The point that just sailed over your head is that we shouldn't take such a claim as true without corroborating evidence.
My point was that the immediate dismissing of a claim of racism as made-up is an apologist strategy to defuse any claim of racism whenever it surfaces.
Anybody who claims anything might be guilty of making it up. That doesn't mean we should ignore people who speak up about their experiences. Current events (not just this one) surrounding Tesla have indicated that there might be some racist elements in their organization. That warrants some attention.
The First Amendment protects your right to express an opinion. But IMHO, it does not protect your ability to express that opinion anonymously.
IANAL, and YMMV. Perhaps the courts find legal reasons to conceal some parts of a person's identity in certain situations (e.g., to keep them from harm) but a person accused, slandered, or libeled must be provided the ability to confront the witness against them.
making Timothy Leary come back from the dead, slap his forehead, punch himself in the nuts, go, 'WTF', and do the hokey pokey before exploding into a million pieces?
In the fictional story of Leary's cryo-preservation, only his head was saved. So, no hands to slap his forehead or punch his nuts. And no nuts for that matter. IMHO, I'd rather stay frozen.
What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world. -- Albert Einstein
Physics, and in particular, cosmology, is not just about discovering laws. It is also about examining why certain laws work and others don't, and following those forms of inquiry to other conclusions.
The difference between an intelligent thought process and physical laws is about the same as the difference between a game of chess and the chess rules.
I think you're confusing the chess rules with the being who created them.
If physics is considered a form of life, then we'd also have to consider global warming to be a form of life. This of course raises a serious problem: if we try to stop global warming, then we're potentially killing a very unique and special form of life.
And if we don't try to stop global warming, then we're potentially killing a very unique and special form of life. Namely, us.
We may be part of the grander "life equation" of the universe, but we also have freedom of choice. In particular, the ability to make choices that preserve our existence.
It certainly is used to fund terrorism. Most funds paid for H1Bs exit the country. Frequently to hostile countries.
Okay, that's just a load of crap.
Funds paid "for" H-1B visas are paid to the US government. They don't exit the country.
Funds paid "to" H-1B visa-holders are spent mostly within the USA, in the form of taxes and living expenses.
Most people here on H1B Visas are here illegally, per the terms required to allow their entry in the first place.
If that's true, then it's the fault of their sponsors, not the visa-holders.
Additionally, many studies have concluded that there has never been a lack of tech labor but simply a lack of companies willing to pay fair market wages. Which in turn has turned people away from what would otherwise be a well paid field.
I'd like to see some citations for those studies. In any case, there are a limited number of H-1B visas made available every year. It's not like all of the tech needs of the USA can be supplied with H-1B visa-holders.
Show me someone who supports H1Bs and I'll show you a scumbag.
Then you'll have to include practically every university in the USA.
Either the moderators are poor at reading comprehension, or there really are people out there who think that the H-1B program is some kind of welcome-mat for terrorists.
One may argue that H-1B visa-holders displace American workers, but are they terrorists? I think not. H-1B visas are very hard to get. It's much easier to get a student visa, like the 9/11 hijackers did. And let's not forget that most of the people who have committed terrorist acts since 9/11 have had strong ties to the USA already, some being born or raised here.
2. CO2 (It's carbon dioxide not cobalt gas) increases after warming from several sources, yes. But adding CO2 by burning fossil fuels also increases warming. Not really worth arguing but correlation is often an indication of causation. That is one can't just use this phrase to disprove causation unlike some idiots think.
Actually the causation part is well-known. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You can demonstrate that easily in any high-school science class.
The H-1B visa program is yet another means for potential terrorists to enter the United States. Anything that reduces the number of H-1B Syrian refugees entering the United States reduces the number of potential terrorists. The H-1B program is a threat both to American jobs and to national security.
ORLY. What percentage of people who committed terrorist acts since, say 1990, have held H1-B visas at one time?
A way to distinguish the one prediction that's going to be right from the millions that aren't.
We have that. It's called science.
And while we're on the subject, science does get things wrong despite its best efforts. But the most important thing about science is that it is in a constant state of trying to correct and improve itself.
I'd thought the money was in trading them, not owning them. There's a book called "Where are the Customer's Yachts" that talks about all this.
Investing in the stock market is, if nothing else, a hedge against inflation. Historically, the stock market has outperformed the inflation rate by a significant margin. That's not to say other investments aren't good (like bonds, real estate, etc.)
You may not get stinking rich by investing in the stock market, but with careful planning, you can get a return that helps you to buy other things that matter, such as a home, an education, the odd vacation, a comfortable retirement, and so on.
