The problem is that this is likely to be a one-off response. If we started seeing a mass killing of police every time some unarmed citizen is offed by an officer, you would actually see some action. As it is right now, it's not enough of a problem for politicians to want to take on the police unions.
I utterly fail to comprehend why the police unions are not FOR strong gun control. They would benefit from it more directly than any other group in the country. Countries that don't allow guns enables cops to not have to carry guns. It makes them safer in a real, tangible and measurable way and yet instead we are militarizing the police force and escalating the violence even against unarmed people. I get why it is politically difficult but I don't get why police aren't leading the charge for gun control.
You're asking on Slashdot if anyone has heard of a browser that has been covered 5 times on slashdot before [slashdot.org] several of which were directly about that specific browser?
Wow, 5 whole articles over 12 years with most barely mentioning a browser that literally almost nobody uses. How did I ever miss that... [/sarcasm]
To use your own silly analogy: Are you seriously unaware that the government now has the capability to look at the address on the outside of the package, then match it up with data concerning what you've bought recently that would fit in the package, where and when you mailed it, and the religion, sexual orientation and profession of the addressee?
I think your tinfoil hat is on a little too tight. Who do you think is actually doing this? Even if They (ooh, spooky) were somehow putting all this together in real time (which they aren't) does the phrase "needle in a haystack" mean anything to you?
Yeah the government overreaches sometimes (see the NSA) but that doesn't mean we need to get needlessly paranoid.
You haven't yet grasped that this is a bit of a game-changer? Seriously?
It's adorable that you think this is something new. They've always been able to do this when the need arose. It's just theoretically less labor intensive than it used to be to gather some of it. Nothing new here at all. All they would have to do is subpoena Amazon and/or UPS and pull my tax, census or other public records. Not exactly rocket surgery.
Sigh. Did you miss the "log" part of my statement? The USPS has no need to log addresses as part of the delivery process.
Actually they do need to do that, at least for a portion of the delivery process. They need to be able to route and track the stuff they are delivering. You cannot do that without logging it somewhere along the way. They don't necessarily have to keep the logs except for purposes of providing proof of delivery where requested but there is no practical way to run a delivery system that size without some amount of data logging. If you think otherwise you don't adequately understand the logistics involved.
Sigh... (facepalm) Let me repeat myself. They are not as a routine matter opening your sealed letter or package. What part of that didn't you understand?
Are you seriously complaining that they read the address on the outside of the box or envelope so that they can deliver your package? Seriously?
The US mail system already scans all packages and letters. It was several years ago this was revealed during the anthrax scares.
They don't scan them for information. They scan them to make sure there aren't explosives or chemical or biological weapons contained. Not the same thing. They are not as a routine mater opening your sealed letter or package to examine the contents.
If we don't have the 1st AND the 2nd, then the 4th isn't a right, it is a privilege that can be revoked by the government at any time.
All the amendments are necessary and to varying degrees they all protect us and each other. Without the 4th amendment it would be trivial to quell free speech. Same with the 5th. Etc. They all matter. Before the 13th amendment black people were not protected by the 1st amendment and the 2nd actually worked against them. Before the 15th amendment women didn't enjoy full rights of the 1st amendment. They all matter.
The notion that the 2nd amendment is what protects your constitutional rights is a tired and idiotic argument. First, there are plenty of other thriving democracies that have far more restrictive gun control than the US. There is nothing special about the US that requires civilians to own guns to protect their rights. Guns are demonstrably not required to protect your civil rights. Furthermore the most successful civil rights movement in the US during the last century was largely a pacifist one. Guns would were mostly counter productive in securing and retaining civil rights. If you want to see what the civil rights movement in the 1960s would have looked like with lots of guns and weapons, see the Israeli/Palestine conflict. See the recent shooting in Dallas for an example of how counterproductive guns are in "protecting" your civil rights. Second, if the government decides they want to force you to do something, your little pee shooter isn't worth anything against a real army or police force. Individually it provides no meaningful protection. Collectively they are not needed - get enough people together to protest and you don't need to shoot anyone. If the society devolves into a civil war like Syria, none of the amendments will matter anymore anyway.
