ExxonMobil already did some comprehensive, high quality research on climate change in the 1970s. They discovered AGW but decided to bury their research and go about a campaign to discredit anyone who made similar findings. Or perhaps you haven't been following the news lately?
Given how their innocuous research has been blown way out of proportion to claim that they're doing a "Big Nicotine" denial act, they were right to keep it secret. It takes a particular mendacity to claim that merely doing climate research is an admission of guilt in some imaginary propaganda war.
Typical of the overblown rhetoric. "We don't have a lot of evidence for our claims, but if we did, you'd still ignore it!"
If you look at actual spending on climate change propaganda, you'll see that the "deniers" are outspent by the "alarmers" by at least an order of magnitude. It's not even close.
The scientific consensus is pretty clear on what we need to do, and the consequences of not doing it.
And here we go again. Let us recall what an earlier poster wrote:
And there's where climate 'activist' are just idiots. They think an emotional appeal somehow countermands the need for people who question a controversial scientific subject with a snide comment on social media. Contrary to those 'the debate is settled' ass holes there is no such thing as a settled scientific debate that can never be questioned. That's not science. That's called a religion.
Sorry, AmiMoJo. I don't follow your religion. Your scientific consensus will need some actual evidence first. And it's worth noting, yet again, that the "scientific consensus" has huge error bars on estimates of future harm from global warming such as the most important parameter in climate science, the long term temperature sensitivity of a doubling of CO2.
On the one hand, this is why such systems are not extremely popular: many people realize their time is better spent on other endeavors rather than trying to find the rare decently-paying microjob. On the other hand, assumptions that all actors in any economic model are fully equipped to act in their own self-interest is a fundamental flaw in the philosophy that underpins a lot of these systems, and what people generally mean by "exploitation" when they apply negative connotations to it is acting on perverse incentives to keep your workforce ignorant of their own best interests or powerless to pursue them.
It's pretty mild for a fundamental flaw. People don't have to be perfect to take advantage of a system like Mechanical Turk.
For systems like mturk to live up to their potential, they have to balance getting employers a good value with improving employee conditions.
They do that automatically. Every transaction occurs because the employer is getting value while the employee is getting improving conditions.
It seems like these systems are exploitative by design, even if exploitation wasn't explicitly the goal. They're designed with every possible algorithm and available data to maximize labor output at the lowest possible cost. Individual workers are operating at extreme information asymmetry and against a system which does not negotiate and only offers a take it or leave it choice.
I sure hope these systems are exploitive. Labor is only empowering when it is exploited. And what is forgotten is that workers exploit the system as well. They get money which they value more than their work. And another name for mutual exploitation is cooperation.
The information asymmetry and those algorithms aren't that extreme or that relevant. Individual would-be workers get plenty of information from such markets just from pricing and work requirements. And they have better knowledge of their personal condition and what options, including regular work, that they can do instead.
Also, take it or leave it still allows for a lot of negotiation. As I implied earlier, there are multiple potential employers out there. And if the payout isn't good enough, the potential employer will either have to offer more or just leave it. Negotiation enters the picture, if they choose not to leave it themselves.
It's really sad to see such widespread misunderstanding of labor economics. The world is becoming a vastly better place precisely because peoples' labor can and is exploited. It not only empowers people and allows them to better their lot in life, it creates more opportunities for labor-based exploitation and empowerment. There are few human activities with that kind of positive feedback.
Things like Mechanical Turk fix the very problems that you complain they have. I think it would be better to get out of the way rather than than issue a complaint that really boils down to there being desperate people. There won't be less desperate people just because we interfere with and obstruct some of the means for lessening such desperation.
The fact is, both real anthrax letters were mailed out from the location in New Jersey, and fake ones with the same form of writing from St. Petersberg FL where the 9/11 hijackers had been located. That information had not been made public yet at the time the letters were mailed, so it is highly unlikely that Dr. Ivings could have been the one behind it.
As you note, all real letters were mailed from Princeton, New Jersey. None from Florida. And if there really were fake letters from Florida, it could either be coincidence, or information that had been selectively revealed (Dr. Ivings was not the public, but a researcher acting in a dangerous and classified field; information might have been revealed to him such as "watch out for packages from the following cities").
