Yes, indeed. What real people need end to end encryption for financial transactions? It's totally okay to allow unknown parties to breach encryption because, you know, REAL PEOPLE!!!
My point is that someone with no communications experience and who was apparently mentally unsound was appointed as Director of Communications, quickly went on a vulgarity-laden on the record tirade to a reporter, and it wasn't until General Kelly was appointed Chief of Staff that this man was thrown out.
Apart from the possibility of mental disturbance, why is it exactly that this man was appointed to a position for which he no experience at all to begin with? Trying to claim it's a win for the Trump Administration that they outed him doesn't seem to grapple with the fact that he was there at all.
This is a pretty vague answer. What side is yours, how is it acting like the other side, and why is either side perceived by you to be behaving badly?
Activism is at the very core of American life. From the very beginning, the idea of concerned groups of citizens gathering together for a cause, whether that be Abolition, women's suffrage, or heck, taxation with representation (to go ALL the way back) have been a feature of American life. I'm sure there were people who groaned every time someone brought up slavery or women lacking voting rights, and you can be sure there were some soon-to-be Empire Loyalists who were sure tired of all those cranky irritable colonists bitching and moaning about King George.
If my boss was trying to push me into a needless war with North Korea, which is really a proxy war with China, which could turn into a real war with China, I'd probably be cashing in some my sick days as well.
To be fair, Ryan and McConnell were given an impossible task, at least on the timelines Trump wanted. Now I'll concede that the GOP deserved this slapdown because it's now clear that for seven years that they were trying to bring Obamacare down, they had no intention of ever actually doing so, so whatever damage they take from their base is well-earned. At the end of the day, however, they set about to climb a very high mountain in a very short period of time, knowing full well that it had very low chances of success.
Of course, now that the Republicans officially own Obamacare (oh, the irony), despite Trump's commitment to let it die, they can't politically afford to do so, so once this bruising summer is behind them, they'll have to reach over top of Cruz, Rand, and the House Freedom Caucus and try to pull something together with the Democrats.
Exactly. I think, at least thus far, the containment of the Trump Administration would have made Madison proud. Despite all the drama, Congress and the Courts are doing their job. There are still a hundred ways for things to get worse, but at the end of the day, impeachment and the 25th amendment are still there if Trump crosses the line into true madness.
So what you're saying is that President Trump appointed a Director of Communications who is mentally unstable.
That would explain the call to the New Yorker journalist. The Mooch is out of his mind. Frankly it sounded more like coked out of his mind, but let's just go with him being mentally unstable.
I have yet to be convinced that Trump is a great anything. He appears to have no ability to manage anything, seems to have no real ideas of his own, and generally just seems to spout off and threaten. I'm beginning to think the blowhard on the Apprentice wasn't just a bit of acting, this is actually who Donald Trump is; an ignoramus with an undue and unearned amount of clout.
I remember having a brief email exchange with Jerry Pournelle about ten years ago over some comment he'd made on his website about how evolution was pretty shaky (in particular that life could have begun on Earth), and invoking some sort of panspermia. I was taken aback, and just emailed him to suggest that research into abiogenesis was ongoing, and it was a bit premature to declare it impossible for life to evolve on earth. He shot back that no less than Fred Hoyle had advocated for panspermia. My reply was that while Hoyle was a very good astronomer, he wasn't a biologist or an organic chemist, so it struck me that to use him as an authority on such matters was a bit of an appeal to authority. In return I got back a pretty snarky reply about how he couldn't understand how I could question someone like Hoyle.
Some people have some pretty overblown views on their own abilities, and when people around them act like they are an authority, they seem to quickly buy into their own hype.
Adams is exhibiting the same irony that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did. Doyle's creation, Sherlock Holmes, was about as materialist as one could be. He believed everything had a rational explanation, appeared to reject the idea of the supernatural (hence his deduction that the Curse of the Baskervilles was a silly piece of folklore being used to cover a crime), and yet Doyle bought into all sorts of spiritist claptrap, going so far as to defend those two fraudster girls and their "faerie pictures".
In other words, both Adams and doyle suffer that most peculiar of human conditions; cognitive dissonance. It's bizarre that Adams can't see that Trump is as good an example of the boss character in his comics as one could imagine,
As to Trump's accomplishments, yes he's signed some executive orders, but really, the big ticket items like the wall (which now looks from proposed expropriations will be little more than about 800 miles of more fence) and health care are bust. Just wait for tax reform. As it is, his political capital is so low, his own party clearly thinks he's either an idiot or deranged (or both), and at six months in, he's not accomplished anything of any great importance. Heck, there are a huge number of unfilled appointments that he hasn't got to, so he hasn't even been able to get anywhere near to completing one of the more basic aspects of his job.
