Trump says thing that are textbook misogyny and racism. It's as if he is literally getting them form a textbook somewhere, in order to build up his anti-establishment anti-political-correctness platform.
Textbook racism is saying that some race is inferior. It's saying that Blacks have to use separate drinking fountains, have to ride the back of the bus, and can't join the country club.
Textbook mysogyny is saying that women are inferior to men. It's saying they shouldn't go to college, shouldn't vote, and should be kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
Trump has made no such pronouncements, doesn't align with *any* of the textbook norms, and his lifes history shows the exact *opposite* of the textbook examples.
In other words, he's normal.
But you are a clear example of what masquerades as political discourse. You are writing as knowledgeable about racism and mysogyny, knowing that people won't think critically about what you write.
People are trained from birth to take in information without regard to accuracy, and you are abusing that weakness to your own ends.
You are a textbook example of a shill: You're trying to fool people to promote your hidden agenda.
Calling an opponent a sexist or a racist are sure fire ways to ostracize them and shut them up. Ironic the left is so opposed to bullying then bullies people it disagrees with and calls them names. We're not all the same but deserve the same opportunities, nothing more, nothing less. Stop with the name-calling.
As a clear example of the OP's point, one need only look to how the media covers the Trump campaign.
Trump notes that a portion (a subset) of illegal (intersect another subset) immigrants (intersect yet another subset) as rapists and murderers, and this is somehow interpreted to mean that he's a racist.
He fails to remember who David Duke is (temporarily, I might add), and suddenly he's a KKK member.
He insults a man and a woman in one breath, and since one of them was a woman, he's suddenly got a "war on women".
He insults individuals he doesn't like. The women insults are selected, distilled, and made into a campaign ad.
A quick google of "Donald Trump's war on *" shows he has a: . war on women . war on Megyn Kelley . war on the media . war on Chivalry (wtf?) . war on people with disabilities . war on comedy (wtf?) . war on Muslims . war on anchor babies
And these are only the first 2 pages! The list is endless!
Googling "Donald Trump is *" shows that he is: . Satan . Hitler . crazier than April Fools' Day . the most dangerous man in the world . the next Barack Obama (wtf?) . Stalin . Mussolini
...the list goes on.
All this completely ridiculous rhetoric, people are falling over themselves to paint Trump in the most possible bad way.
(After writing that last line, I had a thought and... yep, Cthulhu supports Donald Trump. And this came from the Washington Post! WTF?)
And the worst part of all is this: I don't have the first idea how well Trumps position stacks up against those of Cruz, Clinton, or Sanders.
In fact, I don't know even *what* the other candidates even stand for.
Trump: We'll bomb the shit out of ISIS and torture their families
Clinton: "Today’s attacks will only strengthen our resolve to stand together as allies and defeat terrorism and radical jihadism around the world"
What will Clinton do if elected? I haven't the first idea....all I know is that she doesn't have a war on women.
Yeah, just what we need, a bunch of amateur surgeon junkies out there in Central Park stealing kidneys for a fix. This is like a course in making bombs.
On the contrary.
As an adult in society, how can I decide whether to agree with a government pronouncement unless I have the relevant information?
How can I know whether a law is needed, whether the technical claims of a company (looking for investment) are feasible, whether some claim to the safety of our nation is credible, or whether some risk is worth worrying about unless I have the information?
I don't expect to be making bombs, but knowing the basic premise allows me to judge whether the reasoning behind the TSA ban on liquids is a lie.
I don't expect to be making X-ray machines, but the basic information allows me to judge how much danger there is in a backscatter scan.
I don't expect to be breaking computer security, but knowing the basic techniques allows me to secure my system and detect government overreach.
Of course not everyone has the bandwidth and interest to become informed on all these issues, but for any single issue *some* people will be interested enough to become informed.
Those same people might have an insightful post on, say, a tech website, their conclusions might be echoed by others who have come to the same conclusion, and the ideas espoused might inform many others.
Really.
The idea that information should be suppressed because bad people might misuse it is stupid.
There are many, *many* more people who would use the information for good, rather than evil.
This is exactly what the radioactive boyscout did, but he got arrested and his work confiscated. Yet this guy gets to keep his? Maybe I should build a reactor.
This is exactly what's wrong with science education in America.
The radioactive boy scout did fission, while these high school students are doing fusion.
Buy a dictionary, there's a difference.
I couldn't find any definite information, but this is probably a Farnsworth Fusor, which is every bit a valid and interesting science project for high schoolers. (It's about the right size and gives off about the right glow.)
