The other problem with lawsuits is that even if you win one, then what? Damage is already done. The absolute best case is that it's all recoverable over a reasonably short time frame, and the company has enough money in the bank to pay for the cost. But just as often, the company doesn't have the money (or enough insurance), and just goes bankrupt - and now the taxpayers have to foot the cleanup bill; happened many times in Montana, with toxic spills from mines. Or sometimes they do have the money, but the nature of damage is such that no money is going to recover it on meaningful time scales - e.g. if you poison the aquifer, it'll stay there for a very long time.
You assume that those 35% don't happen to be concentrated in parts that you can't get by without. People are not cogs that can be freely swapped. Their background and expertise matters.
On the subject of drugs, the president actually can do a lot by fiat. The Controlled Substances Act, duly enacted by Congress, gives DEA the power to reclassify substances on the schedules, and even remove them outright. Now, DEA is part of the executive branch, and the president is its head. So, it is entirely within his power to issue an executive order directing DEA to do so. Removing weed alone would scale the "war on drugs" by an order of magnitude (and make it substantially less profitable, so there's less incentive for DEA and others to do stuff like that).
I found you an example, one on which he even doubled down later.
If you refuse to understand the plain meaning of the words uttered in that example, I'm afraid I cannot help you. You will just keep saying "that's not what he meant" or "that shouldn't be taken serious" or "he said something else later" regardless of any actual quote, so why bother? We've seen how it works multiple times during the election.
And if that is the case, any conversation with you is fundamentally meaningless for any purpose other than gathering data on how to thwart you and your ilk as much as possible. I'm certainly not going to convince you of anything.
You could say that he's not actually saying the phrase "national Muslim registry" there. But it's one of those cases where 2+2=4, and he did say 2 and 2.
The question doesn't ask about a specific Trump plan - that would be impossible, because Trump contradicts himself all the time. They ask about a specific plan of a "national Muslim registry", which was talked about by Trump during the election. The lack of details is deliberate - it shouldn't really matter what such a plan entails, exactly, the only sensible answer for anything with such a name is "no".
It was the other way around - Germany declared war on US, after US declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. US response declaration came later, and was merely a recognition of the fact that state of war existed in the wake of the German declaration.
No, there isn't one. But this statement doesn't establish a clear separation of church and state. The way it has been historically interpreted by pretty much every Christian society, is that there should be a distinct secular leaders (and hierarchy under them) and religious leaders (and hierarchy under them), but they are not separate. The secular leaders have a duty to promote and spread religion, and protect it from attacks (including ideological attacks - punishing heresies etc). And the religious leaders preach that it's a religious duty to obey the [righteous] secular leaders, and bless their policies. This has been the case since Constantine, and the Greek even concocted a term for this arrangement - "symphonia of powers".
It's very blunt and straightforward: if the Trump administration follows up on any of his campaign promises wrt Muslim registry, will you assist? Yes/no?
And it's not even out of the blue. It's not like it is a deliberately concocted hypothetical scenario. It is something that Trump himself has talked about, repeatedly. It's not at all unreasonable to ask companies whether they would be involved.
Well, duh. Did you know why they allowed gays and women in the military? So that they could pack it with those Marxist SJWs who'd push for the climate change hoax!
What I meant is that the driver license itself does not show whether you're a citizen or not. At least it certainly doesn't in my state.
With respect to proving residency, yes, I know that you don't actually need a deed (I had to prove residency as a non-citizen several times, albeit for other reasons). But you need an utility bill, bank statement etc in your name. It's pretty hard to get such a thing for a hotel room. I guess it might be possible to fool a bank like that, but I doubt it'd last long.
It's worth noting that getting a driver license does not require one to be a citizen - indeed, you can get one on pretty much any valid visa, including students or workers. So far as I know, most states don't put citizenship info on the license.
Now, doing this on vacation would be tricky, because you'd need to prove contiguous residence in the state, usually for at least 30 days. This generally requires a lease, not something like a hotel; and getting that on a tourist visa would be tricky.
It all has value, absolutely! The problem is presenting it as "solution to fake news". This is setting the expectations way too high, and is an impossible bar to reach through that approach.
With respect to media environment being technological - it's true, but cultural effects still dominate. If Facebook, for example, added some kind of "fake news" indicator on stories, would it help? Probably not - people who read and reshare them will just ignore it, and would describe it as some kind of nefarious attempt by "Silicon Valley liberals" to push their world view on them. Eventually, someone would make browser extensions that would disable it completely, and people would install that.
