That's the headline?! I know that was a big part of the testimony, but the real story is that Comey pretty much confirmed that Trump is a lying, self-serving douche who would joyfully obstruct justice if he thought he could get away with it (all Trump has at this point is a thin veneer of plausible deniability--"I only said that I hoped...it was a wish, not a command."). That's the part that's really worth talking about, not the Comey leak.
By the way, Snowden is wrong. Comey didn't break any rules. It's not like he leaked classified information.
I came here to say the same thing. I remember reading about Obama's data operations in an article like this one: https://www.technologyreview.c...
The DNC moped the floor with the RNC in terms of data analytics and social media use during Obama's campaign. Did they suddenly dismantle that when Hilary ran? I have a hard time believing that they didn't even make progress on it. At the same time, I was skeptical that the RNC had improved their data analytics over the last 4 years, and while I'm sure they did, I have to imagine the comparative advantage went to the DNC.
Hilary's cognitive dissonance is really astounding. I hope this pisses off the DNC and causes them to go for someone else in 2020.
"Congressional-executive agreements" are honestly the best way to do it, frankly, as any ratified treaty becomes as binding as the US Constitution itself and it's significantly tougher to back out of it if it's suddenly a bad treaty for the country. If we align our laws to match foreign treaties, then we can use the same law passing power (simple majority) to get out of it if necessary. Other countries may not feel as confident in that model as the Constitutional Treaty, but these days I believe other countries are getting a lot more out of us than we're getting out of them, so I'm sure they're more than willing to "risk" it.
Sure, you jump to dumb conclusions and I'm the problem.
I literally said that I didn't care that they did the test, but that's the first thing you attack in response. It's partisan because if Hillary had won, Gizmodo would not have conducted this "test".
When I smell partisan BS, I'm going to call it out. Reds and Blues being at each other's throats is not going to solve anything in this country.
PS You're pretty naive if you don't see the bias and partisanship in this and most of the world. I wouldn't go so far as to say that everything is partisan, but it's pretty darn close, unfortunately, and sticking your head in the sand about that doesn't help anything.
Makes it sound "inconclusive"--that's not a great way of putting it. The test was a success from the perspective of the administration and a failure on the part of Gizmodo. Gizmodo surely wanted to prove that Trump's administration is as inept as the DNC, and it's clear that nobody fell for it.
I don't really care that Gizmodo did the test, though it seems like they were pretty dumb to go for it without checking on the legality first, but they should be punished in the court of public opinion for failing at a blatantly partisan attack.
Yup, I think I'm going to join the masses and leave. This place sucks now. It's all clickbait and politics, and the summaries and comments of substance are long gone. Oh well.
Doctors are complicit here. I've had three try to prescribe me meds for my borderline high cholesterol. I've been healthy in every other way except for that my whole adult life, so there seems to be some kind of genetic issue I have with cholesterol.
Anyway, I saw the Harvard study that said that 2 oz of walnuts per day would lower bad cholesterol and raise good cholesterol. And you know what, after 6 weeks, IT DID. For the first time in my life I've had normal cholesterol.
Why did my doctors not know about this study? Or even worse, if they did know about it, why didn't they encourage me to try it?
I totally agree with you. However, even as a very conservative guy, I'm disappointed in this budget. Maybe it's just because I also happen to be a geek and don't mind the investment into science research.
Anyway, the main reason I'm disappointed is that cutting these things is like straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. They don't actually change the financial health of the nation, fundamentally, though they are devastating to the agencies who are impacted by the cuts.
We need to make real changes. That means cutting defense by a ton. We can spend half of what we spend now and still outclass every military on the planet. We need to majorly reform the entitlement programs. Social security, medicare and medicaid are going to blow us up. I'm a younger guy, and even from the start of my career I could see that SS was not really going to be there for me by the time I get there. I would be so happy if they did something like push back the SS "retirement" age to something like 72 (for anyone under 50) and made the thing solvent at least. These are the kinds of changes that grown-ups need to make.
Cutting NASA's budget is like telling your kids that you have to reduce their allowance by half because you have $100,000 in credit card debt.
