Hold on a second, this whole controversy suggests that people actually pay attention to "Trending" on Facebook. Whenever I see this mentioned I have to remind myself that this "feature" even exists. Then I remember it is that section on Facebook that has all of those annoying "headlines" that never have anything I am even vaguely interested in.
I understand that Europeans cannot see that the "left-right" divide in the U.S. is completely different than it is in Europe. In Europe the divide is about HOW to use government authority, both sides agree that the government has the authority. In the U.S., the divide is over how much authority the government actually has. A key to understanding this is the 2nd Amendment. In Europe, the government has an absolute monopoly on the use of violence (at least that is the principle under which its governments operate). In the U.S., the 2nd Amendment essentially states that the government does NOT have monopoly on the use of violence, the people have the option of resorting to violence if they are dissatisfied with the job the government is doing (at least that is the theory).
Some years back, Pennsylvania changed its law as to what was taxable. The previous law was confusing, but had been in place long enough that all of the special cases had been worked out. When they changed the law, they created a whole lot of new special cases (juice drinks are not taxed if they are over 10% juice unless they are carbonated, bottled water is not taxed, not even with carbonation, unless it contains sugar, but not artificial sweetener...I am not sure that those are the provisions, but they are that sort of thing, and whether juice drinks are taxable contains a couple of other categories that make over 10% juice taxable). One store owner could not figure out what was, and was not, taxable (some things, which previously were taxable were no non-taxable, and many more which had previously been non-taxable were now taxable), so he decided to just collect sales tax on everything and pay all of that to the state. He was prosecuted for tax fraud.
And who is going to maintain this database? Are they going to be liable when they get it wrong, because they ARE going to get it wrong?
There are states where 123 Main Street SomeWhere, SomeState 12345 has a different set of sales tax rules than 124 Main Street SomeWhere, SomeState 12345 and 125 Main Street SomeWhere, SomeState 12345 has yet a third set of rules.
It is workable for a physical store, they only have to know the rules for the address at which they are located.
Yes, the "unalienable right to bear arms" is pushed by a political agenda...the political agenda who thinks the U.S. Constitution is a pretty good document for governing a country. On the other hand, those who want to do away with that right rarely, if ever, actually come out and SAY what they think of the U.S. Constitution. Which is that it is that it is terrible because it is designed to allow people to live their lives free of government interference. You appear to be one of the latter.
You clearly have no understanding about how the U.S. Constitution came to be. The first Ten Amendments (known as the Bill of Rights) were incorporated into the Constitution in order to overcome some of the opposition to ratifying it. In other words, without the first ten amendments the Constitution would have never been ratified by enough states to go into force. Further, the only reason the Bill of Rights was not included in the Constitution as it came out of the Constitutional Convention was because the bulk of the representatives at the Convention were afraid that the rights thus laid out would be seen as the extent of the rights citizens had, rather than just the most important ones in the eyes of the Framers of the Constitution. Everyone at the Constitutional Convention agreed with the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights, some of them just thought that enumerating them was a bad idea.
Your original post was most certainly a troll, even if it was a call for repeal of the 2nd Amendment, because you were calling out as "ideological thought ahead of reality" someone who said that the idea of requiring "smart" tech on a gun was a bad idea (for most uses of a gun, "smart" tech is a bad idea because it introduces at least one more potential point of failure in a system where failure is life threatening).
It is not an "ideological thought" to believe that the 2nd Amendment says that people have the right to own guns. Which therefore means that it is not an "ideological thought" that one has the constitutional right to own guns.
If you had said that the idea that the 2nd Amendment should not be repealed was an "ideological thought", you would have been correct.
So, in another words, since you believe it to be true, it must be true. I find it highly improbable that such instances are under-reported considering that most news organizations, and most news "reporters", are strongly anti-Second Amendment. My suspicion is that the Gun Fail blog reports every story which is reported to them without making any effort to corroborate those stories (which will result in a significant portion of their stories being, for all intents and purposes, false).
As to gun safety being taught in school, I do indeed remember gun safety being taught. And I recall one aspect of that training being to make sure that those who were too young to know how to handle a gun would be unable to do so (by storing the gun out of their reach, or otherwise so that they could not get to it, and by making sure that you did not leave the gun unattended while it was out of storage). Of course, I attended a school district that closed on the first day of deer season (not because the school wanted to give kids the day off but because a large enough number were going to TAKE the day off that they might as well not try to have classes). Perhaps the problem is that it has been so long since we taught people how to properly handle a gun that we have multiple generations that have never learned proper gun safety (the children of my contemporaries have children).
I am sorry, but what country do you live in where " Around once a day in this country, a child gets their hands on the unsecured and loaded weapon of mom/dad/brother/uncle/aunt/grandparent/etc and kills or wounds someone (or themselves) with it?"
