I don't live in California and don't plan to, so I'm not sure who that "your" or "we're" is referring to. I'm just commenting on your idiocy.
If California wants to break away they can certainly try that. There might be issues, but a lack of money or infrastructure, including defense infrastructure, is probably not going to be one of them.
I'm sure in this modern world you'll have no need of a defense budget, so you'll have a huge economic advantage.
I'm pretty sure a GDP larger than the UK would allow for some sort of defense budget. Naturally, the US would also assist with defense because it wouldn't want China to take control of California, would it? So, a defense treaty makes sense until California at least finishes their Navy and Air Force. Good thing a lot of the defense contractors and military testing and launch facilities are already there.
Yeah, too bad, if this continues the 2 biggest shipping ports in the US might suffer, right?
I mean, LA and Long Beach both do more business than NY in terms of number of containers. And, other than a marked drop in 2008/2009, all of the largest US ports have been growing with the possible exception of SEA/TAC.
So, what were you saying about the unions? What's the problem?
I can't even remember the last time I got a commercial robocall. Political ones are sometimes exempt from the laws, and other than that it's usually live people trying to scam.
Robocalls are not "totally outlawed," there are several exemptions. There are also prosecutions for major offenders. I think that's the point here, not to completely eradicate but to provide legal penalties.
Unlike the story yesterday about California requiring women to be on a board of directors, I think this law may actually be helpful. The point isn't to enforce it and then create some world where no bots are trying to deceive people. The point is to allow for legal penalties when someone is caught doing it, and it may have the side effect of additional truth in advertising.
I haven't read the text, but there might be some unintended gray areas with regard to various programs that do things like scrape web content. Is a web scraper trying to impersonate a person using a browser, or not?
Either way, if this had the effect of legit bots telling people they are bots when interacting with them, and providing legal penalties if they don't, it's not really a bad thing.
What happened to simply choosing the best candidate for the job instead of meeting quotas?
You understand this is California, right? This is an absolutely California solution to a perceived problem - just outlaw the problem and fine everyone not in compliance.
I don't understand the history to know how California got like it is, but I guess we all get the politicians we deserve.
In California, now you'll have a bunch of women sitting on boards with the nagging thought in the back of their heads that the only reason why they are on that board is because the state requires it, not because of how hard they've worked for it.
I've made several statements of substance, many of which you have avoided.
Moreover you're putting words in my mouth
You too, bud.
So, we need to go forth into the world, conquer nations that never attacked us, so we can impose our values on them?
See? You just did it, right there, literally the sentence after trying to call me out for the same.
No, that is not what I am arguing for, that is not my point, and it reinforces my contention that you see the world as a set of extremes with no gray area in between.
Are you aware that you're a neo-con?
If only you could actually see me, you would appreciate the hilariousness of that statement.
Because these are neo-con arguments.
Which I am not making, but that's the lens through which you view the world.
Now tell me about rule of law and the necessity of obeying an international order.
Because of the things I've said, and asserted universal human rights, you think I don't care about rule of law? Bush should have been prosecuted, Annan asserted that the war was illegal. Rule of law says he should have stood trial.
The so-called "Pax Americana" has brought only endless wars, leading to countless innocents murdered by Americans, failed states, religious fundamentalism, and nuclear proliferation, as states decide that they will not be the next Iraq.
And, what, are you asserting that I believe in "Pax Americana" also? What's the purpose of that sentence? Why even bring it up?
You can see how this is a totally unacceptable situation and the forces that oppose patriots must never allow this to happen.
There's more of your extremes, either someone wants to see world peace under a united world government, or they love their home country.
Without "regime change" and "building democracy" as a foreign policy people all over the world would stop fighting each other and would start building their nations peacefully
Ha, just like humans have done throughout history, right? Just peacefully co-existing. You follow a different religion? Cool, let's build peaceful nations. All of that shit that has been happening in Syria over the last seven or eight years? Totally the fault of every other country except Syria, which is a bastion of peace and happiness led by a real great guy who only wants the best for everyone who lives in his country, who are all 100% completely happy with his rule. The Rohingyas, Uighurs, and Tutsis also totally agree with your statements.
And to think, all of this shitstorm just because I suggested that McCain loved his country. You can't even let a statement like that rest and you think that people can just get along if the American government gets out of the way. You refuse to accept that an obvious patriot could possibly love his country, and you think that people with directly opposing religious beliefs would just hug it out if it weren't for us.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Is not a declaration of universal human rights, but instead serves some sort of oligarchy political agenda. That, no, people do not have those rights. You haven't said anything that would imply otherwise. You also seem to think that anyone who believes that sentence cannot be a patriot, and is purely and only a globalist, and nothing else, with no love for their country.
