She did not overreact. She could have done it in a less public way, but should she have to have missed a portion of the conference to deal with something that should not have been happening to begin with?
As others have noted, she could have simply done #2. It doesn't matter if you're "not happy" about doing it. That is the appropriate action unless, of course, you don't care enough. Then do #1. Doing #4 is an overreaction and due to her alleged high profile, an abuse of her position of relative power.
A recent example would be the assassination of several Iranian scientists supposedly involved in the clean up of the Stuxnet worm from the Iranian nuclear program.
The editor was being witty. And you can tell he succeeded because we're laughing at the joke, not trying to pick it apart and figure out what medical or mental issues the editor may have been suffering from at the time.
I love it when the post above a disingenuous post like yours makes you look like an ignorant fool before I've even read your comment.
Bullshit. The poster I replied to claimed that "most" of the people involved in this Vietnam affair were still around with political careers in 1981 when the Reagan administration came in.
That's thirteen years. It's doable, but a good portion of a political career. When I actually look at what's out there for web-based evidence, I just don't see any support for the claim that Nixon conspirators in 1968 were still around for the Reagan administration.
The post "above" that you refer to was the Iran-Contra affair. Glancing through the who's-who of that list (using Wikipedia as source), I see that Leden, McFarlane, Poindexter, and North didn't have any connection to the Nixon administration (Leden was in academia and the other three were in the military). Nor did Reagan for that matter.
So sure, Reagan does appear to have struck a deal with Iran. But it doesn't appear to have involved conspirators from the Nixon era. It is possible for different groups of people to have the same ideas.
Well, for one thing, what's the control over who does something with the drone? At least with a manned plane, in order to control the operation of the plane you need to get a pilot on the plane, and that is going to be hard since the air field is a controlled area. But with a drone all you have to do is subvert either the communication or the software and then you control the drone. No need to hop into the plane physically.
Iraq ended because the Iraqi government refused to extend the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which was set to expire in December 2011 (date ring a bell?). Obama tried in the time period before SOFA expired to get the Iraqis to extend it.
He obviously didn't try very hard since it didn't get extended. I doubt Bradley Manning was a factor here. They could have reduced and modified the US military presence in a variety of ways. They could have offered a bunch of foreign aid and other incentives. I think it more likely that Obama wanted to get out and bribed the Iraqis to provide him political cover.
And how is that even after Iraq ended, Obama can't figure out how to spend less on the offense budget than GWB did in his worst (i.e., highest spending) year?
Well, his administration is claiming the spending is going down. I don't know how to reconcile your numbers with those numbers since I don't know what's not included in the Obama administration figures and whether the numbers you quote (for FY 2011 and 2012) are real or estimates made at some point in the past.
Most of those people showed up again in prominent roles during the Reagan administration.
They have names? Googling around, I see that both Nixon and his running mate Spiro Agnew were allegedly involved. Both resigned from office and weren't members of the Reagan Administration. Reading through some of the actual transcripts of LBJ phone calls, I see a number of people named off hand as possible collaborators, none of which had political careers after Watergate.
âPresident Johnson: Well, I donâ(TM)t know who it is thatâ(TM)s with Nixon. It may be Laird. It may be [Bryce] Harlow. It may be [John] Mitchell. I donâ(TM)t know who it is.
âI know this: that theyâ(TM)re contacting a foreign power in the middle of a war.
That's three people named so far that little, if anything to do with the Reagan administration. Toss in Nixon, Agnew, and Chennault, and you have six people who might have or were involved and had no career in the Reagan administration. So who are "most of these people" and what are their names?
One retarded kid swallows a magnet, and they can ban buckyballs. A pilot or something might get blinded at some point in the future and we can ban laser pointer sales. 30,000 people a year die from gun violence and we can't even pass universal fucking background checks?
