Of course, words can "influence" others. That is part of communication. And I am aware of the whole "fighting words" concept.
However, I am one to believe that in spite of all that, we are responsible for the actions we choose... including "fighting words". There are expectations that come along with influence. If you use words expecting someone to punch you(or someone else) in the face, then yes, you are responsible for that. But the courts have said that there is a very high burden of proof bar to make in terms of judicial recourse.
I wonder if all the snowflakes running around screaming "punch a Nazi" are responsible for when someone gets punched because someone else pointed and said "Nazi!!!!" . Or, they'll just claim it is an internet Meme and they didn't mean THAT guy, just a nameless, faceless, kind of Nazi person.
IMHO she has a case. She will win. And she'll have more money than she would if she worked there. Male executives already set precedent for that company (documented), doing far worse than flipping the President off.
Corporations don't have more free speech. They have deeper pockets, and army of lawyers to draw up one sided contracts. Contracts, you don't need to sign, if you want to earn a living outside of Corporate America.
The problem as I see it, is people want the perks of working for BIGCORP (Large salary, cushy job) but complain about it being "not fair" and how evil BIGCORP is. If they sell their soul to the devil, and don't care about the details, the devil always wins.
The devil knows the details, and has a great marketing department. Hell is filled with "hookers and blow and a limitless bar tab".
There is no "reasoning" here, it is all emotional rhetoric of the uninformed. All they see is "$X Million salary" and get all envious without understanding that salary allows revenue that funds all sorts of things and keeps University Boosters donating to various programs. And without a football/basketball/whatever team making obscene revenue for the University, the university would actually be worse off.
But they don't care because all they see. "$X Million Salary" and have an emotional reaction they can't control.
IF you can't tell, then the problem is more real than you really want to admit. And funnier than it should be when called out.
The line between comedy and serious is often so thin that they tend to blur together.
When I was younger, I was literally on fire. I make jokes about it all the time (deadpan, gallows humor etc) that people feel awkward about laughing at, because I almost died and yet my jokes are kinda funny. They don't want to laugh (serious) but almost can't help it (funny).
Did they specifically state that a lack of UHC was the one and only factor?
It isn't a factor at all, which is the point of pointing to Canada with its UHC having almost as bad Opiate problem as the US which has no UHC, which s/he pointed out, which you conveniently ignored. Which is confirmed by your accusation of "You sound like someone who simply doesn't support UHC" comment. THAT is your bias showing.
How about looking at Portugal for how to deal with drug addiction? Why is that never really an option? They have UHC but they don't treat drug addiction like a crime, but rather like a societal problem people USUALLY want help for. As a result, their actual usage is way down, their results with drug addiction programs is among the best. Does that sound like I am against UHC or for it?
I'm quite libertarian, and would support going to a Portugal type system for treating drug addiction (not drug crimes), but I would go one step further than Portugal, and legalize drug, and then tax the crap out of them to support the drug addiction problems. I would treat the associated crimes related to drug problems just like all the other crimes, but people seeking help would get it, because the cost to society would be much lower than leaving people addicted on drugs.
For the record, I am against UHC for a variety of reasons. That and I wouldn't treat drug addiction as a health issue, since it isn't really "health" related other than the side effects. Drug use is a symptom of societal problems that need addressing, which neither D or R seem to grasp.
Random coin flips, would be "unbiased" politically, yes. However, IMHO the case of putting Page one material on Page 14 is a bias, no matter which way it goes.
I'm of the opinion that people who claim to be "unbiased" are not really all the unbiased. Personally, I would accept bias in news if it was up front about it.
Of course, if you don't see your own bias (because, you've told the lie that you're unbiased so many times), you'll simply reject any notion that you are biased.
There is no such thing as unbiased news. Even the most evenly written piece has its bias where it was placed in relation to other material; Front page news on Pg 14 below the fold. Which is why everyone SHOULD be getting their news from as many sources as possible, to avoid their own echo chamber.
I am for Liberty to live one's life in peace, unafraid of government interventions into all aspects of my life choices, provided that I do not harm anyone else.
The Corporate Death Penalty is based on the fact that 1) Harm has been done, 2) it was malicious or grossly negligent, 3) Proven in a court with the understanding that a Corporate Charter, granted by government, can be revoked under said conditions.
Because unlike citizens, whose rights exceed that of the government's, a corporation is a creation of the state, and therefore subject to the limits of that charter, one of which should be... corporate death sentence. The screwed up view of the world we have, is caused by government granting citizen rights to its creation, which subverts the actual rights of citizen by default.
Citizens create their government (see Declaration of Independence, Constitution) Government creates the corporate charter. There is no corporation if the government didn't grant its charter, and there is no standing in courts for corporations except that which is defined in Corporate law all of which can be changed.