You completely missed my point. Tying the genetic testing to psychopathy means that companies would never be able to hire the CEOs they want. These companies and the breed of psychopathic CEOs would complain so loudly the law would never get passed. But if they're going to force genetic testing on us*, then we might as well make it worth our while and publicly humiliate these monsters.
Here's what the deal should be: companies can do genetic testing all they want as long as it's always strictly against the law to employ psychopaths according to the genetic test.
Right, I'm the nut. Not the idiot(s) who couldn't figure out it was a joke.
If you're so anti-gun that you can't see the humor in what i wrote, I'm pretty sure you're the one who belongs in the loony bin. I also find it quite fantastic that it's your type trying to take away gun rights.
I understand what you're saying about the Fibonacci function, but I don't think you're right. First of all, you should have asked what was meant by "faster." If this was a function that was going to be called a lot with large input values, then it might be worth talking about storing the intermediate results in a cache. That would also lead to great conversations about tradeoffs: time vs space, etc.
Anyway, the real reason you turn out to be wrong is that there's a closed form solution for the Fibonacci sequence. It won't be fastest to use it for all "n" because it will involve floating point math, but there are certainly faster solutions than your iterative one.
Look, I agree that these devices are mostly unnecessary, but mostly is the key word. If you have an infant that died of SIDS*, you would find absolutely no comfort in the fact that the doctor told you that you'd probably not need this monitor.
Some parents do need to calm down and not rush their kids to the ER for every hangnail, and if your monitor alarms but your baby is fine, then be grateful, but don't freak out. There will be some children saved by this device, and those parents will be more than happy with every penny they spent on it.
My kids are all past the age of needing to worry about this, but I've gone through a few heart-stopping moments with each of them. Honestly, I'd probably buy one, but an alarm wouldn't automatically send me to the hospital (I would call an ambulance, of course, if my child were unconscious and not breathing, and I have had to do that once).
*Doctors say they don't know what causes SIDS, but I am almost positive that some (incredibly rare, very small percentage) children contort themselves into a position while sleeping that suffocates them. Not all of their biological processes are fully developed and their muscle tone is very poor, so if they get into a position where they can't breathe, there's a good chance they'll suffocate to death. And because everybody is asleep and the whole thing is silent, parents won't know until morning. This monitor would cure SIDS if my theory is right.
Lol, that's what bible thumpers always say when they encounter someone who's unwilling to buy their silly stories.
Tell me, where was the thumping of the Bible? Bible thumpers would have started quoting scripture against your assertions. You can't even get your name calling right. I've been working to argue on your grounds (historical textual criticism) and you're unwilling to actually have an intelligent conversation. You're choosing to ignore the evidence and then attacking the position you disagree with. That's malicious ignorance.
The truth is that you haven't even begun to think about these things. You've come to your materialistic atheistic conclusion by faith and you refuse to acknowledge any evidence that might contradict your beliefs. You should welcome yourself into the camp you despise.
You're conflating two things, and I cannot tell if you're doing this out of ignorance (please do tell me about your two brain cells) or because you've just built up that much animosity.
I wasn't telling you to accept everything about the NT. I was telling you to consider it a viable primary source for the existence of Jesus. You can still do that and not accept the story. And the truth is that it is a very credible source (also see http://www.timothypauljones.co...). But I suspect you don't even want to do that, because as soon as you give them any shred of historical credibility, then you have to wrestle with the fact that more might be true than the mere existence of Jesus.
You have a lot you've written that could be responded to--for instance, while historians would generally agree that Josephus was altered, most also agree that the citation to Jesus' existence are genuine. Or is consensus only allowed for global warming?
Anyway, the part that really comes off the wrong way is that you basically say, "If we didn't have the New Testament, then we wouldn't have any evidence of the existence of Jesus." Which is ridiculous because you can't simply dismiss the NT out of hand. That's right, we don't have any primary source material except for these HUNDREDS of pages that talk about him.
