black I'd ask if she self-identifies as black.
As for the focus on female humans computers and her race you can be certain in a Hollywood movie based on the moon landing the mathematicians calculating the orbits would either be absent from the script or a bunch of white guys. It's exactly what people mean when they talk about "whitewashing" in Hollywood, these stories are important to point out that even in the past there were prominent women and minorities.
I don't disagree here. The law is poorly written and the courts should overturn it. However I really believe that we have many other pressing problems in this country and we should not be focusing on transgendered bathrooms. There are 1,000,000 problems in the country and men who identify as females is 999,998 on the list.
On most issues I'm a pragmatist who tends to agree.
But on some issues you have to hold to a principle and this is one of them. You can't just stand by and let people explicitly target and persecute a minority for no reason but bigotry.
Right now, the people with the male organs should use male bathrooms and female organs should use female bathrooms. What's is this punishing to transgendered people?
So you want a man with a flat chest and beard to use the ladies room because he hasn't had a surgically created penis?
What about people with ambiguous sexual organs? Not everyone fits into neatly defined categories.
In the future, you could install two additional bathroom types -- the first for males who have a female identity and a second type of bathroom for females with male identity.
I'm assuming that's intended as a joke because it's ridiculously infeasible as a solution.
Whose freedom is more important? The transgendered man who wants to use a woman's restroom or the women who don't want to share their restroom with a transgendered man? Who should prevail? You can't make one happy without making the others unhappy. This is the nature of politics. You have to decide and say "you get your way, and you, just deal with it."
The governor of NC chose to side with 51% of his state over probably 0.001% of his state. Sure, there are women who would agree with sharing the restroom. The governor can't know how many. All he probably knows is that he's likely never met a woman in his state except a few activists that like the idea. Therefore he is doing precisely what we ordinarily value which is letting the majority rule.
To put it simply this law has nothing to do with protecting women from perverts and everything to do with punishing transgendered people for being transgendered.
Whose freedom is more important? The transgendered man who wants to use a woman's restroom or the women who don't want to share their restroom with a transgendered man? Who should prevail? You can't make one happy without making the others unhappy. This is the nature of politics. You have to decide and say "you get your way, and you, just deal with it."
The governor of NC chose to side with 51% of his state over probably 0.001% of his state. Sure, there are women who would agree with sharing the restroom. The governor can't know how many. All he probably knows is that he's likely never met a woman in his state except a few activists that like the idea. Therefore he is doing precisely what we ordinarily value which is letting the majority rule.
If you want to play by strict majority I guarantee you I can find some issue where you're the minority and I'll create a popular rule you really won't like.
As for this law it's not protecting women from sharing bathrooms with men, it's forcing them to share bathrooms with men, men who either used to be women or were wrongly identified as women at birth.
To the tiny extend that men pretending to be women to infiltrate washrooms for perverted purposes happens it's already illegal. This law does nothing to fix it, all it does is subject transgender people to ridicule and stigmatization by forcing them to choose between using an inappropriate bathroom or breaking the law. The law is a horrendous expression of bigotry and ignorance.
As much as I would like to believe he won't get the nod, the reality is that they will run Trump if he gets enough votes. He's got too many votes to ignore him. The only chance they have is if every single other delegate and important member of the party gets behind one already serious candidate (realistically, only Cruz meets the criteria) and try to upset the convention.
Delegates are only bound on the first ballot, if Trump doesn't achieve a majority they're free to abandon him for another candidate.
Some will stick around but some are anything but Trump supporters who are bound by party rules to vote Trump on the first ballot.
If they're smart they could even manage the narrative because of how much Trump benefited from the split field.
If it comes down to Trump vs Alternative and there's very good evidence that Alternative would have won 60% of the votes in a 2 person race is it really undemocratic to nominate Alternative?
I know a number of Trump supporters, people that actually call themself a supporter. They're sick of both parties and the political correctness BS. Need to dial people back. Not take offense to take offense.
I'd love it if someone would create an "other" party tomorrow. Complete from the President all the way down to local school boards. Sick of R and D? Vote for O! Vote 'em all out!
Of course that may simply mean that we have a whole new set of people to steal from us and they start from nothing.
Sorry but I find this whole anti-PC nonsense to be completely hypocritical. Trump is notoriously thin-skinned, he's constantly complaining about the media and saying he's going to sue people for criticizing him. Somehow the freedom to offend only applies to Trump and never his opponents.
I can bet $100 you like Bernie Sanders.
Then you'd lose $100. If I were an American I'd vote for Hillary Clinton, she's flawed but I prefer a moderate in any election and she's by far the most competent of the lot.
>... from what I've seen the most fervent supporters of Trump are the people who haven't had the professional success they expect and are looking for somewhere to put the blame.
lol nope.