There's two simple observations to make here. First, gun owners are politically powerful and backed by the Second Amendment. Second, if someone gets shot, it's not a bureaucrat's fault. But if a kid swallows a magnet, then someone at the US Consumer Product Safety Commission has to explain why they didn't ban that product earlier.
The result is that you get a really bad case of risk adverse behavior. It's easier to ban than allow safe products that have some risk associated with them. "Safe" here doesn't mean danger or risk-free. It means simply that the risks of the product are well understood.
Guns are for the most part safe since the risks are well understand - we know how they can harm people, and have developed procedures for using and storing such weapons and their ammunition.
Further, most deaths from guns come from people who use them deliberately to kill themselves or other people. It's not a product safety issue, but rather a law enforcement issue when you're trying to kill someone with the product in question. The same would hold for people tagging planes with green lasers. At the least, it's some sort of assault, which usually is a felony in the US.
Maybe lighting a fire under their ass will encourage them to lay down some fiber.
If you want it, then lay it down yourself. I have no problem with West Virginia and other isolated places not having state of the art in internet connectivity.
And as I noted, it's not about "saving ourselves", but "saving Earth from ourselves". That bit of nuance is important.
I just loaded the Google search page and looked at what Google suggested for term completions on "humanity is a ". Google suggested "virus", "plague", "disease", and "failed experiment". That's the most common term completions out there. You might try to save a "failed experiment", but nobody tries to save a "plague".
Americans are completed screwed in the head. If someone says they are opposed to military spending and growth, they are called weak. If politicians want to ban landmines which kill more civilians than drones (currently), they are called perjoratively called a pacifist who kowtows to the UN. If, however, they follow through on a campaign promise to use drones in undeclared wars over the airspace of friend and foe alike (listen to the Obama/McCain debate) people are surprised, shocked, and downright offended when it actually happens when in the back of their head they know that if not for the drones we would be sending more troops and launching more destructive cruise missiles and the like.
An alternate term for this drone-only strategy is "losing". When someone is more worried about soldiers dying than getting a good outcome out of a bitter fight, then they will lose that war. Soldiers are going to die anyway since the enemy (of even moderate competence) will exploit that desire.
So we have this asshole behind this mess, but the mass media blames Cisco and Verizon.
So these businesses picked up $24 million in some really shifty, probably high margin business and you aren't at all curious how they happened to get it? There's a kickback somewhere in there.
If you want oil less than $2 a gallon, then you're going to need a lot of cheap oil. Nabbing all the oil executives (and the heads of state of the bigger OPEC countries, since they're really the ones setting prices) just gets you a bunch of warm bodies.
And I'm not faulting anyone for that, primarily because I don't believe that the economic system is built around a game that is evil. The previous poster was however doing that. And by extending it to guns, it means that even the barter system is not immune to financing evil. If I trade a gun for a cow, and it gets used for evil, then I'm responsible.
- The UK finally gets around to fixing its slander/libel laws.
The UK only officially needs to care because there is a legal distinction between a common man and a member of the press. This need not exist. In which case, the UK's need to care ceases to exist as well.
And in any case, if you think the government doesn't know exactly who is the author of any blog with not-insignificant following, you are deluded.
Or correct. That is another option here. It can be too expensive to "know exactly" who the author is. Such is the case currently with the "Climategate" email/code leaks of the past few years.
So that Gates money not only goes far, it also channels one to two orders of magnitude more in public funds. I suppose that does indicate however that there are some Third World health issues where the politicians are willing to burn money in order to show up billionaires.
Your disagreement misses the point: the Earth does not require saving.
It "misses the point" because I wasn't disagreeing with that aspect.
Regardless of whether or not anything anyone might do in the name of saving the Earth is effective or rational it is better framed in terms of anthropocentric interest, not in gelogical terms.
Hence "saving ourselves."
Again, I disagree on the last sentence. It's rather about "saving Earth from us". Sure, Earth isn't truly threatened, but we, humanity are the villain of a cliched morality play. It readily explains why so many backers of environmental policies are blind to the harm those policies can cause.
