They. As in "republicans". The GOP. Conservatives.
They've "been on the job" for a LITTLE longer then 1.5 months, and the phrase "All they've managed to do is make richer people richer." is more of a historical impression of the last three damned DECADES.
The whole "he's only been in power for X, give him a chance" argument is usually applied to individuals. And there are indeed some new republicans that have yet to be fully yoked into the republican machine. You could say this of them. Feel free to single out a representative.
But as for all republicans or democrats? Naw.
Also, control of congress is split and partisan spirits are running high. No one is going to be doing anything. Which is arguably the best congress can do.
and it does represent a real drag on the rest of the economy, and "a drag on the economy" does translate to "fewer jobs".
Well, it can. But an industry having overall less profit doesn't necessarily mean less jobs. I understand that government sector jobs really are a drain on the economy, and that money has to come from somewhere. But that could easily come off the corporate bottom line. To get shit done, you need people to do things, if you can have them do that and turn a buck, then businessmen will do it. And that's a really important threshold. But if the businessman can make two or three bucks out of the process, that doesn't mean he's going to go hire another person.
And I think that's it. You're running under the assumption that businesses re-invests in themselves, expand their operations, and experience growth.
Rather, then say, give out bigger bonuses to the CEOs at Christmas. You're right, taxing the rich is not a panacea, but the imbalance of wealth certainly appears to be the disease. You can't argue that the income of the bosses has become inordinately excessive compared to the pay of the workers. And that kinda mirrors the situation in the 1920's.
And, just one last thing, you have to remember that while every employee, government or private, is a drain on the entity, they also produce real meaningful work. We get something from these government employees. In theory anyway. $87K/year worth of work? Well.... yeah, that's debatable.
Sorry, but the first admendment could be considered regulation. It's really just a word that describes legislations that has some form of control, usually over corporations or industry. But the first amendment limits and regulates government and a few other entities. The government has regulations against limiting your speech. It's just how it's worded.
But it should be clear that NN merely forces information to be unbiased.
That's impossible though. You can't do that. What you can do, is force people to handle information in an unbiased way. And even then, it's more like having a set of punishments in place for when people can show that other people have violated rules for how information should be handled. That's the only tool in the tool-chest. That's all they can do.
But you're absolutely right that NN is not regulation. NN is the defacto method of operation that the internet has assumed to follow since it's inception. That's the way it was made, that's the way it (mostly) operates, and it has been good. The Internet is not perfectly neutral, nor has it ever been, but it has been a goal that everyone has been working towards. Most everyone. Some people have been rat fucking bastards and have violated NN principles for a cheap buck.
Now, the debate in politics has decided that the term "network neutrality" refers exclusively to network neutrality REGULATION. Laws enforcing the neutrality of the network. So when someone argues against NN, it really pisses me off, because they're essentially arguing against the Internet. Now, there are some good arguments against NN regulation, but to kill NN? Madness.
Of course, if the telcoms were labeled as common couriers again, that might resolve the issue without all this fuss.
Are you so sure that Joseph existed? He's only ever mentioned in the Nativity scene in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, and they don't seem to agree on who the guy was. And elsewhere Jesus is refered to as "Jesus son of Mary", where it'd really be traditional to refer to him as the son of his father. Divine lineage aside, it's likely that Mary was a runaway/fleeing single teen mother and Jesus was a bastard.
The Rome-occupied middle-east had a middle-class? Huh. Go figure. And Joesph could afford to travel around? All I remember is him fleeing from Herod, once.
And it's "the written word" not "the printed word" for obvious reasons.
Laziness is rather annoying, isn't it?
And based on estimated illiteracy rates among bastard carpenters in the region at the time, yeah, he was probably illiterate.
Similarly, he also probably wasn't white like the bulk of his icons make him appear to be. You know, those "graven images" that lead people astray that was mentioned in some book somewhere...
I'm only assuming it's unidirectional from the overwhelming amount of data lending itself to that assumption. You know, based on prior Christian dogma. But hey, you may be right. That may be what he meant to imply. I don't know. And you don't know. Please don't assume you know. Because MAN OH MAN if there's one thing that everyone has their own little view on, it's religion.
So it's not that I'm wrong, so much as I could be wrong.
ok, I guess I've noticed this. I'm not really big in the wikipedia community but I'm massively dependent on it as an external brain.