All of articles I was able to find stated that, in the U.S., we have NO idea how often a child accidentally shoots someone because the data is not collected and the data which is collected is so subjective that attempting to find the answer is impossible (basically, our current statistics on what is, and is not, an accidental shooting is subjective...and cannot be otherwise).
Personally, I think the way we could best reduce the number of times that children accidentally shoot someone would be by going back to teaching gun safety in schools.
Others have argued the flaws in your logic. However, the KEY flaw is that "smart" tech is used in current discussions to refer to electronics. By using the word "smart" Obama was clearly referring to some sort of electronics to prevent the gun from firing.
If you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment you are free to propose that. However, stop trying to find ways to make an end run around actually amending the Constitution in the mean time
Because he was one of the people at the first earth day making predictions of doom, he IS a scientist (which means he was one of the people the person I replied to said we should listen to), AND his predictions of doom were based on his "area of expertise". He has repeated his predictions of doom several times, even after his original predictions proved to be completely wrong.
They do not need to control Trump to further the establishment agenda...Trump has the same agenda. The only reason the establishment would prefer someone they can control is so that they can be in the driver's seat, but they will happily settle for Trump.
You are correct that Trump cannot be controlled by the Republican Establishment, but why would they need to control him? He wants what they want and always has. Trump is not at war with the RNC, except in as much as he wants into the club which you normally have to spend years cultivating to become a member.
The Republican Party leaders did NOT want Cruz, they wanted Jeb Bush, or, failing to get Bush, they would have been happy with Marco Rubio. Personally, I think the Republican Party leaders are happier with Trump than they would be with Cruz.
On the other side, you are correct. The Democratic Party leaders wanted Clinton. Bernie was only in the race because they thought he would be a flop, but he would protect Hillary from a more electable left wing challenger. That did not work as planned, but the Dem voters will fall in line once the super delegates give Hillary the nomination.
The only one of those which was/is viewed as having the same personality as its CEO is Oracle.
Of course, all of that misses the primary point I was making, which is that "corporate" does NOT imply that the organizations primary focus is on making a profit.
You are getting confused between "corporate" (an adjective meaning "of, relating to, or formed into a unified body of individuals", which usually implies having a separate identity from the individuals who compose the group) and "corporation" (a noun meaning "a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession").
Although that definition of corporation explains why the use of "corporate" in the headline is appropriate. There is also something to your point. However, no one would have used "corporate" to describe Apple while Steve Jobs was alive because the perceived "personality" of Apple while Steve Jobs was alive was the same as the perceived personality of Steve Jobs.
"Corporate" is the wrong word to use in this case. It implies a separate entity, with financial profit to be made by the owners of said entity.
Which just shows that you do not understand the "corporate". "Corporate" does not imply anything about financial profit. Corporate implies that the organization has an identity independent of any of the people connected with it.
For example, as long as Steve Jobs was alive and running Apple, Apple was not "corporate", because its identity was intrinsically tied to Steve Jobs. For the period of time that Steve Jobs was not at Apple, Apple WAS corporate (becoming "corporate" was part of the reason that Steve Jobs was forced out)
The first mistake people make is in thinking that bureaucracies have top down control. In a bureaucracy, no one individual (or small group of individuals) have control. Ultimately, bureaucracies come into existence to protect people from being held accountable for their actions. Any organization which does not have a strong leader who takes responsibility for the bad things which happen in the organization (and thus holds those most responsible for those bad things accountable) will turn into a bureaucracy. Even an organization with such a leader will become a bureaucracy if they have to delegate decision making too far down the organization from themselves.
One of those scientists you tell me to listen to is Paul Ehrlich. He has made many predictions of doom which have failed to come true. Yet he is still given credence when he makes another prediction of doom, because "scientist".
No, you wouldn't. The thing you are overlooking is that these drugs get into the water supply because humans pee them out. With vanishingly rare exceptions, chemicals which are in human urine do not bio-accumulate. The simple explanation of this is that chemicals which bio-accumulate do not cross the membrane filters used by the kidneys to filter blood and thus stay in the blood.
So, since these drugs do NOT build up in the human body to any significant extent, they will, also, not build up in the bodies of animals.Basically, plants will likely contain ALL of the drugs which they took up from the water for their entire life cycle (from germination to harvest) while animals will only have the drugs which were contained in their last meal or three.
I am not familiar with this individual. However, my experience with such people I have looked into in the past is that they predict 9 of the last 2 catastrophes.
