That's the point. Older folks vote with a vengeance.
Garbage. The entire world votes with vengeance. This has nothing to do with old people. It has to do with short attention spans and disproportionate media coverage given to government stuff-ups compared to successes.
By "vote with a vengeance" I meant "have a very high turnout rate". And yes, it has everything to do with old people. You think it's a coincidence that older folks tend to be conservative? That many [mis]remember the past with fondness and want to maintain or revert the status quo?
Why not? I would consider myself on the bleeding edge. However I have no qualms with the Amish community. Why not let conservatives live their lives, and the rest of us can move on.
The only real risk is if one of them enters politics in which case I say grab your pitchforks.
That's the point. Older folks vote with a vengeance. American politics are bad now, but imagine if Confederates were still a large voting bloc. If society is to continue to progress, Methuselah can't be allowed to vote.
I do wonder what the outcome would be if they ripped every single track from the users' CDs and uploaded them to private storage on a server with block level deduplication. Would file level deduplication be a problem, while block level was allowed?
Does Aereo remove the advertisements those broadcasters placed into the stream? If not then how are they taking away a source of revenue?
I'm surprised nobody has correctly answered this. Aereo isn't the concern at all here. Cable companies pay to re-broadcast the networks to cable subscribers. This is a large chunk of the broadcasters' revenue. That's the loss of revenue, and that's why this has such large implications for broadcast networks.
I don't see any reason why this couldn't be a narrow ruling that allowed this usage but not a general rebroadcast, but IANA supreme court justice.
You can say that, but that doesn't make it so. Governments have far more power than corporations since one can readily acquire money with power, but not the other way around. Why would you even think that a company like Google would have more power than a government?
Erm... what? "Governments" in the abstract have more theoretical power than corporations, sure, but over here in reality? Corporations have far more power than individual elected politicians... and that's what counts. Money can fundamentally influence views and frame the debate (ownership of media), and large-scale fundraising is a de facto prerequisite for most candidates. Elected officials need patrons, and the patrons expect something in return.
However, government is more than a corporate tool. It's also a tool of the wealthy, interest groups, and blocks of voters (yes, even unions).
> Linear time should be expected (if it takes longer per ticket when there are more, thats bad, but non-polynomial, thats just horrid)
If one person is having trouble with the web site, there are x0,000 possible causes, so you start with "what are the symptoms they are experiencing, what browser are they using", etc. If there are a flood of tickets about the web site, a few of which mention "can not resolve host name", you have have a DNS problem. More tickets = more information = less time to fix.
That definitely depends on what position you are in and whether the tickets are related. Have you never had to deal with constant interruptions from management and clients/customers asking about the status of tickets?
When I was around 22 I started using the "save/invest half of every raise you get". Worked out pretty well until I changed careers, but was sure glad I had the savings.
No. My point is that the radical left is trying to rebrand themselves and usurp a nice sounding existing label. These modern democrats are PINO, progressive in name only.
If you mean that they're Progressive In Name Only because many of their policies are objectively the same policies championed by conservatives two decades ago, then you are certainly correct.
What specific policy positions taken by the current Democratic Party do you feel are "radical left"? Real stuff, not "I heard Breitbart and Fox speculating about internment camps for white people".
I agree. I haven't looked up the numbers, but my memory tells me there was a slight majority in favor of OIF.
My point was "US Congress approved" and "US public backed" are entirely unrelated statements. So if you meant to use the former as evidence of the latter, in comments on THIS article, that's relevant (and a bit amusing). If not, I suspect you're right on both counts.
The pro life argument is generally not that the woman should be punished, but that abortion is the taking of a life and therefore murder. The vast majority of the pro life movement is not okay with murder (that's exactly what they are fighting against!)
And yet I am quite confident the vast majority of "pro-life"ers: - support the death penalty - oppose food stamps - have not adopted
The old line about only being pro-life until the baby is born still rings true.
That is a load of bull. The US Congress approved...military action to remove Saddam from power. The US public backed both actions at the time.
I'm not sure if you meant those as related statements, but it's worth pointing out that TFA essentially says "Congress is rarely affected by public opinion".
My estimate of the data costs was from an interview with the man who created this proposed enhanced black box. I think he knows more than either of us what the data requirements of his device are.
He may be a great engineer, but if he's seriously proposing a system that will cost $20/passenger/flight, he's a fool. At that price, it had better guarantee incident-free flight.
I'm fat and I get up at 6:00 and am generally at work before the sun comes up. It must be because I'm lazy, and not because I commute and work stupid hours.
Well, you are too lazy to change your sig:). It's not an XP world anymore! Hell, it's even been looking a bit like a Mac world for the last few years.