If you want to own a gun I'm right with you. I own firearms myself. But the only argument that makes any sense is that you own a gun because you like to own a gun. You don't need it to feed your family. You don't need it to protect your rights from the government. You aren't going to protect your family or property from real or imagined criminals. You don't need a semi-automatic or full automatic gun for any practical purpose. You own a gun because you like to shoot and/or hunt. Occasionally people need one for pest control. Nobody is going to take your gun away. Arguing against reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people and criminals is indefensible.
Keeping your costs down can go a long way to controlling a market.
China doesn't even have to work too hard to keep their costs down because the main competition for rare earths mining is the USA which has some of the largest deposits and labor costs in the US are substantially higher than in China. Since you can't really automate things substantially AND the US has stiffer environmental regulations basically the US would have to subsidize mining operations to get the mines operational again. Probably in violation of WTO rules. For now it's uneconomical to mine them outside of China but if China tries to restrict supply I could see things changing for strategic reasons.
My auto body instructor told me. He was ASE master certified, which means he knew a thing or three.
Doesn't mean he knew shit about supply chains and he certainly didn't know anything about steel refineries. I have worked in the auto industry for over 15 years as an engineer and have done purchasing for big and small automotive companies including steel frame components. Your ASE certified instructor didn't know what he was talking about in this case. Sounds to me like he was making shit up because he didn't like Japanese vehicles for whatever reason since it is wildly untrue that Japanese cars are made from recycled American cars. Talk to a materials engineer for correct information, not a guy who knows his way around a welding gun.
The hardness and brittleness of steel is a function of the grain structure and alloy of the steel among a few other things. It has nothing to do with whether it was recycled steel or created from ore. You could put both under a spectrometer or electron microscope and chances are you would be unable to tell any difference if they were made to the same spec.
Last time I checked, Japanese cars were made primarily out of recycled American cars.
Not sure where you got this nugget. Certainly not the case today or any time in the last 40 years. Pretty sure it was never true. Citations?
When you recycle steel, it gets harder and more brittle.
Not sure where you got this one either. Contaminants are an issue at times but as a general proposition steel does not "get harder and more brittle" from recycling. Heck, the second largest steel maker in the US (Nucor) basically built their business on recycling steel. Steel is just as recyclable as aluminum and is one of the most recycled materials we use.
Rare earth metals aren't all that rare. It's just that other countries don't want to destroy their environments mining them.
Partly that and partly that China has made it uneconomical to mine them elsewhere. Not by accident either. China's government has strategically supported this with subsidies and cheap labor.
This is pure lip service. Guess where they get all their steel that composes 80% of the car from? Yeah, it's all coming from China anyway, so this is meaningless.
First, steel does not compose 80% of a vehicle. The number is somewhere around 55% on average though it obviously varies by vehicle and it is about 25% of the cost of the vehicle. Second, Japanese car manufacturers do get some steel from China but they also get a very substantial amount domestically. Japan has a fairly robust domestic steel industry including 2 of the 10 biggest steel makers by volume in the world. There are also numerous steel suppliers who have no production in China at all. It's definitely not "all coming from China". Third, "the metals that are primarily supplied by China" they are talking about are rare earth elements, not comparatively common metals like steel. Don't conflate the two. Japan could in principle source all their steel from somewhere other than China if they wanted to. For rare earths, China is basically the only game in town right now. Totally different markets.
If you experience a life-threatening medical emergency, your insurance will likely not cover everything and you will be left with a pile of debt.
Most insurance will cover the majority of costs. Furthermore someone who has a job that is at risk to an H1B tends to have a rather good paying job so chances are they can afford decent insurance. You are trying to conflate two issues that have very little to do with each other.
This was true before Obamacare, and it's still true. But now premiums of the paying have skyrocketed to cover the unpaying.