Also the theory is that a small amount of Anthrax was stolen from the lab from which the bulk of it was created, however with such a sort amount of time between the 9/11 attacks and the first anthrax being mailed out he would have had to have stolen the anthrax BEFORE the 9/11 attacks which seems highly unlikely.
Unless, as is likely, the anthrax was stolen before the 9/11 attacks. One theory for the anthrax attacks is that they were meant to increase awareness of bioterrorism and the 9/11 attacks would have provided convenient publicity for these otherwise unrelated attacks.
I notice that the first anthrax mailing were less effective than the later one which had the anthrax in a more lethal, breathable form. It's possible that whoever sent out the first dose of anthrax didn't have time to more effectively weaponize (I merely mean by that, make it more lethal to the desired targets) the dose, but did with the second round of attacks. That's consistent with someone rushing out a first unplanned dose of anthrax to catch the publicity wave from the initial 9/11 attacks and then sending out a second better prepared dose a few weeks later. Then subsequently destroying whatever evidence they needed to destroy.
Except, that's what we did in the 1920s: Lete everybody say everything they want. And that allowed extremists like Hitler to amass a strong following and take over the government and transform the Weimar Republic into the Third Reich.
I guess you missed the memo about the Nazis using the court system of the Weimar Republic as a huge propaganda vehicle. The Weimar Republic had hate speech laws. The Wiemar Republic prosecuted various high ranking Nazis for hate speech against Jews and other minorities. And the Nazis won big as a result.
Researching my book "The Tyranny of Silence: How One Cartoon Ignited a Global Debate on the Future of Free Speech," I looked into the status of free speech in Weimar Germany. To my surprise, I found that Weimar Germany had hate speech laws, and that they were applied against anti-Semites like Julius Streicher, the publisher of the Nazi newspaper Der Sturmer; Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda; and Theodor Fritsch,a journalist and publisher of anti-Semitic propaganda. Streicher was sent to jail twice, and Goebbels lost every case that Bernhard Weiss, the deputy police chief of Berlin (and frequent target of anti-Semitic vilification), brought against him for defamation.
Further, this aid was quite material. It was these repeated, petty, ineffectual persecutions that brought the Nazis to the public eye and transformed them from some Bavarian gang to a national movement in Germany.
So the Weimar Republic isn't a case where evil happened because there was no hate speech law. Instead, it's a case where evil was greatly abetted by hate speech law.
Since this is going in circles, this is my last reply.
Yes, please declare victory and go away.
Since I apparently need to repeat myself once again in more detail, fair weather donors are a fact of life in real world campaigns and make up most of the donations that the victorious candidate gets. Having most of the superdelegates on your side is a good way to get that money from the start. It's not bullshit, it's an obvious dynamic of the US election system. Clinton's overall collection of votes was 55% to 45%.
It's also worth noting the lack of any other credible candidates in this race. I think the superdelegates and the DNC party run by a Clinton supporter closed out most competition to Clinton's run.
Second, once again, let us note that Clinton won by 977 delegate votes overall while she had 526 more superdelegate votes than Sanders from the beginning. It's merely a statement of fact that if those superdelegates had gone to Sanders instead, he would have won.
You're just whining that Bernie didn't win, and looking to assign blame, regardless of logical consistency.
I wouldn't have voted for Sanders either. I'm just pointing out that he was a better candidate.
Further, heads I win, tails you lose is the superdelegate game. Non-establishment candidates have a huge vote portion that they're going to have a very hard time winning.
Yes, that's the point of superdelegates, you admit it. So it's bullshit to complain that the superdelegates didn't throw the election to Bernie when complaining about superdelegates.
Good thing I didn't do that then. Once again, it's the observation that superdelegates helped Clinton win in two ways, first by giving her an edge in the beginning and second, of course by throwing the election in her favor rather than Sanders' favor.
The problem with Sanders was that he was a self-described socialist. It's the extreme wing candidate that appeals to the base but tends to turn off the middle of the country. He was also a career politician with no business experience. And he looked whimpy.
