That's presuming "a violent mental breakdown" matches the actual events. If I was beaten up by the police and loaded into an ambulance with the tag "this guy is psychotic", I'd sure as hell want someone to have recorded what really happened.
We need legislation that not only enshrines the right to record any and all public officials, but adds severe consequences to the destruction of evidence.
If we are going to go with the poor analogy of a personal checkbook for a nation's economy:
If my credit card bill is high and I need more income, I'm going to go look for a job, not cut my cobra and switch from 2 meals a day to 1. That's counterproductive.
If you look at the countries who introduced austerity measures and cut back on social spending, their economies stuttered. So much so that the IMF, previously in favor of austerity, now warns against it!
If we want to get serious about fixing the US economy - we need to invest in growth, not cut back on necessities.
True, complicity is shared, though you'd be hard pressed to argue it is shared equally. I wouldn't call google's collusion with China equivalent to China's restriction of free speech, I'd call it contributory. Additionally one might say is that the level of corporate collusion with an oppressive government is an effective target to apply political pressure.
Its google's decision to do business with the "lawful" government of China. The argument has always been "its ok if they do business with an oppressive government - they'll use that access to have a positive influence". Without that strip of pretense, it comes down to doing whatever an oppressive government wants in order to increase profitability. The fact that so many companies and countries accept China's oppression of its own people surely does not help the situation.
Why the hell is this marked insightful? What poor person has their daddy buy them a BMW? Some idiot on the internet doesn't personally know a person who starved to death so it didn't happen. Why do you research how many people in the US die annually from starvation? No one is arguing that there are worse places in the world to be poor and powerless, but to claim that "being poor in the US is also quite unpleasant" is mere "white whine" and false is remarkably ignorant. It supposes, among other things, that the kind of suffering the poor endure in other countries are the only valid measures of pain for the poor in the US. Dying because you can't afford cancer treatment, living in a shelter with your family, going to bed hungry, growing up on a street where you've witnessed a shooting, knowing you could be attacked by the police for the color of your skin... all of these things are possible in the US, and I bet you wouldn't want to experience them yourself. Poverty is a problem we need to band together to solve. Not a pissing contest.
NASA should copyright the story leading up to, including, and after the lassoing. They could then sell the stories to the film industry and merchandise like crazy to recoup some of the costs. To add a bit of color, they should recruit astronauts with dark pasts, a drinking problem, or who are Elmo.
Definitely News that Matters
on
An Ode To Skulpture
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
One geek explores his nostalgia for old user interfaces the rest of us hated with a single screenshot retrospective of one in particular.
We've been trying to push our values on many places in the world like this for decades, and it's only made things worse. Iran used to be a very progressive place, probably the most progressive in the entire Middle East. Then their democratically-elected leaders did something to piss off the US government (didn't want to give them the best prices on oil), so the CIA overthrew them and installed the Shah, who was a brutal dictator. So much for Western values of equality and justice, huh?
That wasn't a case of us pushing our values on another country. It was us sacrificing shared values in favor of perceived financial and political gain.
You missed the point of my comment. If the US taxed foreign income for US-based corporations, then Ireland could set its taxes as low as they want, the US would still get that tax income. In fact, it might keep countries like Ireland from attracting US companies in the first place.
The US can fix their tax laws too. They could easily make it more profitable to keep the investment mostly at home. Irish tax and legislation isn't exactly secret sauce. Washington State gives Boeing and Microsoft and Amazon astounding tax breaks just to keep its citizens employed. So do a lot of other states.
How about we just close the loopholes? If you have a US based company that is clearly operating a subsidiary, that subsidiary (even foreign) will be subject to US taxation. Far simpler strategy.
This doesn't advance the conversation, does it? If designing your own curriculum benefits some students, why not find out:
1. Why it benefits them.
2. How to find out who it might benefit.
3. How to make it available to those who might benefit.
As opposed to saying "make a choice on which college you attend" (which for many many students is restricted by past academic performance and financial caste) and letting the students who don't end up at schools that give students that kind of reign.
One approach is scientific and will move education forward. The other is reactionary conservative values and will leave us with the status quo.
I wonder what would happen if US colleges (or even earlier in our educational system) let students have free reign, and really specialize. If over in India this man had been nurtured in college, and allowed to stay in math courses (or even better conduct his own lines of study), might he have had a more enjoyable or productive life? If we recognize genius and cultivate it, what might grow in that garden?
I find myself unsure of how the SCOTUS might rule on either of these cases. If they rule so as to effectively destroy First Sale Doctrine, what are our options? Legislation? For any companies that take advantage of the new rules, can we organize and either compete directly ourselves, boycott the companies in question, or find existing competitors and persuade them to make adhering to First Sale Doctrine a selling point?
Why is this marked insightful? If the botnet owners had broken into people's homes and physically stolen the computers they then used for the ddos, instead of merely hijacking them, should the victims of those thefts be reported as criminals?
Why are climate change skeptics, who call climate change global warming, still taken seriously? If some shitty blog claiming to be "the world's most viewed site on global warming" wants to go up against the scientific consensus, that's great for them. We have no need of taking them seriously, however.
Neck in Neck seems like a more internet appropriate version. As in a series of images tucked away in a dark corner of imgur, briefly referenced on reddit before being removed by admins. Neck in Neck - "A filthy, gritty internet version of Neck and Neck."
