The problem with most people who describe Libertarianism is that they have no fucking clue what they're on about
And that goes double for Libertarians.
Just in the past week, we've had "Libertarians" support restrictions on abortions, both for and against the Keystone XL pipeline (private property rights, yes!, private property rights for anyone but corporations, no!) and both for and against gay marriage.
So... are you trying to say that it's a bad thing that Libertarians are allowed to have their own opinions on varying issues, and are not required to march in lock-step with the rest of the party?
Sure beats having your 'representatives' vote against their constituents best interest because their same-party President told them to.
The first amendment doesn't specify HOW one may petition the government for redress of grievances or guarantee equal access to that right
The 14th Amendment specifies that all persons are to receive equal treatment under the law, and since the 14th applies universally, then there very much is a guarantee of equal access, which current campaign finance laws illegally prevent.
> The problem with most people who describe Libertarianism is that they have no fucking clue
No. That's not the other case at all. The other guy had your number right on the money.
Libertarians are so busy trying to make everyone afraid of Big Government that they overlook Big Business.
Not necessarily true - Google 'Libertarian regulation' (sans quotes, of course), and you'll actually see a variety of differing positions from many self-proclaimed Libertarians.
That's what I like about the Libertarian philosophy: That differing voices and ideals are not only allowed but often encouraged, unlike the D's and R's who go to town on your ass with a rubber hose if you so much as think about going against the party line.
There are lots of problems the free market cannot solve, just like there are lots of problems collective rule cannot solve. That's why it is important to choose the right solution for every problem. People who think there is only one true path will end up with lots of bad and inefficient solutions that often just make the problems worse.
This paragraph is brilliantly insightful, for those of you who can't tell.
I read the laws tesla is lobbying for on their website, it's a rather specific exemption from the dealership law for basically them:
"a manufacturer of only all electric-powered or all battery-powered motor vehicles, or a distributor of only all electric-powered or all battery-powered motor vehicles, that (i) owned and operated a new motor vehicle dealership in the United States on or before March 1, 2013, and (ii) has never sold its line make in the United States through an independent franchised new motor vehicle dealership, may own or operate a dealer or dealership, or act in the capacity of a dealer, at any location within the state and may obtain a dealer general distinguishing number under Section 503.029 of the Transportation Code."
"let's write ourselves an exemption, but slam the door on anyone coming after us"
Further cementing my opinion that Elon Musk is just an elitist, douche-bag crybaby on an ego trip.
Go cry to someone that cares, Son of Apartheid - I've got karma to burn.
In Tesla's defense, would you willingly let your wares be sold by dealerships that are out to make the most money possible from the customers often with dishonest tactics?
If that was the only way to get a foot in the market, I'd be a petulant, stupid child not to. This is capitalism: as a company, you either make money or you languish and die. Whining about how the current state of affairs is "unfair" to YOUR company isn't going to win any friends, nor is it going to sell any product.
Once things become common enough, it'll be simpler for the manufacturers to just add the camera to all of them rather than have separate lines for with and without. Especially when the cost difference is only like $5.
Well, when that day comes I'll buy a nice, cheap model, then promptly open the case and disable/remove all the little bits I don't want in there. Until that day, I'm putting my bucks down on a big, dumb display with an ATSC tuner and a shit-ton of inputs.
The problem is that Libertarians want corporations to be unencumbered by regulations to the extent that they can harm people and the environment without oversight.
The problem with most people who describe Libertarianism is that they have no fucking clue what they're on about (because they aren't Libertarians, and/or they have a vested interest in marginalizing them).
FWIW, unlike Democrats and Republicans, Libertarians are allowed to think for themselves, and don't get beaten with a rubber hose for stepping out of the party line. I will admit, the official party plank regarding economics is a bit antiquated and unrealistic, but hardly the poison-our-food-and-water free-for-all you're making it out to be.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
One should be able to petition his government without having to first fill their coffers; to that same end, one should not be able to purchase a greater amount of influence than any other American has.
Well, yeah - choose it without, but if you can get a wonderful deal on something that just happens to have a camera and microphone in it you will -never- use - why let a thing like a camera or microphone be a deal killer when there are such easy fixes for them.
I see where you're coming from, but chances are if you can get a "wonderful deal" on a 'smart' tv with all that spy gear built in, you can also get a dumb display of competing size and resolution for much, much less.
Hell, I don't even need speakers in mine, just some sort of audio-out so I can hook the display to my surround sound system.
Maybe part of the reason the fuss is being made is because somebody actually gave these people money to travel halfway around the world and give a talk at a professional conference (and waste a lot of people's time) when there could have been something much more relevant, valuable, useful, or technologically amazing than an app that does nothing useful and hogs memory on smartphones while simultaneously making its user look like a giant douche.
