You might hate Ayn Rand but she skewered corporatists as much as she did socialists.
Then why does the present day Republican Party masturbate to her photos as proof of their Randism while simultaneously being about as corporatist as you can get.
Only thing I can come up with is "Strange and mysterious are the ways of Gawd".
Except that in the near future, the robots may more adaptable than the humans.
And faster. And less expensive over time. And more reliable. And more consistent. And not need health insurance. And not need breaks because they, or their SO, is pregnant, or little Johnny has the sniffles. And can work 24-hour, 7-day shifts instead of 8 hour, 5-day shifts. And during which shifts, they won't need breaks. Or holidays. Or time off for funerals, Comic-con, taking Fido to the vet, or little Susie's parent-teacher conference. They won't sue because they were sexually harassed. If grandpa robot dies, they won't give a shit. They won't get tired. They won't get bored. They won't do work below their capabilities because they don't like the boss. They won't get hired away after they've been trained (or programmed, in the early stages) so new employee costs will plummet. The HR department will have nothing to do with these things. And so on.
Anyone who thinks AI is "just another lateral economic shift" has no idea what's going to be smacking them in the face. With a steel toed-boot. It isn't about human creativity. It's about all the other human things, the ones no one really wants to talk about in the open. The ones the robots will most definitely not bring to the workplace.
And that is all with just the type of systems we can make today. When real AI arrives — sapient, sentient, and conscious — the ground will shift yet again, and no one has any clue at all about the directions those shifts will take, or how profound they will be.
Not one use for humans in your world is there? This robots - are they goung to consume all this awesome stuff they make?
What about humans and their ability to problem solve and create and build has changed? The reason I don't see any reason to worry about "robots" taking all our jobs is because NOTHING has changed about the ability of humans to adapt to new circumstances.
I had this discussion with a fellow a long time ago who was so conservative he didn't want any regulations on pollutants. The Love Canal disaster wsa the topic. He said "no need to do anything, because humans will adapt - its called evolution."
I answered - "Yes, we might adapt. But you realize that means 999 out of a 1000 of us will die, and it's called evolution. Sometimes even 1000 out of 1000 die, that's called extinction."
This will be a different adaptation, but very well might be solved by most of us becoming quite redundant. So will it be slow attrition, resource wars, Death camps, or Soylent Green?
Uh, why would Leftist parents indoctrinate w/ family values? They can teach their dear offspring how to always be malcontents in the unattainable jihad for income equality. Or are you saying that Leftist will all abort their foetii in an attempt to prevent climate change?
Have you ever had an original thought? Seriously, please be kidding, because you sound like you are one step away from serial killing people you consider "leftist", and cremating them in the back yard while laughing about relasing their Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere.
People need to stop living in a fairy tale land where near full employment is a reality in the near future. I'll be surprised if labor participation rate of 25-54 year olds is even 50% in 10 years.
Then again, tell me of how companies are going to make money to service the stakeholders when there are not people around wh ocan buy their highly profitable wares?
Now speaking of fairy tales, that one is much more magical than your full employment one.
This ain't rocket science. Economies are at base, an equation. You have producers on one side, and consumers on the other. Ideally, they balance out, with extra rewards for the producers. Now either side can cheat, such as if producers can move production to countries where the workforce is paid much less, and the guvmint there is willing to give tax breaks. But that also starts to undermine the purchasing power of the target audience - the fat overpaid lazy Americans who rightfully lose their cushy jobs to a more deserving country with workers who are more deserving because they will work for much less, tend to be the purchasers of the Job creator's fine goods. Those third world employees are not making much, and food and shelter is their first priority.
So at what point is it a fairy tale to believe that only when we are all unemployed, will we be buying the fine products made almost completely through human-free automation?
Welcome to the endgame of supply side only outlook. As humanity is drug down by lack of access, the job creators will prey upon each other. That might look more like The Hunger Games world, than a unicorn and puppy dog fairy tale held by either side.
One of the worst offenders I see is Fox News. On regular cycle they regurgitate repeating fake news fabrications of theirs and broadcast that to their followers. I saw this this time and again throughout the last election cycle, and still today. Always slander the opponent du jour and cast the scum they're backing today in a golden glow.
The others are bad, just not to the degree as Murdock's empire of Fox News in the states and the Sun in the UK.
Fox News is like The Onion if the Onion took itself seriously.
No, the security was in the ticket stock. You needed an actual, magnetically coded ticket to board the plane.
More secure, but an awful process.
