Design doesn't just mean throw something together on paper. By your standards above, I've designed star killers, that is, a weapon which can destroy stars. I haven't actually made any such weapon nor do I know anyone who is even remotely close to being able to make such weapons, but yes, I "designed" one once.
Oh surprise surprise, this can't possibly be Congress's fault because that would imply the party with a majority there would somehow be responsible.
Both parties have majorities. And this really is a stupid excuse for ignoring malfeasance. Further, it is worth noting that the IRS shenanigans started after several requests by congress members. So Congress may well be involved, just not in the way you expect.
while North Korea might outright use it as an excuse to invade
And get nuked in response. It's a lot easier to come up with excuses to invade than it is to come up with a new army when you fail to do so.
I suspect people here are trivializing East Asian and in general Asian politics, in the same way people think they can trivialize Middle Eastern politics. It's just not that simple.
Nor is it that hard. We have a choice between a world where nuclear weapons are an expensive, useless hobby and one where nuclear weapons are the main key to being recognized as a world power. I see plenty of bad decisions being made to create that second state of affairs.
Seems unlikely since the US has stated that the US-Japan mutual defense treaty would be triggered by a Chinese grab of this disputed territory.
How would that be relevant? Why should we expect the US to do something, if the grab happened now, for example? The treaty has to have teeth in order for it to be a deterrent.
Japan is already protected by the US nuclear program, so nothing really changes.
Just like, say Iraq, is protected by the US nuclear program?
I think Japan is probably about twenty years away from developing its own nuclear weapons, assuming it hasn't already done so, simply due to the decay and unreliability of the US.
When the US no longer can project sufficient military power in the Pacific, then either Japan becomes a military power or China will fill that void. I think that choice will happen in the next twenty years.
If you have information on which laws are broken, I don't see why you won't disclose it. Informing more people of government atrocities is a good thing, no?
The thing is, the original poster provided that information in a link to a story on that particular lawsuit. This is a demand for citation on top of that. Keep in mind also that the replier implicitly accepts that the law in question exists.
Again, sounds like you're past the soap box stage. When you see the other side as ridiculous and words don't work on them, you need to escalate your protest.
So how do I fix the problem of stupid and dishonest argument on Slashdot? Send everyone I don't like to the glue factory? It sounds to me like I am not past the soap box stage, but rather that you aren't yet to the soap box stage.
Still haven't cited the relevant law which was broken, too.
And the more I look at this particular statement, the more dishonest it gets. The previous poster linked to a story where it was claimed that it is a law. The judge treats it as a law - he didn't throw the case out just because a crime hadn't been committed. You even implicitly admit that release of "normally" redacted information is illegal (after all how can disclosure of such information be willful or gross negligence, if it is perfectly legal to do so?).
Straw Man: If you shot someone in cold blood, and I told you it was illegal, I'd certainly be able to point to *multiple* laws which make it illegal.
You haven't pointed to those *multiple* laws. You just asserted you could. That makes it not a straw man. Here, demanding a citation actually runs counter to a legitimate debate.
If you're going to claim that an action was illegal, you most certainly *should* be able to point to a law which makes it illegal. Your claim, your burden of proof.
And yet, you can't be bothered to show that such things are legal either. A single reference to show the activity is actually legal would have settled this argument as well.
Right, that's wasn't the point of their story. They merely determined that a certain category of political group, which happens to be in opposition to the current administration, experienced huge problems in getting approval while groups that tended to be in support had an easy time of it. They didn't bother to count the number of the latter.
I like the part where you ignored the issue that none of this happened "yesterday" and all happened many years ago for apparently legitimate reasons, which are what happen when you don't ever fund an agency to update it's hardware and hire more IT support.
Do you know why I "ignored" that? Because those weren't legitimate reasons. And it is interesting how the IRS also lost those emails on recipients' servers too.
Because like everything else once this fishing expedition points the finger back at bills and instruction which has Republican signatures from Congress on it as well they'll mysteriously lose interest in the problem.