Just spitballin' here...
I doubt it - that would mean that companies actually cared when their competition wasted money on idiotic ideas, which doesn't really flesh with the capitalist model. Besides, it's a competition, right? Well, if I were one of the competing groups in the crowd, I could only pray that all my competitors were so stupid and unprofessional, as that would increase the chances of my project being the one that gets funded.
No, the more likely circumstance is that the people crying out are the same ones who are compelled to bitch and demand action any and every time another human does or says something they disagree with. You know - bullies.
If only they made a tape...opaque...that could be used to cover up the cameras - then we'd only have to worry about the microphone - which might befall an accidental exposure to superglue. Microphones don't work when the little inner bits don't vibrate anymore.:D
Yea, I dunno about you, but I don't like to pay a several-hundred-dollar premium for hardware I'm going to intentionally break as soon as I open the box. That just seems stupid.
I'll take a dumb display for half the price any day of the week.
Um, excuse me, but I'm not the one who moved the goalposts here - OP originally said, "We had many more females in programming in the early 80s than we do now," not "a higher percentage of programmers were female in the 1980's than now." The facts, as I cited, are that the absolute number of females in IT is higher now than it was 30 years ago, which is counter to OP's original claim.
Seriously, what part of "We had many more females in programming in the early 80s than we do now" doesn't indicate total numbers in the world?
By calling names and making false accusations, you only serve to denigrate your own position, and paint yourself as an unreasonable person not worth responding to. OP may have been wrong, but at least he wasn't a petulant child about it.
Have them agree to be bombed if they are found to have any remaining chemical weapons after the turn-over.
Yea, sure, so when the CIA-funded Al Queda operatives in Syria unleash another chemical attack under a false flag, we can pretend our war-mongering is justified!
1) have [nation] turn over all chemical weapons 2) give chemical weapons to false flag operatives in [nation] 3) ???? 4) Profit!
A couple weeks ago, all the anti-U.S. people on Slashdot said that Syria had no chemical weapons
[citation needed]
From what I've seen, nobody's saying they don't have chemical weapons - the point of contention is whether or not it was the Syrian government who used chemical weapons in the attacks, because A) there's evidence that indicates it was actually some rebel group (probably Al Queda) who did it, and B) the US government is not a credible source in this regard, especially when they want to start the fight before evidence is process, all the while claiming that their rationale for war is classified Super Cereal Secret Squirrel.
voters are not the problem. the system, being rigged to ONLY allow D or R to get in, is the problem.
To a certain degree, this is correct; look at how hard many groups and organizations worked to keep Ron Paul off the ballot and out of the spotlight during the last Presidential election, for example.
However, that does not absolve the voter from responsibility - there's a write-in slot on the ballot for a reason.
I don't have citation for more ratio of female computer professionals than 30 years ago, it was mentioned on the radio this morning.
Well, if you recall, the 'ratio' wasn't the statement needing citation - you said, "We had many more females in programming in the early 80s than we do now," which indicates absolute numbers, not percentages of the total population.
But I'll Google that for you, and select the top hit:
Heard it wrong. The percentages are what I remember but it was for computer science degree graduates for women; 37% in 1985, 18% in 2010. I was a university senior in 1985 and we were talking about the problem of there not being so many women in computing back then, so imagine how much worse it is now.
Again, it appears you forgot the basis of your original statement: that there are less women working in IT today than there were 30 years ago. You should have maybe looked up the Wiki page before going on a wild Google chase:
From 1993 through 1999, NSF’s SESTAT reported that the percentage of women working as computer/information scientists (including those who hold a bachelor’s degree or higher in an S&E field or have a bachelor’s degree or higher and are working in an S&E field) declined slightly from 33.1% to 29.6% percent while the absolute numbers increased from 170,500 to 185,000.
So you see, the absolute number has increased since the 1980's, proving your statement to be demonstrably false, and no amount of swaying in the breeze or moving goalposts will change that fact.
Now, if only you can provide a citation for the claim, "rabid sexism that is not only tolerated but applauded." Specifically for that claim, not a different claim you make up that sounds kinda like the original statement, like what you tried to do with this post.
Slashdot Mirror
Anthony D. Weiner
No, seriously, his middle initial really is D!
"Almost" == "more than"
Probably should have double checked that before hitting Post.
I think this is the best idea I've seen since I invented it almost 100 years ago!
Sincerely yours, Nikola Tesla
FTFY.
Which people? From what I've read, you could be talking about pretty much all the parties involved.
Except for the 9-year-old. It's the 9-year-old who doesn't care about what all the fuss is about, no surprise.
