Emphasis yours, and that's the important bit. The implication, clear as day, is that the seventh person, the man who died, doesn't count as a person and doesn't get your sympathy. It seems that you're now ashamed of what you said and unwilling to own up to it, but you DID say it, so stop trying to pretend otherwise.
Are you positive that that's what I was actually arguing?
Your response to hearing that a man died was to claim he wasn't a person and that he deserved what he got. So yeah, I'm pretty sure you were saying he was subhuman and deserved to die.
I'm sure you'll get modded insightful again here, and I'll be modded troll or whatever. But that's because Slashdot has become a cesspool of hatred and extremism. That story was tagged "hero". A man walks into a crowd and starts shooting, and you people consider him a hero, and talk about how his victims deserve it.
So yeah, I'm glad to have the law enforcement agencies keep an eye on you. That is entirely reasonable. If there was a group of people declaring black people subhuman and celebrating their deaths, surely that group would warrant attention as well.
Please, I know no one ever admits to being wrong on the internet, but just in the privacy of your own mind, think about what you're doing and saying. Think about what you're becoming.
You're the guy who was arguing in the other thread today that government workers are literally subhuman and deserving of death. Of course you don't think they're reasonable. But I am very, very glad to have them monitoring you. Who knows when you might snap and decide to kill some subhumans?
As a tip, if you ever find yourself deciding that a group of tens of thousands of people are all subhuman and deserve to die, you might want to take a step back and think about what you're saying. You might find, if you're sufficiently honest with yourself, that you're the one who is being "unreasonable".
Product engineers don't need to get too deep into hardware design. There are several disciplines involved in making an electronic product, including design, verification, test, manufacturing, packaging, etc. The product engineers are the big picture guys who get involved in a bit of each discipline and make sure that the final product will meet the markets demand while still be profitable to produce. It's kind of like a halfway point between engineering and management.
I don't know what his skill level is, but I could believe that he knows enough to be a real contributor and not just a pretty face.
They weren't really looking for someone to fill the position for 6 months. They determined they wanted to hire someone on the cheap, and so they came up with some impossible criteria for the job. When no one was able to meet those impossible criteria, they hired you.
And yes, a big chunk of why we've grown is because the work I do has shown our investors we're on the right track and have in return received a bunch of funding that has allowed us to create new jobs.
Since you're not American, you might not be familiar with this reference, but there's a group of statistics in baseball with names like VORP -- value over replacement player. For example, if someone hits ten home runs in a year, they don't get any real credit for that, because any randomly chosen minor leaguer could have done the same. By your own admission, they could have gotten an American to do your job. So the work you've done hasn't really created new jobs. Those jobs could have just as easily been created by your replacement.
Please don't take this as an attack on you. It's not. If it were up to me, we'd let in any intelligent, hard-working technical worker and fast track them for a green card. But your company broke the law by hiring you when an American could have done the job. They did so to save money, and it came at the cost of driving down the standard of living for everyone.
I'm not misunderstanding anything. You're just attempting to muddy the waters (and doing a great job of it, so bravo on that).
When [the procedures use to set Congressional districts] are political, you generally have to have control of some key part of the state government to make decisions about the state's legislative districts. You are effectively complaining that the Republicans are winning at the national level because they are winning at the state level.
Yes, I am, and I am justified in that. If 60% of the people in the state want Republicans in the state capitol, and Democrats in DC, they should be able to make that choice. They shouldn't have their voice in national politics taken away from them based on who they voted for at the state level during the last census year.
There is no "gerrymandering" of the presidency - it is a single office.
A single office determined by 538 electoral college votes. Several prominent Republicans announced plans to change the electoral college to assign votes based on (gerrymandered) Congressional districts. If their plan had been in place during the 2012 elections, Obama would have lost despite winning the popular vote by 5 million votes.
