Trump isn't going to get rid of representative elections in the next 4-8 years, if that's what you mean. Clinton...who knows. I actually don't have 100% confidence that that wouldn't be the result of her election.
At this point, any change is better than the status quo. Just waiting for the bottom to fall out of the economy again or another foreign war started by that harridan neocon warmonger...no.
Romney failed to drive turnout. Period. No one wanted to vote for him for any positive reason - it was all "we hate Obama". Still, with that, he came fairly close to winning.
Peggy Noonan had an article a couple weeks ago about one of her friends in Manhattan. The guy is pretty middle of the road, according to her, and has voted both ways in the past. He said something like "I'm going to go into that booth and vote for him and never admit it, like 40 million others".
The polls this year lack veracity for that reason. I see what the USC/LAT people are doing, and it's interesting, but who knows whether that is real, either.
Do you really believe all of this fake angst about Trump's statements? Or are they desperate for the good old days to come back when they didn't have to deal with a tea party or Trumpkins? Maybe they think they can separate themselves from the perceived electoral disaster coming?
Or, perhaps, there are a lot of people who will behave differently inside a voting booth than outside of it?
Why would I want a locked down product like this? What possible advantage is this system going to give me over commodity hardware, besides eliminating choice?
Looks from here like (barely) cut-rate Apple...and if i'm going to do that, might as well go to the source rather than the imitator.
Desktop Linux seems to be closer and closer to the mainstream the further down this road we go.
I'm sure Milo is campaigning for his own annihilation, because he doesn't want a long life of screwing black guys. Right.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Busy finding demons where there are none, which implies you're an idiot. Or it could be worse, you actually think that creating a false narrative is the only way to preserve political power for the failed leftists in charge now. In which case you're a scumbag. Either way...not good.
Actually most of the gays I know are Trump supporters in general. Since they generally know where the best food is, where the best bars are, and always seem to be having fun and have way more sex than most people do, one must wonder if they have some insight into this choice as well.
The 'second run theater' is not a new thing. They mostly all got forced out of business by the early 90s, but that was most of the movie watching I did as a kid.
The movie business is what it is because of their own poor choices - like cab companies. They suckled at the teat of their monopoly business for a very long time and now that competition is here, complaints start and fingerpointing begins.
The world where consumer products carried onto public transport shouldn't burst into flames. If they have failure modes where this happens, it shouldn't be a consumer product, or shouldn't be carried onto public transport. Pick one.
What kind of world do you live in where this is ok?
You can still patent an implementation of it, it just must be fully formed and described in the patent and include something other than software. The software by itself is not patentable.
I don't feel sorry for the rent seekers trying to prevent others from creating similar solutions. Not even in the slightest.
It's unknowable, isn't it? The nature of the universe we live in is such that there is a finite limit to the information we can have about its origin. I'm open to any possibility - including a "supreme being" who created our universe by doing something said supreme being didn't realize would create a new universe, say by opening a can of beer in another reality, causing some nucleus inside the aluminum can to spawn off another universe.
I only reject the idea of an omniscient supreme being, conscious of our universe, who is watching over our behavior and punishing and rewarding us for same. Unless the computer simulation theory is right, in which case I can imagine the administrators probably do have that kind of power over us. Though why they would care would be my next question.
I guess the answer is that I don't know. I just don't buy into anything supernatural at all because I have never seen anything remotely requiring a supernatural explanation. I've had an eventful life. I've been married twice, divorced, had kids, shot at, been in combat, seen people die. Traveled within 5 continents. Still haven't seen anything remotely supernatural in all that time.
Conclusions I have come to: most of the text that is attributed to the Hebrew YHWH or to Jesus Christ falls into the category of mythology - supernatural acts that have no analogue in our modern experience. The Jesus of scripture probably had little relation to the actual person - I am willing to admit that Pontius Pilate probably crucified someone named Joshua in the right time frame, and the Sanhedrin and Caiaphas wanted that to happen. The why...always the why is the problem. But even when we get past the historical context and its validity, the basis of the religion essentially came down to soothsaying, same as the rest. I recognize the value of this. I'll even admit that I feel an empty pit where once a belief in a personal deity would have been a comfort, absolving me of certain responsibilities and offering the chance of seeing my dad again, if I only were a decent person and followed the rules.
I just can't believe in something that seems so completely fake.
I learned too much in the process of severing myself from Catholicism to ever be able to go back to any form of Christianity. It probably took about 10 years to decide to admit I had no religion, and I had to convince myself it was all bullshit.
You assume that I am a Dawkins fanatic. I am not. I am a thoroughly lapsed Catholic, but I actually respect those with religious views...if it comforts you, great. I think Dawkins is an asshole for making people feel bad about their beliefs and I tell my daughter (a fan, sadly) that constantly. But I am entitled to my near-nihilist beliefs as well.