Instead of bothering with UFO's, why not deal with things like: * What was being discussed between Clinton and Goldman Sachs? * What role did her husband have with supporting a known rapist on a certain Caribbean island? * What is the truth in the matters of oddly convenient "suicides" like Vince Foster? * What is the truth in the matters of Benghazi, given that they wanted the Ambassador dead?
Adding to your list, I have a question: how is this not a conflict of interest?
The campaign chair of someone running for president convinces the secretary of state to declassify documents in order to boost the campaign?
How is this not a conflict of interest?
Should the Secretary of State make declassification decisions based on the state of her campaign?
Beyond conflict of interest, how is this not outright illegal?
As a moderate conservative, I can tell you that the rest of America aren't going to elect Donald Trump. In fact, the numbers are indicating that he will lose the election to Hillary by double digits and endanger the Republican majorities in Congress.
As a person who does statistics as his day job I call bullshit.
The *best* you could say is that there is not enough information to make that claim. The information that we *do* have is one of a) Trump's support among democrats is higher than his support among republicans(*), or 2) 20% of democrats would defect to Trump in a general election.
In previous elections, both Republicans and Democrats have gotten about 50% of the vote; hence, the dustup with Al Gore and George Bush in 2000.
Getting over half the popular vote from Republicans when Cruz and Kasich are still running, and having 20% of Democrats admit that they will likely defect leads me to believe that Trump has a real chance.
Of course, I'm only citing statistics.
Your argument is good, too.
(*) From a poll a couple of months ago, and the second from a January poll.
I turned off autorun on any external media a long time ago, back when sony cd's were injecting rootkits under the guise of DRM circa 2005. Nothing on insertable media autoruns on my PC.
Just a quick question.
Suppose the device identifies as a USB keyboard, or identifies as a dual use device USB stick/keyboard?
Suppose the keyboard device is generic, doesn't require a driver, and the micro on the USB stick starts to type things on your computer.
Could that install malware on your system?
(Of course, I didn't need to identify keyboard devices specifically. There are a bunch of devices that a USB device can identify as, some of which allow data to be loaded onto your computer.)
After his death, Albert Einstein found himself working as the doorkeeper at the Pearly Gates.
One slow day, he found that he had time to chat with the new entrants. To the first one he asked, "What's your IQ?" The new arrival replied, "190". They discussed Einstein's theory of relativity for hours.
When the second new arrival came, Einstein once again inquired as to the newcomer's IQ. The answer this time came "120". To which Einstein replied, "Tell me, how did the Cubs do this year?" and they proceeded to talk for half an hour or so.
To the final arrival, Einstein once again posed the question, "What's your IQ?". Upon receiving the answer "70".
Einstein smiled and replied, "How is Trump doing in the primaries?"
Yes, you can knock countries and regions off the internet. But you really can't do it without collateral damage.
I agree *completely* that doing this would be less effective than letting things stand.
But I have to ask, in a technical sense why *couldn't* we cut off conflict areas from the rest of the internet?
Taking Syria as an example, we could 1) Disable their top level domain. 2) Identify the.com and.edu websites hosted in Syria and route them to nowhere 3) Identify source connections from within Syria and automatically route *them* nowhere
On #3 above, Syria has only a handful of service providers, and the source address can be identified to belong to one of these. By IP address if nothing else.
Now, people can get around these problems in lots of ways, and some would say *easy* ways. Proxy servers and TOR come to mind....but these are generally not free, impose a technical barrier to implement that not everyone can handle, and can in general be detected.
Politically, it's like establishing an embargo on a country.
Taking the recent US embargo on Iran as an example, if the US sees a country violating the embargo (acting as a proxy so that Syrians can access outside the internet), then it can take political actions against the helping country. Just like the economic embargo on Iran.
Like an embargo, it won't help.
But even though it wouldn't *help*, I don't see why it couldn't be *done*.
Can anyone explain better, in a technical sense, why these steps can't be done?
James Bond: "Go on, laugh. They laughed at Einstein." Mata Bond: "Nobody laughed at Einstein!" James Bond: "Well, they would have, if he'd carried on like this!"
...anything even remotely resembling this are significantly less than the chances of Donald Trump making a well-considered, rational and coherent statement on any topic and then sticking to that opinion for more than five seconds.
You mean like "build a wall to keep out illegal immigration", right?
Trump is unpopular and will probably lose delegates on subsequent votes rather than gain them. Trump is unlikely to be the Republican nominee.