Slashdot Mirror
Hold on a second, this whole controversy suggests that people actually pay attention to "Trending" on Facebook. Whenever I see this mentioned I have to remind myself that this "feature" even exists. Then I remember it is that section on Facebook that has all of those annoying "headlines" that never have anything I am even vaguely interested in.
I understand that Europeans cannot see that the "left-right" divide in the U.S. is completely different than it is in Europe. In Europe the divide is about HOW to use government authority, both sides agree that the government has the authority. In the U.S., the divide is over how much authority the government actually has. A key to understanding this is the 2nd Amendment. In Europe, the government has an absolute monopoly on the use of violence (at least that is the principle under which its governments operate). In the U.S., the 2nd Amendment essentially states that the government does NOT have monopoly on the use of violence, the people have the option of resorting to violence if they are dissatisfied with the job the government is doing (at least that is the theory).
I thought that with Windows 10 you no longer had the option of disabling automatic updates.
Some years back, Pennsylvania changed its law as to what was taxable. The previous law was confusing, but had been in place long enough that all of the special cases had been worked out. When they changed the law, they created a whole lot of new special cases (juice drinks are not taxed if they are over 10% juice unless they are carbonated, bottled water is not taxed, not even with carbonation, unless it contains sugar, but not artificial sweetener...I am not sure that those are the provisions, but they are that sort of thing, and whether juice drinks are taxable contains a couple of other categories that make over 10% juice taxable). One store owner could not figure out what was, and was not, taxable (some things, which previously were taxable were no non-taxable, and many more which had previously been non-taxable were now taxable), so he decided to just collect sales tax on everything and pay all of that to the state. He was prosecuted for tax fraud.
And who is going to maintain this database? Are they going to be liable when they get it wrong, because they ARE going to get it wrong?
There are states where 123 Main Street SomeWhere, SomeState 12345 has a different set of sales tax rules than 124 Main Street SomeWhere, SomeState 12345 and 125 Main Street SomeWhere, SomeState 12345 has yet a third set of rules.
It is workable for a physical store, they only have to know the rules for the address at which they are located.
I'm sorry that is nothing new. Pennsylvania has had a law like that since before I was born (which was before DARPANET existed).
Yes, the "unalienable right to bear arms" is pushed by a political agenda...the political agenda who thinks the U.S. Constitution is a pretty good document for governing a country. On the other hand, those who want to do away with that right rarely, if ever, actually come out and SAY what they think of the U.S. Constitution. Which is that it is that it is terrible because it is designed to allow people to live their lives free of government interference. You appear to be one of the latter.
You clearly have no understanding about how the U.S. Constitution came to be. The first Ten Amendments (known as the Bill of Rights) were incorporated into the Constitution in order to overcome some of the opposition to ratifying it. In other words, without the first ten amendments the Constitution would have never been ratified by enough states to go into force. Further, the only reason the Bill of Rights was not included in the Constitution as it came out of the Constitutional Convention was because the bulk of the representatives at the Convention were afraid that the rights thus laid out would be seen as the extent of the rights citizens had, rather than just the most important ones in the eyes of the Framers of the Constitution. Everyone at the Constitutional Convention agreed with the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights, some of them just thought that enumerating them was a bad idea.
He is saying that if the company does not comply with his orders, it cannot do business within his jurisdiction.
Your original post was most certainly a troll, even if it was a call for repeal of the 2nd Amendment, because you were calling out as "ideological thought ahead of reality" someone who said that the idea of requiring "smart" tech on a gun was a bad idea (for most uses of a gun, "smart" tech is a bad idea because it introduces at least one more potential point of failure in a system where failure is life threatening).
It is not an "ideological thought" to believe that the 2nd Amendment says that people have the right to own guns. Which therefore means that it is not an "ideological thought" that one has the constitutional right to own guns.
If you had said that the idea that the 2nd Amendment should not be repealed was an "ideological thought", you would have been correct.
So, in another words, since you believe it to be true, it must be true. I find it highly improbable that such instances are under-reported considering that most news organizations, and most news "reporters", are strongly anti-Second Amendment. My suspicion is that the Gun Fail blog reports every story which is reported to them without making any effort to corroborate those stories (which will result in a significant portion of their stories being, for all intents and purposes, false).
As to gun safety being taught in school, I do indeed remember gun safety being taught. And I recall one aspect of that training being to make sure that those who were too young to know how to handle a gun would be unable to do so (by storing the gun out of their reach, or otherwise so that they could not get to it, and by making sure that you did not leave the gun unattended while it was out of storage). Of course, I attended a school district that closed on the first day of deer season (not because the school wanted to give kids the day off but because a large enough number were going to TAKE the day off that they might as well not try to have classes). Perhaps the problem is that it has been so long since we taught people how to properly handle a gun that we have multiple generations that have never learned proper gun safety (the children of my contemporaries have children).