What I've seen is that his supporters, just like OP, want the law to be enforced. Illegal immigrants are actually illegally in the country but it's no longer right to even call them out on it? Come on...
It's a problem but his solution ranges from a police state (you can't deport the volume he wants to move without one) and fantasy (Mexico would never pay for a wall). Besides, the discussion was about HB-1s.
>He'd be a disaster for free speech.
Because you think so? Ok then...
No, because of the exact reasons I stated.
>... yet when it comes to cheap labour coming in and injecting extra wealth into the economy it's suddenly a disaster.
You seem to forget also all those extra expenses that the illegal immigrants you so conveniently refer to only as "cheap labour" put on the system. And come on, hit me with that "net immigration is negative" stat that only takes into account LEGAL immigration.
My wife is an elementary school teacher. Out of her 22 students, a whooping 18 are illegally in the country. If you think building schools, hiring teachers and feeding those kids doesn't cost money then you're deluded. Oh yeah, the school does feed those kids btw.
There are quite a few other examples of expenses and lets not talk about the fact that illegal immigrants send a good chunk of their earnings back to their country of origin so that's money that leaves the US economy.
Keep those goalposts in place. This discussion was about HB-1s who are legal and do pay taxes.
I agree stuff should be done to reduce illegal immigration, but what Trump suggests is massive overkill.
You're not going to get very many good workers that don't like Trump.
It's been my observation that those who work hardest, and have the most skill either don't care about politics at all, or they like Trump.
I disagree strongly, in fact from what I've seen the most fervent supporters of Trump are the people who haven't had the professional success they expect and are looking for somewhere to put the blame.
Also, he has a softer stance on intellectual property restrictions than Obama (or any democrat for that matter) does, which is important to both open source and freedom of speech. He did come out on the wrong side of the encryption debate, but in his defence... it's a complicated topic.
Trump is pushing some kind of authoritarian nationalism, he's repeatedly talked about changing liable laws so he could sue people who criticize him and threatening the media. He'd be a disaster for free speech.
He's also called for less fraud, waste, and abuse in government, which means more and better software for the plebs like us that write the stuff. And that means more work.
He built his career off of crony capitalism, why do you suddenly expect him to clean up the system that kept him rich?
The wall he's proposing is also employment positive for programmers, nerds, and IT, as is Keystone XL, which he's in favor of.
Ehhhh, that's some very dubious reasoning. You claim any big project is a boon for programmers through secondary benefits, yet when it comes to cheap labour coming in and injecting extra wealth into the economy it's suddenly a disaster.
I understand the populist Left, but they have yet to propose anything that benefits me as a common programmer and knowledge worker personally. Trump has proposed a dozen unrelated things that do. And I think the overwhelming majority of the tech community is smart enough to see that.
With the industry the way it exists today, my honest feeling is that less domestic competition from people who would rather go to Canada, than stick it out is a good thing.
For someone criticizing the populist left you have a remarkably populist anti-capitalist understanding of economics.
The standard understanding is that more workers, more competition, means more wealth in general. There can be some specific losers when you open markets, in this case it might be American programmers. But for the US as a whole it's a benefit.
Sure, it's easy to say they would take the tech workers. But would Canada gladly take the 10 million illegal immigrants who may not be as skilled? Those are the ones who really want to flee Trump.
I'm not sure how we'd react to the illegal immigrants, but we are inviting 25,000 Syrian refugees. Considering that Canada has a population of 35 million and you have ~320 million it's equivalent to you taking in about 225,000.
Remember citizens, 'conspiracy theorists' are just nutjob losers who want to blame the reptilians or whatever for the fact that their lives suck and their tinfoil hats are too tight. The world is, in fact, basically decent and as-described. Carry on.
You might as well hand the conspiracy theorists credit for saying that WWE is fake. It's common knowledge that the super-rich hide assets, especially the politically elite in countries with weak democratic institutions.
Twelve national leaders are among 143 politicians, their families and close associates from around the world known to have been using offshore tax havens. Among national leaders with offshore wealth are Vladimir Putin, Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan's prime minister; Ayad Allawi, ex-interim prime minister and former vice-president of Iraq; Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine; Alaa Mubarak, son of Egypt's former president; and the prime minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davio Gunnlaugsson.
The only remotely surprising one on that list is the Icelandic Prime Minister, there's a smaller bombshell in:
Six members of the House of Lords, three former Conservative MPs and dozens of donors to UK political parties have had offshore assets.
But again it's not that surprising, even in well developed western democracies there's corruption, the question is how many and who. It isn't even evidence that the rich are corrupt, middle class folks steal and cheat as well, there's no reason to think that getting a boatload of money magically makes people honest.