If Trump has the vast majority of support from primary voters, and doesn't get the nomination due to skulduggery, there will be rioting in the streets.
You say he's unpopular, but only to the 1%ers.
A very large, very scary crowd of people want to see him run.
Be afraid of changing the rules, or of having the appearance of a non-voting process.
This assumes, of course, that Earth systems can recover and there will be a future time when you can walk outdoors alone and unaided. Then again, there will probably be a lot of others who had to turn to feral cannibalism to survive.
It doesn't look good for you, even the Earth's microorganisms are starting to wonder whether they will survive.
You can avoid a lot of needless pain and suffering if you think things through.
You might ask yourself the question: do you *really* want to live in a world post-Trump?
There are many commercial entities that would be overjoyed to finance Tesla some billions based on the outstanding pre-order book.
And even more commercial entities that would be overjoyed if Tesla crashed and burned.
Analysts are falling over themselves trying to paint Tesla in a bad light. Usually this is done by "black-box analytics" without taking the context into account. We're seeing this in the original article: massive public demand is bad for Tesla because it will hurt them in the long run.
For example, Tesla has had little or no profit for the last couple of quarters because they're putting everything into the gigafactory. Looked at as a black box, Tesla is a company with little or no revenue.
...but this doesn't account for the gigafactory, or that Tesla will pretty-much corner the market in cars *and* lithium batteries in a couple of years.
The price point of Tesla is all over the map, analysts put it anywhere from $100 to $1900 .
It's insane. There's a subtext among certain analysts and pundits that they are *only* dissing Tesla because they want to bolster their GM stock. Then there's the analysts and pundits who put sterile figures into an algorithm and come up with a "buy", "sell", or "hold" outcome and then justify that outcome (any outcome, it doesn't matter) from whatever is going on at the time.
There's literally(*) no source of reliable information about stocks that a common person can access.
So far as I can tell, the best you can hope for is to have an engineer's understanding of the context and make an educated guess. Company is working on an implantable insulin delivery device? If you think the concept is feasible, it's probably a good bet. Can a company makes a razor that cuts hair with a laser? Probably not a good bet.
Reading analysts predictions about stocks is worthless. You can get just as good information by plotting a stocks' astrology chart.
(*) I'm using the term "literal" by it's dictionary definition.
Given the vastness of the galaxy, it seems inevitable that the earth is transitioning the sun from some distant viewpoint on the galactic plane essentially all the time. Are we supposed to continuously fire lasers (which would probably screw up our own astronomy) in all directions at all times?
Alpha Centauri is about 4 light years from us, so if we actually started doing this they would get 4 transits and then none.
Stars further out would have even more transit information, and there's no way we can retroactively take back that information.
If the transit information suddenly stopped, wouldn't this attract more alien attention than just keeping our heads down and hoping no one notices us?
If you frame the argument as a disease it becomes non-prejudicial. Describe extremism as a disease, note that there are hotspots of this disease in specific locations of the world, and what is a common-sense reaction?
Imagine that the tiny nation of Elbonia suffers a Zombie Virus outbreak. Luckily, the virus does not spread easily, but prolonged personal contact with an infected zombie increases the odds of transmission. Once infected, the Elbonian becomes a zombie killer. As it turns out, most people are immune to the virus. Over 99% of the public have no risk of catching it. But 1% is far too many zombie killers.
For starters, they would quarantine the entire nation of Elbonia to limit the damage. This is obviously unfair to all uninfected Elbonians but it is also the only practical way to protect the rest of the world. Once the quarantine is in place, the professionals can get to work on a cure.
The problem is, of course, the emotional baggage. If someone tries to talk logically about certain subjects, they can be shouted down simply by being called bad names.
This is how "extreme rhetoric" has become the new clickbait, and how people like Anonymous take it upon themselves to save the world from Trump. This is how a 15yo girl can accuse a Trump supporter of molesting her at a rally, when the video showed no such action.
It's the emotional baggage. People hear "racist" or whatever, close their minds, and let their outrage have free reign.
They believe they are working for the greater good.
All this "disrupt the process" behaviour is ridiculous.
It started with people at rallies shouting Trump down while he was trying to speak.
What's the point of that? You are so incensed and against that one candidate that you don't want the democratic process to happen?
This goes on for awhile, then protesters come to rallies and get manhandled by the supporters who actually want to listen to what he says.
Next, protesters come to rallies dressed as KKK members and are surprised when they get beat down?