Your beliefs don't have any gray area, they're a set of extremes. People are either patriots who love their country, or they are globalists trying to enslave the world. Needless to say, there's not much of a point in trying to debate with an extremist.
I'm sure it was just an oversight, but if you could spell out your position on this I would appreciate the clarity:
I'd like you to expand on that. Do you believe that we actually do have the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Because a bunch of people around 1776 thought that it was so obvious that every person had these rights that they didn't even need to provide any evidence. So, what do you think? Do we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If we do, then does everyone else? If no to any of those questions, why? Do you think that innate rights even exist? What truths do you hold to be self-evident?
And, no, just saying "that's pure globalism" doesn't cut it, you need to finish your thought.
Yeah, this premise is ridiculous. In order for WhatsApp to be at fault, the system itself would need to send people messages inciting some kind of violence. If the people are sending each other messages then the method of delivery is not the story.
I'm not sure how it's "by my logic" that 69 is 22.6% of 304, I mean that just seems like basic math, but well done on extending what I said. Yes, virtually no president has a mandate, despite what they want to claim. Again, well done.
Next let's talk about what candidates say during a campaign versus what they actual do after being elected. My own personal theory is that they do not hold up all of their promises. It's a shocking theory, I know.
I do think there are people who would like to see the planet united under a single government.
I do not think that people are currently actively trying to work toward that specific goal by setting up such a world government and insisting that all other nations become subservient to it. As proof of this statement, I'll point out that there is not such a world government, and no one is insisting that all other nations become subservient to it. This seems pretty obvious. Maybe you think there are people trying to push what they believe are US interests, but somehow they're actually trying to make the US that world government, but I don't think that's the case at all. There are certainly people trying to make the US the world's police, but that's not globalism. That's just US-centric foreign policy, where we try to always achieve our own goals regardless of what anyone else wants. That's not what globalism is, that's nationalism.
How does it protect America to invade Iraq?
It protected American interests to invade Iraq in the 90s, because oil supplies were threatened. In 2003, it served Bush's interests because Saddam tried to kill his dad once. I will refrain from offering my opinion of either war.
We all remember McCain was a neo-con who supported the invasion, right?
Yep. This one fault doesn't make him an awful guy. I don't know what would have happened if he had beaten Bush in the primary in 2000, but it's probably fair to say that there would have been more or bigger wars. Again, this doesn't automatically make him a terrible person or not a patriot, his ideas of protecting the country are just different than mine.
GWB should have stood trial under the Nuremberg laws and have been hanged just like Halder and all the rest.
That's going a little far. If Annan really believed the war was illegal, like he said, then he should have done something about it. I doubt it would have required anyone to be hanged. Jail time probably would have sent the message loud and clear.
"everyone has the same rights that we so famously and proudly claimed for ourselves." - pure globalism right there.
I'd like you to expand on that. Do you believe that we actually do have the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Because a bunch of people around 1776 thought that it was so obvious that every person had these rights that they didn't even need to provide any evidence. So, what do you think? Do we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If we do, then does everyone else? If no to any of those questions, why? Do you think that innate rights even exist? What truths do you hold to be self-evident?
but apparently you non-ironically agree with this. WTF?
Ironically or not, no I don't agree. I do believe that everyone has the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness though, that these things are not exclusive to Americans.
And your homophobic slur was really not appreciated.
I had to re-read what I wrote three times to find what you're referring to. Are you referring to "cocksucker?" Do you think that this is both a "homophobic slur", and that I meant it as such? You're obviously not afraid to assume I mean or believe things that I don't, but if the takeaway for you from that line was something relating to anyone's sexuality then I think you really missed the point, bud.
Here, let me help you with some definitions for that word:
a contemptible person (used as a generalized term of abuse).
A mean or despicable person.
insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous
And my personal favorite:
General all-purpose all-american insult used to describe anyone except the person who actually sucks your cock.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't live in California and don't plan to, so I'm not sure who that "your" or "we're" is referring to. I'm just commenting on your idiocy.
If California wants to break away they can certainly try that. There might be issues, but a lack of money or infrastructure, including defense infrastructure, is probably not going to be one of them.
Right. And, as long as they don't do business with anyone in California, no problem.
I'm sure in this modern world you'll have no need of a defense budget, so you'll have a huge economic advantage.
I'm pretty sure a GDP larger than the UK would allow for some sort of defense budget. Naturally, the US would also assist with defense because it wouldn't want China to take control of California, would it? So, a defense treaty makes sense until California at least finishes their Navy and Air Force. Good thing a lot of the defense contractors and military testing and launch facilities are already there.
