This will bring relief to their insane real estate market and reduce geographic income concentration. The only major reason to be in SV is for the venture capital anyway.
Remember when leftists and liberals were promoters of free speech? Remember when liberals said the way to fight "hate" speech was more speech? Remember when UC Berkeley actually was the nexus of the Free Speech Movement? Remember the mantra "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
Since then, people who use evidence-based decision making have found that it was a mistake to think that allowing hate speech was harmless or even beneficial. There are some people susceptible to the illogical messages of hate speech who cannot be brought to their senses with reason. These are the target audience of the purveyors of hate speech, and enabling hate speech allows it to spread to as many of these vulnerable people as possible, thus maximizing its reach. It doesn't matter if 99% of the crowd argues back and rolls their eyes, all that matters is the absolute number of vulnerable people reached. It's like spreading an incurable and contagious disease that can only infect people with immune disorders.
As a response we have no-platforming: Basically, denying a platform to hate speech on one's private property. It doesn't conflict with the US' First Amendment and is completely legal. Best of all, it works astonishingly well, as evidenced by the people who wish to spread hate speech losing their goddamn minds over it.
Nonsense. The only conflict generated by diversity is from people such as yourself with an irrational hatred of diversity and/or minorities. It is nothing compared to the conflict required to decrease diversity, and can be minimized to negligible levels, as seen in many metropolises around the world.
Was just going to mention how their tactics were similar to asinine alt-right brainsharts about the need for "neutrality at the application layer" and here we are. Remember when there was a conspiracy theory that net neutrality was a stealth Fairness Doctrine 2.0, and the right considered that to be A Bad Thing? Good times.
Would it? And does it matter? If a policy is toxic, we reverse it because its results will also be destructive.
How else would you alter a country's ethnic makeup on a human-relevant timescale? And how is allowing for increased diversity "toxic?" Diversity itself is completely harmless and can even be beneficial. Refugee crises can present difficulties, but that's a completely different problem.
Do you have a better source than the biased Wikipedia?
I don't have any alternative facts. The numbers on Wikipedia are sourced directly from research papers which it cites. Do you have a problem with those research papers?
The FBI is acting and within the next few months should present evidence of his heinous and plentiful crimes, hopefully before November. This work takes time.
Ah, the capitalist-utilitarian's viewpoint, I've seen this type before. They'd sit at home happily admiring their stock portfolio until a nuclear explosion vaporizes them, or a goose-stepping death squad leader grabs them by the collar and drags them into a train, etc. I wonder if they'd die happy in the knowledge that their portfolio is healthy.
Ding ding ding! It takes deplorable idiots to vote for a deplorable idiot. It's quite a fair word to use for certain kinds of people. If you vote for a guy who is cool with white nationalists and racism in general, you're deplorable. If you vote to shoot your own country in both feet with a sawn-off shotgun loaded with incendiary rounds just to "trigger the libs," you're deplorable. There's no point denying one's own shameless awfulness as a morally diseased failure of a human being. Change it or own it.
The idea that Hillary was dangerous or an idiot is just a nonsense belief completely unsupported by history. She's a boring centrist politician with a fairly unremarkable history who has shown no signs of being dangerous or an idiot. The right just sees her as Super-Satan because she's a woman who interrupted the '80s conservative winning streak, and she's a little more pro-gun-control than most Democrats. A Hillary presidency would've been no worse than an Obama presidency.
And this is stacked up against an actual dangerous idiot who apparently thinks there were businessman dinosaurs (source: Ali G interview), doesn't believe in an objective reality, falls for fake online news as much as anyone's dumb racist uncle, acts in a way that is indistinguishable to an outside observer from being blackmailed by Vladimir Putin, and has publicly expressed interest in using and proliferating nuclear weapons and committing war crimes.
Again, the difference is that a large fraction (perhaps a majority) of the population wants marijuana and only a minority is against it, while only a tiny minority wants child porn or ghost guns and a vast majority are strongly, actively against those things. 3D-printed/CNC'd ghost guns can be minimized and pushed deep underground just like child porn. I'd call that a success.
These are rare corner cases though, and not really a problem with rsync or the filesystem. By default rsync compares datestamps to check for changes and will skip over files where the datestamps match. Sometimes a file will be altered but its datestamp won't - the only situation I'm aware of like this is Linux filesystem container binary files. In my rsync scripts I have to touch each of them first if I want them to be seen as updated. Somewhat more commonly there are a few programs that will update the Modified datestamp on files they open even if they've only been read and not changed.
