Both he and McDonalds are pretty low on the order of blame I think. It Goes: Student - for taking a loan (we still should be held responsible for our actions, go to community college if you need lower loans) Government - for screwing up basic economics with their loan practices (can't get more than a $300 credit card, but $90,000 in loans? sure) Colleges - for raising prices just because they can and the huge overhead of staff... THEN McDonalds - for first turning what should be a high schooler job into a career, and not automating soon enough ShanghaiBill - for too much logic that it confuses people
I think the problem is they're not eating their own dog food. When Clinton was thought to be winning, Obama's administration was even saying we should accept the election results. Then when the DNC lost, turns out they only meant that if they won.
I think the numbers are still low, actually. Imagine if they included all kinds of racism, not just their kind of racism. Everyone has said something racist, therefore the number should be approaching 100%.
The problem is that saying something racist does not make someone a racist. It's actually pretty hard to prove someone is a racist, but much easier to accuse someone of it.
The phrase election hacking (meddling/w.e) is agenda driven, as it implies there was tampering with the election process or results. If this is election hacking, then so is recording a private conversation and releasing it to affect results. Just because it may have affected voters minds (because it informed them) doesn't mean we need to add negative connotations to them. Let's reserve that for tampering with the actual election process.
Like stacking the deck against popular candidates so that your candidate can win.
People tend to be scared of nuclear power. Really they're scared of the potential. But where I really feel bad for nuclear is, people look at the state of nuclear in our country and that's all they see it as. Dangerous, old, barely maintained, because we're scared in the first place. When you don't put a lot of money into something it's going to appear worse than it is. And so we'll spend less time maintaining. And so things will go wrong, people will go "I told you so" and we'll move on to open up more coal mining.
The benefit isn't supposed to be where the money comes from, but how the system is implemented. The idea is that we can save a lot of money in administration/streamlining the process (and for some people it's cutting out the misuse that goes unseen/unreported in an overly complicated system). At least some of the funding will come from folding all systems into each other. This system isn't going to be in addition to what we currently have, and you have to think about how money is currently distributed into hundreds of current different welfare systems/tax breaks/ etc.
Another launch facility that is pretty busy and the only one completely owned by NASA is at Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia. They're known for balloons and sounding rockets but they also have Antares launches. They're just not known for the large sexy launches like the other two.
Using the phone while driving is a problem that can only be solved by people no longer driving. Any other solutions either have a work-around or reduce the freedom of the driver by too much.
"election hacking" is a very disingenuous way to refer to what happened. Everyone is treating it like votes were fraudulent, when what really happened was fraudulent activity was exposed via hacking. This should actually be a good thing.
But the truth doesn't matter as much as the narrative.
If they were concerned about his bias towards women in the bedroom translating to outside the bedroom, then shouldn't we be worried about gay men? They clearly don't think women can do the job in the bedroom at all, so they probably don't even hire women right?
This is the epitome of news reporting these days. Step one: gather information to report on something you don't understand (e.g. how to do a manned flight mission) Step two: make assumptions about a detail you learned on a subject you don't understand (e.g. how to do a manned flight mission) Step three: complain about money spent (Bonus points for calling out NASA and how successful private industry is) Step four: compare the risk of two things that are just not relatable (the difference of risk between unmanned and manned flight is laughable)
Just to point out, there is a dedicated team at NASA focused on the safety of everyone involved. This is "overhead".
There are people for quality assurance. This is "overhead".
There are system engineers.
There are people who manage the process.
There are managers at the project level.
There are managers at the mission level.
Personnel managers.
Facility managers.
Security.
Independent reviews. Do you really want to be known as the one who cut one of these pieces when a rocket carrying people blows up? I'm not saying that the private industry can't handle this. I'm sure they will some day. But to assume they won't be exponentially more expensive???
Look people. Space X saved millions of dollars by borrowing decades old lessons and in some cases even algorithms and hardware from what NASA accomplished. Maybe private is the future, but how can we be so arrogant as to assume that our current success is unrelated to the hard work of people for the better part of a century?
Step five: inflammatory news piece to get your name out there.
And if you want to get a job at Google, then sure, do the side work. By why should someone have to do it to get any reasonable job? Isn't the point that appropriately motivated people not finding jobs is an issue?
I still haven't really heard a valid reason that everyone should go to college. When we graduate high school, we're supposed to be filled with tons of information in different areas of study, having done arithmetic, read Shakespeare, learned countries and history, etc. If everyone's supposed to go to college, then why do we have to get in debt to do it? And why does the Federal gov't. need to make money in the process? Not to mention the obvious motivations for privately owned institutions.
People out of college would be most likely to spend money and stimulate the economy. Why put the heavy debt burden on them? If we distributed it, it would make a lot more sense. I'm just saying, the only two logical paths seem to be, not everyone needs "College" (see: trade school), or everyone does so run it at a state level with some private options.
