I don't think a lot of intelligence comes from the "climate change is a hoax" side. That side relies on politics and religion to drive what they think. Obviously climate change can't be real, because the Bible says so, or it can't be real because it will mean the free market isn't the best solution to all problems, or it can't be real because I saw a Youtube video that said it wasn't.
Granted, there are those who believe in climate change who have not done the science either and are just parroting what their peer group says. I would however give them more credence for at least defaulting to what the majority of scientists think is likely as opposed to defaulting to what a few conspiracy theory politicians think.
Oh, so then we dump all of science and mathematics, because so far we've NEVER been right the first seven times. When you let politics drive your science then you've given up and thinking.
Generally easements are done with a legal process, if you can afford it. Eminent domain comes when the owner hasn't come to a sales agreement quickly enough for the government. For the wall, and a few other things, the feds can say "this is so vitally important we're just going to take it and later decide to pay you what we decide it was worth to you". It bypasses a lot of normal eminent domain processes unless you get lawyered up. And the government is going to say "this is a strip of desert so it's worth $2.50 an acre".Some lawsuits from Dubya's use of eminent domain to build parts of the wall are still ongoing. Usually eminent domain takes land from poor people who can't afford pesky lawyers. Freeways don't go through the middle of the rich enclaves. Eminent domain also must be approved by congress as well.
You can bypass for a national emergency, which Trump seemed to hint at, but we're not at war or imminent war so the statute covering this couldn't be used (Trump seems to read a lot of Junior high School Level civics texts then explains stuff to the public as if they don't already know it, "not a lot of people know this, but...").
There's a problem with just declaring a "national emergency". The snag is that when parties change power, the new parties retain the power. It's the height of naivete to assume your favorite party will be in power forever (which Newt learned too late). Thus the next presidency of... Bernie? could then use those power as well. Giving the presidency too much power is a terrible thing, no matter which party it is.
Finally, for those with a real conservative mind set, eminent domain is anathema. It violates their sacred view of private property. Libertarians would explode at the idea of a government seizing private property by force. At the very least if Trump uses Eminent domain through Texas he's going to lose a lot of supporters, especially the more ideological and educated side of his base (which he may not care about to be honest).
Before any of the walls, migrants would cross at convenient places. Well known routes. But there was a big push in the 80s and 90s to beef up border monitoring and funnel that migrants into the desert. The goal, which was not even kept that secret, was that the harshness of the desert and all the deaths there would be a discouragement to crossing the border. In other words, the politicians deciding on this wanted some migrants to die for what is essentially a low level economic crime.
However this didn't work, people still make the crossing despite all the known risks. Today most of the big waves are not trying to cross in the desert, they're trying to get themselves turned in and apply legally for amnesty and refugee status. First thing they're doing is to find a border guard. They're not MS13 and they're not drug smugglers.
HPV is not harmless. It is harmless to many people but harmful to some. Just like measles doesn't kill most people, even though it does kill a large number.
Antivaxxers are stupid in the sense that they are more believing in fringe conspiracies than in science, and that they feel good about their rejection of science. Many of them don't just stop at "it's possibly harmless" and head straight into woo-woo land of thinking that vaccines are a government plot. It's one thing to be raised in a religious culture that rejects modern medicine, that's just ignorance and culture, but it's just blatantly stupid to reject your own education and the huge preponderance of science to reject this because of some unverified post on the internet.
Sheesh, at least the flat-earthers are entertaining because they're harmless, whereas the anti-vaxxers are dangerous.
You don't need to bring politics into this, your agenda of trying to prove that those leaning left are stupid falls on its face because there are plenty of examples of idiots of every political stripe.
Remember, Microsoft is still pushing Internet Explorer. It was included in Windows 10, they advise using it instead of Edge sometimes. In no way has Microsoft pulled the plug on Internet Explorer yet. It's just that it's a dysfunctional company that no longer has internal communications.
When ActiveX started being the fad (only a fad on Windows that is), Javascript was still highly obscure (it is entirely unrelated to Java guys). So the mainframe people were not too jaded to learn Javascript as the earlier posted hinted. The real reason possibly is that the mainframe people were so used to the idea of "IBM is never wrong" that they revised their misconception into tbhe "Microsoft is never wrong" misconception. Meanwhile, people over on other platforms were saying "what the hell" from the very first announcement about ActiveX.
Why stop there? Disable all trade outside of a normal walking distance. Why should I in California have to deal with products made with substandard wages in Alabama? Why should Broward County have to deal with imports from Dade county? Why should the Bronx have to deal with uppity Manhattan?
The FTC historically has never done much, it's pretty much toothless. This is why the anti-government crowd prefers having the FTC have jurisdiction rather than other departments with a better record at effectiveness.
