I recall her stance on abortion being a bigger issue than guns in her first election (in 1992). Actually I don't remember guns coming up at all back then, but maybe you remember that.
She also has incumbent inertia going for her now, which shouldn't be underestimated.
You are making the argument that congress (and the president, and the supreme court) are limited only to the powers enumerated in the constitution. That viewpoint was defeated in the early days of the Republic.
You are echoing the ideas of the anti-federalists and Jeffersonian democracy. This was a really big argument at the time, actually.
And the argument was largely settled, by the early republic, when even Jefferson himself as president was unable to follow that interpretation. So, it's good that you read the constitution, but you don't know history.
This particular paper is an attempt to deceive. It gives the impression that there is broad agreement among scientists about the actions we should take, or that we should do anything, or that the human caused change is even measurable. Those are not true.
when scientists say "We know X because of all this evidence", and receive the response "but not all scientists agree!".
That's a political goal, not a scientific point. On top of that, there isn't much agreement on the question that matters for political purposes, "What, if anything should we do?"
Don't pretend this is the evidence of AGW - doing so might be good for your argument, but it's not founded in reality.
Sounds like you have a real informed opinion bro......./sarcasm
Instead of wasting your typing skills by opinionating, why don't you go do a little more research? Then you would have found that there already are answers to your question:
Consensus is PART of the scientific method. It's the only way we actually get to DO "science".
No it's not, the scientific method is based on proof and a chain of reproducibility. If you ask, "How do we know X is true?" You can find a paper, and reproduce its results. The paper is probably based on other papers, and if you want to, you can reproduce those results. If you want to, you can follow the chain all the way back to Galileo dropping balls off the leaning tower of Pisa.
As soon as you get to a point where someone says, "We know X because we voted and have consensus," the chain of reproducibility has been broken. Suddenly you are relying on the authority of the group, not on evidence. There always needs to be the option to reproduce, otherwise it's not science. Surveys are not climate science, they are political science.
I've really been wondering lately whether the FBI has ever done anything good. They must have done something, but I can't think of anything good they've done. Maybe stop some bank robbers in the early 1900s?
I would argue that reduction of discretion is precisely what is required, discretion to prosecute in the first place. Any crime which we are not prepared to attempt to detect, investigate, and prosecute vigorously should be no crime at all.
For that to happen (and for it to be a good thing), our skill in making precise laws that cover every situation will need to improve significantly. Right now we don't know how to write really good laws, so we make an approximation (at best), and depend on judges and the legal system to do the rest.
Because the weight of the penal system is heavy and powerful, it has severe limitations on what it can do, to prevent people from being convicted wrongly. The scale is heavily weighted towards letting guilty people go free, over convicting an innocent person.
A lot of the Americans found in the Panama papers have already been convicted of something or another. There is no one in there high-profile like in Iceland or England, where prime ministers were involved.
Yeah. It might be more accurate to say that Symantec has 54 zero days in its products, but it might be higher than that. At least they didn't leave their debugging server turned on.
Youtube is already a step above mainstream because you can see the entire quote, instead of a single sound-bite taken out of context, like the media corporations do.
The media has tremendous power. This year more than most years.
I don't think so....they've been losing their power as more and more people use the internet and stop listening to what they say. For example, when the NYT tried to portray Rubio as financially irresponsible for buying a luxury speedboat in his past, it failed in ways it hasn't before.
The news media for a long time has tried to create its own narrative, but the internet is changing that.
But oh, if I ran a company I were an evil capitalist who hates women and wants only men to work, and my hatred towards women would be so big that I only paid them 77 cents on the dollar.
Slashdot Mirror
There is plenty of good research yet to be done.
Like what? What are the important unknowns here?
Turns out that this is not true [skepticalscience.com].
I see your crappy blog post, and answer it with an actual paper, quote:
This finding suggests that much work remains before we can model hydroclimate variability accurately,
Oh, and here's another one for your viewing pleasure.
Hint: stop getting your information from advocacy blogs, they will lead you astray from the science.
I recall her stance on abortion being a bigger issue than guns in her first election (in 1992). Actually I don't remember guns coming up at all back then, but maybe you remember that.
She also has incumbent inertia going for her now, which shouldn't be underestimated.
You are making the argument that congress (and the president, and the supreme court) are limited only to the powers enumerated in the constitution. That viewpoint was defeated in the early days of the Republic. You are echoing the ideas of the anti-federalists and Jeffersonian democracy. This was a really big argument at the time, actually.
And the argument was largely settled, by the early republic, when even Jefferson himself as president was unable to follow that interpretation. So, it's good that you read the constitution, but you don't know history.
