Women, on the average, make less than men. This is a gender pay gap, and there are reasons for it. Some of the important reasons have nothing to do with direct discrimination against women.
That conflicts with my experience. The anger I've seen directed at immigrants has been primarily against legal ones (although that may well vary by region). There's similar antagonism over sending jobs abroad, and that's perfectly legal.
Random errors (including imprecise measurements) average out. Systemic errors are caused by something, and anyone claiming systemic errors needs to provide at least a clue as to what could be causing them.
That's not exactly what AC said. I assure you that it will almost certainly be more than 20C warmer in six months where I live. Six months after that, it'll be something like this temperature or probably colder.
Trump called on Russia to release illegally obtained information on Clinton during his campaign. Trump's policies are definitely pro-Russian. There's a few other things. It isn't all that much in the way of evidence, but it's not like Trump's providing us with enough information to figure it out. It's at least a reasonable line of investigation.
The forming Soviet Union attacked Poland, and Poland fought back. The USSR-Polish border was basically where the fighting stopped, after the Red Army got to the gates of Warsaw and was dramatically repulsed. That war wasn't Poland's idea.
I think Polish diplomacy in the 1930s was stupid and partly evil, but they did not have what happened to them in WWII coming. Do you realize what happened to Poland?
There were a whole lot of lies going on about Clinton and Trump both. Some days it seemed that a quarter of Snopes.com's front page stories were debunking things said about Clinton and another quarter debunking things said about Trump.
The difference was that nobody seemed to care about Trump's lies or anything negative said about Trump.
They've been saying foreigners staying at a Trump hotel are giving him emoluments, when no, that is a fee for service.
Read the clause. It says the President may not accept emoluments from foreign governments, not individual foreigners. Plantation-owning Presidents were fine provided they sold their produce to individuals rather than governments (there's another emoluments clause in Article Two that forbids the President from accepting emoluments from governments in the US).
Personally, I expect Trump to be violating those clauses early and often. Unfortunately, the only way to call him on it appears to be impeachment, which is necessarily a political rather than a judicial process. The result will be that Trump can be impeached, convicted, and removed from office whenever a majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate want to.
The problem is not the parties. They're a result of the sort of elections the US runs, and the method of choosing the candidates doesn't really matter. The problem is the plurality system. One way to encourage third parties would be ranked-choice voting, and another would be to provide proportional party representation. It looks to me like this could be done by states: instead of congressional districts, have parties in the state submit slates, have people vote for parties, and assign seats accordingly. (The Constitution requires that representatives are to be selected as the state legislature determines.) I'd like to see third-party votes become more meaningful.
Clinton's email server was perfectly legal. Approximately nobody cares what Clinton or anyone attributed the attack to, and the video was involved in other unrest. The attack may have used the unrest as a cover; I'm not all that familiar with the details. People believed that Clinton was more directly behind the killings, which wasn't true.
It looks to me like Clinton lost to the Republicans, the Russians, and the FBI together. I consider that subversion of our democracy.
Please name one person who was prosecuted for accidental classified leakage (and I'm not counting the guy who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor but didn't have to in the end, since he wasn't actually prosecuted). I haven't found one. Every time someone has given me a name or enough information to identify the person, either they deliberately mishandled classified material or they were not prosecuted. Comey was correct: people who did what Clinton did are not criminally prosecuted, and it would have been a deliberate political act to make her the first.
As an employer, why would I want to hire someone with a criminal record? If that person does hurt someone else while working for me, I'm likely to be sued for providing an unsafe work environment by deliberately hiring someone with a criminal record. It's safer to reject the applicant and hope none of the crimes we're forcing him to commit just to survive have an impact on me.
If I couldn't know if there's a criminal record when making the hiring decision, or if I were confident of not being liable if something goes wrong with such a hire, I'd be much more interested in hiring someone with a record.