Recently, a 15yo girl protester punched a supporter while he was turning away, got pepper sprayed for doing that... and tried to file sexual assault charges against him? (He was only exonerated because the incident was caught by security camera. And if it *hadn't*, that man's life would be completely ruined with no chance of redemption.)
Anonymous is so against Trump that they want to sabotage the democratic process by taking down his websites?
Elites are so against Trump that they are going against their "support the candidate, whoever he is" pledge? Rubio does not give up his delegates, even though he's out of the race? Delegates are allowed to be "faithless" and vote for whomever? Make an 8-state rule to exclude Ron Paul, but change it to allow Cruz in?
(Trump gets fed up with all of this, decides that if everyone else is breaking the pledge that he can also... and of course the media only reports that Trump broke his promise. Also, breaking that promise loses him delegates, but of course no one else loses *their* delegates for doing the same thing.)
I honestly think that if Trump has a clear majority of support (which seems likely) and doesn't get the nomination, through skulduggery (which is also likely) that there will be riots.
...as well there should be.
We're often told "it's our fault, we voted for him". If we actually vote for someone and he *doesn't* get in, it is completely rational and just to set fire to the process.
"This is a big step forward for jobs, innovation, and the American economy," Facebook's vice president of U.S. policy Joel Kaplan said in a statement e-mailed to CNET. "We've been talking with members for months about what the technology industry needs to remain competitive and this bill shows that they listened and they get it."
There's no evidence that the backscatter X-Ray machines are a cancer risk to passengers (they are probably more of a risk to TSA employees that are exposed long term).
And that is because the X-ray scanners did not go through FDA testing for safety, and also because we are relying on the manufacturer's measurements of the delivered dosage.
And relying on the manufacturer's estimate that the screeners will engage the system once, and not several times (as for example, when a really hot looking redhead goes through).
If you extrapolate the X-ray-to-cancer curve dosage to the amount the scanners are reported to deliver, and multiply that by the number of passengers per year (about 3/4 of a billion, more or less), it comes out to about 10 extra cases of cancer per year *caused* by the airport scanning.
(And this doesn't account for the number of people who die because they drive long distances rather than have their teenage daughter scanned or groped in public.)
You are confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
14 people killed by "terrorists", 14,000 killed by americans.
Statistically you are more likely to be killed by someone you know, family, neighbour, work colleague than by a stranger and a LOT more likely to b killed by an american than by a terrorist.
If you are scared of ISIS, then you should be terrified of vending machines, because each year they kill more americans.
Since we're talking statistics, and since I do statistics for my day job, I'd like to point out the OUTRIGHT FALLACY of citing what I call "slice" statistics.
"Slice" statistics are statistics that only look at a "slice" of the problem, and are used to make an emotional argument in the mind of the reader. For example, if you own a gun it's much more likely that someone in your family will get shot.
While that may be true, it's not the right statistic to look at.
For example: countries that ban guns have a lower incidence of gun deaths.
That may also be true, and again it's not the right statistic to look at.
The right statistic is this: if you own guns, will your (and your family's) average lifespan be longer or shorter?
This is the one statistic to look at. If most family shootings are suicides *and* the person would have committed suicide anyway, then this statistic will sort it out. If you catch pneumonia because you got robbed and had to put off buying a winter coat, but your neighbour scared away an intruder and wasn't robbed... then lifespan will detect this as well.
Lifespan is affected by many things, and comparing, for example America with the UK (or another modern nation) won't work because the UK has excellent health care.
Instead, compare roughly similar areas in the US that have easy access to guns and harsh restrictions. Compare NH to Illinois or Houston to Washington, DC.
Let's see some real statistics here, not the "it's more likely that someone you know will kill you" crap.
Slashdot Mirror
The Military G-7 Leaders At Hiroshima To Urge More Visits to Nuclear Bombsites
And in other news, American military leaders urge more visits to Pearl Harbor.
(And Dachau)
Trump says thing that are textbook misogyny and racism. It's as if he is literally getting them form a textbook somewhere, in order to build up his anti-establishment anti-political-correctness platform.
Textbook racism is saying that some race is inferior. It's saying that Blacks have to use separate drinking fountains, have to ride the back of the bus, and can't join the country club.
Textbook mysogyny is saying that women are inferior to men. It's saying they shouldn't go to college, shouldn't vote, and should be kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
Trump has made no such pronouncements, doesn't align with *any* of the textbook norms, and his lifes history shows the exact *opposite* of the textbook examples.
In other words, he's normal.
