In some cases of inadvertant mishandling of classified information, the security clearance has been revoked temporarily or indefinitely. In others, the security clearance remains intact. Clinton got about the same treatment anyone else would have in her situation.
Don't be surprised if it was an arbitrary action either. And don't be surprised if businesses start moving out of the US so employees can reliably visit the main business location.
No, there is a story. Person in Sweden going to the US on routine business, having presumably done the appropriate paperwork, is denied entry. This is bad.
The only reason international meetings happen is to get people from other countries. For this to happen, potential attendees have to have a high degree of conference that they can get to them. If this becomes dubious for meetings in the US, such meetings will not happen in the US, which hurts assorted people in the US, including the business community and the scientific community.
There's no reason the average person would want arbitrary export of emails, and the average person would probably have a little difficulty grasping the concept. An iPad could provide every desired service for a very large number of people. People who want more sophisticated services should get a laptop and/or desktop. People who occasionally feel the need for more sophisticated services should talk to a friend or professional service with laptop and/or desktop.
Apple could certainly provide those options, but more options are not necessarily a good thing.
I'm not at all convinced that we had stable hierarchies in small bands, and such bands did resolve problems sufficiently quickly (or they died; there's really not that much room for major mistakes in a band that size). I need to do more reading on it. Hierarchies do form with larger groups. Stable hierarchies can be good or bad, and can be better or worse at rapid efficient problem-solving than a looser organization. The more successful modern armies, which are poster children for stable hierarchies, emphasize decision-making and problem-solving at low levels in the hierarchy.
I was responding to your claims that behaviors have been suppressed. I haven't seen where aggression and conflict and hierarchies are suppressed, other than their more physical forms. I have worked primarily in smaller businesses, where people aggressively pursue goals, there's conflicts that are necessary for efficiency and managed to not get destructive, and hierarchies. Currently, I have four or five direct superiors, depending on how a new leadership position shakes out.
The laws of physics can sometimes be finessed in ingenious ways. In any case, if you're right in what they say, I'm doomed, so it really doesn't matter what I do, say, or think. In that case, there's no harm in me thinking there's a way out of this.
The US has no authority over non-citizens not in the US (although there are government officials who seem to think otherwise), but the US definitely has authority over non-US citizens in US territory. A citizen of another country has certain rights guaranteed by the US Constitution while in the US.
Common sense would suggest that I'm correct in commenting on stuff I've read, and not stuff I haven't, and that's why I corrected you on the Federalist Papers and said nothing about the Anti-Federalist Papers. It would, for example, suggest that you not talk about the Federalist Papers, just as it suggests I not talk about the Anti-Federalist Papers.
You're not thinking about externalities. Regulations are appropriate to limit external costs (i.e., costs not borne by the people making the decision to inflict them).
People understood the external "costs" of coal and gas for a long time now. There's a wide and deep consensus that the costs are worth it.
You may well be right there, but it doesn't mean what you appear to think it means. If people accept external costs, that doesn't mean the costs don't exist, but that people are willing to pay them. I've accepted a lot of costs under the belief that the costs were worth it, but that doesn't mean I would prefer to have spent less money. If a certain amount of energy costs me $1 on the bill and carries external costs of $1 to me, I may well think the energy is worth $2, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer to pay $1.90 on the bill with external costs of $0.02.
My current non-self-driving car has better obstacle avoidance abilities than a cockroach. Of course, having an allegedly intelligent driver adds additional safety features.
For designing ethical systems, I'd recommend at least a BA in Philosophy, probably a doctorate since designing an ethical system sounds like doctoral thesis work.
Since the US can not prosecute people in a foreign land and can not protect people in a foreign land.
That was never in dispute. You claimed that the Constitution doesn't protect non-citizens. I'm claiming it does, provided the non-citizen is in US territory. Obviously, in another country, the Constitution can only govern the behavior of US government agents. Similarly, a citizen of North Korea doesn't have free speech in North Korea, and neither does a citizen of the USA, but they both have freedom of speech in the US.
Your claim about universal law fails basic scrutiny.