So what is it that you want? People who feel they have been treated unfairly to keep their mouths shut? Gays back in the closet, lest your tender sensibilities be offended?
Who is this "us"? Less than half of American voters voted for Trump, and right now, he's below 40% in general popularity. It strikes me that the "Royal We" you're trying to assert your represent isn't very "royal" and certainly very "we".
And how long do you imagine Trump is going to tolerate Kelly? Yes, a lot of people are pinning their hopes on Kelly bringing some order to the White House, but by and large the disorder is coming from Kelly's new boss, which means the person most in need of being controlled is the President himself, and he does not appear to be the kind of man who will tolerate being handled.
I wish General Kelly the best of luck. I don't imagine he'll be around long himself.
The entire point of the Common Market, and ultimately the EU was more than simply to have a trading bloc. It is to create extremely tight economic integration. There's a rather good reason for this, seeing as Europe had just gone through two cataclysmic general wars, and if you cast the net back a bit further, you have also have the Napoleonic Wars and major conflicts like the Franco-Prussian War. In other words, this is a region that was blown to bits multiple times over the last few centuries.
Tight economic integration inevitably means some degree of political union. Now we can debate how much is too much, but in general, even in those countries where EU resentment is highest, countries like Poland, Hungary and Greece, people still in general view the EU positively. The Greeks made clear through multiple elections over the last five or six years that even with intense austerity, they not only want to remain in the EU, but the Eurozone.
These claims that somehow Britain is the canary in the coalmine, that somehow there is going to be this exodus of nations from the EU, really are little more than a shallow attempt by Leavers to try to justify what just about everyone now knows to have been a stunningly idiotic referendum result.
Either scenario, or a combination of the two, would require unbelievably high birth rates and levels of emigration that only happen in countries with civil wars or mass famines.
In other words, no, Britain is not going to be majority Muslim in 10 years. To believe so requires such an intense degree of stupidity that it's difficult to imagine how one would have the cognitive function sufficient to operate a keyboard... or a flush toilet.
Theresa May has little real political capital anymore, and likely just as little power. There seem to be two competing groups in cabinet; with the Chancellor leading a Soft Brexit bloc and Boris Johnson and Michael Gove being among the chief Brexiteers. My wager is that in the end, with the PM really a dead woman walking, that Hammond's bloc will gain the upper hand, though Johnson, Gove and the 1922 Committee backbenchers will make his life grief. What does seem to be happening, which may have some interesting long-term ramifications for British politics, is that Brexit has divided Parliament into two groups, that don't really align well to the major parties; a Remain group of MPs, with a good many Tories, and probably most Labour MPs, along with the Liberal Democrats and SNP, and a Brexit group which probably represents a fair portion of the Conservative MPs, as well as some Labour MPs, most particularly Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn. From everything I'm reading, both the Tories and Labour are in a state of low-grade civil war right now, with some underlying threats that the Remain MPs, which make up the majority of the MPs in Westminster, could work together to scuttle a Hard Brexit.
And while that's all going on, British and EU negotiators have to try to hammer out a deal that Parliament and all the other EU members can agree on. This is why some are beginning to speculate if Brexit will actually happen.
Indeed. The Tory government is on such shaky ground right now that I think any grand proclamations from anyone within the government should be viewed with skepticism. This is a government lead by the lamest of duck PMs, who is almost certainly not going to survive to fight another general election, with a fairly significant contingent of Remainers on the back benches, and a goodly number of remainers on the Opposition benches (Corbyn's personal views notwithstanding). And really, there's every indication that there is no appetite for hard Brexit. Whatever madness filled a small majority of British voters last summer, it seems to be waning.
4.4% of the population of the United Kingdom is Muslims. That would mean the birth rate of British Muslim women of childbearing age over the next 10 years would have to be astronomical.
Well yes, if you go back to a time when they spelled the letter "s" with an "f", sure, you can win that argument. I'm just thinking how hard it all was when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth!
I think you may be misusing Betteridge's Law a little For instance, if I publish an article with the head line "Should convicted murderers be punished?", the rather skimpy logic you apply to the problem would suggest "No, they should not." The "law" in question is a bit of ironic observation, and is not meant to be an absolute rule, like say, the inverse square law in physics.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, indeed. What real people need end to end encryption for financial transactions? It's totally okay to allow unknown parties to breach encryption because, you know, REAL PEOPLE!!!
