Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not picking up a coherent message from the Trump quotes...
I *do* think that the facts of how we got here are relevant to the conversation, but I respect your point that how we got here doesn't change where we are.
That wasn't what I meant by the "irrelevant" comment. The facts of how we got here are important. I was just dismissing the AC's implication that I might have been led to my conclusion by the persuasion of vested interests who are fighting to maintain the two party system, rather than by analyzing the facts.
I think it's worth supporting third-party candidates for several reasons -- in the hopes that it will eventually build them into viable parties; as a negotiating tactic to get concessions from the major-party candidates; etc.
I'm not sure voting third party for president would accomplish any of that. Perot got a lot of votes and I don't see that it changed much. However, voting third party in local and state elections and trying to build change from the bottom up might work.
But I might be more willing to grit my teeth and vote for Clinton if I lived in a swing state.
I do live in a swing state so I know who I'm voting for.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not picking up a coherent message from the Trump quotes...
Saying it's irrelevant doesn't make it so.
Of course not. You can explain why you think it's relevant if you want. I think whether "people" want me to believe Johnson and Stein have no chance of getting elected is irrelevant because my assessment of the situation is not based on anything coming from people with a vested interest in the outcome of the election. If I had said something like "Clinton's campaign manager said it's down to Clinton or Trump" and that's why I believed that, then yes the fact that that person has an underlying reason to want to persuade people would be relevant. But that isn't the situation.
So now you can see that that isn't a point I don't want to argue, I just didn't consider it worth expounding upon.
You seem to indicate the randomness of a (master) password is very important, even going so far as to claim that a non-random passphrase that you choose yourself "can be figured out", but my understanding is length is far more important than anything else, including randomness. Isn't it true that a meaningful 60 character phrase that isn't at all random (but also not a common string like a popular saying or some such) is much harder for a computer to crack than 30 characters of randomly chosen words?
If anyone's interested, LastPass is very similar to Dashlane from Mike's description. It also supports fingerprint authentication on Android - don't know if Dashlane does. One difference is if you want to synchronize between devices with Dashlane it's $40 a year, but only $12 for LastPass.
Now listen to the podcast and count how many times someone says "like". ;-)
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not picking up a coherent message from the Trump quotes...
And poorly-prepared, obviously.
I suspect you're giving him too much credit. My guess is he didn't prepare at all, because he didn't believe he needed to. And he will believe the same thing before the other debates, and not prepare for those either. After all, admitting he needs to prepare would be admitting that he needs to change something, which would be admitting he didn't do well in the first debate, and that is just not something Trump is capable of. Just a guess though.
Semi-related, but knowing where that quote comes from makes it all sorts of funny every time you bring it up, so thanks for the laughs.
"Maistre therefore argued that the legitimacy of government must be based on compelling but non-rational grounds, which its subjects must not be allowed to question. Maistre went on to argue that authority in politics should therefore derive from religion, and that in Europe this religious authority must ultimately lie with the Pope."
That is amusing! He has also, as far as I'm aware, never responded to any questions about specifics, such as yours about shin kicking and others' about places such as Nazi Germany (did the Jews deserve that government?) or Darfur.
Some crimes with a lower maximum sentence than 33 months (in Florida as an example):
DUI Sale of alcohol to minors Cruelty to animals Battery Failure to report child abuse Exploitation of Minor under 18 (with sexual or obscene motion pictures or presentations) Shoplifting up to $300 Obstructing of justice Highway Shootings at Lights, Signs Etc
So selling bootleg CDs is considered worse than all of those.
Re: Fairness is a social principle worth protecting
Other countries don't enforce queues to the extent the US does.
The Freakonomics blog mentioned this in the context of World Cup matches. The game was between I think Germany and Poland. I might be remembering that wrong. The people from Germany and countries such as the US and the UK would get at the end of the line, while the Polish people (not to disparage them or anything) would go up to the front of the line at the sides, so rather than just getting longer with people added at the end, the line also got wider and wider, with the people following the German model hardly getting any closer to the front as time passed because of all the people coming in from the sides.
They are getting exactly the amount of money they expected, even if it came from arbitrageurs rather than traditional customers.
They're getting the money they expected minus the restocking fees and plus the hassle of constant returns. Some of the returns were of used goods that they couldn't resell but for some reason had to take back anyway.
I can't speak for other people, of course, but the reason I'm not entirely comfortable with the practice is that - so far as I understand matters - there's currently no way for the provider to determine which packets to handle in which way except by inspecting the contents of the packets, so this can't currently be done without violating the neutrality principles at least in concept.
I'm not sure about neutrality but that would certainly be a privacy issue. However, I don't think deep packet inspection would be necessary.
in practice, there can be some degree of flexibility to allow for traffic shaping, so that e.g. data which needs fast response (e.g. realtime communication) can be given lower ping times at the expense of also getting lower throughput.
Do you have any references for how that tradeoff works? Personally I wouldn't mind if ISPs shaped traffic based on type - prioritize latency on streams (this would cover everything from Netflix to VOIP) and gaming, and deprioritize bittorrent, email, etc. if necessary. That gets some peoples' panties in a twist though, not sure why.