It mystifies me how people can continue to make completely bullshit claims like this. You are the one not Congress who should be making sure that something like the IRS affair and subsequent destruction of evidence doesn't happen again.
Oh, what's that about cutting funding for embassy security? That was championed by who again?
Doesn't matter. Hypocrisy is no excuse for ignoring that Obama got away with lying about a serious problem where people died in order to win an election. It sets a precedent. When the Republicans do this instead of Obama, what are you going to do then?
Still haven't cited the relevant law which was broken, too.
So if I shoot someone in cold blood and you can't point to the text in the law which makes murder a crime, then in your eyes, I didn't actually commit a crime? Here's a clue. Your demand is not only onerous, it is completely irrelevant. Something is illegal or not independent of whether another Slashdotter can point to the exact paragraph of law which makes the thing illegal.
I've noticed that ever since it became popular to play scientist in the climate change debates, that demands for citations have gotten ridiculous.
While the grandparent hasn't submitted references for this particular claim, several other people have for various claims which are comparable. For example, this story says there were "perhaps dozens" of similar progressive/liberal groups which passed during a time when no group with "Tea Party" and similar strings in their name got through.
"Review" meant a very different thing for groups that had things like "Tea Party" in their name, such as intrusive demands for information on participants and not actually approving any such groups for 27 months.
In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked.
That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.
In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.
You should be more concerned. Just because it's your guy this time doesn't mean it won't always be. What Obama gets away with today will be what the future administrations will get away with. So his administration screws up security for an ambassador, he lies about it on TV for advantage leading up to an election, and there are no repercussions? Well, that's what a future Republican or possibly even a religious nutcase can get away with.
If his administration can contribute to the murders of at least a couple hundred people in Mexico and the US (the Fast and Furious thing), then that's going to hold for people you don't like too.
If his administration gets to use the IRS as a bludgeon to punish its opponents, then guess what's going to happen when someone you don't like gets in power?
Rather than brag about how legitimate scandals aren't sticking to your pet president, maybe you ought to think about the future and what's going to happen when others use those same tricks to avoid accountability and restraints on their power?
Biased tips on oddities are still tips, from our own brains or others'.
The IRS isn't a biased brother who occasionally rats you out to the police whether or not you did something. It has considerable power to fuck up the lives of all US citizens and anyone else who happens to fall in its clutches.
I see elsewhere you trot out the "life's not fair" cliche. And "Guilty until proven innocent". You can't even settle on a single, coherent rationalization.
There's a simpler story here. Some people got caught doing illegal things at the IRS and the evidence just got destroyed. What a coincidence.
I pointed out that kook is the one who popularized the idea of manipulating markets.
And I noted markets were manipulated long before Marx. For example, a common bronze-age economic system was the "palace economy". These societies had most of their trade and wealth redistribution channel through a central administration (the "palace"). The pharaohs of Egypt are one such example.
Further, we have kooks today advocating similar degrees of market manipulation. What makes Marx so special that we should even be mentioning him?
The Civil War and the following Reconstruction was huge interference compared to before.
Which civil war? Which reconstruction? There are many of each. I suspect you may be referring to the US Civil War and subsequent reconstruction. But in that case, there are two observations to make.
First, you discussed Karl Marx which means you should have a global outlook not a provincial US outlook. (Marx didn't reside in the US.) Second, as I noted above, there are many examples of economies that go far into the distant past which had much more manipulated economies than the US of the Civil War and Reconstruction era.
The ACA or Obama Care has created a set of cheap insurances you can buy from too.
Since we're on the subject, no it doesn't create a set of cheap insurance. It creates a class of subsidized insurance with built-in bailouts for insurers who take on too much risk. Someone still pays for that either through the subsidies or through the bailouts.
That's circular reasoning and we've already established the presence of non-human participants in our thought exercise. And I still see no reason to expect humans to be "better" at property ownership.
And protectionism and rent seeking isn't "supply and demand".
It's a straightforward manipulation of demand to increase demand for your particular labor.
