Clinton came out against the TPP when she saw what it had become. I wrote to my Senators, and one of them told me that it might come up after the election, so it appears there was no great support for it. I do appreciate Trump being against it.
You are talking about a lot of people who have it bad off. The system has failed them, and they have a lot of legitimate complaints. Trump knew the right things to say to motivate them. Trump's also a world-class liar, and has been demonstrating that by backpedaling on promises with the election a week old.
The unfortunate thing is that those people will be in no better a situation in 2020, since nobody that was elected cares about them, except for many of their own representatives in Congress, and they were insufficient to help up to now. They're blaming the wrong people.for what's happening to them, and elected an entrenched member of the establishment to help fight it. This isn't going to end well.
What we need is for the straight white guy and the black Muslim lesbian to be able to work together for things they want in common. Neither party has been at all helpful with that.
Improvements in medical technology made my life a LOT better. I probably wouldn't be here, annoying people with odd ideas, if it wasn't for that. So, I suppose, if you want to argue that it didn't make your life better, you could.
FWIW, I know a guy who thinks everything has gone downhill from hunter-gatherer societies. I'm getting to be a fossil, but I'm not quite old enough to remember how it was back in the Paleolithic.
Before the internet, we had overly trusted news sources. Have you ever been behind the scenes of something the media reported on big-time? That would destroy your faith in the old news sources. (Except, of course, that people kept believing the media because they had no other source of information.) Verifying anything the media reported on required a good deal of work, and likely travel. I'm saying that the Internet improved news for the most part.
Free and Open Source software are, in practice, almost exactly the same thing. The difference is that Free Software is a political and social movement, while Open Source is a way of getting software written. You seem to think that copyleft licenses are Free Software, which is not the case, although that's where copyleft came from. BSD-style licenses were part of Free Software from the start, and Stallman says so.
You also don't seem to understand the Oracle vs. Google lawsuit.
One of the things in contention was whether APIs are copyrightable. The court ruled that they are, which makes sense: they're creative works in a fixed form. However, using APIs for compatibility purposes is perfectly legal, and nobody in the case argued against that. Oracle's claim was that Google used Oracle's copyrighted APIs because they were familiar to developers, not because Google had any intention of mixing and matching Android and standard Java with the JDK and Dalvik, and therefore that they could have made their own API with no compatibility issues. There is nothing here that F/OS supporters need concern themselves about.
I was unclear. What I was trying to say is that many of the times I as a driver might have to intervene would be for simple situations, at least with current technology. If I have internalized reactions to what's going on, I can just do something first without knowing exactly what's going on. For example, if for some reason adaptive cruise control messed up, I can slow the car down without worrying about why or what else is happening.
If something unusual comes up, you're right, if I haven't been paying attention I won't know what to do. Of course, my car is supposed to notice if I'm not paying attention and alert me, but that's not going to be perfect either.
I'm going with $7M until I get a good cite otherwise. $7B for a fatality is way unrealistic.
Safety features are good. I paid extra to get some on my current car. They're also expensive, and they don't do everything. The features I paid extra for have warnings in the manual not to depend on them, and I don't intend to. I can still kill myself or others by doing the wrong things. We can't make safety features good enough so that accidents won't happen.
Negligence with classified information is not prosecuted as a felony. The closest I could find was a guy who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor. You may disagree with how the law is applied, but if you did what she did you would be likely to lose your clearance or your job, but that wouldn't necessarily happen either.
As far as accepting bribes, you really do need to establish that that happened. There were foreign contributions that they tried to keep less known, but that's not illegal by itself. There was a definite appearance of impropriety, but that's not a felony.
Look, when I was a kid, conservatives wanted balanced budgets, small government, and slow change. I still think of conservatives in those terms, and if any of them are wondering what party to join I sympathize with them.
I could understand those conservatives. I have a lot more trouble with modern Republicans. I don't really know where they're coming form. It isn't conservativism. It isn't Christianity. Those are just cover.
