They drank the social justice kool-aid a while back. And that group of "the left" has managed to steal the "liberal" label somehow.
And no, I'm not an alt-right nutter. No, I didn't vote for Trump. No, I don't think Brexit is great. No, I don't think Obama was evil incarnate. My introduction to SJWs was when they destroyed what was a reasonably functioning atheist community with their religion.
They are speaking at something run by the "National Association of Theatre Owners". They don't actually mean what they say, it's just playing to the audience.
For example, I'm going out on a limb and assuming that neither of them will refuse to have their copies of their movies sent to academy award voters since they should go and see it at the cinema to get the real experience...
There is no law they want to get passed. As should be obvious from the fact that they are facing charges it is already the law. No "new law" is needed. It is illegal to record a private conversation in California without first obtaining consent from all parties.
Because the author didn't want to screw up the conversion (dividing by 100 is hard...) and thus just used the exact number from the article they referenced.
The only argument I made was the healthcare provision is in the domain of ethics and morals (and other domains of course, such as economics).
Since I didn't make any claims or inferences about the US healthcare system I can't see how details about it can have any relevance to my argument holding up or not.
Seriously, you can't see what ethics and morals might have to do with deciding whether people in need of healthcare should be cared for or discarded?
You can't see what ethics and morals might have to do with determining whether to take money by force from some people in order to give it to other people?
What domains do you actually think have something to do with ethics and morals?!?
No one has said that CSIR should be shut down, did you actually read the article or even the summary?
Yes if the public schools decide to raise money by renting out their school halls to the public so they can host private events and it turns out that the cost of doing so is greater than the revenue generated they should stop doing that. Are you seriously trying to argue they shouldn't?
If the DMV decides to set up a stall selling candy bars to the people waiting in line and they find that the costs of doing so are greater than the revenue generated they should stop doing that. Are you seriously trying to argue they shouldn't?
If a public research agency, say like CSIR in India, decides to setup a commercial division, say like CSIR-Tech, to commercialize their research and it turns out the cost of doing so is greater than the revenue generated they should stop doing that. Are you seriously trying to argue they shouldn't?
> Insinuating there is no incentive to pick a good major because your loans may be eventually discharged is disingenuous. In most cases you need to be having financial hardship for decades to discharge your loans. That certainly isn't a great situation to be in.
I didn't insinuate that. In fact, I said the exact opposite of that.
"everybody" on fifth street is going to be about 5 people, so why not? Well if he picked the middle of the street right outside the police precinct people might not be able to vote for him I guess...
And yet numerous countries don't use private bank loans to fund tuition and somehow have just as good access to higher education.
And the topic is lowering costs, right? Not improving access?
While that data would be great to have it won't actually do anything. People already take out loans to do college degrees that are obviously not worth it in terms of ROI (they may well be worth it by other metrics of course). Since the loans are almost impossible to discharge banks are still going to make those loans for degrees that won't have a positive ROI for the student - they still get their paid after all and get a bailout if somehow they don't.
The idea that the market can be efficient when risk is artificially removed or reduced is just silly.
Just get rid of student loans. Scholarships and so on are fine - they work in numerous countries that don't have such expensive education costs since they tend to limited in scope and not unbounded.
Student loans on the other hand, seem to be designed to increase the price of education. Remember US banks were just fine with loaning out millions of dollars to people with no income and no job to buy overprices houses, what do you think they are going to do when the government makes loans they make to students almost impossible to discharge. And the banks know the government will bail them out just like every other time if the shit really hits the fan.
Of course colleges are going to be jacking up prices. As long as the banks keep loaning enough to the students to pay them. Why would they leave that money on the table - the student is the one who gets screwed not the college after all.
30-44 is also the age of the people who were in school (and just out of school) when file sharing took off in the mainstream (napster was 17 years ago...).
They would be the group I would expect to be the biggest "pirates" - they're the group who got the internet as a free download anything you want wild west. Younger people got the app store style pay a few dollars experience instead.
Of course, 14 years is far too big an age range given the domain is internet related it includes some before and after that time frame.
They can think about it all they want, the solution might still be "better hope out intelligence/law enforcement agencies catch them in the planning or setup stages because there is nothing we can actually do once it happens except catch them later". Plus of course "get the President to the [whatever the protected area is] at the first sign of trouble".
Because an employer you would prefer the candidate who had to devote 100% of their effort into passing their degree over the candidate who also passed their degree but at the same time managed to "pad out" their CV with relevant experience.
The usual idea is that you are locking the admins out of the services they use to receive notifications of things going wrong - or locking them out of the services they use to check on those notifications.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't been told right is bad and left is good. Well not any more often than I've been told the opposite.
They drank the social justice kool-aid a while back. And that group of "the left" has managed to steal the "liberal" label somehow.
And no, I'm not an alt-right nutter. No, I didn't vote for Trump. No, I don't think Brexit is great. No, I don't think Obama was evil incarnate. My introduction to SJWs was when they destroyed what was a reasonably functioning atheist community with their religion.