Premiums have gone up a lot in some places and not much in others. Prior to the ACA double digit increases per year were normal. On average plan increases from 2015 to 2016 were around 7.5%. A lot but still low by historical standards. The insured have ALWAYS had to cover the uninsured. But now there are fewer uninsured so the rate of increase is less. Insurers are figuring out the real cost and adjusting accordingly which is why this year there was a bump in costs. Some people's premiums have gone up and others (like mine) have gone down. My policy costs just 2/3 of what my pre-ACA policy cost and I have better coverage. On average we are all paying a bit more which is EXACTLY the point of insurance. We all pay some so fewer of us end up bankrupt.
The fact that medical costs in the US continue to rise at ridiculous rates is largely a function of our idiotic refusal to accept a single payer medical care system like every other modern country in the world. So we get high costs and second rate outcomes.
Today, pilots are mostly there for emergency backup.
Not true at all. Pilots fly the airplane - the automation facilitates the work of doing this but a cockpit is actually a very busy place for a pilot. While it's true that we have the technology to automate, in nearly all cases a human pilot is still the one in change of the plane.
A lot of people can be, because they have both debt and dependents, and they need that money to support them while they desperately seek further employment.
Sometimes it's bad luck but more often it's bad planning. I have sympathy for the former but not so much for the later. If you took on debt that couldn't absorb a stretch of bad luck then shame on you. I would say most of them really don't need the money that badly. I've been poor a a church mouse during my lifetime and so have my parents. I've lost jobs both expectedly and unexpectedly. People usually need a lot less than they generally think they do. And frankly at the end of the day, how much is your integrity worth to you?
Yes indeed. A non-stop parade of deep corruption, routine law breaking, blatant lying over things both huge and trivial, and sleazy personal drama at every turn. Yay! Let's have some more of that.
And that is different from any other administration how? Look into it and you'll find the Clinton's rap sheet to be (surprisingly) one of the shorter ones. Ronald Reagan's administration had FAR more indictments and convictions than Clinton's. Same with both Bush administrations. About the worst thing people can to pin on Bill Clinton is that he lied about a blowjob. I think the Clinton's can be pretty shady but sadly they aren't even close to the worst.
And if you think a Trump administration would be a paragon of honesty and decency you are delusional.
And yet in the entire thread there is not a single mention of the only non-psychopath who will be on all fifty state ballots. It's heartbreaking to see the USA be this stubborn.
Has nothing to do with being stubborn. Has to do with the setup of our voting system. First past the post voting and gerrymandering pretty much ensures a two party system. The reasons why are complicated but the end result is that it is nearly impossible for a third party to make significant headway.
That said, I presume you are referring to Gary Johnson. He supports regressive taxation policies that generally will hurt the poor and benefit the rich (flat consumption taxes). He wants to reduce taxes but has no plan I've seen for how he proposes to get Congress to authorize a reduction in Medicare, Social Security and our Military which account for roughly 3/4 of the federal budget. He's opposed to any budget that would require borrowing money which is both A) impossible as a practical matter and B) stupid policy based in ideology rather than evidence. Not policy positions I consider sensible and/or realistic. Basically this guy wants policies that would almost certainly cause severe economic harm in the short term and that wouldn't have a prayer of getting through Congress in any case. Not that it matters since he hasn't got a prayer of getting elected.
And frankly I don't believe ANYONE who runs for president is anything other than a power hungry, self absorbed, narcissist and I don't trust them at all. Nobody who is sane or decent would want that job and anyone who gets it will almost inevitably be corrupted by the process of getting it.
Anyone training their H1-B replacement has witnessed a crime.
I would say anyone doing that has no spine. Yes you might have to give up a severance package. But if you take that package you are saying you can be bought for the cost of the package. Personally I prefer to not dig my own grave. Now if the severance package has two commas in the number that's a different story because then they aren't paying me to train my replacement, they are paying me to retire.