My point is "supply and demand" is insufficient explanation to what happened to the developed world.
And you have yet to make your point.
I used the word "rose" to mean an increase from previous levels.
And you would be in error to make that claim. It is rather the relative lack of interference (even including the effects of protectionism and the modern social state) from modern governments that is unusual compared to the historical record.
How many engineers can you need world-wide for that?
The number of possible designs is many orders of magnitude greater than the number of atoms in the universe. I think that's true even restricting ourselves to potentially useful designs. And it's not a simple matter to just pick the right design for the current application and context. You don't just look these up in a catalog and order. The need for design can easily scale with the number of engineers produced.
Given how little consideration is given to engineers in society, how can you justify telling a kid to go into EE in the West?
Not everyone is going to be the next rock star or US president. Nor would the world function, if everyone is a lawyer. Engineering (including EE) has the potential to generate a consistent and relatively large income. Plus you're actually designing or making things that people use. And if you like problem solving much more than you like networking with people, engineering tends to be a good fit.
Engineering tends to be an invisible but highly valued profession. Yes, you're probably not going to get society's recognition in proportion to the contribution you make, but that isn't normally a goal or point of being an engineer.
sleep apnea (1 in 4 americans have it and most are healthy normal weight individuals have some form of it.) can cause diabetes which in turn both can cause weight gain and mental health issues which in turn can cause weight issues.
Sounds to me more the other way around. Weight gain can cause sleep apnea. I think cause and effect are switched here.
Also did you know sugar an extremely common ingredient our foods is more addictive then cocaine as mentioned in several studies over the years
Slashdot Mirror
Design doesn't just mean throw something together on paper. By your standards above, I've designed star killers, that is, a weapon which can destroy stars. I haven't actually made any such weapon nor do I know anyone who is even remotely close to being able to make such weapons, but yes, I "designed" one once.
Oh surprise surprise, this can't possibly be Congress's fault because that would imply the party with a majority there would somehow be responsible.
Both parties have majorities. And this really is a stupid excuse for ignoring malfeasance. Further, it is worth noting that the IRS shenanigans started after several requests by congress members. So Congress may well be involved, just not in the way you expect.
"As far as is publicly known, no cobalt bombs have ever been built."
while North Korea might outright use it as an excuse to invade
And get nuked in response. It's a lot easier to come up with excuses to invade than it is to come up with a new army when you fail to do so.
I suspect people here are trivializing East Asian and in general Asian politics, in the same way people think they can trivialize Middle Eastern politics. It's just not that simple.
Nor is it that hard. We have a choice between a world where nuclear weapons are an expensive, useless hobby and one where nuclear weapons are the main key to being recognized as a world power. I see plenty of bad decisions being made to create that second state of affairs.
Seems unlikely since the US has stated that the US-Japan mutual defense treaty would be triggered by a Chinese grab of this disputed territory.
How would that be relevant? Why should we expect the US to do something, if the grab happened now, for example? The treaty has to have teeth in order for it to be a deterrent.
Japan is already protected by the US nuclear program, so nothing really changes.
Just like, say Iraq, is protected by the US nuclear program?
I think Japan is probably about twenty years away from developing its own nuclear weapons, assuming it hasn't already done so, simply due to the decay and unreliability of the US.
When the US no longer can project sufficient military power in the Pacific, then either Japan becomes a military power or China will fill that void. I think that choice will happen in the next twenty years.
Why not go for it? I'd love to see someone pretend to be outraged at this name. Ought to add spice to those Redskin-White Demon games.
If you have information on which laws are broken, I don't see why you won't disclose it. Informing more people of government atrocities is a good thing, no?
The thing is, the original poster provided that information in a link to a story on that particular lawsuit. This is a demand for citation on top of that. Keep in mind also that the replier implicitly accepts that the law in question exists.
Again, sounds like you're past the soap box stage. When you see the other side as ridiculous and words don't work on them, you need to escalate your protest.
