The fact that NN was regulated for quite a few years (many of those years illegally), and then dumped by the Trump administration, suggests that political parties have different views on NN. On this issue, at least, the Obama administration did the right thing and the Trump administration didn't.
The purpose is to try to exert some minor political influence (all most of us can hope for). I have my own political views, and the Democrats are almost always closer to those than the Republicans, particularly in the last couple of decades. I don't know of a better way to spend a little work and a little money trying to change how the country is run.
So you claim that all states' rights situations are exactly like any other states' rights situation? And that there's no ground to look at possible differences and base one's position on those?
I don't know of any US violations of international law concerning neutrality until 1941. The transfer of old US destroyers to Britain was illegal under international law. The US started to repair and refit British warships (illegal) and by September 1941 was in an undeclared war with Germany, with the US Navy fighting the U-boats (not too successfully, as US anti-submarine equipment and doctrine lagged).
It's pretty clear that Roosevelt chose sides early on, but had to ease the US out of strict neutrality. The Cash and Carry Act, in which belligerents could freely trade in the US as long as they picked up their materiel from the US, was pretty flagrantly pro-belligerent-with-financial-reserves-and-merchant-shipping-and-the-means-to-protect-it.
Allying with Germany wasn't Stalin's first choice. Stalin preferred an alliance with Britain and France, but found them frustratingly reluctant to negotiate with. My best guess is that the British and French didn't think there was anywhere else the Soviets could go, and decided to drag things out to get better terms, to the point that the alliance would not be that useful to the Soviet Union. Since that negotiation wasn't working, Molotov negotiated a treaty with Germany.
Stalin knew that Germany wasn't going to stay peaceful, and so took advantage of the negotiated terms to grab as much buffer territory as he could, which came in handy in June 1941.
Finland was a co-belligerent against the Soviet Union, and operated independently (aside from allowing the Germans to attack through Finland in the north). Romania acted as a German ally.
Avoiding bugs when programming in your favorite programming language is difficult to impossible. Avoiding bugs when making laws in English in a rapidly changing world is similarly difficult to impossible, and there's assorted political considerations when making laws.
What you have proposed is something like bringing in a junior Javascript programmer to fix bugs in your C++ programs.
SCO is a corner case. In most lawsuits, the defense tries to drag things out. Since this was not a lawsuit for SCO to win, but to drag out, the plaintiffs dragged things out, and the legal system was not quite set up for that.
However, you seem to have no qualms about people in New York having their elections decided entirely by country hicks (should I add some more adjectives to that to balance "distant arrogant elitist leftists"?
There's lots of people who are up to no good. Some of them use ciphers. Finding out what books one of them has checked out from the library would involve constant surveillance of the suspect whenever the suspect leaves a library. The government has nation-state resources, but also nation-state concerns, which eans lots of surveillance target, which means that its resources are spread thin.
The government can know that somebody's at a library, but if the government doesn't act fast the government won't know what books the someone checked out.
The appropriate government agencies knew that the Florida nightclub shooter was likely to do what he did sometime. Not knowing when, they couldn't assign enough resources to keep track of the shooter on a moment-to-moment basis.
In other words, a more complicated payload. The moon missions could not have been done without a tremendous amount of innovation to build on. Much of what you're describing is mechanics. There's no fundamental difference between sending a cosmonaut into orbit and three astronauts to the moon.
F-35 engines are greatly different from biplane engines,even a late biplane like the Italian CR.42 (which never went into production because even the Italians realized by then that using biplanes as fighters was stupid). Saturn V engines are different from whatever Gagarin used in detail, not principle. There were far more steps between an early biplane fighter (Nieuport 17?) and an F-35. There's far more innovation from the number of steps.
The feeling of free will is based on things like deciding to comment on Slashdot posts. Nobody makes me do this. I do it because I want to. When we study it, it gets complicated (we find that willpower is finite, and that many decisions are made before we're aware of deciding, for example). It seems likely that a study of all the components of my body in sufficient detail with sufficient understanding would yield the result that I like to comment in Slashdot, but that's the mechanics.
Technically, almost everything in the Universe is based on being a giant blob of quantum mechanical particles that happen to work well together.
Thanks, but I don't understand him on unpredictability in complex systems. Emergent behavior is as predictable as any other. If we have enough understanding of hydrogen and oxygen, we can predict what properties water has. It can take an awful lot of figuring, but it's at least possible in principle. (The author is clearly talking about any amount of computation being possible, since the author refers to an infinite-precision simulation of chaotic behavior.)
Without unpredictability from emergence, which I don't see, determinism is just fine and healthy.