Can I at least stipulate that conservatives should be in favor of a balanced budget, which, since 1980, means favoring Democrats for President. How about that conservatives oppose rapid social change? The Republican party is in favor of policies that produce large deficits, and wants rapid social change.
Republicans sure seemed OK with surveillance while Bush was in office.
It's a bipartisan thing. People think that the government should have increased powers when their party is in power. When I think of increases in government power, I prefer to think also of some national politician I despise (Palin, for example) and visualize her as President.
Without the First Amendment, Congress could enact laws prohibiting the shipping of newspapers of whatever political view from state to state. Congress could establish a religion for the District of Columbia.
Remember that the idea that these rights extended to the state level came somewhat later, and so they were seen as restrictions on what the Federal government could do.
Most people in Congress voted for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. There were solid reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan. They may have been wrong, but the decision looked good to many people at the time. The Bush administration gave solid reasons for the invasion of Iraq. They were wrong, and the administration was lying, but that's not the fault of Congress.
Would you care to tell us what "less than Hillary" means here? As far as I've seen, negligence with handling classified information is not prosecuted criminally, and nobody goes to prison for it. You may not agree with this, but Comey was correct when he said there was no precedent for a criminal prosecution.
The IRS examined political-sounding organizations claiming tax-exempt status. That's what they're supposed to do. On the other hand, the FBI director is NOT supposed to issue vague statements shortly before a national election that have consequences for it.
Nobody is being prosecuted for having a different opinion on global warming. In fact, they're open to prosecution only because they have the same opinion - and said otherwise for financial gain. Lying for financial gain is fraud. So, the lawsuit was based on the fact that, according to internal documents, the company (which I don't remember) had determined that it was causing AGW, that it was claiming otherwise publicly, and that it was doing this for financial gain. If you're stupid enough to think global warming is not happening, then you're not lying when you say it isn't happening, and so you are violating no law.
The difference between an Anthropogenic Global Warming 'alarmist' and an Anthropogenic Global Warming 'skeptic'
If those are your only two categories, and it seems to be, you're to be commended for giving us an advance warning that the rest of your post is not worth reading.
If you will add a third category, that of people who have examined the evidence more or less, and concluded rationally that AGW is going on, and will cause very serious problems if it continues, we can talk.
It would also help if you learned more about Climate Science before expounding on it, but then this is Slashdot.
The Federal government has the constitutional power to tax and spend for the general welfare, which includes paying for schools. The state governments have the power to pay for and regulate schools, unless the state Constitution says otherwise. We've tried various educational schemes, and having government-funded public schools seems like the best idea so far.
Congresscritters vote for increased spending and reduced taxes because it helps them get re-elected. If the US public as a whole wanted deficits cut, they'd be cut, even under Republican Presidents. If a Senator could get more credit for cutting sixty billion of waste from the budget than getting one billion of pork for his or her own state, we'd see a lot less waste in government.
Actually, the election to turn the Senate Democratic was in 2016. That class is very heavily Republican, and should have been easier to turn more or less balanced. Unfortunately, from my point of view, it didn't work.
Indeed I would hope that if the US government put as little effort into cancer as they did into climate change that they would also get sued for this.
That's not a matter for the courts. That's a matter for Congress and the President on the Federal level. I would hope that Representatives, Senators, and Presidents would not be elected if they put as little effort into cancer as they did into fighting climate change. Unfortunately, my hope is futile for now.
Typically, property rights end at the high tide mark. If the local sea level goes up 1", then maybe the high tide mark moves inland 10" (depending on the geometry of the beach), and there goes the property.
I don't know of any Constitutional right to life and liberty, either. Those are from the Declaration of Independence, which has no legal force. What the Constitution has is some guarantees of due legal process before execution or imprisonment.
Slashdot Mirror
Pence.
I really don't know what Trump is going to do. I have a good idea what President Pence would do. I'm wishing Trump a healthy and energetic four years.