But you are a clear example of what masquerades as political discourse. You are writing as knowledgeable about racism and mysogyny, knowing that people won't think critically about what you write.
People are trained from birth to take in information without regard to accuracy, and you are abusing that weakness to your own ends.
You are a textbook example of a shill: You're trying to fool people to promote your hidden agenda.
Calling an opponent a sexist or a racist are sure fire ways to ostracize them and shut them up. Ironic the left is so opposed to bullying then bullies people it disagrees with and calls them names. We're not all the same but deserve the same opportunities, nothing more, nothing less. Stop with the name-calling.
As a clear example of the OP's point, one need only look to how the media covers the Trump campaign.
Trump notes that a portion (a subset) of illegal (intersect another subset) immigrants (intersect yet another subset) as rapists and murderers, and this is somehow interpreted to mean that he's a racist.
He fails to remember who David Duke is (temporarily, I might add), and suddenly he's a KKK member.
He insults a man and a woman in one breath, and since one of them was a woman, he's suddenly got a "war on women".
He insults individuals he doesn't like. The women insults are selected, distilled, and made into a campaign ad.
A quick google of "Donald Trump's war on *" shows he has a:
. war on women
. war on Megyn Kelley
. war on the media
. war on Chivalry (wtf?)
. war on people with disabilities
. war on comedy (wtf?)
. war on Muslims
. war on anchor babies
And these are only the first 2 pages! The list is endless!
Googling "Donald Trump is *" shows that he is:
. Satan
. Hitler
. crazier than April Fools' Day
. the most dangerous man in the world
. the next Barack Obama (wtf?)
. Stalin
. Mussolini
All this completely ridiculous rhetoric, people are falling over themselves to paint Trump in the most possible bad way.
(After writing that last line, I had a thought and... yep, Cthulhu supports Donald Trump. And this came from the Washington Post! WTF?)
And the worst part of all is this: I don't have the first idea how well Trumps position stacks up against those of Cruz, Clinton, or Sanders.
In fact, I don't know even *what* the other candidates even stand for.
Trump: We'll bomb the shit out of ISIS and torture their families
Clinton: "Today’s attacks will only strengthen our resolve to stand together as allies and defeat terrorism and radical jihadism around the world"
What will Clinton do if elected? I haven't the first idea. ...all I know is that she doesn't have a war on women.
Yeah, just what we need, a bunch of amateur surgeon junkies out there in Central Park stealing kidneys for a fix. This is like a course in making bombs.
On the contrary.
As an adult in society, how can I decide whether to agree with a government pronouncement unless I have the relevant information?
How can I know whether a law is needed, whether the technical claims of a company (looking for investment) are feasible, whether some claim to the safety of our nation is credible, or whether some risk is worth worrying about unless I have the information?
I don't expect to be making bombs, but knowing the basic premise allows me to judge whether the reasoning behind the TSA ban on liquids is a lie.
I don't expect to be making X-ray machines, but the basic information allows me to judge how much danger there is in a backscatter scan.
I don't expect to be breaking computer security, but knowing the basic techniques allows me to secure my system and detect government overreach.
Of course not everyone has the bandwidth and interest to become informed on all these issues, but for any single issue *some* people will be interested enough to become informed.
Those same people might have an insightful post on, say, a tech website, their conclusions might be echoed by others who have come to the same conclusion, and the ideas espoused might inform many others.
Really.
The idea that information should be suppressed because bad people might misuse it is stupid.
There are many, *many* more people who would use the information for good, rather than evil.
This is exactly what the radioactive boyscout did, but he got arrested and his work confiscated. Yet this guy gets to keep his? Maybe I should build a reactor.
This is exactly what's wrong with science education in America.
The radioactive boy scout did fission, while these high school students are doing fusion.
Buy a dictionary, there's a difference.
I couldn't find any definite information, but this is probably a Farnsworth Fusor, which is every bit a valid and interesting science project for high schoolers. (It's about the right size and gives off about the right glow.)
Instead of bothering with UFO's, why not deal with things like:
* What was being discussed between Clinton and Goldman Sachs?
* What role did her husband have with supporting a known rapist on a certain Caribbean island?
* What is the truth in the matters of oddly convenient "suicides" like Vince Foster?
* What is the truth in the matters of Benghazi, given that they wanted the Ambassador dead?
Adding to your list, I have a question: how is this not a conflict of interest?
The campaign chair of someone running for president convinces the secretary of state to declassify documents in order to boost the campaign?
How is this not a conflict of interest?
Should the Secretary of State make declassification decisions based on the state of her campaign?
