First off - illegal immigrants don't have access to existing "socialist" programs. What makes you think they'd have access to new ones?
But they do have access to some medical benefits. Their kids go to publicly funded schools and they receive refundable child tax credits. Then there's the benefits they're not supposed to receive, but do anyways, since the burden of disproving their immigration status lies with the agency that's handing out welfare, and they're not qualified to do so.
Given this isn't a problem that popped up overnight, why hasn't either party done anything about it?
If anything, the Democrats should be more against illegal immigration than the Republicans. A huge pool of poor people raises the costs of socialist policies and makes them less politically viable. Universal healthcare and free college sounds great until millions of Central and South Americans swarm in to take advantage of it and you have to raise taxes to pay for them.
Google leadership doesn't need to embrace 100% of the ideology to act like SJWs. There were Jews who fought for Hitler and I don't think they were okay with death camps.
You can define SJW however you want. To me, an SJW is someone in favor of minority and women's privilege to the point of irrationality. The reason it's "social justice" and not simply "justice" is because they don't actually want that. Justice means equality before the law and that prevents them from giving minorities and women extra privileges.
The reason they're called "warriors" is because they feel very strongly about it and are willing to go to great lengths to reach their goals. They believe the ends justify the means and would love nothing more than to grind the white male into the dirt, even if that particular individual had nothing to do with past oppression of women and minorities.
What are you talking about? There is mass enlightenment, just not the kind you're hoping for. Either through luck or ignorance, you have come to believe people are inherently good.
The internet allows everyone to understands the truth. Humans are manipulative, tribal, selfish, jealous and ignorant. Of course, there's also a bunch of nice things mixed in there too, but it's really the evil half that comes to light when you remove the filter that comes with face-to-face interactions.
This is why privacy is important, because everyone's evil if you look at them closely enough. Or we can just accept that evil is a part of who we are and stop judging others for failing to live up to our unrealistic expectations.
I've yet seen a good argument why "Race, sexual orientation, religion" are protected, but other intrinsic properties, such as height and weight are not. And how is pedophilia not a sexual orientation?
At the time of the foam strike, the orbiter was at an altitude of about 65,600 feet (20.0 km; 12.42 mi), traveling at Mach 2.46 (1,650 miles per hour or 740 meters per second).
Hmm, if only Mooney pilots can stop flying at Mach 2. Then they won't have to worry so much about drone impacts.
The money gets transferred, but the work still went into a black hole. Those highly paid people working for the military could've spent their effort on something much more productive. Or if the whole idea is to promote research, it's much more efficient to give money directly than to justify it on the basis of being useful to the military.
You forget that America has more guns than people. There's no need to spend any money arming people if your only goal is national defense. You can cut all of the military except for nuclear weapons and the coast guard and there still won't be anyone who would attack the USA.
I think what people don't realize is that money does not have any intrinsic value. There is frankly little difference between having $1 million vs. having $100 million unless you have something to spend it on. And it's those things that you spent money on that has value.
In other words, the rich are rich partly because they can't spend all of their money. That limits the amount of value that the rest of society provides them, leaving plenty for everyone else.
Their approach is ineffective because most people are more concerned about "helping the homeless" rather than "making them not homeless".
$37 million sounds like a lot, but with SF housing prices it really doesn't go very far. Realistically the only way to give them homes is to ship them some place much cheaper.
As for those who stay despite being given free housing (because they like the freedom or whatever), simply enforce the laws against pooping in the streets and using drugs. Now put them under house arrest in the aforementioned free housing.
By bricking the devices, it'll cost manufacturers a bunch of money on warranty replacements and hopefully force them to write more secure software in the future, or at least put in some mechanism for periodic updates.
You should reset and update your router anyways. Just because this guy didn't install malware, it doesn't mean nobody else did.
Besides, if this guy didn't get to you, then you would've never noticed your router is vulnerable and the black hats would've had all the time in the world to do damage. But since he did, at least you know there is a problem and can do something about it.
For you, yes. The government isn't going to mess with a foreigner who has no political agenda. Try starting an anti-government protest though, you'll be deported faster than you can say "but article 35 of the Chinese Constitution promises the right to freedom of speech and assembly!"
