I know you know better. LOL You might fool some of them, but you're not fooling me.
That may be how he communicates *to* people but we both know he sure as hell isn't listening by that medium. Well, maybe for a very loose definition of 'listening' he does, but I have my doubts.
Either way, this is kinda stupid. No, there is no right to post to his Twitter feed. Well, there is no legal right to do so. We don't actually have the right to be heard in any way we want. I am pretty sure I could make a seemingly well-reasoned argument that we should have that right. However, we don't have it and my thoughts on the ideal are pretty much irrelevant.
I have to wonder if these same people think they have a right to go into Trump's bathroom and talk to him while he poops and tweets. There are still myriad ways to petition, seek redress, and assemble. They're probably slightly more effective than tweeting. Probably...
I bet they get confused by the idea that you can't actually send thousands of letters to the president. Well, you can, but they will tell you to stop, eventually. Even if they aren't mean letters, they are gonna tell you to stop. If you don't, they're gonna arrest ya for harassment, and possibly some trumped (see what I did there?) up additional charges. Yeah, even the president has some rights.
Above, I suggested they try to hold a protest rally in his bedroom. It's assembly and speech! Throw in some prayer, and you've got religion too! I actually am moderately concerned that there do exist people who might believe they have a right to do exactly that.
That said, hope you're doing well. I've not seen you in a while. I have been otherwise occupied. I am kinda glad I wasn't frequenting Slashdot during the election cycle.
I think you missed that that is irrelevant and that needless capitalization doesn't actually change that. You do not have a right to post to his Twitter feed.
You can try a moral argument, but there is no right to post to his feed. There is no right being taken away. To petition for redress is still an option. To speak is still an option. You don't get to demand the medium, or the method, or the locality.
This is pretty basic legal scholarship, the kind you should have learned in civics. Posting with capitalization and calling for your fainting couch doesn't actually change the facts. We are, ostensibly, adults. It'd do you well to conduct yourself as such.
Not that this matters, I'm really certain this is still Constitutional and I make no claims about the morality, but does being blocked actually prevent someone from seeing the posts, or does it just block the person from responding?
As you can surmise, I have no Twitter account and haven't actually been there more than a dozen times.
I am kinda confused here. Did you actually read what was leaked? If not, you might want to. If so, I'm even more confused by your response.
The summary, someone using IP addresses in Russia sent spear phishing emails, the day before the election, to about 100 election officials. None were successful. The NSA knows this much.
That's what the email contained.
Err... I'm not sure what more to tell you. I'm quite baffled by your response to this and thinking one of us may not actually have paid enough attention. I admit, that could be me. However, it doesn't actually say, or imply, more than that. At least not as far as I know.
I live in a food desert. Of course, I live here on purpose and I drive. I have a tiny grocery store, about 25 miles away. McDonald's is seventy five minutes away. I kinda like it, actually.
If only there was a thread you could read, or an article. Hell, that thread might even quote the article. It might even talk about how they are now accepting EBT... Ah well.
I am not a climate scientist - I feel this needs to be made clear. I have made a quasi-scholastic study of climate science, largely to see for myself what the fuss was about. I've read a whole lot of papers, a whole lot of research, and watched a whole lot of talks. Oddly, I never watched the Gore movie. I prefer to listen to the scientists.
Which leads me to...
The theory behind it is pretty sound. It can be reduced to some pretty simple physics and math. If you put more energy into a system, it's going to transfer some of that energy in the form of heat. The effects of greenhouse gases are, fundamentally, well understood.
And then it gets complicated as all hell.
I am unqualified to opine on the affects from human output. However... The research that I've read makes a pretty good case for it and I didn't see (once I dug deep enough) anything that reeked of bad science. Note: Some does exist but, for the most part, I found that coming from proselytizers and journalists, as well as some who appear to have moved from academia to publicist.
There's a pretty big difference between what I read for research and what is parroted by those who have decided men in lab coats are the new priests. The research is more nuanced and actually lists things like confidence ratings. Where the research may say 2, 4, or even 6 standard deviations, the journalists will take even the weakest confidence conclusions and present them as factual certainties. And, of course, this gets parroted and treated like the kid's game of Telephone.
