Did you not read the last half of my statement. A commercial entity can totally discriminate based on political views. Or speech.
Now, I'd be in favor of passing laws limiting that, because privately owned communications channels are going to screw us some day.. But right now, it certainly seems legal
Here I mean "qualified" as in "capable of doing the job". Suppose someone has an IQ of 60. Does that not suggest that the person is unqualified. You think the news should have to present the dry number to people and shut up? Can they tell you that's classified as mentally retarded in your world? Can they tell you a person with an IQ of 60 will be unable to handle the job effectively? What about the expert who explains that the candidate grew up in a home speaking Spanish, and therefore the majority of that score is due to linguistic biases in the test and their real IQ is probably 150?
What about if their opponent says that they are really only 34, or born in Canada, or born in Kenya. Certainly, it's a fact that someone said it. But what that person said may not be true.
Facts are rarely cut and dried. In science, they can be, but numbers have to be interpreted. Sometimes the explanations are counter-intuitive (it's colder in New England because of, not in spite of, global warming).
. Gone are the days when you heard the news anchors recite the facts of the day, letting you know what new laws were adopted, who did what, anything notable that happened, and who died
Facts aren't cut and dried. They have context. They have spin. If the budget raises $1b, that can be a 1% increase, a $1b increase, a deficit increase of $1b, an increase per taxpayer of $3.00, or any other number of framings. Choosing what context is highlighted involves biasing decisions.
For instance, is putting live fact checking up when a political candidate is giving a speech "just the facts". Is omitting fact checking and allowing a lie to be unchallenged "just the facts". Is cutting the speech off when lies start "just the facts".
On the totally other side, suppose only one candidate, Candidate X, is qualified for the office. Is saying so not a fact?
Obama is not their boss. I mean, he appointed them, but he doesn't really have any ongoing power to use. Congress can defund their Koreig. Trump can reappoint them. Obama can just wave to them in the hall.
Will they grow out of it as their lives get busier and they become wiser with their time and money?
I doubt it's really an age-based thing. My assumption is some people object to trading privacy, and some do not. It doesn't seem to correlate to age (my father freely tells Google everything he does.)
I will say, that individuals are going to evaluate the tradeoff of Pay Money vs. Pay Privacy differently as they earn more money, as they grow into their careers.
Although, frankly, there are only a few times when consumer habits are re-evaluated. (E.g. moving, marriage, becoming a parent, career change). Absent those, people tend to make the same purchasing decisions they made before.
A hobbyist baker does not have to bake a cake for anyone. A commercial baker may not refuse service due to ethnicity (black), religion (Hindu), country of origin (Syrian), disabled status (dwarf). They may refuse service based on political affiliation, but that rarely comes up. Note, these are based on US federal laws, some states have stricter laws.
A few years ago... I pointed out that the year wasn't over and it is quite possible to have an unusually cold November and December to average it out.
Must have been 2011, which due to La Nina was the coolest year on record in this century. Note, that the Novembers since then represent the 5th, 1st, 7th, and 1st hottest Novembers on record. (Plus whatever happens this year)
Now we see people not even waiting until the year starts to make such predictions
Like 11 of the last 12 months were the hottest of (that month) on record. Is that just crazy?
Except corporations sell their data about you to the government. And teh fact that it's their data about you, not your data, means there are no 4th amendment violations.
And you don't really control what data corporations gather about you. They've successfully turned so many people into willing informants that they primarily collect what other people post about you. Even if you're an avid facebook user, what you post is never going to give facebook as much data as your friend graph and the data it has on your friends.
It seems more likely, even obvious, that the "people with plenty" will simply invest slightly more of their excess in protecting themselves from the angry losers.
These people aren't picking up pitchforks. They're voting for Trump. Trump is a force for change. I don't think anyone will dispute that.
. Even if your mob overruns my machine gun nest, the wealthy estate protected by the machine gun will probably get burned down in the melee, so everyone winds up with nothing.
And nothing is what they have now. That's a very bad result for you, and a pretty status quo result for them.
My money would be on America under Trump to become more like Russia than vice versa.
Quite possibly. Russia has a huge income disparity (although so does the US). But income disparity is usually less interesting than wealth disparity. I mean, Putin's friend/official violin player had millions of dollars socked away overseas.
I don't think their strategy is "create chaos, chaos leads to goodness" I think their strategy is "create chaos, people with plenty will put pressure on government to share resources more equitably to stop having these guys wanting to create chaos". So less entropy, more MAD
This is the main argument given for regulation - safety - think of the children!!
I never mentioned safety as a goal. I talked about fewer collisions lowering the costs of travel. Which is totally a thing.