Though I agree the government is probably the least of people's worries. If you work in a tier 1 city, education, healthcare, housing, transportation are all insanely expensive for anyone with a Chinese income and you actually need those to live.
I see you're easily entertained. But you know, you can tell the car to go somewhere and then tell it to stop anywhere along the way. They might even make cars that take directions from you, turn-by-turn.
Or you can do what I do, which is to explore it online, maybe read about its history, learn about local politics and economy, look at photos or streetview, read some reviews, watch some videos other people took, then decide whether I need to visit in person. I can visit way more places virtually and learn about the local culture than I can ever hope to do in person. And when I do visit in person, I get out and walk so I can stop anytime not be a hazard to other drivers.
You get in the car and tell it where to go. Then you enjoy the ride.
Oh did you mean the joy of driving it? Last I checked, go carts are pretty cheap and racing tracks still have public days. You can still drive off road in many places where roads don't exist. You can also visit another country where autonomous cars aren't mandated.
In the worst case I just keep typing and the suggestion goes away. Otherwise it can save me a few seconds or in the best case remind me to add a few polite words so I don't come off as aloof or rude.
Thank you for actually talking about his political views rather than the allegations.
If the Democrats were attacking him for those views, I would wholeheartedly support them. However, they are dead set on using the allegation to derail the appointment. In this case, I would argue the idea of "innocence until proven guilty" is more important than the potential negative economic consequences of his appointment. Now that he's been through this, if he does get appointed, we can rest assured that he would continue to uphold the principles of presumed innocence.
Do you have a history of correctly identifying lying individuals? How many liars have you exposed so far in your life? How many who you thought were liars was later shown to be truthful? How many were later proven to be guilty by evidence?
Slashdot Mirror
First off - illegal immigrants don't have access to existing "socialist" programs. What makes you think they'd have access to new ones?
But they do have access to some medical benefits. Their kids go to publicly funded schools and they receive refundable child tax credits. Then there's the benefits they're not supposed to receive, but do anyways, since the burden of disproving their immigration status lies with the agency that's handing out welfare, and they're not qualified to do so.
Given this isn't a problem that popped up overnight, why hasn't either party done anything about it?
If anything, the Democrats should be more against illegal immigration than the Republicans. A huge pool of poor people raises the costs of socialist policies and makes them less politically viable. Universal healthcare and free college sounds great until millions of Central and South Americans swarm in to take advantage of it and you have to raise taxes to pay for them.
Google leadership doesn't need to embrace 100% of the ideology to act like SJWs. There were Jews who fought for Hitler and I don't think they were okay with death camps.
You can define SJW however you want. To me, an SJW is someone in favor of minority and women's privilege to the point of irrationality. The reason it's "social justice" and not simply "justice" is because they don't actually want that. Justice means equality before the law and that prevents them from giving minorities and women extra privileges.
The reason they're called "warriors" is because they feel very strongly about it and are willing to go to great lengths to reach their goals. They believe the ends justify the means and would love nothing more than to grind the white male into the dirt, even if that particular individual had nothing to do with past oppression of women and minorities.
What are you talking about? There is mass enlightenment, just not the kind you're hoping for. Either through luck or ignorance, you have come to believe people are inherently good.
The internet allows everyone to understands the truth. Humans are manipulative, tribal, selfish, jealous and ignorant. Of course, there's also a bunch of nice things mixed in there too, but it's really the evil half that comes to light when you remove the filter that comes with face-to-face interactions.
This is why privacy is important, because everyone's evil if you look at them closely enough. Or we can just accept that evil is a part of who we are and stop judging others for failing to live up to our unrealistic expectations.
I do wonder what the result would be if Facebook actually put it to a vote.
Though given the internet's voting record, I suspect it will be hilarious no matter what happens.
They're applying different standards to different people. Social Justice rules are for the little guys. The big shots get to do whatever they like.
I've yet seen a good argument why "Race, sexual orientation, religion" are protected, but other intrinsic properties, such as height and weight are not. And how is pedophilia not a sexual orientation?
That's very misleading. I remember watching that documentary and those guys saved up for years to buy those.
Airspeed shouldn't matter given the drone would be in the same air.
