They don't. I'm can't even fathom how you came up with that conclusion
Maybe he came up with that conclusion because its been well understood for decades, that both the rich and the poor subsidize the middle classes higher education.
You shouldn't really worry about it, because in all likelihood the alternative for the people there is worse. Our garbage is now a jobs program overseas, even though we didnt intend it to be.
What are we going to do about it, after all? Start up a real jobs program for these people? Its not exactly our responsibility to provide jobs to people on another continent.
All the stuff about toxicity, cancer, and so on is a red herring. The alternative for them is zero income.
This is what happens when you under fund the IT budget
Throwing $2.5 billion at "desktops, laptops, computer equipment and end-user services such as help desk and data backup" doesnt sound like underfunding IT to me.
I'm pretty sure we instigated the Japanese bombing of Pearl. For fuck sakes in the first quarter of 1941 Roosevelt moved the Pacific fleet to Pearl, began a military buildup in the Philippines, and then followed that up in July by cutting off Japans oil supply.
..then in December of that year, we were surprised that Japan attacked? No. We expected it, because we instigated it. We just didn't expect it to be Pearl. We expected it to be the Philippines.
..and to quote wikipedia, "A Gallup poll just before the attack on Pearl Harbor found that 52% of Americans expected war with Japan, 27% did not, and 21% had no opinion."
So most Americans expected war with Japan... because we were not innocent.
The Republicans are the ones who passed the Patriot Act in the first place.
Don't be an ignorant fuck.
H.R. 3162 aka "THE PATRIOT ACT" passed the House in 2001 with 357 Yay votes and only 66 Nay votes. 145 of those Yay votes (40%) were Democrats. Only 15% of the House voted against it.
Then it passed the Senate 98 Yay to 1 Nay. The only Senator to vote against it was Feingold from Wisconsin.. yes, a Democrat.
Somehow I can amazingly find information on the internet such as which Representatives and Senators voted for which bills. Good thing indeed. It allows me to not exist in a state of ignorant fuckness.
The different accounts subscribe to different service tiers. This is like complaining that your cheaper 768Kbit account cant stream Netflix HD but your more expensive 5Mbit mid-tier account can.
The business account is probably paying several hundred per month, and for that the account gets a different level of service, perhaps one that doesnt degrade so much during prime-time.
I'd be pretty pissed off if my $200/mo business plan was treated equal to your $65/mo residential plan, that your $65 gives you the "Net Neutrality" right to fuck me out of the better connection that I am paying for.
Because it would be illegal, and they would be subject to legal repercussions, unlike now.
You are clearly suffering from the disjoint definition of "Net Neutrality" -- There is the version that you think would be right, and then there is the version that the FCC adopted. You've already been told that there is a difference, but you continue to choose to ignore reality due to some blind hope that the FCC is there to protect you. The FCC is there to generate campaign contributions by selling policy to companies like AT&T and Verizon. As a matter of fact, these companies were the people consulted when drafting the FCC's Net Neutrality rules. You were told about that too. You chose to also ignore that due to that same blind hope.
Nothing the FCC adopted would prevent Verizon from limiting bandwidth to such an extent that services like Netflix become pixelated junk during peek usage periods. That is the real Net Neutrality as adopted. You were told what the real Net neutrality was, and you ignored it while cheering it on. Welcome to the internet that you cheered for.
Yes, pretty much. "Liberal" is supposed to imply at least a bit of leftism, and leftism mean policies that benefit ordinary working people instead of the aristocrats who control capital.
Ah yes, so that means that "Conservative" is supposed to imply at least a bit of rightism, and rightism means policies that hurt ordinary working people instead of the aristocrats who control [the] capital.
We see how you think. "No True Leftist" but plenty of "True Rightists" in your world.
MSNBC has people like Rachel Maddow who actually report **news** in a professional journalistic presentation style & with the same rigor.
Hah, the girl who "Leans Forward" -- just like Fox's "Fair and Balanced" -- and spends her time attacking others. You do know that attacking is not news, right?
Even if they don't win, it's better than voting for evil
Understatement of the year. I put it like this:
When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil. What makes you think that there exists an acceptable excuse for supporting evil? There is no acceptable excuse. YOU MUST BE EVIL TOO.
He hasn't enacted a single "liberal" action or policy that didn't have corporate backing.
..because "corporate backing" rules out "liberal," right?