What baffles me is the amount of alarmists who claim to support science while parroting bad science - or just plain inaccurate science.
Not that long ago, I had someone telling me that the oceans were going to rise 27' within the next fifty - and that this was a fact. So, I handed down citations and demonstrated that there's actually no research supporting such absurdities. They immediately decided I was anti-science and a Trump voter. I am still dumbfounded.
I, who seems to actually understand the science to some extent, don't deny that the climate is changing. In fact, it's pretty evident that it is changing. Hell, I can even understand the science that suggests it is caused by releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Yet, because I didn't toe the line - and agree with their kinda strange assertion, I was lumped in with the deniers and, even more strangely, assumed to be a Trump voter.
I don't know? I just don't know, at that point. I will say, I can sure as hell understand why people would be skeptical. I can sure as fuck understand why people would negative in their responses. The oceans aren't gonna rise 27' in the next fifty years. Not even the most dire of predictions suggests that.
Again, I'm not a "denier." I've done a lot of reading and researching. I'm not a client scientist, but I am a scientist. I didn't see anything wrong with their conclusions - and there are many, many studies. Some of those studies have data that hasn't been manipulated, to any great degree (as far as I saw). There's a whole lot of research on this.
If I were qualified to opine, I'd suggest that they're on the right track and that we are releasing enough CO2 to have an impact. How much? What will the results of our impact be? Is there a tipping point? Those are things I can't really say. I can say that it does look like the science is fundamentally good.
Why yes, yes I am being careful with my verbiage.;-)
The crazy thing is that I have blueberry fields and hire in bees. Fortunately, they're fairly civil. You can even sit on the hives while taking a break, and they'll leave you alone.
I've spent a lot of my life outside and in nature. Fortunately, where I live now, there's only one species that's likely to cause me serious harm. They are colloquially known as White-Assed Wasps. If stung by one of those, I'd probably have 20-30 minutes to get to a shot kit. at best. I give them wide berth. They are also assholes. So far, I've not been stung by one.
But, as mentioned above, it's a varied reaction. It will depend on the bee/hornet/wasp and the individual. I am in pretty good shape, compared to some. I don't actually let it bother me, nor do I let it stop me from doing things that I enjoy.
Hmm... I/really/ hate to hazard a guess. In fact, I'm pretty sure that any answer I give will be wrong, to at least a portion of the population.
So, of course, I'm going to do it.
I suspect it's because the tech community is seen as being populated by geeks/nerds. It's also/perceived/ that the jobs are trivial to do. Geeks/nerds are also seen as 'wimpy' and 'pushovers.'
I'll let you point your own fingers, name your own names, and conclude what you want. However, that's my guess as to the why. Tech makes good money (perceptually) and all tech does is (perceptually) push buttons all day. It's not like tech is populated by (perceptually) people who are going to stand up for themselves. They've been bullied since high school.
Oh, I'm reasonably certain that the water is healthier than the soda, I'm just not sure that using caloric count is a good way to demonstrate that. There are some not healthy foods that have few calories.
In my case, I tend to get out and do stuff.;-) I'm pretty fit. I'm pretty grateful for this. I'm 5' 11" and 172 lbs. Yup. I'm pretty damned grateful for that - and I don't actually work at maintaining it, it just seems to happen and is probably because I'm still pretty active.
Also, I am, in no way, implying that the soda is better than the water. I'm merely pointing out that caloric value probably isn't the best way to determine if a food/drink is healthy. Nutritional content is probably a much better metric.
At least I'm pretty sure of this - again, this is not my area of study.
See, you'll never get 100% certainty. You can model, massage, and model again - until you can match reality as closely as you can - but you can never account for outliers such as the drunk guy mentioned in my original post.
I'm not sure that it should weaken anything - it just means you may have been led to believe that the confidence levels are higher than they are. (They're pretty high, by the way.) This in no way implies certainty regarding exact timing. The models, and their results, have different confidence levels and this seems to be generally overlooked in journalism.