You probably wouldn't notice me as being ASD or depressive. Lots of us are quite adept at looking normal. I'm being open with it because it's unlikely to hurt me (not any worse than it has already; I've already been denied insurance).
People depend on stuff I've written for safety purposes. They haven't regretted it.
You're talking biology here, not gender. There are various social and cultural roles, which are highly correlated with biological sex. They are not the same thing. I'm a father. I can't be a mother. This does not determine how I dress or how I wish to be addressed.
There have been illegal renditions from Sweden. I'm aware of two individuals. It isn't clear to me that Sweden would allow that to happen again. However, my point is that Assange was apparently not worried about it when he went to Sweden.
The extradition request for Assange was considered legitimate by Interpol and the UK court system. Extradition treaties almost always (perhaps always) specify that the alleged acts committed have to be a serious crime in both countries. The rape accusation is therefore a legitimate accusation under UK law, although of course the terminology might be different. (My state has no laws against rape by that name. There are laws making criminal sexual conduct criminal, which cover what other jurisdictions call rape.)
Yes. I don't know that there's enough evidence to be worth prosecuting under any circumstances. However, that's the one thing it appears to me that Assange might have done against US law.
In my experience, Assange supporters tend to believe things on flimsy grounds and their speculations are highly unreliable. Assange has to face trial in Sweden. I don't know whether he will be convicted or not, since I really don't know that much about the case. He is clearly a fugitive from UK justice, and I suspect the UK will want him back for that.
And, since the US did extraordinary rendition on two people in Sweden (which caused a political ruckus there), the US can be counted on to do the same to any random Australian who might have annoyed them? If so, why the heck did Assange move to Sweden in the first place? When leaving Sweden, why did he go to the UK, since anyone fearing extradition to the US should avoid the UK like hot lava? That was back when he was still halfway relevant.
Right. If he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy and the UK authorities ship him to the US, or if Sweden sends him to the US, or if angels descend from on high and testify for him, I'll believe this isn't just a rape case. All three are hypothetical, and they all look to me like less than 1% probability.
I believe that, if Assange walks out of the embassy, the UK police will arrest him and that he will then face criminal charges from both the UK and Sweden. I don't know how the Swedish trial will go, but he's definitely a criminal in the UK. I don't think the US will be involved at all. I haven't seen any good evidence to think otherwise.
Considering how strange it was for things to escalate on an issue that isn't even a crime in the UK
Nope. You're wrong from the beginning here. To be extradited, Assange had to be accused of an act that is criminal both in Sweden and the UK, and the UK courts considered that. If you were right, the first court Assange appealed the request to would have tossed it out. His alleged actions would have been crimes if committed in the UK.
You should remember that he has not actually been charged
You should remember that this is Swedish law, which is significantly different from UK and US law. I'm mostly ignorant of the differences, but I don't assume I know Swedish law. What happened is that both Interpol and the UK considered it a valid extradition request, regardless of what the internal Swedish procedures were.
In other words, Snowden deliberately passed on documents relating to non-domestic surveillance to someone not cleared for them, and hoped that person would do the necessary filtering. I figure it was his responsibility to make sure only the relevant documents got out in the first place.
After my heart attack, I was told to eat better, exercise more, and, here, take these drugs. My cardiologist told me that, whatever my cholesterol level was, it's now officially too high. Admittedly, taking the drugs is the easiest of those three, but I can't imagine being told just to take them without any lifestyle changes.
But still, unless it is buggy all the intelligence in the system was engineered by the programmers; a "self-learning" algorithm only learns what it was engineered to learn, and what it learned accidentally due to bugs
We're perfectly capable of making systems we can't really understand, or which develop uses we hadn't thought of earlier. Lots of software does things that the developers didn't have in mind when they wrote it. We can't understand the internal values in a complex artificial neural net; all we know is how we arrived at them and what they appear to do.
Artificial neural nets are limited by their base complexity and by their inputs. Make one complex enough and give it enough input and you might well get general intelligence, although I doubt it's that simple.