I don't believe in supernatural phenomena because no one can demonstrate supernatural phenomena to me. My wife works with holistic physicians who have actual medical credentials but believe in Chinese herbs (see Mao's opinion of same...), homeopathy and Reiki healing as an adjunct to Western medicine. They attribute supernatural phenomena to those practices - stuff that can't be measured using instruments and can't be photographed or otherwise detected by technological devices. I call bullshit on it all in my head. But I don't rub it in with her because she believes in this.
I happen to feel the same way about religious beliefs in the afterlife because all the evidence is based on human testimony. People lie, misconstrue and otherwise warp evidence in their favor - many years of exposure to civil litigation has certainly convinced me of that. William of Ockham can take care of the rest - there is no need to attribute supernatural phenomena to things people see in near-death experiences, there's enough weirdness going on in the process of cell death and loss of consciousness to answer for just about anything.
I happen to feel the same about stigmata and the Virgin Mary appearing on toast. I'm only telling you this because you're chiding me for believing differently. I'm not trying to be a dick about it.
To be fair, Torah copying didn't emerge as a fixed discipline all overnight. Maimonides set down the rules about 800 years ago, I believe. Also, the oldest complete Torah we have is from the 12th century. There are minor textual differences between the Hasmonean-era books and the current Biblical texts. The Septuagint (Greek text) was in common use amongst Jews in the centuries before the rise of Christianity, evidence its inclusion at Qumran and the testimony of Philo and Josephus. But the bottom line is that we don't know that copying the Torah was very disciplined before 2nd Century BCE date of the Septuagint because we have next to no evidence besides the Silver Scrolls with a short passage from Numbers dated to the 6th Century BCE.
I learned about that in Catechism as a kid and I never believed it. The message is muddy at best. Works vs. grace...I know the doctrine, but the reality is something entirely different. Otherwise, why do people with cash get annulments and their names mentioned in prayers? It's their train ticket to heaven bought through social class.
Every religion with any significant adherence promises something good to happen after this life if you follow its precepts. Name one with any significant adherence that doesn't - and you can't. Even Confucian beliefs premise on something positive happening after life is over. Otherwise, why worship your ancestors?
No one said anything about reprieve from mortality. Reading your own text into another's writing is far worse than ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently you think someone who is completely lawless - Clinton - is just peachy.
Trump isn't going to get rid of representative elections in the next 4-8 years, if that's what you mean. Clinton...who knows. I actually don't have 100% confidence that that wouldn't be the result of her election.
At this point, any change is better than the status quo. Just waiting for the bottom to fall out of the economy again or another foreign war started by that harridan neocon warmonger...no.
Romney failed to drive turnout. Period. No one wanted to vote for him for any positive reason - it was all "we hate Obama". Still, with that, he came fairly close to winning.
If it were as simple as that, a Trump landslide. Seriously - 400+ electorals.
It isn't that simple, and there's only a month left.
It was a good opportunity - well played.
Peggy Noonan had an article a couple weeks ago about one of her friends in Manhattan. The guy is pretty middle of the road, according to her, and has voted both ways in the past. He said something like "I'm going to go into that booth and vote for him and never admit it, like 40 million others".
The polls this year lack veracity for that reason. I see what the USC/LAT people are doing, and it's interesting, but who knows whether that is real, either.
Probably our only chance for meaningful change...Clinton would be the same shit and worse for at least 4 more years.
Do you really believe all of this fake angst about Trump's statements? Or are they desperate for the good old days to come back when they didn't have to deal with a tea party or Trumpkins? Maybe they think they can separate themselves from the perceived electoral disaster coming?
Or, perhaps, there are a lot of people who will behave differently inside a voting booth than outside of it?
Working within the system will have no result. The only significant disclosures will come from someone throwing their life away ala Snowden.
The Yahoo thing doesn't grab the general public by the pussy, so they don't care.
Must be related to Hillary Clinton.
"bimbo eruptions" "not believable" "a distraction" - all things Hillary has said in public.
Laughing about the (guilty) child rapist she got off back in the 70s was worse than all of that, though.
Why would I want a locked down product like this? What possible advantage is this system going to give me over commodity hardware, besides eliminating choice?
Looks from here like (barely) cut-rate Apple...and if i'm going to do that, might as well go to the source rather than the imitator.
Desktop Linux seems to be closer and closer to the mainstream the further down this road we go.
I'm sure Milo is campaigning for his own annihilation, because he doesn't want a long life of screwing black guys. Right.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Busy finding demons where there are none, which implies you're an idiot. Or it could be worse, you actually think that creating a false narrative is the only way to preserve political power for the failed leftists in charge now. In which case you're a scumbag. Either way...not good.
Actually most of the gays I know are Trump supporters in general. Since they generally know where the best food is, where the best bars are, and always seem to be having fun and have way more sex than most people do, one must wonder if they have some insight into this choice as well.
The 'second run theater' is not a new thing. They mostly all got forced out of business by the early 90s, but that was most of the movie watching I did as a kid.
The movie business is what it is because of their own poor choices - like cab companies. They suckled at the teat of their monopoly business for a very long time and now that competition is here, complaints start and fingerpointing begins.
