With state law versus the federal government, the constitution enumerates certain states rights. That is, they defined the things for which the federal government controls, and left other issues to be decided for the states themselves. Not necessarily so with city rights. It is not the place of cities to carve out their own little fiefdoms for which large-scale projects such as the internet, energy projects, or mass transit, are things to which everyone else must be subservient. Cities are there to provide local services, such as police, fire, garbage collection, and perhaps some road repairs. When individual cities start stomping on the rights of state citizens, then it is well within the scope of the state to step in and restore those rights.
I take it as sarcasm, considering that the lastest "Hillary lost the 2016 election because of ______" meme has been "James Comey re-opened the investigation against Hillary just days prior to the election"
It's an insidious form of gambling, such that it appears that one could make logical predictions based on starting positions, past performance, surface conditions, ect. Most race tracks even publish a booklet which lists the past outcomes of all the competitors in each of the races. I have concluded, however, that the outcomes are sufficiently random such that no amount of information can predict the winners. It's like attempting to pick the outcomes on a roulette wheel; you will lose money to the house.
>>saying that such events had often occurred in the Earth's geologic past, but never before, to their knowledge, as a sudden present-day event.
And also we're now going to blame ANY climate change on mankind, even if it happened in the past, and even though the earth's climate has been constantly changing for the past 5 billion years.
It's perfectly ethical to follow the law in a free country like New Zealand and pay whatever taxes you owe. If the amount that you owe calculates to zero, then you are still acting ethically. The legislature is, of course, free to vote to change the tax laws, but there are often unintended consequences that come of it. Taxing your country's economic activity always produces less activity.
I suppose if other countries want to be suckers, pay extra buy a substandard product, and have their citizens pay a tax to make Americans wealthy then I'm fine with that. In the meantime, the U.S. should definitely cancel all subsidies and let economics work its magic. Without subsidies, it's about as "irreversible" as flying cars, the population bomb, or the global cooling predictions of the 1970s.
Potentially they would also be paranoid enough to simply disable sound, or at least run through some kind of headphones/speakers with a toggle. I can't even remember the last time that I browsed a webpage with my sound enabled. While this type of attack does seem devious, it also seems to be grasping at straws for any possible advantage.
Cook up all the justifications you want about why Trump 'won' the election and why he should be president.
How about -- he won the electoral contest? You know, the one set of rules that actually counts? The one system that was perfectly okay before the election, until now that some of the losers are sore and are concocting all the justifications for a change in the outcome after-the-fact?
Democracy is a system whereby elected representatives are chosen by winning the popular vote not a gerrymandered system where you elect a group of functionaries who then vote for the runner up.
Actually, if you live in the United States, then you don't live in a pure democracy. You are in a democratically elected representative republic. This means, by design, that sometimes the majority does not get its way.
"I'm not going to put the examples out there because I'm not going to engage in a tit-for-tat on what is compliant." ---- that's because there are no examples out there. If a site is really problematic, then putting out ANY number of examples should be trivial.
Indeed, this is not gossip. Instead, it is a sad day for America (assuming that it's true) that a Russian hacker is required to expose the sleazy back-room corruption among high ranking American government officials.
‘With its effective range apparently not exceeding one kilometre, this weapon may be used against UAVs flying right above the battlefield,’ said Korotchenko.
That doesn't sound very far. By flying at 3500 feet, it can't hit a UAV even if it is directly overhead.
Yeah just like how The Population Bomb determined that the peak population will be in 1990 before it starts dwindling due to food shortages and massive starvation. And also how Peak Oil will happen in the year 2000 and the price of oil will never go down after that.
Oooops, both of those alarmist theories didn't happen. It turns out that it DOES matter if the numbers and science are real, otherwise it's just scare tactics designed to convince people to assign more political power to those who don't deserve it. AGW didn't turn out to be as dire as predicted and is failing to sufficiently scare voters, so now the alarmists want to ignore the outcomes and move on to the next crisis -- YEARLY RESOURCE ALLOTMENT?
Even in its extreme form, communism recognizes that some people need more than others.
I think you meant to say "deserves", not "needs". Suppose a doctor and a waitress each work 8 hours a day. Can you explain why the doctor might "need" more than the waitress? I actually think I am familiar with communism. Usually the theorists and advocates espouse equality at first, before they get into power. The pragmatic and unequal distribution part is usually reserved for after the communists take control of all the guns. That the article does consider some monetary incentive for the more productive workers up-front certainly is surprising.
