See, in a liberal's mind, being forced to adhere to your terms of service is a grave injustice, but being forced to make a political statement you disagree with is just peachy.
And hope no one notices that the loudest agitators for "net neutrality" and a "free and open internet" have also been caught red-handed censoring perfectly legal user content they disagree with.
The browser's job is to display a page as written in conformance with standards. If the standards allow protocols besides http or https for fetching resources, then too fucking bad if the protocols are not to your liking, it's still valid.
Would every website with user profiles be required to pay for a privacy monitor to be stationed at their offices and datacenters, same way commercial fishermen have to pay for compliance officers to monitor their catches?
I'm waiting for Firefox to automatically put black bars over profanity and refuse to show images that aren't cryptographically signed by a consortium of SLPC, Snopes, and Politifact.
Seriously...why do these people think it's their business to control the form of content displayed in their browsers? If it's valid HTML, served over a valid protocol, it should display. Otherwise the browser is broken.
Unless the answer is zero, this is just feel-good nonsense. Converting their entire supply chain to all-recycled materials and all-renewable electricity isn't possible, and the closer you want to get the more the devices will cost.
I thought I had reached you but I see I was mistaken. All the good stuff you're talking about isn't for free. It is hard, and in my opinion nearly impossible, to achieve all the good without incentivizing a lot of bad behavior or giving away a lot of future potential prosperity for the benefit of a little fleeting and illusory comfort today. If the factories all move to Mexico, then yes you have cheaper stuff in the stores. But you've also put a lot of good working men out of a job and more importantly you've incentivized the money and the intellectual property to keep going to Mexico so that you've not only given up today's jobs, you've also given up tomorrow's jobs and you've given up on the ability to make your own stuff in the future. The fact that it's damn near impossible to find a good dress shirt made in this country for any price is shameful, no matter how cheap the Guatemalan stuff in the Walmart is. We can't clothe ourselves. That's not a situation that's worth aiming for.
I see. You seem to think purely in economic terms. It took the United States over 150 years to industrialize and urbanize. The culture grew up with the technology and the technology grew with the culture. You can't believe it's possible to just plop down intellectual property in a place and have it go from agrarian to post-industrial in a single generation without massively negative social consequences. And that's not even counting the erosion to our economy that will accompany it. NAFTA was good for some, but it was really really bad for others.
And "giving" anything to anyone for free is contrary to our cultural values as well as our economic interest. We tend to believe that things should be earned and that the people who earned them have a right to benefit from them.
Glad we cleared that up. Now that we agree that Congress does have the authority to allow or deny people entry, and given that we agree that uncontrolled mass migration is not a good thing, we can move on to how it is you think it's possible for "us" (presumably US and Canada) to "fix" Mexico. In my reading of history, the United States and its allies have only managed to "fix" two or three countries in the 240-some years we've been an independent nation. In each instance, it was at the point of a gun, and despite the gleaming beacons of civilizations that the successes have become, we're not even batting.500 here.
The intentionally misnamed "autopilot" may reduce the likelihood of wandering out of your well-marked lane in clear conditions at highways speed but every once in a while it'll drive you right into an obstacle. Reminds me of those "push this button and ten people with terminal cancer get cured but two other random people die from a meteor strike" questions taught in philosophy classes with the intent of humbling people who might otherwise believe they can quantify their way through every obstacle.
You're claiming that nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to decide who may or may not reside on the territory of the United States unless it's got something to do with interstate commerce?
Where in the Constitution or in case law does it say the authority to allow people to come is rooted in commerce? Implicit in the idea of uniform naturalization and control and disposition of federal lands, and in conducting international relations (also a power of Congress) and having a military is the idea that you have a border and you guard it.
Long story short dude, you're falling into a trap of thinking "I disagree with you" or "I don't like your idea" is the same thing as "Your idea is illegal." That's not the case with border enforcement and immigration law.
The other possibility is that you're really just about open borders and no immigration restrictions (which is a position I understand, but do not agree with), but you're trying to lawyer your way around having to admit it by invoking artificial (as in, an artifice, made-up by you) vagueness and non-existent constraints on the power of the federal government to make and enforce immigration laws, a power delegated to the federal government with the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788 and that has not been amended away in 230 years.
To take your example, Green Cards are issued as a stepping-stone to naturalization and are part of naturalization laws passed by Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. If Congress had no authority to make naturalization law, it would not have the authority to make laws about issuing green cards or work visas, nor would it have the authority to pass laws directing the executive to kick people out for not having those documents.
And if the media weren't full of stories about those "best and brightest" eating condensed vitamin mix and sexually identifying as inanimate objects, I might believe that to be universally true.
80k jobs in the defense industry are not top talent. Sure, you have to pay them 150 for it to be worth it to live in SF, but if you hire them in Pittsburgh, you'd still only be paying them 80k. Fun fact: if Dassault or Airbus sets up shop in the US, they still have to hire American citizens to do anything having to do with flight software. If they want to import a bunch of H1Bs to do the job, they're in for a hell of a time getting Department of Commerce and Department of State approvals for disclosing technology to foreign nationals. Quite a bit of a headache to go through for someone who's only here for 3 years at a time.
