People of similar political persuasion get together and try to move the country in the direction they like, the HORROR!
A minority feels neglected. According to everything I've been reading in order to understand these people, they're pigheaded assholes, but eventually I might find something favorable to them. They received a massive insanity check and voted for Trump, of all people, someone with no track record for honesty or concern for anyone besides other billionaires, who's known for stiffing the little guy.
If you're looking for tantrums, look at the reaction to an incredibly peaceful march of something like three million people in various cities. Trump was not happy. There's a meme on Facebook where they show some female soldiers, pretend for no obvious reason that it's only possible to respect either the marchers or the soldiers, not both, and complain about their words and actions in highly nonspecific terms that look awfully similar to each other.
Travel with valid passports and visas is not traditionally risky, at least not among civilized countries. Many fields of endeavor rely on it. If the US suddenly becomes a capricious country with no respect to the rule of law, there will be consequences that will hurt the US badly.
There's no way a scientific conference should be held in the US now, since anyone from another country presenting a paper and trying to enter with proper documentation can, according to Trump, be arbitrarily barred. A whole lot of travel is for business, and so people in the US will become out of touch with people they need to deal with.
Except that Trump is apparently issuing illegal executive orders, way overstepping his authorization from Congress. Any law enforcement agent (including the President) is going to have limited resources, and has to make hard decisions on what to concentrate on enforcing. As a general rule, being more lenient than the strict letter of the law is legal, but being stricter isn't. Heck, the President can pardon people who have been convicted of crimes, but can't convict them himself.
Non-citizens with valid visas have a right to enter. If a country doesn't want a foreigner to enter, don't issue a visa. It's that simple. Arbitrarily stopping visa holders at the border is probably illegal.
Obama did not issue a similar executive order. Obama put restrictions on processing visas, and his executive order did not affect anyone who had a visa.
Trump's order would result in not letting green card holders into the US, shipping them back somewhere. It's true that foreigners in general have no right to enter a country, but we're talking about people who we've given a legal right to enter already.
Trump has undoubtedly already committed sufficiently many unconstitutional acts to support an impeachment, and lots of Republicans are unhappy with him. The Democrats have not in recent memory advocated policy's as stupid as Trump's, and have not fielded a worse candidate.
Looking at all the comments following this, you are apparently wrong. If fewer people are killed, then, it must be a loss for you to be wrong. Clearly, then, acording to the reasoning of Slashdot, we should strive for larger numbers of fatal traffic accidents.
In a group of people who aren't computer security professionals, somebody's going to open the document, or at least, you have to figure someone will. The exact person doesn't matter. If your computer system is such that opening a document can encrypt the storage, somebody's screwed up the system very thoroughly.
The current models for quantum mechanics are not rough approximations. They're astonishingly exact models. If history is any indicator, what we'll see is what we expect. Quantum mechanics is very frustrating that way: without some success at getting results that don't follow the model, there's no good way to improve the model.
Solar is growing a lot faster than fossil fuel power generation. That means more jobs by itself. Once the field is more mature, we'll see how the labor efficiency is.
Doesn't really matter. When you get and install solar panels, you're paying indirectly for all the energy used in making and transporting them, as well as a whole lot more. If the purchaser is making his or her money back in 1.4 years, the energy break-even point has to be a lot sooner.
It seems you are experiencing cognitive dissonance.
Nope. I'm fine, thank you.
You have been programed to equate Trump with Hitler,
Nope. I know enough history to draw my own parallels without somebody having to instill them in me. The big differences are that Hitler was a lot more competent than Trump, and the US is far more resilient than the Weimar Republic.
now something happened to conflict with that belief
C'mon, so he got a good adviser. Trump's not competent enough to make sure all his advisers are incompetent lackies.
just maybe, he's not Hitler.
Hitler was intelligent and had impulse control. He was also much better at inspiring loyalty in people who were actually competent.