And yes, forcing people to train there replacements should be illegal without question. H1Bs are for when they cannot find domestic talent. If they are training their replacement then clearly the talent already exists domestically. You have to be a serious reptile to even ask people to do this sort of thing.
Fuck that piece of shit. Seriously. Fuck her right in her stupid fucking ass.
How eloquent. What a compelling argument!
How does anyone believe a word out of her mouth, much less support her being our president?
You don't have to believe her. I don't. But we've already seen a Clinton in the White House so we have a pretty good idea what that would look like. More importantly when the alternative is Donald Trump it's an easy choice even if I have to hold my nose while making it. Hillary would not be my choice for president but I'll take her over Trump any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
She has never met a government power she doesn't like, just like all 'progressives'.
It's adorable you think conservatives aren't the same way. The only real difference between them is how they prefer to fund their government expansions and which social programs they favor. Liberals prefer taxes and conservatives prefer to borrow the money. Neither one of them has the slightest real interest in reducing government in general. There hasn't been a single instance where the overall size and reach of the government has been reduced outside of draw downs from major wars in the last 150 years. Doesn't matter which party is in power, the result is the same. If you think conservatives "never met a government power they didn't like" then you aren't paying any attention. They like power first and foremost no matter what spin they try to put on it.
A dividend means a company has run out of ideas, and can think of nothing better to do with capital than return it to investors.
That's one interpretation but in reality it's more nuanced than that. Companies have basically 4 things they can do with excess free cash flow. They can reinvest in the company, they can buy another company or asset, they can repurchase stock or they can pay a dividend. Paying a dividend does not necessarily mean the company lacks ideas. It can mean that the shareholders simply prefer to use the excess cash that way. Repurchasing stock for example reduces the supply of stock an in theory can push the stock price up but since stock prices are decoupled from actual earnings it's a bit of a gamble. So is buying another company. Some companies are in slow growth industries and nobody would buy the stock if it didn't pay a dividend. Utilities are a good example of this. Dividends also can be used as a management tool. There is a ton of evidence showing that management teams with too much cash available to them tend to get lazy and sloppy. They make dumb acquisitions, engage in empire building, buy unnecessary assets, etc. Companies tend to perform better when cash is tighter (up to a point).
So no, paying a dividend does not necessarily mean the company has run out of ideas.
I can sell the stock, take the money to the store and use it to buy groceries. That is real enough for me.
You can do that but you are familiar with the parable of killing the goose that laid the golden egg? There is an opportunity cost to selling a stock. You forego any future benefits of an ownership stake in the company. That's not necessarily a bad thing but with a dividend you get cash out of the company without the opportunity cost of losing your ownership stake in the company.
There was a time when humanity believed that everything could be explained by mechanics.
There also was a time when people believed that gods could explain everything. Some still think this. We learn and we move on.
Higgs was ridiculed for good 50 years.This is no different.
Who ridiculed Peter Higgs? He made a hypothesis about the Higgs Boson (and he wasn't the only one) and it took us about 50 years to find experimental proof. I've never heard of anyone who ridiculed him for it. Won him a Nobel Prize. If that is ridicule, sign me up.
String theory evolved great deal from where it was first formulated, thins that were not good are already invalidated.
Swell. Wake me up when it provides a testable prediction about anything. Nobody outside a few mathematicians gives a shit about whether it has "evolved a great deal".
We may not be able to determine the nature of the universe as it relates to quantum particles, experimentally.
We experimentally test all sorts of things in relationship to quantum particles all the time. Having trouble parsing the point you are trying to make here.
Are the ideas any less valid, if we can't prove them experimentally (by, say, going back in time, or visiting alternate realities)?
If we cannot prove something experimentally (even in principle since we something lack the technology) then it is not science.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that this is likely to be a one-off response. If we started seeing a mass killing of police every time some unarmed citizen is offed by an officer, you would actually see some action. As it is right now, it's not enough of a problem for politicians to want to take on the police unions.
