Firing Mueller is a gross abuse and violation of the separation of powers. Even sensible republicans think interfering in the DoJ is crossing the line.
Firing Mueller would be a severe political mistake, but it would not be a violation of the separation of powers. The DoJ is within the executive branch, not the judicial branch, so Trump has the authority to fire Mueller. If Mueller were under the judicial branch, Trump wouldn't be able to touch him (e.g. Trump cannot fire judges). So, that said, I believe that the one thing Trump could do to end his presidency would be to fire Mueller. If he rides it out, he'll probably make it through letting his lackeys take the fall.
It's all about statistics--and 30 is the life expectancy (average), not the oldest they can live. For instance, a bird, the robin, can live to around 15 years old before it dies of "natural causes", but it's life expectancy is about 1 year because so many things kill it (accidents, predator, etc.). There are lots of things that kill living beings besides old age, like lab experiments. So all of these factors work together so that there's a probability distribution and expectation on a being's length of life, even if they're "immortal".
If you use the summary's numbers, a 1/10000 chance of dying on any given day, then that means you have a 9999/10000 chance of surviving any day. You can run that fraction through any number of years to see what your probability of surviving that long is. (9999/10000)^(365*19) ~ 0.5, so you have a 50% chance of making it 19 years. (9999/10000)^(365*30) ~ 0.33, so you have about a 1/3 chance of making it past 30 years old. 1/10000 is slightly too high a death rate to support a life expectancy of 30 years (you can see it's about 19 years since the rate stays the same over time). You can actually back out the exact rate of death if you want to get an expectation of 30 years and assume a uniform daily death rate: x^(365*30) = 0.5 ==> x ~ 0.00006329 (which they probably rounded to 0.0001, or 1/10000).
This is why, even for humans, immortality wouldn't mean that we avoid death. I've read previously that our life expectancy would still be in the 600s, given the current rate of death. If you truly were immortal, I'm guessing that you would take less risks and could drive that number up into the 1000s, but I doubt it would ever get to the 10,000s. The way the world currently is, something is bound to eventually take each one of us out.
As a conservative, I stand with Democrat Ron Wyden in his position. And that fact made me realize something.
To liberals who often want to ban firearms: if you support Ron Wyden's reasoning about encryption, then please realize conservatives have been making the same arguments about firearms and the second amendment since forever. (e.g. if you ban strong encryption de jure, then only criminals will have strong encryption and that will be used against the average law abiding citizen).
To conservatives to often want the state to have strong enforcement powers: don't be hypocrites. If you support the FBI/NSA/CIA desires for compromised encryption for the effectiveness of law enforcement, realize that the same logic will be used against your second amendment rights.
We the people need to work together to make sure that the state doesn't abuse it's power, and this relates to encryption and firearms. Don't let the government use partisan politics to turn us against each other so that they can do as they please.
I absolutely loved this service. I'd upload my mp3s and get to play from the same library no matter what device I happened to be using. It really simplified library management.
Is there anything else out there like it? I'm a little tempted to just go with Plex and run it myself, but I always worry that my hardware will fail or my home internet connection will go down.
Was walking home to the dorms at UIUC back around 2001 and saw some lights in the sky. It looked like planes flying in V-formation across the sky--something like the Blue Angels would do. I thought it was pretty cool and kept my eye on it while walking, though as I remember back, none of the lights were blinking, which is what I'd expect for airplanes.
Then the strangest thing happened. They started moving around, but they didn't move in a way that would be possible for airplanes. They started circling around each other (still while the whole formation was moving). They looked like they were moving around like bugs, but the light still looked like plane or starlight--very far off. Then after about 5 seconds of this bizarre movement, the lights turned off.
I literally have no idea what to think of it. It didn't have the movement pattern of planes or missiles or drones or balloons. I do not think it was alien ships or anything like that (even that wouldn't make sense...the g-force on those objects if they were distant aircraft would have been incredible). Perhaps the only phenomenon that might make sense, and I stress "might," is ball lightning.
I wish I had a smart phone to record, but I don't think it would have helped. The lights were too far off that I don't think they have shown well on a phone's large field of view. The other issue is that by the time I saw something interesting worth recording, it would have been gone by the time I got the phone out and turned on. I can't even get the cute moments I see with my kids today--there's no way I would have recorded those lights in time. But they were very memorable.