I was in the audience for a sitcom episode where the actors just couldn't get their lines straight. Watching them mess up horribly for multiple takes wasn't as bad as it sounded. The actors made fun of themselves/each other, made other jokes, and generally just made it all amusing. When they finally got it, it was somehow quite funny.
Of course, they could always move laughs around with a little editing.
Did you have direct authority over people who would have reason to believe that those donations indicated your personal prejudice against them?
At some, I had direct authority over people. And those progressive organizations were in pretty strong legal+ethical conflict with the organizations I have worked for.
Some of the people I directly supervised were extremely conservative... they would likely [wrongly] consider my funding of Prop 8 opposition a direct attack on their religious freedom. I know my moral stance is the right one, but I am glad we had a culture of "what you do in your off hours is fine as long as you don't involve our organization"
If I work 9-5, and at 5:01 start telling customers that my CEO should be fired because he's a pinko commie, I would expect to be told to find a new job
I also feel management should be fired if they attempt to fire employees for political activities during their off hours.
Telling people that your CEO should be fired because he's a pink commie after 5:01 is political activities during their off hours.
It's also a political activity, yes, but I think it goes well beyond that. I can't find the right words at the moment, but I'm sure you can see the difference. If the CEO was also the mayor, an employee running a campaign to defeat him in the election would be fine. The employee running a campaign to turn public support against the CEO in an effort to get him fired/pressured to step down? Not okay.
My boss? A mere difference of opinion is fine as long as we can be adult about it. If he has publicly called for me and people like me to be stripped of rights and made second class citizens AND put his personal money into helping to make that happen, anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out that there's a high potential for a problem there.
Maybe I'm missing something, but my understanding is that he did not publicly call for anything. He privately donated money to campaigns (which I despise), but TFA and this thread make no mention of any other activity.
I have worked for extremely conservative organizations while donating to the ACLU, FSF, Planned Parenthood, Courage Campaign, and many others. Should they have had the right to fire me if those donations became public knowledge?
Only with the fact that he was objecting -- publicly -- ABOUT his boss's politics, whatever they happen to be.
You seem to think you are the feudal lord rather than one signatory to a contract. Does the contract you signed with your employee say that he doesn't have the right to discuss your politics?
Really? I think you're misrepresenting the GP.
And yes, if an employee of mine made public comments about not wanting me as CEO because of my politics, I would show him the door in an instant.
While I wouldn't agree with instant/automatic firing, this is about bringing politics to your workplace. And that's fair. If I work 9-5, and at 5:01 start telling customers that my CEO should be fired because he's a pinko commie, I would expect to be told to find a new job. Employees publicly calling for their CEO's resignation because of their [legal] political activities are childish at best.
For the record, I also feel management should be fired if they attempt to fire employees for political activities during their off hours.
The consequence of this is that everyone who derives their income from labor rather than return on capital is screwed. There are only two choices: invest enough to become financially independent (and hope that you can do it before you lose your career to automation), or hope that society sees fit to redistribute wealth so that those without control of capital don't starve.
The catch-22 is that the people whose occupations are most in danger from automation are also those with the lowest capacity for investing...
I've reached the same conclusions, but it is worth noting a few points that should alter the outcome:
the whole system is unsustainable without a sufficient wealth base to sustain consumption
those who control capital do not yet fully control the state
serious alternatives (e.g. minimum income) have been proposed to deal with these issues while allowing markets to continue functioning
I find it extremely likely that those in power will ultimately realize that they are better off when the needs of all are met, enabling a compromise wherein some form of minimum income/welfare ensures comfort for all. The transition could be smooth, or it could be bloody, but I don't see how it's avoidable in the long-run.
Historically, this is the progression we have observed in the welfare state.
Given the current state of the world, can you really foresee no possible scenarios where dogfighting might be necessary?
So the military is to not just face any likely threat, but every possible threat, no matter how unlikely. The military is already about the same as the rest of the world combined. How much more do you think we need?
I can't tell if you're trolling or just... nevermind.
Clearly that is not what I believe. And I am quite sure you know that.
Obama has cancelled the superior, completed, and operational F-22 and directed some of the funds toward the incomplete, problem plagued F-35.
I was a huge critic of that move, and said this would happen. But let's be honest here:
Obama was among those leading the charge to kill the program, but: - Congress killed the F-22's funding - Senate votes had more to do with where production was located than political affiliation - SecDef Gates wanted the F-22 dead - The JCS and many others in the Pentagon supported him - John McCain co-sponsored the amendment that killed funding
Slashdot Mirror
That's the point. Older folks vote with a vengeance.
