Without stating my position on AGW, you do realize that the claim is not that we should believe it because it looks like it, but because the science is supposed to be settled? The claim that the science is settled requires quite a bit more than correlation.
There is no "they". Jews don't act as a group. They occasionally worship as a group, but even that is highly fractured. High correlation of Jews in positions of high competence is not an indication of causation. Claiming otherwise is a classic "correlation implies causation" fallacy. Both Ayn Rand and Bernie Sanders were Jewish. Claiming that they both worked towards a common goal is a sheer lunacy. Yes, I am aware of the dialectic argument. I don't believe a conspiracy that vast could survive without large groups of conspirators going public.
Furthermore if you think I'm pro-left you're way-off.
I was making a general comment about where the conversation has moved by now. Since you seemed to be commenting on this as well, it seem appropriate. It may enforce your point in some respects and undermine it in others.
How about turning back on the feature which allows to exclude news sources from the feed? That would do it right away. RT is propaganda? What about Iranian "Press TV"? Or even BBC? I wouldn't trust BBC news on any British colony which stopped being a colony in the 20th century. The Brits never got over the losses. So if you read BBC, India and Israel are still 3rd-world countries. Simply excluding news sources with a "-source:" used to work on the news site the same way that "-site:" worked on the web search site. They stopped it to avoid "confirmation bias", also known as "filtering the bs you don't care about".
He was fired in large part because the memo he wrote showed such a complete inability to understand research and form logical arguments from evidence that he was clearly incapable of doing his job.
He was commended on being one of the top performers at Google (within top 3%). The reason stated for his firing was "perpetuating gender stereotypes". Get your facts straight, please.
Well, the question is whether there was (for example) someone goading him on. I know all the commonly reported facts that the slipped through the cracks in the system. He was supposed to fail a background check based on the fact that he had a conviction for domestic violence. He was supposed to fail because his conviction was for 12 months. And he was supposed to fail because he escaped from a mental institution. But was there someone who helped him plan the attack itself? That is (as far as has been reported) not known at this time.
Every suicide bomber is dead after the fact. It doesn't mean that his actions are not worth investigating. In case of any mass-murder type crime it's always worth asking if he got help, or even encouragement, or training from others.
The FBI wanted Apple to create a customized version of an OS which they didn't want to make. This warrant, however, sounds like it only asks for the iCloud files which reside on Apple servers. Serving them with a warrant to reveal information which they do have is an appropriate law enforcement action. It is quite different from what the FBI wanted -- create a product which didn't yet exist.
we're going to have a Harvey Weinstein moment about these tuition costs and the criminal cabal that is the university employees,
What you don't seem to realize is that majority of the university employees are these graduate students.
Because someone is spending that $50k income from that student's tuition.
Most college students do not pay full tuition. In fact, it's mostly the same tactic as sticker price on a car -- few people pay the full sticker price. The negotiation is much more formalized (ie, we are poor and can't pay so much... well, can you borrow and pay a bit more... etc, etc.). But the general idea is the same.
But when you look at why people pay taxes, you would be. Misplaced priorities are not something you can rely on when contemplating a general-purpose currency. The question at hand is, if you remember, what motivates adaption of some token of exchange as a general-purpose currency. And the natural place to look is what are general priorities rather than what are priorities of people with misplaced priorities.
Fear of physical pain most people associate with jail. Fear of death most people associate with taking up arms against the government. Fear of loss of physical comforts most people associate with loss of property.
Forget "cheap". They are willing to work in abusive working conditions... although, I guess, you can demand extra compensation for these working conditions if you are not afraid of deportation in case of firing.
The scrutiny of immigrants to the US is probably going to set in a the new normal. So immigration lawyers gravy train as the gatekeepers of all the non-traditional immigration to the US is probably coming to an end. Their best bet is probably to requalify as labor lawyers. The relationships between employers and employees is very rapidly changing. So there should be more work in negotiating new norms in that arena than there is in filling out the paperwork for new waves of highly-qualified indentured servants trafficked into the country.
And what, prey tell, is "evidence"? Of course, I mean from the point of view of someone who hasn't been accused of any crimes. Someone who, further, has not been informed that he/she is a subject of any criminal investigation. Can such a person destroy his property to dispose of it? Or is that "evidence" if police requests it at a later date?
Oh, that's already done. There is any number of mathematical operations which are illegal to perform if the result of the operations is something "harmful to the children". For example, decoding a JPEG is a bunch mathematical operations. But they are illegal to perform for certain input values into those operations.