OK so change the definition when things stop working out for you.
Like you just did when you claimed natural selection but not evolution? No. That has always been the definition of evolution from when Charles Darwin first put it in writing.
Gravity is one sixth of what it is on Earth. And these are basically huts that probably would hold up on Earth. Plus, as a loopy heretic, you didn't pay proper deference to legos on the Moon.
But I doubt you will do much better than they already do in high-energy physics, where most of the skilled labor is done by low-paid graduate students.
I doubt most of the "skilled labor" is done by graduate students. Did they dig that huge ring out? Nope. Did they make the helium cooled superconducting stuff? Nope. Did they make the gear that constitutes the huge data crunching systems which the LHC uses? Nope.
And as for your assertion that the LHC couldn't possibly cost much less than it does, it's worth remembering here that the private world has a long history of making do with much less than public funded programs do. The big reason is simply that it's their money.
With public funded projects, they're burning Other Peoples' Money. There's little reason to care whether the eventual project costs one billion or nine billion dollars/euros, aside from the greater opportunity from the bigger project.
As to whether Gates or someone else would bother doing this sort of project, it's worth remembering that a big part of Gate's effort was to make a difference. If he had attempted the LHC, it is likely that some government would have one-upped him just so that a rich billionaire wouldn't have the biggest toy. And they'd spend money like water to do it.
But who cares if hundreds of millions of people have their lives improved by the removal of various common and crippling parasites? There's no government competition because there's no cool pyramid to gawk at.
Slashdot Mirror
She did not overreact. She could have done it in a less public way, but should she have to have missed a portion of the conference to deal with something that should not have been happening to begin with?
As others have noted, she could have simply done #2. It doesn't matter if you're "not happy" about doing it. That is the appropriate action unless, of course, you don't care enough. Then do #1. Doing #4 is an overreaction and due to her alleged high profile, an abuse of her position of relative power.
A recent example would be the assassination of several Iranian scientists supposedly involved in the clean up of the Stuxnet worm from the Iranian nuclear program.
You'd think an editor here would know that.
The editor was being witty. And you can tell he succeeded because we're laughing at the joke, not trying to pick it apart and figure out what medical or mental issues the editor may have been suffering from at the time.
I love it when the post above a disingenuous post like yours makes you look like an ignorant fool before I've even read your comment.
Bullshit. The poster I replied to claimed that "most" of the people involved in this Vietnam affair were still around with political careers in 1981 when the Reagan administration came in.
That's thirteen years. It's doable, but a good portion of a political career. When I actually look at what's out there for web-based evidence, I just don't see any support for the claim that Nixon conspirators in 1968 were still around for the Reagan administration.
The post "above" that you refer to was the Iran-Contra affair. Glancing through the who's-who of that list (using Wikipedia as source), I see that Leden, McFarlane, Poindexter, and North didn't have any connection to the Nixon administration (Leden was in academia and the other three were in the military). Nor did Reagan for that matter.
So sure, Reagan does appear to have struck a deal with Iran. But it doesn't appear to have involved conspirators from the Nixon era. It is possible for different groups of people to have the same ideas.
And the two solid rocket boosters (SRBs) on the sides of the Space Shuttle stack had a little more thrust than three and a half F-1 engines.
What does it matter if it's a drone?
Well, for one thing, what's the control over who does something with the drone? At least with a manned plane, in order to control the operation of the plane you need to get a pilot on the plane, and that is going to be hard since the air field is a controlled area. But with a drone all you have to do is subvert either the communication or the software and then you control the drone. No need to hop into the plane physically.
Iraq ended because the Iraqi government refused to extend the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which was set to expire in December 2011 (date ring a bell?). Obama tried in the time period before SOFA expired to get the Iraqis to extend it.
