With all that's being said about the NSA, and how we should add self-restraint, with all that the government is admitting about the current state of the NSA being bad, why not?
If it's that clear that Snowden did the right thing, why not pardon him? I feel that not pardoning Snowden is roughly equivalent to making a statement that people should be in the dark about the government's spying programs, and that the government should be free to spy on its people, unchecked.
> roughly equivalent to making a statement that people should be in the dark about the government's spying programs, and that the government should be free to spy on its people, unchecked.
That's been the clear attitude of both the Bush and Obama administrations, illustrated through many actions completely unrelated to Snowden.
I understand the potentially precarious position this puts the government in with regards to handling leaks and whistle-blowers in the future but I'm okay with that. Pardon Snowden, pardon (encourage?) future whistle-blowers.
I'm not sure if I am making a mistake, but I couldn't use the command listed in order to clone the repository. I'm using windows, with git installed, and I received the error: "Permission Denied: publickey"
I was able to get everything by looking you up on github and using the url of the repository.
Edit: Also, you might mention the repository earlier, because it's rather large and I've had to break from the book while it downloads.
Why not link them the other way? The article claims that individuals who are stronger physically will try to claim socio-political highground, but it seems much more realistic to me to observe this data and say that people who aren't as competitive or interested in gaining from others don't have the bent to exercise their biceps.
A better experiment for this hypothesis would be to take these original subjects and have some of them adopt an exercise system and others to abandon one. Then test if ideologies actually change as a result of physical strength.
Role models exist for a reason, and that is that we can do our best to be like them. It's not like we're arbitrarily judging character just for the hell of it. I know that I would like a role model that could show how to be a good person and do well in life. The trouble is, exactly as it says in the article, people look up to Steve Jobs and act like dicks because he did the same as was successful. And that doesn't work. And those people will probably never see their dreams through because they have Mr. Jobs, or Thomas Edison, or whoever else as a role model. So it is very important.
How about simply try to find inspiration in different people for their talents and what they've done. Encouraging the idea of role models in the way that you describe "you should be just like him/her" is a little weak minded.
There are lots of not so famous people with great stories where I find inspiration. For example:
The level of 'approximation' involved here would be like making a square that was .0001% too long on one side. You wouldn't be able to tell at all.
The page you listed also says: "There has been an industry trend towards sampling rates well beyond the basic requirements; 96 kHz and even 192 kHz are available.[1] This is in contrast with laboratory experiments, which have failed to show that ultrasonic frequencies are audible to human observers"
The criticisms of these sorts of things are often as unscientific as the original claims. E.g. the fact that humans can't hear 96 KHz doesn't mean that sampling at that rate doesn't make it e.g. easier to design the roll-off filter in the DAC. It doesn't mean it doesn't make it easier to do transformations on the audio like simulated surround. There are a lot of steps between the digital signal on a CD and your ears, and just because your ears can't hear 20 KHz doesn't mean it doesn't make the intermediate steps easier to build.
Renaissance artists didn't do much actual painting. They just sketched what they wanted, mixed colours, and had students do the rest. This is basically the same thing, only with abstract art. If this isn't art, then the renaissance didn't have any artists.
Andy Warhol had a Factory of people working for him too. Damien Hirst does now as well. It's not uncommon at all for artists to do residencies with big name artists. Have you ever had a gallery show? Let alone a whole museum at your disposal to do something with creatively - it's a ton of work, even for a group of people.
I'm agreeing with you though, this is art. Sometimes, so is my mom's cooking.
Exactly my point. Just because someone else is doing the work (or, in this case, something else) doesn't mean that the work isn't the first person's art. And yes, I suppose, anything can be technically art. But this is veritably the same kind of art we've already come to accept.
If it's that clear that Snowden did the right thing, why not pardon him? I feel that not pardoning Snowden is roughly equivalent to making a statement that people should be in the dark about the government's spying programs, and that the government should be free to spy on its people, unchecked.