The world where consumer products carried onto public transport shouldn't burst into flames. If they have failure modes where this happens, it shouldn't be a consumer product, or shouldn't be carried onto public transport. Pick one.
What kind of world do you live in where this is ok?
I seem to remember a whole bunch of sock puppets talking about how this was all overblown the first time around.
You can still patent an implementation of it, it just must be fully formed and described in the patent and include something other than software. The software by itself is not patentable.
I don't feel sorry for the rent seekers trying to prevent others from creating similar solutions. Not even in the slightest.
It's unknowable, isn't it? The nature of the universe we live in is such that there is a finite limit to the information we can have about its origin. I'm open to any possibility - including a "supreme being" who created our universe by doing something said supreme being didn't realize would create a new universe, say by opening a can of beer in another reality, causing some nucleus inside the aluminum can to spawn off another universe.
I only reject the idea of an omniscient supreme being, conscious of our universe, who is watching over our behavior and punishing and rewarding us for same. Unless the computer simulation theory is right, in which case I can imagine the administrators probably do have that kind of power over us. Though why they would care would be my next question.
I guess the answer is that I don't know. I just don't buy into anything supernatural at all because I have never seen anything remotely requiring a supernatural explanation. I've had an eventful life. I've been married twice, divorced, had kids, shot at, been in combat, seen people die. Traveled within 5 continents. Still haven't seen anything remotely supernatural in all that time.
Conclusions I have come to: most of the text that is attributed to the Hebrew YHWH or to Jesus Christ falls into the category of mythology - supernatural acts that have no analogue in our modern experience. The Jesus of scripture probably had little relation to the actual person - I am willing to admit that Pontius Pilate probably crucified someone named Joshua in the right time frame, and the Sanhedrin and Caiaphas wanted that to happen. The why...always the why is the problem. But even when we get past the historical context and its validity, the basis of the religion essentially came down to soothsaying, same as the rest. I recognize the value of this. I'll even admit that I feel an empty pit where once a belief in a personal deity would have been a comfort, absolving me of certain responsibilities and offering the chance of seeing my dad again, if I only were a decent person and followed the rules.
I just can't believe in something that seems so completely fake.
I learned too much in the process of severing myself from Catholicism to ever be able to go back to any form of Christianity. It probably took about 10 years to decide to admit I had no religion, and I had to convince myself it was all bullshit.
You assume that I am a Dawkins fanatic. I am not. I am a thoroughly lapsed Catholic, but I actually respect those with religious views...if it comforts you, great. I think Dawkins is an asshole for making people feel bad about their beliefs and I tell my daughter (a fan, sadly) that constantly. But I am entitled to my near-nihilist beliefs as well.
I don't believe in supernatural phenomena because no one can demonstrate supernatural phenomena to me. My wife works with holistic physicians who have actual medical credentials but believe in Chinese herbs (see Mao's opinion of same...), homeopathy and Reiki healing as an adjunct to Western medicine. They attribute supernatural phenomena to those practices - stuff that can't be measured using instruments and can't be photographed or otherwise detected by technological devices. I call bullshit on it all in my head. But I don't rub it in with her because she believes in this.
I happen to feel the same way about religious beliefs in the afterlife because all the evidence is based on human testimony. People lie, misconstrue and otherwise warp evidence in their favor - many years of exposure to civil litigation has certainly convinced me of that. William of Ockham can take care of the rest - there is no need to attribute supernatural phenomena to things people see in near-death experiences, there's enough weirdness going on in the process of cell death and loss of consciousness to answer for just about anything.
I happen to feel the same about stigmata and the Virgin Mary appearing on toast. I'm only telling you this because you're chiding me for believing differently. I'm not trying to be a dick about it.
To be fair, Torah copying didn't emerge as a fixed discipline all overnight. Maimonides set down the rules about 800 years ago, I believe. Also, the oldest complete Torah we have is from the 12th century. There are minor textual differences between the Hasmonean-era books and the current Biblical texts. The Septuagint (Greek text) was in common use amongst Jews in the centuries before the rise of Christianity, evidence its inclusion at Qumran and the testimony of Philo and Josephus. But the bottom line is that we don't know that copying the Torah was very disciplined before 2nd Century BCE date of the Septuagint because we have next to no evidence besides the Silver Scrolls with a short passage from Numbers dated to the 6th Century BCE.
I learned about that in Catechism as a kid and I never believed it. The message is muddy at best. Works vs. grace...I know the doctrine, but the reality is something entirely different. Otherwise, why do people with cash get annulments and their names mentioned in prayers? It's their train ticket to heaven bought through social class.
Every religion with any significant adherence promises something good to happen after this life if you follow its precepts. Name one with any significant adherence that doesn't - and you can't. Even Confucian beliefs premise on something positive happening after life is over. Otherwise, why worship your ancestors?
No one said anything about reprieve from mortality. Reading your own text into another's writing is far worse than ignorance.