He obviously didn't try very hard since it didn't get extended. I doubt Bradley Manning was a factor here. They could have reduced and modified the US military presence in a variety of ways. They could have offered a bunch of foreign aid and other incentives. I think it more likely that Obama wanted to get out and bribed the Iraqis to provide him political cover.
And how is that even after Iraq ended, Obama can't figure out how to spend less on the offense budget than GWB did in his worst (i.e., highest spending) year?
Well, his administration is claiming the spending is going down. I don't know how to reconcile your numbers with those numbers since I don't know what's not included in the Obama administration figures and whether the numbers you quote (for FY 2011 and 2012) are real or estimates made at some point in the past.
Most of those people showed up again in prominent roles during the Reagan administration.
They have names? Googling around, I see that both Nixon and his running mate Spiro Agnew were allegedly involved. Both resigned from office and weren't members of the Reagan Administration. Reading through some of the actual transcripts of LBJ phone calls, I see a number of people named off hand as possible collaborators, none of which had political careers after Watergate.
âPresident Johnson: Well, I donâ(TM)t know who it is thatâ(TM)s with Nixon. It may be Laird. It may be [Bryce] Harlow. It may be [John] Mitchell. I donâ(TM)t know who it is.
âI know this: that theyâ(TM)re contacting a foreign power in the middle of a war.
That's three people named so far that little, if anything to do with the Reagan administration. Toss in Nixon, Agnew, and Chennault, and you have six people who might have or were involved and had no career in the Reagan administration. So who are "most of these people" and what are their names?
One retarded kid swallows a magnet, and they can ban buckyballs. A pilot or something might get blinded at some point in the future and we can ban laser pointer sales. 30,000 people a year die from gun violence and we can't even pass universal fucking background checks?
There's two simple observations to make here. First, gun owners are politically powerful and backed by the Second Amendment. Second, if someone gets shot, it's not a bureaucrat's fault. But if a kid swallows a magnet, then someone at the US Consumer Product Safety Commission has to explain why they didn't ban that product earlier.
The result is that you get a really bad case of risk adverse behavior. It's easier to ban than allow safe products that have some risk associated with them. "Safe" here doesn't mean danger or risk-free. It means simply that the risks of the product are well understood.
Guns are for the most part safe since the risks are well understand - we know how they can harm people, and have developed procedures for using and storing such weapons and their ammunition.
Further, most deaths from guns come from people who use them deliberately to kill themselves or other people. It's not a product safety issue, but rather a law enforcement issue when you're trying to kill someone with the product in question. The same would hold for people tagging planes with green lasers. At the least, it's some sort of assault, which usually is a felony in the US.
Maybe lighting a fire under their ass will encourage them to lay down some fiber.
If you want it, then lay it down yourself. I have no problem with West Virginia and other isolated places not having state of the art in internet connectivity.
And as I noted, it's not about "saving ourselves", but "saving Earth from ourselves". That bit of nuance is important.
I just loaded the Google search page and looked at what Google suggested for term completions on "humanity is a ". Google suggested "virus", "plague", "disease", and "failed experiment". That's the most common term completions out there. You might try to save a "failed experiment", but nobody tries to save a "plague".
Americans are completed screwed in the head. If someone says they are opposed to military spending and growth, they are called weak. If politicians want to ban landmines which kill more civilians than drones (currently), they are called perjoratively called a pacifist who kowtows to the UN. If, however, they follow through on a campaign promise to use drones in undeclared wars over the airspace of friend and foe alike (listen to the Obama/McCain debate) people are surprised, shocked, and downright offended when it actually happens when in the back of their head they know that if not for the drones we would be sending more troops and launching more destructive cruise missiles and the like.
An alternate term for this drone-only strategy is "losing". When someone is more worried about soldiers dying than getting a good outcome out of a bitter fight, then they will lose that war. Soldiers are going to die anyway since the enemy (of even moderate competence) will exploit that desire.
So we have this asshole behind this mess, but the mass media blames Cisco and Verizon.