They are speaking at something run by the "National Association of Theatre Owners". They don't actually mean what they say, it's just playing to the audience.
For example, I'm going out on a limb and assuming that neither of them will refuse to have their copies of their movies sent to academy award voters since they should go and see it at the cinema to get the real experience...
There is no law they want to get passed. As should be obvious from the fact that they are facing charges it is already the law. No "new law" is needed. It is illegal to record a private conversation in California without first obtaining consent from all parties.
Maybe try reading the article?
Because the author didn't want to screw up the conversion (dividing by 100 is hard...) and thus just used the exact number from the article they referenced.
The only argument I made was the healthcare provision is in the domain of ethics and morals (and other domains of course, such as economics).
Since I didn't make any claims or inferences about the US healthcare system I can't see how details about it can have any relevance to my argument holding up or not.
Seriously, you can't see what ethics and morals might have to do with deciding whether people in need of healthcare should be cared for or discarded?
You can't see what ethics and morals might have to do with determining whether to take money by force from some people in order to give it to other people?
What domains do you actually think have something to do with ethics and morals?!?
CSIR-Tech is not CSIR. That shutting down the candy bar sales at the DMV, not shutting down the DMV.
Maybe take a remedial reading course?
What has any of that got to with anything?!?
No one has said that CSIR should be shut down, did you actually read the article or even the summary?
Yes if the public schools decide to raise money by renting out their school halls to the public so they can host private events and it turns out that the cost of doing so is greater than the revenue generated they should stop doing that. Are you seriously trying to argue they shouldn't?
If the DMV decides to set up a stall selling candy bars to the people waiting in line and they find that the costs of doing so are greater than the revenue generated they should stop doing that. Are you seriously trying to argue they shouldn't?
If a public research agency, say like CSIR in India, decides to setup a commercial division, say like CSIR-Tech, to commercialize their research and it turns out the cost of doing so is greater than the revenue generated they should stop doing that. Are you seriously trying to argue they shouldn't?
> Insinuating there is no incentive to pick a good major because your loans may be eventually discharged is disingenuous. In most cases you need to be having financial hardship for decades to discharge your loans. That certainly isn't a great situation to be in.
I didn't insinuate that. In fact, I said the exact opposite of that.
"everybody" on fifth street is going to be about 5 people, so why not? Well if he picked the middle of the street right outside the police precinct people might not be able to vote for him I guess...
Revealed?
His 9/11 conspiracy talk with Alex Jones back in 2010 ago didn't make it obvious already?
And yet numerous countries don't use private bank loans to fund tuition and somehow have just as good access to higher education.
And the topic is lowering costs, right? Not improving access?
While that data would be great to have it won't actually do anything. People already take out loans to do college degrees that are obviously not worth it in terms of ROI (they may well be worth it by other metrics of course). Since the loans are almost impossible to discharge banks are still going to make those loans for degrees that won't have a positive ROI for the student - they still get their paid after all and get a bailout if somehow they don't.
The idea that the market can be efficient when risk is artificially removed or reduced is just silly.
Just get rid of student loans. Scholarships and so on are fine - they work in numerous countries that don't have such expensive education costs since they tend to limited in scope and not unbounded.
Student loans on the other hand, seem to be designed to increase the price of education. Remember US banks were just fine with loaning out millions of dollars to people with no income and no job to buy overprices houses, what do you think they are going to do when the government makes loans they make to students almost impossible to discharge. And the banks know the government will bail them out just like every other time if the shit really hits the fan.
Of course colleges are going to be jacking up prices. As long as the banks keep loaning enough to the students to pay them. Why would they leave that money on the table - the student is the one who gets screwed not the college after all.
30-44 is also the age of the people who were in school (and just out of school) when file sharing took off in the mainstream (napster was 17 years ago...).
They would be the group I would expect to be the biggest "pirates" - they're the group who got the internet as a free download anything you want wild west. Younger people got the app store style pay a few dollars experience instead.
Of course, 14 years is far too big an age range given the domain is internet related it includes some before and after that time frame.
They can think about it all they want, the solution might still be "better hope out intelligence/law enforcement agencies catch them in the planning or setup stages because there is nothing we can actually do once it happens except catch them later". Plus of course "get the President to the [whatever the protected area is] at the first sign of trouble".
Becuase they are not a state or local government entity and thus not subject to that particular part of the law.
have crossed the Arctic Ocean under ice, for example: http://www.history.com/this-da...
If that's worse than death, then surely the humane thing to do would be to kill those people?
You could. That seems less likely to the typical interpretation, though.
You would think if that was the case you could have found such a post to reply to rather than one that said the exact opposite of that.
Because an employer you would prefer the candidate who had to devote 100% of their effort into passing their degree over the candidate who also passed their degree but at the same time managed to "pad out" their CV with relevant experience.
Not very good at English are you?
Sorry didn't read the second post.
The usual idea is that you are locking the admins out of the services they use to receive notifications of things going wrong - or locking them out of the services they use to check on those notifications.