Get out of the bubble dude. US folk do make up nearly 100% of the engineers in the aerospace and defense industry because most of that work requires citizens either by the ITAR Act or by virtue of working on a contract for the DoD. They aren't all universally left-leaning. I am one and have plenty of education and have plenty of colleagues who have even more education and also aren't universally left-leaning. Wouldn't work at Google or Facebook no matter how much they paid if there are 3100 people there willing to spit on the US because they don't view it as a home worth defending.
Don't forget why it is that you're able to have the cushy jobs and the confidence to stick your necks out like that, snowflakes. That security comes from the barrel of a gun pointed at your country's enemies. That's why we have governments and why we have militaries: to defend your rights and freedoms against people who might want to take them from you. Living in a Potemkin techno-utopia you might forget that, but it's still true even if you don't realize it. This sort of thing isn't a good look. Makes you all look like children.
You're assuming that all the people in that paygrade are peacenik SJWs who have no qualms spitting on the idea of having a military all while working to build their own little Oceania. People like that are vocal, but they are a minority view, even within Big Tech. There are other 300k-500k people who don't have any such qualms that will take their place. And if the SJWs depart en masse, they'd be more inclined to work at a place like Google.
The only way to secure your communications from prying eyes is to encrypt it before it hits the tubes. You can't really do that on a phone running third-party software. You can come close to doing it running an open source OS, but you've got to be damned sure you don't have silly things like Intel ME logging your keystrokes away. Your best bet is a dedicated hardware encryption device. If you're paranoid, it'll be one you build yourself.
And now I read through some of your campaign webpage.
First, you're doubly lucky I'm a Republican and don't live in your state or your district, because you have no way of losing my vote.
Second: points awarded for being quantitative or making the effort to be.
Points deducted for identifying the problem to ten decimal places but then asserting the solution lies off in the clouds and "needs research" without actually proposing something resembling a specific solution or a description of the shape of a specific solution or even an avenue of approach to getting a specific solution. Blunt assessment from a RightwingNutjob: that gives the illusion of depth, and the illusion of analysis, without achieving depth, or analysis, or giving me a reason to agree with whatever your final proposed solution may be. I'm talking about your guns platform on your website. I'm also talking about your post. See my other reply.
Slashdot Mirror
"I don't like you" is not a hate crime. "I disagree with you" is not a hate crime.
See, in a liberal's mind, being forced to adhere to your terms of service is a grave injustice, but being forced to make a political statement you disagree with is just peachy.
Troll farms must pay below minimum wage. That didn't make any sense. No TOS were violated. It was an arbitrary and capricious decision.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/20...
And hope no one notices that the loudest agitators for "net neutrality" and a "free and open internet" have also been caught red-handed censoring perfectly legal user content they disagree with.
to perform the chemistries?
The browser's job is to display a page as written in conformance with standards. If the standards allow protocols besides http or https for fetching resources, then too fucking bad if the protocols are not to your liking, it's still valid.
Would every website with user profiles be required to pay for a privacy monitor to be stationed at their offices and datacenters, same way commercial fishermen have to pay for compliance officers to monitor their catches?
I'm waiting for Firefox to automatically put black bars over profanity and refuse to show images that aren't cryptographically signed by a consortium of SLPC, Snopes, and Politifact.
Seriously...why do these people think it's their business to control the form of content displayed in their browsers? If it's valid HTML, served over a valid protocol, it should display. Otherwise the browser is broken.
Unless the answer is zero, this is just feel-good nonsense. Converting their entire supply chain to all-recycled materials and all-renewable electricity isn't possible, and the closer you want to get the more the devices will cost.
I thought I had reached you but I see I was mistaken. All the good stuff you're talking about isn't for free. It is hard, and in my opinion nearly impossible, to achieve all the good without incentivizing a lot of bad behavior or giving away a lot of future potential prosperity for the benefit of a little fleeting and illusory comfort today. If the factories all move to Mexico, then yes you have cheaper stuff in the stores. But you've also put a lot of good working men out of a job and more importantly you've incentivized the money and the intellectual property to keep going to Mexico so that you've not only given up today's jobs, you've also given up tomorrow's jobs and you've given up on the ability to make your own stuff in the future. The fact that it's damn near impossible to find a good dress shirt made in this country for any price is shameful, no matter how cheap the Guatemalan stuff in the Walmart is. We can't clothe ourselves. That's not a situation that's worth aiming for.
I see. You seem to think purely in economic terms. It took the United States over 150 years to industrialize and urbanize. The culture grew up with the technology and the technology grew with the culture. You can't believe it's possible to just plop down intellectual property in a place and have it go from agrarian to post-industrial in a single generation without massively negative social consequences. And that's not even counting the erosion to our economy that will accompany it. NAFTA was good for some, but it was really really bad for others.
And "giving" anything to anyone for free is contrary to our cultural values as well as our economic interest. We tend to believe that things should be earned and that the people who earned them have a right to benefit from them.
