After nearly 240 years, someone has finally figured out how to solve poverty, higher taxes! I'm surprised nobody has thought of that before. The (Federal, not NY State) income tax rate has varied from 70% under Carter to 28% under Reagan. Was poverty solved in either case?
Have lower/higher taxes been tried before? Did it succeed? If not, how is this time different? What is your metric; how will you measure the impact of your implemented policy position on poverty?
Now, this is key: find the best counterargument to your position, and thoughtfully address the most difficult questions posed by that counterargument. Simply dismissing an opponent's view is an indication that you are uninformed.
Few of us are policy wonks who have the time to delve deeply into the details of a particular policy, so often we rely instead on analyses of think tanks, and opinion pieces. This is fine, but are you also sincerely coming to understand the counterargument? Fox News vs. The Huffington Post, National Review vs The New Republic. Can you make the counterargument? Can you go to a cocktail party and fool people that you are conservative/liberal when you are actually liberal/conservative? If not then you aren't doing it right.
Having read the article (don't be afraid to read, the article's quite short), the analysis shows that the complaints are coming from left, and right, and center. It even includes a bit of "conspiracy theory" about someone whose cable went out during two debates and suspects foul play. For all the ills of corporate-run media, the alternative is government-run media which itself has negative connotations derived from examples in history. Even the putatively benevolent PBS is considered biased by large swaths of the population. For the issue of who hosts debates, I see no solution that is better than the current landscape. There are certainly different approaches, but not better.
Regarding requiring paid cable. I believe this is a more valid complaint. That said, an argument can be made that even free broadcast requires one to support manufacturers by purchasing their radios and TVs. So then we ban the airwaves altogether and force candidates to speak loudly in an open-air theater. (We can't have sound support, that's to submit to the sound-system manufacturer's cartel!).
Before I wander off mumbling to myself, I will say that all this fist-shaking and hand-wringing over corporate influence, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, money in politics, etc. seems a waste of energy better spent elsewhere. No amount of money or corporate influence helped Jeb Bush, and Hillary's many years of grooming the electorate hasn't made her journey to the general election the cake walk everyone expected. The unprecedented nature of this election cycle is a wonderful counterexample to so many arguments that have been made across the political spectrum.
There are several very important cases coming up for the supreme court, including immigration, abortion, and unions. Any of these Supreme Court decisions that end up tied at 4-4 means that the lower court's decision will stand.
I have absolutely no trouble imagining the Clinton campaign giving its people loaded coins.
For the Clinton campaign to provide its people loaded coins, they would have to anticipate that there would be ties and coin flips would be needed. Unless "just to be safe" the campaign provided each worker a bag of tricks to ensure they were prepared for every eventuality: loaded coins, marked cards, condoms with holes, Amway membership applications, etc.
The guy is a brilliant theoretical physicist and a celebrity scientist, but this in no way makes him an authority in the social implications of scientific discovery.
Oh, I don't know. I'm sure keen to find out his picks for The Oscars.
It is adolescent. There is so much to discover in the world from molecular biology to astrophysics and all these folks can muster as their contribution to humanity is to hold their dicks in their hands and giggle as they frustrate people for a few hours who are trying to play computer games. Pathetic.
The BBC applied for a trademark. The BBC defeated the police in the past. Now it's BBC's turn. Me thinks the article description needs a sonic screwdriver.
Slashdot Mirror
Here
Give a man a porno, and he can pleasure himself for a day, teach a man to fly a drone and he can pleasure himself for a lifetime.
After nearly 240 years, someone has finally figured out how to solve poverty, higher taxes! I'm surprised nobody has thought of that before. The (Federal, not NY State) income tax rate has varied from 70% under Carter to 28% under Reagan. Was poverty solved in either case?
Here's a conservative perspective.
Here's a progressive perspective.
Have lower/higher taxes been tried before? Did it succeed? If not, how is this time different? What is your metric; how will you measure the impact of your implemented policy position on poverty?
Now, this is key: find the best counterargument to your position, and thoughtfully address the most difficult questions posed by that counterargument. Simply dismissing an opponent's view is an indication that you are uninformed.
