Strugatsky Brothers remain my favorite SciFi authors, and the Inhabited Island is a very good movie based on one of their books. Amazon comments complain about the English subtitles though...
Other than that, the "Independence Day" remains perfectly awesome, even if certain folks should have complained about abuse of a POW by an American Marine sympathetically portrayed in the movie as well as the Earth's celebrations of the genocide just completed by the US. In real life there would've been loud calls for impeachment and war-crimes trial of the President, who authorized it, and the two "heroes", who perpetrated it...
"Alien" series was good, but I don't like horror-movies as a genre...
Too bad, we are yet to see a good adaptation of a Heinlein's or Azimov's book...
Why? Such capricious exemptions is the reason, our current tax-code does not fit into an oversized book case.
Not only is there no logical explanation for exempting food (but not clothes?), now you'll need to define "food". And then someone will say, screw the billionaires, let's tax caviar — even though it is "food". Then someone else will argue for exempting gardening, fishing and hunting equipment — but only if the buyer plans to engage in the activity for good, not entertainment. Then the IRS will conduct sting-operations to catch evaders, who bought a rifle without the sales tax, but left a shot deer's carcass in the woods. And so on...
No. Sales tax and flattax on everyone. And the vast majority of accountants and tax-lawyers can start doing something more productive...
Yep. Dismissing the opponent as "crazy" and other ad hominem attacks is a sure sign of not having rational arguments. Normally people just do not reply in such situation — unless they are enraged and feel compelled to type something up, such to denounce the opponent's person, rather than his argument.
lefty WaPo of all places in fact say the exact opposite
It does not. Quote:
I’ve long argued that Obama’s most ardent supporters should not ascribe racial motives to the president’s critics when none exist.
Why would the article's author have "long argued" against a phenomenon, if the phenomenon didn't exist — or was rare? Of course, it existed — and was awfully common-spread. And the same exact verbiage would've gotten recycled for eight more years with "racism" replaced by "sexism". We all know it, including yourself — the sooner you come out of your denial, the better.
And er you don't really understand sarcasm that well. Or logical fallacies.
Your impotence is showing once again. We are done.
Quite possibly, American, British and others are either more ethical or better regulated. Or that Al Jazeera's investigation is hardly complete and they rushed to publish the results before investigating more.
Your sig is wonderful evidence of your batshittyness.
After eight years of being racist, dissent is patriotic once again.
No. That it drives you into impotent rage is a sign, that works as intended... For eight years dissent was racist — it was such a problem, even Obama's fans acknowledged it.
It is now patriotic again — a very welcome development. And to think. we very nearly escaped dissent becoming sexist for eight more years instead...
My signature is short, painfully sarcastic, and to the point. Meanwhile, yours:
Why is there a strong correlation between Trump fans, EM drive believers and people who think SJWs are actually a thing?
is unwieldy, grammatically incorrect, and an example of Complex Question Fallacy. You've picked a wrong fight, kid...
In only a couple of decades we went from wrong, to evil, to crazy... How long before anybody disagreeing with Illiberals is declared dangerous to society (and, charitably, to themselves too) and becomes subject to mandatory psychiatric treatment?
Sure, we all hate these assholes cold-calling us with "valuable offers", but they aren't alone with bad security practices — nor are they especially bad. I suppose, one can argue, that people with manifestly flawed ethics are more likely to have flaws in other aspects of their personalities — such as in whatever is required to take care of your data. But, without concrete statistics of data-leakage by industry, the exact opposite can be argued as we well — people with one sensory organ (such as eyes) disabled, often developed heightened sensitivity in another (such as hearing).
Simply put, do not give out your information to anyone if you can avoid it — and be sure to make an abhorrently impolite stink every time you can not avoid it.
Doctors' offices, for example, ask for a lot of information they don't really need — I always leave most entries blank in the forms, and wait for the receptionist to point at those, which are really necessary.
Anyway, on to the meat: Discrimination isn't a thought crime. It's an actual crime.