Gotta say, I never gave it a thought about how awful it was. I enjoyed getting out of the office for a bit, and chatting with the people at the travel agency. The internet has changed us, and normal and easy things are now much too much trouble. If we can't just click clicky, it is a burden too far.
Well okay then. We have to have no effort on a system that is insecure by design. I guess we put up with what happens to us then, and quite willingly in fact.
I did throw a shitfit and told her that if she wanted to take another Greyhound bus trip, it would be as a single parent. She is quite headstrong, but if that was all the respect I'd get after having to worry about what I knew was going to happen, fuck it.
Way to be a complete dick to your wife after what sounds like a traumatic ride.
We'll just ignore that part about her completely ignoring everything I told her, and her actually suffering less trauma than what I was expecting. I'm a big strong guy, and I wouldn't take a bus.
I gave her plenty of options, like flying, or delivering her to Florida myself, but she wouldn't accept either of them. For some reason or other, she was determined to take that stupid bus.
Maybe she'd be better off without you.
Maybe.
Or she could have just admitted I was right, which she did, and now swears off ever setting foot on a bus or in a bus station ever again - like she did. Next time, she drove down, and she, her father, and myself were much happier.
Wow man - what kind of ultimatum is that for your wife?
Cherish her, love her, support her. Dude, someday you'll wish you had these kinds of problems. Until then, enjoy life/with/ her.
The sort of ultimatum you give someone when if they haven't learned to listen to you when you know they are going to drive off a cliff, are determined to drive off the cliff, and nothing is going to stop them driving off that cliff, but you want to exercise your option to get out of the car before they drive off the cliff.
I don't know if you've been involved with an alpha chick or not, but a headstrong one can be remarkably stubborn. So you would suggest that I tell her that I support her right to be sexually assaulted, and will support her decision to put herself in harms way? Beat her? Chain her to the bed?
So I respected her incredibly stupid decision to take the bus, and when it was clear that I was right, I told her that this would not happen again with me in the picture. 6 months later, she drove down to visit her father again. I still offered to drive, but she still didn't want to "put me out of my way". But I didn't need to plead, and that trip went off just fine.
I don't know how people booked travel before the Internet, but let's speculate.
They used phones, perhaps? Also insecure, authentication was probably pretty much as bad as it is today. Went to speak with a travel agent in person? The travel agent could check ID, but did they? And then they would have to call or otherwise contact the airline on the traveler's behalf.
Sounds pretty damn hard. Yes, Either my staff assistant, or myself spoke to our travel agent, who knew us. When I'd travel for work, we had an authorization number so no changes happened without that number and a number that replaced it.
Only the "screwing with a person's travel plans" scenario seems likely to me, and that takes some pretty serious or specific motivation.
But still a good illustration of people forgetting how to do stuff once we take it to the intertoobz.
I rode the bus a good 20 times and only had one issue where there was a guy who smelled. (and I've had that on airline flights too... so *shrugs*)
One time my wife wanted to visit her father in Florida who just had an operation. I offered to drive her down from PA, and drive back then do it again a coupe weeks later, since I had some big meetings I couldn't get out of.
She said no, she would take the bus. I told her that was the last thing she wanted to do. I pleaded, I begged a cajoled. However, she is an alpha chick, and does not take telling. So the bus she took.
After coming back into town a couple weeks later, the bus was three hours late. I asked her how the trip was.
She was thrown up on
She spent time in filthy bus stations that were populated by addicts and hookers
She was propostioned for sex several times, and thought she was going to be raped once.
She was offered drugs to either buy or exchange for a blow job on the bus.
She was offered money for her underwear.
And the reason she was three hours late? The bus driver from the last leg of her ride pulled over and went on a lost mind jeezuz rant and someone had to call and get him taken off the bus.
I did throw a shitfit and told her that if she wanted to take another Greyhound bus trip, it would be as a single parent. She is quite headstrong, but if that was all the respect I'd get after having to worry about what I knew was going to happen, fuck it.
Wasn't a fun time for her, but I gave no sympathy. Well, yeah after a week or so.
Just maybe, we might just sorta think about how we could not even book flights until the intertoobz came along. All of those jets sitting on the runwaysnot in use because without the internet, there was absolutely no way to reserve a flight. Sarcasm much intended.
Because for some strange reason, once we try doing something on the internet, possibly the most insecure and interference pronemethod of doing anything, we forget how millions of us use to fly all of the time, without these sort of problems.