That's why he's a billionaire and we're not. He's got a drive that few others have. What made him rich was literally his life's passion, and you don't stop that because you've got a lot of presidential flash cards.
Look, I don't inherently mind that they're doing this, but there's no way in hell they'd do something like this if Hillary won. They'd mumble about privacy and rights and fight in court. This is what I hate about partisan politics. It's like partisan has come to mean hypocrite--yes, on both sides.
I was about to mod you up after reading your first sentence, but then the second came. Look, we all know of people who hop on the bandwagon of science and are as stubborn as anyone. There are also plenty of religious folk who use their brains (in the voice of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word faith. I do not think it means what you think it means").
One thing I recall from Combinatorial Algorithms was that all NP-complete problems were "essentially the same". What that meant was, if you had an NP-complete problem, you could transform it into another NP-complete problem. And what we spent way too much time doing was taking problems of unknown complexity and either trying to prove they were polynomial or transforming into an known NP-complete problem to prove that it too was NP-complete.
What that means is that if you can prove that P=NP in one case, then you've proven it for all cases, and if you've proven that P!=NP in one case, then you've proven it for all cases.
Scanning the paper, it looks like they took an NP-complete problem they were familiar with (Monotone Boolean Networks) and proved that for this particular algorithm, they have deduced that it's P!=NP by using bounds analysis. That generalizes, then, to P!=NP for all problems in the space. That is "Corollary 1" on page 36 in their paper, which is Turing Award worthy if true. I can't look at their paper and say whether or not what they did was correct, unfortunately, but their final step is sound.
I agree with eBay here: we can have no tolerance for terrorist activity. The only safe answer is to completely shut down eBay and PayPal. Please, won't you think of the children!
That's not how it works anymore. You don't have to "play the part" anymore to make that determination (otherwise that would be prejudicial stereotyping, remember?). This is why conservatives have gone ape over the newer bathroom policies. Before, someone who dressed the opposite gender generally could use the bathroom of their choice. All the new bathroom policies do is make it so that a plain-clothed dude can walk into a women's restroom without being questioned.
So the GP is absolutely right, and the way the politics are set up, someone being denied a job on the basis that the employer "didn't believe" a candidate's gender story is probably enough to get their pants sued off. If not, then we have some actual systematic discrimination happening, because literally the only people who wouldn't be allowed gender fluidity would be white men.
This is the world's new business model, for better or worse. If you don't run a business this way, you can't compete (with the likes of Amazon & Netflix) and they will crush you. And if you do run a business this way, you might [spectacularly] fail, but if you are able to survive, then you'll be the only player. It's like running a monopoly before it's officially a monopoly (the way Standard Oil used to undercut competitors until they went out of business). You can use debt, equity and VC funding to do this today instead of a monopolist's war chest.
As a major plus to those who make these decisions--the board, the CEO, and the rest of the executive team--they don't care. They get paid handsomely win or lose, and if everything goes bust, they can just spin up the next one while coasting on their ludicrous money from the last job.
You totally missed the point of the GP. This is not about quantity at all. It doesn't matter if the government wants $2 or $2 million. If you don't pay it, they take your property and kick you out just like a landlord would. It's a perfectly appropriate analogy.
Personally, I'm not inherently opposed to property tax, though I would much rather see services paid for a different way if possible. They really NEED to codify a hard cap for property tax percentage. The part about property tax that bothers me is that they are willing to ratchet up the percentage to laughable levels. When I was a child, it would take 100+ years to pay in property taxes what the value of the property was (1%). Now we're at a level of about 30-35 years (~3%). Nobody cared when home values were rising exponentially. But now that prices have stabilized in most places, it seems absurd that the government can take an increasingly large slice of your assets, and they need to precisely because home values aren't going up, yet they need more and more revenue. At some point, owning a property becomes a liability (what if the government taxed at 10%, or 25%?). My math says we're really close to that tipping point (approximately 3.5%), where the value taken by taxes harms the value of the home more than the services they're paying for.
We need to pay for schools and roads and parks and libraries, but paying for those through property taxes makes us serfs of the state. Even though yours is $2k/year, you are still under serfdom, it's just a lighter load.
