You can talk about "externalities" all you like but once people know about an "externality" it gets internalized.
Internalization isn't magic. Not only do we have to know about an externality, we have to come up with a cost for it and a way of collecting it. Otherwise, we get business types continuing to do what's cheap for them and expensive for the rest of the world.
He was very deliberate and circumspect about what was released and how.
Are you kidding? Snowden took the same shotgun approach that Manning did. He leaked stuff that we really did need to know about, and a whole lot else that damaged US intelligence capabilities that we didn't need to know. Had he leaked only the former, I'd whole-heartedly want him pardoned.
There's a difference between Snowden and Clinton. It's very clear that Snowden violated the law big-time, while there's no good evidence that Clinton did anything that warrants criminal prosecution.
When I looked at it, and I didn't look at everything by far, I kept not seeing egregious violations of constitutional law. I kept seeing things that weren't quite violations of the Fourth and Fifth if you accepted certain more-or-less reasonable arguments. For example, does it count as search if my phone conversations are recorded, but not used in any way without a warrant? That's not clearly unconstitutional.
She's not getting away with anything I would be prosecuted for. Seriously. Have you looked at what has happened to people negligent with classified information? They may lose their job or their clearance, but they aren't prosecuted. Comey wasn't going easy on Clinton when he recommended no prosecution; he was just acknowledging reality.
Look, I talk about "Michelle For President" only to annoy right-wingers. She's a class act, but that's not qualifications for the Presidency. Hillary Clinton has had a pretty successful political career by herself.
Your mind was made up before this investigation started.
My mind was made up after the investigations. Comey didn't want her elected, or he wouldn't have made his last-minute announcement. He wants Clinton taken down. He simply didn't find the evidence, because it doesn't actually exist.
You seem to have your mind made up, and well shielded from the actual facts.
While those security violations legally don't require intent, in fact nobody's ever been criminally prosecuted for being negligent with classified material, as far as I can find. I suspect anyone who wants Clinton to be the first of having political reasons not related to justice.
Snowden broke the law big-time. The reasons aren't necessarily important. If I kill someone, the only acceptable excuse is defense (last I looked, my state allowed me to kill someone if it's the only way to prevent grievous bodily harm, not necessarily my own), and "he needed killing" isn't a defense no matter how much the guy needed killing. That's what pardons are for.
My personal opinion is that he did some things that are laudable and some that aren't. I have very mixed feelings about pardoning him.
Bill Clinton was a good President, although I'm not going to say he is a good human being. Hillary Clinton has flaws, but would have been a good President.
However, there's lots of idiots who think that the Clintons are bad, and therefore any stupid accusation has to be true. Benghazi, for example. The Republicans put a lot of effort and money into trying to find something she did wrong, and failed. However, a lot of people still refer to it as if it was Hillary's personal failure. There's lots of morons who think people who are negligent with classified information have ever faced criminal prosecution.
For pretty much any moral failing Hillary Clinton has, I can point to a bigger one on Trump's part.
Math can't be racist, but racists can use math for racist purposes. Using demographic data damn well can be racist, depending on what data you're using and why. So, as far as facts go, you have one wrong and one that you use to imply something wrong. I'm not impressed.
If I were an agent in another country, I'd rather not rely on the discretion of a consortium of news agencies for my continued existence, or for that matter their competence in figuring out what information wouldn't compromise me.
I'm all in favor of Snowden's exposure of NSA activities in the US. That wasn't all he revealed. The NSA has a legitimate role in other countries (well, legitimate according to US laws and interests, which is what matters here), and Snowden released a lot of information on them.
He broke the law big-time, doing things that were laudable and things that were bad. It's not a simple situation.
How many pounds of feed go into one pound of beef? If ten pounds of corn are needed to produce one ton of beef, a ratio I've seen tossed around, then one pound of corn-fed beef takes 1080 gallons for the cow food.
I'm not arguing with you, and find you reasonable. However, we then get into the question of what's physics and what's something else. I don't know of any physical way to account to reports like yours.
render most states impotent in presidential elections
That's exactly what the Electoral College does. If a state is not a swing state, it doesn't matter.
cause a tyranny of the majority
It causes a tyranny of the minority, which I believe is worse.
The intention of the Electoral College is completely irrelevant, and has been for more than two centuries. It was abandoned less than fifteen years after it started, and has not been reinstated. If the EC acted according to the initial intention, there's no way Trump would be elected.