And, they put in roundabouts sometimes. But the space requirements are really prohibitive. The areas where we have tons of space (say the country) they put up a stop sign. The areas with tons of traffic have crazy high property values.
I understood your point. I don't think you understood mine.
The critical voting bloc is the angry losers who rallied around Trump because they think he is going to make some radical changes and they are going to benefit from them
Those people are losing right now in America. And they're willing to take big risks to be "not losing". Your "solution" of mocking them is pretty useless. They're going to be taking bigger and bigger risks until they're not losing. So, by all means, we need to make sure we take care of out of work coal miners whose towns are drying up. People who are 50 and cannot get work. Because, until we do, they're going to take chances with our country til it blows up or they catch up.
And yes, the nice thing is we will have major infrastructure projects.
Are you counting federal subsidies (ala Tesla)? Are you counting water rights (for almond farmers)? Are you counting on the indirect value of the US military enforcing their copyrights/patents/other IP? Are you counting access to US customers for internet applications?
I mean, honestly, if the rest of the US was pissed at California, it would be easy to modify copyright law to cripple their content industries, put firewalls around their state to deny them most of their internet revenues, cut off the water so So Cal dried up, etc.
Requiring "Net neutrality" requires regulation which by definition limits freedom.
By definition, regulation limits some freedoms. It's certainly possible for it to unlock more freedoms. For example, the regulation of "don't run red lights" dramatically reduces the risk of collisions, leading to cheaper transportation, and therefore more freedom of travel than the regulation removed.
Alt-Right has the Trump card and they are going to play it hard until the rest of us drown.... [On Trump's Supporters] of course no one really cares about losers, especially losers who were stupid enough to believe silly promises for a vote
If they really are losing, if they really already have very little to lose and you have so much to lose, "share or there's a 50-50 chance of the world ending" is a reasonable ultimatum. If Trump doesn't get it done, expect them to up it to a 60-40 chance with his successor.
one electoral vote is awarded to the winner of each Congressional district.
Fix gerrymandering, and we can talk. As of now, the vast majority of seats are locked to one party or the other. Think swing states are bad, wait til we focus on swing districts.
The purpose of the electoral college is so someone in podunkville's vote counts for more than someone in NYC's. Because, frankly, different states have different industries and needs, and the all need to be represented. If we had a majority rule system, there would be a tyranny of the majority.
Why do we level the playing field between rural and urban, but not along any other axes?
I'd say that the urban/rural divide is more important than a demographic one for a couple of reasons. The rural group is more likely to have and continue to have distinct policy preferences, and there is a larger divide between living in a rural area and urban areas.
Also, it's historic. The only reason rural areas agreed to join the US was that they wouldn't be bullied by the urban areas. We cannot change the deal once made (esp. since 3/4 of states have to agree on an amendment)
Slashdot Mirror
No. Not unless the price for competing phones rise. Or Samsung phones keep blowing up.
People who took a single course in economics and think cellphones are a perfectly competitive industry will disagree.
Did you not read the last half of my statement. A commercial entity can totally discriminate based on political views. Or speech.
Now, I'd be in favor of passing laws limiting that, because privately owned communications channels are going to screw us some day.. But right now, it certainly seems legal
Here I mean "qualified" as in "capable of doing the job". Suppose someone has an IQ of 60. Does that not suggest that the person is unqualified. You think the news should have to present the dry number to people and shut up? Can they tell you that's classified as mentally retarded in your world? Can they tell you a person with an IQ of 60 will be unable to handle the job effectively? What about the expert who explains that the candidate grew up in a home speaking Spanish, and therefore the majority of that score is due to linguistic biases in the test and their real IQ is probably 150?
What about if their opponent says that they are really only 34, or born in Canada, or born in Kenya. Certainly, it's a fact that someone said it. But what that person said may not be true.
Facts are rarely cut and dried. In science, they can be, but numbers have to be interpreted. Sometimes the explanations are counter-intuitive (it's colder in New England because of, not in spite of, global warming).
Facts aren't cut and dried. They have context. They have spin. If the budget raises $1b, that can be a 1% increase, a $1b increase, a deficit increase of $1b, an increase per taxpayer of $3.00, or any other number of framings. Choosing what context is highlighted involves biasing decisions.
For instance, is putting live fact checking up when a political candidate is giving a speech "just the facts". Is omitting fact checking and allowing a lie to be unchallenged "just the facts". Is cutting the speech off when lies start "just the facts".
On the totally other side, suppose only one candidate, Candidate X, is qualified for the office. Is saying so not a fact?