You don't get sarcasm, do you? I was using humor to make a point, as my proposal would clearly (very clearly) never actually work in real life. I swear the critical reading skill have left this site (mods, I'm looking at you).
I'm all for #1 unless we start to get squishy on what law-abiding means. It would be disrespectful of the 2nd amendment to say that anyone with a blemish on their record (e.g. a parking ticket, you filthy lawbreaker) is banned from gun ownership.
Regarding #4, I would love to have a rational discussion about gun control policy, but the left has literally made that impossible. That's why we have to resort to hyperbole and sarcasm. But I can guarantee you this is what's going to happen: the left will totally disregard the fact that they made this man who he is if this was indeed politically motivated, but they will be howl for far stricter gun control no matter what you say about points #2 and #3 in your post. They might as well start a conspiracy where they send believers out to shoot up the public so they can force their policy onto the country
I support Gun Control for those who advocate for it. Anyone who registers to vote as a Democrat may not own a gun. That will take care of the problem in the urban areas, right? And it will also keep guns out of the hands of the tolerant, inclusive, loving left who feel the need to shoot up congressmen.
The rest of us will be able to peacefully enjoy responsible gun ownership.
warning: missing terminating " character error: missing terminating " character error: expected primary-expression before 'return'
Editors--that makes it hard to read, because I can't trust when Intel's quote ends so I don't know if it's Intel speaking or editorializing for any given sentence.
Thanks for the reply instead of the down-mod (I guess I got hit by a Trumper before the discussion could grow--must be because I forgot my usual disclaimer of being a lifelong Conservative [registered] Republican who just can't stand Trump).
Anyway, there is more than one message to take away from today's hearing. The biggest lessons didn't have anything to do with Comey, but for some reason this site has turned really conservative and let its newer bias write the headline. This place was very liberal when I was in high school and college. But I digress...
You might want to watch or read the testimony again. Trump did not handle things correctly after that first meeting. It was requested that all communication from the President go through the AG, yet Trump insisted on calling Comey more than once. He was clearly concerned with something about the investigation into Russia. It might be as insignificant as the optics*, it might be as substantial as worrying about getting caught for committing crimes in collusion w/ his underlings wrt Russia (not saying Trump did, but if he did that would be a big worry of his).
Trump has not been particularly professional in the President's Office. There have been some bright spots, for sure, like the State of the Union and the fact that he hasn't fiddled with the Football, but I have no doubts that Trump has been a serial liar when it comes to Comey. Trump is the one who looks bad if the truth comes out--he's the only one with motive to hide anything--so the Republicans had no alternate explanation for Comey's insistence that he was fired because of the FBI's investigation into Russia. There is no other reasonable explanation. That really is the #1 headline from the hearing today.
I totally agree about McCain. The guy needed to shut up. There was no double standard. Comey was investigating Russia wherever it led him. Comey also investigated Clinton for the email scandal. Sounds relatively non-partisan to me, but McCain couldn't coherently make his point that he thought the whole thing was "unfair".
*If it was just the optics, did he think firing the guy investigating would be GOOD for optics??
You're asking the wrong questions. Of course the MSM uses accurate information. It's usually the withholding of information that's makes certain reporting an attack rather than journalism.
For instance, look at Trump's lawyer's press briefing after today's hearing. Nothing he said was directly misinformation, but it's clear that it was one-sided. He worked hard to convey Comey as a "confessed leaker" and that "Trump never told Comey he needed loyalty." These things are technically literally true, but the first is a misdirection and the second is untrue semantically.
There is no doubt that the MSM uses these tactics to attack Trump. There is also no doubt that Fox News uses these tactics to defend Trump. It's really plainly obvious when you listen to both sides and discover information that was conveniently excluded to promote an agenda. But people can sense that and they realize that what they're being told is pretty much BS. What's a really bummer is that it only seems to discredit the media of the "side" you're not on for most people.
Slashdot Mirror
Firing Mueller is a gross abuse and violation of the separation of powers. Even sensible republicans think interfering in the DoJ is crossing the line.
Firing Mueller would be a severe political mistake, but it would not be a violation of the separation of powers. The DoJ is within the executive branch, not the judicial branch, so Trump has the authority to fire Mueller. If Mueller were under the judicial branch, Trump wouldn't be able to touch him (e.g. Trump cannot fire judges). So, that said, I believe that the one thing Trump could do to end his presidency would be to fire Mueller. If he rides it out, he'll probably make it through letting his lackeys take the fall.
