I've read about studies that showed that light drinking was better for your health than no alcohol. There's risks in drinking the stuff, and risks in not drinking it.
I'd put my peak somewhat later, but I'm definitely going downhill. My manager still considers me middle of the pack, and it's a darn good pack, so I'm happy with that. I'm in my mid-60s and intend to retire next year.
Some of us are very insistent on not going into management. My manager makes more than I do, and I have no problem with that, because I really don't want his job.
The people I saw graduating with Ph.D.s in Computer Science were not generally going to particularly nice places, or places they'd expect to do much research in.
Okay, when was the last time the homeland was attacked by military forces? I'm not aware of any such since WWII. Given this, it looks like the defense of the homeland is working just fine as it is.
There have been other attacks, including terrorist attacks, but the armed forces are the wrong thing to try to counter those with.
Read the Constitution and pay attention to what the words mean. The US is not required to spend money on defense (although spending some is a very good idea), and General Welfare is not as limited as you conceive it. The welfare of the United States is the sum of the welfare of its citizens, and establishing universal health care would benefit both that and any individual state.
You're citing the left for taking facts out of context (and I can argue that the number of suicides is relevant), not for making up facts. The classification of scary-looking semi-automatic weapons as assault weapons is stupid, but it's not actually counterfactual. Fake news isn't taking facts out of context, it's about ignoring what is true and what is false.
Hillary had classified data on her email server. We know that. We don't know that the server was illegal. We do know it would be illegal now, because the law changed after she left the State Department. The server may have been used to do illegal things, but that doesn't make it illegal in itself. I can deliberately hit someone with my car, and the car remains legal.
The FBI reported on the server and classified information. The FBI said, correctly, that it wasn't worth prosecuting. (Anyone disagreeing with that "correctly" is invited to tell me of one case where someone inadvertently mishandled classified information and was criminally prosecuted. So far, nobody has.)
The Nunes memo didn't provide facts that said the warrants were invalid. It said that the FBI didn't provide some background information about the Steele dossier, but not what they actually did say. If the FBI said that the source was biased and not particularly reliable, that would be enough to make the application valid. (I don't know for a fact that that's what happened, but the Nunes memo doesn't rule it out.) Courts and law enforcement have to deal with biased and unreliable information all the time.
The memo also said that a certain newspaper article referenced did not corroborate the Steele dossier, since it came from the same source. It didn't say that the warrant application described it as corroborating anything.
In neither case did Nunes say what other evidence went along with the dossier and the article.
Therefore, going over hundreds of pages of stuff, Nunes couldn't come up with an actual smoking gun, but rather made some misleading insinuations. Going by that, I have to consider the FBI investigation to be extremely professional.
In the famous case of the Colorado bakers ("Sweet cakes"?), I was unimpressed by the Snopes.com article. They did, however, link to the legal decision which provided a lot more information. If you want a quick read on things, Snopes and Politifact are reasonable sources. If you want to know in detail, you can read the entire article. If you want to get deeper into it, they provide sources.
I actually should have said that EVERYTHING is true or false...and perhaps it applies to specific statements that can be objectively measured to a binary solution.
Yes, everything that can be objectively measured to a binary solution is true or false. That's a tautology.
If it cannot be, then it is not a factual statement and cannot be claimed to be right or wrong and instead, merely argued as a point of view.
Not all statements about facts can be objectively determined. Suppose you and I are out walking at night, and a car drives by and disappears in the distance. Neither you nor I catch the make or license number. We may honestly differ about what color the car was, and not have a way to objectively determine it. (Some car paints look different depending on the lighting conditions.)
"This man died of a heart attack" may not be clearly true or false. Perhaps the heart attack would not have killed him and he had other conditions.
If I either put six bullets into his head or someone else did, then "Did you kill him?" is true or false. If I gave a skydiver a little push to get him out of the plane, and he dies as a result of the jump, it's a lot iffier. If I gave him iffy food supplement pills and he died of undetermined causes, it's a lot iffier. If I yelled at him and he died of a heart attack, it's a lot iffier.
There's a short murder mystery Raymond Smullyan once wrote. A, B, and C are making treks through the desert on their camels, and have stopped at an oasis for the night. Both B and C want to kill A. B puts poison in A's waterbags. C knows that A will drink up in the morning, and not drink from his waterbags until he's far out in the desert, so C puts small holes in A's waterbags so the water will leak out. In the morning, A fills his waterbags, drinks until bursting, gets on his camel, and leaves. He gets far into the desert, finds his waterbags are empty, and dies of thirst trying to get back. Who killed him?
B put poison in A's waterbags, but A never drank it. C contrived to prevent A from drinking the poison, inadvertantly, and in fact A would have died from poison if C had left his waterbags alone.