Even for the hotspots near the convention, the researchers don't appear to have distinguished between Republican delegates connecting, and all others connecting such as venue workers, media personnel, protesters, or simply random citizens walking nearby. As for the airport hotspot, I somehow doubt that convention delegates spent the majority of their time hanging out at the airport, several miles from the venue. This experiment undoubtedly captured a lot of non-delegates.
I'm willing to accept that, but tell me how; and this blog post that merely repeats the mistakes of the past is not succeeding to do that.
I'll never be willing to accept communism, because it has always failed to account for human behavior. The communists have hoped that simply by being smarter, or more intelligent, or having a bigger planning committee, or accounting for more variables, and now delegating authority to their computer model that they will achieve success. No amount of explaining will convince me, however, because communism has never appropriately accounted for human behavior, greed, needs, wants, incentives, or creativity. These things are a part of human nature; communism has tried to defeat human nature; capitalism has sought to work alongside it.
Surprisingly, the article does recognize that equal distribution to everyone is a problem, and seems to advocate unequal distribution near the end of the article. That, to me, isn't communism, but simply fiat redistribution-ism so that someone can gain popularity and control. And also I disagree with the article's assessment that dis-incentivizing the wealthy would not cause a mass-exodus of workers from those positions.
It seems like communists aren't willing to accept that 100 years of experimentation have always failed to produce the desired result, that if they could control the economy then they would achieve higher standards of living than the capitalists. You're right that the Soviets already tried it, but modern day communists will reject your observation, and claim that the communists of yesteryear simply weren't smart enough. Decades of failure prove nothing! Surely the communists of today are smarter and will succeed if you give them enough authority. Now we see yet another iteration, where this time we'll build a supercomputer which will UNQUESTIONABLY be smart enough to solve all of the communist economic problems, just please please PLEASE give the communists more power.
Slashdot Mirror
With state law versus the federal government, the constitution enumerates certain states rights. That is, they defined the things for which the federal government controls, and left other issues to be decided for the states themselves. Not necessarily so with city rights. It is not the place of cities to carve out their own little fiefdoms for which large-scale projects such as the internet, energy projects, or mass transit, are things to which everyone else must be subservient. Cities are there to provide local services, such as police, fire, garbage collection, and perhaps some road repairs. When individual cities start stomping on the rights of state citizens, then it is well within the scope of the state to step in and restore those rights.
From that moment to the election day, the "poll question" became "is Hillary criminal or not?"
Actually, it didn't stop at election day!
In other words, it had better be a really damn good reason.
How about lying to Congress?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
After all it was Racist-Misoginists who got him elected.
FT-FTFY
I take it as sarcasm, considering that the lastest "Hillary lost the 2016 election because of ______" meme has been "James Comey re-opened the investigation against Hillary just days prior to the election"
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
So now, all of the Democrats are happy, right?
It's an insidious form of gambling, such that it appears that one could make logical predictions based on starting positions, past performance, surface conditions, ect. Most race tracks even publish a booklet which lists the past outcomes of all the competitors in each of the races. I have concluded, however, that the outcomes are sufficiently random such that no amount of information can predict the winners. It's like attempting to pick the outcomes on a roulette wheel; you will lose money to the house.
An alarmist researcher can blame his or her poor predictions on AGW. Amazing!
>>saying that such events had often occurred in the Earth's geologic past, but never before, to their knowledge, as a sudden present-day event.
And also we're now going to blame ANY climate change on mankind, even if it happened in the past, and even though the earth's climate has been constantly changing for the past 5 billion years.
It's perfectly ethical to follow the law in a free country like New Zealand and pay whatever taxes you owe. If the amount that you owe calculates to zero, then you are still acting ethically. The legislature is, of course, free to vote to change the tax laws, but there are often unintended consequences that come of it. Taxing your country's economic activity always produces less activity.
That XKCD comic WOULD be very scary, if it was accurate. But it is not. The hockey stick runaway temperatures since 1900 never happened.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/0...
The doomsday clock is not a metric of anything. It unable to quantify the chances of any any type of event actually occurring.
I suppose if other countries want to be suckers, pay extra buy a substandard product, and have their citizens pay a tax to make Americans wealthy then I'm fine with that. In the meantime, the U.S. should definitely cancel all subsidies and let economics work its magic. Without subsidies, it's about as "irreversible" as flying cars, the population bomb, or the global cooling predictions of the 1970s.
Potentially they would also be paranoid enough to simply disable sound, or at least run through some kind of headphones/speakers with a toggle. I can't even remember the last time that I browsed a webpage with my sound enabled. While this type of attack does seem devious, it also seems to be grasping at straws for any possible advantage.