False dichotomy. It is a thought-crime because the very same actions may or may not be criminal depending on the thoughts in one's head. It is also an "actual" crime — for the last 50 years or so — and I argue, that it should not be. For reasons identical to those put forth in favor of Freedom of Speech:
"It is so difficult to draw a clear line of separation between the abuse and the wholesome use of the press, that as yet we have found it better to trust the public judgment, rather than the magistrate, with the discrimination between truth and falsehood. And hitherto the public judgment has performed that office with wonderful correctness." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Pictet, 1803. ME 10:356
Because discerning the exact motivations of the suspect employer — racism, sexism, or sincere conviction, that the ill-affected employee is underperforming — with any certainty is so difficult, it is best left unprosecuted. But the current situation is worse — "discrimination" is prosecuted selectively! Colleges, for example, loath being seen discriminating against Blacks, but having higher entry-requirements for Asians is considered acceptable.
It's a crime because of the principle that all humans are human.
This meaningless truism explains nothing.
You've thrown yourself into Alister Crowley's "Do what thou wilt" form of government.
Your argument conflates government and private discrimination and is therefore invalid. I said nothing about government — which must not discriminate indeed. But is Google a part of government? No, it is not — it should therefore be legal for them to discriminate based on whatever characteristics they wish.
Should you wish to reply, be sure to answer the following question:
Name an argument, which would justify prosecuting a business owner for turning down 4 Blacks and hiring a White, that could not be used to call for prosecuting a girl for turning down 4 Black suitors and going out with an Asian.
Everything you listed so far can be used to call for prosecution of both...
If you don't like American society then just say so.
Whether Google really is violating the law, the prosecution itself is a convenient means of suppressing opposition. Google was"with her"all the way. Could this be a payback from the Trump's Administration?
Whatever the answers to these questions, I'd rather they not be asked at all — there should be no thoughtcrimes for the government to prosecute. At all.
Discrimination may be stupid and unethical, but it should not be illegal.
I can't even be bothered to quote all this drivel. What are you babbling about?
Please, don't hate, asshole.
No, this is gouging, plain and simple.
No, it is not. If not for the "gougers", the drugs would not have been available. At all. Zilch. Nada. You are fully entitled to boycotting them and pretending, their product does not exist. Please, do. The sooner you pass away, the better for all concerned — including, nay beginning with (!), your closest relatives.
Perhaps the government ought to produce those orphaned drugs themselves
Could you cite a few examples of where the government proved to be more efficient at producing a product or delivering a service, than a privately-run firm?
drug companies that are charging prohibitive amounts to citizens
The hate towards the drug companies is misplaced — and whether they are sinfully greedy or not is irrelevant. The simple fact is, had they not existed, the drugs would not have existed — unavailable at any price.
If only K of something — anything, from LeBron's sneakers to life-saving medicines — is available despite there being N people desiring it, then whichever way you pick to distribute it:
Lottery
Charge the highest price at which there are still willing buyers
Minorities first
Government employees first
Celebrities first
...
N-K people will still not receive it — and no amount of "outrage" will help.
The only hope for the rest is that the second method — charging whatever the market will bear — will be chosen, because then the profits (however "obscene") may be used to produce more of the stuff... Incidentally, Capitalism is all about the second method and that is why we tend to enjoy an abundance of most things — to the point, where some people are already talking about "post-scarcity".
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying you whining little cheerleader
You, dufus, attempted to contrast "State" (government) vs. "Kingdom" or "Oligarchy" — not realizing, Monarchy et. al are still governments. That's why I closed with the (perfectly complete) sentence: "This is not even wrong".
The thread was about terrorism. Both are terrorists.
Actually, that's debatable — but irrelevant. We were discussing, whether the Irish terrorists were motivated by religion or other sentiment(s).
Out of the blue you switch the topic to Jews, claiming, incorrectly, that they were the first terrorists.
Even stipulating for a second, that targeting an occupier's administration is still terrorism, there certainly have been acts of terrorism before that. Your claim, that the Jews, somehow, were the first, was wrong. False. Liar, liar, pants on fire. Four Pinocchios. Full Stop.
And, of course, it was and remains off-topic. We are done here.
you're wrong because the IRA advertised religious, not nationalist rhetoric
Now you are talking — back on topic again. Of course, you offer no citations and I'm already too tired of your lies, exaggerations, and topic-switching attempts. As I said, we are done here...
Look up "Pinkerton" to remind yourself why it's still a relevant comparison and what governments are protecting us from in the workplace. “You could not run a coal company without machine guns"
Machine guns are still required — only it is the government's police, not "Pinkerton", that use them. And it is far from obvious, this is an improvement — for any abuse by the Pinkerton employees, a BLM agitator could list 5 abuses by cops (before realizing, you and him are on the same Socialist side of the greater debate).