I have a direct sensation of something that we have labeled "consciousness". People in general agree that they have a sensation that seems to be much like mine. Similarly, I have a direct sensation of seeing yellow. I know far more about the physiology of the latter. I can have a direct sensation of pain (actually, at my age, I frequently have direct sensations of minor pain).
We found that yellow is a certain band of electromagnetic radiation, and how we perceive it. Pain is a more difficult subject, but we understand what's going on to some extent. Consciousness is proving more difficult.
Burning bushes - one report. Alien abduction probing - a few claims in one culture. Lunch with Bigfoot - never seen a claim. Turning into a newt - never seen a claim. Something like the Force or Tao - multiple claims across multiple cultures. One of these is not like the others.
If Clinton said that, probably as an expression of frustration rather than an actual plan, it suggests that her attitude was not the government one, and that there was no way to get the US to try to get Assange. Nor do I know that an accuser had CIA ties (I've seen so many lies about the case), or that people with CIA ties can't be raped or sexually assaulted in private life.
Now, if you can provide evidence, I'll pay attention to it.
In the US, rape is sex without consent. There are weird sex laws here, but typically
However, the UK court system, up to the top, ruled that what Assange is accused of is rape under appropriate UK law. Otherwise, the extradition request would have been turned down. That's how extradition works.
Consent to sex with a condom is not consent to sex without a condom. A sleeping person can't consent to sex. Assange is said to have initiated sex with a sleeping woman without using a condom.
I can't follow up your link because it doesn't like my ad blocker, but there's a very large amount of lies and unsupported claims out there, and I prefer to stick to the more official stuff I've seen. I will point out that the behavior of people after being raped sometimes seems irrational and inexplicable.
No, the government is likely to be needed to have each problem solve the other. If nobody has a stable job, and most people have a decent chance of having their job automated away in the next year, and are looking at serious problems if that happens, the private sector is going to exploit those people for all they're worth.
The ruling class depends on the economy for their livelihood. Specifically, they depend on having a functioning economy. Without large numbers of people laboring for them, they aren't rich. Those nice cars? Produced by workers. That nice food? Prepared by workers. That mansion? It won't clean itself. It's also no fun trying to sexually harass a robot vacuum cleaner.
As a general rule, I don't expect truck drivers and coal miners to be, on the whole, better than average at finding new jobs. When they're just out on their ear without relevant skills, they're disadvantaged compared to the average job seeker. When they're living in one city, and the appropriate jobs are in another some distance away, that's a disadvantage.
I don't consider the working classes to be so tremendously superior that obstacles mean nothing to them.
Swedish charges against Assange have been dropped because, apparently, they need to be trying to apprehend Assange for there to be charges (the Swedes apparently don't have "charges" in the sense that we do). The charge will be brought up again if Sweden can get Assange into custody.
The rape allegation is a rape allegation. You appear to be very willing to throw accusations out if you like a guy.
I also suspect you understand Swedish law about as I understand Chinese. I don't know why the Swedish authorities didn't interview him at the embassy, but if I remember his demands they weren't satisfactory for a serious interrogation. The Swedish Government can't actually give assurances against extradition without writing a new law. That's a judicial matter. Instead, you assume that Assange was being reasonable while the Swedish authorities weren't, without trying to understand why the Swedes did what they did.
Do you have two examples of Sweden allowing CIA kidnapping? I only found one, quite a few years ago, that caused political problems for the government. Your cite also notes that the Swedes did agree that the subject wasn't to be tortured, and that agreement was violated. You're basing your claim of rendition on an exceedingly thin thread.
You have provided no support for the idea that the US wants him in the first place. If the US had wanted to get him, it would have been shortly after Assange released the material, not now that he's faded into irrelevance. There is no credible threat of execution or torture. Ecuador wanted to thumb its nose at the British and Americans, no more. There is no need for assurance; after all, Sweden can't extradite him to the US without UK permission.
As far as I can tell, Assange likely raped a woman, for which a completely legal extradition request was made, fled to the UK, apparently without the Swedish authorities knowing, and has been dodging the rape accusation. I see no reason for him to fear torture. If he comes out, he will face prosecution, because he violated UK law and may well be guilty of a serious crime in Sweden, which hasn't been determined in court.
Well, you'd expect Palin to say something dumb. However, the Hillary supporters I know haven't been hysterical about the asshole. I suspect you're talking about a very small, if loud, number of people.
The consensual sex wasn't rape. We're all agreed on that. Sleeping people can't consent. And, remember, consent to sex with a condom is not consent to sex without a condom. Moreover, because you agree to sex with a guy once doesn't mean you've agreed to sex with him whenever he wants.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that NN was regulated for quite a few years (many of those years illegally), and then dumped by the Trump administration, suggests that political parties have different views on NN. On this issue, at least, the Obama administration did the right thing and the Trump administration didn't.