538 has given some good history and analysis of special counsels: https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...
It's all about statistics--and 30 is the life expectancy (average), not the oldest they can live. For instance, a bird, the robin, can live to around 15 years old before it dies of "natural causes", but it's life expectancy is about 1 year because so many things kill it (accidents, predator, etc.). There are lots of things that kill living beings besides old age, like lab experiments. So all of these factors work together so that there's a probability distribution and expectation on a being's length of life, even if they're "immortal".
If you use the summary's numbers, a 1/10000 chance of dying on any given day, then that means you have a 9999/10000 chance of surviving any day. You can run that fraction through any number of years to see what your probability of surviving that long is. (9999/10000)^(365*19) ~ 0.5, so you have a 50% chance of making it 19 years. (9999/10000)^(365*30) ~ 0.33, so you have about a 1/3 chance of making it past 30 years old. 1/10000 is slightly too high a death rate to support a life expectancy of 30 years (you can see it's about 19 years since the rate stays the same over time). You can actually back out the exact rate of death if you want to get an expectation of 30 years and assume a uniform daily death rate: x^(365*30) = 0.5 ==> x ~ 0.00006329 (which they probably rounded to 0.0001, or 1/10000).
This is why, even for humans, immortality wouldn't mean that we avoid death. I've read previously that our life expectancy would still be in the 600s, given the current rate of death. If you truly were immortal, I'm guessing that you would take less risks and could drive that number up into the 1000s, but I doubt it would ever get to the 10,000s. The way the world currently is, something is bound to eventually take each one of us out.
As a conservative, I stand with Democrat Ron Wyden in his position. And that fact made me realize something.
To liberals who often want to ban firearms: if you support Ron Wyden's reasoning about encryption, then please realize conservatives have been making the same arguments about firearms and the second amendment since forever. (e.g. if you ban strong encryption de jure, then only criminals will have strong encryption and that will be used against the average law abiding citizen).
To conservatives to often want the state to have strong enforcement powers: don't be hypocrites. If you support the FBI/NSA/CIA desires for compromised encryption for the effectiveness of law enforcement, realize that the same logic will be used against your second amendment rights.
We the people need to work together to make sure that the state doesn't abuse it's power, and this relates to encryption and firearms. Don't let the government use partisan politics to turn us against each other so that they can do as they please.
He did himself in the quickest and most painless way possible with three gunshot wounds to the back.
I don't know what happened in real life, but these things always look suspicious.
I absolutely loved this service. I'd upload my mp3s and get to play from the same library no matter what device I happened to be using. It really simplified library management.
Is there anything else out there like it? I'm a little tempted to just go with Plex and run it myself, but I always worry that my hardware will fail or my home internet connection will go down.
Was walking home to the dorms at UIUC back around 2001 and saw some lights in the sky. It looked like planes flying in V-formation across the sky--something like the Blue Angels would do. I thought it was pretty cool and kept my eye on it while walking, though as I remember back, none of the lights were blinking, which is what I'd expect for airplanes.
Then the strangest thing happened. They started moving around, but they didn't move in a way that would be possible for airplanes. They started circling around each other (still while the whole formation was moving). They looked like they were moving around like bugs, but the light still looked like plane or starlight--very far off. Then after about 5 seconds of this bizarre movement, the lights turned off.
I literally have no idea what to think of it. It didn't have the movement pattern of planes or missiles or drones or balloons. I do not think it was alien ships or anything like that (even that wouldn't make sense...the g-force on those objects if they were distant aircraft would have been incredible). Perhaps the only phenomenon that might make sense, and I stress "might," is ball lightning.
I wish I had a smart phone to record, but I don't think it would have helped. The lights were too far off that I don't think they have shown well on a phone's large field of view. The other issue is that by the time I saw something interesting worth recording, it would have been gone by the time I got the phone out and turned on. I can't even get the cute moments I see with my kids today--there's no way I would have recorded those lights in time. But they were very memorable.
What is this, the yearbook?
Oh crap, it just hit me, are we all about to die?
