This isn't a simple misinterpretation or misunderstanding or honest mistake. This is Apple and the Irish government arriving at an illegal deal that was never valid, for the purpose of tax evasion. Make an attempt to pay what you owe and (in my experience) the IRS will be professional. I'd imagine they'd be a lot less agreeable if you tried to wiggle out of what you rightfully owed.
If we spend research money only on the basis of near-future benefits, we might as well pack it in as a species. Learning more about how the Universe works tends to pay off very well in the more distant future. Disregarding those benefits because they're not easy to quantify is short-sighted and leads to bad decisions.
That's a very good question, and I don't have a very good answer. The ASD has caused me problems, but nowhere near the pain the depression has. Also, I've been undepressed in my lifetime and still me, while I've never been not ASD, so I don't know what that would entail.
The "extraordinary claim" that you see is that we might be able to establish an industrial base off-planet someday. In what way is that claim extraordinary?
Some things advance slowly. Some advance with frightening speed. With massive advances in robotics and AI going on, I wouldn't be surprised to have all the necessary technology in a couple of decades.
There's no real problem with automating burger production. Automatic cleaning isn't necessarily that hard. However, the machines will break down sometime, and currently by far the easiest way to fix them involves humans.
As far as recursive manufacturing goes, we've got it already, it's just that there's a lot of humans in the process. Since humans typically like to have meaningful work, and typically need to do such in order to function economically, this works pretty well. The role for automatic recursive manufacturing would be to build incredible amounts of stuff with limited human work required, but that's going to require a lot of land and resources, and those are going to be limiting factors. It will never be necessary for a planet that has a real industrial base.
The advantage is that, if we can drop robots and machinery on a planet or minor planet that can not only be self-sustaining but grow into a good industrial base, it's going to be a LOT cheaper to colonize said body: just drop the factory seeds, let them grow, then move the people in.
You're listing problems that will be encountered, some that are already fixed, and claiming they will never be adequately solved. That is a fairly strong statement that we're not in general agreement with and is definitely not self-evident. If you want your post to convince anyone you need to provide more support for it.
Exactly what do you mean by "disability"? There are things I can't do, sure, and the same applies to you. I can focus on things very well (a little too well sometimes; I had to learn to compensate with that). The things I have a lot of trouble with aren't that important in my job, since I've learned (not as easily as some) how to get along with people and communicate with them.
If you gave me a magic wand that I could wave to cure my depression, I'd wave it without a second thought. Give me one to make me not ASD, and I'd have to really think what it would do to me.
You seem to be saying that I, as a software guy, need to talk to business and marketing types as a routine part of my job. From my point of view, that's one of the things management is for. Granted, I could make more if I got into management (which I really really don't want to do), but I'm an important part of the company making more money than I really need anyway. I almost never get a comprehensive spec, but usually talk with the end users (like most developers, I write software that gets used inside the company) to figure out what they want and how to best give it to them.
I take it you are a lawyer with adequate knowledge of the case?
In any case, the question was what sort of consequences there should be. So far, nobody has shown me a case of serious criminal prosecution for a person who revealed classified information through negligence (I have been supplied a name of someone who did something similar who was charged with a misdemeanor which was later dropped). All the cases of criminal prosecution I've seen involved someone who intentionally violated the law.
Read your cites before posting them. The Daily Caller explained in the first few paragraphs why the cases aren't comparable. All the people who got into serious trouble with classified material deliberately put classified material on systems not cleared for it. The Daily Caller article is about someone who deliberately took pictures that were classified when taken. All the cases where classified information appeared in the wrong systems by mistake or negligence, and this includes Clinton's, did not face serious criminal prosecution. (Someone showed me a case where there was a misdemeanor charge in such a case, later dropped, but I don't take misdemeanors all that seriously, and the charge was dropped anyway.)
So, if someone who thinks Clinton committed crimes would like to provide strong evidence (not necessarily enough to convict) of her doing a specific thing that would normally be prosecuted as a serious crime, I'd be fascinated.
That's not my challenge. To repeat, show me strong evidence that Clinton did something specific that's a reasonably serious crime. That's all I ask, and then I shut up. Heck, I'll give you a way to convince me that her mishandling of classified material was serious: find me someone who did what she did and faced serious criminal prosecution. Go ahead.
Some people are saying that she's committed a lot of crimes. I'm only asking for one. C'mon, don't you want to shut me up on this subject?
There was one change, and the SSDs stopped working. I suppose that if I showed up at your place and let the air out of your tires, you'd think "Damn, there's a correlation between what david_thornley did and my tires going flat. I wonder what happened."
Some management is smart enough. I've seen it. It's been over fifteen years since my faith in the ineptness of C-level management was shaken. I've had good middle managers. Pity about the rest....
Suit yourself. As long as you're part of a large enough market that people make phones you like, that's great for you. Similarly, don't tell other people what they should like.
