No, I do care that WikiLeaks broke the law and released the DNC emails. I also care about the laws of fairness in the primary, which is why I'm glad Hillary won it after many more people voted for her. Finally, I think the leaking questions should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, I'm assuming a thousand dollar fine.
(GASP) THEY KNEW IN ADVANCE THERE WAS GOING TO BE A SOFTBALL QUESTION ABOUT A MAJOR ISSUE?!?!
Well fuck me running, I bet none of the millions of people who voted for Hillary over Sanders would have voted for her had she given an unprepared response on the death penalty! She probably would have screamed some racist remarks and literally vomited had she not been given the heads up on that...
Our standards for what counts as shocking corruption have been raised by Trump's hourly conduct, but even without that, this is not a big deal.
At least it will be a little entertaining to see how Trumpers justify more expensive, slower internet in a few years. Will they insist it's the greatest internet service ever?Will they say it's good because people should be getting their news from radio and cable news instead? Will they say nothing because there's only a glowing ash pile where this dumb fucking country used to be?
The big news organizations didn't publish on it? Yeah, I forgot only the little guys like Time or CNN ran with stories from it.
(/sarcasm) The big news organizations if anything failed to report clearly enough on the DNC e-mails. Too many bernie-bros who were convinced it proved the Clintons used their Benghazi military to crush Sanders, rather than "There was nothing much interesting in them."
As for not publishing the e-mails themselves, that's kind of the SOP. Wikileaks publishes everything down to social security numbers and GPS coordinates of informants in war zones, responsible news organizations attempt to hide private details like phone numbers. No shit they didn't publish the leaks directly, that would have been irresponsible.
What the fuck are YOU talking about? Read the title of OP's post "... SJW friendly." That's what I'm talking about. The DMCA I get, but there wasn't anything about social justice that I can see explained, and it's definitely not bad like DMCA is.
You're trolling, but many idiots who elect bigger idiots would buy this sentiment. "We might not be able to nuke and pave china into democracy, but I'm pretty sure our corporations can. Diplomacy or letting them run their own government how they see fit? That's fucking unamerican!"
They have a point on that last bit, but not in a good way.
Anyway, no, free trade might be able to open china up. Military threats and protectionist policies are only going to backfire. Hoping corporations, the god of christianity, or the god of capitalism will "rescue" china are all equally idiotic. Trump threw a bunch of babies out with the TPP. China is going to run the show now, we should be more concerned about loss of American freedom than rooting for Apple to "stand up" to China.
For a clear picture of the economy, it's important to have better data and quantify shit. "Common sense tells me that some millenials don't job hop!" is insufficient. You don't want legislators making retirement policy on an assumption that millenials all do or do not job hop. But at the same time you don't want them making retirement policy saying "Well, every snowflake millenial is different, so we don't really know." You want legislators having hard numbers showing that gen xers and millenials are statistically not different in terms of job duration. And then they'll continue to screw us younger generations over in favor of the greedy boomers, but that's because we don't vote, not because they lack data.
Yes, I'm aware of the hypocrisy of that last part. Point is, this is not a "Researchers say water is wet" finding, this is necessary quantification. You aren't shocked by the finding? Who cares. We still need to do the damn tests. They're not being done to validate or disprove dumb popular opinions, they're important data for knowing what the fuck is going on with the population.
Copyright abuse, okay, but what's up with the "social justice warrior" being thrown around here? Are we REALLY at a point where "Oh they're feminist" is as evil as abusing the DMCA? Mocking SJW is understandable (though personally I think "mens rights activists" are exponentially more absurd). It's another to act like they're doing something immoral.
Have the TED talks threatened violence against men? Because googling "TED feminism" just comes up with a bunch of talks about how feminism is good.
If "yay feminism" is as problematic to you as big corporations ruthlessly going after individuals who play music in youtube clips, then something is fucking wrong with you.
You missed the part about "unrealistic." Producing the same gas guzzling SUVs for the next 20 years is not going to work. They have no realistic plan for the future even if they're fine now.
Or that Tesla is currently worth more than GM or Ford?