They're too busy demonetizing second amendment channels to realize that their kiddie porn industry is blooming.
https://youtu.be/H0Atpwo_AuY
That's why he's a billionaire and we're not. He's got a drive that few others have. What made him rich was literally his life's passion, and you don't stop that because you've got a lot of presidential flash cards.
In related news, the fox has made the hen house safer from outside predators. Hens everywhere are rejoicing!
This looks to me like it would be one of the coolest ways to die.
Look, I don't inherently mind that they're doing this, but there's no way in hell they'd do something like this if Hillary won. They'd mumble about privacy and rights and fight in court. This is what I hate about partisan politics. It's like partisan has come to mean hypocrite--yes, on both sides.
I was about to mod you up after reading your first sentence, but then the second came. Look, we all know of people who hop on the bandwagon of science and are as stubborn as anyone. There are also plenty of religious folk who use their brains (in the voice of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word faith. I do not think it means what you think it means").
I don't think so.
One thing I recall from Combinatorial Algorithms was that all NP-complete problems were "essentially the same". What that meant was, if you had an NP-complete problem, you could transform it into another NP-complete problem. And what we spent way too much time doing was taking problems of unknown complexity and either trying to prove they were polynomial or transforming into an known NP-complete problem to prove that it too was NP-complete.
What that means is that if you can prove that P=NP in one case, then you've proven it for all cases, and if you've proven that P!=NP in one case, then you've proven it for all cases.
Scanning the paper, it looks like they took an NP-complete problem they were familiar with (Monotone Boolean Networks) and proved that for this particular algorithm, they have deduced that it's P!=NP by using bounds analysis. That generalizes, then, to P!=NP for all problems in the space. That is "Corollary 1" on page 36 in their paper, which is Turing Award worthy if true. I can't look at their paper and say whether or not what they did was correct, unfortunately, but their final step is sound.
I agree with eBay here: we can have no tolerance for terrorist activity. The only safe answer is to completely shut down eBay and PayPal. Please, won't you think of the children!
That's not how it works anymore. You don't have to "play the part" anymore to make that determination (otherwise that would be prejudicial stereotyping, remember?). This is why conservatives have gone ape over the newer bathroom policies. Before, someone who dressed the opposite gender generally could use the bathroom of their choice. All the new bathroom policies do is make it so that a plain-clothed dude can walk into a women's restroom without being questioned.
http://www.thegetrealmom.com/b...
https://www.lifesitenews.com/n...
http://thefederalist.com/2015/...
So the GP is absolutely right, and the way the politics are set up, someone being denied a job on the basis that the employer "didn't believe" a candidate's gender story is probably enough to get their pants sued off. If not, then we have some actual systematic discrimination happening, because literally the only people who wouldn't be allowed gender fluidity would be white men.
Okay, so a lot of best "X" lists are crap. But surely some are good. Does anybody have a list of the best best lists?
Works for Amazon.
This is the world's new business model, for better or worse. If you don't run a business this way, you can't compete (with the likes of Amazon & Netflix) and they will crush you. And if you do run a business this way, you might [spectacularly] fail, but if you are able to survive, then you'll be the only player. It's like running a monopoly before it's officially a monopoly (the way Standard Oil used to undercut competitors until they went out of business). You can use debt, equity and VC funding to do this today instead of a monopolist's war chest.
As a major plus to those who make these decisions--the board, the CEO, and the rest of the executive team--they don't care. They get paid handsomely win or lose, and if everything goes bust, they can just spin up the next one while coasting on their ludicrous money from the last job.
You totally missed the point of the GP. This is not about quantity at all. It doesn't matter if the government wants $2 or $2 million. If you don't pay it, they take your property and kick you out just like a landlord would. It's a perfectly appropriate analogy.
Personally, I'm not inherently opposed to property tax, though I would much rather see services paid for a different way if possible. They really NEED to codify a hard cap for property tax percentage. The part about property tax that bothers me is that they are willing to ratchet up the percentage to laughable levels. When I was a child, it would take 100+ years to pay in property taxes what the value of the property was (1%). Now we're at a level of about 30-35 years (~3%). Nobody cared when home values were rising exponentially. But now that prices have stabilized in most places, it seems absurd that the government can take an increasingly large slice of your assets, and they need to precisely because home values aren't going up, yet they need more and more revenue. At some point, owning a property becomes a liability (what if the government taxed at 10%, or 25%?). My math says we're really close to that tipping point (approximately 3.5%), where the value taken by taxes harms the value of the home more than the services they're paying for.