Oh, no it doesn't. You have conflated your hate of corporations with your hate of conservatives. Consider that whole ACA thing. While we call it "Obamacare" it was spearheaded by Pelosi and Reid, not Obama. So now you are basically claiming that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the entire Democrat majorities of both House and Senate when the ACA was passed were "top 5 conservative."
Clearly you have dived into the depths of complete partisan ridiculousness.
Things like the ACA aka "Obamacare" is exactly what the NOT CONSERVATIVES do when they have an iron grip on Capital Hill.
They should be doing their own research to begin with.
It is rational to put no effort in voting decisions on a national level because the effort and time required to be informed is much larger than the realized value of your vote. You are one of millions in all but some house races, and then there is that whole electoral college diminishing the value of your vote further.
What happened yesterday in House or Senate? How did it go? Open a newspaper, turn on the evening news, or cast your eyes on a cable news network, and its a rare day that they report on whats really going on in government. Its all "he said" and "she said", reporting only on whats spoon fed them in press releases and other coordinated information campaigns.
Record both FOX news and MSNBC for (the same) 24 hours and revue the news content. While the channels disagree in an opinionated way, they still report on the exact same set of stories. How can it be that they differ so little as to which stories to cover in a country and world as large as ours yet still be doing their job as a "press?" Clearly they arent what one traditionally thinks of as "press" in the phrase "free press."
Now, because there is no traditional free press left, it is a considerable effort to be an informed voter. Far more effort than being an informed voter is worth, so yes we can blame the fucking reporters for creating a voter tragedy of the commons.
A January 19th story on slashdot seems to indicate that municipality internet isnt the panacea everyone wants it to be. That Iowa municipality is switching to metered broadband:
True, the casinos want equal betting on both sides. Therefore, the casinos analyze the odds of who will win only when they open the betting.
You are an idiot. You do understand that the second sentence is not a conclusion that can or even should be drawn from the first, right?
The casinos NEVER analyze the odds of who will win. They analyze public perception. The outcome of the event is irrelevant. Public perception is relevant.
Additionally, Vegas is full of other professionals who do make predictions of who will win, and most importantly, by how much they'll win.
..and they arent bookies, and they dont (ooh let me quote the ignorant fuck you are defending with your own ignorant fuckness) "spend literally millions of dollars computing the odds to a much deeper degree than this foolishness in the summary"
Who was modded informative by people jut as ignorant as him, but probably less ignorant that you. The shit you got wrong was text that was already on your screen at the time you replied.
Bookmakers in vegas spend literally millions of dollars computing the odds to a much deeper degree than this foolishness in the summary, and even they are not even close to 100% accurate.
Sigh....
If you don't know how bookmaking works, don't comment on it. We both know that you don't know, and we also both know that you are making an uneducated guess that bookies care about a games outcome. You are wrong. Bookies do not care who wins. Bookies make money regardless of the outcome.
The goal of a football bookie is to get equal amounts of money wagered on each of the two teams. Now stop acting like a fucking expert when you are actually an ignorant fuck.
This statement is absurd. You seem to be saying that homeless in the U.S. are richer because they can, what, choose to starve on the streets? Are you really speaking for people to claim that they are better off without beds and warm meals because they have some theoretical "choice"?
You are an idiot because he wasn't talking about choice. You brought choise into it because you didnt want to actually face the meat of his argument: Being homeless in America is nowhere near as bad as the conditions that literally 600 million Indians live in. Really. Its not.
First of all, our homeless as a general rule do not starve to death because they have access to food. This is in stark contrast to the poor in India, where even the poor with homes are at risk of starving to death. 600 million people in India live on less than $1 per day.
I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didnt know how fucking bad it is in India because, quite frankly, you are acting like an expert and experts are supposed to fucking know shit. Clearly you are not an expert and we know that you know that you arent, but you continue to act like one.. so fuck you.
i think the US government is incredible at building roads, and it's military seems rather well managed.
As far as the roads, what metric are you using?
The idea that there exists roads, and that they are (for the most part) in relatively good condition, is not enough. The important metric would be if the actual investment that we are putting in is worth the outcome.
Unfortunately our system is such that the first step in maintaining the interstates is for the Federal government to take money away from the States, and the second step is for the Federal government to give money back to the States that is earmarked for interstate road maintenance. Surely you don't claim that this is an efficient method?
As far as militarily, we clearly have the best in the world, but again is the outcome worth the investment? Its a no-brainer that we have the best military given that we have outspent the rest of the world for decades. That doesnt tell us if the money was spent well.
I'm going to declare that you have fallen for the fallacy "the ends justify the means" and that in fact the entire problem with our federal government is centered around justifying things using this fallacy.