The Republican game plan here is simple. They can't win the support of the American people, so they are changing the rules of the game so that they win the elections even if most people vote against them. What sort of totalitarian scum are you, that you would support them in this?
This, ladies and gents, is a stealth-Republican. Not a conservative, but a party-line-toeing, card-carrying Republican. They've already gerrymandered the House so that they can win with a minority of votes. After Obama's reelection, they started planning to change the way states assign electoral college votes so that they could effectively gerrymander the presidency. And recently, they've started talking about repealing the 17th amendment, with the obvious goal of gerrymandering the Senate.
Keep an eye out for this. The Party leaders know this is a long-term sort of goal, but you'll hear more and more about it over the next several years.
Who's "they"? Everyone who ever will be a politician? All of the hundreds of congressmen, and the thousands more who will be congressmen? How about the tens of thousands who will try to be congressmen? And the hundreds of thousands who work for and support them?
It's really easy to hate "them" when "they" are just an amorphous, shadowy conspiracy. But in the real world, they're people, not comic book villains. They do what they do because they think it's the right thing.
Would you prefer that they stick to their guns and continue doing harm? I prefer politicians who are willing to change their minds based on public opinion, thank you very much.
I don't even care if he really believes in what he's doing now. Maybe he still thinks the Patriot Act is good and he's only doing this to attract more votes. But what difference does it make?
That's insane. Congress has the ability to shut down the NSA at a moment's notice. If they were all being blackmailed, they'd just get together and announce that the NSA is blackmailing them, that's it's anti-democratic, and so they're shutting it down. They can override any veto. If the NSA were to respond by releasing dirt on everyone, it would just prove Congress's point.
No, "science" is a body of knowledge. Go check a dictionary.
And while you're there, look up "opportunity cost". If we debated "everything", our civilization would be stuck chasing our tails for eternity. At some point, you have to accept something as settled and move on. You can always revisit it later if new evidence comes to light.
We have mountains of evidence supporting AGW, and we know that AGW will result in widespread suffering and death if left unchecked. We do not, and cannot, have "mountains of evidence" against religion in general, and religion in general doesn't kill people.
We do have mountains of evidence against certain religious beliefs, such as faith healing, and in those cases we DO intervene, e.g. by forcing parents to take their kids to a doctor.
People can believe what they want, but when we as a society are making life-and-death policy decisions, we should rely on evidence and scientific consensus.
They did no such thing. They struck down Section 4 of the VRA, not Section 5, leaving it to congress to replace Section 4 to allow Section 5 to go back into effect.
They did so knowing damn well that the Republicans will block any attempt to restore the law.
The deniers will believe whatever their masters tell them. Jumping through hoops to satisfy them accomplishes nothing, and only lends credibility to the false notion that this is still being debated by scientists. It's not.
They need to be minimized, ignored, shoved aside. Lives depend on it, and only a fool would think that another study would satisfy them.
Police departments don't rely on ticket revenue. They don't keep that money. It goes to the city. The city then pays for the police. That's a very important distinction.
If the cops collected the money for themselves directly, they would undoubtedly find other fines to levy in order to keep their jobs. But since it's the city that collects the money, they might choose to make up for the lost income by laying off some of the (no longer needed) officers, not to mention traffic court judges and attorneys.
We're able to change our government through peaceful voting. We've done so many, many times, and will continue to do so.
Of course, it's hard, and takes time, so whiny assholes will insist that it's impossible and give up without even trying.
This shit was legalized by a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court. If a few more Floridians had voted sensibly in 2000, this would never have happened. If the next president is a Democrat and replaces Scalia with a more moderate justice, we'll be fine. And since I'm sure you'll insist that the thousands of people in both parties are all in some grand conspiracy, and a Democratic-appointee would be no different from a Republican one, I'll refer you to Berghuis v. Thompkins, the recent case where the Republicans decided that you don't really have the right to remain silent, and the Democratic justices, including Sotomayor, dissented.
