Thanks for proving the point of the GP. You're so stupid you can't even figure out that enough people aren't falling for that name calling crap anymore, especially when the Feminist Enabler to the former Rapist in Chief called everyone that disagreed with her candidacy "Basket of deplorables"
You know who is racist? All those people excusing everyone's inablities to function in society on their skin color (Democrats)
"Can't you pull up your pants?"... "RACIST!!!" (I still don't see what skin color has to do with properly securing garments to one's body)
Emoluments clause [wikipedia.org] that restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress
Funny, how that didn't apply to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, her husband Bill "Blew Dress" Clinton who took Millions of dollars from Russia, while securing a deal to sell a larger percentage of Uranium to Putin.
If the Democrats didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any.
With an attitude like that, it is surprising breaches don't happen more often in the private sector.
There are a couple issues I have with this statement, not because of anything you said, but what is left unsaid. First.. breaches occur so often that most of them aren't even worth reporting. It is like reporting on the number of bugs I killed driving past the flower fields. Meh, nobody cares.
Second issue is even more frightening, the number of breaches still won't outweigh the actual costs of those breaches. The prevention of a possibility cost more than the probability * cost of a breach, which makes securing a breach unlikely. In the eventuality of a breach the "Accenture" route is better choice, because you can probably pawn it off on insurance.
The ONLY way to make it cost effective, is lower the cost of securing your stuff, or making breaches more costly artificially (fines, fixes, etc). The problem with the latter is all of that goes away with a Bankruptcy. And even then, the market will eventually sort it all out, include the costs in evaluations and keep working.
We're supposed to care when one person is "offended" or "uncomfortable" on one hand, but we're a bigot if we are supposed to care when another person (usually plural) is "offended" and "uncomfortable".
And yes, there have been MORE cases of men (real, purvy men) "using" the lady's room since the decision has happened, because you can't really tell the difference between "Purvy man" looking for crotch and tits, and a "Trans / drag queen" looking at clothes and shoes. And if you have a magic way of reading which one is which, then you should sell it on QVC and make a few million bucks doing so. AND heaven forbid you mistake a %.03 population for someone that is 50% (more or less).
Pretending the problems don't exist are liberal's favorite excuse. My suggestion, is that we just make one "bathroom" for everyone, and fuck people's feelings all together.
Free speech is free. Liable, slander, and such are Civil, not Criminal law. Lying under oath is a criminal violation of that oath, one you took freely of your own will ("I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"). You are free to lie, outside of courts and even inside courts while not under oath you have taken.
So, the Free Speech bits of the First Amendment is really really broad. Hell, I've even argued against people making the "Yelling Fire in a crowded theater" bit, by saying you can yell "fire" in such a scenario. However, you are responsible if there is 1) no fire, and 2) you cause harm doing so. An actor on the stage can yell "fire" all day long (Ready, Aim FIRE!!!!). Context is everything.
Rights come with responsibilities. The modern left doesn't want any responsibilities, except that which they can impose on others, such as "not offending" people. Not my responsibility to not offend, it is your responsibility to stop being offended over everything.
The most racist nonsense I have read , comes from do-good liberals saying basically "blacks can't help themselves". From wearing their pants down around their knees, to rioting over black cops not letting criminals go free, to shooting each other in Chicago, to learning in school.
I just saw a white feminist liberal arguing with black men about something, where she was completely wrong, and they called her Racist, and she freaked out. The problem with Racism, is that when you categorize people by race, and make excuses for what people of that race are suffering culturally, you're the damn racist. Me personally, hate to see strong black people taking a back seat of the liberal bus, all because that is what is expected of them.
I never heard of Pepe the Frog before the Left branded it a "hate" symbol. The Alt-Right gets all its needed publicity from the Left going nuts over it.
Political Version of Streisand Effect. By publicizing how awful it is, you're given them more publicity than if everyone simply ignored them. Good Job
Right, it is "socialism" before the collapse, and afterwards it was never socialism, it was "communism". That way, socialism is always successful, and communism always fails.
If you replace your side with a machine, your costs go down, the only side "wasting" money is the one with "billable hour lawyers". Your costs go down, their stays the same, you have the advantage. Eventually the other side will do the same, or die stagnating in a competitive world.
I'll always choose efficiency, even marginal ones.
UBI is going to pay for basic accommodation, food and other necessities.
Its called "welfare" and we have it now. Food Stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest for "basic necessities". The biggest problem with UBI, is that it fails to make exactly what "basic accommodation" is. And if it were ever defined, it would change, upwards, because "it isn't fair" enough. (fair being subjective).
The whole point of UBI is that it isn't "fair" to the people actually paying the bills.
