So you're agreeing that taxation is a form of force, then?
Also worth noting, "repaving the roads and building bridges" is less than 15% of what a typical government spends money on. Certainly in the US, our government is a pension plan with a military, that does "all the things you take for granted which are delivered by the government" as a very small side-business, budget-wise.
Smokers who quit will cost less to the public health care system,
Thoroughly-debunked urban legend. People should be embarrassed repeating this on these days. Smoking-related deaths are average-cost ways to die.
lso, since they'll live longer they can work longer and consume longer - and sales taxes and other consumer levies are must-haves for most tax systems.
I can only hope you're being snarky here, but there are people who would sincerely argue that you don't have the right to die early, or to risk your life in any way, because that would deprive the state of needed tax revenue. Those people are assholes.
That's not been my personal experience working in the industry of computer learning and image processing.
How do you know who you've recognized, pray tell? Are you advocating arresting the next Mexican-American who steps in front of a government camera and their faces match up with your scan? That would be a Hell of a thing.
I guess it's up to those who support building a wall to prove that it will work.
Nope, Election. Done deal. The wall will be yuuuuuuge.
, I've provided examples where it can be circumvented
Every security system in the world, by itself, can be circumvented, for fucks sake. What a moron.
Who is suggesting that the wall would be the only defense? It's an effective part of securing the border. I don't get why you have a problem with that. Any one system can be defeated by some. Defense in depth is what changes "some" to "almost none". It will never be none, of course; heck, people make it across the DMZ.
If someone entered the country illegally and a camera tagged them for facial recognition we could wait days to pick them up and still stop more people than a wall would,
Facial recognition only works if someone's face is already in your DB. It's very easy to disappear into the country if you don't have an established identity, bank account, residence, etc. This had been happening constantly with our "catch and release" program.
Reduce the number of people making across the border to something manageable, and they can be caught by surveillance and met by the border patrol in trucks before they can go to ground.
The most straightforward way into your house is the door(s). Locking them is useful, even though there are many other ways into your house, the door can be kicked in, the lock can likely be opened with a "bump key", and so on. You still want a lock on your front door.
The most straightforward way into the country illegally is to drive across the border (well, be driven by a coyote). Blocking that is useful, even though there are many other ways into the country. You still want a wall, fence, or similar physical barrier on your border.
Do you have a lock on your front door? It's only even addresses the single most obvious path in, and it does nothing to stop a determined robber. But I'd call it "effective", because you start with the most obvious path. A wall will keep people from driving in. That's a big deal.
If you're being paid above market wage, the company will expect they can find someone else cheaper - but may still make you a lowball (for you) offer above market, since they've already invested effort in you.
Seems like you're really reaching for a reason not to have a wall. And it won't be "ineffective" - walls have helped to bolster the border security on nations for millennia. The idea that they're "ineffective" is farcical. No defensive measure by itself is ever adequate, and that's fine, it's the collection of such that works.
Well, what's the right thing to do with perfectly effective medicines that are perfectly safe at the listed dosage? I think moving them to OTC (no prescription needed) is probably best, but consumer awareness of such products is low.
All medicines are poisons. The difference is dosage. When the FDA yanks normal cold products for infants because parents can't get the dosage right, it's a legitimate discussion.
This move certainly won't slow down everyone's efforts to move off Oracle. Suddenly it's worth twice as many engineers to end the pain. Hopefully there aren't any Oracle victims left who haven't started on their "move off Oracle" plan - that would be sad, really.
Wow, I hope they at least use a resume-able FTP client! I'm also trying to figure out how to make a cloud backup work - I'm thinking of mailing Amazon some hard drives, but they have to be some reasonable Linux filesystem, and that's remarkably difficult to get working in Windows.
Meanwhile my Windows 10 tablet has the opposite problem. I turned it on after many months, and it won't patch. Hilarious, really, in context.
An airline's core enterprise is the same as Walmart's: logistics. The IT system that manages this is pretty much the whole airline. Much more than just bookings: maintaining the entire schedule of flights, along with some small pool of redundant equipment. Every airplane maintenance log and pilot hours tracking. What food to stock every flight with. It's all logistics, and without that IT system to manage it, there's no airline left. You'd think they'd act like it was important, but apparently not: just one more cost to be minimized.