Now before you start to hand-wave them away, consider that there is a pretty good science around historical documents and that we have EXCELLENT evidence that they were written by eye-witnesses and that they haven't been altered beyond the message in the originals.
Is any of this going to convince you? Probably not, and that wouldn't be surprising. But what you've written needs a response because it only presents the evidence of an angry critic.
Another option is to show the final, edited tweet as the default, but then show what the original(s) was/were by clicking on a history button. That way everyone can present their intended content as the default (e.g. fixing typos or punctuation), but it won't let someone completely alter their content and meaning with the intent to deceive.
I'm not worried anymore. Trump said he'll be tough on volatile weather. I know it will be the most serene weather we've ever had.
And if it doesn't cooperate, he'll build the biggest wall you've ever seen on the east border of California. That will kill two birds with one stone. (Not that trump has only one stone...He definitely has two and they're the biggest and best stones you've ever seen).
It uses the Getting Things Done approach to productivity with a good way of integrating Evernote as the central brain. I stopped using Evernote when they restricted it to two devices. I've tried using OneNote as an alternative, but it's truly clumsy. Once you get used to Evernote, it feels fluid and everything else feels a bit off.
Exactly. And they keep saying "election hack" in all of the headlines, so it keeps sounding as if Russia and Putin himself were meddling with the voting mechanisms: i.e. hacking voting machines or election authority networks. And I strongly suspect that's exactly how they want it to sound.
Even if the claims are exactly true, that Russia hacked the DNC to expose their secrets, all they wound up doing was publishing what was true for the world to see--that the DNC was manipulating everything they could to coronate HRC as heir apparent. The wikileaks publications only brought us a little bit closer to the full disclosure every voter should have before making their decisions.
But I suppose in the minds of some, that invalidates the election results.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the headline?! I know that was a big part of the testimony, but the real story is that Comey pretty much confirmed that Trump is a lying, self-serving douche who would joyfully obstruct justice if he thought he could get away with it (all Trump has at this point is a thin veneer of plausible deniability--"I only said that I hoped...it was a wish, not a command."). That's the part that's really worth talking about, not the Comey leak.
By the way, Snowden is wrong. Comey didn't break any rules. It's not like he leaked classified information.
I came here to say the same thing. I remember reading about Obama's data operations in an article like this one: https://www.technologyreview.c...
The DNC moped the floor with the RNC in terms of data analytics and social media use during Obama's campaign. Did they suddenly dismantle that when Hilary ran? I have a hard time believing that they didn't even make progress on it. At the same time, I was skeptical that the RNC had improved their data analytics over the last 4 years, and while I'm sure they did, I have to imagine the comparative advantage went to the DNC.
Hilary's cognitive dissonance is really astounding. I hope this pisses off the DNC and causes them to go for someone else in 2020.
"Congressional-executive agreements" are honestly the best way to do it, frankly, as any ratified treaty becomes as binding as the US Constitution itself and it's significantly tougher to back out of it if it's suddenly a bad treaty for the country. If we align our laws to match foreign treaties, then we can use the same law passing power (simple majority) to get out of it if necessary. Other countries may not feel as confident in that model as the Constitutional Treaty, but these days I believe other countries are getting a lot more out of us than we're getting out of them, so I'm sure they're more than willing to "risk" it.
Sure, you jump to dumb conclusions and I'm the problem.
I literally said that I didn't care that they did the test, but that's the first thing you attack in response. It's partisan because if Hillary had won, Gizmodo would not have conducted this "test".
When I smell partisan BS, I'm going to call it out. Reds and Blues being at each other's throats is not going to solve anything in this country.
PS You're pretty naive if you don't see the bias and partisanship in this and most of the world. I wouldn't go so far as to say that everything is partisan, but it's pretty darn close, unfortunately, and sticking your head in the sand about that doesn't help anything.
Makes it sound "inconclusive"--that's not a great way of putting it. The test was a success from the perspective of the administration and a failure on the part of Gizmodo. Gizmodo surely wanted to prove that Trump's administration is as inept as the DNC, and it's clear that nobody fell for it.
