I wouldn't say *no* women are, but I believe the trafficking situation is greatly exaggerated. It's basic economics - an operation like that has to be expensive. You've got to find suitable women, trap them with a suitable scam, arrange travel, arrange accommodation, and keep them under constant guard - and you have to do that for a long enough time that they can be properly broken, otherwise they are going to be whispering to every customer to call the police. It's going to be expensive and it's going to be high-risk, and they won't command the highest prices anyway, plus you'd need a whole criminal gang to organise the travel and maintain guard. In places where there is a chronic shortage of prostitutes you could make money off that - but the US has plenty of women desperate for money. Surely it would be much safer to simply hire someone local? They'd demand a higher proportion of the takings, but one person could manage a lot more prostitutes and the risk of police detection is much lower.
I've seen lots of scary statistics telling of the tens of thousands of women forced into prostitution each year in the US - but I've also seen a lot of criticism of the manner in which these statistics are gathered, and the wildly varying estimates by different organisations appear suspicious. I see a moral panic in progress: The problem exists, but the scale is far less than widely believed.
A lot of prostitutes are exploited - by their employers. It's an underground industry, so they can't go to the police for help - if their pimp threatens them with violence, or withholds pay, or assaults them, there's nothing much they can do - certainly can't go to the police. Legalisation would make it a lot easier to maintain safe working conditions.
Algorithm only: - Ten coolest cat photos of 2015 - Scientists prove vaccines cause autism - The global warming hoax debunked. - See celebrity sex tapes online! - Obama's secret communist manifesto revealed. - 30 Signs That An Eastern European Girl Isn’t Relationship Material - Russia's nuclear ambitions and how to prepare with our five-gallon soup buckets. - Is the dress blue or gold? - Why the homosexual mafia is after YOUR child!
There's a reason facebook has a human team moderating the feed. Without it you'd get what people are actually doing online, and people are stupid. It'd be a mixture of inane tripe, conspiracy theories and scams, topped off by the occasional article based on blatant sexism, racism or homophobia and, of course, a bit of porn.
Perhaps the problem is that all those factions, of diverse and often conflicting views, are forced by the partisan nature of US politics to band together under one party? They may not agree with each other, but they all know the importance of staying united against their mutual enemy the Democrats.
If the purpose of the second amendment were to allow armed opposition to government, it wouldn't refer to 'a well-regulated militia.' At best it might be to allow a state to resist an attempt by the federal government to impose a law highly unpopular with the state (as happened once), but that's still just one division of government fighting another - it's not an individual right to armed rebellion.
It wouldn't matter anyway. Even if you accept the ripping is fair use, distribution of the tools to do the ripping is still illegal. It's one of those ugly legal contradictions where you technically have a the right to do something, but have no legal means of exercising it.
No-one is seriously planning to colonise mars right now. The plan is to get some humans there, have them do lots of Science Stuff, and bring them back again.
Colonisation, lunar or martian, has a serious difficulty: Cost. It would dwarf the ISS. Creating a self-sustaining colony on either body would, without doubt, be the single most expensive project in all of human history to date. Who is going to foot the bill?
Only the second time. The first time he was too extreme - he tried to win the social conservative support by suggesting he would in some way penalise the woman. I can see why he would think that might work, but anyone who knows pro-life political culture would realise his error right away: They view the woman as a victim, not a perpetrator. It's the evil abortionists and clinics that they see as the evil ones, coercing or talking innocent women into thinking they actually want an abortion. No woman could actually choose that, so they must all be forced or tricked into it somehow.
Even if it's true though, it isn't corruption. It's not illegal for a company to decide what to post on their own website, or to manually adjust their algorithms in real time. I'm sure facebook would do that at a minimum to prevent embarassing topics from hitting the top, like openly racist columns or conspiracy theories.
It's fun to see Trump try to talk on religion. He knows he needs to have that card in his hand to be successful as a Republican, but he has clearly got no knowledge of the field at all, or of American right-wing religious culture. Every time he tries he manages some form of gaffe - from being unable to cite a single bible verse when asked, to referring to 'two Corinthians' in a speech, to managing to anger both sides when speaking about abortion - twice.
At least in the US, conservatives stand for small government. Except on the issue of abortion, and sex education, and recreational substances, and national security, and pornography, and broadcast indecency, and regulation of marriage. Oh, and they insist the government has a duty to issue non-binding religious proclamations telling the people who and how they are supposed to worship and erect tax-funded monuments to their deity. And regulate who is allowed to use which restroom. But aside from all that, they stand for small government.
