"What if the aliens end up being forced to work in factories, making shoes up to 18 hours a day?"
No doubt the aliens will appreciate knowing the fruits of their labour will be sold in Walmart to people who would rather save a couple of bucks than pay a little more and help provide a job for a fellow American.
There's an in-built assumption here that goes to the heart of the whole privacy debate: that people like Zuckerberg and Pichai deserve a higher standard of protection than the rest of us from having their private information accessed by people who may not have their best interests at heart.
Perhaps I was a bit hyperbolic, but the basic point remains: a lot of people have had to look at their lives, and they've seen that although the UK as a political entity may have benefited from EU membership, those benefits did not accrue to them, just the costs.
Where, besides London, did the people of England actually support EU membership? Northern Ireland's vote to remain was even closer than the UK's vote to leave, and Wales wants out, too. That leaves only Scotland strongly supporting "Stay"...and London.
You're 100% wrong about that. The media pushing for the Brits to leave were the loony-tunes right wing tabloids and their ilk. The mainstream are still trying to portray this as a triumph of racism and xenophobia. However, one of the few polling agencies to get it right accurately identified what was happening: "Stay" campaigners and mainstream media did exactly what I said, and the result was that a lot of people who were undecided reacted negatively.
Didn't you know? You aren't allowed to talk about that kind of stuff. It doesn't exactly square with the "We're all gonna die in agony" crap we're getting from the mainstream media.
Do you believe your government, the one holding those policies, will survive? I have to wonder, when such a large percentage of the population expressly repudiated them. I don't see the kind of fascism arising in the UK that we've seen in other EU countries. However, there does seem to be a strong sense that giving up control of immigration, agricultural policy, finance and other key functions of a traditional national government would lead to the UK becoming just another anonymous satrapy ruled from Belgium.
Actually, I do see gay marriage and abortion as important indicators. Also drug laws. Either government is going to poke its nose into people's business or it isn't. As you say, both US parties have a marked tendency to do this.
The problem with leaving everything up to the individual states is that they've proved time and again that they're even more interventionist than the feds. This is why "States Rights" has been code for segregation and oppression of blacks for a long, long time.
If you're willing to acknowledge that the central government you're talking about has been strongly conservative more often than liberal, then I might even agree with you. The War on Drugs, the Oil Wars, erosion to the separation between church and state, re-writing laws to rob women of control over their own bodies, massive subsidies to the petrochemical sector...all of these are functions of "Big Government" as well as the perceived Nanny State.
So are you willing to give up all these and more as well as the liberal stuff?
You seem to be convinced that the people who voted to leave the EU are little more than gullible fools too stupid to figure out that the "Leave" side wasn't always entirely honest...as though the "Stay" side was!
I suspect it was exactly this kind of sneering arrogance by supporters of "Stay" along with their obvious belief that money is the answer to all questions, that played a pivotal role in yesterday's vote.
You probably aren't entirely wrong, but a lot of this is a direct result of the arrogance of the EU's unelected masters. The UK went to the EU last year to negotiate assurances that its unique status within the union would be respected. He didn't come home with much to show for his trouble beyond a few mealy-mouthed pronouncements. Furthermore, it seems certain economic pressure over time would undermine what little he got.
This failed negotiation didn't help soon-to-be-ex PM Cameron make his case with a lot of "small-c" conservative Brits who have been forced into low-paid service sector jobs, then watch even those jobs suffer wage depression due to an oversupply of cheap labour arriving from the continent.
I've used Comodo's firewall for years. I have now removed it from all but one computer, which I don't use all that much anymore. When I am assured that Comodo has, in fact, abandoned its efforts to steal "Let's Encrypt", I'll go back. I like their firewall, and it will hurt to go through all the little adjustments that get the replacement (Kaspersky Internet Security) working exactly the way I like.
It looks like people are starting to notice that these huge trade agreements might be good for a country's economy, but that a good economy doesn't necessarily benefit average citizens.