I don't really care that Gizmodo did the test, though it seems like they were pretty dumb to go for it without checking on the legality first, but they should be punished in the court of public opinion for failing at a blatantly partisan attack.
Yes Yes
Next.
Yup, I think I'm going to join the masses and leave. This place sucks now. It's all clickbait and politics, and the summaries and comments of substance are long gone. Oh well.
Doctors are complicit here. I've had three try to prescribe me meds for my borderline high cholesterol. I've been healthy in every other way except for that my whole adult life, so there seems to be some kind of genetic issue I have with cholesterol.
Anyway, I saw the Harvard study that said that 2 oz of walnuts per day would lower bad cholesterol and raise good cholesterol. And you know what, after 6 weeks, IT DID. For the first time in my life I've had normal cholesterol.
Why did my doctors not know about this study? Or even worse, if they did know about it, why didn't they encourage me to try it?
I totally agree with you. However, even as a very conservative guy, I'm disappointed in this budget. Maybe it's just because I also happen to be a geek and don't mind the investment into science research.
Anyway, the main reason I'm disappointed is that cutting these things is like straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. They don't actually change the financial health of the nation, fundamentally, though they are devastating to the agencies who are impacted by the cuts.
We need to make real changes. That means cutting defense by a ton. We can spend half of what we spend now and still outclass every military on the planet. We need to majorly reform the entitlement programs. Social security, medicare and medicaid are going to blow us up. I'm a younger guy, and even from the start of my career I could see that SS was not really going to be there for me by the time I get there. I would be so happy if they did something like push back the SS "retirement" age to something like 72 (for anyone under 50) and made the thing solvent at least. These are the kinds of changes that grown-ups need to make.
Cutting NASA's budget is like telling your kids that you have to reduce their allowance by half because you have $100,000 in credit card debt.
You completely missed my point. Tying the genetic testing to psychopathy means that companies would never be able to hire the CEOs they want. These companies and the breed of psychopathic CEOs would complain so loudly the law would never get passed. But if they're going to force genetic testing on us*, then we might as well make it worth our while and publicly humiliate these monsters.
*You do remember that story from a week ago, right? https://politics.slashdot.org/...
Here's what the deal should be: companies can do genetic testing all they want as long as it's always strictly against the law to employ psychopaths according to the genetic test.
Right, I'm the nut. Not the idiot(s) who couldn't figure out it was a joke.
If you're so anti-gun that you can't see the humor in what i wrote, I'm pretty sure you're the one who belongs in the loony bin. I also find it quite fantastic that it's your type trying to take away gun rights.
I know the submission is from the UK, but I'd like to point out that this is why we cherish the 2nd Amendment in the USA. ;-)
I understand what you're saying about the Fibonacci function, but I don't think you're right. First of all, you should have asked what was meant by "faster." If this was a function that was going to be called a lot with large input values, then it might be worth talking about storing the intermediate results in a cache. That would also lead to great conversations about tradeoffs: time vs space, etc.
Anyway, the real reason you turn out to be wrong is that there's a closed form solution for the Fibonacci sequence. It won't be fastest to use it for all "n" because it will involve floating point math, but there are certainly faster solutions than your iterative one.
Look, I agree that these devices are mostly unnecessary, but mostly is the key word. If you have an infant that died of SIDS*, you would find absolutely no comfort in the fact that the doctor told you that you'd probably not need this monitor.
Some parents do need to calm down and not rush their kids to the ER for every hangnail, and if your monitor alarms but your baby is fine, then be grateful, but don't freak out. There will be some children saved by this device, and those parents will be more than happy with every penny they spent on it.
My kids are all past the age of needing to worry about this, but I've gone through a few heart-stopping moments with each of them. Honestly, I'd probably buy one, but an alarm wouldn't automatically send me to the hospital (I would call an ambulance, of course, if my child were unconscious and not breathing, and I have had to do that once).
*Doctors say they don't know what causes SIDS, but I am almost positive that some (incredibly rare, very small percentage) children contort themselves into a position while sleeping that suffocates them. Not all of their biological processes are fully developed and their muscle tone is very poor, so if they get into a position where they can't breathe, there's a good chance they'll suffocate to death. And because everybody is asleep and the whole thing is silent, parents won't know until morning. This monitor would cure SIDS if my theory is right.