Glad we cleared that up. Now that we agree that Congress does have the authority to allow or deny people entry, and given that we agree that uncontrolled mass migration is not a good thing, we can move on to how it is you think it's possible for "us" (presumably US and Canada) to "fix" Mexico. In my reading of history, the United States and its allies have only managed to "fix" two or three countries in the 240-some years we've been an independent nation. In each instance, it was at the point of a gun, and despite the gleaming beacons of civilizations that the successes have become, we're not even batting .500 here.
Nevertheless, further points awarded for taking the time to talk to the other side. More politicians should do that.
The intentionally misnamed "autopilot" may reduce the likelihood of wandering out of your well-marked lane in clear conditions at highways speed but every once in a while it'll drive you right into an obstacle. Reminds me of those "push this button and ten people with terminal cancer get cured but two other random people die from a meteor strike" questions taught in philosophy classes with the intent of humbling people who might otherwise believe they can quantify their way through every obstacle.
You're claiming that nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to decide who may or may not reside on the territory of the United States unless it's got something to do with interstate commerce?
Where in the Constitution or in case law does it say the authority to allow people to come is rooted in commerce? Implicit in the idea of uniform naturalization and control and disposition of federal lands, and in conducting international relations (also a power of Congress) and having a military is the idea that you have a border and you guard it.
Long story short dude, you're falling into a trap of thinking "I disagree with you" or "I don't like your idea" is the same thing as "Your idea is illegal." That's not the case with border enforcement and immigration law.
The other possibility is that you're really just about open borders and no immigration restrictions (which is a position I understand, but do not agree with), but you're trying to lawyer your way around having to admit it by invoking artificial (as in, an artifice, made-up by you) vagueness and non-existent constraints on the power of the federal government to make and enforce immigration laws, a power delegated to the federal government with the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788 and that has not been amended away in 230 years.
To take your example, Green Cards are issued as a stepping-stone to naturalization and are part of naturalization laws passed by Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. If Congress had no authority to make naturalization law, it would not have the authority to make laws about issuing green cards or work visas, nor would it have the authority to pass laws directing the executive to kick people out for not having those documents.
And if the media weren't full of stories about those "best and brightest" eating condensed vitamin mix and sexually identifying as inanimate objects, I might believe that to be universally true.
80k jobs in the defense industry are not top talent. Sure, you have to pay them 150 for it to be worth it to live in SF, but if you hire them in Pittsburgh, you'd still only be paying them 80k. Fun fact: if Dassault or Airbus sets up shop in the US, they still have to hire American citizens to do anything having to do with flight software. If they want to import a bunch of H1Bs to do the job, they're in for a hell of a time getting Department of Commerce and Department of State approvals for disclosing technology to foreign nationals. Quite a bit of a headache to go through for someone who's only here for 3 years at a time.
Salaries measured in dollars, not talent measured in headcount.
Get out of the bubble dude. US folk do make up nearly 100% of the engineers in the aerospace and defense industry because most of that work requires citizens either by the ITAR Act or by virtue of working on a contract for the DoD. They aren't all universally left-leaning. I am one and have plenty of education and have plenty of colleagues who have even more education and also aren't universally left-leaning. Wouldn't work at Google or Facebook no matter how much they paid if there are 3100 people there willing to spit on the US because they don't view it as a home worth defending.
Don't forget why it is that you're able to have the cushy jobs and the confidence to stick your necks out like that, snowflakes. That security comes from the barrel of a gun pointed at your country's enemies. That's why we have governments and why we have militaries: to defend your rights and freedoms against people who might want to take them from you. Living in a Potemkin techno-utopia you might forget that, but it's still true even if you don't realize it. This sort of thing isn't a good look. Makes you all look like children.
You're assuming that all the people in that paygrade are peacenik SJWs who have no qualms spitting on the idea of having a military all while working to build their own little Oceania. People like that are vocal, but they are a minority view, even within Big Tech. There are other 300k-500k people who don't have any such qualms that will take their place. And if the SJWs depart en masse, they'd be more inclined to work at a place like Google.
The only way to secure your communications from prying eyes is to encrypt it before it hits the tubes. You can't really do that on a phone running third-party software. You can come close to doing it running an open source OS, but you've got to be damned sure you don't have silly things like Intel ME logging your keystrokes away. Your best bet is a dedicated hardware encryption device. If you're paranoid, it'll be one you build yourself.
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States
And now I read through some of your campaign webpage.
First, you're doubly lucky I'm a Republican and don't live in your state or your district, because you have no way of losing my vote.
Second: points awarded for being quantitative or making the effort to be.
Points deducted for identifying the problem to ten decimal places but then asserting the solution lies off in the clouds and "needs research" without actually proposing something resembling a specific solution or a description of the shape of a specific solution or even an avenue of approach to getting a specific solution.
Blunt assessment from a RightwingNutjob: that gives the illusion of depth, and the illusion of analysis, without achieving depth, or analysis, or giving me a reason to agree with whatever your final proposed solution may be. I'm talking about your guns platform on your website. I'm also talking about your post. See my other reply.