The EU, specifically, has run into trouble since it incorporated former Soviet states and short-listed Turkey for membership. This may have been wise politically, but it basically opened the floodgates for Third World immigration into countries that were already suffering from globalization. Once all the pretty rhetoric is scrubbed away, "globalization" simply means that decent jobs vanish along with the tariffs that protected First World workers from having to compete directly with Third World slave labour. And suddenly, quite a lot of those Third World labourers have been turning up right next door, putting even more downward pressure on wages.
Initial joy over cheap manufactured goods has given way to anger and disgust as well-paid jobs in the hollowed-out manufacturing sector disappeared into countries where protection for workers and the environment exist only on paper. Meanwhile, tax burdens on the First World's dying middle class have skyrocketed because corporations selling into First World markets have found tax shelters offshore.
And, of course, it's all been legal, because the political process in every large-scale democracy has been corrupted to the point where "the 1%" owns all the major parties outright, and those parties have obediently enacted laws to facilitate its depredations.
I doubt anything like this expression of democracy, no matter whether or not it is short-sighted and wrong, will be allowed to happen again.
Why don't you try to point out a Republican President since Dwight Eisenhower who doesn't deserve to be serving a life sentence for Crimes Against Humanity?
You can't.
And then, of course, there's the nasty little story that just won't go away about right wingers in the US government sabotaging Carter's efforts to recover the hostages in Iran. Sensible people call that treason.
Richard Nixon, Reagan, Bushes Senior and Junior...it really doesn't matter. When the person can be identified as both a Republican and a US President, you can automatically add a third title: War Criminal.
Slashdot Mirror
"What if the aliens end up being forced to work in factories, making shoes up to 18 hours a day?"
No doubt the aliens will appreciate knowing the fruits of their labour will be sold in Walmart to people who would rather save a couple of bucks than pay a little more and help provide a job for a fellow American.
Quotes out of context certainly don't prove anything.
That's a very interesting thought. It's one of the more interesting ways I've heard to hold people with power to account.
Why wouldn't I believe the voice yelling, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"!
There's an in-built assumption here that goes to the heart of the whole privacy debate: that people like Zuckerberg and Pichai deserve a higher standard of protection than the rest of us from having their private information accessed by people who may not have their best interests at heart.
Perhaps I was a bit hyperbolic, but the basic point remains: a lot of people have had to look at their lives, and they've seen that although the UK as a political entity may have benefited from EU membership, those benefits did not accrue to them, just the costs.
Where, besides London, did the people of England actually support EU membership? Northern Ireland's vote to remain was even closer than the UK's vote to leave, and Wales wants out, too. That leaves only Scotland strongly supporting "Stay"...and London.
You're 100% wrong about that. The media pushing for the Brits to leave were the loony-tunes right wing tabloids and their ilk. The mainstream are still trying to portray this as a triumph of racism and xenophobia. However, one of the few polling agencies to get it right accurately identified what was happening: "Stay" campaigners and mainstream media did exactly what I said, and the result was that a lot of people who were undecided reacted negatively.
Please try to keep up.
More likely large corporations will just have their tame legislators change the laws so that people don't dare bring such suits.
Didn't you know? You aren't allowed to talk about that kind of stuff. It doesn't exactly square with the "We're all gonna die in agony" crap we're getting from the mainstream media.
Do you believe your government, the one holding those policies, will survive? I have to wonder, when such a large percentage of the population expressly repudiated them. I don't see the kind of fascism arising in the UK that we've seen in other EU countries. However, there does seem to be a strong sense that giving up control of immigration, agricultural policy, finance and other key functions of a traditional national government would lead to the UK becoming just another anonymous satrapy ruled from Belgium.
Wouldn't it be nice if the same could be said of Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama and a few other US states.
Actually, I do see gay marriage and abortion as important indicators. Also drug laws. Either government is going to poke its nose into people's business or it isn't. As you say, both US parties have a marked tendency to do this.
The problem with leaving everything up to the individual states is that they've proved time and again that they're even more interventionist than the feds. This is why "States Rights" has been code for segregation and oppression of blacks for a long, long time.
You heard wrong.
Wales voted to leave. Scotland voted strongly to stay in the EU.
The UK government that just got its face slapped by more than 17 million Brits was one of the big supporters of that, you know.