Suppose FB just starts censoring such stories outright? Then they'd simply be shared somewhere else, on a (possibly new) social network created to cater to this freshly alienated by huge market. I would imagine that the guys running Breitbart would just love to give it a go.
Obviously, there are certain social effects - networking etc - that make existing platforms entrenched, and provide barriers to entry for new competitors. But the barriers are not insurmountable, and said social effects can be negated by sufficient amount of inconvenience caused by staying. I assert that any technical solution that is strong enough to actually solve this problem would constitute such sufficient amount of inconvenience.
Because it is a very popular platform in general, and if it has better compatibility with your favorite platform, it will translate to more cross-platform code long term (which improves availability of code on your platform).
HOW IRONIC that you've proposed a technical solution for a social problem.
No, I didn't. The solution that I proposed is to the problem of determining fake news from real news - that is a technical problem. The social problem is different - how to make people believe and/or care that fake news are fake.
The problem are all instances that people believe in.
And vast majority of them are only slightly more plausible than "aliens are controlling your minds". It's stuff like "Obama is secretly a Muslim who's plotting to have US occupied by UN". And I personally know some people who genuinely believe this, and will happily reshare any news from e.g. InfoWars that will support and reinforce that belief.
"Fake news" is a social problem. And social problems, generally speaking, don't have technological solutions.
For example, all these suggestions for better and smarter algorithms to detect fake news. But why? It's not like fake news are hard to tell apart in general. Filter out anything that uses ALL CAPS anywhere in the title (acronyms excepted), and you've already solved 90% of the problem. And there are numerous guides already on the Internet that go over all these basics... the problem is that people who do read and spread those fake news don't believe that they're fake. And just because it's an algorithm in their browser or Facebook telling them that it's fake, they're not going to suddenly start believing it, regardless of how perfect it is. They'll just say, "Whoever implemented this is biased, and they're just trying to censor my trusted sources - fuck them", disable or ignore the feature (or switch to a product that doesn't have it - and there will be one if this becomes a thing; free market will always fill a niche), and move on.
So the real problem is, "How do you convince most people who currently believe that those news are real, that they're actually fake." And that is entirely a social problem, which tech cannot and will not solve.
I think you are missing my point. I'm not saying that left is unique in that. Right-wingers also love to fap on Putin! But for them it at least makes some ideological sense (esp. for alt-right, who don't care much for economic conservatism, and focus on its social aspects). The left is doing it solely on the basis of "enemy of my enemy is my friend", which is plainly not true in this case when ideological aspects are accounted for.
As for the definition of "hard left", I would consider any party that is firmly ideologically rooted in socialist or communist platforms of early-to-mid 20th century to be in that bucket. I didn't want to conflate it with Marxism, but given how predominant it is, I guess it's easier to just say it's any party that has a Marxism platform (and I mean guys who know what Marxism really is - who have read Marx, and understand what it is about! - not a kid with a latte in a Che Guevara t-shirt). This excludes all social democratic parties, and most mainstream democratic socialists (although the latter often have internal hardline Marxist factions, as e.g. Die Linke does).
FWIW, I am left wing myself, and I do consider a lot of what Marx had to say to be valid. But I am not a socialist or a communist.
Yes, I have discussed it with many of them lately. Go check out CPUSA web site, see what they are writing about Ukraine and Syria. Check out Die Linke, too.
The reason why I put "Western imperialism" in quotes is not because it didn't exist, but rather because what these guys refer to as such usually isn't it.
And there's no "by my definition", because I did not provide a definition of hard left. I merely said that those who are hard left, tend to be pro-anti-western-dictators. I didn't say that it is limited to them. That's one thing that they have in common with many on the fringe right, especially the economic populist varieties (which describes Trump and "alt-right").
I couldn't cite any single source that would cover it. But, honestly, all you need to do is just look at a website of pretty much any socialist or communist party in US or Europe. For example:
The funny thing is that to anyone who has seen the Russian pro-government online news, it's obvious that the West just got pwned by those same very people in that same exact way. We know, because we've seen it work in the same way to suppress opposition to Putin in Russia itself before. Now they have simply broadened the scope.
Slashdot Mirror
If you know for a fact that all those extra votes that Clinton got are from illegal aliens, care to provide some evidence backing said "fact"?