This is subject to understanding that contracts are mutually agreed upon as is a free commerce system (Free Enterprise/ Capitalism). The idea that government can compel people to participate in a free and open economy (Obamacare) isn't liberty, it is fascism. Because once a government can compel people against their own conscience is a violation of the basic tenants of liberty.
But we've strayed so far away from Liberty, that it now looks evil to those that like the comforts of the gilded cage they are living in.
Fascism/fæzm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce[3]
corporate dictatorship with no government oversight.
Nice Strawman. It is exactly wrong too.
Remember who grants Corporate Charters? It isn't the Corporation, it is the Government. As a Libertarian, I have a simple solution to Corporate malfeasance, the Corporate Death Penalty. I also support the incarceration of Corporate Boards and CxOs when systemic abuses occur. If both of those were real legal options after a court decision, you'd find a lot lot less of the kind of crap you see today.
As a Libertarian, I support laws that protect people from harm done to them. That is the purpose of government, not control and regulation which actually causes harm.
Here is a simple test. When government fails, who pays? When Corporations fail, who pays?
THAT, in a nutshell, is why I support way less government. Most of the problems we see in Corporations are caused by government rules that prevent competition.
The amount of Russian Meddling in our elections is by far, much less than the Obama Administration Meddling in Israeli elections.Perhaps the world should stop doing business with the US who meddles everywhere all the time, then whines when 100,000 facebook ad campaign is all the "proof" of meddling by Russians shows up.
As for California, you can blame the anti-Timber environmentalists who are "protecting" the forests from evil men.
1) They refuse to let minor fires burn out the underbrush and douse them immediately. 2) They don't let Timber Industry harvest trees to thin out the forest.
Basically they do everything wrong and then blame everyone else for the result.
Slashdot Mirror
MSNBC and CNN get paid hundreds of millions to do the same.
So .. its kind of a wash.
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
The problem is, you're telling the wrong audience. Western societies are already having depopulation problems.
And cat videos.
Of course, words can "influence" others. That is part of communication. And I am aware of the whole "fighting words" concept.
However, I am one to believe that in spite of all that, we are responsible for the actions we choose ... including "fighting words". There are expectations that come along with influence. If you use words expecting someone to punch you(or someone else) in the face, then yes, you are responsible for that. But the courts have said that there is a very high burden of proof bar to make in terms of judicial recourse.
I wonder if all the snowflakes running around screaming "punch a Nazi" are responsible for when someone gets punched because someone else pointed and said "Nazi!!!!" . Or, they'll just claim it is an internet Meme and they didn't mean THAT guy, just a nameless, faceless, kind of Nazi person.
I think i found the problem. Kernel Space drivers are always prone to these kinds of problems. This is not new.
The depth of the problem is newish, but only because someone peeked in and saw flaws.
IMHO she has a case. She will win. And she'll have more money than she would if she worked there. Male executives already set precedent for that company (documented), doing far worse than flipping the President off.
Corporations don't have more free speech. They have deeper pockets, and army of lawyers to draw up one sided contracts. Contracts, you don't need to sign, if you want to earn a living outside of Corporate America.
The problem as I see it, is people want the perks of working for BIGCORP (Large salary, cushy job) but complain about it being "not fair" and how evil BIGCORP is. If they sell their soul to the devil, and don't care about the details, the devil always wins.
The devil knows the details, and has a great marketing department. Hell is filled with "hookers and blow and a limitless bar tab".
So, you admit you have no personal control over your own actions. Nicely done.
One of the most BASIC things to do in hacking, is cover your traces by making it LOOK like you're someone else.
Right, and the Russian hacked the Elections, because their fingerprints were all over it ... right .. right ...
{tapping mic} Is this thing on?
https://www.amazon.com/Best-Se...
You were saying?
"They" don't have to put cameras in cars, "We" are doing it for "them"
OR It isn't a binary statement.
There is no "reasoning" here, it is all emotional rhetoric of the uninformed. All they see is "$X Million salary" and get all envious without understanding that salary allows revenue that funds all sorts of things and keeps University Boosters donating to various programs. And without a football/basketball/whatever team making obscene revenue for the University, the university would actually be worse off.
But they don't care because all they see. "$X Million Salary" and have an emotional reaction they can't control.
IF you can't tell, then the problem is more real than you really want to admit. And funnier than it should be when called out.
The line between comedy and serious is often so thin that they tend to blur together.
When I was younger, I was literally on fire. I make jokes about it all the time (deadpan, gallows humor etc) that people feel awkward about laughing at, because I almost died and yet my jokes are kinda funny. They don't want to laugh (serious) but almost can't help it (funny).
So to the GP post, "well played sir"
Did they specifically state that a lack of UHC was the one and only factor?