But why the hell are there deletionists in the first place!? Did I miss something? Are we not supposed to "Be Bold"? Is hard-disk space too precious? Who in their right mind would want to LOWER the article count on Wikipedia? I remember when that little counter was a point of pride. I remember when I felt I was contributing when I turned a red link to blue. What sort of evil fucking empire gets their jollies by taking an axe to Wikipedia?
1. Marriage is bigger then Christianity (and the jewish/christian/muslim monotheistic god in general). It existed before Christianity, and in other ethnic backgrounds. It's a species thing and is bigger and older then any one religion.
2. The whole "sacrificial" thing where "one holds the other higher then themselves" doesn't really jive with that whole equality thing that went down about a century ago. Women are people too, and my wife is my equal. We both wear the pants.
3. You can't make everything be some form of "seek to know His Son more every day of your life through [fill in the blank]". That sort of behavior borders on an obsessive compulsive disorder. Some people need religion, and that's ok, but take it in moderation. Too much and you OD.
Yeah, people will work longer. As factory workers get replaced with robots and coders, the age of retirement is more and more meaningless. Give me a good reason why a knowledge worker needs to stop working when he gets old. People in the IT field retire because we want to, not because we have to. But that's a good thing. It means more productivity. More resources. A better living for everyone involved. You don't have to murder grandpa to get a job.
And hey, raising the age of retirement is a good idea. When it was set at 65, that was the time you started to DIE. Not too many people made it past that. People live longer now.
But no, your main point is ass backwards. People are a resource. If someone has a job, don't think of it as a paycheck you're not getting, think of it as a paycheck that you can get a part of. You know, by selling them something or some such.
We live in a society that begrudges good pay to workers who actually make things
Not really, it's just that China undercuts them so they look greedy when they ask for twice as much.
Many people regard the medical profession as damn near crooks for, *gasp*, actually wanting to be paid very well because of the risks that come with their work and the amount of real education they need to get in the door.
Well for most general practitioners and diagnoses, they can be replaced by WebMD, just like the article points out. And a lot of the time they're just guessing. But I think the main thing that makes people begrudge the medical system, here at least, is that every test, procedure, and sterilized two by four costs a ludicrous amount of money. And most people really don't need someone with 12 years of experience to tell them "yep, that's a bad cough you got there, here's a script for that". Plus there's the horrible run-around you have to do to get any help, when you least feel like even moving.
It used to be that anyone could read the laws of their state and become a lawyer; today you need a juris doctorate to get in the door.
And you can go get one by... wait for it... reading the state laws.
Our legal system needs a reset on its entire code.
Ah, I see you're one of the "burn it all down and start from scratch" type. Listen, that never ends well. Working inside the system and smoothly making things better is a lot better then the chaos that a complete revolution causes.
There are over 4,000 federal crimes; to whit, there were only about 620 total laws (religious, civil and criminal) in the Old Testament.
Yeah... cause THAT was such a great system.
And taxes are complicated, but only for rich people. The 1040ez is indeed pretty easy. But rich people pay financial people to get innovative with their money and evade taxes. The only way you could make it simpler is to abolish all the non-profits, deductions, and credits. Which would screw over a lot of people.
I get it, you're ranting against the system. It's good to blow off steam. But relax, it's really not all that bad.
Yeah, I saw one.
One of the cables talked about a wealthy fencer from a prestigious family from a specific city in Iran as being an informant to the embassy. Now, it didn't mention his name specifically, but come on, how narrow is that pool going to be? I also don't know if anything has come from it yet or will come from it, but it's pretty safe to say that this dude is less then safe. Maybe, I guess it depends what prestige gets you vs. the spy hunters in Iran.
That's the worst I've seen from the pile. But despite his possible risk, the good that the leaks have done far outweigh the bad. The USA is not immune to corruption or abuse, and sunshine is the best cure.
Some of us actually use that shit at the top left. Suck it.
Also, what the hell is with you people. The slogan is "don't be evil", not "do no evil". It's a minor grammar error, and you're probably confused with monkeys, but this pops up time and time again. Is this some talking point kind of thing that I'm not aware of? Did I not get the memo?
They're arbitrairaly blockin sites! Welcom to the authoritarian fascist future of googlland, where the googlers can simply claim you as "low-quality" and wipte you off the face of the net. It's like they woke up today and asked "how can we be evil". "Do no evil" indeed. Geez slashdot, way to keep spinning all your stories in favor of the googlords.
