Quick fact check: Amazon doesn't own The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos -- in his personal capacity -- does.
Distinction without difference... The sentiment expressed is still perfectly plausible:
Bezos despises Trump and is likely to steer WaPo to criticize the President above and beyond what would be fair
Bezos is likely to have purchased WaPo with tax-considerations paying at least a partial role — the other big concern, no doubt, was to save money on lobbying, by flat-out owning the biggest loudspeaker in the capital.
This will allow people objecting to slaughter of actual animals to eat the necessary protein, which is good.
However, there is no mention of the "carbon footprint" of this method — how much electricity, labor, and materials is it going to take per pound? The (real) meat is wasteful, we are told. Will this be better?
The (female) driver did the most responsible thing both for herself and the society, but there will be idiots — not sure, whether the Anonymous above is one of them, or is sarcastic — who will call for boycotting Lyft for such cooperation with law-enforcement.
Because police are bad and we'd be better off without them, or something...
Do you have any evidence that there's any trace of truth in that, as opposed to propaganda?
Not only do I have it, I already cited evidence of Hitler having put his "demands" for the government to take care of citizens into his Programme — national health was just one of the line-items.
Hitler lied a whole lot.
Ah, so you are questioning his sincerity... I dunno — did he lie like "if you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your health insurance plan"?
But this is an entirely different topic — angelosphere insists, the healthcare system we used to have was "fascist", because people had to pay for themselves. I presented evidence, that his understanding of what "Fascist" means is entirely different from how the rest of the world defines it...
Dude, you can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts. I cited Princeton's Wordnet — an online dictionary. I'm still waiting for your citation of any resource, which defines "Fascism" as anything like "there are upper class/ruling class and one or several lower classes".
And I did ask for this definition twice already. This is the third time. And yet, you would not.
The fundamental ideology of fascism is: there are upper class/ruling class and one or several lower classes
I cited the dictionary for my definition. You continue to invent your own. If redefining terms is your way of "winning" an argument, I am not interested.
Just because you disagree with something, it is not fascist.
Very, very true...
I suggest to google, what Fascist means.
Good idea!
In a fascist health care system only the super rich had healthcare
Please, cite the source(s) you found, that support this statement.
You can't. Because you are wrong — fantastically, spectacularly wrong. "Fascism" means just this:
a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government
See? Not a mention of "health care". But if we search the more elaborate Wikipedia article, we'll find, that it was the Fascists, who were worrying about "health of the nation". Hitler — the most famous among Fascists — even put that on his Programme
21. The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised [...]
And, upon coming to power, followed up on that by expanding Bismark's "Reich Insurance Act" to cover all Germans at the government's expense (single-payer much?). It sucked — because folks (volks) started going to a doctor for the slightest of reasons, greatly increasing their workloads and lines. (And, of course, there were "Death Panels".)
Whether "Universal" — a dog-whistle for government-provided — health care is a good thing or not, it is not Fascist to be against it. Quite the opposite, indeed.
The classic yelling fire in a crowded theater is a good example.
It is, actually, a horrible example. Because the Supreme Court Justice, who used the analogy to reaffirm a lower court's conviction of a man, who advocated against draft, regretted the decision later in his life. And, obviously, Americans do not think, advocating against a war is a crime.
The US has a very different history when it comes to Nazi's and antisemitism than many European nations.
Maybe, the differences in our history are due to us having the First Amendment? That as long as someone limits himself to words, we usually let them be; and any would-be dictator would need to pass a major — indeed unpassable — hurdle to subdue the country's media?
Germany is a free democratic nation so if the citizens of Germany want to have those limitations then that is up to them.
Are they a free nation, if they can't express certain thoughts as words (not deeds)?
If you were youngish in the early 2000s, you probably remember this phenomenon -- calling a friend's cell phone, and instead of hearing the the standard ring, you heard a pop song.
Despite being alive and active during the period, I have not only never used the feature myself, but never heard of it being an option at all...
Okay, so you can get away with making sweeping statements, but everybody else needs to provide cites?
Ever heard of "proving a negative"? For me to "prove" my "sweeping statement", I'd need to pore through all of the predictions ever made by Climate Science and show them as failed.
For you to prove me wrong, however, you just need to cite one or two successful ones.
Not entirely unlike the question of whether a particular person is married — to prove, that he is not, he needs to obtain an affidavit from every woman on Earth confirming, she is not his wife. To prove, that he is, it is enough to present one marriage certificate...
