You're right, and it just shows the nonsense of those kinds of statistics. If random shit that doesn't influence me can influence the "math" that is supposed to be a projection for me, then it makes you wonder what else is nonsense.
Meanwhile, what I really get snagged with is some screw ball that I never expected and something the media narrative never prepared me for.
You might as well just ignore all the "experts" because they are full of shit.
> It is purely subjective, but it's also a damning indictment of the establishment that they can't keep people happy.
Not really. It's more a reflection of a news media that depends on keeping people UNHAPPY. This includes an advertising industry that can have people no other way. American consumer culture is dependent on discontent. If people are discontent, people stop mindlessly buying stuff.
Americans need to be unhappy to feed the corporate machine.
Otherwise you won't buy the bigger house, the bigger car, or fill both with all kinds of junk you don't really need.
That's not even getting into the partisan political angle.
Although even without that you would still be stuck with a news media desperate to sell it's product an tragedy sells.
> Imagine a young mellinial in San Jose today who plans to buy his first starter home within 2 years after his first real job? How realistic is this?... In 1967? Easy. Everyone could afford a nice home even without a degree back then in San Jose.
That says more about San Jose than it does the rest of the country. And that's assuming that we all buy your narrative there that sounds like it came from a black and white TV show that you didn't even pay attention to properly.
What an utter blithering moron you are, either that or a shameless lying sack of shit.
Liberal and conservative are merely metrics relative to "change". A liberal wants to change things "moving forward" and a conservative wants to preserve the status quo.
A social conservative may also be a reactionary trying to change things "backwards" in a direction opposite a "liberal".
Things like "liberty" and authoritarianism are orthogonal to the overly simplistic one dimensional "Left versus Right" political model.
People don't change. It's the same shit over and over again. Fancy new toys and technology really don't change anything. The same basic things that drive people now drove them 5000 years ago.
> Successful people are much more likely to see the view and perspective of other people.
Don't kid yourself snowflake.
You just think you're smarter than everyone else and it annoys the hell out of people. It also amuses those of us who have a wider set of life experiences.
NO solution "scales". All human systems and systems in general scale poorly. So you are better of not trying to make them huge, unmanageable, inefficient, and prone to corruption.
In practice, education is very much highly distributed in this country.
It makes someone like DeVos far less relevant than the media tries to make her. She is pretty much the first "celebrity" to run that department since it was founded by Carter.
> Rational thinking would lead you to cut Social Security,
If that's what's needed to preserve it? So be it. People have been predicting the collapse of Social Security quite possibly since before you were born. It's a big Ponzi scheme.
Some times you have to make hard choices. When you are in charge, you risk causing even greater harm if you can't make those hard choices.
This is why one tends to be less impressed with things that "sound good" as you age. Experience makes simple ideas that "sound good" seem less magical.
Donald is unlikely to know a real welfare mother. On the other hand, those of us that grew up poor knew plenty. We might even be related to some.
This real world experience with the social welfare system probably also explains how "the poor vote against their interests". They are far less impressed with promises of goodies from the government.
Pretty much the only approach that makes sense is to just rip the original disk and forget about it. Back up the ripped copy if you are worried about needing the original again.
I've watched a BluRay disk just ONCE with a real player.
It all depends on screen size and viewing distance.
Also a very good SD stream beats a crappy HD one.
For a lot of content, the extra video bandwidth is just a waste of resources even if you are viewing it on a screen large enough and a distance close enough for the extra resolution to matter.
Some people you just don't want to see too clearly.
No. It's used by people that can fend for themselves upset at the idea that elitists think that everyone should be treated like children.
Entitled is the right word. You aren't owed anything by anyone.
That's quite apart from whether or not taking care of people is the civilized thing to do. The real problem is that you can't have everyone be takers. You can't just rob the "wealthy".
There are't enough "wealthy". More people need to be willing to step up and provide. Otherwise, you run out of other people's money.
If you think society owes you something, you are probably a leech.