You have no right to give up ANY private information about your children
Wut? No, I'm pretty sure the parents have every right to offer whoever they want any information they please. Even if it's the birthday of their kid. Especially if it's information about their kids. They essentially own 'em
Ok, lemme make this clear. If, for whatever reason, I hold in my head the address to your house, your underwear size, your SSN, your phone number, or whatever, I can give that information to whoever I please. I have that right. You can't take it away from me. In theory, it's up to you to keep me from knowing that sort of information in the first place. Or if you DO hand it out, to have some sort of agreement with me so I won't run down the streets shouting it out. Kinda like a Privacy Policy or something.
That said, there are a few forms of thought-crime that'll wind you up in jail:
-Hate speech
-Inciting violence
-Selling state secrets
But by and far if I have knowledge, I have the right to share.
Now, should parents hand out their kids SSN's to whoever? No, of course not. But don't think that it's illegal to do so. (and it shouldn't be)
Yeah, that's probably due to the sheer audacity of what they're suggesting. Like those people that suggest that the moonlanding was faked. So many people would have to be "in on it", and so much effort put into the conspiracy that it's ludicrous. And it's easier to simply respond "you're a nutcase" rather then do the research to see who all was involved in NASA's glory years, dig into history, and learn a thing or two.
But after you do all that, the net result is the same: the moon-landing conspiracy people are nuts.
This is an aspect of humanity. Like those people that believe the world is going to end sometime in the next 10 years, perpetually. Fringe cases, sure, but there they are. So when it comes to opinion pieces that are heavy on conspiracy and light on investigation and fact, it's a pretty safe bet to simply do away with hard work, cut some corners, and call the spade a spade.
Especially when they're completely over the top like this guy.
Google has a huge potential to be evil. And like Disney, I think eventually the founders are going to hand things over to the suits and the whole things going to rot from the inside. A lot of people around here have that worry, and it's a real good thing to keep Google honest. But I haven't seen anything all that atrocious yet. On the other hand, Microsoft also has a vast potential to be evil, and oh look, we have a laundry list of anti-competitive shenanigans they're up to. If and when Google decides to screw over the little guy to make a buck, articles like this conspiracy nut-case's are going to damp the real calls to action.
Slashdot Mirror
They've been on the job for all of 1.5 months
They. As in "republicans". The GOP. Conservatives.
They've "been on the job" for a LITTLE longer then 1.5 months, and the phrase "All they've managed to do is make richer people richer." is more of a historical impression of the last three damned DECADES.
The whole "he's only been in power for X, give him a chance" argument is usually applied to individuals. And there are indeed some new republicans that have yet to be fully yoked into the republican machine. You could say this of them. Feel free to single out a representative.
But as for all republicans or democrats? Naw.
Also, control of congress is split and partisan spirits are running high. No one is going to be doing anything. Which is arguably the best congress can do.
and it does represent a real drag on the rest of the economy, and "a drag on the economy" does translate to "fewer jobs".
Well, it can. But an industry having overall less profit doesn't necessarily mean less jobs. I understand that government sector jobs really are a drain on the economy, and that money has to come from somewhere. But that could easily come off the corporate bottom line. To get shit done, you need people to do things, if you can have them do that and turn a buck, then businessmen will do it. And that's a really important threshold. But if the businessman can make two or three bucks out of the process, that doesn't mean he's going to go hire another person.
And I think that's it. You're running under the assumption that businesses re-invests in themselves, expand their operations, and experience growth.
Rather, then say, give out bigger bonuses to the CEOs at Christmas. You're right, taxing the rich is not a panacea, but the imbalance of wealth certainly appears to be the disease. You can't argue that the income of the bosses has become inordinately excessive compared to the pay of the workers. And that kinda mirrors the situation in the 1920's.
And, just one last thing, you have to remember that while every employee, government or private, is a drain on the entity, they also produce real meaningful work. We get something from these government employees. In theory anyway. $87K/year worth of work? Well.... yeah, that's debatable.
But it should be clear that NN merely forces information to be unbiased.
That's impossible though. You can't do that. What you can do, is force people to handle information in an unbiased way. And even then, it's more like having a set of punishments in place for when people can show that other people have violated rules for how information should be handled. That's the only tool in the tool-chest. That's all they can do.
But you're absolutely right that NN is not regulation. NN is the defacto method of operation that the internet has assumed to follow since it's inception. That's the way it was made, that's the way it (mostly) operates, and it has been good. The Internet is not perfectly neutral, nor has it ever been, but it has been a goal that everyone has been working towards. Most everyone. Some people have been rat fucking bastards and have violated NN principles for a cheap buck.
