Several posters have been caught up on Obama saying he "can't" pardon Snowden, but they're misinterpreting his meaning. He's meaning "won't", like in 2001:A Space Odyssey when HAL said "I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that" really meant HAL was just refusing to open the pod doors.
You might disagree with this decision (I know I do), but don't pretend Obama's confusing legal authority with a weighty presidential decision.
When a company spends tens of millions on lobbyists, and when the lobbyists sometimes get to write part of the laws-to-be concerning their industry, and when the lobbyists can negotiate the kind of sweetheart deal for terms that only a billion-dollar-multinational could ever get, it's kind of disingenuous to simply dismiss it all as "they did not write the law". You know?
America spends 18% of GDP on healthcare. Other developed countries spend 6-9%, yet mostly have better health outcomes. So if we become as efficient as them, 1/2 to 2/3rds of healthcare workers will be redundant. What interest do they have in destroying their own jobs?
Those last two sentences don't automatically follow from the first two: maybe America spends so much because prescriptions are so expensive, or maybe the cost of insurance/lawsuits is unusually high, or maybe plain old fraud has a major impact, etc.
It'd be interesting to know how many doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals there are per capita, in America and in the countries compared against.
(Hillary) spent 8 years as a senator and is now likely to become president. Why, what did she do in her 8 years in the senate? She sponsored a total of three bills in her eight years:
S. 3145: Name a road "Timothy J. Russert highway".
S. 3613: Name a post office the "Major George Quamo Post Office Building."
S. 1241: Designate a union building as a National Historic Site.
"While a member of the U.S. Senate, Clinton sponsored 713 pieces of legislation, including 363 bills, 296 amendments, 33 Senate Resolutions, and 21 concurrent resolutions.[11] Fourteen of her Senate resolutions were passed, expressing the Senate's views on policy or commemorative questions.[11] One of her concurrent resolutionsâ"supporting National Purple Heart Recognition Dayâ"passed both houses. Of the 363 bills, three[12] became law: (list of the 3 bills you named)"
and
"Clinton also co-sponsored 2,675 pieces of legislation, including 1,528 bills, of which 70 became law."
Whether her bill-sponsorship or bill-becomes-law rates are high or low for an 8-year junior senator I don't know, but the numbers are pretty freaking far from "She sponsored a total of three bills in her eight years".
They need to bring this to court, so a judge can solve this the right way-
"Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, this court is considering fining MSoft $100Billion. But I'll totally give you an out- my laptop is running an app that sets the actual fine. If you can figure out how to get the app to NOT fine you, then we'll go with that. Otherwise you're assumed to have agreed with this dollar amount, and waived your rights to appeal. You have five minutes, and... GO!"
And the suffoccee will gasp ferociously while tearing at their throat during before unconsciousness ensues. It is a horror show.
Ironically, this doesn't happen but if it did then the "tough on crime" croud would probably embrace nitrogen asphyxiation. I couldn't say how many times I've heard them say that "we should torture/brutalize/sodomize/etc criminals", as if inflicting as much pain as possible before executing them will somehow right the wrongs they did.
Around 7:30 you can see the officer telling the protestors individually that if they do not move, they will be sprayed and then saying "Do you understand?" Yeah, how horrible of him, giving them every chance to avoid being sprayed.
By that logic, he could've told them "Run away now or you'll be shot in the head", and after that point he'd have been totally justified to shoot sit-in protesters in the head.
You know, just because an officer warns someone that he's about to do something shitty, doesn't make it ok to do the shitty thing.
I'm stopping you there, because that's already a contradiction. Snowden doesn't want to stay in Russia, and they only let him stay because his presence gives the U.S. a black eye. But his passport was pulled so the only country he can legally go to is back to the U.S, and once there the courts would just rubber-stamp his whistle-blower (I mean "treason") charges.
I wonder how many of that 56% have convinced themselves that they're not the ones being watched: "Oh it's ok, they're not watching me, they're just watching the bad guys!" ?
How to get the point to sink in that the watchers consider everyone as the bad guy?
We need a better way to really make the execs accountable. I'd suggest locking the CEO in an airtight warehouse with their new, running auto for 1 hour, with the initial oxygen/air-quality conditions set such that if the auto meets the advertised spec then there's just barely enough fresh air to survive.