Good thing I never made one in this thread, then.
Your description of the Federalist papers is absolutely false. They are primarily letters between the founders regarding wording and concepts.
Really? You do have to show me bios of all the Founding Fathers named "Publius", since they're all signed that way, and so if they were private letters they had to be from people named "Publius". Or you could apply a little common sense and realize that that was a pseudonym to hide who wrote it (multiple individuals, in this case), and notice that they were published instead of being directed to individuals. It appears that you're either totally lacking in common sense or have no idea what you're talking about.
I can't comment on the Anti-Federalist Papers (I bought a book on them and never got around to reading it).
Remember that bit I said about common sense? Not only did you just flat out lie, but you seem to lack common sense.
The problem is that reducing CO2 emissions isn't enough.
In which case we're all doomed, so you should be more concerned with stocking your survival lair than in objecting to partial measures.
If we just abandon all fossil fuel, we're mostly doomed anyway, because this planet in its present state will not support anywhere near seven billion people without advanced civilization, which relies vitally on fossil fuel, so again you should be working on your survival lair.
If slowing down CO2 production does turn out to help, then maybe we aren't doomed. I'm going for the more hopeful scenario.
I'm not sure about aggression, hierarchy, and conflict for people in relatively isolated groups of 150 or fewer. Such a group would have real problems with bullies or too much conflict. Aggression will happen between such groups, if they collide, and it happens when groupings exceed 150 by enough.
To answer your questions, if these are things you want to do you should get something more capable than a tablet. I'd guess that, if you were to get my extended family together and ask how to zip email and put it on another computer, you'd get at least 80% blank looks. I'd also suggest that tablets are not the right environment for programming large-scale software projects, but not everyone does that either.
My original claim was that a lot of people will find a tablet sufficient for their computing needs, and easier to use than a laptop. I didn't say that applied to everyone, so pulling out a task that most people wouldn't think of doing does nothing that disagrees with me.
Hate crimes, in the US, tend to receive more severe penalties on the basis that they terrorize particular groups. Trying to terrorize blacks, for example, is normally intended to reduce their influence in society (among other things), which is a political act. Terrorism and hate crimes may not be quite the same thing, but they're closely related, and it's not clear where to draw the line.
Shooting a doctor who performs abortions (which has happened) is an attempt to achieve the political goal of stopping abortions by making people who would do them afraid. That's terrorism.
As it happens, I do know more or less where fertilizer comes from. I also haven't heard of battery advances that would make electric aircraft and long-distance ships possible, and there's more areas where fossil fuel is needed.. We're not getting rid of fossil fuels any time soon, but reducing the amount we use will be useful, even if it's not complete elimination. We're advancing technologically rather fast, and so slowing warming down until we can do something better about it sounds like a good idea. We may find that we can fix most of the problem with geoengineering without causing too many other problems. If we could get enough power from other sources, we could even unburn the CO2 in the air.
I'm not trying to be alarmist. I'm pointing out that the warming will disrupt some things pretty badly, and that will mean refugees from global warming, There will be disruption, and disruption always raises the probability of war. I don't have any quantitative guesses, but I'd say that global warming is a lot more likely to start wars than avoiding global warming.
We're in a world now where major powers pretty much do not directly attack each other, so high-level geopolitical maneuvering is likely to remain peaceful. If the US cuts emissions, that will help (remember I said above that I want a large reduction in fossil fuel use, since a complete stop won't be practical for some time yet), as the US is the second-biggest emitter, and not far behind China. Europe, China, and India seem to be trying to move away from fossil fuels, for whatever reasons.
Last I saw, I'd expect China to wind up with a bigger GDP than hours. The last figures I've got immediate access to (2013) put them about 20% behind the US, and growing faster. If we retard our economy somewhat, and China doesn't (which doesn't seem to be quite the case), the crossover point where China has the world's biggest economy will happen earlier, which I don't see is a tremendous concern.
Slashdot Mirror
So you prefer tyranny of the minority. How nice.
