Still, we both agree that we need some form of taxation and government. We also agree that the government shouldn't control everything. We've now eliminated both all and nothing. Everything in between is a matter of degree.
How much the taxes should be can't be answered as it stands. We need to decide what the government should be doing and how valuable it is before that, and lots of us have widely varying opinions at that level.
I haven't met anybody who wants more government than necessary, or wants government to tax as much as possible. There's a large amount of variation in what people expect out of government and what they think necessary. You might call me a big-government advocate, but it's not because I want more government per se. It's because I want government to do more things than you want government to do. We probably differ a lot on exactly what is the least amount of structure that helps us to live and work together.
The amount of trust to place in government frequently comes up in this conversation. I'm very comfortable financially, but as far as power goes, I'm one of the little guys. I don't particularly trust any power center, and prefer to have several of them around to kind of balance each other out. Some people seem to distrust government and trust business, and I think that misguided.
Someone posted laws that show that most foreign influence in US elections is illegal, and it's illegal to solicit any such. From what I've seen, it's plausible that the Trump campaign cooperated with Russia to influence the elections in illegal ways. Trump did ask Russia for Clinton's emails, which could be illegal under USC 441, parts of which were posted by another, but even if that were technically a violation I can't see it being prosecuted. We'll know more when the investigation is concluded.
Don't worry, Trump is doing his best to alienate everyone outside his core group of supporters, who are really loyal, and not numerous enough to win elections.
There isn't enough evidence for any sort of court case. There is enough to justify an investigation. When the investigation concludes, we'll know more.
"Cold War" is a perfectly good term. There are lots of uses of the word "war" that do not involve formal declarations. We were in a state of war with Japan, for example, before they finally got around to declaring it. We were fighting a war with Germany from September 1941 on. I used to play a stupid card game called "War". The War on Poverty was not accompanied by air strikes and artillery bombardments targeting the poor sections of town. When Bugs Bunny got sufficiently ticked off, he's say "this means war".
I have seen some indications of illegal collusion between Trump and Russia. Not nearly enough to convict on, but enough to justify an investigation. Have you any evidence of illegal collusion in the DNC? Bear in mind that the DNC is a private organization, no law I know of specifies how political parties shall select their candidates, and that I haven't seen accusations of miscounting of primary votes or delegates.
Disclaimer: I supported Sanders at the district-level Democratic convention.
If the Clinton Foundation doesn't involve itself in politics, it doesn't fall under that law. It uses words like "election" and "political" and "electioneering".
Also, if I have paper money, I can give it to a cashier and get tangible goods immediately even when connectivity is down. I don't have to wait and/or pay money to make sure that over 50% of banks think my twenties are legal.
Supporting people in what they want to do is often a good thing. Forcing women to choose to be workers or breeders is not, and doing that when men get to be both is sexist. Now, if you'd like to add a paragraph about your proposals for women who want children and a career, I'd withdraw my complaint.
I used an option in Settings to disable the fingerprint scanning on my phone quite some time ago. If the idea is that you set your phone up in advance, that's nothing new. If the idea is that you can quickly do it when being arrested, that's legally risky.
Given long enough, the system can be distorted. One Presidential term isn't long enough to do that. The courts were some of the last effective groups upholding law in the Third Reich.
During Obama'x, I kept reading how the system wasn't working from all sorts of right-wing people. If people attacking the system were going to hurt it, it would be in ruins by now.
How about his third statement. Can I listen to that also? The one where he said there were fine individuals on both sides?
I'm cool with condemning most violent groups outside of those that have good social reasons to be violent, such as the armed forces and (sometimes) police officers. I disapprove of Antifa for their use of violence.
I'd probably respond to your second sentence if I could understand it.
As far as your first sentence, I stated a belief I have and wish everyone shared. If you don't agree with me, I haven't virtue signalled to you. If you don't agree with me, but are uncomfortable with disagreeing with me, it's an invitation to come over to my side. I don't normally accuse people of saying things for reasons like that, although I'm getting the strong impression that using the phrases "SJW"* and "virtue signalling" are in fact normally virtue signalling.
*I don't like playing warriors. I like magic in my games. From now on, please call me a Social Justice Mage.
Each business decides for its own potential customers. I don't see any other way to do it. We certainly don't want GoDaddy telling Google whether or not to sell DNS services to someone, and we very certainly don't want the government to do so.
Let's consider the depiction of the murdered woman as a fat useless parasite. That's Free Speech in action, and I find it very offensive. Lots of people would find it very offensive. Are you going to tell a private business that it has to publish that on the same terms as it publishes everything else? That it must print offensive speech by evil people as long it's legal? In one of the countries with the most sweeping protections of free speech in the world? Wouldn't it be better for a business as a business to have some limits other than legality as to what people can say that's associated with them? Nobody's denying Nazi scum the ability to shop around for hosting, or to run their own server (anybody else old enough to remember Banned CPU?).