Oh, yes - of course the smartest person in the room would be exempt.
And that goes double for Libertarians.
Just in the past week, we've had "Libertarians" support restrictions on abortions, both for and against the Keystone XL pipeline (private property rights, yes!, private property rights for anyone but corporations, no!) and both for and against gay marriage.
So... are you trying to say that it's a bad thing that Libertarians are allowed to have their own opinions on varying issues, and are not required to march in lock-step with the rest of the party?
Sure beats having your 'representatives' vote against their constituents best interest because their same-party President told them to.
Dirty Bernanke sounds... dirtier!
Yea, but Greenspan Steamer just kinda rolls off the tongue...
Suddenly I feel a strong compulsion to bathe and brush my teeth.
The first amendment doesn't specify HOW one may petition the government for redress of grievances or guarantee equal access to that right
The 14th Amendment specifies that all persons are to receive equal treatment under the law, and since the 14th applies universally, then there very much is a guarantee of equal access, which current campaign finance laws illegally prevent.
> The problem with most people who describe Libertarianism is that they have no fucking clue
No. That's not the other case at all. The other guy had your number right on the money.
Libertarians are so busy trying to make everyone afraid of Big Government that they overlook Big Business.
Not necessarily true - Google 'Libertarian regulation' (sans quotes, of course), and you'll actually see a variety of differing positions from many self-proclaimed Libertarians.
That's what I like about the Libertarian philosophy: That differing voices and ideals are not only allowed but often encouraged, unlike the D's and R's who go to town on your ass with a rubber hose if you so much as think about going against the party line.
There are lots of problems the free market cannot solve, just like there are lots of problems collective rule cannot solve. That's why it is important to choose the right solution for every problem. People who think there is only one true path will end up with lots of bad and inefficient solutions that often just make the problems worse.
This paragraph is brilliantly insightful, for those of you who can't tell.
What would you call that?
A Dirty Bernanke? Perhaps the Greenspan Steamer?
I read the laws tesla is lobbying for on their website, it's a rather specific exemption from the dealership law for basically them:
"a manufacturer of only all electric-powered or all battery-powered motor vehicles, or a distributor of only all electric-powered or all battery-powered motor vehicles, that (i) owned and operated a new motor vehicle dealership in the United States on or before March 1, 2013, and (ii) has never sold its line make in the United States through an independent franchised new motor vehicle dealership, may own or operate a dealer or dealership, or act in the capacity of a dealer, at any location within the state and may obtain a dealer general distinguishing number under Section 503.029 of the Transportation Code."
"let's write ourselves an exemption, but slam the door on anyone coming after us"
Further cementing my opinion that Elon Musk is just an elitist, douche-bag crybaby on an ego trip.
Go cry to someone that cares, Son of Apartheid - I've got karma to burn.
In Tesla's defense, would you willingly let your wares be sold by dealerships that are out to make the most money possible from the customers often with dishonest tactics?
If that was the only way to get a foot in the market, I'd be a petulant, stupid child not to. This is capitalism: as a company, you either make money or you languish and die. Whining about how the current state of affairs is "unfair" to YOUR company isn't going to win any friends, nor is it going to sell any product.
Not necessarily. You can't find a smart phone without a camera, even if you didn't ever intend to use the camera on it.
Sure you can
Once things become common enough, it'll be simpler for the manufacturers to just add the camera to all of them rather than have separate lines for with and without. Especially when the cost difference is only like $5.
Well, when that day comes I'll buy a nice, cheap model, then promptly open the case and disable/remove all the little bits I don't want in there. Until that day, I'm putting my bucks down on a big, dumb display with an ATSC tuner and a shit-ton of inputs.
The problem is that Libertarians want corporations to be unencumbered by regulations to the extent that they can harm people and the environment without oversight.
The problem with most people who describe Libertarianism is that they have no fucking clue what they're on about (because they aren't Libertarians, and/or they have a vested interest in marginalizing them).
FWIW, unlike Democrats and Republicans, Libertarians are allowed to think for themselves, and don't get beaten with a rubber hose for stepping out of the party line. I will admit, the official party plank regarding economics is a bit antiquated and unrealistic, but hardly the poison-our-food-and-water free-for-all you're making it out to be.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
One should be able to petition his government without having to first fill their coffers; to that same end, one should not be able to purchase a greater amount of influence than any other American has.
Well, yeah - choose it without, but if you can get a wonderful deal on something that just happens to have a camera and microphone in it you will -never- use - why let a thing like a camera or microphone be a deal killer when there are such easy fixes for them.