You are confusing your own luck with the general expectation. You can be in the boonies of any country and get a decent connection if you happen to be lucky enough to be located near a backbone. There's much more empty space that that in places that aren't Europe.
I ditched the idea of a multi-acre lot in the next suburb outward of my city because they had crap internet service.
Forget about being 100 miles or 200 miles away from a major city.
Making this a priority in terms of national infastructure doesn't make it a "right" any more than this was done for rural electrification or phone service.
I have a 120 inch screen in my home theatre and I'm not even that excited about 1080p content for most things. And that's for physical media which is generally superior to any form of streaming (or cable).
There are plenty of charts you can google to see why this might be the case.
> This line, to me, says there is an issue with science and government. The CDC believes republican congressmen will react badly to this list of science words
That is the bullshit narrative right there. With the exception of "fetus", NONE of these are "science words". They're political nonsense.
> You guys bitch when Google doesn't do anything about the fake news and political hacking, and then bitch more about when they do. I'm beginning to think you just like bitching about things.
You are conflating two entirely different groups with two entirely different ideas about how to deal with contrary viewpoints.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, and it just shows the nonsense of those kinds of statistics. If random shit that doesn't influence me can influence the "math" that is supposed to be a projection for me, then it makes you wonder what else is nonsense.
Meanwhile, what I really get snagged with is some screw ball that I never expected and something the media narrative never prepared me for.
You might as well just ignore all the "experts" because they are full of shit.
> It is purely subjective, but it's also a damning indictment of the establishment that they can't keep people happy.
Not really. It's more a reflection of a news media that depends on keeping people UNHAPPY. This includes an advertising industry that can have people no other way. American consumer culture is dependent on discontent. If people are discontent, people stop mindlessly buying stuff.
Americans need to be unhappy to feed the corporate machine.
Otherwise you won't buy the bigger house, the bigger car, or fill both with all kinds of junk you don't really need.
That's not even getting into the partisan political angle.
Although even without that you would still be stuck with a news media desperate to sell it's product an tragedy sells.
> Imagine a young mellinial in San Jose today who plans to buy his first starter home within 2 years after his first real job? How realistic is this? ... In 1967? Easy. Everyone could afford a nice home even without a degree back then in San Jose.
That says more about San Jose than it does the rest of the country. And that's assuming that we all buy your narrative there that sounds like it came from a black and white TV show that you didn't even pay attention to properly.
> "Liberal" means in favor of liberty.
What an utter blithering moron you are, either that or a shameless lying sack of shit.
Liberal and conservative are merely metrics relative to "change". A liberal wants to change things "moving forward" and a conservative wants to preserve the status quo.
A social conservative may also be a reactionary trying to change things "backwards" in a direction opposite a "liberal".
Things like "liberty" and authoritarianism are orthogonal to the overly simplistic one dimensional "Left versus Right" political model.
Are you willing to contribute your own money without the threat of force? If not then STFU, you're a fucking hypocrite.
You are pushing the classical modernist fallacy.
People don't change. It's the same shit over and over again. Fancy new toys and technology really don't change anything. The same basic things that drive people now drove them 5000 years ago.
> Successful people are much more likely to see the view and perspective of other people.
Don't kid yourself snowflake.
You just think you're smarter than everyone else and it annoys the hell out of people. It also amuses those of us who have a wider set of life experiences.
NO solution "scales". All human systems and systems in general scale poorly. So you are better of not trying to make them huge, unmanageable, inefficient, and prone to corruption.
In practice, education is very much highly distributed in this country.
It makes someone like DeVos far less relevant than the media tries to make her. She is pretty much the first "celebrity" to run that department since it was founded by Carter.
> Rational thinking would lead you to cut Social Security,
If that's what's needed to preserve it? So be it. People have been predicting the collapse of Social Security quite possibly since before you were born. It's a big Ponzi scheme.
Some times you have to make hard choices. When you are in charge, you risk causing even greater harm if you can't make those hard choices.
