If he had any loyalty and personal integrity at all, he'd go home and get his day in court.
He already made that offer, but America declined to give him his day in court. If he likes he can come home to get his day in a secret court where he's not allowed to defend himself.
Pardon, investigation, conviction, and guilt are all separate things, even if ideally speaking only the guilty should be investigated or convicted or for whatever reason pardoned (eg when morality and legality don't match).
As far as I know, Wikileaks doesn't do any spying themselves. They do however encourage gathering information by whatever means and publish the results.
There's nothing transphobic about wishing to be left in peace. A lot of people dislike the pronoun "(s)he" and very especially dislike being insulted, libeled, and forced to use it. It amused me to see it applied to the case where the person referred to is between male and female rather than either male or female (which I imagine would annoy the very people who demand it be used). I wouldn't mind if that became the only use for that pronoun, essentially killing it.
Technically, his crime is fraud, placing orders he didn't intend to fill, which were then cancelled near-instantaneously as allowed by the stock market. In between his order and the cancellation, several honorable businessmen who payed a lot of money to have access to orders before they are sent to the stock market and to have their own orders be processed first, quickly bought and sold stocks so as to skim a little money off the order, but these poor innocent honorable businessmen lost money instead because the order they thought they were skimming money from didn't go through. All this also caused changes in the stock market that made a bunch of AI stock traders panic, crashing the market, and Mr Sarao was the least rich/important person who could be blamed.
I'm sure you'd be OK with someone offering to pay any lawsuits naming you as a defendant, and that this wouldn't result in lots of people suing you hoping to make a buck.
Yes, we can if we so choose put carbon back into the ground. One particular example is bio-char, where biomass is converted to charcoal and ploughed into fields as a soil improvement. I'm not entirely convinced as to the benefits of this, but it would certainly put carbon into the ground.
I was going to post the image without the disproportionate scaling, but the "doesn't appear to be increasing that fast if we scale the last section from 1/5th of a pixel to 266 pixels" would have changed the entire last section of the graph to a vertical line but too thin to be visible.
266/(2100-1860) = 1.1083 pixels / year 80/100000 = 0.0008 pixels / year 1.1083 / 0.0008 = 1,385 so the last section of the graph is happening over a thousand times faster than it appears, when compared to the rest of the graph. 266 pixels / 1,385 = 0.19 pixels
I was going to post the image without the disproportionate scaling, but the "doesn't appear to be increasing that fast if we change the scale from 100,000 years = 80 pixels to 100,000 years = 0.05 pixels for the last section" would have changed the entire last section of the graph to a vertical line but too thin to be visible.
It is too late. There is no going back. Now we ride it out to the end. The end of us.
Just because we're already in the rapids doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid the waterfall. Things can always get worse.
Oh, and in no way will this be the end for humanity, almost certainly not even for civilization. "Too hot to grow tropical crops in Antarctica" is way beyond any of the current predictions, and with wind and solar and batteries improving and cheapening by the year, we'll eventually drastically cut CO2 emissions if only out of greed.
Laptops are essentially the same thing as desktops in terms of software (and near-equivalent in terms of hardware). In fact, some people I know have their laptop set up as essentially a very thin PC case, hooked up to an external keyboard/monitor/mouse/sound. Yet it is technically a "mobile" and not a "desktop".
I bet they're counting laptops as part of their phone and tablet mania, because inflating numbers is how to make news.
Rhetoric wins elections but actions speak louder than words. Trump spent his entire career having to skirt around regulations to get things done so I highly doubt he's going to do anything that gets in the way of business doing whatever it wants to do, including performing anti-competitive mergers.
It's like if two people were fighting, and Bob said, "I'd rather have a fistfight than a gun fight." Then Charlie responds with, "That's fine you use your fists and I'll use my gun." This is where all the idiots who insist that actions always speak louder than words that Bob has to fight fists against gun because otherwise he's a hypocrite and if he really meant what he said about preferring a fistfight he must be willing to do that. The same with business, which is similarly a competition and you have to take every advantage you can get to succeed.
Remember, deciding not to act unilaterally towards a goal that requires cooperation is absolutely not actions speaking louder than words, because the words do indeed match the actions. Now if the words were that something is so immoral that they will unilaterally decide not to do it even though it would put them at a disadvantage, then you can talk about actions speaking louder than words if they're caught doing it anyways.
It's much more complicated than that. Originally, the States selected the leader of the States -- and in fact, they still do, albeit by popular vote. Back then, due to technological limitations it was impossible for the people to know much about any particular presidential candidate. So a few people were sent to learn about the candidates and decide for their people. Now that we have television and twitter etc... to be honest, I'm fairly certain that people nowadays know less about the people they are voting for than they did back then. Considering that individuals have almost no say in selecting the President, yet focus on the President to the exclusion of knowing or caring anything about their local government, I'd say removing the presidential race from the ballot would greatly improve the quality of the average vote.