Slashdot Mirror
Women, on the average, make less than men. This is a gender pay gap, and there are reasons for it. Some of the important reasons have nothing to do with direct discrimination against women.
That conflicts with my experience. The anger I've seen directed at immigrants has been primarily against legal ones (although that may well vary by region). There's similar antagonism over sending jobs abroad, and that's perfectly legal.
And you contend that organizations never change in 150 years? Or 100 years (Democrats pushed civil rights legislation through shortly before 1966).
Random errors (including imprecise measurements) average out. Systemic errors are caused by something, and anyone claiming systemic errors needs to provide at least a clue as to what could be causing them.
That's not exactly what AC said. I assure you that it will almost certainly be more than 20C warmer in six months where I live. Six months after that, it'll be something like this temperature or probably colder.
Or, tl/dr: Whoosh!
Trump called on Russia to release illegally obtained information on Clinton during his campaign. Trump's policies are definitely pro-Russian. There's a few other things. It isn't all that much in the way of evidence, but it's not like Trump's providing us with enough information to figure it out. It's at least a reasonable line of investigation.
The forming Soviet Union attacked Poland, and Poland fought back. The USSR-Polish border was basically where the fighting stopped, after the Red Army got to the gates of Warsaw and was dramatically repulsed. That war wasn't Poland's idea.
I think Polish diplomacy in the 1930s was stupid and partly evil, but they did not have what happened to them in WWII coming. Do you realize what happened to Poland?
I await a coherent rational explanation as to why tyranny of the minority is better than tyranny of the majority.
There were a whole lot of lies going on about Clinton and Trump both. Some days it seemed that a quarter of Snopes.com's front page stories were debunking things said about Clinton and another quarter debunking things said about Trump.
The difference was that nobody seemed to care about Trump's lies or anything negative said about Trump.
Read the clause. It says the President may not accept emoluments from foreign governments, not individual foreigners. Plantation-owning Presidents were fine provided they sold their produce to individuals rather than governments (there's another emoluments clause in Article Two that forbids the President from accepting emoluments from governments in the US).
Personally, I expect Trump to be violating those clauses early and often. Unfortunately, the only way to call him on it appears to be impeachment, which is necessarily a political rather than a judicial process. The result will be that Trump can be impeached, convicted, and removed from office whenever a majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate want to.
The problem is not the parties. They're a result of the sort of elections the US runs, and the method of choosing the candidates doesn't really matter. The problem is the plurality system. One way to encourage third parties would be ranked-choice voting, and another would be to provide proportional party representation. It looks to me like this could be done by states: instead of congressional districts, have parties in the state submit slates, have people vote for parties, and assign seats accordingly. (The Constitution requires that representatives are to be selected as the state legislature determines.) I'd like to see third-party votes become more meaningful.
Clinton's email server was perfectly legal. Approximately nobody cares what Clinton or anyone attributed the attack to, and the video was involved in other unrest. The attack may have used the unrest as a cover; I'm not all that familiar with the details. People believed that Clinton was more directly behind the killings, which wasn't true.
It looks to me like Clinton lost to the Republicans, the Russians, and the FBI together. I consider that subversion of our democracy.
Please name one person who was prosecuted for accidental classified leakage (and I'm not counting the guy who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor but didn't have to in the end, since he wasn't actually prosecuted). I haven't found one. Every time someone has given me a name or enough information to identify the person, either they deliberately mishandled classified material or they were not prosecuted. Comey was correct: people who did what Clinton did are not criminally prosecuted, and it would have been a deliberate political act to make her the first.
As an employer, why would I want to hire someone with a criminal record? If that person does hurt someone else while working for me, I'm likely to be sued for providing an unsafe work environment by deliberately hiring someone with a criminal record. It's safer to reject the applicant and hope none of the crimes we're forcing him to commit just to survive have an impact on me.