Do you not remember about ten years ago when the market crashed? All the execs flew, not drove, to congress to ask for a bailout. They had no plans for what to do with the money when congress asked. Elon Musk was having what he called his worst year ever at the same time, but he was also launching shit into space. He was not asking for billions of taxpayer money with no idea what to do with it.
Years after Tesla started selling the model S, Ford and GM started selling their own comparable electric cars which weren't as good. They continued to focus on selling big beefy cars whose time had passed.
So yeah, tesla is selling good cars and is lead by the visionary founder, while GM and Ford are lead by incompetence that has defined the big four for decades. Why the heck would anyone value Ford or GM more than Tesla. Ford and GM's unrealistically optimistic dream would be "be in the exact same place we are now 20 years from now." Tesla's big dream would be "cars running on solar power."
The rest of your post? Totally. It's insane to hear rich 40 something dudes rave about how innovative the latest fad of sending words and pictures over the internet is. It's more insane to see how much money people are throwing at them. Silicon Valley makes Detroit look like smart sensible guys. But Detroit is still run by fucking idiots.
But the regime also shows a longer-term focus than a lot of other governments. Because they know they're either going to still be the guys in control, or they'll die violently. I think they're aware they shouldn't change things too much too rapidly.
Or they're drinking their own koolaid and believe they'll survive a nuclear war due to superior genetics and dear leader's giant dick and we're fucked, I dunno really.
And that spread is only because they're able to abuse adjuncts, TA's, and untenured professors into staying late and compromising their personal lives.
College students pay through the nose, so it wouldn't be totally unfair to force professors to push their schedules back and neglect their kids... but it's definitely not going to happen with tenured professors.
There's probably some hybrid of online learning and traditional learning that could be made that would suit everyone's needs better and be cheaper. And while we're wishing, administrative bureaucracy is a cancerous growth plaguing higher learning...
On torrenting I disagree, I think you're just not recognizing the compromise that worked out.
Back in the day, the RIAA's demand was "Buy this album for $20"
Our response was "No, that's too much for like one song."
RIAA counter offer was "Go fuck yourself."
The napster/limewire/kazaa/torrent response was "No, we gets it for free."
The RIAA counter offer was "Go fuck yourself. And also you should feel bad about stealing."
Our response was "Go fuck yourself, we gets it free.
Clearly those two extremes were incompatible, so companies like apple (whom I'm positive wasn't the first but I'm forgetting who was) said "hey, here's a compromise: you pay a little for each song."
The RIAA's response to apple et al I assume was "Go fuck yourself. Oh wait, we're losing money and we can't bully you around, fine."
Our response to apple et al was "Go fuck yourself, we gets it free. Oh wait, this is much more convenient, fine."
Then of course al la carte spotify and others made even that obsolete.
Similar things worked for pretty much every other thing pirate bay is used for, it's become largely unnecessary. New video games and new movies aren't exactly where they should be from my perspective, but it seems like the price drops off much quicker than it used to.
Capitalism is vastly overrated IMHO, but I think it worked out. We didn't get every song for free, but we were never going to anyway, just as big content was never going to maintain their position.
Now, what Sunde is talking about in the snippet and article are much more important things, like net neutrality. Capitalism as it exists in the telecom industry now absolutely won't solve that in any reasonable time frame, and I'm not sure what else would either. If I get a genie lamp I'll wish that 1. lobbying would be effectively ended 2. voters would pay attention to consumer rights, privacy, and actually voting and 3. public broadband maintained fairly as a non-profit. That could solve it real good. I disagree with his pessimistic view of things, I think he's an extremist who sees compromise on torrenting to be a sign everything is awful and always will be. But he's right that there are bigger fights and they're not nearly as encouraging. You might be right on that that our culture needs to change, and obviously our laws need to change on those issues.
Not "entirely unique" in all areas. Variability is a concern, however it's not like each brain's layout is completely scrambled from one to another. Deep brain stimulation has been around for a while and is showing promise based on targeting the right areas.
There's also nothing that says that this thing would need to be hardwired up in a certain way and if two were inverted, fuck it, it's gone. I assume there would be a training period in which the software (like electronic software) would learn what was hooked up to what.
For that matter, there's plenty of training and learning on the wetware side that could work.
Without real technical details, it's hard to say "This can't possibly work because of X thing that is already known." On top of that, Elon Musk is not known for proposing things that are going to run headfirst into problems one could identify just from a wiki page. I'd assume it's technically feasible.