The problem with that is that assuming evening is a lie leads to post-truth politics. Truth becomes irrelevant, facts are things you pick and choose to suit your established views.
And then they are exposed. Now again, I did note that I give some veracity to NPR and BBC, two orgs that do a pretty good job ofgetting the news right. But Facebook is indeed post-truth, and is going to lose this battle.
So basically what you're saying is the human condition is responsible for the stupid shit that human beings do. That's like stating the obvious and there is no amount of government regulation, religion or anything else that we know of that will solve the problem and create a perfect utopia.
Since when am I saying there is some utopia? All systems have problems. But Facebook is just a classic example of how if something is wide open, the trolls come in and destroy it.
It is why humans need some rules and guidelines. Its why occasionally the children need a time out.
We have the entire history of the human race as evidence. I'm tired of hearing people bitching and complaining about things they can't control and then try to scapegoat it on someone or something. Life isn't perfect but it's the only life you get! Get busy living it instead of wasting it!
Well - that's inspiring,and all - but I don't know what it has to do with the issue at hand.
Articles should have scores on at least two dimensions: reliability and popularity. Popularity can be captured by something like "likes," but reliability should be determined in a different way. Coming from a major news source like the Washington Post or the New York Times should give an initial leg up on reliability (say start at sixty percent if from them), but not more than that unless it's a piece they specially flag as a significant product of investigative reporting. Most stuff that most reputable sources produce is interesting and somewhat accurate, but not written by experts. Consequently it tends to be a bit wrong.
But try posting something negaive about Russian hackers in here. Immediately pounced upon and gets modded troll. Then post something positive about the same, and it hits +5 something with a bullet.
The same people doing this are in social media like Facebook, so you don't stand a chance. The tragedy of the commons is always won by the prople who want to destroy the commons
You had to open a FB account? Please tell us who pressured you to, or why.
BTW, I have never had a FB account, and probably never will.
It was for some competitive radio/electronic activities that I'm in charge of, that went to social media instead of the old school message reflector. So Once I got there, my family and other friends found me, then some old GF's. And it was off to the races.
Everyothing is the issue. What has happened is that the fake news people have succeeded too well, and a lot of people are simply not believing anything. I'll give it some veracity if BBC or NPR reports on it, but at this point assume that what I'm reading is a lie. That's what happens when you succeed too well.
including things like activity focus during Moscow time zone's daylight hours
This is amazingly weakly "evidence". Moscow daylight time is also nightime in DC. Which is the time of day you'd least expect someone to notice data-ex-filtration.
Is using Facebook for news. I can easily make up some splashy name and start crapping out bogus articles all day long. And the credulity of facebook users is such that no matter what I post, it will be followed.
It's interesting, but you will do better to assume that any "news" item you read on Facebook is just a lie.
But how would you get rid of the problem? Facebook is up against the same problem that took down Usenet - the tragedy of the commons. NPR and BBC are treated with the same weight as Joe Blow cranking out crap and conspiracies just for the lulz in his basement.
I wouldn't be surprised if readership is falling. After I had to open a FB account last year, it looked interesting for about a week, then it became an annoyance, now it seems to be troll land.
And as quickly as fake news is deleted, new ones will pop up, and will make note of being deleted, which will feed into conspiracies.
The future does not look so bright for Facebook as they will probably suffer the same fate as usenet.
What are they going to do now that Obama is out? My neighbors, who are fiercely Wing Nut Republicans and who own the local gun shop have admitted that Obama has been the best thing for them in decades. All it takes is even a hint that someone is going to restrict gun purchases and the rest of my neighbors have to run out and get another gun.
I'll probably be modded down for this, but that is the business model. You take an instrument that has inherent value, like a rifle, pistol or shotgun, and grow a culture around it. Then you promote the occasional "scare" where you say "The enemy is coming to take your guns away!" The members of that culture react, and you get an instant super high demand. Between the individual firearms sales and ammunition, it is a genius-level concept.
During the last big scare, I was looking for a sidearm on the internet, and there was nothing to be found.
I guess the takeaway is to buy between the big scares.
Depends. If I needed that organ (or else I would die) and you brought somebody who is compatible with me and gave me a gun, then yes, I would shoot him in the head to get that organ. I am selfish like that.
So you are okay with someone else being selfish like that and popping you?
Truth is I cannot distinguish democrats from republicans. Their common interests far outweigh their theatrical differences that they put on public display. party.
Slashdot Mirror
You might hate Ayn Rand but she skewered corporatists as much as she did socialists.
