The Soviet Union was socialist. I've seen no particular signs of socialism in modern Russia, and nobody will who doesn't define socialism as "government I don't like". There are many ways to screw up a country and a government, and Russia has wound up with one that the Soviets didn't.
The evidence isn't clear. I've seen a lot of malicious speculation on what she might have done, and simplistic and incomplete at best explanations of the law by people who are self-evidently not lawyers.
What felonies has Clinton been convicted of? I believe the answer is "none", which means she's not a felon. You may be assuming on the basis of biased announcements and a shaky understanding of the law that she will be convicted, but that's speculative at best.
C'mon, we both know that you're talking about sexbots. While, given the technology, someone could build a companionship robot that doesn't have assorted simulated sex organs, they'll never be produced in quantity.
meanwhile the usual processors and memory and programs we use are not intelligent, not capable of self-awareness or feeling or emotion and can not be so.
Similarly, individual molecules and the other components that make up our brains aren't intelligent, and are incapable of self-awareness, feeling, or emotion. Those are emergent properties that appear when you assemble something from the right components. It's fallacious to say that CPUs and RAM aren't self-aware, so no computer system can be.
That's one theory, yes. It isn't the only one. Saying speculative things in a confident voice and accusing dissenters of being stupid is not a good form of argument.
He didn't say the software was illegal. Also, I don't think I'd have problems looking up murder cases on Google, and murder is very definitely illegal.
So use Bing. There's places, like last-mile ISPs, where the "use the competition" argument doesn't work. However, it's easy to switch search engines. You can do it easily from anywhere.
It's all PR. The sit-in is PR. The lawmakers involved aren't causing a real problem. Any actions taken in response would primarily be significant for their PR.
Bill Clinton was impeached over his answer to a question that should not have been admitted in a trial that should not have taken place. The trial ended when the judge realized that, assuming everything Jones said was true, it didn't constitute sexual harassment under the law. The question was about consensual sexual activity, and the trial was about harassment. In the trial after the impeachment, the Senate seemed embarrassed by the whole thing, and acquitted Clinton without much deliberation.
The Bush administration started the Iraq war by saying things that weren't necessarily true. Powell said that the preparation he got for his speech read like a legal brief, not an impartial investigation, and he had no time to verify anything. Whether that's lying is a matter of definition, but it sure wasn't being honest.
The invasion of Iraq was one of the things contributing to the rise of Isis, along with the mismanagement of the occupation (which wasn't directly Bush's fault; the horrible mistake of disbanding the army was done by the idiot in charge on the spot). The lack of realism in initial planning and the early execution of the occupation was a contributing cause to the immense number of deaths.
There were war crimes in the invasion of Iraq, including the handing of prisoners of war over to the CIA for torture. I don't know how far up the orders for that were issued. (Abu Ghraib seems to have been a local violation of the laws of war.) The invasion itself was arguably a war crime. It was conducted in spite of a Security Council-imposed cease-fire, and was arguably aggressive war. After WWII, that was considered a hanging offense. I don't know of an actual link between Bush and anything that's obviously a war crime. I'm not confident that he wouldn't be found to be a war criminal if tried.
Learn some history. Partisan squabbles have been getting better and worse for a long time. People claiming that their party is blameless and the other one is uncooperative or obstructionist have been around about as long.
I'm also about as lefty as anyone, but I don't care that much about gun legislation. In very broad strokes, people who will obey the law aren't much of a threat, and people who are a threat will likely violate firearms laws.
Weapons are force multipliers. A group with modern infantry rifles will defeat a group with hunting rifles, other things being equal. If you think one purpose of the Second is to allow rebellion, you really should be in favor of allowing civilians to buy militarily useful weapons.
I can make an argument that handguns aren't really military weapons, aren't useful for a militia, and aren't protected under the Second. Of course, that same argument says I should be able to go out and buy a nice new infantry rifle, so it probably isn't going to be popular among people who want to ban handguns.