They've abandoned Windows Phone. They may well have abandoned the stupid Metro/Modern/whatever apps Microsoft wistfully hoped would be a good idea. They're still writing and maintaining good old-fashioned Windows applications. There's money to be made there.
It should be perfectly clear that truth doesn't universally triumph. You can tell that by observing Trump supporters and Clinton supporters - there's a lot of lying going on, and one or both groups don't care about the truth.
State-sponsored felony-level crime at least gets close to being a legal act of war, although nobody's going to start a war over it.
Assange's charge is indeed rape, under both Swedish and UK law. If it didn't count as rape under UK law, the UK would not have agreed to extradite Assange, since Assange appealed all the way up, and an offense is only extraditable if it's illegal in both countries involved.
It's much easier to see the corruption in your own government than in other governments. The US is, as world governments go, fairly clean. You may find this depressing, but it's the truth.
What does the US have with his problems? He's wanted for rape in Sweden, and for being a fugitive from justice in the UK. The US hasn't done anything to him, and hasn't made any moves to. Assange is not a US citizen, has not to my knowledge ever been in the US, and does not appear to have broken any US laws, since in the US it's legal to publish top secret things leaked by someone else (Manning in this case). He's using the US as an excuse to hide away from his own legal problems.
You do know that a whole lot of US global activity in that time was in response to Communist actions, right? It seems to me that the US paid much too much attention to the Communists, and should have been pursuing its own goals more than resisting Communist expansion. As late as Brezhnev, the Soviets were trying to take over, hence the Brezhnev doctrine that said that no Communist state would be allowed to stop being Communist.
You also seem awfully sure of what the Soviets were going to do with their nukes, and willing to project your hindsight on people at the time. Until the Cuban Missile Crisis was over, both sides had something of a "cowboy" attitude with their nukes. The development of decent missiles, particularly submarine-launched missiles, was a tremendous calming influence, because they made mutually assured destruction work.
There's been tensions since the Russian Civil War immediately after WWI, although few people in the US seem to remember that US forces occupied Russian territory during that war.
The Axis had been building up heavily at Kursk for some time before the actual attack. The attack itself wasn't decisive, but it illustrated the decisive change in the Red Army, which for the first time demonstrated the ability to stop a major German offensive without having to retreat a long, long way. In some ways, Germany did win the battle of Kursk, but in doing so got themselves into a worse position strategically.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't a simple misinterpretation or misunderstanding or honest mistake. This is Apple and the Irish government arriving at an illegal deal that was never valid, for the purpose of tax evasion. Make an attempt to pay what you owe and (in my experience) the IRS will be professional. I'd imagine they'd be a lot less agreeable if you tried to wiggle out of what you rightfully owed.
If we spend research money only on the basis of near-future benefits, we might as well pack it in as a species. Learning more about how the Universe works tends to pay off very well in the more distant future. Disregarding those benefits because they're not easy to quantify is short-sighted and leads to bad decisions.
That's a very good question, and I don't have a very good answer. The ASD has caused me problems, but nowhere near the pain the depression has. Also, I've been undepressed in my lifetime and still me, while I've never been not ASD, so I don't know what that would entail.
The "extraordinary claim" that you see is that we might be able to establish an industrial base off-planet someday. In what way is that claim extraordinary?
Some things advance slowly. Some advance with frightening speed. With massive advances in robotics and AI going on, I wouldn't be surprised to have all the necessary technology in a couple of decades.
There's no real problem with automating burger production. Automatic cleaning isn't necessarily that hard. However, the machines will break down sometime, and currently by far the easiest way to fix them involves humans.
As far as recursive manufacturing goes, we've got it already, it's just that there's a lot of humans in the process. Since humans typically like to have meaningful work, and typically need to do such in order to function economically, this works pretty well. The role for automatic recursive manufacturing would be to build incredible amounts of stuff with limited human work required, but that's going to require a lot of land and resources, and those are going to be limiting factors. It will never be necessary for a planet that has a real industrial base.
The advantage is that, if we can drop robots and machinery on a planet or minor planet that can not only be self-sustaining but grow into a good industrial base, it's going to be a LOT cheaper to colonize said body: just drop the factory seeds, let them grow, then move the people in.
You're listing problems that will be encountered, some that are already fixed, and claiming they will never be adequately solved. That is a fairly strong statement that we're not in general agreement with and is definitely not self-evident. If you want your post to convince anyone you need to provide more support for it.
Exactly what do you mean by "disability"? There are things I can't do, sure, and the same applies to you. I can focus on things very well (a little too well sometimes; I had to learn to compensate with that). The things I have a lot of trouble with aren't that important in my job, since I've learned (not as easily as some) how to get along with people and communicate with them.
If you gave me a magic wand that I could wave to cure my depression, I'd wave it without a second thought. Give me one to make me not ASD, and I'd have to really think what it would do to me.