Then there is the extreme danger of hacking, whether corporate or government or just the idiot kid down the street with the wrong software.
Really? You're going to poo-poo an awesome technology (again, assuming Musk hasn't just totally gone bonkers) based on "brain hacking?" After just saying "we really can't know where stuff will connect with the brain?" Some idiot kid down the street is going to know the wiring of your brain and the backdoors into it better than any neuroscientist does? Because neuroscientists don't know that level of detail. This won't be life-and-death stuff like breathing: your body does that on it's own.
If it had the potential to do something like "press here to cause a seizure," then Musk is going to have a hard time getting that to market or past his lawyers. He can't even get his car sold in some states, he's not going to railroad this thing despite obvious safety concerns. Again, he's not an idiot. If there were any chance of someone putting someone else to sleep with it, one would assume he would put that into the "Neat but stupid" idea pile.
Speaking of, I'm sure there are some fascinating but fatally flawed ideas that have come from Musk's team. They should publish a book of them.
Seriously. Who the fuck was calling for lowered standards in forensic science? I'm to the point where if there's a lobbying group for it, I assume the GOP is going to be for it. If it's something sane people really like, the GOP is going to be against it. But this? I'm honestly caught off guard.
At this rate, I can only assume that next week, the GOP will announce that the official guidelines for miles, pounds, feet, and gallons are "too restrictive to business" and the new standard for how much gas will be in a gallon will be "whatever the fuck exxon says it is, peasant."
Good point. At that point, everyone had wasted a lot of time and could taste getting home. OP pointed out that this wasn't an overbooking situation where they would have done this. It appears they sat everyone, then some employees showed up and THEN someone at the terminal decided (possibly going by united guidelines which are possibly in violation of law and common sense) to boot off someone already seated.
It's been pointed out that this is why United is trying to pretend the doctor was being disruptive, because they pretty clearly broke the rules.
They did supposedly offer $400, then $800 reimbursement. No one took them up on it.
The mildly moronic part was not offering more money or saying "We're going to all sit here until someone gives up." The stupid part was choosing someone at random and demanding he give up his seat without listening to whether he absolutely needed to get back or had some flexibility. "I'm a doctor and I have patients I need to tend to" is a pretty fucking good excuse. Find some retiree or some asshole who sells cars or does computer stuff.
The part that was stupid even for a US airline company was using force to get him off rather than choosing someone else. The airline isn't his parents, the point shouldn't be to teach him to obey.
Being wary of the government is a hallmark of republicans. I think that tends to materialize as being very susceptible to propaganda from business. It was the same for health care, before Obama was elected, Americans seemed to generally like the idea of single payer healthcare depending on how you phrased it. That support evaporated overnight when it started to look like a remote possibility. A the mention of "death panels" a good number of people were suddenly ready to die to protect insurance companies from the evil government.
Asking people if they like municipal broadband you're going to get yes. Asking them after comcast says "THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE SPYING ON YOU" with "like we do" in fine print? There will be a ton of morons instantly declaring it's an anti-american idea.
I personally can't fathom why someone would fear the government they can vote in but love corporations they can't even sue, but I've been accused of being an out-of-touch liberal...
I can already hear the evil villain laughs from the boardrooms of our monopolistic content masters, lighting cigars with $100 bills and slapping each other on the back with hearty gusto.
I expect it's more "sigh of relief that all that lobbying finally paid off." Corporate boardrooms with golden parachutes and preferred shares behind closed doors often make really stupid decisions. I expect most of the extra money they'll be getting will be going to covering money they spent on lobbyists to get this passed. A lot is likely already being spent on lobbying for the next greedy cash grab. The rest will go to their pockets, obviously they'll still make out like bandits on this, just I doubt they're content and happy. When an addict gets a bunch of smack, they're happy for a moment, but it runs out and they're searching again really rapidly.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean lowered.
Okay, so where are the charges against Hillary's staff? Alternatively, where's the evidence Hillary was the one breaking the law?
No, I do care that WikiLeaks broke the law and released the DNC emails. I also care about the laws of fairness in the primary, which is why I'm glad Hillary won it after many more people voted for her. Finally, I think the leaking questions should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, I'm assuming a thousand dollar fine.