Slashdot Mirror
That's presuming "a violent mental breakdown" matches the actual events. If I was beaten up by the police and loaded into an ambulance with the tag "this guy is psychotic", I'd sure as hell want someone to have recorded what really happened.
We need legislation that not only enshrines the right to record any and all public officials, but adds severe consequences to the destruction of evidence.
If they are truly anonymous, how do you know if they have a vested interest in anything or anyone?
If we are going to go with the poor analogy of a personal checkbook for a nation's economy:
If my credit card bill is high and I need more income, I'm going to go look for a job, not cut my cobra and switch from 2 meals a day to 1. That's counterproductive.
If you look at the countries who introduced austerity measures and cut back on social spending, their economies stuttered. So much so that the IMF, previously in favor of austerity, now warns against it!
If we want to get serious about fixing the US economy - we need to invest in growth, not cut back on necessities.
True, complicity is shared, though you'd be hard pressed to argue it is shared equally. I wouldn't call google's collusion with China equivalent to China's restriction of free speech, I'd call it contributory. Additionally one might say is that the level of corporate collusion with an oppressive government is an effective target to apply political pressure.
It is possible to turn a profit without selling out moral principle. To do otherwise is to render "don't be evil" a worthless bit of corporate PR.
Its google's decision to do business with the "lawful" government of China. The argument has always been "its ok if they do business with an oppressive government - they'll use that access to have a positive influence". Without that strip of pretense, it comes down to doing whatever an oppressive government wants in order to increase profitability. The fact that so many companies and countries accept China's oppression of its own people surely does not help the situation.
Why the hell is this marked insightful? What poor person has their daddy buy them a BMW? Some idiot on the internet doesn't personally know a person who starved to death so it didn't happen. Why do you research how many people in the US die annually from starvation? No one is arguing that there are worse places in the world to be poor and powerless, but to claim that "being poor in the US is also quite unpleasant" is mere "white whine" and false is remarkably ignorant. It supposes, among other things, that the kind of suffering the poor endure in other countries are the only valid measures of pain for the poor in the US. Dying because you can't afford cancer treatment, living in a shelter with your family, going to bed hungry, growing up on a street where you've witnessed a shooting, knowing you could be attacked by the police for the color of your skin... all of these things are possible in the US, and I bet you wouldn't want to experience them yourself. Poverty is a problem we need to band together to solve. Not a pissing contest.
What is "GPS already-common GPS" exactly?
I want to live in the world where all astronauts are drunk Elmo.
NASA should copyright the story leading up to, including, and after the lassoing. They could then sell the stories to the film industry and merchandise like crazy to recoup some of the costs. To add a bit of color, they should recruit astronauts with dark pasts, a drinking problem, or who are Elmo.
One geek explores his nostalgia for old user interfaces the rest of us hated with a single screenshot retrospective of one in particular.
That wasn't a case of us pushing our values on another country. It was us sacrificing shared values in favor of perceived financial and political gain.
That was *exactly* my point.
How about we just close the loopholes? If you have a US based company that is clearly operating a subsidiary, that subsidiary (even foreign) will be subject to US taxation. Far simpler strategy.
This doesn't advance the conversation, does it? If designing your own curriculum benefits some students, why not find out:
1. Why it benefits them.
2. How to find out who it might benefit.
3. How to make it available to those who might benefit.
As opposed to saying "make a choice on which college you attend" (which for many many students is restricted by past academic performance and financial caste) and letting the students who don't end up at schools that give students that kind of reign.
One approach is scientific and will move education forward. The other is reactionary conservative values and will leave us with the status quo.
I wonder what would happen if US colleges (or even earlier in our educational system) let students have free reign, and really specialize. If over in India this man had been nurtured in college, and allowed to stay in math courses (or even better conduct his own lines of study), might he have had a more enjoyable or productive life? If we recognize genius and cultivate it, what might grow in that garden?
Damn.
I can't decide between the often historical wackiness of Hark a Vagrant and the rocket fueled radical fun at Dr McNinja.
Its amusing how frequently comments in a thread about climate change/global warming get marked troll (on all sides of the issue).
I find myself unsure of how the SCOTUS might rule on either of these cases. If they rule so as to effectively destroy First Sale Doctrine, what are our options? Legislation? For any companies that take advantage of the new rules, can we organize and either compete directly ourselves, boycott the companies in question, or find existing competitors and persuade them to make adhering to First Sale Doctrine a selling point?
Why is this marked insightful? If the botnet owners had broken into people's homes and physically stolen the computers they then used for the ddos, instead of merely hijacking them, should the victims of those thefts be reported as criminals?
Why are climate change skeptics, who call climate change global warming, still taken seriously? If some shitty blog claiming to be "the world's most viewed site on global warming" wants to go up against the scientific consensus, that's great for them. We have no need of taking them seriously, however.
Neck in Neck seems like a more internet appropriate version. As in a series of images tucked away in a dark corner of imgur, briefly referenced on reddit before being removed by admins. Neck in Neck - "A filthy, gritty internet version of Neck and Neck."
Because they want it, regardless of what the public wants. This just means they'll try their very best to be even sneakier next time.