It would be simpler if red states simply found ways to refuse federal subsidies. This is basic rightism. What a grand chance to show the world their virtue.
I know that a lot of my tax money goes to the less fortunate, and I'm fine with that. That blue states are willing to subsidize red states is no surprise. That red states are willing to accept it is hypocrisy.
The elderly, as a class, are pretty well-off, last I checked better off than younger age groups. Any system that subsidizes the elderly because they're elderly is regressive.
But is it? The next project is the Big Falcon Rocket, and we all know what that sounds like. Did Musk pick "Falcon" so he could set that up sometime? It's a perfectly good rocket name, distinctive and giving the impression of speed and power, but is that all that it is?
No news source is completely trustworthy. No source of anything is unbiased. However, there are plenty of people out there who like to get what they pretend are facts from places with no journalistic integrity and deride any place that is actually trying by calling them biased.
What political scandal would that be? You appear to be saying that there is a very large Democratic political scandal, but I have failed to find one. Could you be more specific?
Except that what you said is that repelling invaders was always successful. Invaders can be forcibly ejected or killed, yes, that's happened quite a few times. That they are opposed is much more universal.
First, what do you mean by "Red Scare"? Historically, that's been fear of Communists, so you're apparently trying to redefine it on the fly. The "try to ad hominem with" is certainly not standard English usage, which casts a little doubt on your certificate, but it is understandable. I don't know what you mean by "far left" in this case. Your English grammar is shaky enough that you'd be better advised not to try anything fancy. Your English is quite good, don't mistake me, but it's hardly native quality.
I'm reasonably familiar with the military history of WWII, the general history of the period, and military strategy. What I don't know is a case of the Finns successfully repelling overwhelming forces.
Finland faced unrest after the Russian Revolution, but was not, to my knowledge, attacked by overwhelming forces. Finland lost the Winter War, and had to give up territory. In this war, the Soviet Union wasn't trying to conquer Finland, and suffered from extreme military problems, leading to the Timoshenko reforms. Finland was on the losing side in the Continuation War, and had to accept unfavorable peace terms. I'm not saying Finns are bad fighters; their performance in the Winter War was very impressive. I'm saying it's a fairly small country and couldn't stop much larger neighbors.
For the rest, I was talking about the experience of my own metro area, whose climate is very different from Somalia. I'm not sure what problems you had with them. Our biggest was that some Somali cab drivers refused to drive passengers who had liquor, and those Somali drivers were denied airport privileges. There had to be other issues (the logistical impact on the school system was noticeable) but they didn't generate nearly the news coverage.
TFA says the roadster will cross the orbits of Mars, Earth, and Venus. The last burn was in Earth orbit, so obviously it'll return there. The burn gave it an apohelion well beyond Mars orbit, so obviously it'll cross it (assuming it's in the ecliptic). Every diagram I've seen has the Roadster's orbit roughly tangent to Earth orbit, as would happen if the burn increased its orbital velocity.
Without major changes to its orbit, the Roadster will stay at Earth orbit or further from the Sun. If it were to make a course correction, it could establish an even more elliptical orbit and cross Venus orbit, but the delta-vee of a Tesla Roadster in a frictionless vacuum is very, very low.
Ethics is a pretty wide field, covering all aspects of human behavior in its way. As none of us are capable of (say) analyzing on the fly all the effects of our decisions and summing the positive and negative results, we need to put thought into general guidelines. Therefore, we get ethics for journalists, ethics for businesspeople, ethics for engineers, etc., which are generally accepted principles of ethics applied to more concrete situations. (Not that everyone behaves ethically.) Different areas bring up different problems. AI is one of them. At what point do AIs have moral responsibilities? Moral rights? We know of complicated systems that act unethically; who's responsible for that behavior?
Your list of examples suggests that you aren't going to be open to contrary views, but you're wrong. You also seem to see objective ethics as a set of rules, rather than utilitarianism.
There is no such thing as objective morality, in the sense that of being objectively correct. If you are going to trot out some religious rules, I, not being a member of your religion, will reject them, and you will have no arguments to convince me. It isn't possible to deduce ethics without some sort of principles to begin with, and in general people don't agree on them, and they aren't able to be investigated by science.
As far as a non-material divine realm, that's cute. If God were to tell me something, I'd listen. If some idiot who claims to speak for God tells me something, I'm certainly not going to accept it at face value. I'm going to run it past my own ethical system, which does exist. What little evidence I've seen suggests that religious people tend to be less ethical than non-religious people (I might actually try studying that sometime), which would make sense, as morals taught for a reward tend not to stick as well as morals without a reward motive.
