I'm an audiobook addict. Snow Crash and Diamond Age are awesome books read by two of the very best narrators around. I've listened to both multiple times.
Anathem isn't half as good as either of those, and I was initially put off by the reader, but for some inexplicable reason, it is also the book I've listened to the most -- six or seven times through at least. There is something slow and comfortable about the way that Anathem develops that I find highly comforting during periods where my life is in high anxiety mode.
It is a difficult problem, but as a person who spends a significant amount of time reading medical records, I can't tell you how frustrating it is to try to figure out something as simple as the visit date in many printouts. Oddly, the "print date" is usually very prominent -- and irrelevant.
Seriously, WTF? The date should go right at the top, above everything else, or maybe right below name. There are some systems it's even hard to figure out the name of the patient (included as an endnote on page 2 or 3). When you are going through a 100 pages of this stuff, full of duplications and seemingly randomized formatting practices, you can only surmise the programmers were totally brain dead, which when applied to a difficult problem, compounds it exponentially.
Just a quibble, all libertarians are socially liberal. Socially liberal plus a bit of economic socialism is a Green. Socially liberal plus a laissez faire free-market capitalist is a Libertarian.
Google is a third party -- you just go ahead and see if they will actually delete your emails when you ask them. That's totally different than self-hosting and if you don't know that, you don't belong on/.
Secondly, if she wiped the server after she got the subpoena, that's a crime.
The most awesome thing in the world would be for her to be charged under the same law that took Ollie North down because part of the punishment is a permanent ban from all public office.
Yeah -- when GWB was being all neo-conny, Democrats pretended to be so liberal. Then Obama gets into power and is indistinguishable from GWB and Democrats are the epitome of silence.
No, we got what we got due to Obama. He was still touting the public option even after he made a back room deal with the insurance lobby to implement Nixon's health care plan:
All you say is true, but you should interweave into that that Clinton's penchant for free trade deals with unequal economies meant the decimation of good paying manufacturing jobs in America in exchange for low pay service jobs. Free trade between comparable economies is totally fine because they are competing on a level playing field -- free trade where the workers think 50 cents/day wage is awesome is a recipe for disaster for most people, and massive profit for a very select few.
Are you trying to say that politicians in the New GOP (AKA Democrats) have more personal integrity than those of the Old GOP (AKA parody of itself)?
We have two versions of a warmonging surveilling wall street suck up -- one that is pro abortion and gay marriage, and one that is not. But they're both fucking Republican parties. There isn't a liberal value upheld in either.
She will raise revenue for more war and more surveillance.
Look at this clip at 13:29 (better with context starting around 11:00) where HRC is cheerleading for the Iraq War. Her ONLY beef w/ GWB was doing tax cuts at the same time -- she openly says she wouldn't and that would leave more money for national and homeland security -- code for random foreign wars and a burgeoning NSA budget:
So yeah, you are totally right. When she gets us into a useless random war for no fucking reason at all, she'll raise taxes. Talk about a reason to vote for her! Yummy!/sarc
Well, it's possible. It was during the Clinton administration that regulation of Credit Default Swaps was deemed unnecessary. We all saw how that worked out.
Why would any Republican be afraid of HRC? She is one in all but name. Iraq War cheerleader, surveillor, wall street's best friend. Seriously, what is there for the GOP to hate policy wise? Yeah, we know they hater her personally, but from a policy perspective, she's the dream GOP candidate.
Of course, even if it was legal to have a home server to intercept all official communications, destroying it while under subpoena is the type of shitty move that can get you 20 years if you do that when the IRS or SEC demands info. It doesn't matter if it was legal to keep the info, once it is demanded, destruction of that info is the crime.
For too long, application of the third-party records doctrine has permitted absurd results. A person who stores documents and items in a physical space controlled by a third party in the business of renting it out retains a Fourth Amendment interest in those items. But if she stores the same information with an online lockbox in the business of providing on-line document storage services, she loses that Fourth Amendment protection and it is available to law enforcement with a mere subpoena.
We all know how it is _supposed_ to work. We also know how it _actually_ works.
For example: GWB used secret legal memos to get around the due process clause when locking people up in Gitmo. Obama used secret legal memos to get around the due process clause when executing people. And the courts were less than useless in doing anything about it, bowing out over litigant's standing.
So ultimately, the law is basically whatever the President says it is. Yep -- that's authoritarian and fails to fit our mythical concept of America.
I just too a guess at it's concentration. Anyway, at 95% alcohol, Everclear should be good even for the weakest backpackers because there's almost no water in it to tote around at all and it's about as close to totally pure alcohol as you can get.
There's no denying that under Nixon, it was continued. Or that he ran with some BS about a secret plan. Plus he added Cambodia. But that is basically like Obama, who continued Iraq and started a bunch of smaller things on the side. Which has contributed to Obama's credibility gap amongst liberals.
Anyway, Obama and Nixon are prime evidence that Democrats and Republicans suck.