Then why does the present day Republican Party masturbate to her photos as proof of their Randism while simultaneously being about as corporatist as you can get.
Only thing I can come up with is "Strange and mysterious are the ways of Gawd".
And faster. And less expensive over time. And more reliable. And more consistent. And not need health insurance. And not need breaks because they, or their SO, is pregnant, or little Johnny has the sniffles. And can work 24-hour, 7-day shifts instead of 8 hour, 5-day shifts. And during which shifts, they won't need breaks. Or holidays. Or time off for funerals, Comic-con, taking Fido to the vet, or little Susie's parent-teacher conference. They won't sue because they were sexually harassed. If grandpa robot dies, they won't give a shit. They won't get tired. They won't get bored. They won't do work below their capabilities because they don't like the boss. They won't get hired away after they've been trained (or programmed, in the early stages) so new employee costs will plummet. The HR department will have nothing to do with these things. And so on.
Anyone who thinks AI is "just another lateral economic shift" has no idea what's going to be smacking them in the face. With a steel toed-boot. It isn't about human creativity. It's about all the other human things, the ones no one really wants to talk about in the open. The ones the robots will most definitely not bring to the workplace.
And that is all with just the type of systems we can make today. When real AI arrives — sapient, sentient, and conscious — the ground will shift yet again, and no one has any clue at all about the directions those shifts will take, or how profound they will be.
Not one use for humans in your world is there? This robots - are they goung to consume all this awesome stuff they make?
What about humans and their ability to problem solve and create and build has changed? The reason I don't see any reason to worry about "robots" taking all our jobs is because NOTHING has changed about the ability of humans to adapt to new circumstances.
I had this discussion with a fellow a long time ago who was so conservative he didn't want any regulations on pollutants. The Love Canal disaster wsa the topic. He said "no need to do anything, because humans will adapt - its called evolution."
I answered - "Yes, we might adapt. But you realize that means 999 out of a 1000 of us will die, and it's called evolution. Sometimes even 1000 out of 1000 die, that's called extinction."
This will be a different adaptation, but very well might be solved by most of us becoming quite redundant. So will it be slow attrition, resource wars, Death camps, or Soylent Green?
I think it's the only answer (without genocides...)
My money is on genocide. Cheaper, and humans have it as a core value.
Uh, why would Leftist parents indoctrinate w/ family values? They can teach their dear offspring how to always be malcontents in the unattainable jihad for income equality. Or are you saying that Leftist will all abort their foetii in an attempt to prevent climate change?
Have you ever had an original thought? Seriously, please be kidding, because you sound like you are one step away from serial killing people you consider "leftist", and cremating them in the back yard while laughing about relasing their Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere.
People need to stop living in a fairy tale land where near full employment is a reality in the near future. I'll be surprised if labor participation rate of 25-54 year olds is even 50% in 10 years.
Then again, tell me of how companies are going to make money to service the stakeholders when there are not people around wh ocan buy their highly profitable wares?
Now speaking of fairy tales, that one is much more magical than your full employment one.
This ain't rocket science. Economies are at base, an equation. You have producers on one side, and consumers on the other. Ideally, they balance out, with extra rewards for the producers. Now either side can cheat, such as if producers can move production to countries where the workforce is paid much less, and the guvmint there is willing to give tax breaks. But that also starts to undermine the purchasing power of the target audience - the fat overpaid lazy Americans who rightfully lose their cushy jobs to a more deserving country with workers who are more deserving because they will work for much less, tend to be the purchasers of the Job creator's fine goods. Those third world employees are not making much, and food and shelter is their first priority.
So at what point is it a fairy tale to believe that only when we are all unemployed, will we be buying the fine products made almost completely through human-free automation?
Welcome to the endgame of supply side only outlook. As humanity is drug down by lack of access, the job creators will prey upon each other. That might look more like The Hunger Games world, than a unicorn and puppy dog fairy tale held by either side.
One of the worst offenders I see is Fox News. On regular cycle they regurgitate repeating fake news fabrications of theirs and broadcast that to their followers. I saw this this time and again throughout the last election cycle, and still today. Always slander the opponent du jour and cast the scum they're backing today in a golden glow.
The others are bad, just not to the degree as Murdock's empire of Fox News in the states and the Sun in the UK.
Fox News is like The Onion if the Onion took itself seriously.
No, the security was in the ticket stock. You needed an actual, magnetically coded ticket to board the plane. More secure, but an awful process.