It should be a mandatory law for companies to publish the number of H1B or B1 visa employees they hire in the company.
It is the law. Also, all of their salaries are published. It used to be fun to match these salaries to specific people in the office (by hiring date, IIRC).
A physical wall (or high fence, which is fine) is important in 2 ways: it's a symbol that this is not the place to enter, and it stop people from driving in. Sure, some people will always find a way, no doubt, but not a steady stream of millions. Mostly, though it's the symbol: we're no longer ignoring immigration law.
Many people have been blasted for "hate speech" for criticizing the views of progressive women. It's common enough that accusations of actual hate speech are routinely dismissed by many. Just more words over-used to the point of meaninglessness.
There are many political philosophies I'm opposed to. I'm opposed to Communism. I'm opposed to Anarchy. I'm opposed to Feudalism. I'm opposed to Islam.
Nothing there to be embarrassed about, doesn't matter what word you use. Sure, 2 of those political philosophies demand a specific religious belief - that if anything makes them more dangerous.
If you behave in a misogynist way, then your behaviour can accurately be described as misogynist.
This rings false, because we all know that "disagreeing with a woman" makes you a misogynist. Much like teaching women self-defense against rapists makes you a rape apologist, and suggesting that everyone should ignore race in how they treat others makes you a racist.
Those little games are all played out. When basically everything is racist, misogynist, and xenophobic, the only rational response is to shrug and ignore those words. The language has changed, and those words no longer have useful meaning.
Sure, but it's also not that expensive to swap the room lock with a new one, if you have someone on staff that does that (and especially if you buy doors and lock designed to facilitate this). The old cylinder can eventually go into some other, random door, after all.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're agreeing that taxation is a form of force, then?
Also worth noting, "repaving the roads and building bridges" is less than 15% of what a typical government spends money on. Certainly in the US, our government is a pension plan with a military, that does "all the things you take for granted which are delivered by the government" as a very small side-business, budget-wise.
Smokers who quit will cost less to the public health care system,
Thoroughly-debunked urban legend. People should be embarrassed repeating this on these days. Smoking-related deaths are average-cost ways to die.
lso, since they'll live longer they can work longer and consume longer - and sales taxes and other consumer levies are must-haves for most tax systems.
I can only hope you're being snarky here, but there are people who would sincerely argue that you don't have the right to die early, or to risk your life in any way, because that would deprive the state of needed tax revenue. Those people are assholes.
That's not been my personal experience working in the industry of computer learning and image processing.
How do you know who you've recognized, pray tell? Are you advocating arresting the next Mexican-American who steps in front of a government camera and their faces match up with your scan? That would be a Hell of a thing.
I guess it's up to those who support building a wall to prove that it will work.
Nope, Election. Done deal. The wall will be yuuuuuuge.
, I've provided examples where it can be circumvented
Every security system in the world, by itself, can be circumvented, for fucks sake. What a moron.
without a way to detect incursions it's pointless
Who is suggesting that the wall would be the only defense? It's an effective part of securing the border. I don't get why you have a problem with that. Any one system can be defeated by some. Defense in depth is what changes "some" to "almost none". It will never be none, of course; heck, people make it across the DMZ.
If someone entered the country illegally and a camera tagged them for facial recognition we could wait days to pick them up and still stop more people than a wall would,
Facial recognition only works if someone's face is already in your DB. It's very easy to disappear into the country if you don't have an established identity, bank account, residence, etc. This had been happening constantly with our "catch and release" program.
Reduce the number of people making across the border to something manageable, and they can be caught by surveillance and met by the border patrol in trucks before they can go to ground.
The most straightforward way into your house is the door(s). Locking them is useful, even though there are many other ways into your house, the door can be kicked in, the lock can likely be opened with a "bump key", and so on. You still want a lock on your front door.
The most straightforward way into the country illegally is to drive across the border (well, be driven by a coyote). Blocking that is useful, even though there are many other ways into the country. You still want a wall, fence, or similar physical barrier on your border.
How was that in any way unclear?
Do you have a lock on your front door? It's only even addresses the single most obvious path in, and it does nothing to stop a determined robber. But I'd call it "effective", because you start with the most obvious path. A wall will keep people from driving in. That's a big deal.
We haven't had a federal budget in forever. Just continuing resolutions. Ryan is part of the problem.
