Police, just like voters, and just journalists have to make a decision of what is better vs what is worse. They cannot simply without any action until only a perfect outcome is possible. Life simply doesn't present such set of circumstances. I've stipulated that it is very likely that the people who want to bring down Clinton, by using Wikileaks as their mouth, are probably shady. But that's the benefit of having opposing interests present their case. The process brings down the very worst of people by the hands of other (possibly awful) people for the benefit of the rest of us.
If a cop uses shady characters as informers or a prosecutor reduces someone's charges in exchange for a testimony, then that too serves an agenda of a criminal. But its ultimate goal is to unearth the truth about a bigger fish which is engage in shady practices. And in the current legal regime it is considered moral and justified. The same standard has to apply to the journalists. If they are exposing the criminality in the camp of the ruling party's candidate's campaign, then they are doing a public service even if the source is shady and is doing the releasing of the information in the hopes of improving the chances of an opposition candidate.
The problem is that Trump is far less predictable than Clinton.
implies that you part of the camp of those who think she'll stay bought once she is paid. But she is not. She will pursue her own agenda even after taking the bribes. Kadafi settled his debts with the victims of terrorist acts. He gave up his WMD research. He negotiated with the US to become a legitimate state actor in good faith. But, as we know now, it was Clinton who insisted on the strategy of removing him. Which betrays her personality as that of an opportunist rather than an honorable thief. She will not keep any promise she makes or keep to any deal she enters into. He deeds betray her more than her words. Trump does not have the same history of consistent breaking of deals. He renegotiates rather than simply breaking deals when circumstances change. Both of these factors combined indicate that Trump is actually more trustworthy than Hillary.
Peer-review research does fairly poorly when evaluating one-time (ie, non-repeatable) events, especially if the said events involve confrontations. It's why we don't have just peers on juries, but also adversarial councils in courts. In the absence of adversarial advocacy, peer review of non-repeatable events quickly becomes a circle jerk. Most judges, for example, will accept plea deals reached by opposing councils. Peer review of politics is essentially impossible. It's why we have elections rather than SCOTUS-style committees deciding who is to be in charge.
How can we justify doing that while increasing the social security age? Why not lower it instead? If we go with the assumption that the knowledge economy is what makes people obsolete, then why not ensure basic living conditions for those who (because of their advanced age) are at a disadvantage when it comes to learning new skills?
Yes, I know it's pretty standard, but it's about as telling as the klines count in code. This is true not only of this particular field of research. It's a problem in academia in general. The whole publish-or-perish system encourages it and at some point the publication volume reaches a critical mass where extra information starts to take away from the understanding of the subject. Knowledge requires culling of unnecessary information. And the chase for higher citation count does nothing to encourage new approaches which obviate a lot of old approaches. On a lighter note, "Mr. President, we must not allow a citation gap!" (Dr. Strangelove homage).
Does that not defeat the whole purpose of a punishment? They are not talking about preventive measures.... Punishment is supposed to deter future behavior by making it obvious that it brings about consequences. Is this something that needs to be explained to the father of two children (who is sometimes known as POTUS)?
Just to follow up, I just looked through the NYTimes article itself, and no "codes" does not appear in it. "Computer code" does. And while "code" is singular, "computer code" is always taken to be plural. So "codes" sounds just as harsh as "maths" to a North American English speaker (even though "maths" has sipped its way into British usage).
And as many of these were highly classified. DoD contractors had not yet begun outsourcing top secret work to India
The "codes" was part of the article summary by slashdot. It was not part of the quote. In other words, it was written by whoever submitted the story to Slashdot. So this:
it was an American usage.
does not follow from the slashdot submission. Oh, and it's was never used by oldtimes. It is exclusively Indian. And it is very new. I think "Codechef" was the 1st place I saw it. And you don't have to believe it, but it won't change the fact that it sounds very harsh to the ears of all other English speakers.
Reduced isotope ratio does not *necessarily* mean that oxygen is "leaking". It could be trapped within compounds on the planet. Just as carbon levels have decreased due to carbon being fixed in other compounds.
Except Barney Franks is not a cookie member of the party. He wasn't even an out-of-step member (a la Kucinich) of the party. Barney Franks was an elected *ranking* (committee member) Congressman. He is bona fide part of the in-step leadership of the party. Referring to his statements is most definitely appropriate when discussing the party's agenda.
Right. Just as almost no bill ever gets a veto. They only bother voting for bills which have been negotiated with the executive not to be vetoed. If they don't have the votes, they don't bother trying to do anything. If they have the votes and it serves their agenda. they will do it even if they said a million times and swore on a million bibles that they would never do it. "No one has tried it yet" is a very crude attempt to appeal to survivor bias (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...).
How about keeping them out of the hands of convicted felons who lost the right to have a firearm?
