The so-called trusted media makes stuff up all the time. They are just more subtle about it.
Misleading headlines "Some Sources Say" "Report: " then some narrative they want to push.
All the while leaving themselves an out where they can claim that they were mislead, some report was wrong, or even just saying, "we were wrong", but long after the damage has been done.
If we follow the standard method of interpreting these kinds of things, "Disparate Outcome", then it doesn't matter what the facts f he matter are, it is inherently discriminatory.
Will a Trump Presidency cause Slashdot editors to lose their minds and post story after story on how a Trump Presidency will affect (insert pet cause here)
If you believe that companies should be able to move their production overseas, you are tacitly approving of working conditions( wages, safety, environmental, etc.) that, were they in effect here in the US, would have SJWs lighting themselves on fire in the public square in protest.
If Mexico or any other nation imposes the same regulations as the US, then moving to another nation would be no different than moving to another state. Absent that, it provides an unfair advantage to outsourcing companies at the expense of the employees of the overseas plant.
Leadership regularly adds items to bills at the last minute. That practice is ubiquitous in all legislative bodies, even the US Congress, and is bullshit.
And, what's the fucking hurry? When a Bill is changed it takes a while for it to be analyzed and the people it may affect to understand it and bring their concerns to the attention of their legislator.
The only reason for allowing that bullshit is to slip something in under the wire and without due consideration.
No, it would help everyone to know what the fuck is happening
So why oppose it?
You seem to be saying it's a good thing, but only if everyone does it. That makes no sense.
And this inherently doesn't benefit one party over the other. My original comment was that the opponents seem to suggest it does and what does that say about them?
"The first thing you need to do is follow the money," he told Ars, pointing us to Munger, Jr. "He's been the top contributor to the California Republican Party. His goal is to disrupt the power of a legislature that's getting things done."
So, Republicans would benefit by everyone knowing what they are voting on, that the public know what's going on, and that the legislation be carefully considered?
What does that say about the people who oppose this? That they don't want people to know what they are voting on, don't want the legislation to be carefully considered, and that the public not be informed?
Is the definition of "getting things done" mean having things slipped in at the last minute while keeping the public and the legislators clueless ?
The laws are clear about direct help...giving ad space, printing materials, airing commercials, things like that. They all fall under the rules of campaign finance.
But what if you are a business that reaches tens of millions of households and can do things like making it difficult to find information on the disfavored candidate?
What if you are able to place, through subtle algorithm changes, materials on the preferred candidate before the disfavored one?
Simply by down ranking the disfavored politician's materials in searches, flagging videos supportive of the disfavored candidate so they aren't easily viewed, or even removing entirely user accounts that support the disfavored candidate based on some ephemeral rules violations , they pretty much all but disappear from the web.
Google wasn't around during McCain-Fiengold I don't think and these actions are not covered by the current laws but have a very definite impact on politics.
I think there is a difference between supporting a candidate and turning over a multi-billion dollar enterprise over to that candidate to get their message out or suppress the message of the opposing candidate. While there was no mention specifically about using Google technology or resources, there has been plenty of suspicious activity in the Google realm related to auto completion, site rankings, and even quasi censorship on Youtube,
When a business the size and reach of Google favors you, then you are bound to end up benefiting in ways that you are probably not entitled to benefit from.
Slashdot Mirror
Eventually Facebook will collapse under all its bells and whistles same as AOL.
Trying to be everything to everyone is never a good plan.
The Reasonable question: Are you ashamed of your code's efficiency, documentation, clarity and reasonable brevity?
Unreasonable Question: Are you ashamed of your code because of some stupid SJW viewpoint?
...I want one I can fly when and where I want.
I knew there would be some Slashdot version of Vizzini, shouting at the top of his lung, "inconceivable!"
The so-called trusted media makes stuff up all the time. They are just more subtle about it.
Misleading headlines
"Some Sources Say"
"Report: " then some narrative they want to push.
All the while leaving themselves an out where they can claim that they were mislead, some report was wrong, or even just saying, "we were wrong", but long after the damage has been done.
If we follow the standard method of interpreting these kinds of things, "Disparate Outcome", then it doesn't matter what the facts f he matter are, it is inherently discriminatory.