Either way, be it the warlords of the dark ages or armed enforcers of the modernity, the distinct attribute is violence. And Uber manifestly does not use it — nor is it even alleged to use it.
I do indeed prefer a State to a Kingdom or Oligarchy.
You give the government license to weigh in on a contract as soon as you rely on the courts to help you enforce it.
Frankly, I don't see, how the two things are related in the slightest. A judge may think a contract was unfair (or stupid), but it is still valid — as long as entered into willingly and in good faith by both sides...
Since government is what we have when a lot of people banded together to avoid being the prey of petty warlords
Warlords relied on violence — living (and dying) by the proverbial sword.
it's illegal to sell yourself into slavery
No, it is not, actually. What is illegal is to hold anyone as slave (except as punishment for a crime) — contract or not. But Uber is not doing anything of the kind, the contracts are "at will", breakable by either side. No, what these drivers now want — with encouragement of anti-Uber forces (who choose to ignore Lyft doing the same things), is to go back — and be treated as employees to be entitled to various benefits. Retroactively.
dealing with lesser exploitation is also a core business of a government
No, it is not. There is nothing wrong with "exploitation" per se — indeed, every employee is being "exploited".
Of course you knew that "mi"
I knew, that Statists like yourself — hold these lies to be self-evident, yes. And called them out on it...
A committee of MPs has lambasted Uber's contracts with drivers as "gibberish" and "almost unintelligible" as the company attempts to ensure its drivers remain self-employed.
WTF is it any concern of the government, what sort of contract free citizens of able body and sound mind enter into with each other?
"egregious clause" which attempted to prevent people challenging their "self-employed" designation
Ah, I get it. After willingly entering into the contract, some drivers are tempted to demand more, and the politicians — always greedy for more taxe... , err, wealth to spread around — are happy to "fight" for them...
Pay no attention to the green men from taxi companies either...
What's hilarious is that Uber is hiring these Left wing celebrities to wage its PR war — Obama's hacks and now Adriana Huffington... Just imagine, what these people would have been saying on the matter, if they weren't bought and paid for by Uber already...
the Irish terrorists were motivated by the sense of nationalism, not religion.
With the Irish those are two sides of the same coin. The Northern Irish at least.
And yet, it is not their religion, that motivates them — indeed, fellow Catholics in France, Spain, and Italy neither sympathize with nor sponsor the activity. On contrast, even the areligious Irish sympathize with the struggle — because it is motivated by nationalism, not religion.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha! Slashdot is a wrong web-site to complain about such things — just change your outdated business model!
As we've established many years ago (remember Napster vs. Metallica?), information:
The guy has nothing to complain about — all the information he had on his site remains there...
Strugatsky Brothers remain my favorite SciFi authors, and the Inhabited Island is a very good movie based on one of their books. Amazon comments complain about the English subtitles though...
Other than that, the "Independence Day" remains perfectly awesome, even if certain folks should have complained about abuse of a POW by an American Marine sympathetically portrayed in the movie as well as the Earth's celebrations of the genocide just completed by the US. In real life there would've been loud calls for impeachment and war-crimes trial of the President, who authorized it, and the two "heroes", who perpetrated it...
"Alien" series was good, but I don't like horror-movies as a genre...
Too bad, we are yet to see a good adaptation of a Heinlein's or Azimov's book...
I'm sorry, but that's a rather discredited organization.
No proof, in other words. As suspected...
Good or bad, what proof is there, this is indeed "human-caused"?
Which part is supposed to be "embarrassing"? That they wish to focus on wealthy customers? Should Porsche be embarrassed too?
This part is outright praise-worthy...
So, IPv6 will become a tool of oppression?
Why? Such capricious exemptions is the reason, our current tax-code does not fit into an oversized book case.
Not only is there no logical explanation for exempting food (but not clothes?), now you'll need to define "food". And then someone will say, screw the billionaires, let's tax caviar — even though it is "food". Then someone else will argue for exempting gardening, fishing and hunting equipment — but only if the buyer plans to engage in the activity for good, not entertainment. Then the IRS will conduct sting-operations to catch evaders, who bought a rifle without the sales tax, but left a shot deer's carcass in the woods. And so on...