Maybe he actually has some good ideas
Considering how many random ideas he has, some are going to be good by pure chance.
is actively trying to make America great.
It would be more convincing if he acknowledged what's actually great about the country first, and tried not to mess that up.
He's done more in 7 days than most presidents have in 8 years.
Yup, the rate at which he's committing illegal acts is very impressive.
"Musk and Trump"? Trump is primarily known for self-promotion, being a reality show star, big buildings, and stiffing his small contractors. Musk is primarily known for creating an efficient electronic payment system, a much more efficient way of putting stuff into orbit, a company making really good electric cars, and more recently his battery initiatives. I have a sneaking suspicion who's made more significant contributions to humanity.
Actually, you'd know that democracy is Greek for rule (ocracy) by the people (demos), and Republic is from the Roman Res Publica ("public thing"). Since then, the meaning of "democracy" has remained pretty much the same, but "Republic" mostly means a government without a hereditary monarch, which was a revolutionary concept when the US Constitution was written. The UK is a democracy but not a republic, and the old Soviet Socialist Republics were republics but not democracies. Personally, I'm much more interested in the "democracy" part of it.
Bill Clinton literally wielded us military might to protect himself from impeachment and bad press
In other words, the Army occupied the Senate chamber and media buildings? That's what you're saying. If you're saying that Clinton took some military action against enemies of the US, you really do need to show us why that was a bad idea.
If you read Federalist Paper 68 (IIRC), you'll find that the Electoral College was intended to keep people like Trump from becoming President. Add its failure there to the lack of necessity to give more political power to slave states, and you see the EC has outlived its usefulness.
The argument is that it's too hard for someone to get a free ID when the state shuts down offices in heavily Democratic areas that would issue the IDs. I'm not inherently against voter ID, but every proposal I've seen has had some sort of attachment about deliberately making it difficult for the wrong voters to vote.
Yes, they interfered. Releasing selected facts on a schedule that interferes with the election campaign is interference. You have a very narrow view of what it means to interfere.
I read about things. Voting machines being few and defective in Democratic areas. Voter ID laws combined with closing offices that issue licenses in heavily Democratic areas. Illegals and dead people do not vote in significant amounts. This is the sort of fraud that would be easy to find lots of examples of it it were going on, and we haven't seen them.
I notice that the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" has over-extended their reach into opinions on climate science, I just dismiss their standing on the matter. They are not climate scientists.
Fair enough, but it does explain why they moved the doomsday clock where they did. Feel free to disagree with their reasoning and conclusions, but acknowledge that they do have reasoning and conclusions.
Really? Warmer huh? The TRUTH is that in the 60's and 70's we though it was going to get COLDER.
That was one theory, yes. There were others. Read the Wikipedia article you cited, why don't you? It supports what I was saying.
just like we think we understand it today.
A lot of this depends on what we do. After the hypothesizing about global cooling, we reduced the amount of particulates going into the atmosphere, and hence reduced the chance of global cooling. Moreover, we've gathered far more data about how global climate works, and we have tremendously increased computational resources. It's not like science has taken the last forty years off.
As far as the threat of nuclear war goes, MAD was coming into effect (the first Polaris-armed missile subs were out there), and there were strong reasons not to use nukes. It was definitely a crisis, and I have vivid and unpleasant memories of it, but not near-certain doom. Nowadays, there are nuclear powers that are not particularly rational in their governance, and I'm not sure Western and Russian nuclear arsenals will dissuade them. It's a different kind of threat.
As an aside, Nostradamus wrote a quatrain about the "great bird of fire" in a South Asian war in July 1999. That Spring, it was looking fairly likely. Fortunately, India and Pakistan found ways to stand down.
If China invades Taiwan, what would we do? Start a war over it? NATO is pretty irrelevant in the South China Sea. That's the one serious aggressive action I can see China doing (although they'll doubtless continue with minor aggressions). In a war between China and the US, both parties would be worse off after the war.