You know, I've never heard any proposal to cut off the right to bear arms at the age of 45. Most people would regard it as completely unexceptional for me to buy a target rifle or shotgun or something, and it's been a while since I was a member of the unorganized militia.
I don't own a firearm. I don't particularly like them. I still have the right to bear arms, so if I decided I did want a firearm I should be able to get one without an overly onerous process. I may not be able to get exactly what I want, and I may have to go through a reasonable process and perhaps wait a few days, but denying me the ability to purchase without due process is denying my right to bear arms, and is a violation of the Second Amendment.
The way I figure it, someone with a concealed carry permit is taking some pains to follow the law, and has something to lose by acting irresponsibly. As long as they practice reasonable gun safety, I don't consider them a threat. Basically, attacking or seriously threatening me is against the law, so law-abiding people are not physical threats to me, unless they have some sort of accident. I do consider people who carry illegally to be a threat, and would avoid them if I could tell who they were.
Few people in the world can play baseball like Barry Bonds, or pitch like Nolan Ryan did. Otherwise, we'd have more people doing it. There's enough people who are baseball-crazy out there.
You are very firmly maintaining a counter-intuitive claim. It's intuitively obvious that some people are better at other things than others. You say that everyone has the same brain anatomy, but that's about as true as saying that everyone has the same skeletal anatomy, so that doesn't support your claim. You instead cite this hypothetical "interest", which apparently is different in different people, despite having the same brain anatomy. It doesn't account for the fact that I can learn mathematical concepts easily, while other people spend far longer. Are you claiming they're that inattentive? Are you sure that my interest in math isn't caused by the fact that I'm really good at it?
So, what support do you have for your claim? Different people have different anatomical details. Different people seem to be good at different things. Different people perform differently on standardized tests, no matter how much we try to make them tests of innate ability no matter than acquired knowledge or ability. I read a paper claiming that anyone can become a memorist (i.e., one with a really really good memory), and the experimenter concluded that anyone could, based on careful training of a group of subjects, precisely one of whom met the standards, and disregarding the ones that didn't. I haven't seen any reason to think as you do.
If the world burns fossil fuels at the current rate for the next 270 years, we'll be well above 1000ppm of carbon dioxide. That's likely to be a serious consideration, and affect the planet's carrying capacity.
You're overestimating the importance of Apple fans. However many of them there are, they'll buy the stuff anyway. Apple needs to appeal to people who aren't Apple fans, since they are potential but not certain customers. Similarly, my brother is a serious baseball fan, and finds that Major League Baseball frequently does things that aren't in the spirit of the game as he sees it. From a business point of view, MLB doesn't care. They've got his business. They do that stuff to appeal to casual fans, since there's a lot more of them.
In my limited personal experience, Apple provides excellent support. The numbers from Consumer Reports suggest that this isn't just me. The Genius Bars are indeed not populated by geniuses, but they aren't populated by uncaring people who don't speak English well and go from a script either. (Not around here, anyway.)
Personally, if Apple comes out with phones without jacks, I'm going to quick buy me one of the current SEs with the jack, which to Apple means I'm spending about $100 less on their stuff than I would have otherwise. I'm going to try to wait until a phone with a jack reappears, much like I waited for something smaller than the 6 and 6S came out again. (They're too big for my use.) If they keep leaving out the jack, I'll have to consider moving to Android, which will be a pain.
I buy iPhones because they suit my purposes very well, and nothing else does better. When they stop serving my purposes, I won't buy them. Simple.
As I understand it, Clinton asked Congress for additional money for embassy and consulate security, and was denied this at least twice. She was working with inadequate resources. It's easy to say "she should have put Benghazi at higher priority" now, but not so easy in advance. There was also a lot of fighting going on elsewhere, IIRC, so I don't know that Benghazi stood out at the time. I do know that thirteen investigations by a hostile Congress turned up no wrongdoing, and I find that pretty convincing.