I am sorry, but what country do you live in where " Around once a day in this country, a child gets their hands on the unsecured and loaded weapon of mom/dad/brother/uncle/aunt/grandparent/etc and kills or wounds someone (or themselves) with it?"
All of articles I was able to find stated that, in the U.S., we have NO idea how often a child accidentally shoots someone because the data is not collected and the data which is collected is so subjective that attempting to find the answer is impossible (basically, our current statistics on what is, and is not, an accidental shooting is subjective...and cannot be otherwise).
Personally, I think the way we could best reduce the number of times that children accidentally shoot someone would be by going back to teaching gun safety in schools.
Others have argued the flaws in your logic. However, the KEY flaw is that "smart" tech is used in current discussions to refer to electronics. By using the word "smart" Obama was clearly referring to some sort of electronics to prevent the gun from firing.
If you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment you are free to propose that. However, stop trying to find ways to make an end run around actually amending the Constitution in the mean time
Because he was one of the people at the first earth day making predictions of doom, he IS a scientist (which means he was one of the people the person I replied to said we should listen to), AND his predictions of doom were based on his "area of expertise". He has repeated his predictions of doom several times, even after his original predictions proved to be completely wrong.
They do not need to control Trump to further the establishment agenda...Trump has the same agenda. The only reason the establishment would prefer someone they can control is so that they can be in the driver's seat, but they will happily settle for Trump.
You are correct that Trump cannot be controlled by the Republican Establishment, but why would they need to control him? He wants what they want and always has. Trump is not at war with the RNC, except in as much as he wants into the club which you normally have to spend years cultivating to become a member.
The Republican Party leaders did NOT want Cruz, they wanted Jeb Bush, or, failing to get Bush, they would have been happy with Marco Rubio. Personally, I think the Republican Party leaders are happier with Trump than they would be with Cruz.
On the other side, you are correct. The Democratic Party leaders wanted Clinton. Bernie was only in the race because they thought he would be a flop, but he would protect Hillary from a more electable left wing challenger. That did not work as planned, but the Dem voters will fall in line once the super delegates give Hillary the nomination.
The only one of those which was/is viewed as having the same personality as its CEO is Oracle.
Of course, all of that misses the primary point I was making, which is that "corporate" does NOT imply that the organizations primary focus is on making a profit.
You are getting confused between "corporate" (an adjective meaning "of, relating to, or formed into a unified body of individuals", which usually implies having a separate identity from the individuals who compose the group) and "corporation" (a noun meaning "a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession").
Although that definition of corporation explains why the use of "corporate" in the headline is appropriate. There is also something to your point. However, no one would have used "corporate" to describe Apple while Steve Jobs was alive because the perceived "personality" of Apple while Steve Jobs was alive was the same as the perceived personality of Steve Jobs.
"Corporate" is the wrong word to use in this case. It implies a separate entity, with financial profit to be made by the owners of said entity.
Which just shows that you do not understand the "corporate". "Corporate" does not imply anything about financial profit. Corporate implies that the organization has an identity independent of any of the people connected with it. For example, as long as Steve Jobs was alive and running Apple, Apple was not "corporate", because its identity was intrinsically tied to Steve Jobs. For the period of time that Steve Jobs was not at Apple, Apple WAS corporate (becoming "corporate" was part of the reason that Steve Jobs was forced out)
The first mistake people make is in thinking that bureaucracies have top down control. In a bureaucracy, no one individual (or small group of individuals) have control. Ultimately, bureaucracies come into existence to protect people from being held accountable for their actions. Any organization which does not have a strong leader who takes responsibility for the bad things which happen in the organization (and thus holds those most responsible for those bad things accountable) will turn into a bureaucracy. Even an organization with such a leader will become a bureaucracy if they have to delegate decision making too far down the organization from themselves.
One of those scientists you tell me to listen to is Paul Ehrlich. He has made many predictions of doom which have failed to come true. Yet he is still given credence when he makes another prediction of doom, because "scientist".
No, you wouldn't. The thing you are overlooking is that these drugs get into the water supply because humans pee them out. With vanishingly rare exceptions, chemicals which are in human urine do not bio-accumulate. The simple explanation of this is that chemicals which bio-accumulate do not cross the membrane filters used by the kidneys to filter blood and thus stay in the blood.
So, since these drugs do NOT build up in the human body to any significant extent, they will, also, not build up in the bodies of animals.Basically, plants will likely contain ALL of the drugs which they took up from the water for their entire life cycle (from germination to harvest) while animals will only have the drugs which were contained in their last meal or three.
I am not familiar with this individual. However, my experience with such people I have looked into in the past is that they predict 9 of the last 2 catastrophes.