Good thing then that Clinton was so much better. Because otherwise they might have lost.
Ok, so? Should we now argue whether this movie is better to watch on Betamax or VHS?
It's a contrived moral situation, but with a point. A contrived Logan's Run situation after you've lived a healthy 150 years is considerably better than living to 100 years with a body steadily degrading all the while due to aging.
Because it's weak sauce. It's heads I win, tails you lose.
Sorry, not feeling it. There are two complaints about how superdelegates threw the election.
Further, heads I win, tails you lose is the superdelegate game. Non-establishment candidates have a huge vote portion that they're going to have a very hard time winning.
Hindsight is 20/20. Sanders also might have lost, and then we'd be discussing why the Democrats had picked a "sure loser". We don't know. Given any candidate, you can find a list of downsides.
And the obvious rebuttal is that you can say the above as well no matter who wins. You're just as wrong no matter what. But Sanders doesn't have a 40 year history of skullduggery; doesn't have ongoing pay for play with several hundred million dollars put in; didn't show felony-grade "extreme carelessness" about national security; isn't an extremely unlikable candidate; etc. Sure, Sanders might lose against Trump, but Clinton actually did.
So first the Bernie supporters blame superdelagates for unfairly rigging the election against Bernie, then when Bernie would have lost without them anyways they blame the superdelagates for not backing him.
Why can't both be true? It was well known going into the primaries that superdelegates heavily favored Clinton. That meant that Clinton would have gotten a lot of funding and support that she otherwise would have had to work to get. And she just might have lost without that funding and support.
Then of course, the superdelegates indeed could have voted for Sanders instead of Clinton at the convention.
They exist to keep candidates like Bernie (and Trump) from winning the nomination, and you damn well know it. It's just that this election cycle turned conventional thinking on its head. If Bernie had actually won the nomination and lost to Trump we'd be hearing how stupid the Democrats were for not going with Hillary.
And the obvious rebuttal would have been a list of the problems Clinton brings along with the question, "Would Democrats really be that dumb as to nominate a sure loser?"
* The danger of overpopulation. If old people don't die, and young people keep making babies, our planet will become overcrowded soon. Which system should be implemented? A policy where you need permit by the government to have babies? Will we make a gigantic ponzi scheme where we put those extra humans on mars, then on other plantes, colonizing the galaxy? What when the whole galaxy is colonized? Intergalactic travel outside of our local group is quite hard, as expansion of space will make those galaxies leave us faster than light before we can get to them.
* The danger of cancer. Often when rejuveniating cells you put them in a mode where they like to multiply. You artificially increase the likelihood for cancer with this to an extent of almost certainity.
I guess we'll have to solve those. Given that curing aging is a much harder problem and we've already solved overpopulation in the developed world, I'm not seeing much of a downside there.
Did the Iraq war rhetoric not make it clear what side of this kind of thing she was actually on?
Rhetoric != action. A fair number of US presidents who entered into large wars promised not to. They might have even been sincere in some cases.
FWIW, I don't consider war hawks to be the worse thing for creating wars. War hawks who don't have a realistic understanding of what militaries can and can't do are worse. So are peaceniks who avoid war at all costs since then opponents can push a lot further before triggering a credible response, making wars more likely.
So neither China nor Russia would prefer Trump over Hillary on military grounds....
Here's the thing. Why does there need to be a preference? Just interfering with an election increases the distrust for Trump and increases the divisiveness in US politics. That looks like a win for both Russia and China.
Two things to note. First, the relevant part of Obamacare had a huge difference between the Republican and Democrat versions. It was a reward to have insurance in the Republican version and a tax penalty to not have insurance in the Democrat version. Aside from the latter being unconstitutional, we have that the cost of the incentives were pushed onto taxpayers.
Second, Obamacare was over 2000 pages. People forgot that there was a lot more bad law in the thing than just the individual mandate.
I've since found evidence as well that indicates that even at the federal government level, your clause is described as the emolument (I now have brain cells wasted on the spelling of this word) clause (it was an NIH document from 2008 too). So my apologies for correcting what wasn't wrong.