My point is that someone with no communications experience and who was apparently mentally unsound was appointed as Director of Communications, quickly went on a vulgarity-laden on the record tirade to a reporter, and it wasn't until General Kelly was appointed Chief of Staff that this man was thrown out.
Apart from the possibility of mental disturbance, why is it exactly that this man was appointed to a position for which he no experience at all to begin with? Trying to claim it's a win for the Trump Administration that they outed him doesn't seem to grapple with the fact that he was there at all.
This is a pretty vague answer. What side is yours, how is it acting like the other side, and why is either side perceived by you to be behaving badly?
Activism is at the very core of American life. From the very beginning, the idea of concerned groups of citizens gathering together for a cause, whether that be Abolition, women's suffrage, or heck, taxation with representation (to go ALL the way back) have been a feature of American life. I'm sure there were people who groaned every time someone brought up slavery or women lacking voting rights, and you can be sure there were some soon-to-be Empire Loyalists who were sure tired of all those cranky irritable colonists bitching and moaning about King George.
If my boss was trying to push me into a needless war with North Korea, which is really a proxy war with China, which could turn into a real war with China, I'd probably be cashing in some my sick days as well.
One of the firmest measures of low morale in an organization is the level of turnover.
Under considerably different circumstances; military invasions.
It's called the Electoral College.
To be fair, Ryan and McConnell were given an impossible task, at least on the timelines Trump wanted. Now I'll concede that the GOP deserved this slapdown because it's now clear that for seven years that they were trying to bring Obamacare down, they had no intention of ever actually doing so, so whatever damage they take from their base is well-earned. At the end of the day, however, they set about to climb a very high mountain in a very short period of time, knowing full well that it had very low chances of success.
Of course, now that the Republicans officially own Obamacare (oh, the irony), despite Trump's commitment to let it die, they can't politically afford to do so, so once this bruising summer is behind them, they'll have to reach over top of Cruz, Rand, and the House Freedom Caucus and try to pull something together with the Democrats.
Exactly. I think, at least thus far, the containment of the Trump Administration would have made Madison proud. Despite all the drama, Congress and the Courts are doing their job. There are still a hundred ways for things to get worse, but at the end of the day, impeachment and the 25th amendment are still there if Trump crosses the line into true madness.
So what you're saying is that President Trump appointed a Director of Communications who is mentally unstable.
That would explain the call to the New Yorker journalist. The Mooch is out of his mind. Frankly it sounded more like coked out of his mind, but let's just go with him being mentally unstable.
I have yet to be convinced that Trump is a great anything. He appears to have no ability to manage anything, seems to have no real ideas of his own, and generally just seems to spout off and threaten. I'm beginning to think the blowhard on the Apprentice wasn't just a bit of acting, this is actually who Donald Trump is; an ignoramus with an undue and unearned amount of clout.
I remember having a brief email exchange with Jerry Pournelle about ten years ago over some comment he'd made on his website about how evolution was pretty shaky (in particular that life could have begun on Earth), and invoking some sort of panspermia. I was taken aback, and just emailed him to suggest that research into abiogenesis was ongoing, and it was a bit premature to declare it impossible for life to evolve on earth. He shot back that no less than Fred Hoyle had advocated for panspermia. My reply was that while Hoyle was a very good astronomer, he wasn't a biologist or an organic chemist, so it struck me that to use him as an authority on such matters was a bit of an appeal to authority. In return I got back a pretty snarky reply about how he couldn't understand how I could question someone like Hoyle.
Some people have some pretty overblown views on their own abilities, and when people around them act like they are an authority, they seem to quickly buy into their own hype.
Adams is exhibiting the same irony that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did. Doyle's creation, Sherlock Holmes, was about as materialist as one could be. He believed everything had a rational explanation, appeared to reject the idea of the supernatural (hence his deduction that the Curse of the Baskervilles was a silly piece of folklore being used to cover a crime), and yet Doyle bought into all sorts of spiritist claptrap, going so far as to defend those two fraudster girls and their "faerie pictures".
In other words, both Adams and doyle suffer that most peculiar of human conditions; cognitive dissonance. It's bizarre that Adams can't see that Trump is as good an example of the boss character in his comics as one could imagine,
As to Trump's accomplishments, yes he's signed some executive orders, but really, the big ticket items like the wall (which now looks from proposed expropriations will be little more than about 800 miles of more fence) and health care are bust. Just wait for tax reform. As it is, his political capital is so low, his own party clearly thinks he's either an idiot or deranged (or both), and at six months in, he's not accomplished anything of any great importance. Heck, there are a huge number of unfilled appointments that he hasn't got to, so he hasn't even been able to get anywhere near to completing one of the more basic aspects of his job.