So how do I fix the problem of stupid and dishonest argument on Slashdot? Send everyone I don't like to the glue factory? It sounds to me like I am not past the soap box stage, but rather that you aren't yet to the soap box stage.
Still haven't cited the relevant law which was broken, too.
And the more I look at this particular statement, the more dishonest it gets. The previous poster linked to a story where it was claimed that it is a law. The judge treats it as a law - he didn't throw the case out just because a crime hadn't been committed. You even implicitly admit that release of "normally" redacted information is illegal (after all how can disclosure of such information be willful or gross negligence, if it is perfectly legal to do so?).
Straw Man: If you shot someone in cold blood, and I told you it was illegal, I'd certainly be able to point to *multiple* laws which make it illegal.
You haven't pointed to those *multiple* laws. You just asserted you could. That makes it not a straw man. Here, demanding a citation actually runs counter to a legitimate debate.
If you're going to claim that an action was illegal, you most certainly *should* be able to point to a law which makes it illegal. Your claim, your burden of proof.
And yet, you can't be bothered to show that such things are legal either. A single reference to show the activity is actually legal would have settled this argument as well.
Right, that's wasn't the point of their story. They merely determined that a certain category of political group, which happens to be in opposition to the current administration, experienced huge problems in getting approval while groups that tended to be in support had an easy time of it. They didn't bother to count the number of the latter.
I like the part where you ignored the issue that none of this happened "yesterday" and all happened many years ago for apparently legitimate reasons, which are what happen when you don't ever fund an agency to update it's hardware and hire more IT support.
Do you know why I "ignored" that? Because those weren't legitimate reasons. And it is interesting how the IRS also lost those emails on recipients' servers too.
Because like everything else once this fishing expedition points the finger back at bills and instruction which has Republican signatures from Congress on it as well they'll mysteriously lose interest in the problem.
It mystifies me how people can continue to make completely bullshit claims like this. You are the one not Congress who should be making sure that something like the IRS affair and subsequent destruction of evidence doesn't happen again.
Oh, what's that about cutting funding for embassy security? That was championed by who again?
Doesn't matter. Hypocrisy is no excuse for ignoring that Obama got away with lying about a serious problem where people died in order to win an election. It sets a precedent. When the Republicans do this instead of Obama, what are you going to do then?
Still haven't cited the relevant law which was broken, too.
So if I shoot someone in cold blood and you can't point to the text in the law which makes murder a crime, then in your eyes, I didn't actually commit a crime? Here's a clue. Your demand is not only onerous, it is completely irrelevant. Something is illegal or not independent of whether another Slashdotter can point to the exact paragraph of law which makes the thing illegal.
I've noticed that ever since it became popular to play scientist in the climate change debates, that demands for citations have gotten ridiculous.
While the grandparent hasn't submitted references for this particular claim, several other people have for various claims which are comparable. For example, this story says there were "perhaps dozens" of similar progressive/liberal groups which passed during a time when no group with "Tea Party" and similar strings in their name got through.
and flagged more progressive groups for review
"Review" meant a very different thing for groups that had things like "Tea Party" in their name, such as intrusive demands for information on participants and not actually approving any such groups for 27 months.
In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked.
That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.
In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.
Your talking points are obsolete.
This is going to be "email of the gaps"
Destruction of evidence is another name for it.
and gosh darnit Benghazi just isn't sticking!
You should be more concerned. Just because it's your guy this time doesn't mean it won't always be. What Obama gets away with today will be what the future administrations will get away with. So his administration screws up security for an ambassador, he lies about it on TV for advantage leading up to an election, and there are no repercussions? Well, that's what a future Republican or possibly even a religious nutcase can get away with.
If his administration can contribute to the murders of at least a couple hundred people in Mexico and the US (the Fast and Furious thing), then that's going to hold for people you don't like too.
If his administration gets to use the IRS as a bludgeon to punish its opponents, then guess what's going to happen when someone you don't like gets in power?
Rather than brag about how legitimate scandals aren't sticking to your pet president, maybe you ought to think about the future and what's going to happen when others use those same tricks to avoid accountability and restraints on their power?