I'm sticking to my belief that, while it should be legal, and is, for Nazis to spew their hateful propaganda, nobody should be forced to provide a forum to them. In a world with lots and lots of forums, including ones in different jurisdictions, this doesn't impede free speech.
We are talking about private businesses that serve the public. We require these businesses to do certain things, such as to conduct business as usual with certain people unless there's a good reason not to do so. Feel free to disagree with that, but remember that we aren't forcing anyone to do something they wouldn't normally do.
I don't know for sure what their motivation was, and I doubt you do either. I'm sure that they make more money by giving the impression that Wordpress blogs don't transgress certain limits. That, to a libertarian, should be complete justification for removing the blog, being a legal action according to published rules performed by a private-sector company to increase profit. Said libertarian would strongly protest against any government suppression of Nazi free speech, and so would I.
There's lots of views I really don't like, and I'd expect a good many of them to be on Wordpress blogs, conforming to the terms of service.
True, but some people going into a field don't really know what they're getting into, so we want to show them the sort of thing they need to be able to learn. I was TAing a low-level computer science course once, which was taught using Scheme as a language and Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs as a text. I'm not really able to say whether it was a hard course, but it wasn't what some of the students expected. It was pretty much the first course that distinguished our CSci major from a programming major.
And new algorithms that don't rely on non-polynomial time calculations will be available
I'm not able to parse this.
Encryption has to be efficient to be useful. That pretty much means P. That means that, if P=NP, decryption with known plaintext is efficient, and encryption is useless.
I think that what is going on here is that fields have opened up to women and those looking for this kind of thing are saying "if this field is equally open to men and women, i.e. there are no formal barriers to entry, then the demographics should be 50/50. If the breakdown is not 50/50 then there must be some other factor denying women access to those roles."
There are a lot of people who say that fields have opened up to women, and with no formal barriers to entry the gender disparities reflect the real preferences of men and women also. The truth is going to be somewhere in the middle, since there doubtless are biological preferences but there's still discrimination.
When I was floundering in grad school, the sex ratio wasn't 50-50, but it wasn't nearly as lopsided as what you experienced. (The Mech E course I took had two women among at least two dozen men in it, as a matter of comparison.)
It's possible that more boys than girls wind up playing with computers, and maybe doing a little programming, and that may be due to biological factors, social factors, a combination, or something different. That would mean that men coming into a CS program would, on the average, be better prepared than the women, and if so moving the filter class to later in the program would make a lot of sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Still, we both agree that we need some form of taxation and government. We also agree that the government shouldn't control everything. We've now eliminated both all and nothing. Everything in between is a matter of degree.
How much the taxes should be can't be answered as it stands. We need to decide what the government should be doing and how valuable it is before that, and lots of us have widely varying opinions at that level.
I haven't met anybody who wants more government than necessary, or wants government to tax as much as possible. There's a large amount of variation in what people expect out of government and what they think necessary. You might call me a big-government advocate, but it's not because I want more government per se. It's because I want government to do more things than you want government to do. We probably differ a lot on exactly what is the least amount of structure that helps us to live and work together.
The amount of trust to place in government frequently comes up in this conversation. I'm very comfortable financially, but as far as power goes, I'm one of the little guys. I don't particularly trust any power center, and prefer to have several of them around to kind of balance each other out. Some people seem to distrust government and trust business, and I think that misguided.
Someone posted laws that show that most foreign influence in US elections is illegal, and it's illegal to solicit any such. From what I've seen, it's plausible that the Trump campaign cooperated with Russia to influence the elections in illegal ways. Trump did ask Russia for Clinton's emails, which could be illegal under USC 441, parts of which were posted by another, but even if that were technically a violation I can't see it being prosecuted. We'll know more when the investigation is concluded.
Don't worry, Trump is doing his best to alienate everyone outside his core group of supporters, who are really loyal, and not numerous enough to win elections.
There isn't enough evidence for any sort of court case. There is enough to justify an investigation. When the investigation concludes, we'll know more.
"Cold War" is a perfectly good term. There are lots of uses of the word "war" that do not involve formal declarations. We were in a state of war with Japan, for example, before they finally got around to declaring it. We were fighting a war with Germany from September 1941 on. I used to play a stupid card game called "War". The War on Poverty was not accompanied by air strikes and artillery bombardments targeting the poor sections of town. When Bugs Bunny got sufficiently ticked off, he's say "this means war".
I have seen some indications of illegal collusion between Trump and Russia. Not nearly enough to convict on, but enough to justify an investigation. Have you any evidence of illegal collusion in the DNC? Bear in mind that the DNC is a private organization, no law I know of specifies how political parties shall select their candidates, and that I haven't seen accusations of miscounting of primary votes or delegates.
Disclaimer: I supported Sanders at the district-level Democratic convention.
If the Clinton Foundation doesn't involve itself in politics, it doesn't fall under that law. It uses words like "election" and "political" and "electioneering".