It has nothing to do with memory. If the chances of being hit by a really big rock in a given year is one in fifty million, then it was that probability the year before the K/T, it was that probability in the year of the K/T, and it was that probability the year after. It's conceivable that the events could be bunched, with large rocks from the same event, but that does introduce memory, and means that the odds of being hit when we haven't
been in a million years are a touch lower.
If this is the case, the chance that we'll get hit in the next thousand years is fairly close to one in fifty thousand. That is a small chance. It's the same chance as any other thousand years you care to name, which is a small chance.
I have no idea what you are trying to argue, since you made a false assumption about my arguments. Are you trying to tell me it's fairly likely that we'll get a major natural disaster over the next thousand years?
Nope. We can put upper bounds on the likely probability of natural disasters. It's extremely unlikely, for example, that on the average Earth should be hit by a K/T-type hit every year. I don't know what the observed probability is, but let's say once in every fifty million years.
That means that the probability that we'll get hit by one in the next thousand years is about one in fifty thousand. However, if you wait around for fifty thousand millennia, the probability of at least one such strike goes up to a little over sixty percent (there is a good chance of more than one strike in that period).
We can't know that it isn't going to happen this century, but we can know it's extremely unlikely. The K/T strike was indeed that unlikely, but unlikely things do happen on rare occasions.
That, fundamentally, is how statistics work. You look at events to determine the probability of something happening. You can't tell the probability for sure, of course, but you can come close with high confidence. Once you have an estimate of the probability, you can use that to figure how likely that event will occur in a certain period.
If you roll four fair six-sided dice, you will roll a 24 something less than one time in a thousand. Given that probability, we can figure how likely it is over any given number of rolls. We can't be sure you won't start rolling 24 after 24, but that's not the way to bet.
And, so, the sentence you complained about is perfectly correct. There is only a very small chance we'll be hit by an extinction event we don't do ourselves over the next thousand years.
If we're creating these wormholes ourselves, then we have problems with special relativity. If we can open up a wormhole to a spacetime point simultaneous within the frame of reference of our wormhole digger, and do that on the other end with a different frame of reference, we can make wormholes that go backward in time. Special relativity doesn't just say you can't go FTL in normal space. It means that, if you can go FTL sufficiently fast with respect to different reference frames, you can go back in time.
If space is simply folded in another dimension, then we might have special relativity without FTL or time travel, but with short cuts. They won't be arbitrarily useful shortcuts, and there's no guarantee they'll be close enough to anything to be useful, but they could exist.
On the other hand, if we're folding spacetime in various ways using other dimensions, I think (I'm not sure) we might well get time travel out of it anyway.
There's a lot we don't know yet. My bet is on no FTL or time travel, but then I'm the guy who predicted that web thing would never catch on.
Just historically incorrect. Let's look at the diplomatic history between Germany and the Soviet Union.
After WWI and before the Nazis took power, Germany and the Soviets were on reasonably good terms as a practical matter, as both considered themselves outcasts. Germany cooperated with the Red Army in training and doctrine. When Hitler came to power, this stopped. As Germany's power grew, Stalin became alarmed. The last thing he wanted to do was to fight Germany without western help. However, negotiations for an alliance with Britain and France were fruitless, and so he made an alliance with Germany, hoping to avoid war.
Shortly afterwards, the Red Army had its ass handed to it in Finland, and it was obvious that it needed a real restructuring. This became
even more clear with the fall of France, which showed that the current Soviet doctrine of tanks just as infantry support was wrong. Since Stalin had purged all the generals who had a clue about armored warfare, he adopted the policy of "creeping up to war". Stalin never thought of Germany as a real ally, but a power to be bought off for a while.
You can tell that because of how Soviet propaganda went. Before the alliance, the Soviets were saying bad things about Germany. During the alliance, they were saying good things. After the invasion, they went back to their prewar stance.
If you're wondering if someone whose opinions you can track was taking orders from Moscow at the time (and some were), check to see if there were swings in their opinion on Nazi Germany around the end of August 1939 and the end of June 1941.
The Soviets did not consider the Nazis as any sort of allies or fellow anything. They formed an alliance out of expedience.
Ah, given that there's plenty of scholarship on this topic, and it doesn't all agree, I'm supposed to conclude that you're right and I'm wrong? Proof by vague handwave at authority. Fifteen yard penalty, still third down.