C'mon guys, have COURAGE!
I'm guessing they're pretty expensive when they have to buy copy at places like this, but you forgot to tell us the prices in this advertisement.
Fair enough--we'll go with malicious ignorance.
Lol, that's what bible thumpers always say when they encounter someone who's unwilling to buy their silly stories.
Tell me, where was the thumping of the Bible? Bible thumpers would have started quoting scripture against your assertions. You can't even get your name calling right. I've been working to argue on your grounds (historical textual criticism) and you're unwilling to actually have an intelligent conversation. You're choosing to ignore the evidence and then attacking the position you disagree with. That's malicious ignorance.
The truth is that you haven't even begun to think about these things. You've come to your materialistic atheistic conclusion by faith and you refuse to acknowledge any evidence that might contradict your beliefs. You should welcome yourself into the camp you despise.
Do me a favor and listen to this before you make any more ridiculous remarks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Fair enough--we'll go with malicious ignorance.
You're conflating two things, and I cannot tell if you're doing this out of ignorance (please do tell me about your two brain cells) or because you've just built up that much animosity.
I wasn't telling you to accept everything about the NT. I was telling you to consider it a viable primary source for the existence of Jesus. You can still do that and not accept the story. And the truth is that it is a very credible source (also see http://www.timothypauljones.co...). But I suspect you don't even want to do that, because as soon as you give them any shred of historical credibility, then you have to wrestle with the fact that more might be true than the mere existence of Jesus.
You have a lot you've written that could be responded to--for instance, while historians would generally agree that Josephus was altered, most also agree that the citation to Jesus' existence are genuine. Or is consensus only allowed for global warming?
Anyway, the part that really comes off the wrong way is that you basically say, "If we didn't have the New Testament, then we wouldn't have any evidence of the existence of Jesus." Which is ridiculous because you can't simply dismiss the NT out of hand. That's right, we don't have any primary source material except for these HUNDREDS of pages that talk about him.
Now before you start to hand-wave them away, consider that there is a pretty good science around historical documents and that we have EXCELLENT evidence that they were written by eye-witnesses and that they haven't been altered beyond the message in the originals.
On the reliability of the NT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
On the statistical historicity of the NT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Is any of this going to convince you? Probably not, and that wouldn't be surprising. But what you've written needs a response because it only presents the evidence of an angry critic.
Another option is to show the final, edited tweet as the default, but then show what the original(s) was/were by clicking on a history button. That way everyone can present their intended content as the default (e.g. fixing typos or punctuation), but it won't let someone completely alter their content and meaning with the intent to deceive.
I'm not worried anymore. Trump said he'll be tough on volatile weather. I know it will be the most serene weather we've ever had.
And if it doesn't cooperate, he'll build the biggest wall you've ever seen on the east border of California. That will kill two birds with one stone. (Not that trump has only one stone...He definitely has two and they're the biggest and best stones you've ever seen).
Yes, I used it in a slightly modified way that this series explains: http://www.thesecretweapon.org...
It uses the Getting Things Done approach to productivity with a good way of integrating Evernote as the central brain. I stopped using Evernote when they restricted it to two devices. I've tried using OneNote as an alternative, but it's truly clumsy. Once you get used to Evernote, it feels fluid and everything else feels a bit off.
Exactly. And they keep saying "election hack" in all of the headlines, so it keeps sounding as if Russia and Putin himself were meddling with the voting mechanisms: i.e. hacking voting machines or election authority networks. And I strongly suspect that's exactly how they want it to sound.
Even if the claims are exactly true, that Russia hacked the DNC to expose their secrets, all they wound up doing was publishing what was true for the world to see--that the DNC was manipulating everything they could to coronate HRC as heir apparent. The wikileaks publications only brought us a little bit closer to the full disclosure every voter should have before making their decisions.
But I suppose in the minds of some, that invalidates the election results.