It isn't free, someone (probably even you) pays for it. All you've done is add in a bunch of middleware making it more expensive, less effective. There are all sorts of models that work better, the problem with almost all of them is that it takes control away from do-good liberal governments and puts it back into the hands of the people. Health Care Cooperatives have all sorts of cost advantages. Mainly, they don't have to hire middleware agents to work with other middleware agents who have nothing to do with health care.
If my AI is competing against a human using billable hours, and can do things in minutes vs weeks/years, then the AI will win, as I will be able to send my AI against more humans than a slow human could. This means, efficiencies are brought into the market and the results are eventually the humans won't be able to compete.
If one AI can replace a million human lawyers/clerks/interns/paralegals, it should.
problem with eye, go to Dr, looks at me across the room, conjunctivitis and a prescription for antibiotic drops Returned a week later, no results, more antibiotic drops Returned a week later, no results, antibiotic pills Week later, ordered MRI,"Go to the ER" Hospital stay for 7 days, infused with three different hi powered Antibiotics... Hmmm curious Transferred to Stanford Medical, two days Anti-biotic, changed diagnosis prescribed steroids. Immediate results. (Literally over night) Problem returns (over months) biopsy, another biopsy... See several specialists, return to Stanford, diagnosis changed again. Currently on cancer drugs for an inflammation disease. Marginal results.
Bitch of a case. I am still not entirely convinced that the current diagnosis is correct. Why? because the "normal" treatment haven't and aren't really working. One thing I learned, is Doctors don't like being wrong, but won't admit it easily when they are.
I would suggest to you (and the GP) that you are correct, except for one thing. When capitalism abandon's people there is usually someone else to pick of the slack... for a price. When socialism abandons people, it ends up like Venezuela, a totalitarian hell hole.
You cannot take someone who refuses to adapt themselves to changing economic, political, and social conditions, and wave the money wand and make it all better.
But you can wave more government provided goodies and they'll vote for you.
Remember, the Republicans had some 16 candidates to chose from, while the Democrats ostensibly only had one, being the Bernie never had a chance against the rigged DNC election machine. The bad choice of the Republicans is their choice of their party members, the bad choice of the Democrats was the DNC choice. The fact that Bernie made a significant run and almost beat Hillary shows you how bad a candidate she really was.
Hillary Loss is fully on the DNC and Hillary as a candidate.
That, and the US Presidential Election is almost always a lose lose proposition. That is the nature of the two party electoral nonsense.
The masses have always been easy to manipulate. But when you look at logic and reason, the whole persuasion of the left is based on Mass Hysteria. "People are starving, we must raise taxes to feed the starving people! " Even right now, people are wanting to raise taxes, because there "are hungry people..." or some edge case anecdotal evidence is proof of widespread horror. My current tax rate is approaching 50% (all taxes, fees, mandated payments etc), and yet, we STILL can't get everyone fed right? Tell me how that is even possible?
My opinion is, that most liberals want OTHERS to pay for things they themselves are unwilling to pay for.
Define "wrong move" here. Please, without referring to articles explaining your point of view. In your own words, explain.
Because every time I've asked a liberal elitist to explain why Brexit was bad, and when they could actually answer, it was usually about things that probably won't happen, and if they do happen, probably won't be nearly as bad as the liberals think. Kind of like Trump. The world is going to end! the Russians are coming!!! OMG Trump is going to personally rape your daughter and eat your puppies!
Trump and Hillary are both stupid choices. Pretending one is worse than the other is stupid. And just because you don't understand why people voted a certain way is your own stupidity.
At least I understand why people voted for Trump and Clinton. They weren't stupid people doing it. At least with Trump, they had choices (16 of them) to choose from. People voting for Clinton only had... Clinton and Bernie, and she made sure he couldn't win. So liberals didn't have a choice beyond Stupid, which is stupid.
Don't let your stupid butthurt get in the way of your reality.
Well, socialism always works, until it reaches the Tipping point of collapse, and then it falls apart quickly. Remember the Bernie Sanders' paradise of Venezuela ? Ever wonder why he doesn't speak of it any more? Or Greece, or any number of countries that have tried, and failed at socialism. It always fail, eventually.
People are self interested, and socialism fails to account for that. People will choose the easy way until it fails, never learning that value comes from what is hard and rare.
Universal Income doesn't account for everyone not working, when they are promised income for... "not working". It assumes most people will find meaninful work, when the reality is, most people won't, especial when taxes start to creep over 50% (feudal tax rate).
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for proving the point of the GP. You're so stupid you can't even figure out that enough people aren't falling for that name calling crap anymore, especially when the Feminist Enabler to the former Rapist in Chief called everyone that disagreed with her candidacy "Basket of deplorables"
You know who is racist? All those people excusing everyone's inablities to function in society on their skin color (Democrats)
"Can't you pull up your pants?" ... "RACIST!!!" (I still don't see what skin color has to do with properly securing garments to one's body)
Emoluments clause [wikipedia.org] that restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress
Funny, how that didn't apply to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, her husband Bill "Blew Dress" Clinton who took Millions of dollars from Russia, while securing a deal to sell a larger percentage of Uranium to Putin.