The other problem with lawsuits is that even if you win one, then what? Damage is already done. The absolute best case is that it's all recoverable over a reasonably short time frame, and the company has enough money in the bank to pay for the cost. But just as often, the company doesn't have the money (or enough insurance), and just goes bankrupt - and now the taxpayers have to foot the cleanup bill; happened many times in Montana, with toxic spills from mines. Or sometimes they do have the money, but the nature of damage is such that no money is going to recover it on meaningful time scales - e.g. if you poison the aquifer, it'll stay there for a very long time.
Hence the need for preventative measures.
You assume that those 35% don't happen to be concentrated in parts that you can't get by without. People are not cogs that can be freely swapped. Their background and expertise matters.
On the subject of drugs, the president actually can do a lot by fiat. The Controlled Substances Act, duly enacted by Congress, gives DEA the power to reclassify substances on the schedules, and even remove them outright. Now, DEA is part of the executive branch, and the president is its head. So, it is entirely within his power to issue an executive order directing DEA to do so. Removing weed alone would scale the "war on drugs" by an order of magnitude (and make it substantially less profitable, so there's less incentive for DEA and others to do stuff like that).
I found you an example, one on which he even doubled down later.
If you refuse to understand the plain meaning of the words uttered in that example, I'm afraid I cannot help you. You will just keep saying "that's not what he meant" or "that shouldn't be taken serious" or "he said something else later" regardless of any actual quote, so why bother? We've seen how it works multiple times during the election.
And if that is the case, any conversation with you is fundamentally meaningless for any purpose other than gathering data on how to thwart you and your ilk as much as possible. I'm certainly not going to convince you of anything.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...
You could say that he's not actually saying the phrase "national Muslim registry" there. But it's one of those cases where 2+2=4, and he did say 2 and 2.
The question doesn't ask about a specific Trump plan - that would be impossible, because Trump contradicts himself all the time. They ask about a specific plan of a "national Muslim registry", which was talked about by Trump during the election. The lack of details is deliberate - it shouldn't really matter what such a plan entails, exactly, the only sensible answer for anything with such a name is "no".
It was the other way around - Germany declared war on US, after US declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. US response declaration came later, and was merely a recognition of the fact that state of war existed in the wake of the German declaration.
No, there isn't one. But this statement doesn't establish a clear separation of church and state. The way it has been historically interpreted by pretty much every Christian society, is that there should be a distinct secular leaders (and hierarchy under them) and religious leaders (and hierarchy under them), but they are not separate. The secular leaders have a duty to promote and spread religion, and protect it from attacks (including ideological attacks - punishing heresies etc). And the religious leaders preach that it's a religious duty to obey the [righteous] secular leaders, and bless their policies. This has been the case since Constantine, and the Greek even concocted a term for this arrangement - "symphonia of powers".
In practice, you still get a theocracy.
Which part of the question is loaded?
It's very blunt and straightforward: if the Trump administration follows up on any of his campaign promises wrt Muslim registry, will you assist? Yes/no?
And it's not even out of the blue. It's not like it is a deliberately concocted hypothetical scenario. It is something that Trump himself has talked about, repeatedly. It's not at all unreasonable to ask companies whether they would be involved.
Well, duh. Did you know why they allowed gays and women in the military? So that they could pack it with those Marxist SJWs who'd push for the climate change hoax!
(BTW, you forgot to add "cultural" to "Marxist")
What I meant is that the driver license itself does not show whether you're a citizen or not. At least it certainly doesn't in my state.
With respect to proving residency, yes, I know that you don't actually need a deed (I had to prove residency as a non-citizen several times, albeit for other reasons). But you need an utility bill, bank statement etc in your name. It's pretty hard to get such a thing for a hotel room. I guess it might be possible to fool a bank like that, but I doubt it'd last long.
It's worth noting that getting a driver license does not require one to be a citizen - indeed, you can get one on pretty much any valid visa, including students or workers. So far as I know, most states don't put citizenship info on the license.
Now, doing this on vacation would be tricky, because you'd need to prove contiguous residence in the state, usually for at least 30 days. This generally requires a lease, not something like a hotel; and getting that on a tourist visa would be tricky.
It all has value, absolutely! The problem is presenting it as "solution to fake news". This is setting the expectations way too high, and is an impossible bar to reach through that approach.
With respect to media environment being technological - it's true, but cultural effects still dominate. If Facebook, for example, added some kind of "fake news" indicator on stories, would it help? Probably not - people who read and reshare them will just ignore it, and would describe it as some kind of nefarious attempt by "Silicon Valley liberals" to push their world view on them. Eventually, someone would make browser extensions that would disable it completely, and people would install that.