A total of $6.1 trillion dollars was spent between Federal, State, and Local governments in 2013. Thats about $20,000 per person; $53,000 per household, which is the same as the median household income. If government budgets were balanced, the median household taxation would literally need to be $53,000. $6.1 trillion is also 50% more than all retail sales in the country in 2013: The government literally spent more than the people do, and the logical conclusion of that happening is corporations partnering up with the government against the people because thats quite simply where most of the money is.
The closest thing to an argument against this all being a problem is "but that money goes back into the economy.."... yes, but the $53000 median income per household already includes those effects, so argument destroyed.
Most of the so-called arguments that claim that spending isnt that far out of control center around only federal spending, frequently comparing it to the entire government spending of other countries. In effect this sort of argument literally ignores almost half of all government spending in the U.S..
Well, they do, via regulators like BPPE which set the standards regarding what you can claim and to within what margins those claims can deviate.
You really think its OK to make it legal to deviate from the claim, by some margin?
Thats the problem with regulation right there. Suddenly students don't have a legal recourse because regulating fucks said it was OK to lie to students so long as it was just a small "within the margin" lie.
The students would be better off with no such regulation, because then they would have the legal recourses that the regulars want to deprive them.
There is a reason that Reagan won by complete landslides in both elections, and it wasnt his geriatric charisma. Its because people knew that his straight talk was true.
However, back then television channels like PBS were running programs like Milton Friedmans "Free to Choose" which showcased some of the disasters of progressivism (such as federal housing projects, aka "concentrated poverty") as well as some of the shining successes of capitalism (such as Hong Kong.) The only place you will find that sort of freedom coverage now is on the Internet.
For the record, in 1980 Reagan took 489 out of 538 electoral votes and carried 44 of the 50 States. Then in 1984 Reagan took 525 out of 538 electoral votes and carried 49 of the 50 States. Unlike recent presidents, Reagan grew in popularity as time went on.
I doubt we will ever see another president like Reagan in my lifetime.
Slashdot Mirror
The poor pay little in federal taxes
Fixed that for you.
They don't. I'm can't even fathom how you came up with that conclusion
Maybe he came up with that conclusion because its been well understood for decades, that both the rich and the poor subsidize the middle classes higher education.
I'm well-off enough to pay more for food that tastes better.
Me too. I'm well-off enough to pay more for gold-plated connectors on all my digital audio cables that sound better.
How does their grasp of science effect the freshness of their kale?
...how does your grasp on science effect the 10 commandments?
You shouldn't really worry about it, because in all likelihood the alternative for the people there is worse. Our garbage is now a jobs program overseas, even though we didnt intend it to be.
What are we going to do about it, after all? Start up a real jobs program for these people? Its not exactly our responsibility to provide jobs to people on another continent.
All the stuff about toxicity, cancer, and so on is a red herring. The alternative for them is zero income.
You can tell when it's recording.
You keep saying that, but that doesnt make it true.
Maybe you could help us out by showing us where we can find predictions from past IPCC reports.
Maybe you should look in the past IPCC reports. Don't look someplace else.
This is what happens when you under fund the IT budget
Throwing $2.5 billion at "desktops, laptops, computer equipment and end-user services such as help desk and data backup" doesnt sound like underfunding IT to me.
I'm pretty sure we instigated the Japanese bombing of Pearl. For fuck sakes in the first quarter of 1941 Roosevelt moved the Pacific fleet to Pearl, began a military buildup in the Philippines, and then followed that up in July by cutting off Japans oil supply.
..then in December of that year, we were surprised that Japan attacked? No. We expected it, because we instigated it. We just didn't expect it to be Pearl. We expected it to be the Philippines.
..and to quote wikipedia, "A Gallup poll just before the attack on Pearl Harbor found that 52% of Americans expected war with Japan, 27% did not, and 21% had no opinion."
So most Americans expected war with Japan... because we were not innocent.
The Republicans are the ones who passed the Patriot Act in the first place.
Don't be an ignorant fuck.
H.R. 3162 aka "THE PATRIOT ACT" passed the House in 2001 with 357 Yay votes and only 66 Nay votes. 145 of those Yay votes (40%) were Democrats. Only 15% of the House voted against it.
Then it passed the Senate 98 Yay to 1 Nay. The only Senator to vote against it was Feingold from Wisconsin.. yes, a Democrat.
Somehow I can amazingly find information on the internet such as which Representatives and Senators voted for which bills. Good thing indeed. It allows me to not exist in a state of ignorant fuckness.