As far as the email server went, which specific law did it break? I know it would be illegal now. Clinton had some classification authority, and telling her staff to send a classified document by unclassified channels strikes me as a judgment call she probably had the authority to make. You're also speculating here: "If she...". If you killed someone because they had different opinions of Clinton than you do, then you'd be a murderer. If I got drunk and went driving, I'd be guilty of drunken driving. (I'm sure neither of those is true.) And, yes, I'm speculating too. On the other hand, I'm not saying that she definitely committed a crime.
You're also speculating on her intentions and what subpoenas actually do. If I were running an enterprise, and my emails for 2014 were subpoenaed, I'd hand over the ones for 2014. I wouldn't add in 2013 or 2015 on the grounds that I didn't get to decide which emails applied. You're apparently speculating on what the subpoena actually said, and assuming that Clinton violated the law.
I'm not about to say she's perfect. On the other hand, she's been attacked by political opponents for over twenty years now, and nobody's come up with anything resembling a smoking gun. People claim to have, but the claim evaporates under scrutiny, even friendly scrutiny. I lost the ability to take partisan criticism of her seriously long ago. Bring me wrongdoing that has been examined by the appropriate authorities, or even known neutral parties, and I'll listen.
Not to mention that this isn't really a big deal. We have people being terrorized, 49 dead, lots of friends and family having a horrible night trying to find if their loved one is still alive. It's a tragedy.
However, that day, there were almost certainly more people killed in the US in accidents involving drunk driving. That was true for the day before and the day after, when there were no mass shootings. Each one of the deaths was also a tragedy, ending a life and causing great distress to friends and families.
If we're going to go for mass surveillance, wouldn't it make more sense to look for potential drunk drivers? The FBI interviewed the night club shooter twice, and couldn't do anything to stop him anyway. If the police find a drunk driver, they can do things to make drunk driving accidents less likely.
Slashdot Mirror
Last I worked on it, bulk mail had sorting requirements that would reduce handling by the USPS, reducing costs.
The Soviet Union was socialist. I've seen no particular signs of socialism in modern Russia, and nobody will who doesn't define socialism as "government I don't like". There are many ways to screw up a country and a government, and Russia has wound up with one that the Soviets didn't.
The evidence isn't clear. I've seen a lot of malicious speculation on what she might have done, and simplistic and incomplete at best explanations of the law by people who are self-evidently not lawyers.
What felonies has Clinton been convicted of? I believe the answer is "none", which means she's not a felon. You may be assuming on the basis of biased announcements and a shaky understanding of the law that she will be convicted, but that's speculative at best.
C'mon, we both know that you're talking about sexbots. While, given the technology, someone could build a companionship robot that doesn't have assorted simulated sex organs, they'll never be produced in quantity.
Similarly, individual molecules and the other components that make up our brains aren't intelligent, and are incapable of self-awareness, feeling, or emotion. Those are emergent properties that appear when you assemble something from the right components. It's fallacious to say that CPUs and RAM aren't self-aware, so no computer system can be.
That's one theory, yes. It isn't the only one. Saying speculative things in a confident voice and accusing dissenters of being stupid is not a good form of argument.
So why can't I just go out and buy a modern military rifle? It seems to me the Second was pretty well violated in 1986.
He didn't say the software was illegal. Also, I don't think I'd have problems looking up murder cases on Google, and murder is very definitely illegal.
So use Bing. There's places, like last-mile ISPs, where the "use the competition" argument doesn't work. However, it's easy to switch search engines. You can do it easily from anywhere.
It's all PR. The sit-in is PR. The lawmakers involved aren't causing a real problem. Any actions taken in response would primarily be significant for their PR.
Bill Clinton was impeached over his answer to a question that should not have been admitted in a trial that should not have taken place. The trial ended when the judge realized that, assuming everything Jones said was true, it didn't constitute sexual harassment under the law. The question was about consensual sexual activity, and the trial was about harassment. In the trial after the impeachment, the Senate seemed embarrassed by the whole thing, and acquitted Clinton without much deliberation.