Slashdot Mirror
Internalization isn't magic. Not only do we have to know about an externality, we have to come up with a cost for it and a way of collecting it. Otherwise, we get business types continuing to do what's cheap for them and expensive for the rest of the world.
You missed:
4.5) Accept that things are screwed up, but declare that [it's too late to do anything]/[it's politically impossible to do anything]..
I've been seeing that here and there.
Are you kidding? Snowden took the same shotgun approach that Manning did. He leaked stuff that we really did need to know about, and a whole lot else that damaged US intelligence capabilities that we didn't need to know. Had he leaked only the former, I'd whole-heartedly want him pardoned.
There's a difference between Snowden and Clinton. It's very clear that Snowden violated the law big-time, while there's no good evidence that Clinton did anything that warrants criminal prosecution.
When I looked at it, and I didn't look at everything by far, I kept not seeing egregious violations of constitutional law. I kept seeing things that weren't quite violations of the Fourth and Fifth if you accepted certain more-or-less reasonable arguments. For example, does it count as search if my phone conversations are recorded, but not used in any way without a warrant? That's not clearly unconstitutional.
She's not getting away with anything I would be prosecuted for. Seriously. Have you looked at what has happened to people negligent with classified information? They may lose their job or their clearance, but they aren't prosecuted. Comey wasn't going easy on Clinton when he recommended no prosecution; he was just acknowledging reality.
Look, I talk about "Michelle For President" only to annoy right-wingers. She's a class act, but that's not qualifications for the Presidency. Hillary Clinton has had a pretty successful political career by herself.
"nothing wrong" is an overstatement, but she's done nothing warranting criminal prosecution. So, as you say, she doesn't need a pardon.
My mind was made up after the investigations. Comey didn't want her elected, or he wouldn't have made his last-minute announcement. He wants Clinton taken down. He simply didn't find the evidence, because it doesn't actually exist.
You seem to have your mind made up, and well shielded from the actual facts.
While those security violations legally don't require intent, in fact nobody's ever been criminally prosecuted for being negligent with classified material, as far as I can find. I suspect anyone who wants Clinton to be the first of having political reasons not related to justice.
Snowden broke the law big-time. The reasons aren't necessarily important. If I kill someone, the only acceptable excuse is defense (last I looked, my state allowed me to kill someone if it's the only way to prevent grievous bodily harm, not necessarily my own), and "he needed killing" isn't a defense no matter how much the guy needed killing. That's what pardons are for.
My personal opinion is that he did some things that are laudable and some that aren't. I have very mixed feelings about pardoning him.
I really hate sore winners.
Bill Clinton was a good President, although I'm not going to say he is a good human being. Hillary Clinton has flaws, but would have been a good President.
However, there's lots of idiots who think that the Clintons are bad, and therefore any stupid accusation has to be true. Benghazi, for example. The Republicans put a lot of effort and money into trying to find something she did wrong, and failed. However, a lot of people still refer to it as if it was Hillary's personal failure. There's lots of morons who think people who are negligent with classified information have ever faced criminal prosecution.
For pretty much any moral failing Hillary Clinton has, I can point to a bigger one on Trump's part.
Math can't be racist, but racists can use math for racist purposes. Using demographic data damn well can be racist, depending on what data you're using and why. So, as far as facts go, you have one wrong and one that you use to imply something wrong. I'm not impressed.
If I were an agent in another country, I'd rather not rely on the discretion of a consortium of news agencies for my continued existence, or for that matter their competence in figuring out what information wouldn't compromise me.
I'm all in favor of Snowden's exposure of NSA activities in the US. That wasn't all he revealed. The NSA has a legitimate role in other countries (well, legitimate according to US laws and interests, which is what matters here), and Snowden released a lot of information on them.
He broke the law big-time, doing things that were laudable and things that were bad. It's not a simple situation.
What makes you think Congress had significantly better information than was available to us? Congress is not much of an investigative body.
Since my side didn't win, I'm not accepting the result of the election. The election was rigged anyway.
How many pounds of feed go into one pound of beef? If ten pounds of corn are needed to produce one ton of beef, a ratio I've seen tossed around, then one pound of corn-fed beef takes 1080 gallons for the cow food.
And the fact that negligence with classified information is never prosecuted as a criminal act. Never.
I'm not arguing with you, and find you reasonable. However, we then get into the question of what's physics and what's something else. I don't know of any physical way to account to reports like yours.