Few of us are policy wonks who have the time to delve deeply into the details of a particular policy, so often we rely instead on analyses of think tanks, and opinion pieces. This is fine, but are you also sincerely coming to understand the counterargument? Fox News vs. The Huffington Post, National Review vs The New Republic. Can you make the counterargument? Can you go to a cocktail party and fool people that you are conservative/liberal when you are actually liberal/conservative? If not then you aren't doing it right.
I just cringe, thinking of all of the Cesnas and Pipers that will be taken out when they try to land on this thing.
the encryption world will just start using 16.
I print out all of my emails, index them, and file them away. Except the spam of course. Wadded up and straight into the trash can with those.
is not to play.
Having read the article (don't be afraid to read, the article's quite short), the analysis shows that the complaints are coming from left, and right, and center. It even includes a bit of "conspiracy theory" about someone whose cable went out during two debates and suspects foul play. For all the ills of corporate-run media, the alternative is government-run media which itself has negative connotations derived from examples in history. Even the putatively benevolent PBS is considered biased by large swaths of the population. For the issue of who hosts debates, I see no solution that is better than the current landscape. There are certainly different approaches, but not better.
Regarding requiring paid cable. I believe this is a more valid complaint. That said, an argument can be made that even free broadcast requires one to support manufacturers by purchasing their radios and TVs. So then we ban the airwaves altogether and force candidates to speak loudly in an open-air theater. (We can't have sound support, that's to submit to the sound-system manufacturer's cartel!).
Before I wander off mumbling to myself, I will say that all this fist-shaking and hand-wringing over corporate influence, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, money in politics, etc. seems a waste of energy better spent elsewhere. No amount of money or corporate influence helped Jeb Bush, and Hillary's many years of grooming the electorate hasn't made her journey to the general election the cake walk everyone expected. The unprecedented nature of this election cycle is a wonderful counterexample to so many arguments that have been made across the political spectrum.
Stealth Mountain is a Twitter bot that tersely informs Twitter users when they mistakenly write “sneak peak": @___ I think you mean sneak peek.
The enraged, frothing responses confirm that this is an exemplar of how Twitter should be used.
There are several very important cases coming up for the supreme court, including immigration, abortion, and unions. Any of these Supreme Court decisions that end up tied at 4-4 means that the lower court's decision will stand.
I have absolutely no trouble imagining the Clinton campaign giving its people loaded coins.
For the Clinton campaign to provide its people loaded coins, they would have to anticipate that there would be ties and coin flips would be needed. Unless "just to be safe" the campaign provided each worker a bag of tricks to ensure they were prepared for every eventuality: loaded coins, marked cards, condoms with holes, Amway membership applications, etc.
Re:97% odds against either winning all flips fairl
Low probability things do happen.
Yes, but how often?
It isn't profitable. It's enormously expensive to pay so many employees to read EACH AND EVERY email to determine if it's spam.
As an old-schooler, I've been using a modified hosts file. Are there any distinct advantages to using ad-blocking software over a hosts file?
The guy is a brilliant theoretical physicist and a celebrity scientist, but this in no way makes him an authority in the social implications of scientific discovery.
Oh, I don't know. I'm sure keen to find out his picks for The Oscars.
It is adolescent. There is so much to discover in the world from molecular biology to astrophysics and all these folks can muster as their contribution to humanity is to hold their dicks in their hands and giggle as they frustrate people for a few hours who are trying to play computer games. Pathetic.
even the best planned network is going to go down if you hit it hard enough.
That's the rub. Hitting it hard enough. As of five years ago, Amazon was beyond reach of these little babies.
It's in the UK, plenty of surveillance.
That doesn't deter, does it? Isn't there a lot of crime in London despite the surveillance?
What's to keep these from being carried to the nearest alley and a relieved of their payloads?
posts by authors with slashdot user numbers having only 5 or 6 digits.
The BBC applied for a trademark. The BBC defeated the police in the past. Now it's BBC's turn. Me thinks the article description needs a sonic screwdriver.
[drops mic]
The Man wants to track more than your health: Woman wears during sex
made out of that stuff.
from Episode I is clearly mocking every horrible child stereotype. It is because of these kinds of caricatures that birth rates have been dropping.