Now, the debate in politics has decided that the term "network neutrality" refers exclusively to network neutrality REGULATION. Laws enforcing the neutrality of the network. So when someone argues against NN, it really pisses me off, because they're essentially arguing against the Internet. Now, there are some good arguments against NN regulation, but to kill NN? Madness.
Of course, if the telcoms were labeled as common couriers again, that might resolve the issue without all this fuss.
Ah, otherwise known as the Libertarian compass.
huh, I stand corrected.
Are you so sure that Joseph existed? He's only ever mentioned in the Nativity scene in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, and they don't seem to agree on who the guy was. And elsewhere Jesus is refered to as "Jesus son of Mary", where it'd really be traditional to refer to him as the son of his father. Divine lineage aside, it's likely that Mary was a runaway/fleeing single teen mother and Jesus was a bastard.
The Rome-occupied middle-east had a middle-class? Huh. Go figure. And Joesph could afford to travel around? All I remember is him fleeing from Herod, once.
And it's "the written word" not "the printed word" for obvious reasons.
Laziness is rather annoying, isn't it?
And based on estimated illiteracy rates among bastard carpenters in the region at the time, yeah, he was probably illiterate.
Similarly, he also probably wasn't white like the bulk of his icons make him appear to be. You know, those "graven images" that lead people astray that was mentioned in some book somewhere...
I'm only assuming it's unidirectional from the overwhelming amount of data lending itself to that assumption. You know, based on prior Christian dogma.
But hey, you may be right. That may be what he meant to imply. I don't know. And you don't know. Please don't assume you know. Because MAN OH MAN if there's one thing that everyone has their own little view on, it's religion.
So it's not that I'm wrong, so much as I could be wrong.
ok, I guess I've noticed this. I'm not really big in the wikipedia community but I'm massively dependent on it as an external brain.
But why the hell are there deletionists in the first place!? Did I miss something? Are we not supposed to "Be Bold"? Is hard-disk space too precious? Who in their right mind would want to LOWER the article count on Wikipedia? I remember when that little counter was a point of pride. I remember when I felt I was contributing when I turned a red link to blue. What sort of evil fucking empire gets their jollies by taking an axe to Wikipedia?
1. Marriage is bigger then Christianity (and the jewish/christian/muslim monotheistic god in general). It existed before Christianity, and in other ethnic backgrounds. It's a species thing and is bigger and older then any one religion.
2. The whole "sacrificial" thing where "one holds the other higher then themselves" doesn't really jive with that whole equality thing that went down about a century ago. Women are people too, and my wife is my equal. We both wear the pants.
3. You can't make everything be some form of "seek to know His Son more every day of your life through [fill in the blank]". That sort of behavior borders on an obsessive compulsive disorder. Some people need religion, and that's ok, but take it in moderation. Too much and you OD.
That's right, work it baby!
And you consider that a good reason?
Seriously?
Yeah, people will work longer. As factory workers get replaced with robots and coders, the age of retirement is more and more meaningless. Give me a good reason why a knowledge worker needs to stop working when he gets old. People in the IT field retire because we want to, not because we have to. But that's a good thing. It means more productivity. More resources. A better living for everyone involved. You don't have to murder grandpa to get a job.
And hey, raising the age of retirement is a good idea. When it was set at 65, that was the time you started to DIE. Not too many people made it past that. People live longer now.
But no, your main point is ass backwards. People are a resource. If someone has a job, don't think of it as a paycheck you're not getting, think of it as a paycheck that you can get a part of. You know, by selling them something or some such.
We live in a society that begrudges good pay to workers who actually make things
Not really, it's just that China undercuts them so they look greedy when they ask for twice as much.
Many people regard the medical profession as damn near crooks for, *gasp*, actually wanting to be paid very well because of the risks that come with their work and the amount of real education they need to get in the door.
Well for most general practitioners and diagnoses, they can be replaced by WebMD, just like the article points out. And a lot of the time they're just guessing. But I think the main thing that makes people begrudge the medical system, here at least, is that every test, procedure, and sterilized two by four costs a ludicrous amount of money. And most people really don't need someone with 12 years of experience to tell them "yep, that's a bad cough you got there, here's a script for that". Plus there's the horrible run-around you have to do to get any help, when you least feel like even moving.
It used to be that anyone could read the laws of their state and become a lawyer; today you need a juris doctorate to get in the door.
And you can go get one by... wait for it... reading the state laws.
Our legal system needs a reset on its entire code.