Beyond conflict of interest, how is this not outright illegal?
As a moderate conservative, I can tell you that the rest of America aren't going to elect Donald Trump. In fact, the numbers are indicating that he will lose the election to Hillary by double digits and endanger the Republican majorities in Congress.
As a person who does statistics as his day job I call bullshit.
The *best* you could say is that there is not enough information to make that claim. The information that we *do* have is one of a) Trump's support among democrats is higher than his support among republicans(*), or 2) 20% of democrats would defect to Trump in a general election.
In previous elections, both Republicans and Democrats have gotten about 50% of the vote; hence, the dustup with Al Gore and George Bush in 2000.
Getting over half the popular vote from Republicans when Cruz and Kasich are still running, and having 20% of Democrats admit that they will likely defect leads me to believe that Trump has a real chance.
Of course, I'm only citing statistics.
Your argument is good, too.
(*) From a poll a couple of months ago, and the second from a January poll.
Not the only candidate. Bernie Sanders has spoken out against free trade AND has a proven track record of voting against disastrous trade bills.
Bernie voted to increase H1B immigration at the last go-around, as did Rubio.
Cruz voted against, and (of course) Trump and Clinton weren't legislators.
I don't know how the GP post got modded as "funny", Trump's position has been "pro-Americans" from the beginning, and is the source of his popularity.
I turned off autorun on any external media a long time ago, back when sony cd's were injecting rootkits under the guise of DRM circa 2005. Nothing on insertable media autoruns on my PC.
Just a quick question.
Suppose the device identifies as a USB keyboard, or identifies as a dual use device USB stick/keyboard?
Suppose the keyboard device is generic, doesn't require a driver, and the micro on the USB stick starts to type things on your computer.
Could that install malware on your system?
(Of course, I didn't need to identify keyboard devices specifically. There are a bunch of devices that a USB device can identify as, some of which allow data to be loaded onto your computer.)
After his death, Albert Einstein found himself working as the doorkeeper at the Pearly Gates.
One slow day, he found that he had time to chat with the new entrants. To the first one he asked, "What's your IQ?"
The new arrival replied, "190". They discussed Einstein's theory of relativity for hours.
When the second new arrival came, Einstein once again inquired as to the newcomer's IQ. The answer this time came "120". To which Einstein replied, "Tell me, how did the Cubs do this year?" and they proceeded to talk for half an hour or so.
To the final arrival, Einstein once again posed the question, "What's your IQ?". Upon receiving the answer "70".
Einstein smiled and replied, "How is Trump doing in the primaries?"
Yes, you can knock countries and regions off the internet. But you really can't do it without collateral damage.
I agree *completely* that doing this would be less effective than letting things stand.
But I have to ask, in a technical sense why *couldn't* we cut off conflict areas from the rest of the internet?
Taking Syria as an example, we could .com and .edu websites hosted in Syria and route them to nowhere
1) Disable their top level domain.
2) Identify the
3) Identify source connections from within Syria and automatically route *them* nowhere
On #3 above, Syria has only a handful of service providers, and the source address can be identified to belong to one of these. By IP address if nothing else.
Now, people can get around these problems in lots of ways, and some would say *easy* ways. Proxy servers and TOR come to mind. ...but these are generally not free, impose a technical barrier to implement that not everyone can handle, and can in general be detected.
Politically, it's like establishing an embargo on a country.
Taking the recent US embargo on Iran as an example, if the US sees a country violating the embargo (acting as a proxy so that Syrians can access outside the internet), then it can take political actions against the helping country. Just like the economic embargo on Iran.
Like an embargo, it won't help.
But even though it wouldn't *help*, I don't see why it couldn't be *done*.
Can anyone explain better, in a technical sense, why these steps can't be done?
James Bond: "Go on, laugh. They laughed at Einstein."
Mata Bond: "Nobody laughed at Einstein!"
James Bond: "Well, they would have, if he'd carried on like this!"
(From the movie "Casino Royale")
...anything even remotely resembling this are significantly less than the chances of Donald Trump making a well-considered, rational and coherent statement on any topic and then sticking to that opinion for more than five seconds.
You mean like "build a wall to keep out illegal immigration", right?
Trump is unpopular and will probably lose delegates on subsequent votes rather than gain them. Trump is unlikely to be the Republican nominee.
If Trump has the vast majority of support from primary voters, and doesn't get the nomination due to skulduggery, there will be rioting in the streets.
You say he's unpopular, but only to the 1%ers.
