I can see, why moving to India is less practical for a Californian, than to North Carolina. But I do not see it so much less practical as to make a qualitative difference — merely quantitative. India is a (reasonable approximation of) Democracy, English is the official language...
English is not the official language of India. The 2001 census came up with 122 major languages and 1599 other languages, though there seems to be some confusion in distinguishing languages and dialects.
Form of government may be vaguely similar, but politics are very different. Culture is very different. Your values are very different from your neighbors'. Family and old friends are very distant and very expensive to visit. All of these factors combine to reduce a person's self-confidence and sense of well-being.
Is your argument merely pedantic?
Is that a bad thing?
Oh, I think I see the problem. Yes, being pedantic is mostly a bad thing. It means "ostentatious in one's learning"; "overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching". It is engaged in by persons who adhere rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense. It's a negative term that implies someone is showing off book learning or trivia, especially in a tiresome way. What's worse, people who engage in this behavior quite frequently aren't able to see what the problem is. It's sort of like the Dunning-Kruger Effect, but for personality rather than intelligence.
Moving to another state for employment is feasible. Moving to India is not.
Both are feasible. One more so than another, is your argument merely quantitative?
One of the dictionary meanings of "feasible" is "possible". The others lean more toward "suitable" or "practical", and those are the meanings the word is generally used to convey; for example, feasibility studies are carried out to determine whether a proposed solution is suitable and practical, not to determine whether it is (remotely) possible. Do you think that freeing up cemetery land by launching corpses into space is feasible? Is your argument merely pedantic?
First of all, as Hillary already argued, if it were really just an isolated tape regarding private behavior, perhaps a reasonable person could overlook it. But it is very much one piece of an overt public pattern of tawdry behavior on Trump's part -- badmouthing, bullying, threatening, and a bizarre inability to keep control in the face of a minor embarrassment or taunting, especially against women or minorities.
Second of all, Bill is not running for office, right now. So whether we should care about a politician badly behaved spouse is an entirely new topic.
Wow, did you ever miss the point in your zeal to express your support for Hillary*. I didn't suggest that anyone should care NOW about Bill's behavior THEN, and I wasn't proposing that Trump's behavior should be overlooked. I was merely pointing out that people who found Bill's behavior, um, deplorable should also find Trump's behavior deplorable, and that people who were willing to overlook Bill's behavior should also be willing to overlook Trump's behavior.
* I am not a Trump supporter. I am not a Hillary supporter. I think they are both terrible people who shouldn't even be allowed to look at a photograph of the White House, let alone occupy it. This does not mean I think they are the same, but I think the difference between the two of them is similar to the difference between being eaten by a lion and being slowly crushed under a rock pile.
I haven't seen a law yet that explicitly states that it is illegal to yell "fire" in a theater. So you can toss that out. Common sense says not to do it, but there are no laws prohibiting it.
.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know all the laws in the US, so I can't say for sure. What I can say for sure is that falsely yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre is not protected speech under the 1st amendment, so if you do that you're likely to be prosecuted for something.
This came to mind while observing the explosion of outrage over Trump's "Grab 'em by the pussy" video.
1. Take all the people who were outraged by Bill Clinton's sexual pecadillos and thought they made him unfit for office; make them equally outraged about Trump.
2. Take all the people who took the position that Bill's behavior was a matter of "personal character" having no relation to his ability to perform as President; make them adopt the same attitude towards Trump.
That would be a first then. Historically the Islamic world has been a nett exporter of technological advance to the West.
There is no doubt that during the Dark Ages, Islamic scholars made a lot of contributions to science and technology, both by preserving ancient Greek texts and by their own study and experimentation. It is more difficult to make a case for the Islamic world's advancement of technology in the last 700 - 800 years or so.
I believe you (or maybe I) misunderstood what umghhh was getting at, which is understandable given the way he expressed it. My interpretation was that he thinks the "Islamification" of Germany will have a negative impact on either their ability or desire to advance no-ICE technology sufficiently to make a ban politically possible.
It always seemed to me that software should be copywritten, not patented. Sounds to me like this judge has come around to my thinking, which demonstrates his wisdom and thoughtfulness as much as it does my greatness. Not that my greatness needs demonstrating, as it is clear to all, but this amounts to official recognition of my place as the foremost legal thinker of our time.