No. Sales tax and flat tax on everyone. And the vast majority of accountants and tax-lawyers can start doing something more productive...
None of the above. Remember the previous bright idea of this kind — municipal WiFi?
One only needs to take an Amtrak train trying to use their "free WiFi" to get a feeling, what government-provided Internet will be:
It is not a competition, if one of the competitors is the City Hall. It is a monopoly.
The dearth of decent options is due to the local governments. They must not be rewarded for it...
Yep. Dismissing the opponent as "crazy" and other ad hominem attacks is a sure sign of not having rational arguments. Normally people just do not reply in such situation — unless they are enraged and feel compelled to type something up, such to denounce the opponent's person, rather than his argument.
It does not. Quote:
Why would the article's author have "long argued" against a phenomenon, if the phenomenon didn't exist — or was rare? Of course, it existed — and was awfully common-spread. And the same exact verbiage would've gotten recycled for eight more years with "racism" replaced by "sexism". We all know it, including yourself — the sooner you come out of your denial, the better.
Your impotence is showing once again. We are done.
Quite possibly, American, British and others are either more ethical or better regulated. Or that Al Jazeera's investigation is hardly complete and they rushed to publish the results before investigating more.
No. That it drives you into impotent rage is a sign, that works as intended... For eight years dissent was racist — it was such a problem, even Obama's fans acknowledged it.
It is now patriotic again — a very welcome development. And to think. we very nearly escaped dissent becoming sexist for eight more years instead...
My signature is short, painfully sarcastic, and to the point. Meanwhile, yours:
is unwieldy, grammatically incorrect, and an example of Complex Question Fallacy. You've picked a wrong fight, kid...
In only a couple of decades we went from wrong, to evil, to crazy... How long before anybody disagreeing with Illiberals is declared dangerous to society (and, charitably, to themselves too) and becomes subject to mandatory psychiatric treatment?
Sure, we all hate these assholes cold-calling us with "valuable offers", but they aren't alone with bad security practices — nor are they especially bad. I suppose, one can argue, that people with manifestly flawed ethics are more likely to have flaws in other aspects of their personalities — such as in whatever is required to take care of your data. But, without concrete statistics of data-leakage by industry, the exact opposite can be argued as we well — people with one sensory organ (such as eyes) disabled, often developed heightened sensitivity in another (such as hearing).
Simply put, do not give out your information to anyone if you can avoid it — and be sure to make an abhorrently impolite stink every time you can not avoid it.
Doctors' offices, for example, ask for a lot of information they don't really need — I always leave most entries blank in the forms, and wait for the receptionist to point at those, which are really necessary.
False dichotomy. It is a thought-crime because the very same actions may or may not be criminal depending on the thoughts in one's head. It is also an "actual" crime — for the last 50 years or so — and I argue, that it should not be. For reasons identical to those put forth in favor of Freedom of Speech:
Because discerning the exact motivations of the suspect employer — racism, sexism, or sincere conviction, that the ill-affected employee is underperforming — with any certainty is so difficult, it is best left unprosecuted. But the current situation is worse — "discrimination" is prosecuted selectively! Colleges, for example, loath being seen discriminating against Blacks, but having higher entry-requirements for Asians is considered acceptable.
This meaningless truism explains nothing.
Your argument conflates government and private discrimination and is therefore invalid. I said nothing about government — which must not discriminate indeed. But is Google a part of government? No, it is not — it should therefore be legal for them to discriminate based on whatever characteristics they wish.
Should you wish to reply, be sure to answer the following question:
Everything you listed so far can be used to call for prosecution of both...
Is this a new way of asking, why I hate America?
Whether Google really is violating the law, the prosecution itself is a convenient means of suppressing opposition. Google was "with her" all the way. Could this be a payback from the Trump's Administration?
Or, the other way around, has the previous Administration sat on it because Google was all for the Democratics? Worse, maybe, Google's unprecedented cooperation was due to the subtle blackmail in the first place?
Whatever the answers to these questions, I'd rather they not be asked at all — there should be no thoughtcrimes for the government to prosecute. At all.
Discrimination may be stupid and unethical, but it should not be illegal.
Please, don't hate, asshole.
No, it is not. If not for the "gougers", the drugs would not have been available. At all. Zilch. Nada. You are fully entitled to boycotting them and pretending, their product does not exist. Please, do. The sooner you pass away, the better for all concerned — including, nay beginning with (!), your closest relatives.