(GASP) THEY KNEW IN ADVANCE THERE WAS GOING TO BE A SOFTBALL QUESTION ABOUT A MAJOR ISSUE?!?!
Well fuck me running, I bet none of the millions of people who voted for Hillary over Sanders would have voted for her had she given an unprepared response on the death penalty! She probably would have screamed some racist remarks and literally vomited had she not been given the heads up on that...
Our standards for what counts as shocking corruption have been raised by Trump's hourly conduct, but even without that, this is not a big deal.
And you live where?
The word "this" indicates the one I am in right now, the united states.
And you blame the guy in office 4 months for all history?
No. I don't know where you're going with this but the answer to that question is no.
You seem to be a primary dummy in 'this dumb fucking country'.
I didn't vote for him, so no.
At least it will be a little entertaining to see how Trumpers justify more expensive, slower internet in a few years. Will they insist it's the greatest internet service ever?Will they say it's good because people should be getting their news from radio and cable news instead? Will they say nothing because there's only a glowing ash pile where this dumb fucking country used to be?
The worst they showed is that Hillary was paid by banks to speak. We knew that already. We also know that corruption did not win HRC the nomination.
The big news organizations didn't publish on it? Yeah, I forgot only the little guys like Time or CNN ran with stories from it.
(/sarcasm) The big news organizations if anything failed to report clearly enough on the DNC e-mails. Too many bernie-bros who were convinced it proved the Clintons used their Benghazi military to crush Sanders, rather than "There was nothing much interesting in them."
As for not publishing the e-mails themselves, that's kind of the SOP. Wikileaks publishes everything down to social security numbers and GPS coordinates of informants in war zones, responsible news organizations attempt to hide private details like phone numbers. No shit they didn't publish the leaks directly, that would have been irresponsible.
What the fuck are YOU talking about? Read the title of OP's post "... SJW friendly." That's what I'm talking about. The DMCA I get, but there wasn't anything about social justice that I can see explained, and it's definitely not bad like DMCA is.
You're trolling, but many idiots who elect bigger idiots would buy this sentiment. "We might not be able to nuke and pave china into democracy, but I'm pretty sure our corporations can. Diplomacy or letting them run their own government how they see fit? That's fucking unamerican!"
They have a point on that last bit, but not in a good way.
Anyway, no, free trade might be able to open china up. Military threats and protectionist policies are only going to backfire. Hoping corporations, the god of christianity, or the god of capitalism will "rescue" china are all equally idiotic. Trump threw a bunch of babies out with the TPP. China is going to run the show now, we should be more concerned about loss of American freedom than rooting for Apple to "stand up" to China.
For a clear picture of the economy, it's important to have better data and quantify shit. "Common sense tells me that some millenials don't job hop!" is insufficient. You don't want legislators making retirement policy on an assumption that millenials all do or do not job hop. But at the same time you don't want them making retirement policy saying "Well, every snowflake millenial is different, so we don't really know." You want legislators having hard numbers showing that gen xers and millenials are statistically not different in terms of job duration. And then they'll continue to screw us younger generations over in favor of the greedy boomers, but that's because we don't vote, not because they lack data.
Yes, I'm aware of the hypocrisy of that last part. Point is, this is not a "Researchers say water is wet" finding, this is necessary quantification. You aren't shocked by the finding? Who cares. We still need to do the damn tests. They're not being done to validate or disprove dumb popular opinions, they're important data for knowing what the fuck is going on with the population.
Copyright abuse, okay, but what's up with the "social justice warrior" being thrown around here? Are we REALLY at a point where "Oh they're feminist" is as evil as abusing the DMCA? Mocking SJW is understandable (though personally I think "mens rights activists" are exponentially more absurd). It's another to act like they're doing something immoral.
Have the TED talks threatened violence against men? Because googling "TED feminism" just comes up with a bunch of talks about how feminism is good.
If "yay feminism" is as problematic to you as big corporations ruthlessly going after individuals who play music in youtube clips, then something is fucking wrong with you.
You missed the part about "unrealistic." Producing the same gas guzzling SUVs for the next 20 years is not going to work. They have no realistic plan for the future even if they're fine now.