Obama is not their boss. I mean, he appointed them, but he doesn't really have any ongoing power to use. Congress can defund their Koreig. Trump can reappoint them. Obama can just wave to them in the hall.
Snapchat has already rejected a couple of buyout offers from FB. IIRC, what they turned down was similar to the total IPO amount.
I doubt it's really an age-based thing. My assumption is some people object to trading privacy, and some do not. It doesn't seem to correlate to age (my father freely tells Google everything he does.)
I will say, that individuals are going to evaluate the tradeoff of Pay Money vs. Pay Privacy differently as they earn more money, as they grow into their careers.
Although, frankly, there are only a few times when consumer habits are re-evaluated. (E.g. moving, marriage, becoming a parent, career change). Absent those, people tend to make the same purchasing decisions they made before.
A hobbyist baker does not have to bake a cake for anyone. A commercial baker may not refuse service due to ethnicity (black), religion (Hindu), country of origin (Syrian), disabled status (dwarf). They may refuse service based on political affiliation, but that rarely comes up. Note, these are based on US federal laws, some states have stricter laws.
That's pretty vague. Without more information (name of bar, description of why epic) I doubt your story is true.
Must have been 2011, which due to La Nina was the coolest year on record in this century. Note, that the Novembers since then represent the 5th, 1st, 7th, and 1st hottest Novembers on record. (Plus whatever happens this year)
Like 11 of the last 12 months were the hottest of (that month) on record. Is that just crazy?
Except corporations sell their data about you to the government. And teh fact that it's their data about you, not your data, means there are no 4th amendment violations.
And you don't really control what data corporations gather about you. They've successfully turned so many people into willing informants that they primarily collect what other people post about you. Even if you're an avid facebook user, what you post is never going to give facebook as much data as your friend graph and the data it has on your friends.
What: $100; Where: Nevada outside Las Vegas.
Sites require FB?
These people aren't picking up pitchforks. They're voting for Trump. Trump is a force for change. I don't think anyone will dispute that.
And nothing is what they have now. That's a very bad result for you, and a pretty status quo result for them.
Quite possibly. Russia has a huge income disparity (although so does the US). But income disparity is usually less interesting than wealth disparity. I mean, Putin's friend/official violin player had millions of dollars socked away overseas.
I don't think their strategy is "create chaos, chaos leads to goodness" I think their strategy is "create chaos, people with plenty will put pressure on government to share resources more equitably to stop having these guys wanting to create chaos". So less entropy, more MAD
I never mentioned safety as a goal. I talked about fewer collisions lowering the costs of travel. Which is totally a thing.
And, they put in roundabouts sometimes. But the space requirements are really prohibitive. The areas where we have tons of space (say the country) they put up a stop sign. The areas with tons of traffic have crazy high property values.
I understood your point. I don't think you understood mine.
Those people are losing right now in America. And they're willing to take big risks to be "not losing". Your "solution" of mocking them is pretty useless. They're going to be taking bigger and bigger risks until they're not losing. So, by all means, we need to make sure we take care of out of work coal miners whose towns are drying up. People who are 50 and cannot get work. Because, until we do, they're going to take chances with our country til it blows up or they catch up.
And yes, the nice thing is we will have major infrastructure projects.
Are you counting federal subsidies (ala Tesla)? Are you counting water rights (for almond farmers)? Are you counting on the indirect value of the US military enforcing their copyrights/patents/other IP? Are you counting access to US customers for internet applications?
I mean, honestly, if the rest of the US was pissed at California, it would be easy to modify copyright law to cripple their content industries, put firewalls around their state to deny them most of their internet revenues, cut off the water so So Cal dried up, etc.
By definition, regulation limits some freedoms. It's certainly possible for it to unlock more freedoms. For example, the regulation of "don't run red lights" dramatically reduces the risk of collisions, leading to cheaper transportation, and therefore more freedom of travel than the regulation removed.
If they really are losing, if they really already have very little to lose and you have so much to lose, "share or there's a 50-50 chance of the world ending" is a reasonable ultimatum. If Trump doesn't get it done, expect them to up it to a 60-40 chance with his successor.
Fix gerrymandering, and we can talk. As of now, the vast majority of seats are locked to one party or the other. Think swing states are bad, wait til we focus on swing districts.
In Maine and Nebraska it's not.
Except they are cheaper to reach, so it weighing them the same would lead to the city's having more power
The purpose of the electoral college is so someone in podunkville's vote counts for more than someone in NYC's. Because, frankly, different states have different industries and needs, and the all need to be represented. If we had a majority rule system, there would be a tyranny of the majority.