Sure I know what it means. It means Trump is a crappy businessman, because a good one wouldn't have all those losses to roll over.
In other words, they should be considered for jobs as field agents.
In some cases of inadvertant mishandling of classified information, the security clearance has been revoked temporarily or indefinitely. In others, the security clearance remains intact. Clinton got about the same treatment anyone else would have in her situation.
Don't be surprised if it was an arbitrary action either. And don't be surprised if businesses start moving out of the US so employees can reliably visit the main business location.
Easy solution: move your main operations outside the US.
No, there is a story. Person in Sweden going to the US on routine business, having presumably done the appropriate paperwork, is denied entry. This is bad.
The only reason international meetings happen is to get people from other countries. For this to happen, potential attendees have to have a high degree of conference that they can get to them. If this becomes dubious for meetings in the US, such meetings will not happen in the US, which hurts assorted people in the US, including the business community and the scientific community.
Possibly because it's part of a larger picture that includes the traveler ban, possibly because the reporting's bad.
There's no reason the average person would want arbitrary export of emails, and the average person would probably have a little difficulty grasping the concept. An iPad could provide every desired service for a very large number of people. People who want more sophisticated services should get a laptop and/or desktop. People who occasionally feel the need for more sophisticated services should talk to a friend or professional service with laptop and/or desktop.
Apple could certainly provide those options, but more options are not necessarily a good thing.
I'm not at all convinced that we had stable hierarchies in small bands, and such bands did resolve problems sufficiently quickly (or they died; there's really not that much room for major mistakes in a band that size). I need to do more reading on it. Hierarchies do form with larger groups. Stable hierarchies can be good or bad, and can be better or worse at rapid efficient problem-solving than a looser organization. The more successful modern armies, which are poster children for stable hierarchies, emphasize decision-making and problem-solving at low levels in the hierarchy.
I was responding to your claims that behaviors have been suppressed. I haven't seen where aggression and conflict and hierarchies are suppressed, other than their more physical forms. I have worked primarily in smaller businesses, where people aggressively pursue goals, there's conflicts that are necessary for efficiency and managed to not get destructive, and hierarchies. Currently, I have four or five direct superiors, depending on how a new leadership position shakes out.
The laws of physics can sometimes be finessed in ingenious ways. In any case, if you're right in what they say, I'm doomed, so it really doesn't matter what I do, say, or think. In that case, there's no harm in me thinking there's a way out of this.
The US has no authority over non-citizens not in the US (although there are government officials who seem to think otherwise), but the US definitely has authority over non-US citizens in US territory. A citizen of another country has certain rights guaranteed by the US Constitution while in the US.
Common sense would suggest that I'm correct in commenting on stuff I've read, and not stuff I haven't, and that's why I corrected you on the Federalist Papers and said nothing about the Anti-Federalist Papers. It would, for example, suggest that you not talk about the Federalist Papers, just as it suggests I not talk about the Anti-Federalist Papers.
You're not thinking about externalities. Regulations are appropriate to limit external costs (i.e., costs not borne by the people making the decision to inflict them).
You may well be right there, but it doesn't mean what you appear to think it means. If people accept external costs, that doesn't mean the costs don't exist, but that people are willing to pay them. I've accepted a lot of costs under the belief that the costs were worth it, but that doesn't mean I would prefer to have spent less money. If a certain amount of energy costs me $1 on the bill and carries external costs of $1 to me, I may well think the energy is worth $2, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer to pay $1.90 on the bill with external costs of $0.02.
That was Windows N(eeds)T(owing). This is XP. They've probably improved it to the point that it eXplodes the Propellers instead.
My current non-self-driving car has better obstacle avoidance abilities than a cockroach. Of course, having an allegedly intelligent driver adds additional safety features.
For designing ethical systems, I'd recommend at least a BA in Philosophy, probably a doctorate since designing an ethical system sounds like doctoral thesis work.
One eclipse photo is going to look like every other eclipse photo. None of them are anything like the real experience.
Since the traffic is predicted to be bad, I'd recommend car-pooling to the eclipse. Problem solved!