The scientists are saying, "This is likely to happen within this time frame." The journalists are saying, "This is going to happen by this date."
Overall, the science is pretty sound. We have whole bodies of work that would have to be refuted, including some pretty basic physics. The questions remaining are how much of an impact we're having and what the results are going to be - if we change, if we continue, or if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases released into our atmosphere.
For those, we've got a whole lot of evidence to suggest what is going to happen. Specific time-lines aren't a certainty. Instead, as above, there's a certain confidence level that specific things will happen within certain amounts of time. Unfortunately, journalists, pundits, and Wikipedia Experts have muddied the waters and probably caused more confusion than we'd have had otherwise.
I'd think that Ideology is certainly political. The latter two *may* also be political. I've not heard of anyone doing it, just for money, in ages. I may have missed someone, but I can't think of any recent examples.
Umm... Why? Just scroll on by, if it bugs you. Hell, they are tame, compared to how they used to be. It doesn't hurt you. It's just words. You don't even have to read it, once you recognize it for what it is.
There are varied degrees. I am allergic to bees. With most, I'll swell up and have some throat constriction. With a few, I'll have a reasonable amount of time to seek treatment. With a very small number, a single sting is enough to mean I need immediate treatment, or I will die. Most of the time, I won't need any treatment at all. I'll just have to calm down and ensure I keep breathing well enough.
If you're curious, I don't even bother carrying my shot kit. It is fairly unlikely that I will need it and there's usually one that I can access, if I have enough time.
I'm still (pretty) sure that the majority are politically motivated. From Snowden to Manning, they seem to usually be motivated by politics. Ames may have also had a political component, IIRC. Though, as you say, his primary motivation was financial. It's been a while since I've read the specifics, so I'm not sure if I'm misremembering him also having a political motivation.
That doesn't jibe well, with the last paragraph of your first post. You stated that you believe we'd be better off if we enabled him to make mistakes, seemingly so that you can catch him making mistakes - without regards to the outcome of those mistakes.
I am not sure what kind of person thinks like that, honestly.
To put it out there, I dislike Trump - a great deal. However, I kinda hope he does well as president. I don't actually want him to make mistakes. Ideally, he'll be a great president and continue to move us forward, as a country. He probably won't, but I sure as hell don't actively cheer, nor want, him to make mistakes just so I can say, 'I told you so.'
I am not one for moralizing, at least not often, but this is an invitation to do some introspection. Of course, you're also welcome to ignore my post. We can also just assume you worded it poorly, though I'm sort of disheartened by the thought process behind it more than I am the content.
Pretty much the last thing I want is for Trump to make even bigger, or more numerous, mistakes. That might be good for scoring political points, but we still have to live with the consequences.
Meh... It's not that important, I guess. I just figured I'd call it to your attention.
As head of the executive, he (theoretically) has access to all classified material. He also can, again theoretically, declassify anything he wants. I say theoretical because of logistics and political feasibility.
That is greater than the 3%, which I recently saw cited. I think it was actually like 2.7%. I also think it was a global study that provided the numbers in the recent cite.
So, your link says 4.1% which is still lower than 7%. Your link is only for the US, while GitHub is global(ish).
I am not sure what conclusions can be drawn from this.
What it suggests, to me, is that the community is far more welcoming than credited for. If a higher percentage of gay people are involved, than exists in society at large, it makes me think that the community may actually be more welcoming.
It seems likely, to me, that there would be a smaller percentage, if the community were less inclusive and welcoming. I may be missing something, but that seems more probable.
Then again, I'm a mathematician. Humans confuse me.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I know you know better. LOL You might fool some of them, but you're not fooling me.
That may be how he communicates *to* people but we both know he sure as hell isn't listening by that medium. Well, maybe for a very loose definition of 'listening' he does, but I have my doubts.
Either way, this is kinda stupid. No, there is no right to post to his Twitter feed. Well, there is no legal right to do so. We don't actually have the right to be heard in any way we want. I am pretty sure I could make a seemingly well-reasoned argument that we should have that right. However, we don't have it and my thoughts on the ideal are pretty much irrelevant.