Garbage. The entire world votes with vengeance. This has nothing to do with old people. It has to do with short attention spans and disproportionate media coverage given to government stuff-ups compared to successes.
By "vote with a vengeance" I meant "have a very high turnout rate". And yes, it has everything to do with old people. You think it's a coincidence that older folks tend to be conservative? That many [mis]remember the past with fondness and want to maintain or revert the status quo?
Why not? I would consider myself on the bleeding edge. However I have no qualms with the Amish community. Why not let conservatives live their lives, and the rest of us can move on.
The only real risk is if one of them enters politics in which case I say grab your pitchforks.
That's the point. Older folks vote with a vengeance. American politics are bad now, but imagine if Confederates were still a large voting bloc. If society is to continue to progress, Methuselah can't be allowed to vote.
Sure, just as soon as the government can raise rates as easily as Time Warner does.
I do wonder what the outcome would be if they ripped every single track from the users' CDs and uploaded them to private storage on a server with block level deduplication. Would file level deduplication be a problem, while block level was allowed?
Does Aereo remove the advertisements those broadcasters placed into the stream? If not then how are they taking away a source of revenue?
I'm surprised nobody has correctly answered this. Aereo isn't the concern at all here. Cable companies pay to re-broadcast the networks to cable subscribers. This is a large chunk of the broadcasters' revenue. That's the loss of revenue, and that's why this has such large implications for broadcast networks.
I don't see any reason why this couldn't be a narrow ruling that allowed this usage but not a general rebroadcast, but IANA supreme court justice.
Government is only a corporate tool.
You can say that, but that doesn't make it so. Governments have far more power than corporations since one can readily acquire money with power, but not the other way around. Why would you even think that a company like Google would have more power than a government?
Erm... what? "Governments" in the abstract have more theoretical power than corporations, sure, but over here in reality? Corporations have far more power than individual elected politicians... and that's what counts. Money can fundamentally influence views and frame the debate (ownership of media), and large-scale fundraising is a de facto prerequisite for most candidates. Elected officials need patrons, and the patrons expect something in return.
However, government is more than a corporate tool. It's also a tool of the wealthy, interest groups, and blocks of voters (yes, even unions).
> Linear time should be expected (if it takes longer per ticket when there are more, thats bad, but non-polynomial, thats just horrid)
If one person is having trouble with the web site, there are x0,000 possible causes, so you start with "what are the symptoms they are experiencing, what browser are they using", etc. If there are a flood of tickets about the web site, a few of which mention "can not resolve host name", you have have a DNS problem. More tickets = more information = less time to fix.
That definitely depends on what position you are in and whether the tickets are related. Have you never had to deal with constant interruptions from management and clients/customers asking about the status of tickets?
When I was around 22 I started using the "save/invest half of every raise you get". Worked out pretty well until I changed careers, but was sure glad I had the savings.
No. My point is that the radical left is trying to rebrand themselves and usurp a nice sounding existing label. These modern democrats are PINO, progressive in name only.
If you mean that they're Progressive In Name Only because many of their policies are objectively the same policies championed by conservatives two decades ago, then you are certainly correct.
What specific policy positions taken by the current Democratic Party do you feel are "radical left"? Real stuff, not "I heard Breitbart and Fox speculating about internment camps for white people".
I agree. I haven't looked up the numbers, but my memory tells me there was a slight majority in favor of OIF.
My point was "US Congress approved" and "US public backed" are entirely unrelated statements. So if you meant to use the former as evidence of the latter, in comments on THIS article, that's relevant (and a bit amusing). If not, I suspect you're right on both counts.
The pro life argument is generally not that the woman should be punished, but that abortion is the taking of a life and therefore murder. The vast majority of the pro life movement is not okay with murder (that's exactly what they are fighting against!)
And yet I am quite confident the vast majority of "pro-life"ers:
- support the death penalty
- oppose food stamps
- have not adopted
The old line about only being pro-life until the baby is born still rings true.
That is a load of bull. The US Congress approved...military action to remove Saddam from power. The US public backed both actions at the time.
I'm not sure if you meant those as related statements, but it's worth pointing out that TFA essentially says "Congress is rarely affected by public opinion".
Any recommendations? Seriously. I'd pay for a 24-27" 4K display with a more usable aspect ratio.
I've had the same issues on the Mac version for years.
My estimate of the data costs was from an interview with the man who created this proposed enhanced black box. I think he knows more than either of us what the data requirements of his device are.
He may be a great engineer, but if he's seriously proposing a system that will cost $20/passenger/flight, he's a fool. At that price, it had better guarantee incident-free flight.