Ah, I see you're one of the "burn it all down and start from scratch" type. Listen, that never ends well. Working inside the system and smoothly making things better is a lot better then the chaos that a complete revolution causes.
There are over 4,000 federal crimes; to whit, there were only about 620 total laws (religious, civil and criminal) in the Old Testament.
Yeah... cause THAT was such a great system.
And taxes are complicated, but only for rich people. The 1040ez is indeed pretty easy. But rich people pay financial people to get innovative with their money and evade taxes. The only way you could make it simpler is to abolish all the non-profits, deductions, and credits. Which would screw over a lot of people.
I get it, you're ranting against the system. It's good to blow off steam. But relax, it's really not all that bad.
Yeah, I saw one.
One of the cables talked about a wealthy fencer from a prestigious family from a specific city in Iran as being an informant to the embassy. Now, it didn't mention his name specifically, but come on, how narrow is that pool going to be? I also don't know if anything has come from it yet or will come from it, but it's pretty safe to say that this dude is less then safe. Maybe, I guess it depends what prestige gets you vs. the spy hunters in Iran.
That's the worst I've seen from the pile. But despite his possible risk, the good that the leaks have done far outweigh the bad. The USA is not immune to corruption or abuse, and sunshine is the best cure.
If I hadn't commented already, you'd get mod points for that.
So you two will have to settle for high fives.
Congratulations, you win one Internet.
Wait for it. It'll happen.
You have no right to give up ANY private information about your children
I have every right. Their my kids, not yours. Absolute, moral, legal or otherwise. You've got no right to tell me what to do. So piss off.
Ah, that's really refreshing to see the moderation system doing it's job.
Bravo, this one's for you mods.
Yeah, they just don't make insults like they used to.
Some of us actually use that shit at the top left. Suck it.
Also, what the hell is with you people. The slogan is "don't be evil", not "do no evil". It's a minor grammar error, and you're probably confused with monkeys, but this pops up time and time again. Is this some talking point kind of thing that I'm not aware of? Did I not get the memo?
They're arbitrairaly blockin sites! Welcom to the authoritarian fascist future of googlland, where the googlers can simply claim you as "low-quality" and wipte you off the face of the net. It's like they woke up today and asked "how can we be evil". "Do no evil" indeed. Geez slashdot, way to keep spinning all your stories in favor of the googlords.
You have no right to give up ANY private information about your children
Wut? No, I'm pretty sure the parents have every right to offer whoever they want any information they please. Even if it's the birthday of their kid. Especially if it's information about their kids. They essentially own 'em
Ok, lemme make this clear. If, for whatever reason, I hold in my head the address to your house, your underwear size, your SSN, your phone number, or whatever, I can give that information to whoever I please. I have that right. You can't take it away from me. In theory, it's up to you to keep me from knowing that sort of information in the first place. Or if you DO hand it out, to have some sort of agreement with me so I won't run down the streets shouting it out. Kinda like a Privacy Policy or something.
That said, there are a few forms of thought-crime that'll wind you up in jail:
-Hate speech
-Inciting violence
-Selling state secrets
But by and far if I have knowledge, I have the right to share.
Now, should parents hand out their kids SSN's to whoever? No, of course not. But don't think that it's illegal to do so. (and it shouldn't be)
Yeah, that's probably due to the sheer audacity of what they're suggesting. Like those people that suggest that the moonlanding was faked. So many people would have to be "in on it", and so much effort put into the conspiracy that it's ludicrous. And it's easier to simply respond "you're a nutcase" rather then do the research to see who all was involved in NASA's glory years, dig into history, and learn a thing or two.
But after you do all that, the net result is the same: the moon-landing conspiracy people are nuts.
This is an aspect of humanity. Like those people that believe the world is going to end sometime in the next 10 years, perpetually. Fringe cases, sure, but there they are. So when it comes to opinion pieces that are heavy on conspiracy and light on investigation and fact, it's a pretty safe bet to simply do away with hard work, cut some corners, and call the spade a spade.
Especially when they're completely over the top like this guy.
Google has a huge potential to be evil. And like Disney, I think eventually the founders are going to hand things over to the suits and the whole things going to rot from the inside. A lot of people around here have that worry, and it's a real good thing to keep Google honest. But I haven't seen anything all that atrocious yet. On the other hand, Microsoft also has a vast potential to be evil, and oh look, we have a laundry list of anti-competitive shenanigans they're up to. If and when Google decides to screw over the little guy to make a buck, articles like this conspiracy nut-case's are going to damp the real calls to action.
Time to google synsthesia, yo.