To be honest, I envy y'all. You get to experience my brilliance in a way I never will. You're welcome.
"copywritten." Yes, you are truly a shining example of brilliance.
Are you somehow suggesting that looking on the internet to see if someone else has encountered and solved the same problem is somehow inferior than spending hours (or days, or months, or years, depending on the problem) trying to solve the problem yourself? Or are you suggesting that every time someone needs a wheel for something they "re-invent" it?
Depends on the problem. I'm an engineer, and I've seen colleagues turn to Google when they need perform basic unit conversions that really should be second nature. The Internet is a fabulous resource, but tends to promote laziness and loss of problem-solving skills when relied upon too much. It also seems to dilute common sense, as when information is assumed to be correct because the source appears to be authoritative, even though cursory inspection shows the information to be wrong.
Also, there is a difference between deleting a copy of classified material (to prevent that copy from becoming compromised), and deleting the *only* copy of classified material (preventing our own government from having access to it).
The law does not distinguish between the unauthorized destruction of the *only* copy of classified material, and the unauthorized destruction of one of many copies of the classified material. And no, despite being Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton did not have the proper authority to authorize destruction of classified material.
Since Congress wrote the law that also covers themselves they added the word "Willfull"
That mean you need to prove she knew, not that she did, that she knew it was wrong and did it anyway.
A very hard case to prove. Unless you lie about it, or get caught and lie like Petraus. And he is not in jail.
Hillary, just like every other American citizen who holds a security clearance, was briefed and signed documents affirming that she understood the laws and penalties associated with the handling of classified information. The FBI investigation turned up quite a few emails that contained classification markings. At least one of her aides admitted to being instructed by Hillary to strip classification markings from messages before sending them to her. How a reasonable person could conclude that she didn't know she was wrong in doing what she did, escapes me completely.
As for Petraeus, you're right; he's not in jail. But he will never work in a sensitive position again. I'd be satisfied if similar punishment was imposed upon Hillary Clinton.
"We have never engaged in the secret scanning of email traffic like what has been reported today about Yahoo. I want to be absolutely clear that we have never worked with any government agency from any country to create a backdoor in any of our products or services. We have also never allowed access to our servers. And we never will."
ie. Your system is so insecure that the government didn't need your help to get in.
With regard to the Apple statement, please refer to Snowden's comment about careful phrasing.
If someone caused an accident because he/she were too busy with his/her smartphone? I don't see why that should be treated differently from someone intentionally running someone else over.
Because that's what the law says. As I understand it, intent "in the moment" is the difference between involuntary and voluntary manslaughter.
I Am Not A Lawyer, but here's my take: If you run over someone because you're on your phone, that's involuntary manslaughter. If you run over someone because they did something at that point in time to make you angry, that's voluntary manslaughter. If you run over someone because they did something yesterday that made you angry, that's second degree murder. If you study someone's habits to determine the best time and place to run over them, and then run over them, that's first degree murder.
How do you establish whether the person tried their best to drive safely?
It's really not that difficult, though I doubt if "tried their best" would be the standard, as opposed to "weren't negligent". For example: Were they drunk? Were they speeding? Were they following too closely? Were they driving erratically? Were they not wearing required corrective lenses? Were they engaging in distracting behaviors? Was their vehicle properly maintained?
"That said, this is still speculation based on what’s currently happening in the mobile world, and Samsung has yet to say anything about its next-gen mobile devices."
Slashdot Mirror
I can see, why moving to India is less practical for a Californian, than to North Carolina. But I do not see it so much less practical as to make a qualitative difference — merely quantitative. India is a (reasonable approximation of) Democracy, English is the official language...
English is not the official language of India. The 2001 census came up with 122 major languages and 1599 other languages, though there seems to be some confusion in distinguishing languages and dialects.
Form of government may be vaguely similar, but politics are very different. Culture is very different. Your values are very different from your neighbors'. Family and old friends are very distant and very expensive to visit. All of these factors combine to reduce a person's self-confidence and sense of well-being.
Is your argument merely pedantic?
Is that a bad thing?