I'm fat and I get up at 6:00 and am generally at work before the sun comes up. It must be because I'm lazy, and not because I commute and work stupid hours.
Well, you are too lazy to change your sig :). It's not an XP world anymore! Hell, it's even been looking a bit like a Mac world for the last few years.
I was in the audience for a sitcom episode where the actors just couldn't get their lines straight. Watching them mess up horribly for multiple takes wasn't as bad as it sounded. The actors made fun of themselves/each other, made other jokes, and generally just made it all amusing. When they finally got it, it was somehow quite funny.
Of course, they could always move laughs around with a little editing.
Did you have direct authority over people who would have reason to believe that those donations indicated your personal prejudice against them?
At some, I had direct authority over people. And those progressive organizations were in pretty strong legal+ethical conflict with the organizations I have worked for.
Some of the people I directly supervised were extremely conservative... they would likely [wrongly] consider my funding of Prop 8 opposition a direct attack on their religious freedom. I know my moral stance is the right one, but I am glad we had a culture of "what you do in your off hours is fine as long as you don't involve our organization"
Corporations are people, my friend.
If I work 9-5, and at 5:01 start telling customers that my CEO should be fired because he's a pinko commie, I would expect to be told to find a new job
I also feel management should be fired if they attempt to fire employees for political activities during their off hours.
Telling people that your CEO should be fired because he's a pink commie after 5:01 is political activities during their off hours.
It's also a political activity, yes, but I think it goes well beyond that. I can't find the right words at the moment, but I'm sure you can see the difference. If the CEO was also the mayor, an employee running a campaign to defeat him in the election would be fine. The employee running a campaign to turn public support against the CEO in an effort to get him fired/pressured to step down? Not okay.
My boss? A mere difference of opinion is fine as long as we can be adult about it. If he has publicly called for me and people like me to be stripped of rights and made second class citizens AND put his personal money into helping to make that happen, anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out that there's a high potential for a problem there.
Maybe I'm missing something, but my understanding is that he did not publicly call for anything. He privately donated money to campaigns (which I despise), but TFA and this thread make no mention of any other activity.
I have worked for extremely conservative organizations while donating to the ACLU, FSF, Planned Parenthood, Courage Campaign, and many others. Should they have had the right to fire me if those donations became public knowledge?
Only with the fact that he was objecting -- publicly -- ABOUT his boss's politics, whatever they happen to be.
You seem to think you are the feudal lord rather than one signatory to a contract. Does the contract you signed with your employee say that he doesn't have the right to discuss your politics?
Really? I think you're misrepresenting the GP.
And yes, if an employee of mine made public comments about not wanting me as CEO because of my politics, I would show him the door in an instant.
While I wouldn't agree with instant/automatic firing, this is about bringing politics to your workplace. And that's fair. If I work 9-5, and at 5:01 start telling customers that my CEO should be fired because he's a pinko commie, I would expect to be told to find a new job. Employees publicly calling for their CEO's resignation because of their [legal] political activities are childish at best.
For the record, I also feel management should be fired if they attempt to fire employees for political activities during their off hours.
The consequence of this is that everyone who derives their income from labor rather than return on capital is screwed. There are only two choices: invest enough to become financially independent (and hope that you can do it before you lose your career to automation), or hope that society sees fit to redistribute wealth so that those without control of capital don't starve.
The catch-22 is that the people whose occupations are most in danger from automation are also those with the lowest capacity for investing...
I've reached the same conclusions, but it is worth noting a few points that should alter the outcome:
I find it extremely likely that those in power will ultimately realize that they are better off when the needs of all are met, enabling a compromise wherein some form of minimum income/welfare ensures comfort for all. The transition could be smooth, or it could be bloody, but I don't see how it's avoidable in the long-run.
Historically, this is the progression we have observed in the welfare state.
Given the current state of the world, can you really foresee no possible scenarios where dogfighting might be necessary?
So the military is to not just face any likely threat, but every possible threat, no matter how unlikely. The military is already about the same as the rest of the world combined. How much more do you think we need?
I can't tell if you're trolling or just... nevermind.
Clearly that is not what I believe. And I am quite sure you know that.
Obama has cancelled the superior, completed, and operational F-22 and directed some of the funds toward the incomplete, problem plagued F-35.
I was a huge critic of that move, and said this would happen. But let's be honest here:
Obama was among those leading the charge to kill the program, but:
- Congress killed the F-22's funding
- Senate votes had more to do with where production was located than political affiliation
- SecDef Gates wanted the F-22 dead
- The JCS and many others in the Pentagon supported him
- John McCain co-sponsored the amendment that killed funding