I utterly fail to comprehend why the police unions are not FOR strong gun control. They would benefit from it more directly than any other group in the country. Countries that don't allow guns enables cops to not have to carry guns. It makes them safer in a real, tangible and measurable way and yet instead we are militarizing the police force and escalating the violence even against unarmed people. I get why it is politically difficult but I don't get why police aren't leading the charge for gun control.
You're asking on Slashdot if anyone has heard of a browser that has been covered 5 times on slashdot before [slashdot.org] several of which were directly about that specific browser?
Wow, 5 whole articles over 12 years with most barely mentioning a browser that literally almost nobody uses. How did I ever miss that... [/sarcasm]
To use your own silly analogy: Are you seriously unaware that the government now has the capability to look at the address on the outside of the package, then match it up with data concerning what you've bought recently that would fit in the package, where and when you mailed it, and the religion, sexual orientation and profession of the addressee?
I think your tinfoil hat is on a little too tight. Who do you think is actually doing this? Even if They (ooh, spooky) were somehow putting all this together in real time (which they aren't) does the phrase "needle in a haystack" mean anything to you?
Yeah the government overreaches sometimes (see the NSA) but that doesn't mean we need to get needlessly paranoid.
You haven't yet grasped that this is a bit of a game-changer? Seriously?
It's adorable that you think this is something new. They've always been able to do this when the need arose. It's just theoretically less labor intensive than it used to be to gather some of it. Nothing new here at all. All they would have to do is subpoena Amazon and/or UPS and pull my tax, census or other public records. Not exactly rocket surgery.
Sigh. Did you miss the "log" part of my statement? The USPS has no need to log addresses as part of the delivery process.
Actually they do need to do that, at least for a portion of the delivery process. They need to be able to route and track the stuff they are delivering. You cannot do that without logging it somewhere along the way. They don't necessarily have to keep the logs except for purposes of providing proof of delivery where requested but there is no practical way to run a delivery system that size without some amount of data logging. If you think otherwise you don't adequately understand the logistics involved.
Security experts have discovered that the Maxthon web browser...
Hands up from anyone who actually has heard of this web browser prior to reading this article. Anyone?
(crickets)
That's what I thought...
Yes, they do. They scan and log the addresses.
Sigh... (facepalm) Let me repeat myself. They are not as a routine matter opening your sealed letter or package. What part of that didn't you understand?
Are you seriously complaining that they read the address on the outside of the box or envelope so that they can deliver your package? Seriously?
The US mail system already scans all packages and letters. It was several years ago this was revealed during the anthrax scares.
They don't scan them for information. They scan them to make sure there aren't explosives or chemical or biological weapons contained. Not the same thing. They are not as a routine mater opening your sealed letter or package to examine the contents.
If we don't have the 1st AND the 2nd, then the 4th isn't a right, it is a privilege that can be revoked by the government at any time.
All the amendments are necessary and to varying degrees they all protect us and each other. Without the 4th amendment it would be trivial to quell free speech. Same with the 5th. Etc. They all matter. Before the 13th amendment black people were not protected by the 1st amendment and the 2nd actually worked against them. Before the 15th amendment women didn't enjoy full rights of the 1st amendment. They all matter.
The notion that the 2nd amendment is what protects your constitutional rights is a tired and idiotic argument. First, there are plenty of other thriving democracies that have far more restrictive gun control than the US. There is nothing special about the US that requires civilians to own guns to protect their rights. Guns are demonstrably not required to protect your civil rights. Furthermore the most successful civil rights movement in the US during the last century was largely a pacifist one. Guns would were mostly counter productive in securing and retaining civil rights. If you want to see what the civil rights movement in the 1960s would have looked like with lots of guns and weapons, see the Israeli/Palestine conflict. See the recent shooting in Dallas for an example of how counterproductive guns are in "protecting" your civil rights. Second, if the government decides they want to force you to do something, your little pee shooter isn't worth anything against a real army or police force. Individually it provides no meaningful protection. Collectively they are not needed - get enough people together to protest and you don't need to shoot anyone. If the society devolves into a civil war like Syria, none of the amendments will matter anymore anyway.