So these businesses picked up $24 million in some really shifty, probably high margin business and you aren't at all curious how they happened to get it? There's a kickback somewhere in there.
If you want oil less than $2 a gallon, then you're going to need a lot of cheap oil. Nabbing all the oil executives (and the heads of state of the bigger OPEC countries, since they're really the ones setting prices) just gets you a bunch of warm bodies.
And I'm not faulting anyone for that, primarily because I don't believe that the economic system is built around a game that is evil. The previous poster was however doing that. And by extending it to guns, it means that even the barter system is not immune to financing evil. If I trade a gun for a cow, and it gets used for evil, then I'm responsible.
So how much jail time are you looking at?
This is effectivly done in all cities, in that the next city down river drinks the waste water from the city upstream.
So it's not actually "effectively done" since no one is actually drinking their own waste water.
- The UK finally gets around to fixing its slander/libel laws.
The UK only officially needs to care because there is a legal distinction between a common man and a member of the press. This need not exist. In which case, the UK's need to care ceases to exist as well.
And in any case, if you think the government doesn't know exactly who is the author of any blog with not-insignificant following, you are deluded.
Or correct. That is another option here. It can be too expensive to "know exactly" who the author is. Such is the case currently with the "Climategate" email/code leaks of the past few years.
But the US government has a program called PEPFAR that focuses on AIDS, TB, and malaria.
It focuses on AIDS which happens to also be a developed world disease. The funding which happens to go in part to fighting malaria, goes to the The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria which was "seeded" in 2002 with funds from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
So that Gates money not only goes far, it also channels one to two orders of magnitude more in public funds. I suppose that does indicate however that there are some Third World health issues where the politicians are willing to burn money in order to show up billionaires.
Your disagreement misses the point: the Earth does not require saving.
It "misses the point" because I wasn't disagreeing with that aspect.
Regardless of whether or not anything anyone might do in the name of saving the Earth is effective or rational it is better framed in terms of anthropocentric interest, not in gelogical terms.
Hence "saving ourselves."
Again, I disagree on the last sentence. It's rather about "saving Earth from us". Sure, Earth isn't truly threatened, but we, humanity are the villain of a cliched morality play. It readily explains why so many backers of environmental policies are blind to the harm those policies can cause.
There is a ton of government money thrown at health.
But not at those easily treated diseases and parasites in the Third World that the Gates foundation addresses.
OK so change the definition when things stop working out for you.
Like you just did when you claimed natural selection but not evolution? No. That has always been the definition of evolution from when Charles Darwin first put it in writing.
Gravity is one sixth of what it is on Earth. And these are basically huts that probably would hold up on Earth. Plus, as a loopy heretic, you didn't pay proper deference to legos on the Moon.
But I doubt you will do much better than they already do in high-energy physics, where most of the skilled labor is done by low-paid graduate students.
I doubt most of the "skilled labor" is done by graduate students. Did they dig that huge ring out? Nope. Did they make the helium cooled superconducting stuff? Nope. Did they make the gear that constitutes the huge data crunching systems which the LHC uses? Nope.
And as for your assertion that the LHC couldn't possibly cost much less than it does, it's worth remembering here that the private world has a long history of making do with much less than public funded programs do. The big reason is simply that it's their money.
With public funded projects, they're burning Other Peoples' Money. There's little reason to care whether the eventual project costs one billion or nine billion dollars/euros, aside from the greater opportunity from the bigger project.
As to whether Gates or someone else would bother doing this sort of project, it's worth remembering that a big part of Gate's effort was to make a difference. If he had attempted the LHC, it is likely that some government would have one-upped him just so that a rich billionaire wouldn't have the biggest toy. And they'd spend money like water to do it.
But who cares if hundreds of millions of people have their lives improved by the removal of various common and crippling parasites? There's no government competition because there's no cool pyramid to gawk at.
Honda Civic VX could get 50 mpg easily, but they don't make that any more either.