Clinton came out against the TPP when she saw what it had become. I wrote to my Senators, and one of them told me that it might come up after the election, so it appears there was no great support for it. I do appreciate Trump being against it.
You are talking about a lot of people who have it bad off. The system has failed them, and they have a lot of legitimate complaints. Trump knew the right things to say to motivate them. Trump's also a world-class liar, and has been demonstrating that by backpedaling on promises with the election a week old.
The unfortunate thing is that those people will be in no better a situation in 2020, since nobody that was elected cares about them, except for many of their own representatives in Congress, and they were insufficient to help up to now. They're blaming the wrong people.for what's happening to them, and elected an entrenched member of the establishment to help fight it. This isn't going to end well.
What we need is for the straight white guy and the black Muslim lesbian to be able to work together for things they want in common. Neither party has been at all helpful with that.
Improvements in medical technology made my life a LOT better. I probably wouldn't be here, annoying people with odd ideas, if it wasn't for that. So, I suppose, if you want to argue that it didn't make your life better, you could.
FWIW, I know a guy who thinks everything has gone downhill from hunter-gatherer societies. I'm getting to be a fossil, but I'm not quite old enough to remember how it was back in the Paleolithic.
Before the internet, we had overly trusted news sources. Have you ever been behind the scenes of something the media reported on big-time? That would destroy your faith in the old news sources. (Except, of course, that people kept believing the media because they had no other source of information.) Verifying anything the media reported on required a good deal of work, and likely travel. I'm saying that the Internet improved news for the most part.
Free and Open Source software are, in practice, almost exactly the same thing. The difference is that Free Software is a political and social movement, while Open Source is a way of getting software written. You seem to think that copyleft licenses are Free Software, which is not the case, although that's where copyleft came from. BSD-style licenses were part of Free Software from the start, and Stallman says so.
You also don't seem to understand the Oracle vs. Google lawsuit.
One of the things in contention was whether APIs are copyrightable. The court ruled that they are, which makes sense: they're creative works in a fixed form. However, using APIs for compatibility purposes is perfectly legal, and nobody in the case argued against that. Oracle's claim was that Google used Oracle's copyrighted APIs because they were familiar to developers, not because Google had any intention of mixing and matching Android and standard Java with the JDK and Dalvik, and therefore that they could have made their own API with no compatibility issues. There is nothing here that F/OS supporters need concern themselves about.
I was unclear. What I was trying to say is that many of the times I as a driver might have to intervene would be for simple situations, at least with current technology. If I have internalized reactions to what's going on, I can just do something first without knowing exactly what's going on. For example, if for some reason adaptive cruise control messed up, I can slow the car down without worrying about why or what else is happening.
If something unusual comes up, you're right, if I haven't been paying attention I won't know what to do. Of course, my car is supposed to notice if I'm not paying attention and alert me, but that's not going to be perfect either.
I'm going with $7M until I get a good cite otherwise. $7B for a fatality is way unrealistic.
Safety features are good. I paid extra to get some on my current car. They're also expensive, and they don't do everything. The features I paid extra for have warnings in the manual not to depend on them, and I don't intend to. I can still kill myself or others by doing the wrong things. We can't make safety features good enough so that accidents won't happen.
Negligence with classified information is not prosecuted as a felony. The closest I could find was a guy who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor. You may disagree with how the law is applied, but if you did what she did you would be likely to lose your clearance or your job, but that wouldn't necessarily happen either.
As far as accepting bribes, you really do need to establish that that happened. There were foreign contributions that they tried to keep less known, but that's not illegal by itself. There was a definite appearance of impropriety, but that's not a felony.
Look, when I was a kid, conservatives wanted balanced budgets, small government, and slow change. I still think of conservatives in those terms, and if any of them are wondering what party to join I sympathize with them.