I think that it would be an improvement if the electoral college were to select whoever they think is the best candidate rather than being bound to the local popular vote from apathetic poorly-informed voters. The way it works now, the electoral college members are essentially just a mechanical component.
An entirely separate question is about disproportionate representation, which as I understand was done as a way to promote unity (to prevent the weaker states from being entirely dominated by the more populous).
Another separate question is whether it's still worthwhile to have each state vote as a block (thus not merely wasting the minority's votes, but turning their votes to their opponent since they contribute population which contributes electoral college votes). I suppose back in the day it made sense for the leader of the alliance to have the support of the majority of the states, but I think now it would be better not to disenfranchise voters.
Yet another question is replacing the system with popular vote. Note that if this happened, voter turnout becomes hugely significant, and each place will force maximum voter turnout to increase their representation. Also, voter fraud wouldn't be limited to tiny districts but would have nation-wide effects.
Rule of thumb: if it doesn't clearly improve anything for you, it's for the benefit of the counterparty. A classic example is the presence of artificial ingredients in "food".
Um, every artificial ingredient improves something for you -- whether price, shelf life, flavor, health, nutrition, or something else. Like all things it is a trade-off, in this case one people overwhelmingly choose, but not necessarily a good one (for your measure of good). As a single example, the artificial ingredient "heat" has been used to sanitize and preserve food, while also increasing its flavor and nutritional value -- but when overdone can destroy nutrients and create carcinogens. And while your average person would balk at "artificially heat-denatured proteins", they do prefer to have their food "cooked".
According to the article you cited, that "feeling of powerlessness" is what distinguishes his supporters from supporters of other Republican candidates.
IE, that is the demographics of Trump supporters, rather than the votes in the general election many of which will be "hold your nose and vote Republican", and many of which voted against Trump.
Slashdot Mirror
If the police want to catch the idiots who have explosives, they better hurry. Otherwise, they may need a dustpan.
If he had any loyalty and personal integrity at all, he'd go home and get his day in court.
He already made that offer, but America declined to give him his day in court. If he likes he can come home to get his day in a secret court where he's not allowed to defend himself.
Pardon, investigation, conviction, and guilt are all separate things, even if ideally speaking only the guilty should be investigated or convicted or for whatever reason pardoned (eg when morality and legality don't match).
As far as I know, Wikileaks doesn't do any spying themselves. They do however encourage gathering information by whatever means and publish the results.
There's nothing transphobic about wishing to be left in peace. A lot of people dislike the pronoun "(s)he" and very especially dislike being insulted, libeled, and forced to use it. It amused me to see it applied to the case where the person referred to is between male and female rather than either male or female (which I imagine would annoy the very people who demand it be used). I wouldn't mind if that became the only use for that pronoun, essentially killing it.
Technically, his crime is fraud, placing orders he didn't intend to fill, which were then cancelled near-instantaneously as allowed by the stock market. In between his order and the cancellation, several honorable businessmen who payed a lot of money to have access to orders before they are sent to the stock market and to have their own orders be processed first, quickly bought and sold stocks so as to skim a little money off the order, but these poor innocent honorable businessmen lost money instead because the order they thought they were skimming money from didn't go through. All this also caused changes in the stock market that made a bunch of AI stock traders panic, crashing the market, and Mr Sarao was the least rich/important person who could be blamed.
One of the best uses for the pronoun "(s)he".
I'm sure you'd be OK with someone offering to pay any lawsuits naming you as a defendant, and that this wouldn't result in lots of people suing you hoping to make a buck.
Yes, we can if we so choose put carbon back into the ground. One particular example is bio-char, where biomass is converted to charcoal and ploughed into fields as a soil improvement. I'm not entirely convinced as to the benefits of this, but it would certainly put carbon into the ground.
oops, those numbers were wrong, please disregard this post I'll redo with the correct numbers
Less funny longer time scale:
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx...
I was going to post the image without the disproportionate scaling, but the "doesn't appear to be increasing that fast if we scale the last section from 1/5th of a pixel to 266 pixels" would have changed the entire last section of the graph to a vertical line but too thin to be visible.
266/(2100-1860) = 1.1083 pixels / year
80/100000 = 0.0008 pixels / year
1.1083 / 0.0008 = 1,385 so the last section of the graph is happening over a thousand times faster than it appears, when compared to the rest of the graph.
266 pixels / 1,385 = 0.19 pixels
Less funny longer time scale:
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx...
I was going to post the image without the disproportionate scaling, but the "doesn't appear to be increasing that fast if we change the scale from 100,000 years = 80 pixels to 100,000 years = 0.05 pixels for the last section" would have changed the entire last section of the graph to a vertical line but too thin to be visible.