We need to pay for schools and roads and parks and libraries, but paying for those through property taxes makes us serfs of the state. Even though yours is $2k/year, you are still under serfdom, it's just a lighter load.
You don't get sarcasm, do you? I was using humor to make a point, as my proposal would clearly (very clearly) never actually work in real life. I swear the critical reading skill have left this site (mods, I'm looking at you).
I'm all for #1 unless we start to get squishy on what law-abiding means. It would be disrespectful of the 2nd amendment to say that anyone with a blemish on their record (e.g. a parking ticket, you filthy lawbreaker) is banned from gun ownership.
Regarding #4, I would love to have a rational discussion about gun control policy, but the left has literally made that impossible. That's why we have to resort to hyperbole and sarcasm. But I can guarantee you this is what's going to happen: the left will totally disregard the fact that they made this man who he is if this was indeed politically motivated, but they will be howl for far stricter gun control no matter what you say about points #2 and #3 in your post. They might as well start a conspiracy where they send believers out to shoot up the public so they can force their policy onto the country
I support Gun Control for those who advocate for it. Anyone who registers to vote as a Democrat may not own a gun. That will take care of the problem in the urban areas, right? And it will also keep guns out of the hands of the tolerant, inclusive, loving left who feel the need to shoot up congressmen.
The rest of us will be able to peacefully enjoy responsible gun ownership.
Maybe he and Marissa can make a baby now
warning: missing terminating " character
error: missing terminating " character
error: expected primary-expression before 'return'
Editors--that makes it hard to read, because I can't trust when Intel's quote ends so I don't know if it's Intel speaking or editorializing for any given sentence.
Thanks for the reply instead of the down-mod (I guess I got hit by a Trumper before the discussion could grow--must be because I forgot my usual disclaimer of being a lifelong Conservative [registered] Republican who just can't stand Trump).
Anyway, there is more than one message to take away from today's hearing. The biggest lessons didn't have anything to do with Comey, but for some reason this site has turned really conservative and let its newer bias write the headline. This place was very liberal when I was in high school and college. But I digress...
You might want to watch or read the testimony again. Trump did not handle things correctly after that first meeting. It was requested that all communication from the President go through the AG, yet Trump insisted on calling Comey more than once. He was clearly concerned with something about the investigation into Russia. It might be as insignificant as the optics*, it might be as substantial as worrying about getting caught for committing crimes in collusion w/ his underlings wrt Russia (not saying Trump did, but if he did that would be a big worry of his).
Trump has not been particularly professional in the President's Office. There have been some bright spots, for sure, like the State of the Union and the fact that he hasn't fiddled with the Football, but I have no doubts that Trump has been a serial liar when it comes to Comey. Trump is the one who looks bad if the truth comes out--he's the only one with motive to hide anything--so the Republicans had no alternate explanation for Comey's insistence that he was fired because of the FBI's investigation into Russia. There is no other reasonable explanation. That really is the #1 headline from the hearing today.
I totally agree about McCain. The guy needed to shut up. There was no double standard. Comey was investigating Russia wherever it led him. Comey also investigated Clinton for the email scandal. Sounds relatively non-partisan to me, but McCain couldn't coherently make his point that he thought the whole thing was "unfair".
*If it was just the optics, did he think firing the guy investigating would be GOOD for optics??
You're asking the wrong questions. Of course the MSM uses accurate information. It's usually the withholding of information that's makes certain reporting an attack rather than journalism.
For instance, look at Trump's lawyer's press briefing after today's hearing. Nothing he said was directly misinformation, but it's clear that it was one-sided. He worked hard to convey Comey as a "confessed leaker" and that "Trump never told Comey he needed loyalty." These things are technically literally true, but the first is a misdirection and the second is untrue semantically.
There is no doubt that the MSM uses these tactics to attack Trump. There is also no doubt that Fox News uses these tactics to defend Trump. It's really plainly obvious when you listen to both sides and discover information that was conveniently excluded to promote an agenda. But people can sense that and they realize that what they're being told is pretty much BS. What's a really bummer is that it only seems to discredit the media of the "side" you're not on for most people.