I have to wonder if these same people think they have a right to go into Trump's bathroom and talk to him while he poops and tweets. There are still myriad ways to petition, seek redress, and assemble. They're probably slightly more effective than tweeting. Probably...
I bet they get confused by the idea that you can't actually send thousands of letters to the president. Well, you can, but they will tell you to stop, eventually. Even if they aren't mean letters, they are gonna tell you to stop. If you don't, they're gonna arrest ya for harassment, and possibly some trumped (see what I did there?) up additional charges. Yeah, even the president has some rights.
Above, I suggested they try to hold a protest rally in his bedroom. It's assembly and speech! Throw in some prayer, and you've got religion too! I actually am moderately concerned that there do exist people who might believe they have a right to do exactly that.
That said, hope you're doing well. I've not seen you in a while. I have been otherwise occupied. I am kinda glad I wasn't frequenting Slashdot during the election cycle.
I think you missed that that is irrelevant and that needless capitalization doesn't actually change that. You do not have a right to post to his Twitter feed.
You can try a moral argument, but there is no right to post to his feed. There is no right being taken away. To petition for redress is still an option. To speak is still an option. You don't get to demand the medium, or the method, or the locality.
This is pretty basic legal scholarship, the kind you should have learned in civics. Posting with capitalization and calling for your fainting couch doesn't actually change the facts. We are, ostensibly, adults. It'd do you well to conduct yourself as such.
Not that this matters, I'm really certain this is still Constitutional and I make no claims about the morality, but does being blocked actually prevent someone from seeing the posts, or does it just block the person from responding?
As you can surmise, I have no Twitter account and haven't actually been there more than a dozen times.
The right to petition still exists. You don't get to determine the mechanism.
To point out the absurdity, try to hold a protest rally inside the White House at 0400.
I realize this may require some thinking. I'll wait.
Umm... What, exactly, do you believe she leaked?
I am kinda confused here. Did you actually read what was leaked? If not, you might want to. If so, I'm even more confused by your response.
The summary, someone using IP addresses in Russia sent spear phishing emails, the day before the election, to about 100 election officials. None were successful. The NSA knows this much.
That's what the email contained.
Err... I'm not sure what more to tell you. I'm quite baffled by your response to this and thinking one of us may not actually have paid enough attention. I admit, that could be me. However, it doesn't actually say, or imply, more than that. At least not as far as I know.
Someone, appearing to be in Russia, sent spear phishing emails to election officials, about 100 of them. None of those attempts we're successful.
You can untwist the knot in your knickers.
That is all that was confirmed.
I live in a food desert. Of course, I live here on purpose and I drive. I have a tiny grocery store, about 25 miles away. McDonald's is seventy five minutes away. I kinda like it, actually.
If only there was a thread you could read, or an article. Hell, that thread might even quote the article. It might even talk about how they are now accepting EBT... Ah well.
That seems unlikely to be honest. I'm not sure why you'd lie about that.
I am not a climate scientist - I feel this needs to be made clear. I have made a quasi-scholastic study of climate science, largely to see for myself what the fuss was about. I've read a whole lot of papers, a whole lot of research, and watched a whole lot of talks. Oddly, I never watched the Gore movie. I prefer to listen to the scientists.
Which leads me to...
The theory behind it is pretty sound. It can be reduced to some pretty simple physics and math. If you put more energy into a system, it's going to transfer some of that energy in the form of heat. The effects of greenhouse gases are, fundamentally, well understood.
And then it gets complicated as all hell.
I am unqualified to opine on the affects from human output. However... The research that I've read makes a pretty good case for it and I didn't see (once I dug deep enough) anything that reeked of bad science. Note: Some does exist but, for the most part, I found that coming from proselytizers and journalists, as well as some who appear to have moved from academia to publicist.