It isn't a factor at all, which is the point of pointing to Canada with its UHC having almost as bad Opiate problem as the US which has no UHC, which s/he pointed out, which you conveniently ignored. Which is confirmed by your accusation of "You sound like someone who simply doesn't support UHC" comment. THAT is your bias showing.
How about looking at Portugal for how to deal with drug addiction? Why is that never really an option? They have UHC but they don't treat drug addiction like a crime, but rather like a societal problem people USUALLY want help for. As a result, their actual usage is way down, their results with drug addiction programs is among the best. Does that sound like I am against UHC or for it?
I'm quite libertarian, and would support going to a Portugal type system for treating drug addiction (not drug crimes), but I would go one step further than Portugal, and legalize drug, and then tax the crap out of them to support the drug addiction problems. I would treat the associated crimes related to drug problems just like all the other crimes, but people seeking help would get it, because the cost to society would be much lower than leaving people addicted on drugs.
For the record, I am against UHC for a variety of reasons. That and I wouldn't treat drug addiction as a health issue, since it isn't really "health" related other than the side effects. Drug use is a symptom of societal problems that need addressing, which neither D or R seem to grasp.
Random coin flips, would be "unbiased" politically, yes. However, IMHO the case of putting Page one material on Page 14 is a bias, no matter which way it goes.
Photo Editing can be biased. https://i.pinimg.com/originals...
It all depends on the narrative you're trying to portray.
I'm of the opinion that people who claim to be "unbiased" are not really all the unbiased. Personally, I would accept bias in news if it was up front about it.
Of course, if you don't see your own bias (because, you've told the lie that you're unbiased so many times), you'll simply reject any notion that you are biased.
There is no such thing as unbiased news. Even the most evenly written piece has its bias where it was placed in relation to other material; Front page news on Pg 14 below the fold. Which is why everyone SHOULD be getting their news from as many sources as possible, to avoid their own echo chamber.
Technically, it is saving time, in the same way decreasing the rate of increase counts as "Cost Cutting".
Do not give politicians bad ideas, for they will adopt them.
ROFL
If people are truly able to opt in to every aspect of society, then there really no such things as commons.
This logic can be applied to everything, and thus, tyranny is born. Nicely done !
I am for Liberty to live one's life in peace, unafraid of government interventions into all aspects of my life choices, provided that I do not harm anyone else.
The Corporate Death Penalty is based on the fact that 1) Harm has been done, 2) it was malicious or grossly negligent, 3) Proven in a court with the understanding that a Corporate Charter, granted by government, can be revoked under said conditions.
Because unlike citizens, whose rights exceed that of the government's, a corporation is a creation of the state, and therefore subject to the limits of that charter, one of which should be ... corporate death sentence. The screwed up view of the world we have, is caused by government granting citizen rights to its creation, which subverts the actual rights of citizen by default.
Citizens create their government (see Declaration of Independence, Constitution) Government creates the corporate charter. There is no corporation if the government didn't grant its charter, and there is no standing in courts for corporations except that which is defined in Corporate law all of which can be changed.
This is subject to understanding that contracts are mutually agreed upon as is a free commerce system (Free Enterprise/ Capitalism). The idea that government can compel people to participate in a free and open economy (Obamacare) isn't liberty, it is fascism. Because once a government can compel people against their own conscience is a violation of the basic tenants of liberty.
But we've strayed so far away from Liberty, that it now looks evil to those that like the comforts of the gilded cage they are living in.
Governments limit corporate power.
Fascism /fæzm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce[3]
Nicely done.
corporate dictatorship with no government oversight.
Nice Strawman. It is exactly wrong too.
Remember who grants Corporate Charters? It isn't the Corporation, it is the Government. As a Libertarian, I have a simple solution to Corporate malfeasance, the Corporate Death Penalty. I also support the incarceration of Corporate Boards and CxOs when systemic abuses occur. If both of those were real legal options after a court decision, you'd find a lot lot less of the kind of crap you see today.
As a Libertarian, I support laws that protect people from harm done to them. That is the purpose of government, not control and regulation which actually causes harm.
Here is a simple test. When government fails, who pays? When Corporations fail, who pays?
THAT, in a nutshell, is why I support way less government. Most of the problems we see in Corporations are caused by government rules that prevent competition.
The amount of Russian Meddling in our elections is by far, much less than the Obama Administration Meddling in Israeli elections.Perhaps the world should stop doing business with the US who meddles everywhere all the time, then whines when 100,000 facebook ad campaign is all the "proof" of meddling by Russians shows up.
"as early as" is as meaningful as "savings up to 65% or more". It isn't science as much as marketing. ;)
As for California, you can blame the anti-Timber environmentalists who are "protecting" the forests from evil men.
1) They refuse to let minor fires burn out the underbrush and douse them immediately.
2) They don't let Timber Industry harvest trees to thin out the forest.
Basically they do everything wrong and then blame everyone else for the result.