However in the past they weren't as stringently religious about the "free market can solve everything" cult we have today. Profit was always important but it was also expected that the government itself was not in the profit business, at least as an ideal.
Telecoms make more money, public pension funds that invest in telecoms make more money, therefore the public benefits! (Wow, that was too easy, I didn't realize I had the evil in me.)
However ads are dangerous and lead to other issues. Once there are ads the company will now want to have targeted ads to maximize income, or just add more and more ads to maximize income, outsourcing the ads to a third party that they can't control, etc. On computers these ad services are main vector for malware.
An online music service should theoretically be better for the consumer than the radio in the automobile. There we are allowed to changed the station instantly when an ad comes on and we're not being tracked by what stations we prefer.
True, this is a war. Whenever the consumers develop tools and techniques to defend themselves, the advertisers will come up with new weapons to get their ads through. Ten year old methods of defending yourself no longer do much. Even adblock is somewhat ineffective because everything is happening with scripts these days. The web should never have been allowed to become a platform for applications.
Don't limit this to advertisers and Facebook. Any web site or application or company that relies on advertising for revenue or for getting a sliver more profit is also relinquishing their responsibility to protect their customers. Advertising is not harmless.
The do-not-call had the force of law behind it. Technically, it still does. There were exceptions made for political oriented phone calls, which is why for awhile those dominated most of the phone spam. Later on just about everything came back to spamming on the phone because there was zero enforcement. The mobile phone used to be the safe place after the land line was overwhelmed with spam, because only the land line showed up in the phone book (ie, if you want a list of people in Des Moines to market to). Later the mobile carriers started selling this data, so for the last two years my mobile phone in inundated and I never answer it either.
The logistics behind it all have made enforcement impractical. There's no way you as an individual know who the originating caller is, you don't even know what number the call came from because they're faking the phone numbers, so you can't report them to the do not call registry people. And these are inevitably from out of the country and are the Feds really going to bother to try to track this down and prosecute? Even calls from within the country are masked well enough that figuring out the originator is incredibly difficult. And the phone companies Do Not Care about this, they're not losing any money by this happening and any attempt to increase your privacy will only decrease their revenues.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think a lot of intelligence comes from the "climate change is a hoax" side. That side relies on politics and religion to drive what they think. Obviously climate change can't be real, because the Bible says so, or it can't be real because it will mean the free market isn't the best solution to all problems, or it can't be real because I saw a Youtube video that said it wasn't.
Granted, there are those who believe in climate change who have not done the science either and are just parroting what their peer group says. I would however give them more credence for at least defaulting to what the majority of scientists think is likely as opposed to defaulting to what a few conspiracy theory politicians think.
Oh, so then we dump all of science and mathematics, because so far we've NEVER been right the first seven times. When you let politics drive your science then you've given up and thinking.
But why build in the US then? Is Musk afraid of building the launch site further south?
Eventually you get enough wall sunk into the ground that it becomes solid!
Generally easements are done with a legal process, if you can afford it. Eminent domain comes when the owner hasn't come to a sales agreement quickly enough for the government. For the wall, and a few other things, the feds can say "this is so vitally important we're just going to take it and later decide to pay you what we decide it was worth to you". It bypasses a lot of normal eminent domain processes unless you get lawyered up. And the government is going to say "this is a strip of desert so it's worth $2.50 an acre".Some lawsuits from Dubya's use of eminent domain to build parts of the wall are still ongoing. Usually eminent domain takes land from poor people who can't afford pesky lawyers. Freeways don't go through the middle of the rich enclaves. Eminent domain also must be approved by congress as well.
You can bypass for a national emergency, which Trump seemed to hint at, but we're not at war or imminent war so the statute covering this couldn't be used (Trump seems to read a lot of Junior high School Level civics texts then explains stuff to the public as if they don't already know it, "not a lot of people know this, but...").
There's a problem with just declaring a "national emergency". The snag is that when parties change power, the new parties retain the power. It's the height of naivete to assume your favorite party will be in power forever (which Newt learned too late). Thus the next presidency of... Bernie? could then use those power as well. Giving the presidency too much power is a terrible thing, no matter which party it is.
Finally, for those with a real conservative mind set, eminent domain is anathema. It violates their sacred view of private property. Libertarians would explode at the idea of a government seizing private property by force. At the very least if Trump uses Eminent domain through Texas he's going to lose a lot of supporters, especially the more ideological and educated side of his base (which he may not care about to be honest).
Before any of the walls, migrants would cross at convenient places. Well known routes. But there was a big push in the 80s and 90s to beef up border monitoring and funnel that migrants into the desert. The goal, which was not even kept that secret, was that the harshness of the desert and all the deaths there would be a discouragement to crossing the border. In other words, the politicians deciding on this wanted some migrants to die for what is essentially a low level economic crime.