Oh, I think I see the problem. Yes, being pedantic is mostly a bad thing. It means "ostentatious in one's learning"; "overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching". It is engaged in by persons who adhere rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense. It's a negative term that implies someone is showing off book learning or trivia, especially in a tiresome way. What's worse, people who engage in this behavior quite frequently aren't able to see what the problem is. It's sort of like the Dunning-Kruger Effect, but for personality rather than intelligence.
Both are feasible. One more so than another, is your argument merely quantitative?
One of the dictionary meanings of "feasible" is "possible". The others lean more toward "suitable" or "practical", and those are the meanings the word is generally used to convey; for example, feasibility studies are carried out to determine whether a proposed solution is suitable and practical, not to determine whether it is (remotely) possible. Do you think that freeing up cemetery land by launching corpses into space is feasible? Is your argument merely pedantic?
Back in my day, judges and juries decided who commited a crime, not Fox News.
Back in my day, prosecutors decided who to try, not investigators.
He violated the Cuba embargo, but it's okay because he stiffed someone on the bill. That's this election's version of "but I didn't inhale."
Hey, why not? It worked for Bill.
First of all, as Hillary already argued, if it were really just an isolated tape regarding private behavior, perhaps a reasonable person could overlook it. But it is very much one piece of an overt public pattern of tawdry behavior on Trump's part -- badmouthing, bullying, threatening, and a bizarre inability to keep control in the face of a minor embarrassment or taunting, especially against women or minorities.
Second of all, Bill is not running for office, right now. So whether we should care about a politician badly behaved spouse is an entirely new topic.
Wow, did you ever miss the point in your zeal to express your support for Hillary*. I didn't suggest that anyone should care NOW about Bill's behavior THEN, and I wasn't proposing that Trump's behavior should be overlooked. I was merely pointing out that people who found Bill's behavior, um, deplorable should also find Trump's behavior deplorable, and that people who were willing to overlook Bill's behavior should also be willing to overlook Trump's behavior.
* I am not a Trump supporter. I am not a Hillary supporter. I think they are both terrible people who shouldn't even be allowed to look at a photograph of the White House, let alone occupy it. This does not mean I think they are the same, but I think the difference between the two of them is similar to the difference between being eaten by a lion and being slowly crushed under a rock pile.
I haven't seen a law yet that explicitly states that it is illegal to yell "fire" in a theater. So you can toss that out. Common sense says not to do it, but there are no laws prohibiting it.
.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know all the laws in the US, so I can't say for sure. What I can say for sure is that falsely yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre is not protected speech under the 1st amendment, so if you do that you're likely to be prosecuted for something.
This came to mind while observing the explosion of outrage over Trump's "Grab 'em by the pussy" video.
1. Take all the people who were outraged by Bill Clinton's sexual pecadillos and thought they made him unfit for office; make them equally outraged about Trump.
2. Take all the people who took the position that Bill's behavior was a matter of "personal character" having no relation to his ability to perform as President; make them adopt the same attitude towards Trump.
Now, re-draw the electoral map. What do you get?
That would be a first then. Historically the Islamic world has been a nett exporter of technological advance to the West.
There is no doubt that during the Dark Ages, Islamic scholars made a lot of contributions to science and technology, both by preserving ancient Greek texts and by their own study and experimentation. It is more difficult to make a case for the Islamic world's advancement of technology in the last 700 - 800 years or so.
I believe you (or maybe I) misunderstood what umghhh was getting at, which is understandable given the way he expressed it. My interpretation was that he thinks the "Islamification" of Germany will have a negative impact on either their ability or desire to advance no-ICE technology sufficiently to make a ban politically possible.
Jesus wept.
It always seemed to me that software should be copywritten, not patented. Sounds to me like this judge has come around to my thinking, which demonstrates his wisdom and thoughtfulness as much as it does my greatness. Not that my greatness needs demonstrating, as it is clear to all, but this amounts to official recognition of my place as the foremost legal thinker of our time.
To be honest, I envy y'all. You get to experience my brilliance in a way I never will. You're welcome.
"copywritten." Yes, you are truly a shining example of brilliance.
...to figure out why my PC needs an alarm clock or camera app... sure these are useful on a phone but on my desktop they really are not useful.