And yes, if you want a yacht, investing can help you get one. Maybe just a small one, though.
Investments are regulated so that people are protected from the Bernie Madoffs of the world and it's necessary to do so.
So, you're using a real-world example of some shit that actually recently happened to say that "investments are regulated" so said thing can't happen? I think I'm lost.
Bernie Madoff went to jail for what he did, and he'll probably die there.
Regulations may not prevent shit from happening. But when you have regulations, you can make shit happen to people who violate them. Thus providing an incentive to the would-be Madoffs of the finance world to behave themselves.
While [Twitter and Facebook] are [private companies] there are calls on conservative sides for them to be treated as a public utility. Precisely because they control so much information and speech. The last thing they want is the government telling them how they can run their business.
OMG, this is absolutely hilarious. Let's unpack this, one mistake at a time.
1. Facebook and Twitter are not private companies. They are traded publicly (ticker symbols FB and TWTR.) But whether they're public or private has nothing to do with whether they can be treated as a public utility. They don't own pipes or wires that run up to your house. 2. I call bullshit on your claim of "calls on conservative sides" to treat these companies as utilities. I haven't heard any. And besides, that would be a really stupid move on the part of conservatives, many of whom want to kill Net Neutrality. Do you think they could turn Facebook and Twitter into utilities, while at the same time say that the companies who provide the networks they use are not utilities? 3. Facebook and Twitter do not "control" information and speech. They provide a service that allows people to express themselves. They reserve the right to step in and remove content they deem inappropriate because the service belongs to them, and they don't want miscreant users who negatively affect their business.
Slashdot Mirror
The point that just sailed over your head is that we shouldn't take such a claim as true without corroborating evidence.
My point was that the immediate dismissing of a claim of racism as made-up is an apologist strategy to defuse any claim of racism whenever it surfaces.
Anybody who claims anything might be guilty of making it up. That doesn't mean we should ignore people who speak up about their experiences. Current events (not just this one) surrounding Tesla have indicated that there might be some racist elements in their organization. That warrants some attention.
You missed the point.
Just because someone claims they are a victim of something, doesn't mean it's always true.
In this day and age, I'm skeptical of any such claims until I see evidence to prove otherwise.
The jump by the OP to dismiss it as made-up is my point. It's part of an apologist strategy to defuse any claim of racism whenever it surfaces.
And being skeptical is good. But being dismissive is not.
The First Amendment protects your right to express an opinion. But IMHO, it does not protect your ability to express that opinion anonymously.
IANAL, and YMMV. Perhaps the courts find legal reasons to conceal some parts of a person's identity in certain situations (e.g., to keep them from harm) but a person accused, slandered, or libeled must be provided the ability to confront the witness against them.
The First Amendment protects you and me from the government. It does not protect you and me from each other.
If you say something about me I don't like, I can sue you. Of course, whether I win is another matter.
Kindly provide proof that the UAW is behind this.
Because sure enough, the worker who is charging Tesla with harassment will need to provide his own.
Great, well that settles a lot. All racist episodes are self-inflicted. Now let's go worry about something else.
[/sarcasm]
Sounds like you need glasses. I wonder why.
I think you responded to the wrong post.
And yes, I do realize that sentence makes no sense. Except perhaps that climate can be studied with physics.
making Timothy Leary come back from the dead, slap his forehead, punch himself in the nuts, go, 'WTF', and do the hokey pokey before exploding into a million pieces?
In the fictional story of Leary's cryo-preservation, only his head was saved. So, no hands to slap his forehead or punch his nuts. And no nuts for that matter. IMHO, I'd rather stay frozen.
I'm sure you know the actual citation, but for the benefit of others:
Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer. -- Voltaire
[tr: If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.]
What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world. -- Albert Einstein
Physics, and in particular, cosmology, is not just about discovering laws. It is also about examining why certain laws work and others don't, and following those forms of inquiry to other conclusions.
And make the aliens pay for it?
The difference between an intelligent thought process and physical laws is about the same as the difference between a game of chess and the chess rules.
I think you're confusing the chess rules with the being who created them.
I'm fine with calling it science fiction, or more broadly, art.
Art often presents the vanguard of human ideas, before they make their way into other fields.
If physics is considered a form of life, then we'd also have to consider global warming to be a form of life. This of course raises a serious problem: if we try to stop global warming, then we're potentially killing a very unique and special form of life.
And if we don't try to stop global warming, then we're potentially killing a very unique and special form of life. Namely, us.
We may be part of the grander "life equation" of the universe, but we also have freedom of choice. In particular, the ability to make choices that preserve our existence.