I could understand those conservatives. I have a lot more trouble with modern Republicans. I don't really know where they're coming form. It isn't conservativism. It isn't Christianity. Those are just cover.
Can I at least stipulate that conservatives should be in favor of a balanced budget, which, since 1980, means favoring Democrats for President. How about that conservatives oppose rapid social change? The Republican party is in favor of policies that produce large deficits, and wants rapid social change.
Republicans sure seemed OK with surveillance while Bush was in office.
It's a bipartisan thing. People think that the government should have increased powers when their party is in power. When I think of increases in government power, I prefer to think also of some national politician I despise (Palin, for example) and visualize her as President.
Without the First Amendment, Congress could enact laws prohibiting the shipping of newspapers of whatever political view from state to state. Congress could establish a religion for the District of Columbia.
Remember that the idea that these rights extended to the state level came somewhat later, and so they were seen as restrictions on what the Federal government could do.
Do we have a consensus yet?
Actually, if the typical person was unhappy with concentrating power, it would at least proceed much more slowly.
Most people in Congress voted for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. There were solid reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan. They may have been wrong, but the decision looked good to many people at the time. The Bush administration gave solid reasons for the invasion of Iraq. They were wrong, and the administration was lying, but that's not the fault of Congress.
Would you care to tell us what "less than Hillary" means here? As far as I've seen, negligence with handling classified information is not prosecuted criminally, and nobody goes to prison for it. You may not agree with this, but Comey was correct when he said there was no precedent for a criminal prosecution.
The IRS examined political-sounding organizations claiming tax-exempt status. That's what they're supposed to do. On the other hand, the FBI director is NOT supposed to issue vague statements shortly before a national election that have consequences for it.
Nobody is being prosecuted for having a different opinion on global warming. In fact, they're open to prosecution only because they have the same opinion - and said otherwise for financial gain. Lying for financial gain is fraud. So, the lawsuit was based on the fact that, according to internal documents, the company (which I don't remember) had determined that it was causing AGW, that it was claiming otherwise publicly, and that it was doing this for financial gain. If you're stupid enough to think global warming is not happening, then you're not lying when you say it isn't happening, and so you are violating no law.
If those are your only two categories, and it seems to be, you're to be commended for giving us an advance warning that the rest of your post is not worth reading.
If you will add a third category, that of people who have examined the evidence more or less, and concluded rationally that AGW is going on, and will cause very serious problems if it continues, we can talk.
It would also help if you learned more about Climate Science before expounding on it, but then this is Slashdot.
The Federal government has the constitutional power to tax and spend for the general welfare, which includes paying for schools. The state governments have the power to pay for and regulate schools, unless the state Constitution says otherwise. We've tried various educational schemes, and having government-funded public schools seems like the best idea so far.
Congresscritters vote for increased spending and reduced taxes because it helps them get re-elected. If the US public as a whole wanted deficits cut, they'd be cut, even under Republican Presidents. If a Senator could get more credit for cutting sixty billion of waste from the budget than getting one billion of pork for his or her own state, we'd see a lot less waste in government.
Clinton did well in more educated groups, so I'm not sure how the welfare recipient vote went.
Actually, the election to turn the Senate Democratic was in 2016. That class is very heavily Republican, and should have been easier to turn more or less balanced. Unfortunately, from my point of view, it didn't work.
Indicted for what? People talk about Clinton and felonies, but I don't see specifics that stand up to examination.
That's not a matter for the courts. That's a matter for Congress and the President on the Federal level. I would hope that Representatives, Senators, and Presidents would not be elected if they put as little effort into cancer as they did into fighting climate change. Unfortunately, my hope is futile for now.
Typically, property rights end at the high tide mark. If the local sea level goes up 1", then maybe the high tide mark moves inland 10" (depending on the geometry of the beach), and there goes the property.
I don't know of any Constitutional right to life and liberty, either. Those are from the Declaration of Independence, which has no legal force. What the Constitution has is some guarantees of due legal process before execution or imprisonment.