A very large, very scary crowd of people want to see him run.
Be afraid of changing the rules, or of having the appearance of a non-voting process.
Be very afraid.
New Zealand might be a better idea... or some other place in a different hemisphere
That won't help, because like... the atmospheres of the two hemispheres are connected.
You need to go someplace where that Trump can't affect you.
I don't think that's possible. I mean, the sea will be poisoned, the air will burn, famine and pestilence will be everywhere... it'll just be a mess.
You might try that apocalypse condo in Kansas, and see if you can wait things out.
This assumes, of course, that Earth systems can recover and there will be a future time when you can walk outdoors alone and unaided. Then again, there will probably be a lot of others who had to turn to feral cannibalism to survive.
It doesn't look good for you, even the Earth's microorganisms are starting to wonder whether they will survive.
You can avoid a lot of needless pain and suffering if you think things through.
You might ask yourself the question: do you *really* want to live in a world post-Trump?
Those are fine numbers, and I really *really* appreciate an argument based on numbers and simple logic.
It's refreshing not to hear "nuh-uh" or "I think it's the opposite" with no support or rationality.
Good work!
There are many commercial entities that would be overjoyed to finance Tesla some billions based on the outstanding pre-order book.
And even more commercial entities that would be overjoyed if Tesla crashed and burned.
Analysts are falling over themselves trying to paint Tesla in a bad light. Usually this is done by "black-box analytics" without taking the context into account. We're seeing this in the original article: massive public demand is bad for Tesla because it will hurt them in the long run.
For example, Tesla has had little or no profit for the last couple of quarters because they're putting everything into the gigafactory. Looked at as a black box, Tesla is a company with little or no revenue.
The price point of Tesla is all over the map, analysts put it anywhere from $100 to $1900 .
It's insane. There's a subtext among certain analysts and pundits that they are *only* dissing Tesla because they want to bolster their GM stock. Then there's the analysts and pundits who put sterile figures into an algorithm and come up with a "buy", "sell", or "hold" outcome and then justify that outcome (any outcome, it doesn't matter) from whatever is going on at the time.
There's literally(*) no source of reliable information about stocks that a common person can access.
So far as I can tell, the best you can hope for is to have an engineer's understanding of the context and make an educated guess. Company is working on an implantable insulin delivery device? If you think the concept is feasible, it's probably a good bet. Can a company makes a razor that cuts hair with a laser? Probably not a good bet.
Reading analysts predictions about stocks is worthless. You can get just as good information by plotting a stocks' astrology chart.
(*) I'm using the term "literal" by it's dictionary definition.
Given the vastness of the galaxy, it seems inevitable that the earth is transitioning the sun from some distant viewpoint on the galactic plane essentially all the time. Are we supposed to continuously fire lasers (which would probably screw up our own astronomy) in all directions at all times?
Alpha Centauri is about 4 light years from us, so if we actually started doing this they would get 4 transits and then none.
Stars further out would have even more transit information, and there's no way we can retroactively take back that information.
If the transit information suddenly stopped, wouldn't this attract more alien attention than just keeping our heads down and hoping no one notices us?
Scott Adams had an interesting take on extremism.
If you frame the argument as a disease it becomes non-prejudicial. Describe extremism as a disease, note that there are hotspots of this disease in specific locations of the world, and what is a common-sense reaction?
Imagine that the tiny nation of Elbonia suffers a Zombie Virus outbreak. Luckily, the virus does not spread easily, but prolonged personal contact with an infected zombie increases the odds of transmission. Once infected, the Elbonian becomes a zombie killer. As it turns out, most people are immune to the virus. Over 99% of the public have no risk of catching it. But 1% is far too many zombie killers.
For starters, they would quarantine the entire nation of Elbonia to limit the damage. This is obviously unfair to all uninfected Elbonians but it is also the only practical way to protect the rest of the world. Once the quarantine is in place, the professionals can get to work on a cure.
The problem is, of course, the emotional baggage. If someone tries to talk logically about certain subjects, they can be shouted down simply by being called bad names.
This is how "extreme rhetoric" has become the new clickbait, and how people like Anonymous take it upon themselves to save the world from Trump. This is how a 15yo girl can accuse a Trump supporter of molesting her at a rally, when the video showed no such action.
It's the emotional baggage. People hear "racist" or whatever, close their minds, and let their outrage have free reign.
They believe they are working for the greater good.
All this "disrupt the process" behaviour is ridiculous.
It started with people at rallies shouting Trump down while he was trying to speak.