Actually, getting pure 100% alcohol to drink is hard because ethanol attracts water and without some seriously toxic chemicals, or a cost prohibitive vacuum environment, it's basically impossible to distill past 96% purity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... And even then, you need to protect that 100% pure ethanol from humidity because it will attract water.
Note, I'm not disagreeing with your main point, but I think something like Everclear or Bacardi 151, sold everywhere, and around 75% ethanol, is probably sufficient to do the trick -- for a reasonably fit back packer I have trouble believing the extra couple ounces of water in those high proof boozes make all that much difference.
I personally think that the vociferous attacks are counterproductive, but as an atheist, I totally understand the ire. Religion is behind a lot of law that is antagonistic to liberty and science and a source of incredible amounts of bigotry. Christians like to play the martyr, but they are a bullying majority with a really dirty history that has opposed and obstructed progress in the science, arts, and human condition for millennia.
So in answer to your question, think of it this way: most atheists aren't that concerned with Santa Claus because unlike Jesus, Santa isn't used as a basis for such social or scientific censorship.
Having said that, I think an approach along the lines of honey rather than vinegar would be more practical because being confrontational tends to solidify the hatred against atheists. I do understand this can look like appeasement and that in the face of oppressive policies, more is sometimes called for, but in general, I think atheists would be better off letting the curious come to them (demonstrates open mind) rather than beating up on true-believers (who will only go deeper into belief as a response -- there is something inherently irrational in trying to use reason to debunk faith).
Hell, they're so fucked up they might as well be Democrats.
I'm on the liberal side of this coin and it see it the same way you do, though I phrase it in reverse:
Democrats: The New GOP.
Democrats seem to have embraced Nixon -- his healthcare suggestions, endless war, mass surveillance. I don't really know whether Nixon was such a booster of Wall Street/banksters as the DNC, but I'm guessing so because of the economic twiddling done to pay for Viet Nam.
Anyway, our DNCGOP-monoparty really needs competition -- from both sides. I believe this so strongly I would vote for a 3d party conservative over a dem or repub any day of the week if that person had a shot (otherwise I just vote Green or for my cat).
Maybe some year, several small parties should draft up a list of things they agree on, and run a candidate who would promise to stick to that list during the term of office and try to just hold the status quo on the other things. There is an enormous intersection between policies supported by Greens and Libertarians for example. Anyway, select the one candidate and combine the vote. A few spoiled elections might make the DNCGOPtards take notice.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget the naked part and the chance for spectators to pawn over competitors.
I'm an audiobook addict. Snow Crash and Diamond Age are awesome books read by two of the very best narrators around. I've listened to both multiple times.
Anathem isn't half as good as either of those, and I was initially put off by the reader, but for some inexplicable reason, it is also the book I've listened to the most -- six or seven times through at least. There is something slow and comfortable about the way that Anathem develops that I find highly comforting during periods where my life is in high anxiety mode.
Chess tourneys should be played by naked participants in a large faraday cage.
It is a difficult problem, but as a person who spends a significant amount of time reading medical records, I can't tell you how frustrating it is to try to figure out something as simple as the visit date in many printouts. Oddly, the "print date" is usually very prominent -- and irrelevant.
Seriously, WTF? The date should go right at the top, above everything else, or maybe right below name. There are some systems it's even hard to figure out the name of the patient (included as an endnote on page 2 or 3). When you are going through a 100 pages of this stuff, full of duplications and seemingly randomized formatting practices, you can only surmise the programmers were totally brain dead, which when applied to a difficult problem, compounds it exponentially.
Just a quibble, all libertarians are socially liberal. Socially liberal plus a bit of economic socialism is a Green. Socially liberal plus a laissez faire free-market capitalist is a Libertarian.
Google is a third party -- you just go ahead and see if they will actually delete your emails when you ask them. That's totally different than self-hosting and if you don't know that, you don't belong on /.
Secondly, if she wiped the server after she got the subpoena, that's a crime.
The most awesome thing in the world would be for her to be charged under the same law that took Ollie North down because part of the punishment is a permanent ban from all public office.
Yeah -- when GWB was being all neo-conny, Democrats pretended to be so liberal. Then Obama gets into power and is indistinguishable from GWB and Democrats are the epitome of silence.
No, we got what we got due to Obama. He was still touting the public option even after he made a back room deal with the insurance lobby to implement Nixon's health care plan:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Same party. Call the Democrats, call them Republicans -- just doesn't matter.
It's a trap or a diversion to silence the utter disgust liberals have when thinking of HRC.
All you say is true, but you should interweave into that that Clinton's penchant for free trade deals with unequal economies meant the decimation of good paying manufacturing jobs in America in exchange for low pay service jobs. Free trade between comparable economies is totally fine because they are competing on a level playing field -- free trade where the workers think 50 cents/day wage is awesome is a recipe for disaster for most people, and massive profit for a very select few.
Are you trying to say that politicians in the New GOP (AKA Democrats) have more personal integrity than those of the Old GOP (AKA parody of itself)?