The problem is that there are a ton of freeloaders in India that aren't paying their taxes. This is a clear-cut way to track down that money.
When a country has trouble with tax collection, look at the government.
Money that could be used to build infrastructure, pull corpses from the rivers, clean up after the majority of Indians that defecate and dump garbage in the streets, educate an illiterate populace...you get the idea.
Or it could be shuffled off to some cronies just like the current money is. Just because additional revenue could be used for good, doesn't mean it will. Corruption has to be fought first before tax collection can work. The current theatrics don't make that any easier.
Why did you post anonymously? That same reason can be used for why one would pay in cash, even if it is that you are too lazy to log in.
It is not being smug, it is being free.
You keep telling us that. History though is a better judge than you are. And history is chock full of reasons why such information is dangerous to have.
I agree. When I filtered out Trump from my Google search, I still get hits from both clauses. For example, an official government document on the legality of federal employees accepting employment from outside the US (an emolument being a salary or similar compensation for said employment). It appears to be targeted towards people with paid positions on advisory committees for the US's National Institute of Health who might also have paid positions in a foreign government's service. For example, a researcher or teacher who is on such an advisory committee who then accepts a position with a public university in another country or even has said university cover or waive certain costs or payments for a temporary visit (as say, during the course of a conference).
Given the prevalence of the usage, I'm forced to accept your rebuke.
Your "emoluments clause" is not the actual "emoluments clause". You are referring to the "Title of Nobility" clause:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Which is in Article I, section 9. The actual emoluments clause is in Article I, section 6, and covers a somewhat different situation:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
That's why, for example, when a congressional member is appointed to a position in either the executive or judicial branch, they have to resign their seat in order to accept the new position.
Slashdot Mirror
ExxonMobil already did some comprehensive, high quality research on climate change in the 1970s. They discovered AGW but decided to bury their research and go about a campaign to discredit anyone who made similar findings. Or perhaps you haven't been following the news lately?
Given how their innocuous research has been blown way out of proportion to claim that they're doing a "Big Nicotine" denial act, they were right to keep it secret. It takes a particular mendacity to claim that merely doing climate research is an admission of guilt in some imaginary propaganda war.
No matter how much evidence there is
Typical of the overblown rhetoric. "We don't have a lot of evidence for our claims, but if we did, you'd still ignore it!"
If you look at actual spending on climate change propaganda, you'll see that the "deniers" are outspent by the "alarmers" by at least an order of magnitude. It's not even close.
China makes all the solar pv cells for the world and has an actual plan.
Their plan is status quo till 2030 and maybe China will do something about global warming then, maybe not. Funny how similar that is to the US plan.
The scientific consensus is pretty clear on what we need to do, and the consequences of not doing it.
And here we go again. Let us recall what an earlier poster wrote:
And there's where climate 'activist' are just idiots. They think an emotional appeal somehow countermands the need for people who question a controversial scientific subject with a snide comment on social media. Contrary to those 'the debate is settled' ass holes there is no such thing as a settled scientific debate that can never be questioned. That's not science. That's called a religion.
Sorry, AmiMoJo. I don't follow your religion. Your scientific consensus will need some actual evidence first. And it's worth noting, yet again, that the "scientific consensus" has huge error bars on estimates of future harm from global warming such as the most important parameter in climate science, the long term temperature sensitivity of a doubling of CO2.
On the one hand, this is why such systems are not extremely popular: many people realize their time is better spent on other endeavors rather than trying to find the rare decently-paying microjob. On the other hand, assumptions that all actors in any economic model are fully equipped to act in their own self-interest is a fundamental flaw in the philosophy that underpins a lot of these systems, and what people generally mean by "exploitation" when they apply negative connotations to it is acting on perverse incentives to keep your workforce ignorant of their own best interests or powerless to pursue them.
It's pretty mild for a fundamental flaw. People don't have to be perfect to take advantage of a system like Mechanical Turk.
For systems like mturk to live up to their potential, they have to balance getting employers a good value with improving employee conditions.