This particular paper is an attempt to deceive. It gives the impression that there is broad agreement among scientists about the actions we should take, or that we should do anything, or that the human caused change is even measurable. Those are not true.
Studies like this have to be released
No they don't.
when scientists say "We know X because of all this evidence", and receive the response "but not all scientists agree!".
That's a political goal, not a scientific point. On top of that, there isn't much agreement on the question that matters for political purposes, "What, if anything should we do?"
Don't pretend this is the evidence of AGW - doing so might be good for your argument, but it's not founded in reality.
Indeed, it's not, well said.
From the few articles I've read
Sounds like you have a real informed opinion bro....... /sarcasm
Instead of wasting your typing skills by opinionating, why don't you go do a little more research? Then you would have found that there already are answers to your question:
How about some solutions people?
Consensus is PART of the scientific method. It's the only way we actually get to DO "science".
No it's not, the scientific method is based on proof and a chain of reproducibility. If you ask, "How do we know X is true?" You can find a paper, and reproduce its results. The paper is probably based on other papers, and if you want to, you can reproduce those results. If you want to, you can follow the chain all the way back to Galileo dropping balls off the leaning tower of Pisa.
As soon as you get to a point where someone says, "We know X because we voted and have consensus," the chain of reproducibility has been broken. Suddenly you are relying on the authority of the group, not on evidence. There always needs to be the option to reproduce, otherwise it's not science. Surveys are not climate science, they are political science.
You really think he will build a wall?
Yes, because he wants a monument to himself.
The only way I know to get police to act is to have your lawyer contact them. It's really frustrating, actually.
Hadrian's wall was actually effective for the short time they manned it.
In what way was it effective? It certainly wasn't difficult to scale.
but most likely he'd just do whatever got him a lot of news and made him popular.
He's going to build the "Trump wall", which in times to come may be remembered as being as effective as "Hadrian's wall"
I've really been wondering lately whether the FBI has ever done anything good. They must have done something, but I can't think of anything good they've done. Maybe stop some bank robbers in the early 1900s?
So tell us great sage, who should we turn to for help against criminals,
You probably have no recourse. If someone breaks into your house, the police aren't even going to take fingerprints, if they even come out at all.
If you get death threats, the police will tell you they can't protect you. They have no legal obligation to do so.
I would argue that reduction of discretion is precisely what is required, discretion to prosecute in the first place. Any crime which we are not prepared to attempt to detect, investigate, and prosecute vigorously should be no crime at all.
For that to happen (and for it to be a good thing), our skill in making precise laws that cover every situation will need to improve significantly. Right now we don't know how to write really good laws, so we make an approximation (at best), and depend on judges and the legal system to do the rest.
Because the weight of the penal system is heavy and powerful, it has severe limitations on what it can do, to prevent people from being convicted wrongly. The scale is heavily weighted towards letting guilty people go free, over convicting an innocent person.
A lot of the Americans found in the Panama papers have already been convicted of something or another. There is no one in there high-profile like in Iceland or England, where prime ministers were involved.
Yeah. It might be more accurate to say that Symantec has 54 zero days in its products, but it might be higher than that. At least they didn't leave their debugging server turned on.
54 serious vulnerabilities is such a small subset of the total number of vulnerabilities that as a sample it is useless for anything.
At best it might show that more people are looking for vulnerabilities.
But what is the mainstream alternative?
Youtube is already a step above mainstream because you can see the entire quote, instead of a single sound-bite taken out of context, like the media corporations do.
The media has tremendous power. This year more than most years.
I don't think so....they've been losing their power as more and more people use the internet and stop listening to what they say. For example, when the NYT tried to portray Rubio as financially irresponsible for buying a luxury speedboat in his past, it failed in ways it hasn't before.
The news media for a long time has tried to create its own narrative, but the internet is changing that.
I resigned from for cause when
What's the difference between resigning for cause and not for cause? Are there tax benefits?
I am going to be unusually kind for me and suggest you actually try working this out.
That is unusually kind of you.
I haven't taken a sick day in nearly ten years.
Oh yeah, that reminds me, I've never worked for a company that offered sick days. Oh well.
But oh, if I ran a company I were an evil capitalist who hates women and wants only men to work, and my hatred towards women would be so big that I only paid them 77 cents on the dollar.
I see what kind of person you are.
Then they turned the crazy up to 11. Trump is Mussolini, Stalin, Satan, Hitler. The Washington Post said Cthulhu [washingtonpost.com] supports Trump.
I really hope the news media loses a lot of their power this election cycle.