If you want to own a gun I'm right with you. I own firearms myself. But the only argument that makes any sense is that you own a gun because you like to own a gun. You don't need it to feed your family. You don't need it to protect your rights from the government. You aren't going to protect your family or property from real or imagined criminals. You don't need a semi-automatic or full automatic gun for any practical purpose. You own a gun because you like to shoot and/or hunt. Occasionally people need one for pest control. Nobody is going to take your gun away. Arguing against reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people and criminals is indefensible.
Keeping your costs down can go a long way to controlling a market.
China doesn't even have to work too hard to keep their costs down because the main competition for rare earths mining is the USA which has some of the largest deposits and labor costs in the US are substantially higher than in China. Since you can't really automate things substantially AND the US has stiffer environmental regulations basically the US would have to subsidize mining operations to get the mines operational again. Probably in violation of WTO rules. For now it's uneconomical to mine them outside of China but if China tries to restrict supply I could see things changing for strategic reasons.
My auto body instructor told me. He was ASE master certified, which means he knew a thing or three.
Doesn't mean he knew shit about supply chains and he certainly didn't know anything about steel refineries. I have worked in the auto industry for over 15 years as an engineer and have done purchasing for big and small automotive companies including steel frame components. Your ASE certified instructor didn't know what he was talking about in this case. Sounds to me like he was making shit up because he didn't like Japanese vehicles for whatever reason since it is wildly untrue that Japanese cars are made from recycled American cars. Talk to a materials engineer for correct information, not a guy who knows his way around a welding gun.
The hardness and brittleness of steel is a function of the grain structure and alloy of the steel among a few other things. It has nothing to do with whether it was recycled steel or created from ore. You could put both under a spectrometer or electron microscope and chances are you would be unable to tell any difference if they were made to the same spec.
Last time I checked, Japanese cars were made primarily out of recycled American cars.
Not sure where you got this nugget. Certainly not the case today or any time in the last 40 years. Pretty sure it was never true. Citations?
When you recycle steel, it gets harder and more brittle.
Not sure where you got this one either. Contaminants are an issue at times but as a general proposition steel does not "get harder and more brittle" from recycling. Heck, the second largest steel maker in the US (Nucor) basically built their business on recycling steel. Steel is just as recyclable as aluminum and is one of the most recycled materials we use.
Rare earth metals aren't all that rare. It's just that other countries don't want to destroy their environments mining them.
Partly that and partly that China has made it uneconomical to mine them elsewhere. Not by accident either. China's government has strategically supported this with subsidies and cheap labor.
This is pure lip service. Guess where they get all their steel that composes 80% of the car from? Yeah, it's all coming from China anyway, so this is meaningless.
First, steel does not compose 80% of a vehicle. The number is somewhere around 55% on average though it obviously varies by vehicle and it is about 25% of the cost of the vehicle. Second, Japanese car manufacturers do get some steel from China but they also get a very substantial amount domestically. Japan has a fairly robust domestic steel industry including 2 of the 10 biggest steel makers by volume in the world. There are also numerous steel suppliers who have no production in China at all. It's definitely not "all coming from China". Third, "the metals that are primarily supplied by China" they are talking about are rare earth elements, not comparatively common metals like steel. Don't conflate the two. Japan could in principle source all their steel from somewhere other than China if they wanted to. For rare earths, China is basically the only game in town right now. Totally different markets.
If you experience a life-threatening medical emergency, your insurance will likely not cover everything and you will be left with a pile of debt.
Most insurance will cover the majority of costs. Furthermore someone who has a job that is at risk to an H1B tends to have a rather good paying job so chances are they can afford decent insurance. You are trying to conflate two issues that have very little to do with each other.
This was true before Obamacare, and it's still true. But now premiums of the paying have skyrocketed to cover the unpaying.