" the conservative side of the house has a tendency to scream louder than the liberal side"
I think it would be more accurate to say that those on the extremes have a tendency to scream louder, and the conservative side has a higher proportion of extremists. Their opposite faction has extremists too - open communists, perpetually-offended SJWs, that sort of person - but they are much fewer in both number and percentage. Even the feared JSW movement only wields influence among student bodies.
Remember that what passes for left-wing in the US is right-wing by European standards - do you see many democrats calling for a full public healthcare system, as is standard in Europe?
That's certainly a part of the theory - though even the quote you give there makes no reference to race (in the ethnic sense). There's only one from her that does speak of racial targeting, and that was her expressing concern that the black community might be distrustful of a white-run contraception campaign and seeking the support of black leaders. It wouldn't matter anyway - an organisation is not bound to enforce the views of a long-dead founder, and her views were not at all out of the mainstream in the 1920s.
Uncomfortable thought: Name any cultural hero prior to around 1940. It's almost certain they would be an intolerable racist by today's standards.
She did target the low-income though - and was entirely open and proud about this, simply regarding those who could not shoulder the financial burden of properly raising and educating a large family as those who most desperately needed the services she promoted.
Organised thieves might also recognise the disparity in investigation though. Steal packages from the slums, the police couldn't care less - even if the crime is reported they'll just fill in the form and file it away. Steal packages from a rich enough district that the people there actually have influence and you risk instigating an actual investigation - the sort where they look at CCTV footage and numberplate recognition records, or even station an unmarked car and some bait packages. A thief would need to estimate just how valuable a district they can safely target. Low-income district thefts are more likely to be crimes of opportunity: See package, take package.
This is more accidental, racial discrimination. Amazon is discriminating upon something other than race (average income of a residential area) but which happens to have a correlation with race, and thus can give the appearance of racial discrimination. But that is not their intention.
There's a popular conspiracy theory that says Planned Parenthood is secretly carrying out a eugenics program. The theory survives for much the same reason: Planned Parenthood does try to focus resources on low-income communities, and low income communities in the US do tend to be black communities, so it gives the impression of an attempt to contracept or abort an ethnic minority out of existence. The real reason has nothing to do with race: Low-income communities just need the service more. That unplanned pregnancy might be a surprise blessing to a middle-class couple, but when you're already struggling to pay the rent and put food on the table then hard decisions must be made.
I can personally confirm that pirated games are sometimes malware. I got Bioshock Infinite off of usenet - some sneaky releaser had altered it to add a background bitcoin miner.
They are consistent with relativity, mathematically. You can't accelerate anything up to the speed of light, but the maths doesn't stop you creating a particle already exceeding it. They would be very strange particles indeed - they would have imaginary mass, something never observed, and allow for causality violations, also never observed. So they might exist, but it's unlikely: They are not consistent with observations. If they can exist it would have to be under conditions so extreme that they have never been experimentally observed, like the early universe.
You underestimate the power of politically-driven stupidity. In this case of the right-wing flavor, but the left are not much better. Here's an example:
A child experiences a medical emergency, things go south, he is left brain dead. The hospital urges disconnection of life support, but the parents remain in understandable denial - can't really blame them for that. They are soon aided by a pro-life pressure group, the PJI. The group then uses the standard legal practice of expert-shopping, finding a doctor who will support their case, and turn to Dr. Paul Byrne. He has testified that the child is alive, even though he has never even seen the child in person, and coincidentally happens to be president of the Life Guardian Foundation and an active campaigner against the concept of brain death - which he believes to be something "concocted by transplant physicians and their allies who wanted to enlarge the donor pool by including patients who are really not dead."
That's the great thing about expert testimony in legal cases: If a thousand doctors say you are wrong, and one doctor says you are right, you can go with the one. Works for finding people to testify before Congress too.
All this serves to illustrate the broader point: There is a substantial association of pressure groups, desperate parents, religious organisations and Dr Byrne who reject the idea of brain death. They believe that there is always, always hope - even if the hope is of the supernatural variety, the possibility of divine intervention remains if they can just pray hard enough. This research is going to be processed through the spin machine and, when it comes out the other side, it's going to appear on onenewsnow, lifesitenews, and eventually the more mainstream places like Fox as 'scientific proof' that there is no such thing as brain death and it's all a conspiracy made up by hospitals so they can execute unprofitable patients or harvest more organs for transplant.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't say *no* women are, but I believe the trafficking situation is greatly exaggerated. It's basic economics - an operation like that has to be expensive. You've got to find suitable women, trap them with a suitable scam, arrange travel, arrange accommodation, and keep them under constant guard - and you have to do that for a long enough time that they can be properly broken, otherwise they are going to be whispering to every customer to call the police. It's going to be expensive and it's going to be high-risk, and they won't command the highest prices anyway, plus you'd need a whole criminal gang to organise the travel and maintain guard. In places where there is a chronic shortage of prostitutes you could make money off that - but the US has plenty of women desperate for money. Surely it would be much safer to simply hire someone local? They'd demand a higher proportion of the takings, but one person could manage a lot more prostitutes and the risk of police detection is much lower.