The American people chose this. By voting for Bush, or by staying at home, they made this happen. They have the power to fix it, if they care enough.
Yep, and I think if anything the WTO has been too gentle with the US. Our violation of our agreements has cost Antiqua and Barbudos ~$1B per year, and the WTO has only authorized them to make $21M per year from ignoring their agreement to honor our copyrights.
Bullshit. Antigua's GDP is a little over $1 billion, and yet you believe that this online gambling law is costing them "~$1B per year"? You believe that they could double their GDP purely through Americans playing online poker?
You're just eating up their propaganda. Think for yourself.
The WTO didn't invent respect. Countries were quite capable of existing and trading and even having copyrights prior to 1995, believe it or not. It's amazing how quickly you would surrender your self-rule to bankers.
They are saying "repeal this law we don't like, or else we'll inflict as much damage as we possibly can on your economy". That's bad. If they want to play that game, we need to respond in kind.
America should be free to pass laws governing its own citizens. Antigua should be free to pass laws governing its citizens. Both should respect each others property and businesses and laws. Antigua's actions here are strikingly similar to the Opening of Japan.
So, to be clear, the United States democractically elected government passed a law, that applies only to United States citizens. A bunch of foreign bankers have decided that they don't like that law, and so they are overruling it.
I'm sure Slashdot will be thrilled with any decision that hurts intellectual property enforcement, but try to look at what's going on here. It is really, really bad for democracy when elected officials can be overruled by overseas bankers. The United States is right to refuse to comply with the ruling, and should do everything in its power to resist. Our democracy ain't exactly working great, but it's better than a bunch of unelected bureaucrats ruling by decree from overseas.
Slashdot Mirror
You said he wasn't a person. Do you stand by that?
You said, and I quote:
"I feel for the six people who were injured."
Emphasis yours, and that's the important bit. The implication, clear as day, is that the seventh person, the man who died, doesn't count as a person and doesn't get your sympathy. It seems that you're now ashamed of what you said and unwilling to own up to it, but you DID say it, so stop trying to pretend otherwise.
Are you positive that that's what I was actually arguing?
Your response to hearing that a man died was to claim he wasn't a person and that he deserved what he got. So yeah, I'm pretty sure you were saying he was subhuman and deserved to die.
I'm sure you'll get modded insightful again here, and I'll be modded troll or whatever. But that's because Slashdot has become a cesspool of hatred and extremism. That story was tagged "hero". A man walks into a crowd and starts shooting, and you people consider him a hero, and talk about how his victims deserve it.
So yeah, I'm glad to have the law enforcement agencies keep an eye on you. That is entirely reasonable. If there was a group of people declaring black people subhuman and celebrating their deaths, surely that group would warrant attention as well.
Please, I know no one ever admits to being wrong on the internet, but just in the privacy of your own mind, think about what you're doing and saying. Think about what you're becoming.
You're the guy who was arguing in the other thread today that government workers are literally subhuman and deserving of death. Of course you don't think they're reasonable. But I am very, very glad to have them monitoring you. Who knows when you might snap and decide to kill some subhumans?
As a tip, if you ever find yourself deciding that a group of tens of thousands of people are all subhuman and deserve to die, you might want to take a step back and think about what you're saying. You might find, if you're sufficiently honest with yourself, that you're the one who is being "unreasonable".
Product engineers don't need to get too deep into hardware design. There are several disciplines involved in making an electronic product, including design, verification, test, manufacturing, packaging, etc. The product engineers are the big picture guys who get involved in a bit of each discipline and make sure that the final product will meet the markets demand while still be profitable to produce. It's kind of like a halfway point between engineering and management.
I don't know what his skill level is, but I could believe that he knows enough to be a real contributor and not just a pretty face.
Whores get paid. If anything, the users are Johns.
They weren't really looking for someone to fill the position for 6 months. They determined they wanted to hire someone on the cheap, and so they came up with some impossible criteria for the job. When no one was able to meet those impossible criteria, they hired you.