It has nothing to do with memory. If the chances of being hit by a really big rock in a given year is one in fifty million, then it was that probability the year before the K/T, it was that probability in the year of the K/T, and it was that probability the year after. It's conceivable that the events could be bunched, with large rocks from the same event, but that does introduce memory, and means that the odds of being hit when we haven't been in a million years are a touch lower.
If this is the case, the chance that we'll get hit in the next thousand years is fairly close to one in fifty thousand. That is a small chance. It's the same chance as any other thousand years you care to name, which is a small chance.
I have no idea what you are trying to argue, since you made a false assumption about my arguments. Are you trying to tell me it's fairly likely that we'll get a major natural disaster over the next thousand years?
Nope. We can put upper bounds on the likely probability of natural disasters. It's extremely unlikely, for example, that on the average Earth should be hit by a K/T-type hit every year. I don't know what the observed probability is, but let's say once in every fifty million years.
That means that the probability that we'll get hit by one in the next thousand years is about one in fifty thousand. However, if you wait around for fifty thousand millennia, the probability of at least one such strike goes up to a little over sixty percent (there is a good chance of more than one strike in that period).
We can't know that it isn't going to happen this century, but we can know it's extremely unlikely. The K/T strike was indeed that unlikely, but unlikely things do happen on rare occasions.
That, fundamentally, is how statistics work. You look at events to determine the probability of something happening. You can't tell the probability for sure, of course, but you can come close with high confidence. Once you have an estimate of the probability, you can use that to figure how likely that event will occur in a certain period.
If you roll four fair six-sided dice, you will roll a 24 something less than one time in a thousand. Given that probability, we can figure how likely it is over any given number of rolls. We can't be sure you won't start rolling 24 after 24, but that's not the way to bet.
And, so, the sentence you complained about is perfectly correct. There is only a very small chance we'll be hit by an extinction event we don't do ourselves over the next thousand years.
If we're creating these wormholes ourselves, then we have problems with special relativity. If we can open up a wormhole to a spacetime point simultaneous within the frame of reference of our wormhole digger, and do that on the other end with a different frame of reference, we can make wormholes that go backward in time. Special relativity doesn't just say you can't go FTL in normal space. It means that, if you can go FTL sufficiently fast with respect to different reference frames, you can go back in time.
If space is simply folded in another dimension, then we might have special relativity without FTL or time travel, but with short cuts. They won't be arbitrarily useful shortcuts, and there's no guarantee they'll be close enough to anything to be useful, but they could exist.
On the other hand, if we're folding spacetime in various ways using other dimensions, I think (I'm not sure) we might well get time travel out of it anyway.
There's a lot we don't know yet. My bet is on no FTL or time travel, but then I'm the guy who predicted that web thing would never catch on.
Just historically incorrect. Let's look at the diplomatic history between Germany and the Soviet Union.
After WWI and before the Nazis took power, Germany and the Soviets were on reasonably good terms as a practical matter, as both considered themselves outcasts. Germany cooperated with the Red Army in training and doctrine. When Hitler came to power, this stopped. As Germany's power grew, Stalin became alarmed. The last thing he wanted to do was to fight Germany without western help. However, negotiations for an alliance with Britain and France were fruitless, and so he made an alliance with Germany, hoping to avoid war.
Shortly afterwards, the Red Army had its ass handed to it in Finland, and it was obvious that it needed a real restructuring. This became even more clear with the fall of France, which showed that the current Soviet doctrine of tanks just as infantry support was wrong. Since Stalin had purged all the generals who had a clue about armored warfare, he adopted the policy of "creeping up to war". Stalin never thought of Germany as a real ally, but a power to be bought off for a while.
You can tell that because of how Soviet propaganda went. Before the alliance, the Soviets were saying bad things about Germany. During the alliance, they were saying good things. After the invasion, they went back to their prewar stance.
If you're wondering if someone whose opinions you can track was taking orders from Moscow at the time (and some were), check to see if there were swings in their opinion on Nazi Germany around the end of August 1939 and the end of June 1941.
The Soviets did not consider the Nazis as any sort of allies or fellow anything. They formed an alliance out of expedience.
Ah, given that there's plenty of scholarship on this topic, and it doesn't all agree, I'm supposed to conclude that you're right and I'm wrong? Proof by vague handwave at authority. Fifteen yard penalty, still third down.