It certainly is used to fund terrorism. Most funds paid for H1Bs exit the country. Frequently to hostile countries.
Okay, that's just a load of crap.
Funds paid "for" H-1B visas are paid to the US government. They don't exit the country.
Funds paid "to" H-1B visa-holders are spent mostly within the USA, in the form of taxes and living expenses.
Most people here on H1B Visas are here illegally, per the terms required to allow their entry in the first place.
If that's true, then it's the fault of their sponsors, not the visa-holders.
Additionally, many studies have concluded that there has never been a lack of tech labor but simply a lack of companies willing to pay fair market wages. Which in turn has turned people away from what would otherwise be a well paid field.
I'd like to see some citations for those studies. In any case, there are a limited number of H-1B visas made available every year. It's not like all of the tech needs of the USA can be supplied with H-1B visa-holders.
Show me someone who supports H1Bs and I'll show you a scumbag.
Then you'll have to include practically every university in the USA.
Modded down. Whatever.
Either the moderators are poor at reading comprehension, or there really are people out there who think that the H-1B program is some kind of welcome-mat for terrorists.
One may argue that H-1B visa-holders displace American workers, but are they terrorists? I think not. H-1B visas are very hard to get. It's much easier to get a student visa, like the 9/11 hijackers did. And let's not forget that most of the people who have committed terrorist acts since 9/11 have had strong ties to the USA already, some being born or raised here.
2. CO2 (It's carbon dioxide not cobalt gas) increases after warming from several sources, yes. But adding CO2 by burning fossil fuels also increases warming. Not really worth arguing but correlation is often an indication of causation. That is one can't just use this phrase to disprove causation unlike some idiots think.
Actually the causation part is well-known. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You can demonstrate that easily in any high-school science class.
The H-1B visa program is yet another means for potential terrorists to enter the United States. Anything that reduces the number of H-1B Syrian refugees entering the United States reduces the number of potential terrorists. The H-1B program is a threat both to American jobs and to national security.
ORLY. What percentage of people who committed terrorist acts since, say 1990, have held H1-B visas at one time?
A way to distinguish the one prediction that's going to be right from the millions that aren't.
We have that. It's called science.
And while we're on the subject, science does get things wrong despite its best efforts. But the most important thing about science is that it is in a constant state of trying to correct and improve itself.
So, you're blaming Madoff's victims?
Madoff engaged in fraud. That is distinct from the instruments he used to commit the fraud.
Bitcoin is not a con. It is a nascent crypto-currency that has been subject to wild over-speculation.
I'd thought the money was in trading them, not owning them. There's a book called "Where are the Customer's Yachts" that talks about all this.
Investing in the stock market is, if nothing else, a hedge against inflation. Historically, the stock market has outperformed the inflation rate by a significant margin. That's not to say other investments aren't good (like bonds, real estate, etc.)
You may not get stinking rich by investing in the stock market, but with careful planning, you can get a return that helps you to buy other things that matter, such as a home, an education, the odd vacation, a comfortable retirement, and so on.
And yes, if you want a yacht, investing can help you get one. Maybe just a small one, though.
Investments are regulated so that people are protected from the Bernie Madoffs of the world and it's necessary to do so.
So, you're using a real-world example of some shit that actually recently happened to say that "investments are regulated" so said thing can't happen? I think I'm lost.
Bernie Madoff went to jail for what he did, and he'll probably die there.
Regulations may not prevent shit from happening. But when you have regulations, you can make shit happen to people who violate them. Thus providing an incentive to the would-be Madoffs of the finance world to behave themselves.
Actually, the first A in NASA is Aeronautics
FTFY. The GP is right.
While [Twitter and Facebook] are [private companies] there are calls on conservative sides for them to be treated as a public utility. Precisely because they control so much information and speech. The last thing they want is the government telling them how they can run their business.
OMG, this is absolutely hilarious. Let's unpack this, one mistake at a time.
1. Facebook and Twitter are not private companies. They are traded publicly (ticker symbols FB and TWTR.) But whether they're public or private has nothing to do with whether they can be treated as a public utility. They don't own pipes or wires that run up to your house.
2. I call bullshit on your claim of "calls on conservative sides" to treat these companies as utilities. I haven't heard any. And besides, that would be a really stupid move on the part of conservatives, many of whom want to kill Net Neutrality. Do you think they could turn Facebook and Twitter into utilities, while at the same time say that the companies who provide the networks they use are not utilities?
3. Facebook and Twitter do not "control" information and speech. They provide a service that allows people to express themselves. They reserve the right to step in and remove content they deem inappropriate because the service belongs to them, and they don't want miscreant users who negatively affect their business.