I've seen lots of scary statistics telling of the tens of thousands of women forced into prostitution each year in the US - but I've also seen a lot of criticism of the manner in which these statistics are gathered, and the wildly varying estimates by different organisations appear suspicious. I see a moral panic in progress: The problem exists, but the scale is far less than widely believed.
A lot of prostitutes are exploited - by their employers. It's an underground industry, so they can't go to the police for help - if their pimp threatens them with violence, or withholds pay, or assaults them, there's nothing much they can do - certainly can't go to the police. Legalisation would make it a lot easier to maintain safe working conditions.
Algorithm only:
- Ten coolest cat photos of 2015
- Scientists prove vaccines cause autism
- The global warming hoax debunked.
- See celebrity sex tapes online!
- Obama's secret communist manifesto revealed.
- 30 Signs That An Eastern European Girl Isn’t Relationship Material
- Russia's nuclear ambitions and how to prepare with our five-gallon soup buckets.
- Is the dress blue or gold?
- Why the homosexual mafia is after YOUR child!
There's a reason facebook has a human team moderating the feed. Without it you'd get what people are actually doing online, and people are stupid. It'd be a mixture of inane tripe, conspiracy theories and scams, topped off by the occasional article based on blatant sexism, racism or homophobia and, of course, a bit of porn.
Perhaps the problem is that all those factions, of diverse and often conflicting views, are forced by the partisan nature of US politics to band together under one party? They may not agree with each other, but they all know the importance of staying united against their mutual enemy the Democrats.
If the purpose of the second amendment were to allow armed opposition to government, it wouldn't refer to 'a well-regulated militia.' At best it might be to allow a state to resist an attempt by the federal government to impose a law highly unpopular with the state (as happened once), but that's still just one division of government fighting another - it's not an individual right to armed rebellion.
It wouldn't matter anyway. Even if you accept the ripping is fair use, distribution of the tools to do the ripping is still illegal. It's one of those ugly legal contradictions where you technically have a the right to do something, but have no legal means of exercising it.
That it hasn't turned into diatomic oxygen suggests there isn't very much of it.
No-one is seriously planning to colonise mars right now. The plan is to get some humans there, have them do lots of Science Stuff, and bring them back again.
Colonisation, lunar or martian, has a serious difficulty: Cost. It would dwarf the ISS. Creating a self-sustaining colony on either body would, without doubt, be the single most expensive project in all of human history to date. Who is going to foot the bill?
Only the second time. The first time he was too extreme - he tried to win the social conservative support by suggesting he would in some way penalise the woman. I can see why he would think that might work, but anyone who knows pro-life political culture would realise his error right away: They view the woman as a victim, not a perpetrator. It's the evil abortionists and clinics that they see as the evil ones, coercing or talking innocent women into thinking they actually want an abortion. No woman could actually choose that, so they must all be forced or tricked into it somehow.
Even if it's true though, it isn't corruption. It's not illegal for a company to decide what to post on their own website, or to manually adjust their algorithms in real time. I'm sure facebook would do that at a minimum to prevent embarassing topics from hitting the top, like openly racist columns or conspiracy theories.
It's fun to see Trump try to talk on religion. He knows he needs to have that card in his hand to be successful as a Republican, but he has clearly got no knowledge of the field at all, or of American right-wing religious culture. Every time he tries he manages some form of gaffe - from being unable to cite a single bible verse when asked, to referring to 'two Corinthians' in a speech, to managing to anger both sides when speaking about abortion - twice.
There's only one poll that matters, and Hillary has all but won it.
At least in the US, conservatives stand for small government. Except on the issue of abortion, and sex education, and recreational substances, and national security, and pornography, and broadcast indecency, and regulation of marriage. Oh, and they insist the government has a duty to issue non-binding religious proclamations telling the people who and how they are supposed to worship and erect tax-funded monuments to their deity. And regulate who is allowed to use which restroom. But aside from all that, they stand for small government.
" the conservative side of the house has a tendency to scream louder than the liberal side"
I think it would be more accurate to say that those on the extremes have a tendency to scream louder, and the conservative side has a higher proportion of extremists. Their opposite faction has extremists too - open communists, perpetually-offended SJWs, that sort of person - but they are much fewer in both number and percentage. Even the feared JSW movement only wields influence among student bodies.