I mean, execs keep track of everything that goes on under their umbrella (so they'd never step into a failing test), right?
The worst part are all the relatively smart people who are excusing this, simply because she has a (D) after her name. All I have to say, is if this were Jeb, he would be in jail already.
No, if it was Jeb there'd just be a different set of relatively smart people excusing it because of the (R) after his name. Bipartisan partisan hackery is a two-sided coin.
I know, but here me out before you judge. A windfall would free up my wife to know she wouldn't be working a low-wage job until she's 60+ just to keep the health insurance, and it would free me to not have to give up my dreams due to having to pay alimony.
Money can't buy happiness by itself, but this would free both of us up to do the kind of things that can bring happiness, even if we're not doing those things together.
The Amiibo's poor storage situation is the problem? I thought the real problem was that we have to buy Amiibo's to unlock game functionality, after buying the game itself. There's something messed up with needing a few hundred dollars worth of plastic just to get the advertised gameplay.
"My wife and I aren't sick, but Chuck is. If I work at $company I'm now stuck paying for Chuck's medical bills, via insurance premiums."
"My wife and I don't exercise at the office gym, but Chuck does. If I work at $company I'm now stuck picking up Chuck's work load while he exercises."
"My wife and I bike to work, but Chuck drives. If I work at $company I'm now stuck paying for a parking lot for Chuck, via decreased salary because they had to budget for it."
If the CPU in the IoT Device is powerful enough to make offloading actually worthwhile, isn't that CPU way overkill for the IoT Device's primary function?
I can't imagine a lot of companies putting more powerful (that is, more expensive) chips than is necessary to run the device itself.
Instead of banning them, give people a settable-but-not-clearable checkbox:
- "I won't cheat", if you're caught then you're subject to a ban
- "I might/will cheat", fine, but you can't run multiplayer with others who won't
Heck, go one step simpler- no checkbox, but if you're caught cheating you can only go multiplayer with others who were caught. But the flag clears itself after 'X' amount of "time served".
Slashdot Mirror
Several posters have been caught up on Obama saying he "can't" pardon Snowden, but they're misinterpreting his meaning. He's meaning "won't", like in 2001:A Space Odyssey when HAL said "I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that" really meant HAL was just refusing to open the pod doors.
You might disagree with this decision (I know I do), but don't pretend Obama's confusing legal authority with a weighty presidential decision.
When a company spends tens of millions on lobbyists, and when the lobbyists sometimes get to write part of the laws-to-be concerning their industry, and when the lobbyists can negotiate the kind of sweetheart deal for terms that only a billion-dollar-multinational could ever get, it's kind of disingenuous to simply dismiss it all as "they did not write the law". You know?
Those last two sentences don't automatically follow from the first two: maybe America spends so much because prescriptions are so expensive, or maybe the cost of insurance/lawsuits is unusually high, or maybe plain old fraud has a major impact, etc.
It'd be interesting to know how many doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals there are per capita, in America and in the countries compared against.
WTF are you talking about? According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... :
"While a member of the U.S. Senate, Clinton sponsored 713 pieces of legislation, including 363 bills, 296 amendments, 33 Senate Resolutions, and 21 concurrent resolutions.[11] Fourteen of her Senate resolutions were passed, expressing the Senate's views on policy or commemorative questions.[11] One of her concurrent resolutionsâ"supporting National Purple Heart Recognition Dayâ"passed both houses. Of the 363 bills, three[12] became law: (list of the 3 bills you named)"
and
"Clinton also co-sponsored 2,675 pieces of legislation, including 1,528 bills, of which 70 became law."
Whether her bill-sponsorship or bill-becomes-law rates are high or low for an 8-year junior senator I don't know, but the numbers are pretty freaking far from "She sponsored a total of three bills in her eight years".
They need to bring this to court, so a judge can solve this the right way-
"Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, this court is considering fining MSoft $100Billion. But I'll totally give you an out- my laptop is running an app that sets the actual fine. If you can figure out how to get the app to NOT fine you, then we'll go with that. Otherwise you're assumed to have agreed with this dollar amount, and waived your rights to appeal. You have five minutes, and... GO!"