Or that Tesla is currently worth more than GM or Ford?
Do you not remember about ten years ago when the market crashed? All the execs flew, not drove, to congress to ask for a bailout. They had no plans for what to do with the money when congress asked. Elon Musk was having what he called his worst year ever at the same time, but he was also launching shit into space. He was not asking for billions of taxpayer money with no idea what to do with it.
Years after Tesla started selling the model S, Ford and GM started selling their own comparable electric cars which weren't as good. They continued to focus on selling big beefy cars whose time had passed.
So yeah, tesla is selling good cars and is lead by the visionary founder, while GM and Ford are lead by incompetence that has defined the big four for decades. Why the heck would anyone value Ford or GM more than Tesla. Ford and GM's unrealistically optimistic dream would be "be in the exact same place we are now 20 years from now." Tesla's big dream would be "cars running on solar power."
The rest of your post? Totally. It's insane to hear rich 40 something dudes rave about how innovative the latest fad of sending words and pictures over the internet is. It's more insane to see how much money people are throwing at them. Silicon Valley makes Detroit look like smart sensible guys. But Detroit is still run by fucking idiots.
Hadn't thought about that, but very true.
And upsetting. I fucking hate multiplayer.
But the regime also shows a longer-term focus than a lot of other governments. Because they know they're either going to still be the guys in control, or they'll die violently. I think they're aware they shouldn't change things too much too rapidly.
Or they're drinking their own koolaid and believe they'll survive a nuclear war due to superior genetics and dear leader's giant dick and we're fucked, I dunno really.
And I thought the article was being unrealistic...
And that spread is only because they're able to abuse adjuncts, TA's, and untenured professors into staying late and compromising their personal lives.
College students pay through the nose, so it wouldn't be totally unfair to force professors to push their schedules back and neglect their kids... but it's definitely not going to happen with tenured professors.
There's probably some hybrid of online learning and traditional learning that could be made that would suit everyone's needs better and be cheaper. And while we're wishing, administrative bureaucracy is a cancerous growth plaguing higher learning...
On torrenting I disagree, I think you're just not recognizing the compromise that worked out.
Back in the day, the RIAA's demand was "Buy this album for $20"
Our response was "No, that's too much for like one song."
RIAA counter offer was "Go fuck yourself."
The napster/limewire/kazaa/torrent response was "No, we gets it for free."
The RIAA counter offer was "Go fuck yourself. And also you should feel bad about stealing."
Our response was "Go fuck yourself, we gets it free.
Clearly those two extremes were incompatible, so companies like apple (whom I'm positive wasn't the first but I'm forgetting who was) said "hey, here's a compromise: you pay a little for each song."
The RIAA's response to apple et al I assume was "Go fuck yourself. Oh wait, we're losing money and we can't bully you around, fine."
Our response to apple et al was "Go fuck yourself, we gets it free. Oh wait, this is much more convenient, fine."
Then of course al la carte spotify and others made even that obsolete.
Similar things worked for pretty much every other thing pirate bay is used for, it's become largely unnecessary. New video games and new movies aren't exactly where they should be from my perspective, but it seems like the price drops off much quicker than it used to.
Capitalism is vastly overrated IMHO, but I think it worked out. We didn't get every song for free, but we were never going to anyway, just as big content was never going to maintain their position.
Now, what Sunde is talking about in the snippet and article are much more important things, like net neutrality. Capitalism as it exists in the telecom industry now absolutely won't solve that in any reasonable time frame, and I'm not sure what else would either. If I get a genie lamp I'll wish that 1. lobbying would be effectively ended 2. voters would pay attention to consumer rights, privacy, and actually voting and 3. public broadband maintained fairly as a non-profit. That could solve it real good. I disagree with his pessimistic view of things, I think he's an extremist who sees compromise on torrenting to be a sign everything is awful and always will be. But he's right that there are bigger fights and they're not nearly as encouraging. You might be right on that that our culture needs to change, and obviously our laws need to change on those issues.
There's also nothing that says that this thing would need to be hardwired up in a certain way and if two were inverted, fuck it, it's gone. I assume there would be a training period in which the software (like electronic software) would learn what was hooked up to what.