I see where you're coming from, but chances are if you can get a "wonderful deal" on a 'smart' tv with all that spy gear built in, you can also get a dumb display of competing size and resolution for much, much less.
Hell, I don't even need speakers in mine, just some sort of audio-out so I can hook the display to my surround sound system.
Maybe part of the reason the fuss is being made is because somebody actually gave these people money to travel halfway around the world and give a talk at a professional conference (and waste a lot of people's time) when there could have been something much more relevant, valuable, useful, or technologically amazing than an app that does nothing useful and hogs memory on smartphones while simultaneously making its user look like a giant douche.
Just spitballin' here...
I doubt it - that would mean that companies actually cared when their competition wasted money on idiotic ideas, which doesn't really flesh with the capitalist model. Besides, it's a competition, right? Well, if I were one of the competing groups in the crowd, I could only pray that all my competitors were so stupid and unprofessional, as that would increase the chances of my project being the one that gets funded.
No, the more likely circumstance is that the people crying out are the same ones who are compelled to bitch and demand action any and every time another human does or says something they disagree with. You know - bullies.
Until we get 4k content the quality differences are non-existent.
FTFY.
If only they made a tape...opaque...that could be used to cover up the cameras - then we'd only have to worry about the microphone - which might befall an accidental exposure to superglue. Microphones don't work when the little inner bits don't vibrate anymore. :D
Yea, I dunno about you, but I don't like to pay a several-hundred-dollar premium for hardware I'm going to intentionally break as soon as I open the box. That just seems stupid.
I'll take a dumb display for half the price any day of the week.
Nice goalpost shift to total numbers in the world
Um, excuse me, but I'm not the one who moved the goalposts here - OP originally said, "We had many more females in programming in the early 80s than we do now," not "a higher percentage of programmers were female in the 1980's than now." The facts, as I cited, are that the absolute number of females in IT is higher now than it was 30 years ago, which is counter to OP's original claim.
Seriously, what part of "We had many more females in programming in the early 80s than we do now" doesn't indicate total numbers in the world?
By calling names and making false accusations, you only serve to denigrate your own position, and paint yourself as an unreasonable person not worth responding to. OP may have been wrong, but at least he wasn't a petulant child about it.
Have them agree to be bombed if they are found to have any remaining chemical weapons after the turn-over.
Yea, sure, so when the CIA-funded Al Queda operatives in Syria unleash another chemical attack under a false flag, we can pretend our war-mongering is justified!
1) have [nation] turn over all chemical weapons
2) give chemical weapons to false flag operatives in [nation]
3) ????
4) Profit!
Did I fall asleep for a week? When did the Syrian government claim they had no chemical weapons?
I think, perhaps, you're confusing the terms "have" and "used."
A couple weeks ago, all the anti-U.S. people on Slashdot said that Syria had no chemical weapons
[citation needed]
From what I've seen, nobody's saying they don't have chemical weapons - the point of contention is whether or not it was the Syrian government who used chemical weapons in the attacks, because A) there's evidence that indicates it was actually some rebel group (probably Al Queda) who did it, and B) the US government is not a credible source in this regard, especially when they want to start the fight before evidence is process, all the while claiming that their rationale for war is classified Super Cereal Secret Squirrel.
voters are not the problem. the system, being rigged to ONLY allow D or R to get in, is the problem.
To a certain degree, this is correct; look at how hard many groups and organizations worked to keep Ron Paul off the ballot and out of the spotlight during the last Presidential election, for example.
However, that does not absolve the voter from responsibility - there's a write-in slot on the ballot for a reason.
I don't have citation for more ratio of female computer professionals than 30 years ago, it was mentioned on the radio this morning.
Well, if you recall, the 'ratio' wasn't the statement needing citation - you said, "We had many more females in programming in the early 80s than we do now," which indicates absolute numbers, not percentages of the total population.
But I'll Google that for you, and select the top hit:
http://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/legacy/pdf/BytheNumbers09.pdf
Heard it wrong. The percentages are what I remember but it was for computer science degree graduates for women; 37% in 1985, 18% in 2010. I was a university senior in 1985 and we were talking about the problem of there not being so many women in computing back then, so imagine how much worse it is now.
Again, it appears you forgot the basis of your original statement: that there are less women working in IT today than there were 30 years ago. You should have maybe looked up the Wiki page before going on a wild Google chase:
So you see, the absolute number has increased since the 1980's, proving your statement to be demonstrably false, and no amount of swaying in the breeze or moving goalposts will change that fact.
Now, if only you can provide a citation for the claim, "rabid sexism that is not only tolerated but applauded." Specifically for that claim, not a different claim you make up that sounds kinda like the original statement, like what you tried to do with this post.
I won't be holding my breath.