We have two versions of a warmonging surveilling wall street suck up -- one that is pro abortion and gay marriage, and one that is not. But they're both fucking Republican parties. There isn't a liberal value upheld in either.
She will raise revenue for more war and more surveillance.
Look at this clip at 13:29 (better with context starting around 11:00) where HRC is cheerleading for the Iraq War. Her ONLY beef w/ GWB was doing tax cuts at the same time -- she openly says she wouldn't and that would leave more money for national and homeland security -- code for random foreign wars and a burgeoning NSA budget:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
So yeah, you are totally right. When she gets us into a useless random war for no fucking reason at all, she'll raise taxes. Talk about a reason to vote for her! Yummy! /sarc
Well, it's possible. It was during the Clinton administration that regulation of Credit Default Swaps was deemed unnecessary. We all saw how that worked out.
Why would any Republican be afraid of HRC? She is one in all but name. Iraq War cheerleader, surveillor, wall street's best friend. Seriously, what is there for the GOP to hate policy wise? Yeah, we know they hater her personally, but from a policy perspective, she's the dream GOP candidate.
Ollie North did time for less under paragraph (b): https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Of course, even if it was legal to have a home server to intercept all official communications, destroying it while under subpoena is the type of shitty move that can get you 20 years if you do that when the IRS or SEC demands info. It doesn't matter if it was legal to keep the info, once it is demanded, destruction of that info is the crime.
Actually, at least according to the Supreme Court, they do get to throw out the rules. It's called the Third Party Doctrine.
http://www.abajournal.com/maga...
Succinct. Eloquent. Perfect.
We all know how it is _supposed_ to work. We also know how it _actually_ works.
For example: GWB used secret legal memos to get around the due process clause when locking people up in Gitmo. Obama used secret legal memos to get around the due process clause when executing people. And the courts were less than useless in doing anything about it, bowing out over litigant's standing.
So ultimately, the law is basically whatever the President says it is. Yep -- that's authoritarian and fails to fit our mythical concept of America.
I just too a guess at it's concentration. Anyway, at 95% alcohol, Everclear should be good even for the weakest backpackers because there's almost no water in it to tote around at all and it's about as close to totally pure alcohol as you can get.
There's no denying that under Nixon, it was continued. Or that he ran with some BS about a secret plan. Plus he added Cambodia. But that is basically like Obama, who continued Iraq and started a bunch of smaller things on the side. Which has contributed to Obama's credibility gap amongst liberals.
Anyway, Obama and Nixon are prime evidence that Democrats and Republicans suck.
Actually, getting pure 100% alcohol to drink is hard because ethanol attracts water and without some seriously toxic chemicals, or a cost prohibitive vacuum environment, it's basically impossible to distill past 96% purity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... And even then, you need to protect that 100% pure ethanol from humidity because it will attract water.
Note, I'm not disagreeing with your main point, but I think something like Everclear or Bacardi 151, sold everywhere, and around 75% ethanol, is probably sufficient to do the trick -- for a reasonably fit back packer I have trouble believing the extra couple ounces of water in those high proof boozes make all that much difference.
I personally think that the vociferous attacks are counterproductive, but as an atheist, I totally understand the ire. Religion is behind a lot of law that is antagonistic to liberty and science and a source of incredible amounts of bigotry. Christians like to play the martyr, but they are a bullying majority with a really dirty history that has opposed and obstructed progress in the science, arts, and human condition for millennia.
So in answer to your question, think of it this way: most atheists aren't that concerned with Santa Claus because unlike Jesus, Santa isn't used as a basis for such social or scientific censorship.
Having said that, I think an approach along the lines of honey rather than vinegar would be more practical because being confrontational tends to solidify the hatred against atheists. I do understand this can look like appeasement and that in the face of oppressive policies, more is sometimes called for, but in general, I think atheists would be better off letting the curious come to them (demonstrates open mind) rather than beating up on true-believers (who will only go deeper into belief as a response -- there is something inherently irrational in trying to use reason to debunk faith).
I'm on the liberal side of this coin and it see it the same way you do, though I phrase it in reverse:
Democrats: The New GOP.
Democrats seem to have embraced Nixon -- his healthcare suggestions, endless war, mass surveillance. I don't really know whether Nixon was such a booster of Wall Street/banksters as the DNC, but I'm guessing so because of the economic twiddling done to pay for Viet Nam.
Anyway, our DNCGOP-monoparty really needs competition -- from both sides. I believe this so strongly I would vote for a 3d party conservative over a dem or repub any day of the week if that person had a shot (otherwise I just vote Green or for my cat).
Maybe some year, several small parties should draft up a list of things they agree on, and run a candidate who would promise to stick to that list during the term of office and try to just hold the status quo on the other things. There is an enormous intersection between policies supported by Greens and Libertarians for example. Anyway, select the one candidate and combine the vote. A few spoiled elections might make the DNCGOPtards take notice.
It's a tactic used by Feinstein astroturfers. By the time people get this far down the thread, they can barely remember what the main topic is.