Better yet, no English-speaking ads since they'd disproportionately target non-hispanics.
While I would like to see Trump's tax returns, I would be happy to trade not knowing that for a president who values privacy. Well, one can hope.
It is too late. There is no going back. Now we ride it out to the end. The end of us.
Just because we're already in the rapids doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid the waterfall. Things can always get worse.
Oh, and in no way will this be the end for humanity, almost certainly not even for civilization. "Too hot to grow tropical crops in Antarctica" is way beyond any of the current predictions, and with wind and solar and batteries improving and cheapening by the year, we'll eventually drastically cut CO2 emissions if only out of greed.
Laptops are essentially the same thing as desktops in terms of software (and near-equivalent in terms of hardware). In fact, some people I know have their laptop set up as essentially a very thin PC case, hooked up to an external keyboard/monitor/mouse/sound. Yet it is technically a "mobile" and not a "desktop".
I bet they're counting laptops as part of their phone and tablet mania, because inflating numbers is how to make news.
Rhetoric wins elections but actions speak louder than words. Trump spent his entire career having to skirt around regulations to get things done so I highly doubt he's going to do anything that gets in the way of business doing whatever it wants to do, including performing anti-competitive mergers.
It's like if two people were fighting, and Bob said, "I'd rather have a fistfight than a gun fight." Then Charlie responds with, "That's fine you use your fists and I'll use my gun." This is where all the idiots who insist that actions always speak louder than words that Bob has to fight fists against gun because otherwise he's a hypocrite and if he really meant what he said about preferring a fistfight he must be willing to do that. The same with business, which is similarly a competition and you have to take every advantage you can get to succeed.
Remember, deciding not to act unilaterally towards a goal that requires cooperation is absolutely not actions speaking louder than words, because the words do indeed match the actions. Now if the words were that something is so immoral that they will unilaterally decide not to do it even though it would put them at a disadvantage, then you can talk about actions speaking louder than words if they're caught doing it anyways.
It's much more complicated than that. Originally, the States selected the leader of the States -- and in fact, they still do, albeit by popular vote. Back then, due to technological limitations it was impossible for the people to know much about any particular presidential candidate. So a few people were sent to learn about the candidates and decide for their people. Now that we have television and twitter etc ... to be honest, I'm fairly certain that people nowadays know less about the people they are voting for than they did back then. Considering that individuals have almost no say in selecting the President, yet focus on the President to the exclusion of knowing or caring anything about their local government, I'd say removing the presidential race from the ballot would greatly improve the quality of the average vote.
I think that it would be an improvement if the electoral college were to select whoever they think is the best candidate rather than being bound to the local popular vote from apathetic poorly-informed voters. The way it works now, the electoral college members are essentially just a mechanical component.
An entirely separate question is about disproportionate representation, which as I understand was done as a way to promote unity (to prevent the weaker states from being entirely dominated by the more populous).
Another separate question is whether it's still worthwhile to have each state vote as a block (thus not merely wasting the minority's votes, but turning their votes to their opponent since they contribute population which contributes electoral college votes). I suppose back in the day it made sense for the leader of the alliance to have the support of the majority of the states, but I think now it would be better not to disenfranchise voters.
Yet another question is replacing the system with popular vote. Note that if this happened, voter turnout becomes hugely significant, and each place will force maximum voter turnout to increase their representation. Also, voter fraud wouldn't be limited to tiny districts but would have nation-wide effects.
Sigh. Faced with two thoroughly rotten options, America picked the greater evil.
Just to be clear, you're saying that Trump is greater?
Rule of thumb: if it doesn't clearly improve anything for you, it's for the benefit of the counterparty. A classic example is the presence of artificial ingredients in "food".
Um, every artificial ingredient improves something for you -- whether price, shelf life, flavor, health, nutrition, or something else. Like all things it is a trade-off, in this case one people overwhelmingly choose, but not necessarily a good one (for your measure of good). As a single example, the artificial ingredient "heat" has been used to sanitize and preserve food, while also increasing its flavor and nutritional value -- but when overdone can destroy nutrients and create carcinogens. And while your average person would balk at "artificially heat-denatured proteins", they do prefer to have their food "cooked".
The right candidate is Hillary.
And do you think that's what these "ride share" companies will believe?
Yes, now that Trump won the primary, the core of his support is Republicans.
Select users will receive 45% off their Election Day trip to the polls
The ones in the demographics likely to vote for the right candidate?
According to the article you cited, that "feeling of powerlessness" is what distinguishes his supporters from supporters of other Republican candidates.
IE, that is the demographics of Trump supporters, rather than the votes in the general election many of which will be "hold your nose and vote Republican", and many of which voted against Trump.
Money has value if you can exchange it for resources. Other people's work is just one example, food would be another.