They do that automatically. Every transaction occurs because the employer is getting value while the employee is getting improving conditions.
It seems like these systems are exploitative by design, even if exploitation wasn't explicitly the goal. They're designed with every possible algorithm and available data to maximize labor output at the lowest possible cost. Individual workers are operating at extreme information asymmetry and against a system which does not negotiate and only offers a take it or leave it choice.
I sure hope these systems are exploitive. Labor is only empowering when it is exploited. And what is forgotten is that workers exploit the system as well. They get money which they value more than their work. And another name for mutual exploitation is cooperation.
The information asymmetry and those algorithms aren't that extreme or that relevant. Individual would-be workers get plenty of information from such markets just from pricing and work requirements. And they have better knowledge of their personal condition and what options, including regular work, that they can do instead.
Also, take it or leave it still allows for a lot of negotiation. As I implied earlier, there are multiple potential employers out there. And if the payout isn't good enough, the potential employer will either have to offer more or just leave it. Negotiation enters the picture, if they choose not to leave it themselves.
It's really sad to see such widespread misunderstanding of labor economics. The world is becoming a vastly better place precisely because peoples' labor can and is exploited. It not only empowers people and allows them to better their lot in life, it creates more opportunities for labor-based exploitation and empowerment. There are few human activities with that kind of positive feedback.
Things like Mechanical Turk fix the very problems that you complain they have. I think it would be better to get out of the way rather than than issue a complaint that really boils down to there being desperate people. There won't be less desperate people just because we interfere with and obstruct some of the means for lessening such desperation.
The fact is, both real anthrax letters were mailed out from the location in New Jersey, and fake ones with the same form of writing from St. Petersberg FL where the 9/11 hijackers had been located. That information had not been made public yet at the time the letters were mailed, so it is highly unlikely that Dr. Ivings could have been the one behind it.
As you note, all real letters were mailed from Princeton, New Jersey. None from Florida. And if there really were fake letters from Florida, it could either be coincidence, or information that had been selectively revealed (Dr. Ivings was not the public, but a researcher acting in a dangerous and classified field; information might have been revealed to him such as "watch out for packages from the following cities").
Also the theory is that a small amount of Anthrax was stolen from the lab from which the bulk of it was created, however with such a sort amount of time between the 9/11 attacks and the first anthrax being mailed out he would have had to have stolen the anthrax BEFORE the 9/11 attacks which seems highly unlikely.
Unless, as is likely, the anthrax was stolen before the 9/11 attacks. One theory for the anthrax attacks is that they were meant to increase awareness of bioterrorism and the 9/11 attacks would have provided convenient publicity for these otherwise unrelated attacks.
I notice that the first anthrax mailing were less effective than the later one which had the anthrax in a more lethal, breathable form. It's possible that whoever sent out the first dose of anthrax didn't have time to more effectively weaponize (I merely mean by that, make it more lethal to the desired targets) the dose, but did with the second round of attacks. That's consistent with someone rushing out a first unplanned dose of anthrax to catch the publicity wave from the initial 9/11 attacks and then sending out a second better prepared dose a few weeks later. Then subsequently destroying whatever evidence they needed to destroy.
Except, that's what we did in the 1920s: Lete everybody say everything they want. And that allowed extremists like Hitler to amass a strong following and take over the government and transform the Weimar Republic into the Third Reich.
I guess you missed the memo about the Nazis using the court system of the Weimar Republic as a huge propaganda vehicle. The Weimar Republic had hate speech laws. The Wiemar Republic prosecuted various high ranking Nazis for hate speech against Jews and other minorities. And the Nazis won big as a result.
Researching my book "The Tyranny of Silence: How One Cartoon Ignited a Global Debate on the Future of Free Speech," I looked into the status of free speech in Weimar Germany. To my surprise, I found that Weimar Germany had hate speech laws, and that they were applied against anti-Semites like Julius Streicher, the publisher of the Nazi newspaper Der Sturmer; Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda; and Theodor Fritsch,a journalist and publisher of anti-Semitic propaganda. Streicher was sent to jail twice, and Goebbels lost every case that Bernhard Weiss, the deputy police chief of Berlin (and frequent target of anti-Semitic vilification), brought against him for defamation.