Hey, not my rules...
Will a Trump Presidency cause Slashdot editors to lose their minds and post story after story on how a Trump Presidency will affect (insert pet cause here)
Is Ford moving manufacturing plants to Canada?
Your vote is equal to anyone else thanks to the electoral college.
This is because small states don't have as many electoral votes as large states. Neither do they have as many representatives as the large states.
...that Trump won because the media could not control the narrative despite their best efforts.
If you believe that companies should be able to move their production overseas, you are tacitly approving of working conditions( wages, safety, environmental, etc.) that, were they in effect here in the US, would have SJWs lighting themselves on fire in the public square in protest.
If Mexico or any other nation imposes the same regulations as the US, then moving to another nation would be no different than moving to another state. Absent that, it provides an unfair advantage to outsourcing companies at the expense of the employees of the overseas plant.
This is 100% against what most Democrats believe.
Nope.
Leadership regularly adds items to bills at the last minute. That practice is ubiquitous in all legislative bodies, even the US Congress, and is bullshit.
And, what's the fucking hurry? When a Bill is changed it takes a while for it to be analyzed and the people it may affect to understand it and bring their concerns to the attention of their legislator.
The only reason for allowing that bullshit is to slip something in under the wire and without due consideration.
No, it would help everyone to know what the fuck is happening
So why oppose it?
You seem to be saying it's a good thing, but only if everyone does it. That makes no sense.
And this inherently doesn't benefit one party over the other. My original comment was that the opponents seem to suggest it does and what does that say about them?
I suggest you find some rich liberal to sponsor such an initiative in the Rd states then.
But just because no one has done so doesn't mean it should not be done where people are trying.
And, BTW, the intent is irrelevant, as you yourself point out.
"The first thing you need to do is follow the money," he told Ars, pointing us to Munger, Jr. "He's been the top contributor to the California Republican Party. His goal is to disrupt the power of a legislature that's getting things done."
So, Republicans would benefit by everyone knowing what they are voting on, that the public know what's going on, and that the legislation be carefully considered?
What does that say about the people who oppose this? That they don't want people to know what they are voting on, don't want the legislation to be carefully considered, and that the public not be informed?
Is the definition of "getting things done" mean having things slipped in at the last minute while keeping the public and the legislators clueless ?
I think NBC will be making use of this to accompany their film edits.
We never compromised the quality or relevance of the information...
Is that why never get any shopping results when looking for 45ACP?
...will sue you.
The laws are clear about direct help...giving ad space, printing materials, airing commercials, things like that. They all fall under the rules of campaign finance.
But what if you are a business that reaches tens of millions of households and can do things like making it difficult to find information on the disfavored candidate?
What if you are able to place, through subtle algorithm changes, materials on the preferred candidate before the disfavored one?
Simply by down ranking the disfavored politician's materials in searches, flagging videos supportive of the disfavored candidate so they aren't easily viewed, or even removing entirely user accounts that support the disfavored candidate based on some ephemeral rules violations , they pretty much all but disappear from the web.
Google wasn't around during McCain-Fiengold I don't think and these actions are not covered by the current laws but have a very definite impact on politics.
I think there is a difference between supporting a candidate and turning over a multi-billion dollar enterprise over to that candidate to get their message out or suppress the message of the opposing candidate. While there was no mention specifically about using Google technology or resources, there has been plenty of suspicious activity in the Google realm related to auto completion, site rankings, and even quasi censorship on Youtube,
When a business the size and reach of Google favors you, then you are bound to end up benefiting in ways that you are probably not entitled to benefit from.
...do their apps specify race when you are reserving a ride?
Or maybe it's because the pick up point is in a high crime area.
shakedown
noun
shakedown \shk-daun\
: the act of taking something (such as money) from someone by using threats or deception
It is developed as much as the parent's post was.
That key needs to die an ugly death.
World cereal production reached a new all-time record of nearly 2,534 million tonnes (MT) in 2014, beating the previous record of the 2013 by over 13 MT, according to latest estimates put out by the UN affiliated Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). In one decade, global cereal production has gone up by almost 25%, setting all-time high records in five years out of 10.
Seems to beneficial or at least not harming anything.