Suppose FB just starts censoring such stories outright? Then they'd simply be shared somewhere else, on a (possibly new) social network created to cater to this freshly alienated by huge market. I would imagine that the guys running Breitbart would just love to give it a go.
Obviously, there are certain social effects - networking etc - that make existing platforms entrenched, and provide barriers to entry for new competitors. But the barriers are not insurmountable, and said social effects can be negated by sufficient amount of inconvenience caused by staying. I assert that any technical solution that is strong enough to actually solve this problem would constitute such sufficient amount of inconvenience.
Because it is a very popular platform in general, and if it has better compatibility with your favorite platform, it will translate to more cross-platform code long term (which improves availability of code on your platform).
HOW IRONIC that you've proposed a technical solution for a social problem.
No, I didn't. The solution that I proposed is to the problem of determining fake news from real news - that is a technical problem. The social problem is different - how to make people believe and/or care that fake news are fake.
American workers paying American taxes built America.
Guess where H1B workers pay their taxes in?..
In fact, they pay more than you, because they pay all the welfare taxes too, but aren't eligible for any of it.
What makes you believe that the army would be on a single side? Historically, it's usually not true in most civil wars.
The problem are all instances that people believe in.
And vast majority of them are only slightly more plausible than "aliens are controlling your minds". It's stuff like "Obama is secretly a Muslim who's plotting to have US occupied by UN". And I personally know some people who genuinely believe this, and will happily reshare any news from e.g. InfoWars that will support and reinforce that belief.
"Fake news" is a social problem. And social problems, generally speaking, don't have technological solutions.
For example, all these suggestions for better and smarter algorithms to detect fake news. But why? It's not like fake news are hard to tell apart in general. Filter out anything that uses ALL CAPS anywhere in the title (acronyms excepted), and you've already solved 90% of the problem. And there are numerous guides already on the Internet that go over all these basics... the problem is that people who do read and spread those fake news don't believe that they're fake. And just because it's an algorithm in their browser or Facebook telling them that it's fake, they're not going to suddenly start believing it, regardless of how perfect it is. They'll just say, "Whoever implemented this is biased, and they're just trying to censor my trusted sources - fuck them", disable or ignore the feature (or switch to a product that doesn't have it - and there will be one if this becomes a thing; free market will always fill a niche), and move on.
So the real problem is, "How do you convince most people who currently believe that those news are real, that they're actually fake." And that is entirely a social problem, which tech cannot and will not solve.
I think you are missing my point. I'm not saying that left is unique in that. Right-wingers also love to fap on Putin! But for them it at least makes some ideological sense (esp. for alt-right, who don't care much for economic conservatism, and focus on its social aspects). The left is doing it solely on the basis of "enemy of my enemy is my friend", which is plainly not true in this case when ideological aspects are accounted for.
As for the definition of "hard left", I would consider any party that is firmly ideologically rooted in socialist or communist platforms of early-to-mid 20th century to be in that bucket. I didn't want to conflate it with Marxism, but given how predominant it is, I guess it's easier to just say it's any party that has a Marxism platform (and I mean guys who know what Marxism really is - who have read Marx, and understand what it is about! - not a kid with a latte in a Che Guevara t-shirt). This excludes all social democratic parties, and most mainstream democratic socialists (although the latter often have internal hardline Marxist factions, as e.g. Die Linke does).
FWIW, I am left wing myself, and I do consider a lot of what Marx had to say to be valid. But I am not a socialist or a communist.
Yes, I have discussed it with many of them lately. Go check out CPUSA web site, see what they are writing about Ukraine and Syria. Check out Die Linke, too.
The reason why I put "Western imperialism" in quotes is not because it didn't exist, but rather because what these guys refer to as such usually isn't it.
And there's no "by my definition", because I did not provide a definition of hard left. I merely said that those who are hard left, tend to be pro-anti-western-dictators. I didn't say that it is limited to them. That's one thing that they have in common with many on the fringe right, especially the economic populist varieties (which describes Trump and "alt-right").
I couldn't cite any single source that would cover it. But, honestly, all you need to do is just look at a website of pretty much any socialist or communist party in US or Europe. For example:
http://www.cpusa.org/article/c...
http://en.die-linke.de/nc/news...
The funny thing is that to anyone who has seen the Russian pro-government online news, it's obvious that the West just got pwned by those same very people in that same exact way. We know, because we've seen it work in the same way to suppress opposition to Putin in Russia itself before. Now they have simply broadened the scope.