Slashdot Mirror
People of similar political persuasion get together and try to move the country in the direction they like, the HORROR!
A minority feels neglected. According to everything I've been reading in order to understand these people, they're pigheaded assholes, but eventually I might find something favorable to them. They received a massive insanity check and voted for Trump, of all people, someone with no track record for honesty or concern for anyone besides other billionaires, who's known for stiffing the little guy.
If you're looking for tantrums, look at the reaction to an incredibly peaceful march of something like three million people in various cities. Trump was not happy. There's a meme on Facebook where they show some female soldiers, pretend for no obvious reason that it's only possible to respect either the marchers or the soldiers, not both, and complain about their words and actions in highly nonspecific terms that look awfully similar to each other.
Travel with valid passports and visas is not traditionally risky, at least not among civilized countries. Many fields of endeavor rely on it. If the US suddenly becomes a capricious country with no respect to the rule of law, there will be consequences that will hurt the US badly.
There's no way a scientific conference should be held in the US now, since anyone from another country presenting a paper and trying to enter with proper documentation can, according to Trump, be arbitrarily barred. A whole lot of travel is for business, and so people in the US will become out of touch with people they need to deal with.
Obama issued fewer executive orders than anyone since Grover Cleveland. If you want to make that since Herbert Hoover, fine.
Executive orders cannot legally be about more than how to interpret and execute powers allotted to the President by the Constitution and Congress.
Except that Trump is apparently issuing illegal executive orders, way overstepping his authorization from Congress. Any law enforcement agent (including the President) is going to have limited resources, and has to make hard decisions on what to concentrate on enforcing. As a general rule, being more lenient than the strict letter of the law is legal, but being stricter isn't. Heck, the President can pardon people who have been convicted of crimes, but can't convict them himself.
Non-citizens with valid visas have a right to enter. If a country doesn't want a foreigner to enter, don't issue a visa. It's that simple. Arbitrarily stopping visa holders at the border is probably illegal.
Obama did not issue a similar executive order. Obama put restrictions on processing visas, and his executive order did not affect anyone who had a visa.
Trump's order would result in not letting green card holders into the US, shipping them back somewhere. It's true that foreigners in general have no right to enter a country, but we're talking about people who we've given a legal right to enter already.
Trump has undoubtedly already committed sufficiently many unconstitutional acts to support an impeachment, and lots of Republicans are unhappy with him. The Democrats have not in recent memory advocated policy's as stupid as Trump's, and have not fielded a worse candidate.
Looking at all the comments following this, you are apparently wrong. If fewer people are killed, then, it must be a loss for you to be wrong. Clearly, then, acording to the reasoning of Slashdot, we should strive for larger numbers of fatal traffic accidents.
In a group of people who aren't computer security professionals, somebody's going to open the document, or at least, you have to figure someone will. The exact person doesn't matter. If your computer system is such that opening a document can encrypt the storage, somebody's screwed up the system very thoroughly.
The current models for quantum mechanics are not rough approximations. They're astonishingly exact models. If history is any indicator, what we'll see is what we expect. Quantum mechanics is very frustrating that way: without some success at getting results that don't follow the model, there's no good way to improve the model.
Solar is growing a lot faster than fossil fuel power generation. That means more jobs by itself. Once the field is more mature, we'll see how the labor efficiency is.
Doesn't really matter. When you get and install solar panels, you're paying indirectly for all the energy used in making and transporting them, as well as a whole lot more. If the purchaser is making his or her money back in 1.4 years, the energy break-even point has to be a lot sooner.
Trump has referred to his "enemies", which apparently include everyone who politically disagrees with him. That's about as divisive as it comes.
Nope. I'm fine, thank you.
Nope. I know enough history to draw my own parallels without somebody having to instill them in me. The big differences are that Hitler was a lot more competent than Trump, and the US is far more resilient than the Weimar Republic.
C'mon, so he got a good adviser. Trump's not competent enough to make sure all his advisers are incompetent lackies.