Further, this aid was quite material. It was these repeated, petty, ineffectual persecutions that brought the Nazis to the public eye and transformed them from some Bavarian gang to a national movement in Germany.
So the Weimar Republic isn't a case where evil happened because there was no hate speech law. Instead, it's a case where evil was greatly abetted by hate speech law.
at considerable potential risk to his country.
What risk? Seriously, what could the US do about this that would be a risk for Russia?
Iraq is directly linked to 9/11 through the Anthrax attacks.
Nonsense. This variant of anthrax came from a US lab. The only suspects ever considered were US researchers.
Since this is going in circles, this is my last reply.
Yes, please declare victory and go away.
Since I apparently need to repeat myself once again in more detail, fair weather donors are a fact of life in real world campaigns and make up most of the donations that the victorious candidate gets. Having most of the superdelegates on your side is a good way to get that money from the start. It's not bullshit, it's an obvious dynamic of the US election system. Clinton's overall collection of votes was 55% to 45%.
It's also worth noting the lack of any other credible candidates in this race. I think the superdelegates and the DNC party run by a Clinton supporter closed out most competition to Clinton's run.
Second, once again, let us note that Clinton won by 977 delegate votes overall while she had 526 more superdelegate votes than Sanders from the beginning. It's merely a statement of fact that if those superdelegates had gone to Sanders instead, he would have won.
You're just whining that Bernie didn't win, and looking to assign blame, regardless of logical consistency.
I wouldn't have voted for Sanders either. I'm just pointing out that he was a better candidate.
Further, heads I win, tails you lose is the superdelegate game. Non-establishment candidates have a huge vote portion that they're going to have a very hard time winning.
Yes, that's the point of superdelegates, you admit it. So it's bullshit to complain that the superdelegates didn't throw the election to Bernie when complaining about superdelegates.
Good thing I didn't do that then. Once again, it's the observation that superdelegates helped Clinton win in two ways, first by giving her an edge in the beginning and second, of course by throwing the election in her favor rather than Sanders' favor.
The problem with Sanders was that he was a self-described socialist. It's the extreme wing candidate that appeals to the base but tends to turn off the middle of the country. He was also a career politician with no business experience. And he looked whimpy.
Good thing then that Clinton was so much better. Because otherwise they might have lost.
Ok, so? Should we now argue whether this movie is better to watch on Betamax or VHS?
It's a contrived moral situation, but with a point. A contrived Logan's Run situation after you've lived a healthy 150 years is considerably better than living to 100 years with a body steadily degrading all the while due to aging.
Then, why are we discussing this at all? Doesn't it just play into their hands?
You're free to shut up any time you want. I don't think distrust is necessarily a bad thing to instill in a governed populace.
Because it's weak sauce. It's heads I win, tails you lose.
Sorry, not feeling it. There are two complaints about how superdelegates threw the election.
Further, heads I win, tails you lose is the superdelegate game. Non-establishment candidates have a huge vote portion that they're going to have a very hard time winning.
Hindsight is 20/20. Sanders also might have lost, and then we'd be discussing why the Democrats had picked a "sure loser". We don't know. Given any candidate, you can find a list of downsides.
And the obvious rebuttal is that you can say the above as well no matter who wins. You're just as wrong no matter what. But Sanders doesn't have a 40 year history of skullduggery; doesn't have ongoing pay for play with several hundred million dollars put in; didn't show felony-grade "extreme carelessness" about national security; isn't an extremely unlikable candidate; etc. Sure, Sanders might lose against Trump, but Clinton actually did.
So first the Bernie supporters blame superdelagates for unfairly rigging the election against Bernie, then when Bernie would have lost without them anyways they blame the superdelagates for not backing him.
Why can't both be true? It was well known going into the primaries that superdelegates heavily favored Clinton. That meant that Clinton would have gotten a lot of funding and support that she otherwise would have had to work to get. And she just might have lost without that funding and support.
Then of course, the superdelegates indeed could have voted for Sanders instead of Clinton at the convention.