Something is only a "reasonable" request if can be fulfilled. The very idea of encryption is based on an unsolvable math problem (so that a solution can only be guessed by trying a significant percentage of possibilities). They want to draw parallels to physical locks, but demanding that such a parallel must be drawn is not reasonable. It may be that it can be, but if it can't be, it's not reasonable to demand that something impossible becomes possible.
Having said that, I am sure it's no surprise that they are both full of it. The crypto is broken. It's broken in ways NSA won't reveal. And tech companies will voluntarily cooperate with the NSA to handicap encryption while going so far as to sue the government to demand that they are not forced to handicap it. Yes, that means occasional hacks by Chinese and Russian credit card thieves. That's the price of doing business. Tech relies on free flow of capital. And capital flows through investment banks which are distribution centers for the FED. The tech companies do know this and they know that at any time the government can step on that hose and choke the free money. So everyone goes through the charade.
"Oh, please, monsieur. It is a little game we play. They put it on the bill, I tear up the bill. It is very convenient." -- Captain Renault, Casablanca, 1942.
That too. My point is that the currency remains in circulation if there is a reason one *must* have it rather than there is a reason many *want* to have it.
Fiat currency is strengthened significantly by a taxation system which will only accept one currency for settlement of all tax liabilities. The idea is literally as old the Bible. In fact, it was one of Christ's pet peeves.
People did used to want to be found though. Almost everyone had a listed phone number. Which meant that your name, address and phone were in the phone book. Today most people would be terrified at such a prospect.
This is nothing if not another ad for Facebook. Anything inducing stress forces an addict to crave the next dopamine hit. And any reminder of the opportunity cost associated with addiction is stress-inducing. So this "soul searching" is designed to get people who haven't been on Facebook in a while to get back on. Well, at least assuming that they stopped checking in because they viewed it as an addiction.
Any argument can be invalidated by taking it out of the context in which it is maid. My point was specifically against assigning undue obligations to those never assumed them because someone else decided they should have the responsibility of Noblesse Oblige. You are trying to drag this argument into the domain of "don't tread on me" territory. It's outside the scope.
You did agree to owe it when you drove your car on a public road. Driving on a public road comes with responsibilities one must agree to before being allowed the privilege.
I don't owe you anything I haven't agreed to owe you, either. Not even access to my yard... which you seem to want to take even though I don't owe it to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Without stating my position on AGW, you do realize that the claim is not that we should believe it because it looks like it, but because the science is supposed to be settled? The claim that the science is settled requires quite a bit more than correlation.
You have no evidence other than correlation. And correlation does not imply causation.
Furthermore if you think I'm pro-left you're way-off.
I was making a general comment about where the conversation has moved by now. Since you seemed to be commenting on this as well, it seem appropriate. It may enforce your point in some respects and undermine it in others.
There is "bias" and there is calling groups of people half of whose membership is Jewish "nazis". The left has gotten unapologetically absurd.
How about turning back on the feature which allows to exclude news sources from the feed? That would do it right away. RT is propaganda? What about Iranian "Press TV"? Or even BBC? I wouldn't trust BBC news on any British colony which stopped being a colony in the 20th century. The Brits never got over the losses. So if you read BBC, India and Israel are still 3rd-world countries. Simply excluding news sources with a "-source:" used to work on the news site the same way that "-site:" worked on the web search site. They stopped it to avoid "confirmation bias", also known as "filtering the bs you don't care about".
He was fired in large part because the memo he wrote showed such a complete inability to understand research and form logical arguments from evidence that he was clearly incapable of doing his job.
He was commended on being one of the top performers at Google (within top 3%). The reason stated for his firing was "perpetuating gender stereotypes". Get your facts straight, please.
Well, the question is whether there was (for example) someone goading him on. I know all the commonly reported facts that the slipped through the cracks in the system. He was supposed to fail a background check based on the fact that he had a conviction for domestic violence. He was supposed to fail because his conviction was for 12 months. And he was supposed to fail because he escaped from a mental institution. But was there someone who helped him plan the attack itself? That is (as far as has been reported) not known at this time.
Every suicide bomber is dead after the fact. It doesn't mean that his actions are not worth investigating. In case of any mass-murder type crime it's always worth asking if he got help, or even encouragement, or training from others.
The FBI wanted Apple to create a customized version of an OS which they didn't want to make. This warrant, however, sounds like it only asks for the iCloud files which reside on Apple servers. Serving them with a warrant to reveal information which they do have is an appropriate law enforcement action. It is quite different from what the FBI wanted -- create a product which didn't yet exist.
we're going to have a Harvey Weinstein moment about these tuition costs and the criminal cabal that is the university employees,
What you don't seem to realize is that majority of the university employees are these graduate students.