I blame the way these programs handle datestamps. Linux/mount should update the datestamps of filesystem container files when they're written to, and programs shouldn't update the datestamps of files that are not changed.
Hmm, could be a good way to quickly bankrupt Defense Distributed...the trouble is doing it anonymously, because you know the NSA is keeping an eye on whoever orders from them.
Not yet. There's still the possibility of outlawing these particular CAD files containing gun designs just like we outlaw particular JPEGs containing child porn. I don't know why you're rooting for the Gun Death Singularity.
Some will, but it might help some wake up to what they really are: a death cult with magical beliefs, that wants to sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands of random and presumably unwilling Americans (and some Mexicans and Canadians) for the cause of lighter paperwork and less responsibility for American gun owners.
Times change and policies change, but increasing ethnic homogeneity would require draconian policies, massive effort for no clear (especially economic) benefit, and crimes against humanity, so it seems safe to assume that it's less likely to happen than increasing ethnic diversity which has so far been the trend throughout history.
A utilitarian argument, however, this one is a begging-the-question fallacy because you assume society must be diverse in the first place.
It's not begging the question or making any assumptions, it's based on the current state of most societies and the state the world tends towards without extreme authoritarian travel restrictions and border/citizenship controls.
Pretty much this...guns + people = danger. You have a country where in most states you can trade guns at least as easily as used video games (some have DRM that makes this difficult), and an unsecured venue. No shit people get shot. The shootings will continue as long as this death cult with 3~4% of the population in its overinflated membership manages to overpower the rest of the population and prevent sensible gun laws like other countries with functioning governments have from being put in place.
Slashdot Mirror
You can brain people IRL with bike locks all day long, it'll never amount to hate speech on Facebook.
This will bring relief to their insane real estate market and reduce geographic income concentration. The only major reason to be in SV is for the venture capital anyway.
This is a common nonsense belief, it has a rather specific definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What good reason could there be for attacking a person or group of people based on their immutable characteristics?
Remember when leftists and liberals were promoters of free speech? Remember when liberals said the way to fight "hate" speech was more speech? Remember when UC Berkeley actually was the nexus of the Free Speech Movement? Remember the mantra "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
Since then, people who use evidence-based decision making have found that it was a mistake to think that allowing hate speech was harmless or even beneficial. There are some people susceptible to the illogical messages of hate speech who cannot be brought to their senses with reason. These are the target audience of the purveyors of hate speech, and enabling hate speech allows it to spread to as many of these vulnerable people as possible, thus maximizing its reach. It doesn't matter if 99% of the crowd argues back and rolls their eyes, all that matters is the absolute number of vulnerable people reached. It's like spreading an incurable and contagious disease that can only infect people with immune disorders.
As a response we have no-platforming: Basically, denying a platform to hate speech on one's private property. It doesn't conflict with the US' First Amendment and is completely legal. Best of all, it works astonishingly well, as evidenced by the people who wish to spread hate speech losing their goddamn minds over it.
Nonsense. The only conflict generated by diversity is from people such as yourself with an irrational hatred of diversity and/or minorities. It is nothing compared to the conflict required to decrease diversity, and can be minimized to negligible levels, as seen in many metropolises around the world.
This is a good start:
https://hackaday.com/2018/07/2...
Was just going to mention how their tactics were similar to asinine alt-right brainsharts about the need for "neutrality at the application layer" and here we are. Remember when there was a conspiracy theory that net neutrality was a stealth Fairness Doctrine 2.0, and the right considered that to be A Bad Thing? Good times.
Let's be realistic, he can't do an EVA shirtless. He'd use a spacesuit with a transparent upper section.
But they can smell it..forever...
Would it? And does it matter? If a policy is toxic, we reverse it because its results will also be destructive.
How else would you alter a country's ethnic makeup on a human-relevant timescale? And how is allowing for increased diversity "toxic?" Diversity itself is completely harmless and can even be beneficial. Refugee crises can present difficulties, but that's a completely different problem.
Do you have a better source than the biased Wikipedia?
I don't have any alternative facts. The numbers on Wikipedia are sourced directly from research papers which it cites. Do you have a problem with those research papers?
