What Trump needs is someone with the right kind of foreign policy and defense gravitas to come out against Hillary's handling of Benghazi.
I'm thinking Dick Cheney might be the perfect person. He and Bush never made any blunders close to the magnitude of Hillary saying (for a day or two) afterwards that Benghazi might have been the tied to an anti Islamic video that was causing protests elsewhere in the middle east. .
In a way I really do feel a little sorry for the folks who have their hopes up about Trump (not that they aren't assholes for wanting him to be President).
I just feel bad that they are investing so much hope in his winning when it's so close to impossible. Can you imagine the ranting and whining we're going to be hearing from TPB after Trump loses ?
On a mostly unrelated note, I sometimes entertain a conspiracy theory that Trump has simply been a part of the banks plan to get Hillary in. And that they also have a back up plan for ways to profit massively in the off chance that Trump wins.
Funny, they think it's really cool to disrupt and ruin a talk about what SJWs and feminists are doing at many universities these days and then when someone videos their moronic antics, they cry cyberbullying because they are ashamed of their own behavior.
This kind of thing, and the whole transsexuals in girls bathrooms issue couldn't have been designed to make the left look more stupid if it had been planned in detail by right wingers.
I'm not going to judge her for fashion choices that make her look like most of the young people these days that are trying too hard to be cool. I wonderer what TPB looked like back when he was trying i to look cool. I'm guessing a mullet was involved. Just a guess.
In any case, I will judge her art. I'd say she's pretty talented.
Maybe when they were teenagers. Maybe it was just the drugs talking. Boomers are the Original Yuppies and espoused "Greed is good" as they came out of their psychedelic haze into their careers.
You don't get what I said. I'm not generalizing. And such generalizations are silly. Yes, boomers were the original me generation. What I'm saying is that there were a higher percentage that chose career paths that were not about money. And I'm not giving them credit for that. I'm saying it was economically possible.
But only a total idiot would blame boomers for the way the economy has changed. Its primarily a combination of 2 factors. The natural tendencies of capitalism when unchecked, and globalization. I guess add women joining the workforce as a third. I don't blame boomers as a group for any of these. But sure, the times were better for them in some ways.
I was most certain that he was going amnesty all of the illegal aliens inspite of his campaign rehtoric. Trump is a decent person, and I don't think that was intention to just build and expel.
SO you're saying you found the way that Trump lies especially to your liking. I assume this means you were impressed by the way that he manipulated the masses with his lies, while you actually assumed with some certainty that he would do the opposite of what he said he was going to do. His lies were all about getting support from the racists and the xenophobes, and there are so many of them, that hey, let's face it, it was brilliant.
I can see the benefit, if it works. What if it's a combination of likes on the original post for news type posts/threads, but then for discussion type argument threads (which might appear elsewhere under a title of discussions or something, base it on how active it is with some algorithm that's not just number of posts in the past our, but some combination of that with the number of views or other way to automatically rise interesting and or active discussions to the top.
Maybe not exactly like reddit. But I don't blame Patrick for trying things to get it to go to a higher user level. Maybe not just anything for that. I think it's totally possible that at some point this site blows up to a much higher traffic level. And that it's some couple of tweaks that cause it, maybe combined with when it's blowing up anyway.
But even though the discussion/argument part of the site hasn't blown up to be monetized, don't kill that. Who knows, maybe it will be some strange political environment that causes Patrick.net to blow up, when a lot of people want to discuss something that's going on, in much the way they were originally discussing the R. E. bubble.
Just another sign that hate is destroying this country.
Why should I be surprised that a Trump supporting racist xenophobe with daddy issues also wants to generalize blame for his problems on to boomers..
It's true that boomers had it great. But that's not a reason to blame them or to hate on them. Unless mindless hate is your thing. Try to get a little more specific with your blame. Who knows, maybe you could be someone who makes a minute difference yourself. Unlike too many typical Americans that were born during any specific window of time you want to consider.
Were a larger percentage of boomers self involved and only concerned about themselves than younger generations ? Probably not. Precisely because they had it better economically. That gave more of them the freedom to take other paths. In fact, way more boomers thought that making money should not be the priority of career than those born a couple decades later.
But sure it's also true there are just a lot of them, and some are now Trump supporters with views of the world not unlike Thunderlips. It takes all kinds.
They will have to wait for a new generation to believe their lies.
And yet rednecks in fly over country continue to believe that Obamacare is a failure in every way, that Obama is the worst President ever, and that tax cuts for the rich are the key solution to all of our problems.
So any AI system capable of considering a sentence as simple as "This sentence is false" IS inconsistent.
So you are telling me to remove axioms and I'll be fine? Seriously? Which basic fact about arithmetic do you want to remove from such AI system because of this inconsistency????
No, what I told you is that you aren't going to have inconsistencies. Teaching a computer how to deal with absurdities is simple and beside the point.
I see that you're back to confusing Godel's method of proof with what the proof implies. The proof only implies something very simple and straight forward: that a system can not be both consistent and complete. It does not say that the only way in which such inconsistencies arise as the system becomes more complete (meaning as more axioms and theorems are added to cover the infinite directions and lengths to which you can go starting from the initial axioms) is with such absurd statements.
Maybe the issue is you don't get what complete means in this context ?
A system does not have to be anything close to complete to deal with the set of problems you are going to use it for. Or to prove what you set out to prove.
If you are going to have a computer do something useful such as proving the four color theorem, you are going to have precise definitions and some basic axioms and theorem of geometry that are consistent that were used in coming up with the proof. (actually most of the consistent basics of plane geometry are accepted and not really even addressed in such a proof). Also, I know that in that example the people did the proof simply using a computer under their guidance.
I have to stop. Either I am missing something or you don't really have a point to make that I understand. We're
going in circles, and you want to get your point across without really attempting to understand what I'm saying. I believe I understand what you're saying. We're talking at eachother. Maybe I'm right but you're saying something else ? Or maybe I'm wrong, and you can't explain why ?
No, if an inconsistency exists, you have too many axioms. Make do with fewer axioms and have a useful system that is consistent.
If you then run across something that's interesting and clearly true, and you can't prove it with existing axioms and theorems, and you want to make it an additional axiom, or you want to add some other primitive axiom that will allow you to prove this, but that new axiom leads to inconsistencies elsewhere, then don't add the axiom. Stick with fewer axioms, but a consistent system.
maybe the word trivial needs to be added: "If you then run across something trivial,that's interesting and clearly true"
Trivial, meaning it's not going to impact the usefulness of the system. It's not going to effect your computer program.
THe only thing I can see from Trump is more hate. He appeals to haters. A lot of people hate and fear him. He incites hate and fear against Mexicans, Muslims, and China. The haters love him. People that usually don't get into hate, hate him.