Premiums have gone up a lot in some places and not much in others. Prior to the ACA double digit increases per year were normal. On average plan increases from 2015 to 2016 were around 7.5%. A lot but still low by historical standards. The insured have ALWAYS had to cover the uninsured. But now there are fewer uninsured so the rate of increase is less. Insurers are figuring out the real cost and adjusting accordingly which is why this year there was a bump in costs. Some people's premiums have gone up and others (like mine) have gone down. My policy costs just 2/3 of what my pre-ACA policy cost and I have better coverage. On average we are all paying a bit more which is EXACTLY the point of insurance. We all pay some so fewer of us end up bankrupt.
The fact that medical costs in the US continue to rise at ridiculous rates is largely a function of our idiotic refusal to accept a single payer medical care system like every other modern country in the world. So we get high costs and second rate outcomes.
Um, modern plane auto pilots can, and regularly do, take-off and land without assistance.
Automated systems in modern jets very rarely land the plane and never do takeoffs. A modern jetliner flys itself about as much as a modern operating room operates by itself.
Today, pilots are mostly there for emergency backup.
Not true at all. Pilots fly the airplane - the automation facilitates the work of doing this but a cockpit is actually a very busy place for a pilot. While it's true that we have the technology to automate, in nearly all cases a human pilot is still the one in change of the plane.
Medical bills are a factor in more than half of all personal bankruptcies.
If they had a job then they should have been able to get insurance as well.
A lot of people can be, because they have both debt and dependents, and they need that money to support them while they desperately seek further employment.
Sometimes it's bad luck but more often it's bad planning. I have sympathy for the former but not so much for the later. If you took on debt that couldn't absorb a stretch of bad luck then shame on you. I would say most of them really don't need the money that badly. I've been poor a a church mouse during my lifetime and so have my parents. I've lost jobs both expectedly and unexpectedly. People usually need a lot less than they generally think they do. And frankly at the end of the day, how much is your integrity worth to you?
Yes indeed. A non-stop parade of deep corruption, routine law breaking, blatant lying over things both huge and trivial, and sleazy personal drama at every turn. Yay! Let's have some more of that.
And that is different from any other administration how? Look into it and you'll find the Clinton's rap sheet to be (surprisingly) one of the shorter ones. Ronald Reagan's administration had FAR more indictments and convictions than Clinton's. Same with both Bush administrations. About the worst thing people can to pin on Bill Clinton is that he lied about a blowjob. I think the Clinton's can be pretty shady but sadly they aren't even close to the worst.
And if you think a Trump administration would be a paragon of honesty and decency you are delusional.
And yet in the entire thread there is not a single mention of the only non-psychopath who will be on all fifty state ballots. It's heartbreaking to see the USA be this stubborn.
Has nothing to do with being stubborn. Has to do with the setup of our voting system. First past the post voting and gerrymandering pretty much ensures a two party system. The reasons why are complicated but the end result is that it is nearly impossible for a third party to make significant headway.
That said, I presume you are referring to Gary Johnson. He supports regressive taxation policies that generally will hurt the poor and benefit the rich (flat consumption taxes). He wants to reduce taxes but has no plan I've seen for how he proposes to get Congress to authorize a reduction in Medicare, Social Security and our Military which account for roughly 3/4 of the federal budget. He's opposed to any budget that would require borrowing money which is both A) impossible as a practical matter and B) stupid policy based in ideology rather than evidence. Not policy positions I consider sensible and/or realistic. Basically this guy wants policies that would almost certainly cause severe economic harm in the short term and that wouldn't have a prayer of getting through Congress in any case. Not that it matters since he hasn't got a prayer of getting elected.
And frankly I don't believe ANYONE who runs for president is anything other than a power hungry, self absorbed, narcissist and I don't trust them at all. Nobody who is sane or decent would want that job and anyone who gets it will almost inevitably be corrupted by the process of getting it.
Anyone training their H1-B replacement has witnessed a crime.