For that matter, there's plenty of training and learning on the wetware side that could work.
Without real technical details, it's hard to say "This can't possibly work because of X thing that is already known." On top of that, Elon Musk is not known for proposing things that are going to run headfirst into problems one could identify just from a wiki page. I'd assume it's technically feasible.
Then there is the extreme danger of hacking, whether corporate or government or just the idiot kid down the street with the wrong software.
Really? You're going to poo-poo an awesome technology (again, assuming Musk hasn't just totally gone bonkers) based on "brain hacking?" After just saying "we really can't know where stuff will connect with the brain?" Some idiot kid down the street is going to know the wiring of your brain and the backdoors into it better than any neuroscientist does? Because neuroscientists don't know that level of detail. This won't be life-and-death stuff like breathing: your body does that on it's own.
If it had the potential to do something like "press here to cause a seizure," then Musk is going to have a hard time getting that to market or past his lawyers. He can't even get his car sold in some states, he's not going to railroad this thing despite obvious safety concerns. Again, he's not an idiot. If there were any chance of someone putting someone else to sleep with it, one would assume he would put that into the "Neat but stupid" idea pile.
Speaking of, I'm sure there are some fascinating but fatally flawed ideas that have come from Musk's team. They should publish a book of them.
Seriously. Who the fuck was calling for lowered standards in forensic science? I'm to the point where if there's a lobbying group for it, I assume the GOP is going to be for it. If it's something sane people really like, the GOP is going to be against it. But this? I'm honestly caught off guard.
At this rate, I can only assume that next week, the GOP will announce that the official guidelines for miles, pounds, feet, and gallons are "too restrictive to business" and the new standard for how much gas will be in a gallon will be "whatever the fuck exxon says it is, peasant."
I'm sure if they had gone up high enough in price, someone would have flipped. I probably would have used a sick day for over a thousand.
Good point. At that point, everyone had wasted a lot of time and could taste getting home. OP pointed out that this wasn't an overbooking situation where they would have done this. It appears they sat everyone, then some employees showed up and THEN someone at the terminal decided (possibly going by united guidelines which are possibly in violation of law and common sense) to boot off someone already seated.
It's been pointed out that this is why United is trying to pretend the doctor was being disruptive, because they pretty clearly broke the rules.
They did supposedly offer $400, then $800 reimbursement. No one took them up on it.
The mildly moronic part was not offering more money or saying "We're going to all sit here until someone gives up." The stupid part was choosing someone at random and demanding he give up his seat without listening to whether he absolutely needed to get back or had some flexibility. "I'm a doctor and I have patients I need to tend to" is a pretty fucking good excuse. Find some retiree or some asshole who sells cars or does computer stuff.
The part that was stupid even for a US airline company was using force to get him off rather than choosing someone else. The airline isn't his parents, the point shouldn't be to teach him to obey.
Being wary of the government is a hallmark of republicans. I think that tends to materialize as being very susceptible to propaganda from business. It was the same for health care, before Obama was elected, Americans seemed to generally like the idea of single payer healthcare depending on how you phrased it. That support evaporated overnight when it started to look like a remote possibility. A the mention of "death panels" a good number of people were suddenly ready to die to protect insurance companies from the evil government.
Asking people if they like municipal broadband you're going to get yes. Asking them after comcast says "THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE SPYING ON YOU" with "like we do" in fine print? There will be a ton of morons instantly declaring it's an anti-american idea.
I personally can't fathom why someone would fear the government they can vote in but love corporations they can't even sue, but I've been accused of being an out-of-touch liberal...
I can already hear the evil villain laughs from the boardrooms of our monopolistic content masters, lighting cigars with $100 bills and slapping each other on the back with hearty gusto.
I expect it's more "sigh of relief that all that lobbying finally paid off." Corporate boardrooms with golden parachutes and preferred shares behind closed doors often make really stupid decisions. I expect most of the extra money they'll be getting will be going to covering money they spent on lobbyists to get this passed. A lot is likely already being spent on lobbying for the next greedy cash grab. The rest will go to their pockets, obviously they'll still make out like bandits on this, just I doubt they're content and happy. When an addict gets a bunch of smack, they're happy for a moment, but it runs out and they're searching again really rapidly.