The only think Trump cares about is Trump.
Left, right... it's all relative.
Remember that what passes for left-wing in the US is right-wing by European standards - do you see many democrats calling for a full public healthcare system, as is standard in Europe?
That's certainly a part of the theory - though even the quote you give there makes no reference to race (in the ethnic sense). There's only one from her that does speak of racial targeting, and that was her expressing concern that the black community might be distrustful of a white-run contraception campaign and seeking the support of black leaders. It wouldn't matter anyway - an organisation is not bound to enforce the views of a long-dead founder, and her views were not at all out of the mainstream in the 1920s.
Uncomfortable thought: Name any cultural hero prior to around 1940. It's almost certain they would be an intolerable racist by today's standards.
She did target the low-income though - and was entirely open and proud about this, simply regarding those who could not shoulder the financial burden of properly raising and educating a large family as those who most desperately needed the services she promoted.
Error message about a missing DLL for OpenCL? Likewise.
Because the sneaky releaser screwed up: He wrote it to use an OpenCL DLL file that was not present on my system, so I started getting an error popup.
If they'd done a better job it might have taken me a bit longer to wonder why my GPU fan was running all the time.
Or scrapped for parts. It's very hard to fence an entire car, but the parts alone are worth a fair bit and much easier to shift.
Organised thieves might also recognise the disparity in investigation though. Steal packages from the slums, the police couldn't care less - even if the crime is reported they'll just fill in the form and file it away. Steal packages from a rich enough district that the people there actually have influence and you risk instigating an actual investigation - the sort where they look at CCTV footage and numberplate recognition records, or even station an unmarked car and some bait packages. A thief would need to estimate just how valuable a district they can safely target. Low-income district thefts are more likely to be crimes of opportunity: See package, take package.
This is more accidental, racial discrimination. Amazon is discriminating upon something other than race (average income of a residential area) but which happens to have a correlation with race, and thus can give the appearance of racial discrimination. But that is not their intention.
There's a popular conspiracy theory that says Planned Parenthood is secretly carrying out a eugenics program. The theory survives for much the same reason: Planned Parenthood does try to focus resources on low-income communities, and low income communities in the US do tend to be black communities, so it gives the impression of an attempt to contracept or abort an ethnic minority out of existence. The real reason has nothing to do with race: Low-income communities just need the service more. That unplanned pregnancy might be a surprise blessing to a middle-class couple, but when you're already struggling to pay the rent and put food on the table then hard decisions must be made.
I can personally confirm that pirated games are sometimes malware. I got Bioshock Infinite off of usenet - some sneaky releaser had altered it to add a background bitcoin miner.
They are consistent with relativity, mathematically. You can't accelerate anything up to the speed of light, but the maths doesn't stop you creating a particle already exceeding it. They would be very strange particles indeed - they would have imaginary mass, something never observed, and allow for causality violations, also never observed. So they might exist, but it's unlikely: They are not consistent with observations. If they can exist it would have to be under conditions so extreme that they have never been experimentally observed, like the early universe.
You underestimate the power of politically-driven stupidity. In this case of the right-wing flavor, but the left are not much better. Here's an example:
Politically biased news example: http://onenewsnow.com/pro-life...
A child experiences a medical emergency, things go south, he is left brain dead. The hospital urges disconnection of life support, but the parents remain in understandable denial - can't really blame them for that. They are soon aided by a pro-life pressure group, the PJI. The group then uses the standard legal practice of expert-shopping, finding a doctor who will support their case, and turn to Dr. Paul Byrne. He has testified that the child is alive, even though he has never even seen the child in person, and coincidentally happens to be president of the Life Guardian Foundation and an active campaigner against the concept of brain death - which he believes to be something "concocted by transplant physicians and their allies who wanted to enlarge the donor pool by including patients who are really not dead."
That's the great thing about expert testimony in legal cases: If a thousand doctors say you are wrong, and one doctor says you are right, you can go with the one. Works for finding people to testify before Congress too.
Full legal details: https://www.scribd.com/embeds/...
All this serves to illustrate the broader point: There is a substantial association of pressure groups, desperate parents, religious organisations and Dr Byrne who reject the idea of brain death. They believe that there is always, always hope - even if the hope is of the supernatural variety, the possibility of divine intervention remains if they can just pray hard enough. This research is going to be processed through the spin machine and, when it comes out the other side, it's going to appear on onenewsnow, lifesitenews, and eventually the more mainstream places like Fox as 'scientific proof' that there is no such thing as brain death and it's all a conspiracy made up by hospitals so they can execute unprofitable patients or harvest more organs for transplant.