Nope. Communism has been, in practice, highly authoritarian, and it's a radical leftist approach to restructuring society. Authoritarianism runs across the left-right spectrum.
Libertarians want massive changes in how we do things, and therefore are not conservatives. Conservatives believe in slow change, rather than restructuring things based on theory. I have a certain respect for conservatives, although I often disagree with them, and would like to see them have a political party again. Libertarians may tend to vote Republican rather than Democrat, but I'm not too impressed by their political acumen anyway. Last time I looked at a Libertarian party platform, it was full of things that simply wouldn't work in the real world.
I'd place the betrayal, as you put it, in the 1990s somewhere, if not earlier. Nixon doesn't strike me as anti-authoritarian. In any case, if a party has been against something for eighteen years, it seems disingenuous at best to claim that something is the most fundamental plank of the party. I'd also expect conservatives to be in favor of lower deficits, and for almost forty years now that would mean favoring Democrats.
So, I don't know what conservatives would want that much, but that has nothing to do with the Republican party wants.
Unless I very much miss my guess, the ones who were prosecuted deliberately mishandled classified materials. If not, I really really want a name, because it would contradict something I've been saying for quite a few months, and I'd like to be set straight.
My usual challenge: find someone who mishandled classified materials without the intention of doing so, and was criminally prosecuted. All the cases I've seen are people who deliberately mishandled them (regardless of their intentions) and people who weren't criminally prosecuted.
If any random Federal employee had done that with classified emails, he'd have been fired, as a minimum, and quite likely sent to jail.
Being fired is a possibility, as is losing one's security clearance, temporarily or permanently. There was one case I saw of an agreement to plead guilty of a misdemeanor, but that was dropped and the person involved didn't get a criminal record. (Misdemeanors can result in some jail time, but not prison time, and very often don't involve any detainment.)
I looked around for examples of anyone who had mishandled classified materials without the obvious intent to do so, and couldn't find anyone who was criminally prosecuted or got jail time. I've been asking for one single example every time I noticed this claim on Slashdot, and have yet to receive one. I'd be fascinated to see a counterexample.
The value of facts is independent of religion. Scientists tend to be atheists and irreligious, but nobody values facts more. Lots of people who claim to be devoutly religious have the utmost disdain for any facts that don't agree with their prejudices. You're making that part up.
I grew up in a US educational system, and so did my son. Neither of us experienced anything like what you claim. There are different points of view (which liberals approve of), not different facts.
US educational systems are very heavily local. In areas with lots of right-wingers, left-wingers really don't control education. That's why we get evolution not taught properly in schools, for example. Liberals go with the observed facts on that. Leftists tend to have our own unscientific attitudes, but not so much as to screw up science teaching. (Leftists tend to be bad on guns, often have more than the rational amount of distrust of nuclear power, and repeat false stories about Monsanto, to name a few things.)
"Moral relativism" may be against traditional western thought. So are women being treated as real humans, racial equality, and (to a large extent) democracy. Consequentialism made a splash with Bentham and J.S. Mill writing about utilitarianism, and that's Nineteenth Century philosophy. Or, if you think of "moral relativism" as being amoral, read Machiavelli's "Prince" for a centuries-old take on it. It's not anti-religion, although some religious groups prefer prescriptivist morals. Since consequentialism doesn't have any agreed-on standard of good (although see Sam Harris for an interesting approach), it's perfectly possible to have a consequentialist ethic with closeness to God as the thing to be optimized.
If it hasn't been productive, why would Nunes want a memo released from classified information that implies (but does not actually state) unprofessional things about the investigation? I have no direct knowledge of how productive it's being, and I won't until it's wrapped up, and neither will you, but it looks like it's making some people nervous.
The first step is to admit there is a problem. Too many people in the US deny there is a problem. Without some sort of commitment, not much will be done. Hence, the predictions, which show we're in deep trouble.
There's a lot of debate going on about solutions, none of which are all that promising. The most cost-effective thing to do right now is almost certainly to cut CO2 emissions.
If China were to split up into different countries the population of the US, then the US would have much higher emissions than any of those chunks of China, but that wouldn't affect total emissions. Conversely, if the developed countries of the world would unite into one country, its emissions would be a lot higher than those of any individual constituent country. What matters is per capita emission times number of people.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be simpler if red states simply found ways to refuse federal subsidies. This is basic rightism. What a grand chance to show the world their virtue.