According to a study published today in Nature Plants, by the end of this century, increasing temperatures could [emphasis mine -mi] make it impossible to grow coffee in about half of Ethiopia's coffee-growing regions.
Once again, a "scientific" article carefully avoids making a scientific statement... Because such statements need to be falsifiable (among other requirements).
And I don't blame the authors — in the 4 decades of the "global warming" hysteria, plenty of predictions have been made. Those among them, that were falsifiable, ended up getting falsified indeed (any attempt to rebut this post must cite counter-examples or be returned unopened) — hence the switch from the firm "will" to the evasive "could". It still mongers the fears just as well, but without quite as much embarrassment, when the prediction fails...
The fear of commitment is like that of the insurance lizard: "15 minutes call could save you 15% or more".
The targets include lawyers looking into the mass disappearance of 43 students (alternative source), a highly respected academic who helped write anti-corruption legislation, two of Mexico's most influential journalists and an American representing victims of sexual abuse by the police.
I hereby denounce the article — and the/. write-up — as racist and Hispanophobic. A kind peaceful country like Mexico would never do such a thing — which is exactly why we need to attract more people from there to show us, how to live with little crime and no government abuses.
eliminate dozens of paperwork requirements for federal agencies, including an obscure rule that requires them to continue providing updates on their preparedness for a bug that afflicted some computers at the turn of the century. As another example, the Pentagon will be freed from a requirement that it file a report every time a small business vendor is paid, a task that consumed some 1,200 man-hours every year.
Would someone think of all the people becoming unemployed due to this? That 1200 (wo)main-hours/year alone is a part-time job in itself, helping a poor family make ends meet. What will their children eat now, you traitor?.. Will the employee now have to find work in Walmart, or — as is more likely — in one of Trump's hotels?!
Eliminating government jobs lowers the salaries in the job market — as the laid off bureaucrats desperately seek new employment however inferior to the good solid jobs they held, have you thought of that? Of course, you didn't, you bible-trumping redneck!!..
Yeah, the very idea of providing affordable phone service to everyone in America.
Yes, you got it. In a free country, government must not be able to compel anybody to provide service to any one else. It can only be voluntary — motivated either by profit or sincere benevolence.
It would have been much, much better to have private companies only running phone lines to well heeled customers
Of course, it would've been! When the cell-phones finally appeared, they were for "uber wealthy" as well. In 10 years they become affordable to middle class, in 20 became ubiquitous, and now they are handed-out to homeless
Yes, you can kill with a knife, it's just a lot harder to do cleanly without sustaining injury yourself. [...] There is also a chance for the person being attacked to defend themself.
Using knife as a weapon requires substantial skill — which a peaceful citizen is unlikely to have. Defending oneself or others with a gun is much easier — less time and effort is needed to obtain a reasonable proficiency. And easier still, if the firearm has a large magazine.
You point a gun at some kid's head, he has no chance to run or defend himself.
Yeah, because putting a knife-tip to his throat is so so different...
Once again, keep your illiberal hands off my Constitution.
could do cellular and be affordable is a fairly recent thing (think mid 80s).
The cellular phones went from "incredibly wealthy" to "who needs a land-line?" in 15-20 years. Had that count started in the 1950-ies instead of 1980-ies, we would've had the current saturation in the 1970-ies. And it could've started even earlier — Tesla, for example, first floated the idea in 1926!
But instead we kept the AT&T's monopoly (notch another one for the beloved F.D.R.!) and directed our surplus collective scientific and otherwise creative energies into Moon landing...
"When AT&T wanted to start developing cellular in 1947, the FCC rejected the idea, believing that spectrum could be best used by other services that were not 'in the nature of convenience or luxury.'
Fortunately — for AT&T — they had a government-protected monopoly by then.
So they didn't insist — and no one else could, because there was no one one else... Sure, the devices back then would've been clunky and hardly "mobile". But they didn't have to be to be very useful — a wireless device could've solved the "last mile" problem for the remote dwellings, for example... But why would do that, if you have a monopoly, that subsidizes copper-wires for you instead?
I don't have proof that he has violated an emoluments clause, but it seems awfully likely.
There is no question of fact here — he really is getting money from abroad, because he ran an international business before becoming President. The remaining question is that of law — whether or not what he is doing is illegal. But even if it were, it would not have constituted treason.
No, kid. It is Snowden and Manning, who are bona-fide traitors. Secretary Clinton can be suspected of treason for making classified information too easily accessible to enemies. Her husband 20 years ago was paid by the Chinese — that's grounds for suspicions.