If we're wedging more stuff into the elementary curriculum, why not teach every kid to have CEO or at least MBA training starting in the fourth grade?
Sure that might also have a tiny negative effect on certain salaries, but that's the free-market for ya!
Ironically, this doesn't happen but if it did then the "tough on crime" croud would probably embrace nitrogen asphyxiation. I couldn't say how many times I've heard them say that "we should torture/brutalize/sodomize/etc criminals", as if inflicting as much pain as possible before executing them will somehow right the wrongs they did.
By that logic, he could've told them "Run away now or you'll be shot in the head", and after that point he'd have been totally justified to shoot sit-in protesters in the head.
You know, just because an officer warns someone that he's about to do something shitty, doesn't make it ok to do the shitty thing.
I'm stopping you there, because that's already a contradiction. Snowden doesn't want to stay in Russia, and they only let him stay because his presence gives the U.S. a black eye. But his passport was pulled so the only country he can legally go to is back to the U.S, and once there the courts would just rubber-stamp his whistle-blower (I mean "treason") charges.
"No Vision, No Plan, No Budget" ?
You know, that third one might be the cause of the first two...
Does sleep deprivation also create compulsive Slashdot usage? Asking for, umm, a friend.
I wonder how many of that 56% have convinced themselves that they're not the ones being watched: "Oh it's ok, they're not watching me, they're just watching the bad guys!" ?
How to get the point to sink in that the watchers consider everyone as the bad guy?
It was the right decision- even jerks need to be allowed freedom of speech. (And I say that as one of the jerks :-) )
We need a better way to really make the execs accountable. I'd suggest locking the CEO in an airtight warehouse with their new, running auto for 1 hour, with the initial oxygen/air-quality conditions set such that if the auto meets the advertised spec then there's just barely enough fresh air to survive.
I mean, execs keep track of everything that goes on under their umbrella (so they'd never step into a failing test), right?
It's the religion clause of the first amendment, but it's definitely a freedom-of-expression issue:
http://www.churchstate.us/2013...
I wish this was only a fringe issue by a few small-minded people, but it's fairly widespread.
Hmm, how many republican 2016-presidential-wannabees have condemned groups pushing for an amendment like the above?
No, if it was Jeb there'd just be a different set of relatively smart people excusing it because of the (R) after his name. Bipartisan partisan hackery is a two-sided coin.
So you're saying his business will bomb?
You might be suffering from confirmation bias:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/16/...
http://www.newsweek.com/second...
I know, but here me out before you judge. A windfall would free up my wife to know she wouldn't be working a low-wage job until she's 60+ just to keep the health insurance, and it would free me to not have to give up my dreams due to having to pay alimony.
Money can't buy happiness by itself, but this would free both of us up to do the kind of things that can bring happiness, even if we're not doing those things together.
The Amiibo's poor storage situation is the problem? I thought the real problem was that we have to buy Amiibo's to unlock game functionality, after buying the game itself. There's something messed up with needing a few hundred dollars worth of plastic just to get the advertised gameplay.
"My wife and I aren't sick, but Chuck is. If I work at $company I'm now stuck paying for Chuck's medical bills, via insurance premiums."
"My wife and I don't exercise at the office gym, but Chuck does. If I work at $company I'm now stuck picking up Chuck's work load while he exercises."
"My wife and I bike to work, but Chuck drives. If I work at $company I'm now stuck paying for a parking lot for Chuck, via decreased salary because they had to budget for it."
Sheesh.
If the CPU in the IoT Device is powerful enough to make offloading actually worthwhile, isn't that CPU way overkill for the IoT Device's primary function?
I can't imagine a lot of companies putting more powerful (that is, more expensive) chips than is necessary to run the device itself.
The mind makes us who we are, so wouldn't this be a body transplant?
Does that go both ways- if the minimum wage went down then prices would deflate with it?
Instead of banning them, give people a settable-but-not-clearable checkbox:
- "I won't cheat", if you're caught then you're subject to a ban
- "I might/will cheat", fine, but you can't run multiplayer with others who won't
Heck, go one step simpler- no checkbox, but if you're caught cheating you can only go multiplayer with others who were caught. But the flag clears itself after 'X' amount of "time served".