There...fixed that for you.
If you're willing to acknowledge that the central government you're talking about has been strongly conservative more often than liberal, then I might even agree with you. The War on Drugs, the Oil Wars, erosion to the separation between church and state, re-writing laws to rob women of control over their own bodies, massive subsidies to the petrochemical sector...all of these are functions of "Big Government" as well as the perceived Nanny State.
So are you willing to give up all these and more as well as the liberal stuff?
You seem to be convinced that the people who voted to leave the EU are little more than gullible fools too stupid to figure out that the "Leave" side wasn't always entirely honest...as though the "Stay" side was!
I suspect it was exactly this kind of sneering arrogance by supporters of "Stay" along with their obvious belief that money is the answer to all questions, that played a pivotal role in yesterday's vote.
You probably aren't entirely wrong, but a lot of this is a direct result of the arrogance of the EU's unelected masters. The UK went to the EU last year to negotiate assurances that its unique status within the union would be respected. He didn't come home with much to show for his trouble beyond a few mealy-mouthed pronouncements. Furthermore, it seems certain economic pressure over time would undermine what little he got.
This failed negotiation didn't help soon-to-be-ex PM Cameron make his case with a lot of "small-c" conservative Brits who have been forced into low-paid service sector jobs, then watch even those jobs suffer wage depression due to an oversupply of cheap labour arriving from the continent.
I've used Comodo's firewall for years. I have now removed it from all but one computer, which I don't use all that much anymore. When I am assured that Comodo has, in fact, abandoned its efforts to steal "Let's Encrypt", I'll go back. I like their firewall, and it will hurt to go through all the little adjustments that get the replacement (Kaspersky Internet Security) working exactly the way I like.
It looks like people are starting to notice that these huge trade agreements might be good for a country's economy, but that a good economy doesn't necessarily benefit average citizens.
The EU, specifically, has run into trouble since it incorporated former Soviet states and short-listed Turkey for membership. This may have been wise politically, but it basically opened the floodgates for Third World immigration into countries that were already suffering from globalization. Once all the pretty rhetoric is scrubbed away, "globalization" simply means that decent jobs vanish along with the tariffs that protected First World workers from having to compete directly with Third World slave labour. And suddenly, quite a lot of those Third World labourers have been turning up right next door, putting even more downward pressure on wages.
Initial joy over cheap manufactured goods has given way to anger and disgust as well-paid jobs in the hollowed-out manufacturing sector disappeared into countries where protection for workers and the environment exist only on paper. Meanwhile, tax burdens on the First World's dying middle class have skyrocketed because corporations selling into First World markets have found tax shelters offshore.
And, of course, it's all been legal, because the political process in every large-scale democracy has been corrupted to the point where "the 1%" owns all the major parties outright, and those parties have obediently enacted laws to facilitate its depredations.
I doubt anything like this expression of democracy, no matter whether or not it is short-sighted and wrong, will be allowed to happen again.
Calm down. My sources are as reliable as yours.
You're 100% right about the mainstream news media being biased. It's actually a conservative bias, though...sorry you missed that basic fact.
And Clinton stood in front of a whole lynch mob of Republican drones and answered questions for hours. She emerged unscathed.
You should probably get used to saying it right now: "President Hillary Clinton".
Why don't you try to point out a Republican President since Dwight Eisenhower who doesn't deserve to be serving a life sentence for Crimes Against Humanity?
You can't.
And then, of course, there's the nasty little story that just won't go away about right wingers in the US government sabotaging Carter's efforts to recover the hostages in Iran. Sensible people call that treason.
Richard Nixon, Reagan, Bushes Senior and Junior...it really doesn't matter. When the person can be identified as both a Republican and a US President, you can automatically add a third title: War Criminal.
Please tell me you know it's actually a PR drone writing those posts, not the Governor himself.
Nice straw man. Who but an unemployed conservative living off the hard work of liberals would have time to waste on such nonsense.
Here's the real story:
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/13/study-finds-14-15-biggest-moocher-states-republican-controlled.html
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/which-states-rely-most-federal-aid-0