If the Democrats didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any.
It was a stupid idea, and they said they fixed it. I don't own one, so I am not 100% sure.
With an attitude like that, it is surprising breaches don't happen more often in the private sector.
There are a couple issues I have with this statement, not because of anything you said, but what is left unsaid. First .. breaches occur so often that most of them aren't even worth reporting. It is like reporting on the number of bugs I killed driving past the flower fields. Meh, nobody cares.
Second issue is even more frightening, the number of breaches still won't outweigh the actual costs of those breaches. The prevention of a possibility cost more than the probability * cost of a breach, which makes securing a breach unlikely. In the eventuality of a breach the "Accenture" route is better choice, because you can probably pawn it off on insurance.
The ONLY way to make it cost effective, is lower the cost of securing your stuff, or making breaches more costly artificially (fines, fixes, etc). The problem with the latter is all of that goes away with a Bankruptcy. And even then, the market will eventually sort it all out, include the costs in evaluations and keep working.
We're supposed to care when one person is "offended" or "uncomfortable" on one hand, but we're a bigot if we are supposed to care when another person (usually plural) is "offended" and "uncomfortable".
And yes, there have been MORE cases of men (real, purvy men) "using" the lady's room since the decision has happened, because you can't really tell the difference between "Purvy man" looking for crotch and tits, and a "Trans / drag queen" looking at clothes and shoes. And if you have a magic way of reading which one is which, then you should sell it on QVC and make a few million bucks doing so. AND heaven forbid you mistake a %.03 population for someone that is 50% (more or less).
Pretending the problems don't exist are liberal's favorite excuse. My suggestion, is that we just make one "bathroom" for everyone, and fuck people's feelings all together.
Free speech is free. Liable, slander, and such are Civil, not Criminal law. Lying under oath is a criminal violation of that oath, one you took freely of your own will ("I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"). You are free to lie, outside of courts and even inside courts while not under oath you have taken.
So, the Free Speech bits of the First Amendment is really really broad. Hell, I've even argued against people making the "Yelling Fire in a crowded theater" bit, by saying you can yell "fire" in such a scenario. However, you are responsible if there is 1) no fire, and 2) you cause harm doing so. An actor on the stage can yell "fire" all day long (Ready, Aim FIRE!!!!). Context is everything.
Rights come with responsibilities. The modern left doesn't want any responsibilities, except that which they can impose on others, such as "not offending" people. Not my responsibility to not offend, it is your responsibility to stop being offended over everything.
The most racist nonsense I have read , comes from do-good liberals saying basically "blacks can't help themselves". From wearing their pants down around their knees, to rioting over black cops not letting criminals go free, to shooting each other in Chicago, to learning in school.
I just saw a white feminist liberal arguing with black men about something, where she was completely wrong, and they called her Racist, and she freaked out. The problem with Racism, is that when you categorize people by race, and make excuses for what people of that race are suffering culturally, you're the damn racist. Me personally, hate to see strong black people taking a back seat of the liberal bus, all because that is what is expected of them.
Pepe is dead, the same way Batman is dead. Killing him off didn't end him, he was just resurrected.
I never heard of Pepe the Frog before the Left branded it a "hate" symbol. The Alt-Right gets all its needed publicity from the Left going nuts over it.
Political Version of Streisand Effect. By publicizing how awful it is, you're given them more publicity than if everyone simply ignored them. Good Job
You are mistaking communism for socialism.
Right, it is "socialism" before the collapse, and afterwards it was never socialism, it was "communism". That way, socialism is always successful, and communism always fails.
If you replace your side with a machine, your costs go down, the only side "wasting" money is the one with "billable hour lawyers". Your costs go down, their stays the same, you have the advantage. Eventually the other side will do the same, or die stagnating in a competitive world.
I'll always choose efficiency, even marginal ones.
UBI is going to pay for basic accommodation, food and other necessities.
Its called "welfare" and we have it now. Food Stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest for "basic necessities". The biggest problem with UBI, is that it fails to make exactly what "basic accommodation" is. And if it were ever defined, it would change, upwards, because "it isn't fair" enough. (fair being subjective).
The whole point of UBI is that it isn't "fair" to the people actually paying the bills.
Please tell me, what happens when half (or more) of the population is on UBI and the other half is taxed to the point of quitting and going on UBI.
If you say, "that will never happen" then you've found the problem with UBI. You've made a critical error in your assumption.
I get free healthcare.