Could you cite a few examples of where the government proved to be more efficient at producing a product or delivering a service, than a privately-run firm?
The hate towards the drug companies is misplaced — and whether they are sinfully greedy or not is irrelevant. The simple fact is, had they not existed, the drugs would not have existed — unavailable at any price.
If only K of something — anything, from LeBron's sneakers to life-saving medicines — is available despite there being N people desiring it, then whichever way you pick to distribute it:
N-K people will still not receive it — and no amount of "outrage" will help.
The only hope for the rest is that the second method — charging whatever the market will bear — will be chosen, because then the profits (however "obscene") may be used to produce more of the stuff... Incidentally, Capitalism is all about the second method and that is why we tend to enjoy an abundance of most things — to the point, where some people are already talking about "post-scarcity".
Of course, it is! It has a subject ("This") and a verb ("is").
You, dufus, attempted to contrast "State" (government) vs. "Kingdom" or "Oligarchy" — not realizing, Monarchy et. al are still governments. That's why I closed with the (perfectly complete) sentence: "This is not even wrong".
Actually, that's debatable — but irrelevant. We were discussing, whether the Irish terrorists were motivated by religion or other sentiment(s).
Out of the blue you switch the topic to Jews, claiming, incorrectly, that they were the first terrorists.
Even stipulating for a second, that targeting an occupier's administration is still terrorism, there certainly have been acts of terrorism before that. Your claim, that the Jews, somehow, were the first, was wrong. False. Liar, liar, pants on fire. Four Pinocchios. Full Stop.
And, of course, it was and remains off-topic. We are done here.
Scores of people remain in prison — kept there on pain of violents.
Now you are talking — back on topic again. Of course, you offer no citations and I'm already too tired of your lies, exaggerations, and topic-switching attempts. As I said, we are done here...
Machine guns are still required — only it is the government's police, not "Pinkerton", that use them. And it is far from obvious, this is an improvement — for any abuse by the Pinkerton employees, a BLM agitator could list 5 abuses by cops (before realizing, you and him are on the same Socialist side of the greater debate).
Either way, be it the warlords of the dark ages or armed enforcers of the modernity, the distinct attribute is violence. And Uber manifestly does not use it — nor is it even alleged to use it.
?? This is not even wrong...
Frankly, I don't see, how the two things are related in the slightest. A judge may think a contract was unfair (or stupid), but it is still valid — as long as entered into willingly and in good faith by both sides...
Said someone, who dragged Jews into a thread about Northern Ireland...
Try it in Syria, post the results (hint — invest in a quality gas-mask before going there).
It was not "a little unfair" — it was utterly bogus. Right or wrong, it was most certainly not a "troll".
Warlords relied on violence — living (and dying) by the proverbial sword.
No, it is not, actually. What is illegal is to hold anyone as slave (except as punishment for a crime) — contract or not. But Uber is not doing anything of the kind, the contracts are "at will", breakable by either side. No, what these drivers now want — with encouragement of anti-Uber forces (who choose to ignore Lyft doing the same things), is to go back — and be treated as employees to be entitled to various benefits. Retroactively.
No, it is not. There is nothing wrong with "exploitation" per se — indeed, every employee is being "exploited".
I knew, that Statists like yourself — hold these lies to be self-evident, yes. And called them out on it...
WTF is it any concern of the government, what sort of contract free citizens of able body and sound mind enter into with each other?
Ah, I get it. After willingly entering into the contract, some drivers are tempted to demand more, and the politicians — always greedy for more taxe... , err, wealth to spread around — are happy to "fight" for them...
Pay no attention to the green men from taxi companies either...
What's hilarious is that Uber is hiring these Left wing celebrities to wage its PR war — Obama's hacks and now Adriana Huffington... Just imagine, what these people would have been saying on the matter, if they weren't bought and paid for by Uber already...
the Irish terrorists were motivated by the sense of nationalism, not religion.
With the Irish those are two sides of the same coin. The Northern Irish at least.
And yet, it is not their religion, that motivates them — indeed, fellow Catholics in France, Spain, and Italy neither sympathize with nor sponsor the activity. On contrast, even the areligious Irish sympathize with the struggle — because it is motivated by nationalism, not religion.