Hitler was intelligent and had impulse control. He was also much better at inspiring loyalty in people who were actually competent.
Considering how many random ideas he has, some are going to be good by pure chance.
It would be more convincing if he acknowledged what's actually great about the country first, and tried not to mess that up.
Yup, the rate at which he's committing illegal acts is very impressive.
"Musk and Trump"? Trump is primarily known for self-promotion, being a reality show star, big buildings, and stiffing his small contractors. Musk is primarily known for creating an efficient electronic payment system, a much more efficient way of putting stuff into orbit, a company making really good electric cars, and more recently his battery initiatives. I have a sneaking suspicion who's made more significant contributions to humanity.
She ordered her staff to turn over all official communications and wipe the rest. They did a bad job of it.
The bottom line is that I am NEVER going to accept a recommendation for an IT guy from Hillary Clinton.
Actually, you'd know that democracy is Greek for rule (ocracy) by the people (demos), and Republic is from the Roman Res Publica ("public thing"). Since then, the meaning of "democracy" has remained pretty much the same, but "Republic" mostly means a government without a hereditary monarch, which was a revolutionary concept when the US Constitution was written. The UK is a democracy but not a republic, and the old Soviet Socialist Republics were republics but not democracies. Personally, I'm much more interested in the "democracy" part of it.
In other words, the Army occupied the Senate chamber and media buildings? That's what you're saying. If you're saying that Clinton took some military action against enemies of the US, you really do need to show us why that was a bad idea.
If you read Federalist Paper 68 (IIRC), you'll find that the Electoral College was intended to keep people like Trump from becoming President. Add its failure there to the lack of necessity to give more political power to slave states, and you see the EC has outlived its usefulness.
The argument is that it's too hard for someone to get a free ID when the state shuts down offices in heavily Democratic areas that would issue the IDs. I'm not inherently against voter ID, but every proposal I've seen has had some sort of attachment about deliberately making it difficult for the wrong voters to vote.
Yes, they interfered. Releasing selected facts on a schedule that interferes with the election campaign is interference. You have a very narrow view of what it means to interfere.
I read about things. Voting machines being few and defective in Democratic areas. Voter ID laws combined with closing offices that issue licenses in heavily Democratic areas. Illegals and dead people do not vote in significant amounts. This is the sort of fraud that would be easy to find lots of examples of it it were going on, and we haven't seen them.
Read some real news sometime.
Fair enough, but it does explain why they moved the doomsday clock where they did. Feel free to disagree with their reasoning and conclusions, but acknowledge that they do have reasoning and conclusions.
That was one theory, yes. There were others. Read the Wikipedia article you cited, why don't you? It supports what I was saying.
A lot of this depends on what we do. After the hypothesizing about global cooling, we reduced the amount of particulates going into the atmosphere, and hence reduced the chance of global cooling. Moreover, we've gathered far more data about how global climate works, and we have tremendously increased computational resources. It's not like science has taken the last forty years off.
As far as the threat of nuclear war goes, MAD was coming into effect (the first Polaris-armed missile subs were out there), and there were strong reasons not to use nukes. It was definitely a crisis, and I have vivid and unpleasant memories of it, but not near-certain doom. Nowadays, there are nuclear powers that are not particularly rational in their governance, and I'm not sure Western and Russian nuclear arsenals will dissuade them. It's a different kind of threat.
As an aside, Nostradamus wrote a quatrain about the "great bird of fire" in a South Asian war in July 1999. That Spring, it was looking fairly likely. Fortunately, India and Pakistan found ways to stand down.
If China invades Taiwan, what would we do? Start a war over it? NATO is pretty irrelevant in the South China Sea. That's the one serious aggressive action I can see China doing (although they'll doubtless continue with minor aggressions). In a war between China and the US, both parties would be worse off after the war.
Thus demonstrating that people of importance can afford the better recreational pharmaceuticals.