The different accounts subscribe to different service tiers. This is like complaining that your cheaper 768Kbit account cant stream Netflix HD but your more expensive 5Mbit mid-tier account can.
The business account is probably paying several hundred per month, and for that the account gets a different level of service, perhaps one that doesnt degrade so much during prime-time.
I'd be pretty pissed off if my $200/mo business plan was treated equal to your $65/mo residential plan, that your $65 gives you the "Net Neutrality" right to fuck me out of the better connection that I am paying for.
Because it would be illegal, and they would be subject to legal repercussions, unlike now.
You are clearly suffering from the disjoint definition of "Net Neutrality" -- There is the version that you think would be right, and then there is the version that the FCC adopted. You've already been told that there is a difference, but you continue to choose to ignore reality due to some blind hope that the FCC is there to protect you. The FCC is there to generate campaign contributions by selling policy to companies like AT&T and Verizon. As a matter of fact, these companies were the people consulted when drafting the FCC's Net Neutrality rules. You were told about that too. You chose to also ignore that due to that same blind hope.
Nothing the FCC adopted would prevent Verizon from limiting bandwidth to such an extent that services like Netflix become pixelated junk during peek usage periods. That is the real Net Neutrality as adopted. You were told what the real Net neutrality was, and you ignored it while cheering it on. Welcome to the internet that you cheered for.
ditto
Yes, pretty much. "Liberal" is supposed to imply at least a bit of leftism, and leftism mean policies that benefit ordinary working people instead of the aristocrats who control capital.
Ah yes, so that means that "Conservative" is supposed to imply at least a bit of rightism, and rightism means policies that hurt ordinary working people instead of the aristocrats who control [the] capital.
We see how you think. "No True Leftist" but plenty of "True Rightists" in your world.
MSNBC has people like Rachel Maddow who actually report **news** in a professional journalistic presentation style & with the same rigor.
Hah, the girl who "Leans Forward" -- just like Fox's "Fair and Balanced" -- and spends her time attacking others. You do know that attacking is not news, right?
Even if they don't win, it's better than voting for evil
Understatement of the year. I put it like this:
When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil. What makes you think that there exists an acceptable excuse for supporting evil? There is no acceptable excuse. YOU MUST BE EVIL TOO.
He hasn't enacted a single "liberal" action or policy that didn't have corporate backing.
Oh, no it doesn't. You have conflated your hate of corporations with your hate of conservatives. Consider that whole ACA thing. While we call it "Obamacare" it was spearheaded by Pelosi and Reid, not Obama. So now you are basically claiming that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the entire Democrat majorities of both House and Senate when the ACA was passed were "top 5 conservative."
Clearly you have dived into the depths of complete partisan ridiculousness.
Things like the ACA aka "Obamacare" is exactly what the NOT CONSERVATIVES do when they have an iron grip on Capital Hill.
They should be doing their own research to begin with.
It is rational to put no effort in voting decisions on a national level because the effort and time required to be informed is much larger than the realized value of your vote. You are one of millions in all but some house races, and then there is that whole electoral college diminishing the value of your vote further.
What happened yesterday in House or Senate? How did it go? Open a newspaper, turn on the evening news, or cast your eyes on a cable news network, and its a rare day that they report on whats really going on in government. Its all "he said" and "she said", reporting only on whats spoon fed them in press releases and other coordinated information campaigns.
Record both FOX news and MSNBC for (the same) 24 hours and revue the news content. While the channels disagree in an opinionated way, they still report on the exact same set of stories. How can it be that they differ so little as to which stories to cover in a country and world as large as ours yet still be doing their job as a "press?" Clearly they arent what one traditionally thinks of as "press" in the phrase "free press."
Now, because there is no traditional free press left, it is a considerable effort to be an informed voter. Far more effort than being an informed voter is worth, so yes we can blame the fucking reporters for creating a voter tragedy of the commons.
A January 19th story on slashdot seems to indicate that municipality internet isnt the panacea everyone wants it to be. That Iowa municipality is switching to metered broadband:
5GB/month = $25/month
25GB/month = $100/month
100GB/month = $300/month
It turns out that local political hacks arent good at setting up and running a broadband network.
True, the casinos want equal betting on both sides. Therefore, the casinos analyze the odds of who will win only when they open the betting.
You are an idiot. You do understand that the second sentence is not a conclusion that can or even should be drawn from the first, right?