And yes, a big chunk of why we've grown is because the work I do has shown our investors we're on the right track and have in return received a bunch of funding that has allowed us to create new jobs.
Since you're not American, you might not be familiar with this reference, but there's a group of statistics in baseball with names like VORP -- value over replacement player. For example, if someone hits ten home runs in a year, they don't get any real credit for that, because any randomly chosen minor leaguer could have done the same. By your own admission, they could have gotten an American to do your job. So the work you've done hasn't really created new jobs. Those jobs could have just as easily been created by your replacement.
Please don't take this as an attack on you. It's not. If it were up to me, we'd let in any intelligent, hard-working technical worker and fast track them for a green card. But your company broke the law by hiring you when an American could have done the job. They did so to save money, and it came at the cost of driving down the standard of living for everyone.
I'm not misunderstanding anything. You're just attempting to muddy the waters (and doing a great job of it, so bravo on that).
When [the procedures use to set Congressional districts] are political, you generally have to have control of some key part of the state government to make decisions about the state's legislative districts. You are effectively complaining that the Republicans are winning at the national level because they are winning at the state level.
Yes, I am, and I am justified in that. If 60% of the people in the state want Republicans in the state capitol, and Democrats in DC, they should be able to make that choice. They shouldn't have their voice in national politics taken away from them based on who they voted for at the state level during the last census year.
There is no "gerrymandering" of the presidency - it is a single office.
A single office determined by 538 electoral college votes. Several prominent Republicans announced plans to change the electoral college to assign votes based on (gerrymandered) Congressional districts. If their plan had been in place during the 2012 elections, Obama would have lost despite winning the popular vote by 5 million votes.
The Republican game plan here is simple. They can't win the support of the American people, so they are changing the rules of the game so that they win the elections even if most people vote against them. What sort of totalitarian scum are you, that you would support them in this?
This, ladies and gents, is a stealth-Republican. Not a conservative, but a party-line-toeing, card-carrying Republican. They've already gerrymandered the House so that they can win with a minority of votes. After Obama's reelection, they started planning to change the way states assign electoral college votes so that they could effectively gerrymander the presidency. And recently, they've started talking about repealing the 17th amendment, with the obvious goal of gerrymandering the Senate.
Keep an eye out for this. The Party leaders know this is a long-term sort of goal, but you'll hear more and more about it over the next several years.
Who's "they"? Everyone who ever will be a politician? All of the hundreds of congressmen, and the thousands more who will be congressmen? How about the tens of thousands who will try to be congressmen? And the hundreds of thousands who work for and support them?
It's really easy to hate "them" when "they" are just an amorphous, shadowy conspiracy. But in the real world, they're people, not comic book villains. They do what they do because they think it's the right thing.
Would you prefer that they stick to their guns and continue doing harm? I prefer politicians who are willing to change their minds based on public opinion, thank you very much.
I don't even care if he really believes in what he's doing now. Maybe he still thinks the Patriot Act is good and he's only doing this to attract more votes. But what difference does it make?
That's insane. Congress has the ability to shut down the NSA at a moment's notice. If they were all being blackmailed, they'd just get together and announce that the NSA is blackmailing them, that's it's anti-democratic, and so they're shutting it down. They can override any veto. If the NSA were to respond by releasing dirt on everyone, it would just prove Congress's point.
No, "science" is a body of knowledge. Go check a dictionary.
And while you're there, look up "opportunity cost". If we debated "everything", our civilization would be stuck chasing our tails for eternity. At some point, you have to accept something as settled and move on. You can always revisit it later if new evidence comes to light.
We have mountains of evidence supporting AGW, and we know that AGW will result in widespread suffering and death if left unchecked. We do not, and cannot, have "mountains of evidence" against religion in general, and religion in general doesn't kill people.