Anyway, back to your dumb snark.
Yeah, too bad, if this continues the 2 biggest shipping ports in the US might suffer, right?
I mean, LA and Long Beach both do more business than NY in terms of number of containers. And, other than a marked drop in 2008/2009, all of the largest US ports have been growing with the possible exception of SEA/TAC.
So, what were you saying about the unions? What's the problem?
It literally says on that page "California +4.9%/yr; United States +4.2%/yr"
You're confusing absolute growth with percentage growth, and the chart shows absolute growth.
I can't even remember the last time I got a commercial robocall. Political ones are sometimes exempt from the laws, and other than that it's usually live people trying to scam.
So, yes, they did.
Robocalls are not "totally outlawed," there are several exemptions. There are also prosecutions for major offenders. I think that's the point here, not to completely eradicate but to provide legal penalties.
Unlike the story yesterday about California requiring women to be on a board of directors, I think this law may actually be helpful. The point isn't to enforce it and then create some world where no bots are trying to deceive people. The point is to allow for legal penalties when someone is caught doing it, and it may have the side effect of additional truth in advertising.
I haven't read the text, but there might be some unintended gray areas with regard to various programs that do things like scrape web content. Is a web scraper trying to impersonate a person using a browser, or not?
Either way, if this had the effect of legit bots telling people they are bots when interacting with them, and providing legal penalties if they don't, it's not really a bad thing.
Occam thinks he's posting with a mobile device which thinks that's someone's name.
Who even told you, that you can speak?
Why did you, put a comma, there?
I love Slashdot debates, I can tell these are my people.
You know, that semicolon in your sig really bothers me.
Given the choice I would spend my Saturdays in Mexico.
Have you been banned from spending Saturdays in Mexico?
If we're going to pass laws like this then shouldn't we require an equal mix of POTUS?
Thankfully, California is not allowed to pass federal legislation. They can do whatever they want to do in their own world.
This post is known by the state of California to cause cancer.
What happened to simply choosing the best candidate for the job instead of meeting quotas?
You understand this is California, right? This is an absolutely California solution to a perceived problem - just outlaw the problem and fine everyone not in compliance.
I don't understand the history to know how California got like it is, but I guess we all get the politicians we deserve.
In California, now you'll have a bunch of women sitting on boards with the nagging thought in the back of their heads that the only reason why they are on that board is because the state requires it, not because of how hard they've worked for it.
Great job, California.
Apparently he was bragging about how it was going to make him famous. That statement may count as him pursuing financial gain for himself.
Why hide a training exercise? Why not tell the local law enforcement?
You're not making arguments, you're attacking me.
I've made several statements of substance, many of which you have avoided.
Moreover you're putting words in my mouth
You too, bud.
So, we need to go forth into the world, conquer nations that never attacked us, so we can impose our values on them?
See? You just did it, right there, literally the sentence after trying to call me out for the same.
No, that is not what I am arguing for, that is not my point, and it reinforces my contention that you see the world as a set of extremes with no gray area in between.
Are you aware that you're a neo-con?
If only you could actually see me, you would appreciate the hilariousness of that statement.
Because these are neo-con arguments.
Which I am not making, but that's the lens through which you view the world.
Now tell me about rule of law and the necessity of obeying an international order.
Because of the things I've said, and asserted universal human rights, you think I don't care about rule of law? Bush should have been prosecuted, Annan asserted that the war was illegal. Rule of law says he should have stood trial.
The so-called "Pax Americana" has brought only endless wars, leading to countless innocents murdered by Americans, failed states, religious fundamentalism, and nuclear proliferation, as states decide that they will not be the next Iraq.
And, what, are you asserting that I believe in "Pax Americana" also? What's the purpose of that sentence? Why even bring it up?
You can see how this is a totally unacceptable situation and the forces that oppose patriots must never allow this to happen.
There's more of your extremes, either someone wants to see world peace under a united world government, or they love their home country.
Without "regime change" and "building democracy" as a foreign policy people all over the world would stop fighting each other and would start building their nations peacefully
Ha, just like humans have done throughout history, right? Just peacefully co-existing. You follow a different religion? Cool, let's build peaceful nations. All of that shit that has been happening in Syria over the last seven or eight years? Totally the fault of every other country except Syria, which is a bastion of peace and happiness led by a real great guy who only wants the best for everyone who lives in his country, who are all 100% completely happy with his rule. The Rohingyas, Uighurs, and Tutsis also totally agree with your statements.
And to think, all of this shitstorm just because I suggested that McCain loved his country. You can't even let a statement like that rest and you think that people can just get along if the American government gets out of the way. You refuse to accept that an obvious patriot could possibly love his country, and you think that people with directly opposing religious beliefs would just hug it out if it weren't for us.