There's also an element of intent. Someone who intends to write the truth may indeed write something that's false, but this isn't the same as someone who's intentionally lying or just making stuff up.
You apparently missed the "We don't want to talk about things that simply do not happen". The "I'm not going to have a discussion about harassement that is not occuring" can be construed as you say, but not germane to a discussion of harassment in general.
But a trend or systematic problem is also something that "occurs", and it takes a lot more than pointing at individual cases of harassment occurring to demonstrate that a trend or systematic problem is occurring
If we need more than individual cases to start a discussion, we'll never start one, since every discussion of something that might be a trend or systemic problem starts with individual cases. hackertourist wasn't saying where the discussion had to go.
Microsoft controls the price on enterprise laptops and desktops. CIOs complain and pay it as a cost of doing business. There are usually good reasons not to go to Mac or Linux.
Find an economist, and ask him or her to explain monopoly pricing and economic monopolies to you.
We don't persecute people for thought crime here. Not yet anyway.
And now you're talking about the ways people persecute others who are guilty of the thought crime of thinking their gender isn't the same as the sex assigned at birth. Just because something's legal doesn't mean it's right.
The right to not be in a mental hospital has now trumped the right to life.
You're not talking about the right to life; you're talking about mandated continued living. Moreover, there are very good reasons to make it difficult to send someone to a mental hospital involuntarily, getting them out of the way for whatever purpose.
It's usually possible to do an involuntary commitment if a person is a severe imminent threat to themselves or others, but the warning signs are often missed. (If someone turns undepressed all of a sudden, that's very likely because that person has a plan for suicide.)
It's not just gun ownership. There's lots of things that can turn out bad for a person with a medical history of mental health problems. We're seeing plenty of ACs here talk about their experiences, because they don't want to leave an easy-to-follow record. (I'm not bothering, but if I were fired today and never worked again I'd still have a comfortable retirement.)
On the other hand, if you can just hide mental illness, and lots of us are or have been good at that, there's no legal or social repercussions.
Suicide is usually a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Serious depression sure doesn't feel temporary, and is very distressing while it goes on. Suicide can easily look like the only way to be not depressed.
Living for your own sake is perfectly fine, as billions of atheists do everyday.
That's not the main point, though. It's fine, I'll agree, but it may not be possible. pkphilip apparently had great difficulty with it, turned to religion, and stopped feeling suicidal. I consider this a Good Thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I've read about studies that showed that light drinking was better for your health than no alcohol. There's risks in drinking the stuff, and risks in not drinking it.
At the age of 54, I got a great job, although I was a bit under average salary for a while. I think it's a matter of luck and hair dye.
I'd put my peak somewhat later, but I'm definitely going downhill. My manager still considers me middle of the pack, and it's a darn good pack, so I'm happy with that. I'm in my mid-60s and intend to retire next year.
Some of us are very insistent on not going into management. My manager makes more than I do, and I have no problem with that, because I really don't want his job.
The people I saw graduating with Ph.D.s in Computer Science were not generally going to particularly nice places, or places they'd expect to do much research in.
Okay, when was the last time the homeland was attacked by military forces? I'm not aware of any such since WWII. Given this, it looks like the defense of the homeland is working just fine as it is.
There have been other attacks, including terrorist attacks, but the armed forces are the wrong thing to try to counter those with.
Read the Constitution and pay attention to what the words mean. The US is not required to spend money on defense (although spending some is a very good idea), and General Welfare is not as limited as you conceive it. The welfare of the United States is the sum of the welfare of its citizens, and establishing universal health care would benefit both that and any individual state.
You're citing the left for taking facts out of context (and I can argue that the number of suicides is relevant), not for making up facts. The classification of scary-looking semi-automatic weapons as assault weapons is stupid, but it's not actually counterfactual. Fake news isn't taking facts out of context, it's about ignoring what is true and what is false.
Hillary had classified data on her email server. We know that. We don't know that the server was illegal. We do know it would be illegal now, because the law changed after she left the State Department. The server may have been used to do illegal things, but that doesn't make it illegal in itself. I can deliberately hit someone with my car, and the car remains legal.
The FBI reported on the server and classified information. The FBI said, correctly, that it wasn't worth prosecuting. (Anyone disagreeing with that "correctly" is invited to tell me of one case where someone inadvertently mishandled classified information and was criminally prosecuted. So far, nobody has.)
And not just today. ACs were never known for truth and integrity, but they seem to be worse lately.
The Nunes memo didn't provide facts that said the warrants were invalid. It said that the FBI didn't provide some background information about the Steele dossier, but not what they actually did say. If the FBI said that the source was biased and not particularly reliable, that would be enough to make the application valid. (I don't know for a fact that that's what happened, but the Nunes memo doesn't rule it out.) Courts and law enforcement have to deal with biased and unreliable information all the time.