Keeping them out of their hands? If it's already illegal for them to own guns, you don't additional legislature to make more guns illegal. You just need more budget for police to enforce existing laws. It's not illegal for anyone to possess blueprints to anything (unless there are IP laws involved). So felons who can't own guns, can own blueprints for guns. Once you go down the path of limiting felons' speech rights, you'll be an earshot away from other laws criminalizing unwanted or "dangerous" speech.
If you are a liberal-"liberal" (so you are over 35), you might not be as much of an extremist as the modern brand of the Democratic Party (which is neo-Communist). I've heard Barney Frank (who was still in office at the time) talk with lament about the fact that Lenin (I am not making this up or exagerating... I don't have a link... I heard him say it on TV)... Lenin (!!!) wasn't able to finish the job world-wide. So calling them neo-Communist is not even an exaggeration. It's an accurate description of their long-term goals.
That's because they spent on all the political capital they had on passing Obamacare. They blew their wad on that, so to speak. If Brown didn't elected in MA, who knows, what else they would have done?
Nobody has come for your guns. You are literally Chicken Little.
Well, actually, no, he is not. If this survives a SCOTUS challenge, it opens the door for legislatures to criminalizing possession of blueprints (of guns) without a license.
This is worse than putting it under Arms Export Control Act. This opens door for legislatures to criminalize possession of the files (a la possession of child porn). Hopefully SCOTUS is smarter than this.
NYTimes published full manual on making an atomic bomb in the 80's. That was deemed protected speech despite the fact that the non-proliferation treaty was more than a mere piece of paper at the time. Certainly that endangered national security. Dissemination of source code for all crypto is also considered protected (although not dissemination of compiled code). This seems to go against the standard that blueprints for making dangerous apparatus is protected. Considering that possession of a printed gun itself is protected by the 2nd amendment, how is this more dangerous than printing nuke manuals?
My guess is no, that the major function of the surge is prioritizing, not increasing demand.
I think you meant "increase in supply". And you would have to back that up. From where I am standing, everyone has a price. Lawyers would start giving Uber rides instead practicing law if the price jumped 50x. Obviously, there is some lower threshold which, when crossed, would entice people with lower earning potential to "get in on the action."
Slashdot Mirror
Police, just like voters, and just journalists have to make a decision of what is better vs what is worse. They cannot simply without any action until only a perfect outcome is possible. Life simply doesn't present such set of circumstances. I've stipulated that it is very likely that the people who want to bring down Clinton, by using Wikileaks as their mouth, are probably shady. But that's the benefit of having opposing interests present their case. The process brings down the very worst of people by the hands of other (possibly awful) people for the benefit of the rest of us.
If a cop uses shady characters as informers or a prosecutor reduces someone's charges in exchange for a testimony, then that too serves an agenda of a criminal. But its ultimate goal is to unearth the truth about a bigger fish which is engage in shady practices. And in the current legal regime it is considered moral and justified. The same standard has to apply to the journalists. If they are exposing the criminality in the camp of the ruling party's candidate's campaign, then they are doing a public service even if the source is shady and is doing the releasing of the information in the hopes of improving the chances of an opposition candidate.
Clinton may be corrupt
In combination with this:
The problem is that Trump is far less predictable than Clinton.
implies that you part of the camp of those who think she'll stay bought once she is paid. But she is not. She will pursue her own agenda even after taking the bribes. Kadafi settled his debts with the victims of terrorist acts. He gave up his WMD research. He negotiated with the US to become a legitimate state actor in good faith. But, as we know now, it was Clinton who insisted on the strategy of removing him. Which betrays her personality as that of an opportunist rather than an honorable thief. She will not keep any promise she makes or keep to any deal she enters into. He deeds betray her more than her words. Trump does not have the same history of consistent breaking of deals. He renegotiates rather than simply breaking deals when circumstances change. Both of these factors combined indicate that Trump is actually more trustworthy than Hillary.
Peer-review research does fairly poorly when evaluating one-time (ie, non-repeatable) events, especially if the said events involve confrontations. It's why we don't have just peers on juries, but also adversarial councils in courts. In the absence of adversarial advocacy, peer review of non-repeatable events quickly becomes a circle jerk. Most judges, for example, will accept plea deals reached by opposing councils. Peer review of politics is essentially impossible. It's why we have elections rather than SCOTUS-style committees deciding who is to be in charge.
Right, but not like her (not like the ones who made their money by taking government bribes and hid it in shell non-profits).
How can we justify doing that while increasing the social security age? Why not lower it instead? If we go with the assumption that the knowledge economy is what makes people obsolete, then why not ensure basic living conditions for those who (because of their advanced age) are at a disadvantage when it comes to learning new skills?
Yes, I know it's pretty standard, but it's about as telling as the klines count in code. This is true not only of this particular field of research. It's a problem in academia in general. The whole publish-or-perish system encourages it and at some point the publication volume reaches a critical mass where extra information starts to take away from the understanding of the subject. Knowledge requires culling of unnecessary information. And the chase for higher citation count does nothing to encourage new approaches which obviate a lot of old approaches. On a lighter note, "Mr. President, we must not allow a citation gap!" (Dr. Strangelove homage).