It isn't free, someone (probably even you) pays for it. All you've done is add in a bunch of middleware making it more expensive, less effective. There are all sorts of models that work better, the problem with almost all of them is that it takes control away from do-good liberal governments and puts it back into the hands of the people. Health Care Cooperatives have all sorts of cost advantages. Mainly, they don't have to hire middleware agents to work with other middleware agents who have nothing to do with health care.
If my AI is competing against a human using billable hours, and can do things in minutes vs weeks/years, then the AI will win, as I will be able to send my AI against more humans than a slow human could. This means, efficiencies are brought into the market and the results are eventually the humans won't be able to compete.
If one AI can replace a million human lawyers/clerks/interns/paralegals, it should.
Here is my recent medical diagnosis. ...
problem with eye, go to Dr, looks at me across the room, conjunctivitis and a prescription for antibiotic drops ...
Returned a week later, no results, more antibiotic drops
Returned a week later, no results, antibiotic pills
Week later, ordered MRI,"Go to the ER"
Hospital stay for 7 days, infused with three different hi powered Antibiotics... Hmmm curious
Transferred to Stanford Medical, two days Anti-biotic, changed diagnosis prescribed steroids.
Immediate results. (Literally over night)
Problem returns (over months) biopsy, another biopsy
See several specialists, return to Stanford, diagnosis changed again.
Currently on cancer drugs for an inflammation disease.
Marginal results.
Bitch of a case. I am still not entirely convinced that the current diagnosis is correct. Why? because the "normal" treatment haven't and aren't really working. One thing I learned, is Doctors don't like being wrong, but won't admit it easily when they are.
I would suggest to you (and the GP) that you are correct, except for one thing. When capitalism abandon's people there is usually someone else to pick of the slack ... for a price. When socialism abandons people, it ends up like Venezuela, a totalitarian hell hole.
You cannot take someone who refuses to adapt themselves to changing economic, political, and social conditions, and wave the money wand and make it all better.
But you can wave more government provided goodies and they'll vote for you.
RIght, because the lady smart enough to figure out Cattle Futures that one time is a much better choice.
Remember, the Republicans had some 16 candidates to chose from, while the Democrats ostensibly only had one, being the Bernie never had a chance against the rigged DNC election machine. The bad choice of the Republicans is their choice of their party members, the bad choice of the Democrats was the DNC choice. The fact that Bernie made a significant run and almost beat Hillary shows you how bad a candidate she really was.
Hillary Loss is fully on the DNC and Hillary as a candidate.
That, and the US Presidential Election is almost always a lose lose proposition. That is the nature of the two party electoral nonsense.
You're right, but you're also wrong.
The masses have always been easy to manipulate. But when you look at logic and reason, the whole persuasion of the left is based on Mass Hysteria. "People are starving, we must raise taxes to feed the starving people! " Even right now, people are wanting to raise taxes, because there "are hungry people ..." or some edge case anecdotal evidence is proof of widespread horror. My current tax rate is approaching 50% (all taxes, fees, mandated payments etc), and yet, we STILL can't get everyone fed right? Tell me how that is even possible?
My opinion is, that most liberals want OTHERS to pay for things they themselves are unwilling to pay for.
As in, Brexit was obviously the wrong move.
Define "wrong move" here. Please, without referring to articles explaining your point of view. In your own words, explain.
Because every time I've asked a liberal elitist to explain why Brexit was bad, and when they could actually answer, it was usually about things that probably won't happen, and if they do happen, probably won't be nearly as bad as the liberals think. Kind of like Trump. The world is going to end! the Russians are coming!!! OMG Trump is going to personally rape your daughter and eat your puppies!
Stop believing the hyperbole. It is ridiculous
Trump and Hillary are both stupid choices. Pretending one is worse than the other is stupid. And just because you don't understand why people voted a certain way is your own stupidity.
At least I understand why people voted for Trump and Clinton. They weren't stupid people doing it. At least with Trump, they had choices (16 of them) to choose from. People voting for Clinton only had ... Clinton and Bernie, and she made sure he couldn't win. So liberals didn't have a choice beyond Stupid, which is stupid.
Don't let your stupid butthurt get in the way of your reality.
You're all gonna end up like Greece. Have fun.
Well, socialism always works, until it reaches the Tipping point of collapse, and then it falls apart quickly. Remember the Bernie Sanders' paradise of Venezuela ? Ever wonder why he doesn't speak of it any more? Or Greece, or any number of countries that have tried, and failed at socialism. It always fail, eventually.
People are self interested, and socialism fails to account for that. People will choose the easy way until it fails, never learning that value comes from what is hard and rare.
Universal Income doesn't account for everyone not working, when they are promised income for ... "not working". It assumes most people will find meaninful work, when the reality is, most people won't, especial when taxes start to creep over 50% (feudal tax rate).
can't actually be implemented unless everyone has to contribute by law.
The answer is ... tyranny!
Government should use FORCE or the threat of it only as a last resort.