Because someone is spending that $50k income from that student's tuition.
Most college students do not pay full tuition. In fact, it's mostly the same tactic as sticker price on a car -- few people pay the full sticker price. The negotiation is much more formalized (ie, we are poor and can't pay so much... well, can you borrow and pay a bit more... etc, etc.). But the general idea is the same.
But when you look at why people pay taxes, you would be. Misplaced priorities are not something you can rely on when contemplating a general-purpose currency. The question at hand is, if you remember, what motivates adaption of some token of exchange as a general-purpose currency. And the natural place to look is what are general priorities rather than what are priorities of people with misplaced priorities.
Fear of physical pain most people associate with jail. Fear of death most people associate with taking up arms against the government. Fear of loss of physical comforts most people associate with loss of property.
Forget "cheap". They are willing to work in abusive working conditions... although, I guess, you can demand extra compensation for these working conditions if you are not afraid of deportation in case of firing.
The scrutiny of immigrants to the US is probably going to set in a the new normal. So immigration lawyers gravy train as the gatekeepers of all the non-traditional immigration to the US is probably coming to an end. Their best bet is probably to requalify as labor lawyers. The relationships between employers and employees is very rapidly changing. So there should be more work in negotiating new norms in that arena than there is in filling out the paperwork for new waves of highly-qualified indentured servants trafficked into the country.
And my argument was that "wants" are not enough to make a currency a currency. Only "musts" are.
That's why it's illegal to destroy evidence.
And what, prey tell, is "evidence"? Of course, I mean from the point of view of someone who hasn't been accused of any crimes. Someone who, further, has not been informed that he/she is a subject of any criminal investigation. Can such a person destroy his property to dispose of it? Or is that "evidence" if police requests it at a later date?
Oh, that's already done. There is any number of mathematical operations which are illegal to perform if the result of the operations is something "harmful to the children". For example, decoding a JPEG is a bunch mathematical operations. But they are illegal to perform for certain input values into those operations.
Something is only a "reasonable" request if can be fulfilled. The very idea of encryption is based on an unsolvable math problem (so that a solution can only be guessed by trying a significant percentage of possibilities). They want to draw parallels to physical locks, but demanding that such a parallel must be drawn is not reasonable. It may be that it can be, but if it can't be, it's not reasonable to demand that something impossible becomes possible.
Having said that, I am sure it's no surprise that they are both full of it. The crypto is broken. It's broken in ways NSA won't reveal. And tech companies will voluntarily cooperate with the NSA to handicap encryption while going so far as to sue the government to demand that they are not forced to handicap it. Yes, that means occasional hacks by Chinese and Russian credit card thieves. That's the price of doing business. Tech relies on free flow of capital. And capital flows through investment banks which are distribution centers for the FED. The tech companies do know this and they know that at any time the government can step on that hose and choke the free money. So everyone goes through the charade.
"Oh, please, monsieur. It is a little game we play. They put it on the bill, I tear up the bill. It is very convenient." -- Captain Renault, Casablanca, 1942.
That too. My point is that the currency remains in circulation if there is a reason one *must* have it rather than there is a reason many *want* to have it.
Fiat currency is strengthened significantly by a taxation system which will only accept one currency for settlement of all tax liabilities. The idea is literally as old the Bible. In fact, it was one of Christ's pet peeves.
People did used to want to be found though. Almost everyone had a listed phone number. Which meant that your name, address and phone were in the phone book. Today most people would be terrified at such a prospect.
This is nothing if not another ad for Facebook. Anything inducing stress forces an addict to crave the next dopamine hit. And any reminder of the opportunity cost associated with addiction is stress-inducing. So this "soul searching" is designed to get people who haven't been on Facebook in a while to get back on. Well, at least assuming that they stopped checking in because they viewed it as an addiction.
Any argument can be invalidated by taking it out of the context in which it is maid. My point was specifically against assigning undue obligations to those never assumed them because someone else decided they should have the responsibility of Noblesse Oblige. You are trying to drag this argument into the domain of "don't tread on me" territory. It's outside the scope.
You did agree to owe it when you drove your car on a public road. Driving on a public road comes with responsibilities one must agree to before being allowed the privilege.
I don't owe you anything I haven't agreed to owe you, either. Not even access to my yard... which you seem to want to take even though I don't owe it to you.