I know that a lot of my tax money goes to the less fortunate, and I'm fine with that. That blue states are willing to subsidize red states is no surprise. That red states are willing to accept it is hypocrisy.
The elderly, as a class, are pretty well-off, last I checked better off than younger age groups. Any system that subsidizes the elderly because they're elderly is regressive.
But is it? The next project is the Big Falcon Rocket, and we all know what that sounds like. Did Musk pick "Falcon" so he could set that up sometime? It's a perfectly good rocket name, distinctive and giving the impression of speed and power, but is that all that it is?
I've never found any viewpoint presented so absolutely to be worthwhile. Even I realize that it's perfectly possible to reasonably disagree with me.
No news source is completely trustworthy. No source of anything is unbiased. However, there are plenty of people out there who like to get what they pretend are facts from places with no journalistic integrity and deride any place that is actually trying by calling them biased.
I was always suspicious about people saying they read Playboy for the articles until I saw a blind guy on the bus reading the Braille version.
Hi! I'm a liberal.
What political scandal would that be? You appear to be saying that there is a very large Democratic political scandal, but I have failed to find one. Could you be more specific?
Except that what you said is that repelling invaders was always successful. Invaders can be forcibly ejected or killed, yes, that's happened quite a few times. That they are opposed is much more universal.
First, what do you mean by "Red Scare"? Historically, that's been fear of Communists, so you're apparently trying to redefine it on the fly. The "try to ad hominem with" is certainly not standard English usage, which casts a little doubt on your certificate, but it is understandable. I don't know what you mean by "far left" in this case. Your English grammar is shaky enough that you'd be better advised not to try anything fancy. Your English is quite good, don't mistake me, but it's hardly native quality.
I'm reasonably familiar with the military history of WWII, the general history of the period, and military strategy. What I don't know is a case of the Finns successfully repelling overwhelming forces.
Finland faced unrest after the Russian Revolution, but was not, to my knowledge, attacked by overwhelming forces. Finland lost the Winter War, and had to give up territory. In this war, the Soviet Union wasn't trying to conquer Finland, and suffered from extreme military problems, leading to the Timoshenko reforms. Finland was on the losing side in the Continuation War, and had to accept unfavorable peace terms. I'm not saying Finns are bad fighters; their performance in the Winter War was very impressive. I'm saying it's a fairly small country and couldn't stop much larger neighbors.
For the rest, I was talking about the experience of my own metro area, whose climate is very different from Somalia. I'm not sure what problems you had with them. Our biggest was that some Somali cab drivers refused to drive passengers who had liquor, and those Somali drivers were denied airport privileges. There had to be other issues (the logistical impact on the school system was noticeable) but they didn't generate nearly the news coverage.
Oops - said TFA where I meant TFS. Sorry about that.
TFA says the roadster will cross the orbits of Mars, Earth, and Venus. The last burn was in Earth orbit, so obviously it'll return there. The burn gave it an apohelion well beyond Mars orbit, so obviously it'll cross it (assuming it's in the ecliptic). Every diagram I've seen has the Roadster's orbit roughly tangent to Earth orbit, as would happen if the burn increased its orbital velocity.
Without major changes to its orbit, the Roadster will stay at Earth orbit or further from the Sun. If it were to make a course correction, it could establish an even more elliptical orbit and cross Venus orbit, but the delta-vee of a Tesla Roadster in a frictionless vacuum is very, very low.
Ethics is a pretty wide field, covering all aspects of human behavior in its way. As none of us are capable of (say) analyzing on the fly all the effects of our decisions and summing the positive and negative results, we need to put thought into general guidelines. Therefore, we get ethics for journalists, ethics for businesspeople, ethics for engineers, etc., which are generally accepted principles of ethics applied to more concrete situations. (Not that everyone behaves ethically.) Different areas bring up different problems. AI is one of them. At what point do AIs have moral responsibilities? Moral rights? We know of complicated systems that act unethically; who's responsible for that behavior?
Your list of examples suggests that you aren't going to be open to contrary views, but you're wrong. You also seem to see objective ethics as a set of rules, rather than utilitarianism.
There is no such thing as objective morality, in the sense that of being objectively correct. If you are going to trot out some religious rules, I, not being a member of your religion, will reject them, and you will have no arguments to convince me. It isn't possible to deduce ethics without some sort of principles to begin with, and in general people don't agree on them, and they aren't able to be investigated by science.