If I couldn't know if there's a criminal record when making the hiring decision, or if I were confident of not being liable if something goes wrong with such a hire, I'd be much more interested in hiring someone with a record.
You probably wouldn't notice me as being ASD or depressive. Lots of us are quite adept at looking normal. I'm being open with it because it's unlikely to hurt me (not any worse than it has already; I've already been denied insurance).
People depend on stuff I've written for safety purposes. They haven't regretted it.
You're talking biology here, not gender. There are various social and cultural roles, which are highly correlated with biological sex. They are not the same thing. I'm a father. I can't be a mother. This does not determine how I dress or how I wish to be addressed.
There have been illegal renditions from Sweden. I'm aware of two individuals. It isn't clear to me that Sweden would allow that to happen again. However, my point is that Assange was apparently not worried about it when he went to Sweden.
The extradition request for Assange was considered legitimate by Interpol and the UK court system. Extradition treaties almost always (perhaps always) specify that the alleged acts committed have to be a serious crime in both countries. The rape accusation is therefore a legitimate accusation under UK law, although of course the terminology might be different. (My state has no laws against rape by that name. There are laws making criminal sexual conduct criminal, which cover what other jurisdictions call rape.)
Yes. I don't know that there's enough evidence to be worth prosecuting under any circumstances. However, that's the one thing it appears to me that Assange might have done against US law.
In my experience, Assange supporters tend to believe things on flimsy grounds and their speculations are highly unreliable. Assange has to face trial in Sweden. I don't know whether he will be convicted or not, since I really don't know that much about the case. He is clearly a fugitive from UK justice, and I suspect the UK will want him back for that.
And, since the US did extraordinary rendition on two people in Sweden (which caused a political ruckus there), the US can be counted on to do the same to any random Australian who might have annoyed them? If so, why the heck did Assange move to Sweden in the first place? When leaving Sweden, why did he go to the UK, since anyone fearing extradition to the US should avoid the UK like hot lava? That was back when he was still halfway relevant.
Right. If he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy and the UK authorities ship him to the US, or if Sweden sends him to the US, or if angels descend from on high and testify for him, I'll believe this isn't just a rape case. All three are hypothetical, and they all look to me like less than 1% probability.
I believe that, if Assange walks out of the embassy, the UK police will arrest him and that he will then face criminal charges from both the UK and Sweden. I don't know how the Swedish trial will go, but he's definitely a criminal in the UK. I don't think the US will be involved at all. I haven't seen any good evidence to think otherwise.
Nope. You're wrong from the beginning here. To be extradited, Assange had to be accused of an act that is criminal both in Sweden and the UK, and the UK courts considered that. If you were right, the first court Assange appealed the request to would have tossed it out. His alleged actions would have been crimes if committed in the UK.
You should remember that this is Swedish law, which is significantly different from UK and US law. I'm mostly ignorant of the differences, but I don't assume I know Swedish law. What happened is that both Interpol and the UK considered it a valid extradition request, regardless of what the internal Swedish procedures were.
In other words, Snowden deliberately passed on documents relating to non-domestic surveillance to someone not cleared for them, and hoped that person would do the necessary filtering. I figure it was his responsibility to make sure only the relevant documents got out in the first place.
After my heart attack, I was told to eat better, exercise more, and, here, take these drugs. My cardiologist told me that, whatever my cholesterol level was, it's now officially too high. Admittedly, taking the drugs is the easiest of those three, but I can't imagine being told just to take them without any lifestyle changes.
We're perfectly capable of making systems we can't really understand, or which develop uses we hadn't thought of earlier. Lots of software does things that the developers didn't have in mind when they wrote it. We can't understand the internal values in a complex artificial neural net; all we know is how we arrived at them and what they appear to do.
Artificial neural nets are limited by their base complexity and by their inputs. Make one complex enough and give it enough input and you might well get general intelligence, although I doubt it's that simple.