The Bush administration started the Iraq war by saying things that weren't necessarily true. Powell said that the preparation he got for his speech read like a legal brief, not an impartial investigation, and he had no time to verify anything. Whether that's lying is a matter of definition, but it sure wasn't being honest.
The invasion of Iraq was one of the things contributing to the rise of Isis, along with the mismanagement of the occupation (which wasn't directly Bush's fault; the horrible mistake of disbanding the army was done by the idiot in charge on the spot). The lack of realism in initial planning and the early execution of the occupation was a contributing cause to the immense number of deaths.
There were war crimes in the invasion of Iraq, including the handing of prisoners of war over to the CIA for torture. I don't know how far up the orders for that were issued. (Abu Ghraib seems to have been a local violation of the laws of war.) The invasion itself was arguably a war crime. It was conducted in spite of a Security Council-imposed cease-fire, and was arguably aggressive war. After WWII, that was considered a hanging offense. I don't know of an actual link between Bush and anything that's obviously a war crime. I'm not confident that he wouldn't be found to be a war criminal if tried.
Learn some history. Partisan squabbles have been getting better and worse for a long time. People claiming that their party is blameless and the other one is uncooperative or obstructionist have been around about as long.
I'm fine with taking away civil rights from criminals (including terrorists) after conviction. Before then, we're not sure they're criminals, are we?
I'm also about as lefty as anyone, but I don't care that much about gun legislation. In very broad strokes, people who will obey the law aren't much of a threat, and people who are a threat will likely violate firearms laws.
Weapons are force multipliers. A group with modern infantry rifles will defeat a group with hunting rifles, other things being equal. If you think one purpose of the Second is to allow rebellion, you really should be in favor of allowing civilians to buy militarily useful weapons.
I can make an argument that handguns aren't really military weapons, aren't useful for a militia, and aren't protected under the Second. Of course, that same argument says I should be able to go out and buy a nice new infantry rifle, so it probably isn't going to be popular among people who want to ban handguns.
You know, I've never heard any proposal to cut off the right to bear arms at the age of 45. Most people would regard it as completely unexceptional for me to buy a target rifle or shotgun or something, and it's been a while since I was a member of the unorganized militia.
I don't own a firearm. I don't particularly like them. I still have the right to bear arms, so if I decided I did want a firearm I should be able to get one without an overly onerous process. I may not be able to get exactly what I want, and I may have to go through a reasonable process and perhaps wait a few days, but denying me the ability to purchase without due process is denying my right to bear arms, and is a violation of the Second Amendment.
The way I figure it, someone with a concealed carry permit is taking some pains to follow the law, and has something to lose by acting irresponsibly. As long as they practice reasonable gun safety, I don't consider them a threat. Basically, attacking or seriously threatening me is against the law, so law-abiding people are not physical threats to me, unless they have some sort of accident. I do consider people who carry illegally to be a threat, and would avoid them if I could tell who they were.
Few people in the world can play baseball like Barry Bonds, or pitch like Nolan Ryan did. Otherwise, we'd have more people doing it. There's enough people who are baseball-crazy out there.
You are very firmly maintaining a counter-intuitive claim. It's intuitively obvious that some people are better at other things than others. You say that everyone has the same brain anatomy, but that's about as true as saying that everyone has the same skeletal anatomy, so that doesn't support your claim. You instead cite this hypothetical "interest", which apparently is different in different people, despite having the same brain anatomy. It doesn't account for the fact that I can learn mathematical concepts easily, while other people spend far longer. Are you claiming they're that inattentive? Are you sure that my interest in math isn't caused by the fact that I'm really good at it?
So, what support do you have for your claim? Different people have different anatomical details. Different people seem to be good at different things. Different people perform differently on standardized tests, no matter how much we try to make them tests of innate ability no matter than acquired knowledge or ability. I read a paper claiming that anyone can become a memorist (i.e., one with a really really good memory), and the experimenter concluded that anyone could, based on careful training of a group of subjects, precisely one of whom met the standards, and disregarding the ones that didn't. I haven't seen any reason to think as you do.