The memo also said that a certain newspaper article referenced did not corroborate the Steele dossier, since it came from the same source. It didn't say that the warrant application described it as corroborating anything.
In neither case did Nunes say what other evidence went along with the dossier and the article.
Therefore, going over hundreds of pages of stuff, Nunes couldn't come up with an actual smoking gun, but rather made some misleading insinuations. Going by that, I have to consider the FBI investigation to be extremely professional.
So you like the gradations Snopes uses? Good.
In the famous case of the Colorado bakers ("Sweet cakes"?), I was unimpressed by the Snopes.com article. They did, however, link to the legal decision which provided a lot more information. If you want a quick read on things, Snopes and Politifact are reasonable sources. If you want to know in detail, you can read the entire article. If you want to get deeper into it, they provide sources.
Yes, everything that can be objectively measured to a binary solution is true or false. That's a tautology.
Not all statements about facts can be objectively determined. Suppose you and I are out walking at night, and a car drives by and disappears in the distance. Neither you nor I catch the make or license number. We may honestly differ about what color the car was, and not have a way to objectively determine it. (Some car paints look different depending on the lighting conditions.)
"This man died of a heart attack" may not be clearly true or false. Perhaps the heart attack would not have killed him and he had other conditions.
If I either put six bullets into his head or someone else did, then "Did you kill him?" is true or false. If I gave a skydiver a little push to get him out of the plane, and he dies as a result of the jump, it's a lot iffier. If I gave him iffy food supplement pills and he died of undetermined causes, it's a lot iffier. If I yelled at him and he died of a heart attack, it's a lot iffier.
There's a short murder mystery Raymond Smullyan once wrote. A, B, and C are making treks through the desert on their camels, and have stopped at an oasis for the night. Both B and C want to kill A. B puts poison in A's waterbags. C knows that A will drink up in the morning, and not drink from his waterbags until he's far out in the desert, so C puts small holes in A's waterbags so the water will leak out. In the morning, A fills his waterbags, drinks until bursting, gets on his camel, and leaves. He gets far into the desert, finds his waterbags are empty, and dies of thirst trying to get back. Who killed him?
B put poison in A's waterbags, but A never drank it. C contrived to prevent A from drinking the poison, inadvertantly, and in fact A would have died from poison if C had left his waterbags alone.
Who killed A?
There's also an element of intent. Someone who intends to write the truth may indeed write something that's false, but this isn't the same as someone who's intentionally lying or just making stuff up.
You apparently missed the "We don't want to talk about things that simply do not happen". The "I'm not going to have a discussion about harassement that is not occuring" can be construed as you say, but not germane to a discussion of harassment in general.
If we need more than individual cases to start a discussion, we'll never start one, since every discussion of something that might be a trend or systemic problem starts with individual cases. hackertourist wasn't saying where the discussion had to go.
Microsoft controls the price on enterprise laptops and desktops. CIOs complain and pay it as a cost of doing business. There are usually good reasons not to go to Mac or Linux.
Find an economist, and ask him or her to explain monopoly pricing and economic monopolies to you.
And now you're talking about the ways people persecute others who are guilty of the thought crime of thinking their gender isn't the same as the sex assigned at birth. Just because something's legal doesn't mean it's right.
So, in a study that claims to show an asymmetry between left and right, the damning thing is a lack of symmetry between left and right?
Yup. It's hardly ideal, but unless you can talk to someone who was actually there it's the best you're going to get.
You're not talking about the right to life; you're talking about mandated continued living. Moreover, there are very good reasons to make it difficult to send someone to a mental hospital involuntarily, getting them out of the way for whatever purpose.
It's usually possible to do an involuntary commitment if a person is a severe imminent threat to themselves or others, but the warning signs are often missed. (If someone turns undepressed all of a sudden, that's very likely because that person has a plan for suicide.)
It's not just gun ownership. There's lots of things that can turn out bad for a person with a medical history of mental health problems. We're seeing plenty of ACs here talk about their experiences, because they don't want to leave an easy-to-follow record. (I'm not bothering, but if I were fired today and never worked again I'd still have a comfortable retirement.)
On the other hand, if you can just hide mental illness, and lots of us are or have been good at that, there's no legal or social repercussions.
Serious depression sure doesn't feel temporary, and is very distressing while it goes on. Suicide can easily look like the only way to be not depressed.
That's not the main point, though. It's fine, I'll agree, but it may not be possible. pkphilip apparently had great difficulty with it, turned to religion, and stopped feeling suicidal. I consider this a Good Thing.