The linked article is on BBC. And Britain has already adopted the Indian usage of "maths."
Does that not defeat the whole purpose of a punishment? They are not talking about preventive measures.... Punishment is supposed to deter future behavior by making it obvious that it brings about consequences. Is this something that needs to be explained to the father of two children (who is sometimes known as POTUS)?
Just to follow up, I just looked through the NYTimes article itself, and no "codes" does not appear in it. "Computer code" does. And while "code" is singular, "computer code" is always taken to be plural. So "codes" sounds just as harsh as "maths" to a North American English speaker (even though "maths" has sipped its way into British usage).
And as many of these were highly classified. DoD contractors had not yet begun outsourcing top secret work to India
The "codes" was part of the article summary by slashdot. It was not part of the quote. In other words, it was written by whoever submitted the story to Slashdot. So this:
it was an American usage.
does not follow from the slashdot submission. Oh, and it's was never used by oldtimes. It is exclusively Indian. And it is very new. I think "Codechef" was the 1st place I saw it. And you don't have to believe it, but it won't change the fact that it sounds very harsh to the ears of all other English speakers.
"codes" is an exclusively Indian usage. And it's fairly harsh on the ears of any non-Indian programmers.
Reduced isotope ratio does not *necessarily* mean that oxygen is "leaking". It could be trapped within compounds on the planet. Just as carbon levels have decreased due to carbon being fixed in other compounds.
complaining about grammar on a site which has no edit button makes about as much sense as complaining about spelling errors on twitter.
Not "one person". One of the ranking members of the party's leadership.
Except Barney Franks is not a cookie member of the party. He wasn't even an out-of-step member (a la Kucinich) of the party. Barney Franks was an elected *ranking* (committee member) Congressman. He is bona fide part of the in-step leadership of the party. Referring to his statements is most definitely appropriate when discussing the party's agenda.
Nobody has tried to take away your guns. Stop.
Right. Just as almost no bill ever gets a veto. They only bother voting for bills which have been negotiated with the executive not to be vetoed. If they don't have the votes, they don't bother trying to do anything. If they have the votes and it serves their agenda. they will do it even if they said a million times and swore on a million bibles that they would never do it. "No one has tried it yet" is a very crude attempt to appeal to survivor bias (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...).
How about keeping them out of the hands of convicted felons who lost the right to have a firearm?
Keeping them out of their hands? If it's already illegal for them to own guns, you don't additional legislature to make more guns illegal. You just need more budget for police to enforce existing laws. It's not illegal for anyone to possess blueprints to anything (unless there are IP laws involved). So felons who can't own guns, can own blueprints for guns. Once you go down the path of limiting felons' speech rights, you'll be an earshot away from other laws criminalizing unwanted or "dangerous" speech.
If you are a liberal-"liberal" (so you are over 35), you might not be as much of an extremist as the modern brand of the Democratic Party (which is neo-Communist). I've heard Barney Frank (who was still in office at the time) talk with lament about the fact that Lenin (I am not making this up or exagerating... I don't have a link... I heard him say it on TV)... Lenin (!!!) wasn't able to finish the job world-wide. So calling them neo-Communist is not even an exaggeration. It's an accurate description of their long-term goals.
That's because they spent on all the political capital they had on passing Obamacare. They blew their wad on that, so to speak. If Brown didn't elected in MA, who knows, what else they would have done?
Nobody has come for your guns. You are literally Chicken Little.
Well, actually, no, he is not. If this survives a SCOTUS challenge, it opens the door for legislatures to criminalizing possession of blueprints (of guns) without a license.
NYTimes published the full guide to making an atomic bomb in the late 80's (still during the Cold War). It was protected speech.
This is worse than putting it under Arms Export Control Act. This opens door for legislatures to criminalize possession of the files (a la possession of child porn). Hopefully SCOTUS is smarter than this.
NYTimes published full manual on making an atomic bomb in the 80's. That was deemed protected speech despite the fact that the non-proliferation treaty was more than a mere piece of paper at the time. Certainly that endangered national security. Dissemination of source code for all crypto is also considered protected (although not dissemination of compiled code). This seems to go against the standard that blueprints for making dangerous apparatus is protected. Considering that possession of a printed gun itself is protected by the 2nd amendment, how is this more dangerous than printing nuke manuals?
My guess is no, that the major function of the surge is prioritizing, not increasing demand.
I think you meant "increase in supply". And you would have to back that up. From where I am standing, everyone has a price. Lawyers would start giving Uber rides instead practicing law if the price jumped 50x. Obviously, there is some lower threshold which, when crossed, would entice people with lower earning potential to "get in on the action."