Gotta say, I never gave it a thought about how awful it was. I enjoyed getting out of the office for a bit, and chatting with the people at the travel agency. The internet has changed us, and normal and easy things are now much too much trouble. If we can't just click clicky, it is a burden too far.
Well okay then. We have to have no effort on a system that is insecure by design. I guess we put up with what happens to us then, and quite willingly in fact.
Way to be a complete dick to your wife after what sounds like a traumatic ride.
We'll just ignore that part about her completely ignoring everything I told her, and her actually suffering less trauma than what I was expecting. I'm a big strong guy, and I wouldn't take a bus.
I gave her plenty of options, like flying, or delivering her to Florida myself, but she wouldn't accept either of them. For some reason or other, she was determined to take that stupid bus.
Maybe she'd be better off without you.
Maybe.
Or she could have just admitted I was right, which she did, and now swears off ever setting foot on a bus or in a bus station ever again - like she did. Next time, she drove down, and she, her father, and myself were much happier.
Wow man - what kind of ultimatum is that for your wife? Cherish her, love her, support her. Dude, someday you'll wish you had these kinds of problems. Until then, enjoy life /with/ her.
The sort of ultimatum you give someone when if they haven't learned to listen to you when you know they are going to drive off a cliff, are determined to drive off the cliff, and nothing is going to stop them driving off that cliff, but you want to exercise your option to get out of the car before they drive off the cliff.
I don't know if you've been involved with an alpha chick or not, but a headstrong one can be remarkably stubborn. So you would suggest that I tell her that I support her right to be sexually assaulted, and will support her decision to put herself in harms way? Beat her? Chain her to the bed?
So I respected her incredibly stupid decision to take the bus, and when it was clear that I was right, I told her that this would not happen again with me in the picture. 6 months later, she drove down to visit her father again. I still offered to drive, but she still didn't want to "put me out of my way". But I didn't need to plead, and that trip went off just fine.
I don't know how people booked travel before the Internet, but let's speculate.
They used phones, perhaps? Also insecure, authentication was probably pretty much as bad as it is today. Went to speak with a travel agent in person? The travel agent could check ID, but did they? And then they would have to call or otherwise contact the airline on the traveler's behalf.
Sounds pretty damn hard. Yes, Either my staff assistant, or myself spoke to our travel agent, who knew us. When I'd travel for work, we had an authorization number so no changes happened without that number and a number that replaced it.
Only the "screwing with a person's travel plans" scenario seems likely to me, and that takes some pretty serious or specific motivation.
But still a good illustration of people forgetting how to do stuff once we take it to the intertoobz.
I rode the bus a good 20 times and only had one issue where there was a guy who smelled. (and I've had that on airline flights too... so *shrugs*)
One time my wife wanted to visit her father in Florida who just had an operation. I offered to drive her down from PA, and drive back then do it again a coupe weeks later, since I had some big meetings I couldn't get out of.
She said no, she would take the bus. I told her that was the last thing she wanted to do. I pleaded, I begged a cajoled. However, she is an alpha chick, and does not take telling. So the bus she took.
After coming back into town a couple weeks later, the bus was three hours late. I asked her how the trip was.
She was thrown up on
She spent time in filthy bus stations that were populated by addicts and hookers
She was propostioned for sex several times, and thought she was going to be raped once.
She was offered drugs to either buy or exchange for a blow job on the bus.
She was offered money for her underwear.
And the reason she was three hours late? The bus driver from the last leg of her ride pulled over and went on a lost mind jeezuz rant and someone had to call and get him taken off the bus.
I did throw a shitfit and told her that if she wanted to take another Greyhound bus trip, it would be as a single parent. She is quite headstrong, but if that was all the respect I'd get after having to worry about what I knew was going to happen, fuck it .
Wasn't a fun time for her, but I gave no sympathy. Well, yeah after a week or so.
Because for some strange reason, once we try doing something on the internet, possibly the most insecure and interference pronemethod of doing anything, we forget how millions of us use to fly all of the time, without these sort of problems.
The problem with that is that assuming evening is a lie leads to post-truth politics. Truth becomes irrelevant, facts are things you pick and choose to suit your established views.
And then they are exposed. Now again, I did note that I give some veracity to NPR and BBC, two orgs that do a pretty good job ofgetting the news right. But Facebook is indeed post-truth, and is going to lose this battle.
So basically what you're saying is the human condition is responsible for the stupid shit that human beings do. That's like stating the obvious and there is no amount of government regulation, religion or anything else that we know of that will solve the problem and create a perfect utopia.