Also, if I have paper money, I can give it to a cashier and get tangible goods immediately even when connectivity is down. I don't have to wait and/or pay money to make sure that over 50% of banks think my twenties are legal.
Supporting people in what they want to do is often a good thing. Forcing women to choose to be workers or breeders is not, and doing that when men get to be both is sexist. Now, if you'd like to add a paragraph about your proposals for women who want children and a career, I'd withdraw my complaint.
The big problem with population dropping is what it does to the demographics. The population gets old, with the biggest cohorts over retirement age.
I used an option in Settings to disable the fingerprint scanning on my phone quite some time ago. If the idea is that you set your phone up in advance, that's nothing new. If the idea is that you can quickly do it when being arrested, that's legally risky.
From what I know (and it may be obsolete) it hadn't shaken out fully in the courts yet.
Given long enough, the system can be distorted. One Presidential term isn't long enough to do that. The courts were some of the last effective groups upholding law in the Third Reich.
During Obama'x, I kept reading how the system wasn't working from all sorts of right-wing people. If people attacking the system were going to hurt it, it would be in ruins by now.
How about his third statement. Can I listen to that also? The one where he said there were fine individuals on both sides?
I'm cool with condemning most violent groups outside of those that have good social reasons to be violent, such as the armed forces and (sometimes) police officers. I disapprove of Antifa for their use of violence.
I'd probably respond to your second sentence if I could understand it.
As far as your first sentence, I stated a belief I have and wish everyone shared. If you don't agree with me, I haven't virtue signalled to you. If you don't agree with me, but are uncomfortable with disagreeing with me, it's an invitation to come over to my side. I don't normally accuse people of saying things for reasons like that, although I'm getting the strong impression that using the phrases "SJW"* and "virtue signalling" are in fact normally virtue signalling.
*I don't like playing warriors. I like magic in my games. From now on, please call me a Social Justice Mage.
Each business decides for its own potential customers. I don't see any other way to do it. We certainly don't want GoDaddy telling Google whether or not to sell DNS services to someone, and we very certainly don't want the government to do so.
Let's consider the depiction of the murdered woman as a fat useless parasite. That's Free Speech in action, and I find it very offensive. Lots of people would find it very offensive. Are you going to tell a private business that it has to publish that on the same terms as it publishes everything else? That it must print offensive speech by evil people as long it's legal? In one of the countries with the most sweeping protections of free speech in the world? Wouldn't it be better for a business as a business to have some limits other than legality as to what people can say that's associated with them? Nobody's denying Nazi scum the ability to shop around for hosting, or to run their own server (anybody else old enough to remember Banned CPU?).
I'm sticking to my belief that, while it should be legal, and is, for Nazis to spew their hateful propaganda, nobody should be forced to provide a forum to them. In a world with lots and lots of forums, including ones in different jurisdictions, this doesn't impede free speech.
We are talking about private businesses that serve the public. We require these businesses to do certain things, such as to conduct business as usual with certain people unless there's a good reason not to do so. Feel free to disagree with that, but remember that we aren't forcing anyone to do something they wouldn't normally do.
I don't know for sure what their motivation was, and I doubt you do either. I'm sure that they make more money by giving the impression that Wordpress blogs don't transgress certain limits. That, to a libertarian, should be complete justification for removing the blog, being a legal action according to published rules performed by a private-sector company to increase profit. Said libertarian would strongly protest against any government suppression of Nazi free speech, and so would I.
There's lots of views I really don't like, and I'd expect a good many of them to be on Wordpress blogs, conforming to the terms of service.
True, but some people going into a field don't really know what they're getting into, so we want to show them the sort of thing they need to be able to learn. I was TAing a low-level computer science course once, which was taught using Scheme as a language and Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs as a text. I'm not really able to say whether it was a hard course, but it wasn't what some of the students expected. It was pretty much the first course that distinguished our CSci major from a programming major.
I'm not able to parse this.
Encryption has to be efficient to be useful. That pretty much means P. That means that, if P=NP, decryption with known plaintext is efficient, and encryption is useless.
There are a lot of people who say that fields have opened up to women, and with no formal barriers to entry the gender disparities reflect the real preferences of men and women also. The truth is going to be somewhere in the middle, since there doubtless are biological preferences but there's still discrimination.
When I was floundering in grad school, the sex ratio wasn't 50-50, but it wasn't nearly as lopsided as what you experienced. (The Mech E course I took had two women among at least two dozen men in it, as a matter of comparison.)
It's possible that more boys than girls wind up playing with computers, and maybe doing a little programming, and that may be due to biological factors, social factors, a combination, or something different. That would mean that men coming into a CS program would, on the average, be better prepared than the women, and if so moving the filter class to later in the program would make a lot of sense.
If you can't tell the difference between a scientific cite and a literary example, you need to get out more.
Nice dream. Nice goal. We're nowhere near there in reality, but we can work towards it.