The purpose is to try to exert some minor political influence (all most of us can hope for). I have my own political views, and the Democrats are almost always closer to those than the Republicans, particularly in the last couple of decades. I don't know of a better way to spend a little work and a little money trying to change how the country is run.
So you claim that all states' rights situations are exactly like any other states' rights situation? And that there's no ground to look at possible differences and base one's position on those?
Last mile isn't interstate.
Last-mile coverage is inherently local, and NN is mostly about the last mile.
I don't know of any US violations of international law concerning neutrality until 1941. The transfer of old US destroyers to Britain was illegal under international law. The US started to repair and refit British warships (illegal) and by September 1941 was in an undeclared war with Germany, with the US Navy fighting the U-boats (not too successfully, as US anti-submarine equipment and doctrine lagged).
It's pretty clear that Roosevelt chose sides early on, but had to ease the US out of strict neutrality. The Cash and Carry Act, in which belligerents could freely trade in the US as long as they picked up their materiel from the US, was pretty flagrantly pro-belligerent-with-financial-reserves-and-merchant-shipping-and-the-means-to-protect-it.
Allying with Germany wasn't Stalin's first choice. Stalin preferred an alliance with Britain and France, but found them frustratingly reluctant to negotiate with. My best guess is that the British and French didn't think there was anywhere else the Soviets could go, and decided to drag things out to get better terms, to the point that the alliance would not be that useful to the Soviet Union. Since that negotiation wasn't working, Molotov negotiated a treaty with Germany.
Stalin knew that Germany wasn't going to stay peaceful, and so took advantage of the negotiated terms to grab as much buffer territory as he could, which came in handy in June 1941.
Finland was a co-belligerent against the Soviet Union, and operated independently (aside from allowing the Germans to attack through Finland in the north). Romania acted as a German ally.
Avoiding bugs when programming in your favorite programming language is difficult to impossible. Avoiding bugs when making laws in English in a rapidly changing world is similarly difficult to impossible, and there's assorted political considerations when making laws.
What you have proposed is something like bringing in a junior Javascript programmer to fix bugs in your C++ programs.
SCO is a corner case. In most lawsuits, the defense tries to drag things out. Since this was not a lawsuit for SCO to win, but to drag out, the plaintiffs dragged things out, and the legal system was not quite set up for that.
However, you seem to have no qualms about people in New York having their elections decided entirely by country hicks (should I add some more adjectives to that to balance "distant arrogant elitist leftists"?
There's lots of people who are up to no good. Some of them use ciphers. Finding out what books one of them has checked out from the library would involve constant surveillance of the suspect whenever the suspect leaves a library. The government has nation-state resources, but also nation-state concerns, which eans lots of surveillance target, which means that its resources are spread thin.
The government can know that somebody's at a library, but if the government doesn't act fast the government won't know what books the someone checked out.
The appropriate government agencies knew that the Florida nightclub shooter was likely to do what he did sometime. Not knowing when, they couldn't assign enough resources to keep track of the shooter on a moment-to-moment basis.
In other words, a more complicated payload. The moon missions could not have been done without a tremendous amount of innovation to build on. Much of what you're describing is mechanics. There's no fundamental difference between sending a cosmonaut into orbit and three astronauts to the moon.
F-35 engines are greatly different from biplane engines,even a late biplane like the Italian CR.42 (which never went into production because even the Italians realized by then that using biplanes as fighters was stupid). Saturn V engines are different from whatever Gagarin used in detail, not principle. There were far more steps between an early biplane fighter (Nieuport 17?) and an F-35. There's far more innovation from the number of steps.
The feeling of free will is based on things like deciding to comment on Slashdot posts. Nobody makes me do this. I do it because I want to. When we study it, it gets complicated (we find that willpower is finite, and that many decisions are made before we're aware of deciding, for example). It seems likely that a study of all the components of my body in sufficient detail with sufficient understanding would yield the result that I like to comment in Slashdot, but that's the mechanics.
Technically, almost everything in the Universe is based on being a giant blob of quantum mechanical particles that happen to work well together.
Thanks, but I don't understand him on unpredictability in complex systems. Emergent behavior is as predictable as any other. If we have enough understanding of hydrogen and oxygen, we can predict what properties water has. It can take an awful lot of figuring, but it's at least possible in principle. (The author is clearly talking about any amount of computation being possible, since the author refers to an infinite-precision simulation of chaotic behavior.)
Without unpredictability from emergence, which I don't see, determinism is just fine and healthy.