What's the point of that? You are so incensed and against that one candidate that you don't want the democratic process to happen?
This goes on for awhile, then protesters come to rallies and get manhandled by the supporters who actually want to listen to what he says.
Next, protesters come to rallies dressed as KKK members and are surprised when they get beat down?
Recently, a 15yo girl protester punched a supporter while he was turning away, got pepper sprayed for doing that... and tried to file sexual assault charges against him? (He was only exonerated because the incident was caught by security camera. And if it *hadn't*, that man's life would be completely ruined with no chance of redemption.)
Anonymous is so against Trump that they want to sabotage the democratic process by taking down his websites?
Elites are so against Trump that they are going against their "support the candidate, whoever he is" pledge? Rubio does not give up his delegates, even though he's out of the race? Delegates are allowed to be "faithless" and vote for whomever? Make an 8-state rule to exclude Ron Paul, but change it to allow Cruz in?
(Trump gets fed up with all of this, decides that if everyone else is breaking the pledge that he can also... and of course the media only reports that Trump broke his promise. Also, breaking that promise loses him delegates, but of course no one else loses *their* delegates for doing the same thing.)
I honestly think that if Trump has a clear majority of support (which seems likely) and doesn't get the nomination, through skulduggery (which is also likely) that there will be riots.
We're often told "it's our fault, we voted for him". If we actually vote for someone and he *doesn't* get in, it is completely rational and just to set fire to the process.
Really. This whole thing is ridiculous.
Just to keep people informed, note that Bernie Sanders and Marco Rubio voted to increase H1B visas last round (2013).
Ted Cruz voted against, and (of course) neither Clinton nor Trump could vote.
Here's a quote from [Facebook VP] Joel Kaplan:
"This is a big step forward for jobs, innovation, and the American economy," Facebook's vice president of U.S. policy Joel Kaplan said in a statement e-mailed to CNET. "We've been talking with members for months about what the technology industry needs to remain competitive and this bill shows that they listened and they get it."
There's no evidence that the backscatter X-Ray machines are a cancer risk to passengers (they are probably more of a risk to TSA employees that are exposed long term).
And that is because the X-ray scanners did not go through FDA testing for safety, and also because we are relying on the manufacturer's measurements of the delivered dosage.
And relying on the manufacturer's estimate that the screeners will engage the system once, and not several times (as for example, when a really hot looking redhead goes through).
If you extrapolate the X-ray-to-cancer curve dosage to the amount the scanners are reported to deliver, and multiply that by the number of passengers per year (about 3/4 of a billion, more or less), it comes out to about 10 extra cases of cancer per year *caused* by the airport scanning.
(And this doesn't account for the number of people who die because they drive long distances rather than have their teenage daughter scanned or groped in public.)
You are confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
Drain cleaner is the worst way to clear a clogged drain.
Um... what?
Gotta' love arguing on Slashdot.
14 people killed by "terrorists", 14,000 killed by americans.
Statistically you are more likely to be killed by someone you know, family, neighbour, work colleague than by a stranger and a LOT more likely to b killed by an american than by a terrorist.
If you are scared of ISIS, then you should be terrified of vending machines, because each year they kill more americans.
Since we're talking statistics, and since I do statistics for my day job, I'd like to point out the OUTRIGHT FALLACY of citing what I call "slice" statistics.
"Slice" statistics are statistics that only look at a "slice" of the problem, and are used to make an emotional argument in the mind of the reader. For example, if you own a gun it's much more likely that someone in your family will get shot.
While that may be true, it's not the right statistic to look at.
For example: countries that ban guns have a lower incidence of gun deaths.
That may also be true, and again it's not the right statistic to look at.
The right statistic is this: if you own guns, will your (and your family's) average lifespan be longer or shorter?
This is the one statistic to look at. If most family shootings are suicides *and* the person would have committed suicide anyway, then this statistic will sort it out. If you catch pneumonia because you got robbed and had to put off buying a winter coat, but your neighbour scared away an intruder and wasn't robbed... then lifespan will detect this as well.
Lifespan is affected by many things, and comparing, for example America with the UK (or another modern nation) won't work because the UK has excellent health care.
Instead, compare roughly similar areas in the US that have easy access to guns and harsh restrictions. Compare NH to Illinois or Houston to Washington, DC.
Let's see some real statistics here, not the "it's more likely that someone you know will kill you" crap.
then it's cool for someone to videotape you naked and having sex? If you have nothing to hide why any concern about that?
Possibly. In your scenario, does money change hands?