So what is it that you want? People who feel they have been treated unfairly to keep their mouths shut? Gays back in the closet, lest your tender sensibilities be offended?
Who is this "us"? Less than half of American voters voted for Trump, and right now, he's below 40% in general popularity. It strikes me that the "Royal We" you're trying to assert your represent isn't very "royal" and certainly very "we".
And how long do you imagine Trump is going to tolerate Kelly? Yes, a lot of people are pinning their hopes on Kelly bringing some order to the White House, but by and large the disorder is coming from Kelly's new boss, which means the person most in need of being controlled is the President himself, and he does not appear to be the kind of man who will tolerate being handled.
I wish General Kelly the best of luck. I don't imagine he'll be around long himself.
Britain left out of what amounts to a voter pique, a sort of rage against Westminster.
Do you think it's probable that there would be tens of millions of converts to Islam?
Or to put this another way, just how far you willing to go down Stupid Street to justify what is clearly an absurd, even idiotic claim?
The entire point of the Common Market, and ultimately the EU was more than simply to have a trading bloc. It is to create extremely tight economic integration. There's a rather good reason for this, seeing as Europe had just gone through two cataclysmic general wars, and if you cast the net back a bit further, you have also have the Napoleonic Wars and major conflicts like the Franco-Prussian War. In other words, this is a region that was blown to bits multiple times over the last few centuries.
Tight economic integration inevitably means some degree of political union. Now we can debate how much is too much, but in general, even in those countries where EU resentment is highest, countries like Poland, Hungary and Greece, people still in general view the EU positively. The Greeks made clear through multiple elections over the last five or six years that even with intense austerity, they not only want to remain in the EU, but the Eurozone.
These claims that somehow Britain is the canary in the coalmine, that somehow there is going to be this exodus of nations from the EU, really are little more than a shallow attempt by Leavers to try to justify what just about everyone now knows to have been a stunningly idiotic referendum result.
Either scenario, or a combination of the two, would require unbelievably high birth rates and levels of emigration that only happen in countries with civil wars or mass famines.
In other words, no, Britain is not going to be majority Muslim in 10 years. To believe so requires such an intense degree of stupidity that it's difficult to imagine how one would have the cognitive function sufficient to operate a keyboard... or a flush toilet.
Theresa May has little real political capital anymore, and likely just as little power. There seem to be two competing groups in cabinet; with the Chancellor leading a Soft Brexit bloc and Boris Johnson and Michael Gove being among the chief Brexiteers. My wager is that in the end, with the PM really a dead woman walking, that Hammond's bloc will gain the upper hand, though Johnson, Gove and the 1922 Committee backbenchers will make his life grief. What does seem to be happening, which may have some interesting long-term ramifications for British politics, is that Brexit has divided Parliament into two groups, that don't really align well to the major parties; a Remain group of MPs, with a good many Tories, and probably most Labour MPs, along with the Liberal Democrats and SNP, and a Brexit group which probably represents a fair portion of the Conservative MPs, as well as some Labour MPs, most particularly Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn. From everything I'm reading, both the Tories and Labour are in a state of low-grade civil war right now, with some underlying threats that the Remain MPs, which make up the majority of the MPs in Westminster, could work together to scuttle a Hard Brexit.
And while that's all going on, British and EU negotiators have to try to hammer out a deal that Parliament and all the other EU members can agree on. This is why some are beginning to speculate if Brexit will actually happen.
Indeed. The Tory government is on such shaky ground right now that I think any grand proclamations from anyone within the government should be viewed with skepticism. This is a government lead by the lamest of duck PMs, who is almost certainly not going to survive to fight another general election, with a fairly significant contingent of Remainers on the back benches, and a goodly number of remainers on the Opposition benches (Corbyn's personal views notwithstanding). And really, there's every indication that there is no appetite for hard Brexit. Whatever madness filled a small majority of British voters last summer, it seems to be waning.
4.4% of the population of the United Kingdom is Muslims. That would mean the birth rate of British Muslim women of childbearing age over the next 10 years would have to be astronomical.
Well yes, if you go back to a time when they spelled the letter "s" with an "f", sure, you can win that argument. I'm just thinking how hard it all was when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth!
I think you may be misusing Betteridge's Law a little For instance, if I publish an article with the head line "Should convicted murderers be punished?", the rather skimpy logic you apply to the problem would suggest "No, they should not." The "law" in question is a bit of ironic observation, and is not meant to be an absolute rule, like say, the inverse square law in physics.