I have a direct sensation of something that we have labeled "consciousness". People in general agree that they have a sensation that seems to be much like mine. Similarly, I have a direct sensation of seeing yellow. I know far more about the physiology of the latter. I can have a direct sensation of pain (actually, at my age, I frequently have direct sensations of minor pain).
We found that yellow is a certain band of electromagnetic radiation, and how we perceive it. Pain is a more difficult subject, but we understand what's going on to some extent. Consciousness is proving more difficult.
Burning bushes - one report. Alien abduction probing - a few claims in one culture. Lunch with Bigfoot - never seen a claim. Turning into a newt - never seen a claim. Something like the Force or Tao - multiple claims across multiple cultures. One of these is not like the others.
If Clinton said that, probably as an expression of frustration rather than an actual plan, it suggests that her attitude was not the government one, and that there was no way to get the US to try to get Assange. Nor do I know that an accuser had CIA ties (I've seen so many lies about the case), or that people with CIA ties can't be raped or sexually assaulted in private life.
Now, if you can provide evidence, I'll pay attention to it.
In the US, rape is sex without consent. There are weird sex laws here, but typically
However, the UK court system, up to the top, ruled that what Assange is accused of is rape under appropriate UK law. Otherwise, the extradition request would have been turned down. That's how extradition works.
Consent to sex with a condom is not consent to sex without a condom. A sleeping person can't consent to sex. Assange is said to have initiated sex with a sleeping woman without using a condom.
I can't follow up your link because it doesn't like my ad blocker, but there's a very large amount of lies and unsupported claims out there, and I prefer to stick to the more official stuff I've seen. I will point out that the behavior of people after being raped sometimes seems irrational and inexplicable.
No, the government is likely to be needed to have each problem solve the other. If nobody has a stable job, and most people have a decent chance of having their job automated away in the next year, and are looking at serious problems if that happens, the private sector is going to exploit those people for all they're worth.
The ruling class depends on the economy for their livelihood. Specifically, they depend on having a functioning economy. Without large numbers of people laboring for them, they aren't rich. Those nice cars? Produced by workers. That nice food? Prepared by workers. That mansion? It won't clean itself. It's also no fun trying to sexually harass a robot vacuum cleaner.
As a general rule, I don't expect truck drivers and coal miners to be, on the whole, better than average at finding new jobs. When they're just out on their ear without relevant skills, they're disadvantaged compared to the average job seeker. When they're living in one city, and the appropriate jobs are in another some distance away, that's a disadvantage.
I don't consider the working classes to be so tremendously superior that obstacles mean nothing to them.
Swedish charges against Assange have been dropped because, apparently, they need to be trying to apprehend Assange for there to be charges (the Swedes apparently don't have "charges" in the sense that we do). The charge will be brought up again if Sweden can get Assange into custody.
The rape allegation is a rape allegation. You appear to be very willing to throw accusations out if you like a guy.
I also suspect you understand Swedish law about as I understand Chinese. I don't know why the Swedish authorities didn't interview him at the embassy, but if I remember his demands they weren't satisfactory for a serious interrogation. The Swedish Government can't actually give assurances against extradition without writing a new law. That's a judicial matter. Instead, you assume that Assange was being reasonable while the Swedish authorities weren't, without trying to understand why the Swedes did what they did.
Do you have two examples of Sweden allowing CIA kidnapping? I only found one, quite a few years ago, that caused political problems for the government. Your cite also notes that the Swedes did agree that the subject wasn't to be tortured, and that agreement was violated. You're basing your claim of rendition on an exceedingly thin thread.
You have provided no support for the idea that the US wants him in the first place. If the US had wanted to get him, it would have been shortly after Assange released the material, not now that he's faded into irrelevance. There is no credible threat of execution or torture. Ecuador wanted to thumb its nose at the British and Americans, no more. There is no need for assurance; after all, Sweden can't extradite him to the US without UK permission.
As far as I can tell, Assange likely raped a woman, for which a completely legal extradition request was made, fled to the UK, apparently without the Swedish authorities knowing, and has been dodging the rape accusation. I see no reason for him to fear torture. If he comes out, he will face prosecution, because he violated UK law and may well be guilty of a serious crime in Sweden, which hasn't been determined in court.
Man, the paranoid AC Assangeniks are out in force today.
Well, you'd expect Palin to say something dumb. However, the Hillary supporters I know haven't been hysterical about the asshole. I suspect you're talking about a very small, if loud, number of people.
The consensual sex wasn't rape. We're all agreed on that. Sleeping people can't consent. And, remember, consent to sex with a condom is not consent to sex without a condom. Moreover, because you agree to sex with a guy once doesn't mean you've agreed to sex with him whenever he wants.