But there is no evidence of any treason committed by any Republican of note today. A hate-filled enemy of the Republic is you, pal...
We [only -mi] need guns around to fix the problems caused by having guns around!
Problems caused by having weapons around. Not guns — weapons. Even if we stipulate for a second, that you can successfully eliminate actual guns with laws, you'll still need some defense against people armed with hammers, clubs, knives, baseball bats, spears, etc. Will you you (seek to) outlaw all of those things too?
How about martial arts? A black belt can kill you with bare hands — unless you (or someone near you) can kill him first. Will you require a license (and make it increasingly difficult to obtain) to learn karate?
No way. The Bill of Rights protects arms-possession — keep your Illiberal hands off my Constitution!
It certainly was today! Had the shooter not been killed, he would've ruined the health of many more people than the five victims he did manage to score...
Slashdot Mirror
Distinction without difference... The sentiment expressed is still perfectly plausible:
This will allow people objecting to slaughter of actual animals to eat the necessary protein, which is good.
However, there is no mention of the "carbon footprint" of this method — how much electricity, labor, and materials is it going to take per pound? The (real) meat is wasteful, we are told. Will this be better?
The (female) driver did the most responsible thing both for herself and the society, but there will be idiots — not sure, whether the Anonymous above is one of them, or is sarcastic — who will call for boycotting Lyft for such cooperation with law-enforcement.
Because police are bad and we'd be better off without them, or something...
Not only do I have it, I already cited evidence of Hitler having put his "demands" for the government to take care of citizens into his Programme — national health was just one of the line-items.
Ah, so you are questioning his sincerity... I dunno — did he lie like "if you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your health insurance plan"?
But this is an entirely different topic — angelosphere insists, the healthcare system we used to have was "fascist", because people had to pay for themselves. I presented evidence, that his understanding of what "Fascist" means is entirely different from how the rest of the world defines it...
Dude, you can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts. I cited Princeton's Wordnet — an online dictionary. I'm still waiting for your citation of any resource, which defines "Fascism" as anything like "there are upper class/ruling class and one or several lower classes".
And I did ask for this definition twice already. This is the third time. And yet, you would not.
I cited the dictionary for my definition. You continue to invent your own. If redefining terms is your way of "winning" an argument, I am not interested.
Very, very true...
Good idea!
Please, cite the source(s) you found, that support this statement.
You can't. Because you are wrong — fantastically, spectacularly wrong. "Fascism" means just this:
See? Not a mention of "health care". But if we search the more elaborate Wikipedia article, we'll find, that it was the Fascists, who were worrying about "health of the nation". Hitler — the most famous among Fascists — even put that on his Programme
And, upon coming to power, followed up on that by expanding Bismark's "Reich Insurance Act" to cover all Germans at the government's expense (single-payer much?). It sucked — because folks (volks) started going to a doctor for the slightest of reasons, greatly increasing their workloads and lines. (And, of course, there were "Death Panels".)
Whether "Universal" — a dog-whistle for government-provided — health care is a good thing or not, it is not Fascist to be against it. Quite the opposite, indeed.
It is, actually, a horrible example. Because the Supreme Court Justice, who used the analogy to reaffirm a lower court's conviction of a man, who advocated against draft, regretted the decision later in his life. And, obviously, Americans do not think, advocating against a war is a crime.
Maybe, the differences in our history are due to us having the First Amendment? That as long as someone limits himself to words, we usually let them be; and any would-be dictator would need to pass a major — indeed unpassable — hurdle to subdue the country's media?
Are they a free nation, if they can't express certain thoughts as words (not deeds)?
Maybe, it is time for Microsoft to follow the NSA's recent example and just open-source their proprietary code...
Despite being alive and active during the period, I have not only never used the feature myself, but never heard of it being an option at all...
Thank you, Slashdot...
The bar is set rather low, however. After the most tech-savvy President ever effed-up his own promise to revamp the government, if Trump achieves something — anything — he'll still have done better than the predecessor. Not that you'd know about any such success — unless you are paying really close attention — from the established reporters.
Ever heard of "proving a negative"? For me to "prove" my "sweeping statement", I'd need to pore through all of the predictions ever made by Climate Science and show them as failed.
For you to prove me wrong, however, you just need to cite one or two successful ones.