There's a pretty big difference between what I read for research and what is parroted by those who have decided men in lab coats are the new priests. The research is more nuanced and actually lists things like confidence ratings. Where the research may say 2, 4, or even 6 standard deviations, the journalists will take even the weakest confidence conclusions and present them as factual certainties. And, of course, this gets parroted and treated like the kid's game of Telephone.
What baffles me is the amount of alarmists who claim to support science while parroting bad science - or just plain inaccurate science.
Not that long ago, I had someone telling me that the oceans were going to rise 27' within the next fifty - and that this was a fact. So, I handed down citations and demonstrated that there's actually no research supporting such absurdities. They immediately decided I was anti-science and a Trump voter. I am still dumbfounded.
I, who seems to actually understand the science to some extent, don't deny that the climate is changing. In fact, it's pretty evident that it is changing. Hell, I can even understand the science that suggests it is caused by releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Yet, because I didn't toe the line - and agree with their kinda strange assertion, I was lumped in with the deniers and, even more strangely, assumed to be a Trump voter.
I don't know? I just don't know, at that point. I will say, I can sure as hell understand why people would be skeptical. I can sure as fuck understand why people would negative in their responses. The oceans aren't gonna rise 27' in the next fifty years. Not even the most dire of predictions suggests that.
Again, I'm not a "denier." I've done a lot of reading and researching. I'm not a client scientist, but I am a scientist. I didn't see anything wrong with their conclusions - and there are many, many studies. Some of those studies have data that hasn't been manipulated, to any great degree (as far as I saw). There's a whole lot of research on this.
If I were qualified to opine, I'd suggest that they're on the right track and that we are releasing enough CO2 to have an impact. How much? What will the results of our impact be? Is there a tipping point? Those are things I can't really say. I can say that it does look like the science is fundamentally good.
Why yes, yes I am being careful with my verbiage. ;-)
More times than I probably should have.
The crazy thing is that I have blueberry fields and hire in bees. Fortunately, they're fairly civil. You can even sit on the hives while taking a break, and they'll leave you alone.
I've spent a lot of my life outside and in nature. Fortunately, where I live now, there's only one species that's likely to cause me serious harm. They are colloquially known as White-Assed Wasps. If stung by one of those, I'd probably have 20-30 minutes to get to a shot kit. at best. I give them wide berth. They are also assholes. So far, I've not been stung by one.
But, as mentioned above, it's a varied reaction. It will depend on the bee/hornet/wasp and the individual. I am in pretty good shape, compared to some. I don't actually let it bother me, nor do I let it stop me from doing things that I enjoy.
Why?
Hmm... I /really/ hate to hazard a guess. In fact, I'm pretty sure that any answer I give will be wrong, to at least a portion of the population.
So, of course, I'm going to do it.
I suspect it's because the tech community is seen as being populated by geeks/nerds. It's also /perceived/ that the jobs are trivial to do. Geeks/nerds are also seen as 'wimpy' and 'pushovers.'
I'll let you point your own fingers, name your own names, and conclude what you want. However, that's my guess as to the why. Tech makes good money (perceptually) and all tech does is (perceptually) push buttons all day. It's not like tech is populated by (perceptually) people who are going to stand up for themselves. They've been bullied since high school.
Oh, I'm reasonably certain that the water is healthier than the soda, I'm just not sure that using caloric count is a good way to demonstrate that. There are some not healthy foods that have few calories.
In my case, I tend to get out and do stuff. ;-) I'm pretty fit. I'm pretty grateful for this. I'm 5' 11" and 172 lbs. Yup. I'm pretty damned grateful for that - and I don't actually work at maintaining it, it just seems to happen and is probably because I'm still pretty active.
Also, I am, in no way, implying that the soda is better than the water. I'm merely pointing out that caloric value probably isn't the best way to determine if a food/drink is healthy. Nutritional content is probably a much better metric.
At least I'm pretty sure of this - again, this is not my area of study.
See, you'll never get 100% certainty. You can model, massage, and model again - until you can match reality as closely as you can - but you can never account for outliers such as the drunk guy mentioned in my original post.