If you're being paid above market wage, the company will expect they can find someone else cheaper - but may still make you a lowball (for you) offer above market, since they've already invested effort in you.
Wait, you lived somewhere in WV where you saw Morganhole as the big city? Eeeeesh.
YOU'RE MAKING THE MACHINE SPIRIT ANGRY!
AIEEEEEEE! There are daemons on the pipes! The token fell out of the token ring! We're doooooomed!
Seems like you're really reaching for a reason not to have a wall. And it won't be "ineffective" - walls have helped to bolster the border security on nations for millennia. The idea that they're "ineffective" is farcical. No defensive measure by itself is ever adequate, and that's fine, it's the collection of such that works.
Well, what's the right thing to do with perfectly effective medicines that are perfectly safe at the listed dosage? I think moving them to OTC (no prescription needed) is probably best, but consumer awareness of such products is low.
All medicines are poisons. The difference is dosage. When the FDA yanks normal cold products for infants because parents can't get the dosage right, it's a legitimate discussion.
It doesn't have to be perfect to help, is the point. Especially to help say "turn around, you're not welcome".
This move certainly won't slow down everyone's efforts to move off Oracle. Suddenly it's worth twice as many engineers to end the pain. Hopefully there aren't any Oracle victims left who haven't started on their "move off Oracle" plan - that would be sad, really.
Wow, I hope they at least use a resume-able FTP client! I'm also trying to figure out how to make a cloud backup work - I'm thinking of mailing Amazon some hard drives, but they have to be some reasonable Linux filesystem, and that's remarkably difficult to get working in Windows.
Meanwhile my Windows 10 tablet has the opposite problem. I turned it on after many months, and it won't patch. Hilarious, really, in context.
An airline's core enterprise is the same as Walmart's: logistics. The IT system that manages this is pretty much the whole airline. Much more than just bookings: maintaining the entire schedule of flights, along with some small pool of redundant equipment. Every airplane maintenance log and pilot hours tracking. What food to stock every flight with. It's all logistics, and without that IT system to manage it, there's no airline left. You'd think they'd act like it was important, but apparently not: just one more cost to be minimized.
It should be a mandatory law for companies to publish the number of H1B or B1 visa employees they hire in the company.
It is the law. Also, all of their salaries are published. It used to be fun to match these salaries to specific people in the office (by hiring date, IIRC).
A physical wall (or high fence, which is fine) is important in 2 ways: it's a symbol that this is not the place to enter, and it stop people from driving in. Sure, some people will always find a way, no doubt, but not a steady stream of millions. Mostly, though it's the symbol: we're no longer ignoring immigration law.
Many people have been blasted for "hate speech" for criticizing the views of progressive women. It's common enough that accusations of actual hate speech are routinely dismissed by many. Just more words over-used to the point of meaninglessness.
There are many political philosophies I'm opposed to. I'm opposed to Communism. I'm opposed to Anarchy. I'm opposed to Feudalism. I'm opposed to Islam.
Nothing there to be embarrassed about, doesn't matter what word you use. Sure, 2 of those political philosophies demand a specific religious belief - that if anything makes them more dangerous.
We had this conversation once. I remember digging up about 12 quotes from you that were SJW chapter-and-verse. It's just weird that you deny this.
If you behave in a misogynist way, then your behaviour can accurately be described as misogynist.
This rings false, because we all know that "disagreeing with a woman" makes you a misogynist. Much like teaching women self-defense against rapists makes you a rape apologist, and suggesting that everyone should ignore race in how they treat others makes you a racist.
Those little games are all played out. When basically everything is racist, misogynist, and xenophobic, the only rational response is to shrug and ignore those words. The language has changed, and those words no longer have useful meaning.
Sure, but it's also not that expensive to swap the room lock with a new one, if you have someone on staff that does that (and especially if you buy doors and lock designed to facilitate this). The old cylinder can eventually go into some other, random door, after all.
That's not the normal English language use of the word "safe".
Let's check a dictionary
1: free from harm or risk
: unhurt
2 : secure from threat of danger, harm, or loss
It doesn't mean "absolutely, perfectly free of risk of harm". It's a relative term.
Your private definition of "safe" is not in common use, I'm afraid. I think you want "safer", which means what you want it to mean.