Is this an advertisement to invest in yet another unlimited free energy scam? Wake me up when some progress occurs.
Cook up all the justifications you want about why Trump 'won' the election and why he should be president.
How about -- he won the electoral contest? You know, the one set of rules that actually counts? The one system that was perfectly okay before the election, until now that some of the losers are sore and are concocting all the justifications for a change in the outcome after-the-fact?
Democracy is a system whereby elected representatives are chosen by winning the popular vote not a gerrymandered system where you elect a group of functionaries who then vote for the runner up.
Actually, if you live in the United States, then you don't live in a pure democracy. You are in a democratically elected representative republic. This means, by design, that sometimes the majority does not get its way.
"I'm not going to put the examples out there because I'm not going to engage in a tit-for-tat on what is compliant." ---- that's because there are no examples out there. If a site is really problematic, then putting out ANY number of examples should be trivial.
Indeed, this is not gossip. Instead, it is a sad day for America (assuming that it's true) that a Russian hacker is required to expose the sleazy back-room corruption among high ranking American government officials.
It bet it was the Russians that did it.
‘With its effective range apparently not exceeding one kilometre, this weapon may be used against UAVs flying right above the battlefield,’ said Korotchenko.
That doesn't sound very far. By flying at 3500 feet, it can't hit a UAV even if it is directly overhead.
An ID and background check is already required for the licensed dealers who sell at gun shows.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
If you buy a firearm from a licensed dealer at a gun show, the dealer still must process a background check of the purchaser.
Yeah just like how The Population Bomb determined that the peak population will be in 1990 before it starts dwindling due to food shortages and massive starvation. And also how Peak Oil will happen in the year 2000 and the price of oil will never go down after that.
Oooops, both of those alarmist theories didn't happen. It turns out that it DOES matter if the numbers and science are real, otherwise it's just scare tactics designed to convince people to assign more political power to those who don't deserve it. AGW didn't turn out to be as dire as predicted and is failing to sufficiently scare voters, so now the alarmists want to ignore the outcomes and move on to the next crisis -- YEARLY RESOURCE ALLOTMENT?
Even in its extreme form, communism recognizes that some people need more than others.
I think you meant to say "deserves", not "needs". Suppose a doctor and a waitress each work 8 hours a day. Can you explain why the doctor might "need" more than the waitress? I actually think I am familiar with communism. Usually the theorists and advocates espouse equality at first, before they get into power. The pragmatic and unequal distribution part is usually reserved for after the communists take control of all the guns. That the article does consider some monetary incentive for the more productive workers up-front certainly is surprising.
Even for the hotspots near the convention, the researchers don't appear to have distinguished between Republican delegates connecting, and all others connecting such as venue workers, media personnel, protesters, or simply random citizens walking nearby. As for the airport hotspot, I somehow doubt that convention delegates spent the majority of their time hanging out at the airport, several miles from the venue. This experiment undoubtedly captured a lot of non-delegates.
I'm willing to accept that, but tell me how; and this blog post that merely repeats the mistakes of the past is not succeeding to do that.
I'll never be willing to accept communism, because it has always failed to account for human behavior. The communists have hoped that simply by being smarter, or more intelligent, or having a bigger planning committee, or accounting for more variables, and now delegating authority to their computer model that they will achieve success. No amount of explaining will convince me, however, because communism has never appropriately accounted for human behavior, greed, needs, wants, incentives, or creativity. These things are a part of human nature; communism has tried to defeat human nature; capitalism has sought to work alongside it.
Surprisingly, the article does recognize that equal distribution to everyone is a problem, and seems to advocate unequal distribution near the end of the article. That, to me, isn't communism, but simply fiat redistribution-ism so that someone can gain popularity and control. And also I disagree with the article's assessment that dis-incentivizing the wealthy would not cause a mass-exodus of workers from those positions.
It seems like communists aren't willing to accept that 100 years of experimentation have always failed to produce the desired result, that if they could control the economy then they would achieve higher standards of living than the capitalists. You're right that the Soviets already tried it, but modern day communists will reject your observation, and claim that the communists of yesteryear simply weren't smart enough. Decades of failure prove nothing! Surely the communists of today are smarter and will succeed if you give them enough authority. Now we see yet another iteration, where this time we'll build a supercomputer which will UNQUESTIONABLY be smart enough to solve all of the communist economic problems, just please please PLEASE give the communists more power.