As far as a non-material divine realm, that's cute. If God were to tell me something, I'd listen. If some idiot who claims to speak for God tells me something, I'm certainly not going to accept it at face value. I'm going to run it past my own ethical system, which does exist. What little evidence I've seen suggests that religious people tend to be less ethical than non-religious people (I might actually try studying that sometime), which would make sense, as morals taught for a reward tend not to stick as well as morals without a reward motive.
Nope. Communism has been, in practice, highly authoritarian, and it's a radical leftist approach to restructuring society. Authoritarianism runs across the left-right spectrum.
Libertarians want massive changes in how we do things, and therefore are not conservatives. Conservatives believe in slow change, rather than restructuring things based on theory. I have a certain respect for conservatives, although I often disagree with them, and would like to see them have a political party again. Libertarians may tend to vote Republican rather than Democrat, but I'm not too impressed by their political acumen anyway. Last time I looked at a Libertarian party platform, it was full of things that simply wouldn't work in the real world.
I'd place the betrayal, as you put it, in the 1990s somewhere, if not earlier. Nixon doesn't strike me as anti-authoritarian. In any case, if a party has been against something for eighteen years, it seems disingenuous at best to claim that something is the most fundamental plank of the party. I'd also expect conservatives to be in favor of lower deficits, and for almost forty years now that would mean favoring Democrats.
So, I don't know what conservatives would want that much, but that has nothing to do with the Republican party wants.
Unless I very much miss my guess, the ones who were prosecuted deliberately mishandled classified materials. If not, I really really want a name, because it would contradict something I've been saying for quite a few months, and I'd like to be set straight.
My usual challenge: find someone who mishandled classified materials without the intention of doing so, and was criminally prosecuted. All the cases I've seen are people who deliberately mishandled them (regardless of their intentions) and people who weren't criminally prosecuted.
Being fired is a possibility, as is losing one's security clearance, temporarily or permanently. There was one case I saw of an agreement to plead guilty of a misdemeanor, but that was dropped and the person involved didn't get a criminal record. (Misdemeanors can result in some jail time, but not prison time, and very often don't involve any detainment.)
I looked around for examples of anyone who had mishandled classified materials without the obvious intent to do so, and couldn't find anyone who was criminally prosecuted or got jail time. I've been asking for one single example every time I noticed this claim on Slashdot, and have yet to receive one. I'd be fascinated to see a counterexample.
The value of facts is independent of religion. Scientists tend to be atheists and irreligious, but nobody values facts more. Lots of people who claim to be devoutly religious have the utmost disdain for any facts that don't agree with their prejudices. You're making that part up.
I grew up in a US educational system, and so did my son. Neither of us experienced anything like what you claim. There are different points of view (which liberals approve of), not different facts.
US educational systems are very heavily local. In areas with lots of right-wingers, left-wingers really don't control education. That's why we get evolution not taught properly in schools, for example. Liberals go with the observed facts on that. Leftists tend to have our own unscientific attitudes, but not so much as to screw up science teaching. (Leftists tend to be bad on guns, often have more than the rational amount of distrust of nuclear power, and repeat false stories about Monsanto, to name a few things.)
"Moral relativism" may be against traditional western thought. So are women being treated as real humans, racial equality, and (to a large extent) democracy. Consequentialism made a splash with Bentham and J.S. Mill writing about utilitarianism, and that's Nineteenth Century philosophy. Or, if you think of "moral relativism" as being amoral, read Machiavelli's "Prince" for a centuries-old take on it. It's not anti-religion, although some religious groups prefer prescriptivist morals. Since consequentialism doesn't have any agreed-on standard of good (although see Sam Harris for an interesting approach), it's perfectly possible to have a consequentialist ethic with closeness to God as the thing to be optimized.
A lot of people have died who knew me. That's got to be suspicious, right?
If it hasn't been productive, why would Nunes want a memo released from classified information that implies (but does not actually state) unprofessional things about the investigation? I have no direct knowledge of how productive it's being, and I won't until it's wrapped up, and neither will you, but it looks like it's making some people nervous.
Read Slashdot for a while. There's a lot of people who believe fake news around here.
The first step is to admit there is a problem. Too many people in the US deny there is a problem. Without some sort of commitment, not much will be done. Hence, the predictions, which show we're in deep trouble.
There's a lot of debate going on about solutions, none of which are all that promising. The most cost-effective thing to do right now is almost certainly to cut CO2 emissions.
If China were to split up into different countries the population of the US, then the US would have much higher emissions than any of those chunks of China, but that wouldn't affect total emissions. Conversely, if the developed countries of the world would unite into one country, its emissions would be a lot higher than those of any individual constituent country. What matters is per capita emission times number of people.