Not entirely unlike the question of whether a particular person is married — to prove, that he is not, he needs to obtain an affidavit from every woman on Earth confirming, she is not his wife. To prove, that he is, it is enough to present one marriage certificate...
Once again, a "scientific" article carefully avoids making a scientific statement... Because such statements need to be falsifiable (among other requirements).
And I don't blame the authors — in the 4 decades of the "global warming" hysteria, plenty of predictions have been made. Those among them, that were falsifiable, ended up getting falsified indeed (any attempt to rebut this post must cite counter-examples or be returned unopened) — hence the switch from the firm "will" to the evasive "could". It still mongers the fears just as well, but without quite as much embarrassment, when the prediction fails...
The fear of commitment is like that of the insurance lizard: "15 minutes call could save you 15% or more".
I hereby denounce the article — and the /. write-up — as racist and Hispanophobic. A kind peaceful country like Mexico would never do such a thing — which is exactly why we need to attract more people from there to show us, how to live with little crime and no government abuses.
It is not enough for him to simply not give his own children a device. Instead, he is seeking to ban, what he does not like.
Oh, by the way, would somebody please think of the children?
Why comment, if you don't need to convince anyone — neither beyond reasonable doubt nor even on the preponderance of evidence?
Would someone think of all the people becoming unemployed due to this? That 1200 (wo)main-hours/year alone is a part-time job in itself, helping a poor family make ends meet. What will their children eat now, you traitor?.. Will the employee now have to find work in Walmart, or — as is more likely — in one of Trump's hotels?!
Eliminating government jobs lowers the salaries in the job market — as the laid off bureaucrats desperately seek new employment however inferior to the good solid jobs they held, have you thought of that? Of course, you didn't, you bible-trumping redneck!!..
Yes, you got it. In a free country, government must not be able to compel anybody to provide service to any one else. It can only be voluntary — motivated either by profit or sincere benevolence.
Of course, it would've been! When the cell-phones finally appeared, they were for "uber wealthy" as well. In 10 years they become affordable to middle class, in 20 became ubiquitous, and now they are handed-out to homeless
.
Without Capitalism to create, your beloved Socialism would not even know, what to mandate ...
Using knife as a weapon requires substantial skill — which a peaceful citizen is unlikely to have. Defending oneself or others with a gun is much easier — less time and effort is needed to obtain a reasonable proficiency. And easier still, if the firearm has a large magazine.
Yeah, because putting a knife-tip to his throat is so so different...
Once again, keep your illiberal hands off my Constitution.
It is always like that, is not it? Flush toilets were only accessible to the wealthy as well, when introduced in 1890-ies. In 1900-ies houses for "skilled workers" already had them...
The cellular phones went from "incredibly wealthy" to "who needs a land-line?" in 15-20 years. Had that count started in the 1950-ies instead of 1980-ies, we would've had the current saturation in the 1970-ies. And it could've started even earlier — Tesla, for example, first floated the idea in 1926!
But instead we kept the AT&T's monopoly (notch another one for the beloved F.D.R.!) and directed our surplus collective scientific and otherwise creative energies into Moon landing...
Fortunately — for AT&T — they had a government-protected monopoly by then.
So they didn't insist — and no one else could, because there was no one one else... Sure, the devices back then would've been clunky and hardly "mobile". But they didn't have to be to be very useful — a wireless device could've solved the "last mile" problem for the remote dwellings, for example... But why would do that, if you have a monopoly, that subsidizes copper-wires for you instead?
Whatever he wants, I want every and all suggestion of him being a "traitor" to be met with the proverbial: prove it, bitch.
I'll just leave this here.
There is no question of fact here — he really is getting money from abroad, because he ran an international business before becoming President. The remaining question is that of law — whether or not what he is doing is illegal. But even if it were, it would not have constituted treason.
But there is no evidence of any treason committed by any Republican of note today. A hate-filled enemy of the Republic is you, pal...
Problems caused by having weapons around. Not guns — weapons. Even if we stipulate for a second, that you can successfully eliminate actual guns with laws, you'll still need some defense against people armed with hammers, clubs, knives, baseball bats, spears, etc. Will you you (seek to) outlaw all of those things too?
How about martial arts? A black belt can kill you with bare hands — unless you (or someone near you) can kill him first. Will you require a license (and make it increasingly difficult to obtain) to learn karate?
No way. The Bill of Rights protects arms-possession — keep your Illiberal hands off my Constitution!
It certainly was today! Had the shooter not been killed, he would've ruined the health of many more people than the five victims he did manage to score...