At the time of the foam strike, the orbiter was at an altitude of about 65,600 feet (20.0 km; 12.42 mi), traveling at Mach 2.46 (1,650 miles per hour or 740 meters per second).
Hmm, if only Mooney pilots can stop flying at Mach 2. Then they won't have to worry so much about drone impacts.
The money gets transferred, but the work still went into a black hole. Those highly paid people working for the military could've spent their effort on something much more productive. Or if the whole idea is to promote research, it's much more efficient to give money directly than to justify it on the basis of being useful to the military.
Neither NK nor Iran are major producers of greenhouse gas emissions.
And frankly, sanctions do work. Otherwise Iran wouldn't have bothered discussing the nuclear deal, let alone sign it.
You forget that America has more guns than people. There's no need to spend any money arming people if your only goal is national defense. You can cut all of the military except for nuclear weapons and the coast guard and there still won't be anyone who would attack the USA.
And this is bad for America, how? As the rest of the world crumbles, America becomes the obvious choice for investment again.
I think what people don't realize is that money does not have any intrinsic value. There is frankly little difference between having $1 million vs. having $100 million unless you have something to spend it on. And it's those things that you spent money on that has value.
In other words, the rich are rich partly because they can't spend all of their money. That limits the amount of value that the rest of society provides them, leaving plenty for everyone else.
Their approach is ineffective because most people are more concerned about "helping the homeless" rather than "making them not homeless".
$37 million sounds like a lot, but with SF housing prices it really doesn't go very far. Realistically the only way to give them homes is to ship them some place much cheaper.
As for those who stay despite being given free housing (because they like the freedom or whatever), simply enforce the laws against pooping in the streets and using drugs. Now put them under house arrest in the aforementioned free housing.
By bricking the devices, it'll cost manufacturers a bunch of money on warranty replacements and hopefully force them to write more secure software in the future, or at least put in some mechanism for periodic updates.
You should reset and update your router anyways. Just because this guy didn't install malware, it doesn't mean nobody else did.
Besides, if this guy didn't get to you, then you would've never noticed your router is vulnerable and the black hats would've had all the time in the world to do damage. But since he did, at least you know there is a problem and can do something about it.
For you, yes. The government isn't going to mess with a foreigner who has no political agenda. Try starting an anti-government protest though, you'll be deported faster than you can say "but article 35 of the Chinese Constitution promises the right to freedom of speech and assembly!"
Though I agree the government is probably the least of people's worries. If you work in a tier 1 city, education, healthcare, housing, transportation are all insanely expensive for anyone with a Chinese income and you actually need those to live.
I think you're confusing Google with Imperial Japan.
I see you're easily entertained. But you know, you can tell the car to go somewhere and then tell it to stop anywhere along the way. They might even make cars that take directions from you, turn-by-turn.
Or you can do what I do, which is to explore it online, maybe read about its history, learn about local politics and economy, look at photos or streetview, read some reviews, watch some videos other people took, then decide whether I need to visit in person. I can visit way more places virtually and learn about the local culture than I can ever hope to do in person. And when I do visit in person, I get out and walk so I can stop anytime not be a hazard to other drivers.
How do you go on a joyride in an autonomous car?
You get in the car and tell it where to go. Then you enjoy the ride.
Oh did you mean the joy of driving it? Last I checked, go carts are pretty cheap and racing tracks still have public days. You can still drive off road in many places where roads don't exist. You can also visit another country where autonomous cars aren't mandated.
I also don't get why people are afraid of it.
In the worst case I just keep typing and the suggestion goes away. Otherwise it can save me a few seconds or in the best case remind me to add a few polite words so I don't come off as aloof or rude.
Thank you for actually talking about his political views rather than the allegations.
If the Democrats were attacking him for those views, I would wholeheartedly support them. However, they are dead set on using the allegation to derail the appointment. In this case, I would argue the idea of "innocence until proven guilty" is more important than the potential negative economic consequences of his appointment. Now that he's been through this, if he does get appointed, we can rest assured that he would continue to uphold the principles of presumed innocence.
Do you have a history of correctly identifying lying individuals? How many liars have you exposed so far in your life? How many who you thought were liars was later shown to be truthful? How many were later proven to be guilty by evidence?