Excuse me, I'm on the spectrum and I hate Windows 10. It makes me nostalgic for Vista.
You seem to be saying that I, as a software guy, need to talk to business and marketing types as a routine part of my job. From my point of view, that's one of the things management is for. Granted, I could make more if I got into management (which I really really don't want to do), but I'm an important part of the company making more money than I really need anyway. I almost never get a comprehensive spec, but usually talk with the end users (like most developers, I write software that gets used inside the company) to figure out what they want and how to best give it to them.
I take it you are a lawyer with adequate knowledge of the case?
In any case, the question was what sort of consequences there should be. So far, nobody has shown me a case of serious criminal prosecution for a person who revealed classified information through negligence (I have been supplied a name of someone who did something similar who was charged with a misdemeanor which was later dropped). All the cases of criminal prosecution I've seen involved someone who intentionally violated the law.
Read your cites before posting them. The Daily Caller explained in the first few paragraphs why the cases aren't comparable. All the people who got into serious trouble with classified material deliberately put classified material on systems not cleared for it. The Daily Caller article is about someone who deliberately took pictures that were classified when taken. All the cases where classified information appeared in the wrong systems by mistake or negligence, and this includes Clinton's, did not face serious criminal prosecution. (Someone showed me a case where there was a misdemeanor charge in such a case, later dropped, but I don't take misdemeanors all that seriously, and the charge was dropped anyway.)
So, if someone who thinks Clinton committed crimes would like to provide strong evidence (not necessarily enough to convict) of her doing a specific thing that would normally be prosecuted as a serious crime, I'd be fascinated.
That's not my challenge. To repeat, show me strong evidence that Clinton did something specific that's a reasonably serious crime. That's all I ask, and then I shut up. Heck, I'll give you a way to convince me that her mishandling of classified material was serious: find me someone who did what she did and faced serious criminal prosecution. Go ahead.
Some people are saying that she's committed a lot of crimes. I'm only asking for one. C'mon, don't you want to shut me up on this subject?
There was one change, and the SSDs stopped working. I suppose that if I showed up at your place and let the air out of your tires, you'd think "Damn, there's a correlation between what david_thornley did and my tires going flat. I wonder what happened."
Some management is smart enough. I've seen it. It's been over fifteen years since my faith in the ineptness of C-level management was shaken. I've had good middle managers. Pity about the rest....
Suit yourself. As long as you're part of a large enough market that people make phones you like, that's great for you. Similarly, don't tell other people what they should like.
They've abandoned Windows Phone. They may well have abandoned the stupid Metro/Modern/whatever apps Microsoft wistfully hoped would be a good idea. They're still writing and maintaining good old-fashioned Windows applications. There's money to be made there.
It should be perfectly clear that truth doesn't universally triumph. You can tell that by observing Trump supporters and Clinton supporters - there's a lot of lying going on, and one or both groups don't care about the truth.
State-sponsored felony-level crime at least gets close to being a legal act of war, although nobody's going to start a war over it.
Assange has made it clear that he's against Clinton, and has been releasing documents to discredit her. That isn't a conspiracy theory.
Assange's charge is indeed rape, under both Swedish and UK law. If it didn't count as rape under UK law, the UK would not have agreed to extradite Assange, since Assange appealed all the way up, and an offense is only extraditable if it's illegal in both countries involved.
It's much easier to see the corruption in your own government than in other governments. The US is, as world governments go, fairly clean. You may find this depressing, but it's the truth.
What does the US have with his problems? He's wanted for rape in Sweden, and for being a fugitive from justice in the UK. The US hasn't done anything to him, and hasn't made any moves to. Assange is not a US citizen, has not to my knowledge ever been in the US, and does not appear to have broken any US laws, since in the US it's legal to publish top secret things leaked by someone else (Manning in this case). He's using the US as an excuse to hide away from his own legal problems.
You do know that a whole lot of US global activity in that time was in response to Communist actions, right? It seems to me that the US paid much too much attention to the Communists, and should have been pursuing its own goals more than resisting Communist expansion. As late as Brezhnev, the Soviets were trying to take over, hence the Brezhnev doctrine that said that no Communist state would be allowed to stop being Communist.
You also seem awfully sure of what the Soviets were going to do with their nukes, and willing to project your hindsight on people at the time. Until the Cuban Missile Crisis was over, both sides had something of a "cowboy" attitude with their nukes. The development of decent missiles, particularly submarine-launched missiles, was a tremendous calming influence, because they made mutually assured destruction work.
There's been tensions since the Russian Civil War immediately after WWI, although few people in the US seem to remember that US forces occupied Russian territory during that war.
The Axis had been building up heavily at Kursk for some time before the actual attack. The attack itself wasn't decisive, but it illustrated the decisive change in the Red Army, which for the first time demonstrated the ability to stop a major German offensive without having to retreat a long, long way. In some ways, Germany did win the battle of Kursk, but in doing so got themselves into a worse position strategically.