I'm not sure that it should weaken anything - it just means you may have been led to believe that the confidence levels are higher than they are. (They're pretty high, by the way.) This in no way implies certainty regarding exact timing. The models, and their results, have different confidence levels and this seems to be generally overlooked in journalism.
The scientists are saying, "This is likely to happen within this time frame." The journalists are saying, "This is going to happen by this date."
Overall, the science is pretty sound. We have whole bodies of work that would have to be refuted, including some pretty basic physics. The questions remaining are how much of an impact we're having and what the results are going to be - if we change, if we continue, or if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases released into our atmosphere.
For those, we've got a whole lot of evidence to suggest what is going to happen. Specific time-lines aren't a certainty. Instead, as above, there's a certain confidence level that specific things will happen within certain amounts of time. Unfortunately, journalists, pundits, and Wikipedia Experts have muddied the waters and probably caused more confusion than we'd have had otherwise.
I'd think that Ideology is certainly political. The latter two *may* also be political. I've not heard of anyone doing it, just for money, in ages. I may have missed someone, but I can't think of any recent examples.
Confusingly, they also used periods. They even used them properly.
Umm... Why? Just scroll on by, if it bugs you. Hell, they are tame, compared to how they used to be. It doesn't hurt you. It's just words. You don't even have to read it, once you recognize it for what it is.
Offense is taken, not given.
There are varied degrees. I am allergic to bees. With most, I'll swell up and have some throat constriction. With a few, I'll have a reasonable amount of time to seek treatment. With a very small number, a single sting is enough to mean I need immediate treatment, or I will die. Most of the time, I won't need any treatment at all. I'll just have to calm down and ensure I keep breathing well enough.
If you're curious, I don't even bother carrying my shot kit. It is fairly unlikely that I will need it and there's usually one that I can access, if I have enough time.
Valid point, point conceded.
I'm still (pretty) sure that the majority are politically motivated. From Snowden to Manning, they seem to usually be motivated by politics. Ames may have also had a political component, IIRC. Though, as you say, his primary motivation was financial. It's been a while since I've read the specifics, so I'm not sure if I'm misremembering him also having a political motivation.
That doesn't jibe well, with the last paragraph of your first post. You stated that you believe we'd be better off if we enabled him to make mistakes, seemingly so that you can catch him making mistakes - without regards to the outcome of those mistakes.
I am not sure what kind of person thinks like that, honestly.
To put it out there, I dislike Trump - a great deal. However, I kinda hope he does well as president. I don't actually want him to make mistakes. Ideally, he'll be a great president and continue to move us forward, as a country. He probably won't, but I sure as hell don't actively cheer, nor want, him to make mistakes just so I can say, 'I told you so.'
I am not one for moralizing, at least not often, but this is an invitation to do some introspection. Of course, you're also welcome to ignore my post. We can also just assume you worded it poorly, though I'm sort of disheartened by the thought process behind it more than I am the content.
Pretty much the last thing I want is for Trump to make even bigger, or more numerous, mistakes. That might be good for scoring political points, but we still have to live with the consequences.
Meh... It's not that important, I guess. I just figured I'd call it to your attention.
Aren't all intelligence leaks politically motivated?
As head of the executive, he (theoretically) has access to all classified material. He also can, again theoretically, declassify anything he wants. I say theoretical because of logistics and political feasibility.
I wish I had a crystal ball. :-(
Let me see if I understand...
You want the president to make more mistakes?
That is greater than the 3%, which I recently saw cited. I think it was actually like 2.7%. I also think it was a global study that provided the numbers in the recent cite.
So, your link says 4.1% which is still lower than 7%. Your link is only for the US, while GitHub is global(ish).
I am not sure what conclusions can be drawn from this.
What it suggests, to me, is that the community is far more welcoming than credited for. If a higher percentage of gay people are involved, than exists in society at large, it makes me think that the community may actually be more welcoming.
It seems likely, to me, that there would be a smaller percentage, if the community were less inclusive and welcoming. I may be missing something, but that seems more probable.
Then again, I'm a mathematician. Humans confuse me. ;-)