So it can wake you up for that middle-of-the-night teleconference, obviously.
Are you somehow suggesting that looking on the internet to see if someone else has encountered and solved the same problem is somehow inferior than spending hours (or days, or months, or years, depending on the problem) trying to solve the problem yourself? Or are you suggesting that every time someone needs a wheel for something they "re-invent" it?
Depends on the problem. I'm an engineer, and I've seen colleagues turn to Google when they need perform basic unit conversions that really should be second nature. The Internet is a fabulous resource, but tends to promote laziness and loss of problem-solving skills when relied upon too much. It also seems to dilute common sense, as when information is assumed to be correct because the source appears to be authoritative, even though cursory inspection shows the information to be wrong.
Go ahead: try to launch a rocket into space that is shaped like a vagina. I dare you.
Don't be silly. Space isn't shaped like a vagina.
I'm sure that's just an average maximum.
LOL, what?
Yahoo probably spent the first 18 of those hours trying to figure out who/what is The Intercept.
Also, there is a difference between deleting a copy of classified material (to prevent that copy from becoming compromised), and deleting the *only* copy of classified material (preventing our own government from having access to it).
The law does not distinguish between the unauthorized destruction of the *only* copy of classified material, and the unauthorized destruction of one of many copies of the classified material. And no, despite being Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton did not have the proper authority to authorize destruction of classified material.
Since Congress wrote the law that also covers themselves they added the word "Willfull" That mean you need to prove she knew, not that she did, that she knew it was wrong and did it anyway. A very hard case to prove. Unless you lie about it, or get caught and lie like Petraus. And he is not in jail.
Hillary, just like every other American citizen who holds a security clearance, was briefed and signed documents affirming that she understood the laws and penalties associated with the handling of classified information. The FBI investigation turned up quite a few emails that contained classification markings. At least one of her aides admitted to being instructed by Hillary to strip classification markings from messages before sending them to her. How a reasonable person could conclude that she didn't know she was wrong in doing what she did, escapes me completely.
As for Petraeus, you're right; he's not in jail. But he will never work in a sensitive position again. I'd be satisfied if similar punishment was imposed upon Hillary Clinton.
"We have never engaged in the secret scanning of email traffic like what has been reported today about Yahoo. I want to be absolutely clear that we have never worked with any government agency from any country to create a backdoor in any of our products or services. We have also never allowed access to our servers. And we never will."
ie. Your system is so insecure that the government didn't need your help to get in.
With regard to the Apple statement, please refer to Snowden's comment about careful phrasing.
as if, interestingly, information can be stolen at all
steal (verb): to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgement.
If someone caused an accident because he/she were too busy with his/her smartphone? I don't see why that should be treated differently from someone intentionally running someone else over.
Because that's what the law says. As I understand it, intent "in the moment" is the difference between involuntary and voluntary manslaughter.
I Am Not A Lawyer, but here's my take: If you run over someone because you're on your phone, that's involuntary manslaughter. If you run over someone because they did something at that point in time to make you angry, that's voluntary manslaughter. If you run over someone because they did something yesterday that made you angry, that's second degree murder. If you study someone's habits to determine the best time and place to run over them, and then run over them, that's first degree murder.
How do you establish whether the person tried their best to drive safely?
It's really not that difficult, though I doubt if "tried their best" would be the standard, as opposed to "weren't negligent". For example: Were they drunk? Were they speeding? Were they following too closely? Were they driving erratically? Were they not wearing required corrective lenses? Were they engaging in distracting behaviors? Was their vehicle properly maintained?
How do you provably establish someone's intent?
Well you see, we have these people called judges, whose job it is to, y'know, judge these sorts of things.
We regularly convict people on circumstantial evidence, by the way. You've watched too many cop shows.
Actually, it's the jury that has the job of judging these sorts of things. Judges rule on the law. Juries rule on the evidence that's presented.
From TFA:
"That said, this is still speculation based on what’s currently happening in the mobile world, and Samsung has yet to say anything about its next-gen mobile devices."
Why the fuck would any sane human use both in the same sentence? Are they just trying to fuck with the reader?
Wow, it looks like being on line is affecting your sanity and happiness.