Sorry, no proof of favoritism.
I wonder what you think a "proof" is here.
Biased tips on oddities are still tips, from our own brains or others'.
The IRS isn't a biased brother who occasionally rats you out to the police whether or not you did something. It has considerable power to fuck up the lives of all US citizens and anyone else who happens to fall in its clutches.
I see elsewhere you trot out the "life's not fair" cliche. And "Guilty until proven innocent". You can't even settle on a single, coherent rationalization.
There's a simpler story here. Some people got caught doing illegal things at the IRS and the evidence just got destroyed. What a coincidence.
I don't think you ever worked for a bureaucracy before.
Imagine trying to use that excuse in an IRS audit of your business.
If anybody has an idea for making those judgements more objective and/or fair, please speak up.
Sure, apply existing law fairly and impartially.
And it may require more staff and resources.
Which wasn't a problem here. Favoritism is worse than no enforcement at all.
I pointed out that kook is the one who popularized the idea of manipulating markets.
And I noted markets were manipulated long before Marx. For example, a common bronze-age economic system was the "palace economy". These societies had most of their trade and wealth redistribution channel through a central administration (the "palace"). The pharaohs of Egypt are one such example.
Further, we have kooks today advocating similar degrees of market manipulation. What makes Marx so special that we should even be mentioning him?
The Civil War and the following Reconstruction was huge interference compared to before.
Which civil war? Which reconstruction? There are many of each. I suspect you may be referring to the US Civil War and subsequent reconstruction. But in that case, there are two observations to make.
First, you discussed Karl Marx which means you should have a global outlook not a provincial US outlook. (Marx didn't reside in the US.) Second, as I noted above, there are many examples of economies that go far into the distant past which had much more manipulated economies than the US of the Civil War and Reconstruction era.
The ACA or Obama Care has created a set of cheap insurances you can buy from too.
Since we're on the subject, no it doesn't create a set of cheap insurance. It creates a class of subsidized insurance with built-in bailouts for insurers who take on too much risk. Someone still pays for that either through the subsidies or through the bailouts.
That's circular reasoning and we've already established the presence of non-human participants in our thought exercise. And I still see no reason to expect humans to be "better" at property ownership.
And protectionism and rent seeking isn't "supply and demand".
It's a straightforward manipulation of demand to increase demand for your particular labor.
My point is "supply and demand" is insufficient explanation to what happened to the developed world.
And you have yet to make your point.
I used the word "rose" to mean an increase from previous levels.
And you would be in error to make that claim. It is rather the relative lack of interference (even including the effects of protectionism and the modern social state) from modern governments that is unusual compared to the historical record.
How many engineers can you need world-wide for that?
The number of possible designs is many orders of magnitude greater than the number of atoms in the universe. I think that's true even restricting ourselves to potentially useful designs. And it's not a simple matter to just pick the right design for the current application and context. You don't just look these up in a catalog and order. The need for design can easily scale with the number of engineers produced.
Given how little consideration is given to engineers in society, how can you justify telling a kid to go into EE in the West?
Not everyone is going to be the next rock star or US president. Nor would the world function, if everyone is a lawyer. Engineering (including EE) has the potential to generate a consistent and relatively large income. Plus you're actually designing or making things that people use. And if you like problem solving much more than you like networking with people, engineering tends to be a good fit.
Engineering tends to be an invisible but highly valued profession. Yes, you're probably not going to get society's recognition in proportion to the contribution you make, but that isn't normally a goal or point of being an engineer.
sleep apnea (1 in 4 americans have it and most are healthy normal weight individuals have some form of it.) can cause diabetes which in turn both can cause weight gain and mental health issues which in turn can cause weight issues.
Sounds to me more the other way around. Weight gain can cause sleep apnea. I think cause and effect are switched here.
Also did you know sugar an extremely common ingredient our foods is more addictive then cocaine as mentioned in several studies over the years
No, I didn't and I doubt you do either.