On gay marriage, they have changed their tune from "it's evil and should be banned" (remember DOMA, and all the talk about the marriage amendment back in 90s?) to "let the states decide".
Yeah, that's why I don't think they will do anything worth caring about (I blame democrats too for DOMA though, it was a bipartisan effort. Thus I blame America as well, since they were doing the will of the people).
Also, they really want to overturn Roe, and the only way they can do so at this point is by appointing a very specific type of judges to SCOTUS. Such judges are very likely to overturn Obergefell, as well.
That is a very real possibility.
The main thing I'm worried about is that one party or the other getting too much power......not because they'll do something ideological (the ideological places are where the American people tend to watch most closely), but because they'll do something utterly braindead. Why not double the national deficit? Why not invade another country? I don't know what it will be, but it will be something stupid.
The obvious example of your point is the NRA: sometimes gun opponents complain about all the lobbying done by the NRA, but gun proponents are happy that someone is taking up their cause. They feel happy that someone is spending money on something they care about.
But if you talk to those people, they are aware that it would be better to remove such bribes altogether, even though their side would lose some power.
The solution is for the people to wake up and pay attention to what their government is doing. "Democracy doesn't guarantee good government, it guarantees the government you deserve." If corruption like that were something that became a scandal that immediately knocked people out as a candidate; if people would check a politicians platform by themselves so advertising was no longer effective; then 'donations' would no longer happen.
You can make no law that will prevent this kind of thing from happening: no matter how many laws you make, there will always be a way around them.
Clearly a Republican, since they didn't mention his party, and they never mention Republican's party when commenting on their scandals, it's a media rule.
Of course, Clinton had a bad couple weeks, so that may a temporary thing, but it could also be part of a longer trend. I really think things will start to crystallize once the debates happen, because that will push people into their animalistic "us against them" mode.
What a relief he's a washed-up nothing, now.
Best thing we can say about this presidential election is that at the end, there will be one more lousy person whose political career has ended.
This is 2016. The last thing *any* country is gonna do is blow up their source of cheap manufacturing.
The economic argument against war.....that we won't hurt our own economic interests. Nope, throughout history, people have been willing to hurt their own economic interests to go to war. Most notably in World War 1: before world war 1, people were making the same kinds of arguments you just did: that the economies are too entertwined, the war would be too painful for everyone. And they were right: it was painful, but they destroyed their lives anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
ARM and Intel do not compete directly.
Intel very much has been trying to get into the phone market, where it does compete with ARM directly. If ARM slips up, then Intel will overtake them.
I don't think many people would put Perl and PHP in the same category.
Questions like this that make it clear that you haven't read the comment are offensive, also.
YOU'RE offensive.
It's all Greek to me.....
Where's the innovation, using a supercomputer?
If your system is so good, why don't you submit it and win the competition? Seems like a good way to win an easy $million
On gay marriage, they have changed their tune from "it's evil and should be banned" (remember DOMA, and all the talk about the marriage amendment back in 90s?) to "let the states decide".
Yeah, that's why I don't think they will do anything worth caring about (I blame democrats too for DOMA though, it was a bipartisan effort. Thus I blame America as well, since they were doing the will of the people).
Also, they really want to overturn Roe, and the only way they can do so at this point is by appointing a very specific type of judges to SCOTUS. Such judges are very likely to overturn Obergefell, as well.
That is a very real possibility.
The main thing I'm worried about is that one party or the other getting too much power......not because they'll do something ideological (the ideological places are where the American people tend to watch most closely), but because they'll do something utterly braindead. Why not double the national deficit? Why not invade another country? I don't know what it will be, but it will be something stupid.
But the difference is not in the people. People in Venezuela are no different from people in Denmark.
This is absolutely, 100% not true.
The obvious example of your point is the NRA: sometimes gun opponents complain about all the lobbying done by the NRA, but gun proponents are happy that someone is taking up their cause. They feel happy that someone is spending money on something they care about.
But if you talk to those people, they are aware that it would be better to remove such bribes altogether, even though their side would lose some power.
You do not know what my best interest is.
There's a 99% chance that your best interest doesn't involve letting politicians get bribed. Some things are obvious for the vast majority of us.
*shrug* then there's no solution.
But getting people to realize what is in their best interest is not changing human nature, it just takes time.
The solution is for the people to wake up and pay attention to what their government is doing. "Democracy doesn't guarantee good government, it guarantees the government you deserve." If corruption like that were something that became a scandal that immediately knocked people out as a candidate; if people would check a politicians platform by themselves so advertising was no longer effective; then 'donations' would no longer happen.
You can make no law that will prevent this kind of thing from happening: no matter how many laws you make, there will always be a way around them.
What actions are you afraid of? 2 constitutional amendments? This is an honest question.
On abortion, they will likely appoint judges to the supreme court who will reverse some decisions on abortion.
On gay marriage, they will probably do nothing because gay marriage is more popular, being against it is a losing proposition now.
"Many of us older computer nerds probably used DOS very early, on our first home computer..."
And here I think of DOS as a 'newer' system
Clearly a Republican, since they didn't mention his party, and they never mention Republican's party when commenting on their scandals, it's a media rule.
Feingold is a democrat.
Feingold is ahead in all the polls, so........
World events are pretty much the definition of a chaotic system
Oh, I see why you are confused. You are looking at the events that happen to a president, which of course is hard to predict.
You should be looking at the skillset of the person, which is much more measurable.
There is too much division around Trump for him to get enough votes.
The trend in the polls is moving in Trump's favor, with some polls showing Trump even with Clinton, or outright ahead. CBS/NYT is a tie, Rasmussen is Trump with a clear lead, Economist/Yougov within a margin of error.
Of course, Clinton had a bad couple weeks, so that may a temporary thing, but it could also be part of a longer trend. I really think things will start to crystallize once the debates happen, because that will push people into their animalistic "us against them" mode.
I REALLY want to vote third party, but we need some third party candidates who are not anti-science crackpots.
You can always write someone in.
What a relief he's a washed-up nothing, now.
Best thing we can say about this presidential election is that at the end, there will be one more lousy person whose political career has ended.
We're never going to get to that day. Automation is never getting into economy cars.
Why not? And why do you think it's something only the government can make happen?
To be fair... we also need to remember that Japan has invaded China - many times
Just in the late 1500s, right? (ww2 also, of course)
good point.
He did less than Hillary
? He purposely gave away classified documents. That seems worse to me.
It's not end-to-end when one of the ends is compromised. They don't care as long as they can force Netflix to give them your data.
This is 2016. The last thing *any* country is gonna do is blow up their source of cheap manufacturing.
The economic argument against war.....that we won't hurt our own economic interests. Nope, throughout history, people have been willing to hurt their own economic interests to go to war. Most notably in World War 1: before world war 1, people were making the same kinds of arguments you just did: that the economies are too entertwined, the war would be too painful for everyone. And they were right: it was painful, but they destroyed their lives anyway.