It sounds like you think that this sentence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Is not a declaration of universal human rights, but instead serves some sort of oligarchy political agenda. That, no, people do not have those rights. You haven't said anything that would imply otherwise. You also seem to think that anyone who believes that sentence cannot be a patriot, and is purely and only a globalist, and nothing else, with no love for their country.
Your beliefs don't have any gray area, they're a set of extremes. People are either patriots who love their country, or they are globalists trying to enslave the world. Needless to say, there's not much of a point in trying to debate with an extremist.
I'm sure it was just an oversight, but if you could spell out your position on this I would appreciate the clarity:
I'd like you to expand on that. Do you believe that we actually do have the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Because a bunch of people around 1776 thought that it was so obvious that every person had these rights that they didn't even need to provide any evidence. So, what do you think? Do we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If we do, then does everyone else? If no to any of those questions, why? Do you think that innate rights even exist? What truths do you hold to be self-evident?
And, no, just saying "that's pure globalism" doesn't cut it, you need to finish your thought.
Yeah, this premise is ridiculous. In order for WhatsApp to be at fault, the system itself would need to send people messages inciting some kind of violence. If the people are sending each other messages then the method of delivery is not the story.
I'm not sure how it's "by my logic" that 69 is 22.6% of 304, I mean that just seems like basic math, but well done on extending what I said. Yes, virtually no president has a mandate, despite what they want to claim. Again, well done.
Next let's talk about what candidates say during a campaign versus what they actual do after being elected. My own personal theory is that they do not hold up all of their promises. It's a shocking theory, I know.
You are saying globalism isn't a thing?
Not in the sense you think.
I do think there are people who would like to see the planet united under a single government.
I do not think that people are currently actively trying to work toward that specific goal by setting up such a world government and insisting that all other nations become subservient to it. As proof of this statement, I'll point out that there is not such a world government, and no one is insisting that all other nations become subservient to it. This seems pretty obvious. Maybe you think there are people trying to push what they believe are US interests, but somehow they're actually trying to make the US that world government, but I don't think that's the case at all. There are certainly people trying to make the US the world's police, but that's not globalism. That's just US-centric foreign policy, where we try to always achieve our own goals regardless of what anyone else wants. That's not what globalism is, that's nationalism.
How does it protect America to invade Iraq?
It protected American interests to invade Iraq in the 90s, because oil supplies were threatened. In 2003, it served Bush's interests because Saddam tried to kill his dad once. I will refrain from offering my opinion of either war.
We all remember McCain was a neo-con who supported the invasion, right?
Yep. This one fault doesn't make him an awful guy. I don't know what would have happened if he had beaten Bush in the primary in 2000, but it's probably fair to say that there would have been more or bigger wars. Again, this doesn't automatically make him a terrible person or not a patriot, his ideas of protecting the country are just different than mine.
GWB should have stood trial under the Nuremberg laws and have been hanged just like Halder and all the rest.
That's going a little far. If Annan really believed the war was illegal, like he said, then he should have done something about it. I doubt it would have required anyone to be hanged. Jail time probably would have sent the message loud and clear.
"everyone has the same rights that we so famously and proudly claimed for ourselves." - pure globalism right there.
I'd like you to expand on that. Do you believe that we actually do have the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Because a bunch of people around 1776 thought that it was so obvious that every person had these rights that they didn't even need to provide any evidence. So, what do you think? Do we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If we do, then does everyone else? If no to any of those questions, why? Do you think that innate rights even exist? What truths do you hold to be self-evident?
but apparently you non-ironically agree with this. WTF?
Ironically or not, no I don't agree. I do believe that everyone has the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness though, that these things are not exclusive to Americans.
And your homophobic slur was really not appreciated.
I had to re-read what I wrote three times to find what you're referring to. Are you referring to "cocksucker?" Do you think that this is both a "homophobic slur", and that I meant it as such? You're obviously not afraid to assume I mean or believe things that I don't, but if the takeaway for you from that line was something relating to anyone's sexuality then I think you really missed the point, bud.
Here, let me help you with some definitions for that word:
a contemptible person (used as a generalized term of abuse).
A mean or despicable person.
insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous
And my personal favorite:
General all-purpose all-american insult used to describe anyone except the person who actually sucks your cock.
How many of the 15 million or so lines of code do you have memorized?
Really, that seems like a strange critique to make on a project that is explicitly known for having a ton of contributors.
Is it ever not cold there? There's still a lot to see.
I'm a little confused as to why moving the date instead of location was not an option.