We do have mountains of evidence against certain religious beliefs, such as faith healing, and in those cases we DO intervene, e.g. by forcing parents to take their kids to a doctor.
People can believe what they want, but when we as a society are making life-and-death policy decisions, we should rely on evidence and scientific consensus.
They did no such thing. They struck down Section 4 of the VRA, not Section 5, leaving it to congress to replace Section 4 to allow Section 5 to go back into effect.
They did so knowing damn well that the Republicans will block any attempt to restore the law.
The deniers will believe whatever their masters tell them. Jumping through hoops to satisfy them accomplishes nothing, and only lends credibility to the false notion that this is still being debated by scientists. It's not.
They need to be minimized, ignored, shoved aside. Lives depend on it, and only a fool would think that another study would satisfy them.
Police departments don't rely on ticket revenue. They don't keep that money. It goes to the city. The city then pays for the police. That's a very important distinction.
If the cops collected the money for themselves directly, they would undoubtedly find other fines to levy in order to keep their jobs. But since it's the city that collects the money, they might choose to make up for the lost income by laying off some of the (no longer needed) officers, not to mention traffic court judges and attorneys.
We're able to change our government through peaceful voting. We've done so many, many times, and will continue to do so.
Of course, it's hard, and takes time, so whiny assholes will insist that it's impossible and give up without even trying.
This shit was legalized by a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court. If a few more Floridians had voted sensibly in 2000, this would never have happened. If the next president is a Democrat and replaces Scalia with a more moderate justice, we'll be fine. And since I'm sure you'll insist that the thousands of people in both parties are all in some grand conspiracy, and a Democratic-appointee would be no different from a Republican one, I'll refer you to Berghuis v. Thompkins, the recent case where the Republicans decided that you don't really have the right to remain silent, and the Democratic justices, including Sotomayor, dissented.
The American people chose this. By voting for Bush, or by staying at home, they made this happen. They have the power to fix it, if they care enough.
Yep, and I think if anything the WTO has been too gentle with the US. Our violation of our agreements has cost Antiqua and Barbudos ~$1B per year, and the WTO has only authorized them to make $21M per year from ignoring their agreement to honor our copyrights.
Bullshit. Antigua's GDP is a little over $1 billion, and yet you believe that this online gambling law is costing them "~$1B per year"? You believe that they could double their GDP purely through Americans playing online poker?
You're just eating up their propaganda. Think for yourself.
The WTO didn't invent respect. Countries were quite capable of existing and trading and even having copyrights prior to 1995, believe it or not. It's amazing how quickly you would surrender your self-rule to bankers.
Are you familiar with the phrase "proportionality"?
I suspect that if we were to bomb Antigua's lovely beaches, it would suddenly be on the tip of your tongue.
It's not as though the US seriously harmed Antigua by banning online gambling. They still make untold millions through tourism.
So we aren't allowed to have any laws that might negatively impact the earnings of another nation? I'd prefer to have national sovereignty, thanks.
They are saying "repeal this law we don't like, or else we'll inflict as much damage as we possibly can on your economy". That's bad. If they want to play that game, we need to respond in kind.
America should be free to pass laws governing its own citizens. Antigua should be free to pass laws governing its citizens. Both should respect each others property and businesses and laws. Antigua's actions here are strikingly similar to the Opening of Japan.
The Senate votes to modify or repeal it, and the President signs off. Same with any time the US does anything with a treaty.
So, to be clear, the United States democractically elected government passed a law, that applies only to United States citizens. A bunch of foreign bankers have decided that they don't like that law, and so they are overruling it.
I'm sure Slashdot will be thrilled with any decision that hurts intellectual property enforcement, but try to look at what's going on here. It is really, really bad for democracy when elected officials can be overruled by overseas bankers. The United States is right to refuse to comply with the ruling, and should do everything in its power to resist. Our democracy ain't exactly working great, but it's better than a bunch of unelected bureaucrats ruling by decree from overseas.