Since when am I saying there is some utopia? All systems have problems. But Facebook is just a classic example of how if something is wide open, the trolls come in and destroy it.
It is why humans need some rules and guidelines. Its why occasionally the children need a time out.
We have the entire history of the human race as evidence. I'm tired of hearing people bitching and complaining about things they can't control and then try to scapegoat it on someone or something. Life isn't perfect but it's the only life you get! Get busy living it instead of wasting it!
Well - that's inspiring,and all - but I don't know what it has to do with the issue at hand.
Articles should have scores on at least two dimensions: reliability and popularity. Popularity can be captured by something like "likes," but reliability should be determined in a different way. Coming from a major news source like the Washington Post or the New York Times should give an initial leg up on reliability (say start at sixty percent if from them), but not more than that unless it's a piece they specially flag as a significant product of investigative reporting. Most stuff that most reputable sources produce is interesting and somewhat accurate, but not written by experts. Consequently it tends to be a bit wrong.
But try posting something negaive about Russian hackers in here. Immediately pounced upon and gets modded troll. Then post something positive about the same, and it hits +5 something with a bullet.
The same people doing this are in social media like Facebook, so you don't stand a chance. The tragedy of the commons is always won by the prople who want to destroy the commons
There doesn't seem to be any burden placed on Facebook to detect fake news, only to check reports and remove it within 24 hours.
Seems quite reasonable.
But wouldn't they have to confirm it is actually fake? Some things are obvious, some, not so much. And is satire like the Onion allowed?
As well, we can see in here that everything gets called fake news. That's why I'm saying that Facebook is screwed, and will head the way of usenet.
I had to open a FB account last year
You had to open a FB account? Please tell us who pressured you to, or why.
BTW, I have never had a FB account, and probably never will.
It was for some competitive radio/electronic activities that I'm in charge of, that went to social media instead of the old school message reflector. So Once I got there, my family and other friends found me, then some old GF's. And it was off to the races.
Why is Facebook the issue?
Everyothing is the issue. What has happened is that the fake news people have succeeded too well, and a lot of people are simply not believing anything. I'll give it some veracity if BBC or NPR reports on it, but at this point assume that what I'm reading is a lie. That's what happens when you succeed too well.
including things like activity focus during Moscow time zone's daylight hours
This is amazingly weakly "evidence". Moscow daylight time is also nightime in DC. Which is the time of day you'd least expect someone to notice data-ex-filtration.
Is there a name for Russian shills?
It's interesting, but you will do better to assume that any "news" item you read on Facebook is just a lie.
But how would you get rid of the problem? Facebook is up against the same problem that took down Usenet - the tragedy of the commons. NPR and BBC are treated with the same weight as Joe Blow cranking out crap and conspiracies just for the lulz in his basement.
I wouldn't be surprised if readership is falling. After I had to open a FB account last year, it looked interesting for about a week, then it became an annoyance, now it seems to be troll land.
And as quickly as fake news is deleted, new ones will pop up, and will make note of being deleted, which will feed into conspiracies.
The future does not look so bright for Facebook as they will probably suffer the same fate as usenet.
What are they going to do now that Obama is out? My neighbors, who are fiercely Wing Nut Republicans and who own the local gun shop have admitted that Obama has been the best thing for them in decades. All it takes is even a hint that someone is going to restrict gun purchases and the rest of my neighbors have to run out and get another gun.
I'll probably be modded down for this, but that is the business model. You take an instrument that has inherent value, like a rifle, pistol or shotgun, and grow a culture around it. Then you promote the occasional "scare" where you say "The enemy is coming to take your guns away!" The members of that culture react, and you get an instant super high demand. Between the individual firearms sales and ammunition, it is a genius-level concept.
During the last big scare, I was looking for a sidearm on the internet, and there was nothing to be found.
I guess the takeaway is to buy between the big scares.
Depends. If I needed that organ (or else I would die) and you brought somebody who is compatible with me and gave me a gun, then yes, I would shoot him in the head to get that organ. I am selfish like that.
So you are okay with someone else being selfish like that and popping you?
Truth is I cannot distinguish democrats from republicans. Their common interests far outweigh their theatrical differences that they put on public display. party.
And..... exactly!
Back at ya, my friend! I think if we ever find out how deep Trump's ties to Russia really are, we'll be pretty upset.
It's an almost unreal bit of irony how Russia has finally won the cold war, and they did it in service of the Party of McCarthy and the red scare.