I would say anyone doing that has no spine. Yes you might have to give up a severance package. But if you take that package you are saying you can be bought for the cost of the package. Personally I prefer to not dig my own grave. Now if the severance package has two commas in the number that's a different story because then they aren't paying me to train my replacement, they are paying me to retire.
And yes, forcing people to train there replacements should be illegal without question. H1Bs are for when they cannot find domestic talent. If they are training their replacement then clearly the talent already exists domestically. You have to be a serious reptile to even ask people to do this sort of thing.
Fuck that piece of shit. Seriously. Fuck her right in her stupid fucking ass.
How eloquent. What a compelling argument!
How does anyone believe a word out of her mouth, much less support her being our president?
You don't have to believe her. I don't. But we've already seen a Clinton in the White House so we have a pretty good idea what that would look like. More importantly when the alternative is Donald Trump it's an easy choice even if I have to hold my nose while making it. Hillary would not be my choice for president but I'll take her over Trump any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
She has never met a government power she doesn't like, just like all 'progressives'.
It's adorable you think conservatives aren't the same way. The only real difference between them is how they prefer to fund their government expansions and which social programs they favor. Liberals prefer taxes and conservatives prefer to borrow the money. Neither one of them has the slightest real interest in reducing government in general. There hasn't been a single instance where the overall size and reach of the government has been reduced outside of draw downs from major wars in the last 150 years. Doesn't matter which party is in power, the result is the same. If you think conservatives "never met a government power they didn't like" then you aren't paying any attention. They like power first and foremost no matter what spin they try to put on it.
A dividend means a company has run out of ideas, and can think of nothing better to do with capital than return it to investors.
That's one interpretation but in reality it's more nuanced than that. Companies have basically 4 things they can do with excess free cash flow. They can reinvest in the company, they can buy another company or asset, they can repurchase stock or they can pay a dividend. Paying a dividend does not necessarily mean the company lacks ideas. It can mean that the shareholders simply prefer to use the excess cash that way. Repurchasing stock for example reduces the supply of stock an in theory can push the stock price up but since stock prices are decoupled from actual earnings it's a bit of a gamble. So is buying another company. Some companies are in slow growth industries and nobody would buy the stock if it didn't pay a dividend. Utilities are a good example of this. Dividends also can be used as a management tool. There is a ton of evidence showing that management teams with too much cash available to them tend to get lazy and sloppy. They make dumb acquisitions, engage in empire building, buy unnecessary assets, etc. Companies tend to perform better when cash is tighter (up to a point).
So no, paying a dividend does not necessarily mean the company has run out of ideas.
I can sell the stock, take the money to the store and use it to buy groceries. That is real enough for me.
You can do that but you are familiar with the parable of killing the goose that laid the golden egg? There is an opportunity cost to selling a stock. You forego any future benefits of an ownership stake in the company. That's not necessarily a bad thing but with a dividend you get cash out of the company without the opportunity cost of losing your ownership stake in the company.
There was a time when humanity believed that everything could be explained by mechanics.
There also was a time when people believed that gods could explain everything. Some still think this. We learn and we move on.
Higgs was ridiculed for good 50 years.This is no different.
Who ridiculed Peter Higgs? He made a hypothesis about the Higgs Boson (and he wasn't the only one) and it took us about 50 years to find experimental proof. I've never heard of anyone who ridiculed him for it. Won him a Nobel Prize. If that is ridicule, sign me up.
String theory evolved great deal from where it was first formulated, thins that were not good are already invalidated.
Swell. Wake me up when it provides a testable prediction about anything. Nobody outside a few mathematicians gives a shit about whether it has "evolved a great deal".
We may not be able to determine the nature of the universe as it relates to quantum particles, experimentally.
We experimentally test all sorts of things in relationship to quantum particles all the time. Having trouble parsing the point you are trying to make here.
Are the ideas any less valid, if we can't prove them experimentally (by, say, going back in time, or visiting alternate realities)?
If we cannot prove something experimentally (even in principle since we something lack the technology) then it is not science.