The casinos NEVER analyze the odds of who will win. They analyze public perception. The outcome of the event is irrelevant. Public perception is relevant.
Additionally, Vegas is full of other professionals who do make predictions of who will win, and most importantly, by how much they'll win.
Who was modded informative by people jut as ignorant as him, but probably less ignorant that you. The shit you got wrong was text that was already on your screen at the time you replied.
Bookmakers in vegas spend literally millions of dollars computing the odds to a much deeper degree than this foolishness in the summary, and even they are not even close to 100% accurate.
Sigh....
If you don't know how bookmaking works, don't comment on it. We both know that you don't know, and we also both know that you are making an uneducated guess that bookies care about a games outcome. You are wrong. Bookies do not care who wins. Bookies make money regardless of the outcome.
The goal of a football bookie is to get equal amounts of money wagered on each of the two teams. Now stop acting like a fucking expert when you are actually an ignorant fuck.
This statement is absurd. You seem to be saying that homeless in the U.S. are richer because they can, what, choose to starve on the streets? Are you really speaking for people to claim that they are better off without beds and warm meals because they have some theoretical "choice"?
You are an idiot because he wasn't talking about choice. You brought choise into it because you didnt want to actually face the meat of his argument: Being homeless in America is nowhere near as bad as the conditions that literally 600 million Indians live in. Really. Its not.
First of all, our homeless as a general rule do not starve to death because they have access to food. This is in stark contrast to the poor in India, where even the poor with homes are at risk of starving to death. 600 million people in India live on less than $1 per day.
I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didnt know how fucking bad it is in India because, quite frankly, you are acting like an expert and experts are supposed to fucking know shit. Clearly you are not an expert and we know that you know that you arent, but you continue to act like one.. so fuck you.
i think the US government is incredible at building roads, and it's military seems rather well managed.
As far as the roads, what metric are you using?
... yes, but the $53000 median income per household already includes those effects, so argument destroyed.
The idea that there exists roads, and that they are (for the most part) in relatively good condition, is not enough. The important metric would be if the actual investment that we are putting in is worth the outcome.
Unfortunately our system is such that the first step in maintaining the interstates is for the Federal government to take money away from the States, and the second step is for the Federal government to give money back to the States that is earmarked for interstate road maintenance. Surely you don't claim that this is an efficient method?
As far as militarily, we clearly have the best in the world, but again is the outcome worth the investment? Its a no-brainer that we have the best military given that we have outspent the rest of the world for decades. That doesnt tell us if the money was spent well.
I'm going to declare that you have fallen for the fallacy "the ends justify the means" and that in fact the entire problem with our federal government is centered around justifying things using this fallacy.
A total of $6.1 trillion dollars was spent between Federal, State, and Local governments in 2013. Thats about $20,000 per person; $53,000 per household, which is the same as the median household income. If government budgets were balanced, the median household taxation would literally need to be $53,000. $6.1 trillion is also 50% more than all retail sales in the country in 2013: The government literally spent more than the people do, and the logical conclusion of that happening is corporations partnering up with the government against the people because thats quite simply where most of the money is.
The closest thing to an argument against this all being a problem is "but that money goes back into the economy.."
Most of the so-called arguments that claim that spending isnt that far out of control center around only federal spending, frequently comparing it to the entire government spending of other countries. In effect this sort of argument literally ignores almost half of all government spending in the U.S..
Well, they do, via regulators like BPPE which set the standards regarding what you can claim and to within what margins those claims can deviate.
You really think its OK to make it legal to deviate from the claim, by some margin?
Thats the problem with regulation right there. Suddenly students don't have a legal recourse because regulating fucks said it was OK to lie to students so long as it was just a small "within the margin" lie.
The students would be better off with no such regulation, because then they would have the legal recourses that the regulars want to deprive them.
There is a reason that Reagan won by complete landslides in both elections, and it wasnt his geriatric charisma. Its because people knew that his straight talk was true.
However, back then television channels like PBS were running programs like Milton Friedmans "Free to Choose" which showcased some of the disasters of progressivism (such as federal housing projects, aka "concentrated poverty") as well as some of the shining successes of capitalism (such as Hong Kong.) The only place you will find that sort of freedom coverage now is on the Internet.
For the record, in 1980 Reagan took 489 out of 538 electoral votes and carried 44 of the 50 States. Then in 1984 Reagan took 525 out of 538 electoral votes and carried 49 of the 50 States. Unlike recent presidents, Reagan grew in popularity as time went on.
I doubt we will ever see another president like Reagan in my lifetime.