If the world burns fossil fuels at the current rate for the next 270 years, we'll be well above 1000ppm of carbon dioxide. That's likely to be a serious consideration, and affect the planet's carrying capacity.
You're overestimating the importance of Apple fans. However many of them there are, they'll buy the stuff anyway. Apple needs to appeal to people who aren't Apple fans, since they are potential but not certain customers. Similarly, my brother is a serious baseball fan, and finds that Major League Baseball frequently does things that aren't in the spirit of the game as he sees it. From a business point of view, MLB doesn't care. They've got his business. They do that stuff to appeal to casual fans, since there's a lot more of them.
In my limited personal experience, Apple provides excellent support. The numbers from Consumer Reports suggest that this isn't just me. The Genius Bars are indeed not populated by geniuses, but they aren't populated by uncaring people who don't speak English well and go from a script either. (Not around here, anyway.)
Personally, if Apple comes out with phones without jacks, I'm going to quick buy me one of the current SEs with the jack, which to Apple means I'm spending about $100 less on their stuff than I would have otherwise. I'm going to try to wait until a phone with a jack reappears, much like I waited for something smaller than the 6 and 6S came out again. (They're too big for my use.) If they keep leaving out the jack, I'll have to consider moving to Android, which will be a pain.
I buy iPhones because they suit my purposes very well, and nothing else does better. When they stop serving my purposes, I won't buy them. Simple.
As I understand it, Clinton asked Congress for additional money for embassy and consulate security, and was denied this at least twice. She was working with inadequate resources. It's easy to say "she should have put Benghazi at higher priority" now, but not so easy in advance. There was also a lot of fighting going on elsewhere, IIRC, so I don't know that Benghazi stood out at the time. I do know that thirteen investigations by a hostile Congress turned up no wrongdoing, and I find that pretty convincing.
As far as the email server went, which specific law did it break? I know it would be illegal now. Clinton had some classification authority, and telling her staff to send a classified document by unclassified channels strikes me as a judgment call she probably had the authority to make. You're also speculating here: "If she...". If you killed someone because they had different opinions of Clinton than you do, then you'd be a murderer. If I got drunk and went driving, I'd be guilty of drunken driving. (I'm sure neither of those is true.) And, yes, I'm speculating too. On the other hand, I'm not saying that she definitely committed a crime.
You're also speculating on her intentions and what subpoenas actually do. If I were running an enterprise, and my emails for 2014 were subpoenaed, I'd hand over the ones for 2014. I wouldn't add in 2013 or 2015 on the grounds that I didn't get to decide which emails applied. You're apparently speculating on what the subpoena actually said, and assuming that Clinton violated the law.
I'm not about to say she's perfect. On the other hand, she's been attacked by political opponents for over twenty years now, and nobody's come up with anything resembling a smoking gun. People claim to have, but the claim evaporates under scrutiny, even friendly scrutiny. I lost the ability to take partisan criticism of her seriously long ago. Bring me wrongdoing that has been examined by the appropriate authorities, or even known neutral parties, and I'll listen.
That's a speech issue, I'd say, regardless of religion.
Not to mention that this isn't really a big deal. We have people being terrorized, 49 dead, lots of friends and family having a horrible night trying to find if their loved one is still alive. It's a tragedy.
However, that day, there were almost certainly more people killed in the US in accidents involving drunk driving. That was true for the day before and the day after, when there were no mass shootings. Each one of the deaths was also a tragedy, ending a life and causing great distress to friends and families.
If we're going to go for mass surveillance, wouldn't it make more sense to look for potential drunk drivers? The FBI interviewed the night club shooter twice, and couldn't do anything to stop him anyway. If the police find a drunk driver, they can do things to make drunk driving accidents less likely.