Yep, Trumpism has taken the earnest businessman's mask off of conservatism, and shown us the bare face of the ancient evil underneath:
http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/...
The FBI is acting and within the next few months should present evidence of his heinous and plentiful crimes, hopefully before November. This work takes time.
Ah, the capitalist-utilitarian's viewpoint, I've seen this type before. They'd sit at home happily admiring their stock portfolio until a nuclear explosion vaporizes them, or a goose-stepping death squad leader grabs them by the collar and drags them into a train, etc. I wonder if they'd die happy in the knowledge that their portfolio is healthy.
Ding ding ding! It takes deplorable idiots to vote for a deplorable idiot. It's quite a fair word to use for certain kinds of people. If you vote for a guy who is cool with white nationalists and racism in general, you're deplorable. If you vote to shoot your own country in both feet with a sawn-off shotgun loaded with incendiary rounds just to "trigger the libs," you're deplorable. There's no point denying one's own shameless awfulness as a morally diseased failure of a human being. Change it or own it.
The idea that Hillary was dangerous or an idiot is just a nonsense belief completely unsupported by history. She's a boring centrist politician with a fairly unremarkable history who has shown no signs of being dangerous or an idiot. The right just sees her as Super-Satan because she's a woman who interrupted the '80s conservative winning streak, and she's a little more pro-gun-control than most Democrats. A Hillary presidency would've been no worse than an Obama presidency.
And this is stacked up against an actual dangerous idiot who apparently thinks there were businessman dinosaurs (source: Ali G interview), doesn't believe in an objective reality, falls for fake online news as much as anyone's dumb racist uncle, acts in a way that is indistinguishable to an outside observer from being blackmailed by Vladimir Putin, and has publicly expressed interest in using and proliferating nuclear weapons and committing war crimes.
Came here for the torrent, sauce me bro!
Again, the difference is that a large fraction (perhaps a majority) of the population wants marijuana and only a minority is against it, while only a tiny minority wants child porn or ghost guns and a vast majority are strongly, actively against those things. 3D-printed/CNC'd ghost guns can be minimized and pushed deep underground just like child porn. I'd call that a success.
See you when we're old and gray.
These are rare corner cases though, and not really a problem with rsync or the filesystem. By default rsync compares datestamps to check for changes and will skip over files where the datestamps match. Sometimes a file will be altered but its datestamp won't - the only situation I'm aware of like this is Linux filesystem container binary files. In my rsync scripts I have to touch each of them first if I want them to be seen as updated. Somewhat more commonly there are a few programs that will update the Modified datestamp on files they open even if they've only been read and not changed.
I blame the way these programs handle datestamps. Linux/mount should update the datestamps of filesystem container files when they're written to, and programs shouldn't update the datestamps of files that are not changed.
Hmm, could be a good way to quickly bankrupt Defense Distributed...the trouble is doing it anonymously, because you know the NSA is keeping an eye on whoever orders from them.
Not yet. There's still the possibility of outlawing these particular CAD files containing gun designs just like we outlaw particular JPEGs containing child porn. I don't know why you're rooting for the Gun Death Singularity.
Some will, but it might help some wake up to what they really are: a death cult with magical beliefs, that wants to sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands of random and presumably unwilling Americans (and some Mexicans and Canadians) for the cause of lighter paperwork and less responsibility for American gun owners.
Still works for me. Here's a Google cache link:
https://webcache.googleusercon...
Diversity is relative, by number of nations at least half are on the higher side of the diversity scale:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Times change and policies change, but increasing ethnic homogeneity would require draconian policies, massive effort for no clear (especially economic) benefit, and crimes against humanity, so it seems safe to assume that it's less likely to happen than increasing ethnic diversity which has so far been the trend throughout history.
A utilitarian argument, however, this one is a begging-the-question fallacy because you assume society must be diverse in the first place.
It's not begging the question or making any assumptions, it's based on the current state of most societies and the state the world tends towards without extreme authoritarian travel restrictions and border/citizenship controls.
Pretty much this...guns + people = danger. You have a country where in most states you can trade guns at least as easily as used video games (some have DRM that makes this difficult), and an unsecured venue. No shit people get shot. The shootings will continue as long as this death cult with 3~4% of the population in its overinflated membership manages to overpower the rest of the population and prevent sensible gun laws like other countries with functioning governments have from being put in place.