They exist to keep candidates like Bernie (and Trump) from winning the nomination, and you damn well know it. It's just that this election cycle turned conventional thinking on its head. If Bernie had actually won the nomination and lost to Trump we'd be hearing how stupid the Democrats were for not going with Hillary.
And the obvious rebuttal would have been a list of the problems Clinton brings along with the question, "Would Democrats really be that dumb as to nominate a sure loser?"
Try convincing that to the 150 year old guy.
You mean the guy who already decided more than 50 years ago?
* The danger of overpopulation. If old people don't die, and young people keep making babies, our planet will become overcrowded soon. Which system should be implemented? A policy where you need permit by the government to have babies? Will we make a gigantic ponzi scheme where we put those extra humans on mars, then on other plantes, colonizing the galaxy? What when the whole galaxy is colonized? Intergalactic travel outside of our local group is quite hard, as expansion of space will make those galaxies leave us faster than light before we can get to them.
* The danger of cancer. Often when rejuveniating cells you put them in a mode where they like to multiply. You artificially increase the likelihood for cancer with this to an extent of almost certainity.
I guess we'll have to solve those. Given that curing aging is a much harder problem and we've already solved overpopulation in the developed world, I'm not seeing much of a downside there.
Did the Iraq war rhetoric not make it clear what side of this kind of thing she was actually on?
Rhetoric != action. A fair number of US presidents who entered into large wars promised not to. They might have even been sincere in some cases.
FWIW, I don't consider war hawks to be the worse thing for creating wars. War hawks who don't have a realistic understanding of what militaries can and can't do are worse. So are peaceniks who avoid war at all costs since then opponents can push a lot further before triggering a credible response, making wars more likely.
So neither China nor Russia would prefer Trump over Hillary on military grounds....
Here's the thing. Why does there need to be a preference? Just interfering with an election increases the distrust for Trump and increases the divisiveness in US politics. That looks like a win for both Russia and China.
The ACA really was "their" idea
Two things to note. First, the relevant part of Obamacare had a huge difference between the Republican and Democrat versions. It was a reward to have insurance in the Republican version and a tax penalty to not have insurance in the Democrat version. Aside from the latter being unconstitutional, we have that the cost of the incentives were pushed onto taxpayers.
Second, Obamacare was over 2000 pages. People forgot that there was a lot more bad law in the thing than just the individual mandate.
I've since found evidence as well that indicates that even at the federal government level, your clause is described as the emolument (I now have brain cells wasted on the spelling of this word) clause (it was an NIH document from 2008 too). So my apologies for correcting what wasn't wrong.
The problem is that there are a ton of freeloaders in India that aren't paying their taxes. This is a clear-cut way to track down that money.
When a country has trouble with tax collection, look at the government.
Money that could be used to build infrastructure, pull corpses from the rivers, clean up after the majority of Indians that defecate and dump garbage in the streets, educate an illiterate populace...you get the idea.
Or it could be shuffled off to some cronies just like the current money is. Just because additional revenue could be used for good, doesn't mean it will. Corruption has to be fought first before tax collection can work. The current theatrics don't make that any easier.
It is not being smug, it is being free.
You keep telling us that. History though is a better judge than you are. And history is chock full of reasons why such information is dangerous to have.
I agree. When I filtered out Trump from my Google search, I still get hits from both clauses. For example, an official government document on the legality of federal employees accepting employment from outside the US (an emolument being a salary or similar compensation for said employment). It appears to be targeted towards people with paid positions on advisory committees for the US's National Institute of Health who might also have paid positions in a foreign government's service. For example, a researcher or teacher who is on such an advisory committee who then accepts a position with a public university in another country or even has said university cover or waive certain costs or payments for a temporary visit (as say, during the course of a conference).
Given the prevalence of the usage, I'm forced to accept your rebuke.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Which is in Article I, section 9. The actual emoluments clause is in Article I, section 6, and covers a somewhat different situation:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
That's why, for example, when a congressional member is appointed to a position in either the executive or judicial branch, they have to resign their seat in order to accept the new position.