That was never in dispute. You claimed that the Constitution doesn't protect non-citizens. I'm claiming it does, provided the non-citizen is in US territory. Obviously, in another country, the Constitution can only govern the behavior of US government agents. Similarly, a citizen of North Korea doesn't have free speech in North Korea, and neither does a citizen of the USA, but they both have freedom of speech in the US.
Good thing I never made one in this thread, then.
Really? You do have to show me bios of all the Founding Fathers named "Publius", since they're all signed that way, and so if they were private letters they had to be from people named "Publius". Or you could apply a little common sense and realize that that was a pseudonym to hide who wrote it (multiple individuals, in this case), and notice that they were published instead of being directed to individuals. It appears that you're either totally lacking in common sense or have no idea what you're talking about.
I can't comment on the Anti-Federalist Papers (I bought a book on them and never got around to reading it).
You're psychologically projecting.
In which case we're all doomed, so you should be more concerned with stocking your survival lair than in objecting to partial measures.
If we just abandon all fossil fuel, we're mostly doomed anyway, because this planet in its present state will not support anywhere near seven billion people without advanced civilization, which relies vitally on fossil fuel, so again you should be working on your survival lair.
If slowing down CO2 production does turn out to help, then maybe we aren't doomed. I'm going for the more hopeful scenario.
I'm not sure about aggression, hierarchy, and conflict for people in relatively isolated groups of 150 or fewer. Such a group would have real problems with bullies or too much conflict. Aggression will happen between such groups, if they collide, and it happens when groupings exceed 150 by enough.
To answer your questions, if these are things you want to do you should get something more capable than a tablet. I'd guess that, if you were to get my extended family together and ask how to zip email and put it on another computer, you'd get at least 80% blank looks. I'd also suggest that tablets are not the right environment for programming large-scale software projects, but not everyone does that either.
My original claim was that a lot of people will find a tablet sufficient for their computing needs, and easier to use than a laptop. I didn't say that applied to everyone, so pulling out a task that most people wouldn't think of doing does nothing that disagrees with me.
Hate crimes, in the US, tend to receive more severe penalties on the basis that they terrorize particular groups. Trying to terrorize blacks, for example, is normally intended to reduce their influence in society (among other things), which is a political act. Terrorism and hate crimes may not be quite the same thing, but they're closely related, and it's not clear where to draw the line.
Shooting a doctor who performs abortions (which has happened) is an attempt to achieve the political goal of stopping abortions by making people who would do them afraid. That's terrorism.
As it happens, I do know more or less where fertilizer comes from. I also haven't heard of battery advances that would make electric aircraft and long-distance ships possible, and there's more areas where fossil fuel is needed.. We're not getting rid of fossil fuels any time soon, but reducing the amount we use will be useful, even if it's not complete elimination. We're advancing technologically rather fast, and so slowing warming down until we can do something better about it sounds like a good idea. We may find that we can fix most of the problem with geoengineering without causing too many other problems. If we could get enough power from other sources, we could even unburn the CO2 in the air.
I'm not trying to be alarmist. I'm pointing out that the warming will disrupt some things pretty badly, and that will mean refugees from global warming, There will be disruption, and disruption always raises the probability of war. I don't have any quantitative guesses, but I'd say that global warming is a lot more likely to start wars than avoiding global warming.
We're in a world now where major powers pretty much do not directly attack each other, so high-level geopolitical maneuvering is likely to remain peaceful. If the US cuts emissions, that will help (remember I said above that I want a large reduction in fossil fuel use, since a complete stop won't be practical for some time yet), as the US is the second-biggest emitter, and not far behind China. Europe, China, and India seem to be trying to move away from fossil fuels, for whatever reasons.
Last I saw, I'd expect China to wind up with a bigger GDP than hours. The last figures I've got immediate access to (2013) put them about 20% behind the US, and growing faster. If we retard our economy somewhat, and China doesn't (which doesn't seem to be quite the case), the crossover point where China has the world's biggest economy will happen earlier, which I don't see is a tremendous concern.