This is why one tends to be less impressed with things that "sound good" as you age. Experience makes simple ideas that "sound good" seem less magical.
> Not quite right.
You simply understand nothing about Judaism. The bit about purity is pretty spot on and even is relevant to modern Conservative and Orthodox practice.
Donald is unlikely to know a real welfare mother. On the other hand, those of us that grew up poor knew plenty. We might even be related to some.
This real world experience with the social welfare system probably also explains how "the poor vote against their interests". They are far less impressed with promises of goodies from the government.
Pretty much the only approach that makes sense is to just rip the original disk and forget about it. Back up the ripped copy if you are worried about needing the original again.
I've watched a BluRay disk just ONCE with a real player.
That was one time too many in my opinion.
Hollywood is it's own worst enemy.
> No one will ever need more than 640x480 pixels.
It all depends on screen size and viewing distance.
Also a very good SD stream beats a crappy HD one.
For a lot of content, the extra video bandwidth is just a waste of resources even if you are viewing it on a screen large enough and a distance close enough for the extra resolution to matter.
Some people you just don't want to see too clearly.
I just switched to the competitor. All is good. Plus I no longer need to run an OS not of my choosing.
AnyDVD was never "fast". So "speed" is not something that would get me to switch back.
You don't have to be a socialist to view roads as infastructure.
Republicans were the original party of "roads".
The whole effort doesn't have to be described in terms where you get a free handout.
No. It's used by people that can fend for themselves upset at the idea that elitists think that everyone should be treated like children.
Entitled is the right word. You aren't owed anything by anyone.
That's quite apart from whether or not taking care of people is the civilized thing to do. The real problem is that you can't have everyone be takers. You can't just rob the "wealthy".
There are't enough "wealthy". More people need to be willing to step up and provide. Otherwise, you run out of other people's money.
If you think society owes you something, you are probably a leech.
Even pirates despise a leech.
That's funny.
Individual liberties are a product of the European enlightenment and Xian humanism. They are not an American invention.
It's really deranged that you would seek to attribute modern liberal democratic ideals only to Americans in order to push some socialist agenda.
> I have no idea of how you flush your toilet, do the wash, and bathe.
I pay my bills.
It's the same as my house payment, car payment, and the money I give to the local grocery store.
Someone thinks they can make a buck by providing something I need or want.
It's not a "right". It's a service everyone pays for.
> Well, someone must provide you with freedom of speech for it to be a right.
No. Someone does not. That just happens naturally without anyone messing with you or a government existing.
This makes more sense if you understand that the law represents the powers that government grants itself or limits placed on that same government.
The Bill of Rights doesn't define your rights. It defines limits placed on government.
You are confusing your own luck with the general expectation. You can be in the boonies of any country and get a decent connection if you happen to be lucky enough to be located near a backbone. There's much more empty space that that in places that aren't Europe.
I ditched the idea of a multi-acre lot in the next suburb outward of my city because they had crap internet service.
Forget about being 100 miles or 200 miles away from a major city.
Making this a priority in terms of national infastructure doesn't make it a "right" any more than this was done for rural electrification or phone service.
I have a 120 inch screen in my home theatre and I'm not even that excited about 1080p content for most things. And that's for physical media which is generally superior to any form of streaming (or cable).
There are plenty of charts you can google to see why this might be the case.
> This line, to me, says there is an issue with science and government. The CDC believes republican congressmen will react badly to this list of science words
That is the bullshit narrative right there. With the exception of "fetus", NONE of these are "science words". They're political nonsense.
They belong in the same category as "gay cancer".
> You guys bitch when Google doesn't do anything about the fake news and political hacking, and then bitch more about when they do. I'm beginning to think you just like bitching about things.
You are conflating two entirely different groups with two entirely different ideas about how to deal with contrary viewpoints.
Sure it is. You've never heard the globalist organizations whine about how it's "discrimination" to put country of origin labels on food?
As far as culture goes: Your hysterical ranting won't alter the fact that the US dominates global culture.