However this didn't work, people still make the crossing despite all the known risks. Today most of the big waves are not trying to cross in the desert, they're trying to get themselves turned in and apply legally for amnesty and refugee status. First thing they're doing is to find a border guard. They're not MS13 and they're not drug smugglers.
You know, if we put the wall at the Canadian border, we could cover both borders for the price of one!
It makes sense. Only a few programmers program for the web. But most programmers can make use of data analysis and scripting.
HPV is not harmless. It is harmless to many people but harmful to some. Just like measles doesn't kill most people, even though it does kill a large number.
Antivaxxers are stupid in the sense that they are more believing in fringe conspiracies than in science, and that they feel good about their rejection of science. Many of them don't just stop at "it's possibly harmless" and head straight into woo-woo land of thinking that vaccines are a government plot. It's one thing to be raised in a religious culture that rejects modern medicine, that's just ignorance and culture, but it's just blatantly stupid to reject your own education and the huge preponderance of science to reject this because of some unverified post on the internet.
Sheesh, at least the flat-earthers are entertaining because they're harmless, whereas the anti-vaxxers are dangerous.
So 12% versus 10% is enough of a difference to conclude "mostly liberals"?
You don't need to bring politics into this, your agenda of trying to prove that those leaning left are stupid falls on its face because there are plenty of examples of idiots of every political stripe.
Remember, Microsoft is still pushing Internet Explorer. It was included in Windows 10, they advise using it instead of Edge sometimes. In no way has Microsoft pulled the plug on Internet Explorer yet. It's just that it's a dysfunctional company that no longer has internal communications.
When ActiveX started being the fad (only a fad on Windows that is), Javascript was still highly obscure (it is entirely unrelated to Java guys). So the mainframe people were not too jaded to learn Javascript as the earlier posted hinted. The real reason possibly is that the mainframe people were so used to the idea of "IBM is never wrong" that they revised their misconception into tbhe "Microsoft is never wrong" misconception. Meanwhile, people over on other platforms were saying "what the hell" from the very first announcement about ActiveX.
Why stop there? Disable all trade outside of a normal walking distance. Why should I in California have to deal with products made with substandard wages in Alabama? Why should Broward County have to deal with imports from Dade county? Why should the Bronx have to deal with uppity Manhattan?
The FTC historically has never done much, it's pretty much toothless. This is why the anti-government crowd prefers having the FTC have jurisdiction rather than other departments with a better record at effectiveness.
However in the past they weren't as stringently religious about the "free market can solve everything" cult we have today. Profit was always important but it was also expected that the government itself was not in the profit business, at least as an ideal.
It is possible to want to do the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Telecoms make more money, public pension funds that invest in telecoms make more money, therefore the public benefits!
(Wow, that was too easy, I didn't realize I had the evil in me.)
However ads are dangerous and lead to other issues. Once there are ads the company will now want to have targeted ads to maximize income, or just add more and more ads to maximize income, outsourcing the ads to a third party that they can't control, etc. On computers these ad services are main vector for malware.
An online music service should theoretically be better for the consumer than the radio in the automobile. There we are allowed to changed the station instantly when an ad comes on and we're not being tracked by what stations we prefer.
If it is a hole big enough to fit two-thirds of Manhattan, it raises the obvious question. Where should we put the other third?
People have been saying for years that I have artificial intelligence!
Or, don't skype about business stuff with anyone except fellow coworkers.
True, this is a war. Whenever the consumers develop tools and techniques to defend themselves, the advertisers will come up with new weapons to get their ads through. Ten year old methods of defending yourself no longer do much. Even adblock is somewhat ineffective because everything is happening with scripts these days. The web should never have been allowed to become a platform for applications.
Don't limit this to advertisers and Facebook. Any web site or application or company that relies on advertising for revenue or for getting a sliver more profit is also relinquishing their responsibility to protect their customers. Advertising is not harmless.
The do-not-call had the force of law behind it. Technically, it still does. There were exceptions made for political oriented phone calls, which is why for awhile those dominated most of the phone spam. Later on just about everything came back to spamming on the phone because there was zero enforcement. The mobile phone used to be the safe place after the land line was overwhelmed with spam, because only the land line showed up in the phone book (ie, if you want a list of people in Des Moines to market to). Later the mobile carriers started selling this data, so for the last two years my mobile phone in inundated and I never answer it either.
The logistics behind it all have made enforcement impractical. There's no way you as an individual know who the originating caller is, you don't even know what number the call came from because they're faking the phone numbers, so you can't report them to the do not call registry people. And these are inevitably from out of the country and are the Feds really going to bother to try to track this down and prosecute? Even calls from within the country are masked well enough that figuring out the originator is incredibly difficult. And the phone companies Do Not Care about this, they're not losing any money by this happening and any attempt to increase your privacy will only decrease their revenues.