I think the valid argument is, why complete a degree if it doesn't help you stand out? If you should have to do internships and open source projects to stand out, why pay $100,000 and waste 4+ years for a degree.
It's not even close to equal. At least, not with the information we have. One was illegal and risked national security on a multitude of clearance levels, the other was boneheaded but dangerous for national security? Not likely.
I don't blame you for thinking it's the same. This is what happens when people who aren't trained in a subject report on it anyway.
Politico lost their integrity for me this year and as such I won't recognize any story as legitimate, especially one so obviously trying to start something where there is nothing. The story here isn't Twitter's denial, but another example of how Politico has an agenda. News shouldn't have an agenda.
3. Why are Trump supporters so nervous of investigations and recounts? It almost seems like they think there's something to hide.
If the result they got was the result they wanted, then they would be justifiably nervous to find it invalidated. Not to burst a bubble or anything, but this is not a way that Trump supporters are crazy, this is common sense. Hillary supporters tended to get nervous of investigations as well.
"usually White, Male and Lower to Lower Middle-Class, likes to indulge in now and again."
It's funny because those who aren't belligerent Americans are usually white, male, and there were no shortage of those who were lower-middle class that didn't vote for Trump. Your narrative is racist and sexist...but in a good way!
Slashdot Mirror
Both he and McDonalds are pretty low on the order of blame I think. ...
It Goes:
Student - for taking a loan (we still should be held responsible for our actions, go to community college if you need lower loans)
Government - for screwing up basic economics with their loan practices (can't get more than a $300 credit card, but $90,000 in loans? sure)
Colleges - for raising prices just because they can and the huge overhead of staff
THEN McDonalds - for first turning what should be a high schooler job into a career, and not automating soon enough
ShanghaiBill - for too much logic that it confuses people
The concern grew out of the aversion to accept the election results. Not out of any evidence of the collusion
I think the problem is they're not eating their own dog food. When Clinton was thought to be winning, Obama's administration was even saying we should accept the election results. Then when the DNC lost, turns out they only meant that if they won.
I think the numbers are still low, actually. Imagine if they included all kinds of racism, not just their kind of racism. Everyone has said something racist, therefore the number should be approaching 100%.
The problem is that saying something racist does not make someone a racist. It's actually pretty hard to prove someone is a racist, but much easier to accuse someone of it.
"For this act, she has been charged with violating the Espionage Act -- a World War I era law meant for spies -- "
You can't tell me there are no agendas in a comment like this. You can't just state something like that as if it's fact.
The phrase election hacking (meddling/w.e) is agenda driven, as it implies there was tampering with the election process or results. If this is election hacking, then so is recording a private conversation and releasing it to affect results. Just because it may have affected voters minds (because it informed them) doesn't mean we need to add negative connotations to them. Let's reserve that for tampering with the actual election process.
Like stacking the deck against popular candidates so that your candidate can win.
People tend to be scared of nuclear power. Really they're scared of the potential. But where I really feel bad for nuclear is, people look at the state of nuclear in our country and that's all they see it as. Dangerous, old, barely maintained, because we're scared in the first place. When you don't put a lot of money into something it's going to appear worse than it is. And so we'll spend less time maintaining. And so things will go wrong, people will go "I told you so" and we'll move on to open up more coal mining.
The benefit isn't supposed to be where the money comes from, but how the system is implemented. The idea is that we can save a lot of money in administration/streamlining the process (and for some people it's cutting out the misuse that goes unseen/unreported in an overly complicated system). At least some of the funding will come from folding all systems into each other. This system isn't going to be in addition to what we currently have, and you have to think about how money is currently distributed into hundreds of current different welfare systems/tax breaks/ etc.
Another launch facility that is pretty busy and the only one completely owned by NASA is at Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia. They're known for balloons and sounding rockets but they also have Antares launches. They're just not known for the large sexy launches like the other two.
Dear mods, you may disagree, but this is certainly not trolling. For shame.
Using the phone while driving is a problem that can only be solved by people no longer driving. Any other solutions either have a work-around or reduce the freedom of the driver by too much.
"election hacking" is a very disingenuous way to refer to what happened. Everyone is treating it like votes were fraudulent, when what really happened was fraudulent activity was exposed via hacking. This should actually be a good thing.
But the truth doesn't matter as much as the narrative.
If they were concerned about his bias towards women in the bedroom translating to outside the bedroom, then shouldn't we be worried about gay men? They clearly don't think women can do the job in the bedroom at all, so they probably don't even hire women right?
This is the epitome of news reporting these days.
Step one: gather information to report on something you don't understand (e.g. how to do a manned flight mission)
Step two: make assumptions about a detail you learned on a subject you don't understand (e.g. how to do a manned flight mission)
Step three: complain about money spent (Bonus points for calling out NASA and how successful private industry is)
Step four: compare the risk of two things that are just not relatable (the difference of risk between unmanned and manned flight is laughable)
Just to point out, there is a dedicated team at NASA focused on the safety of everyone involved. This is "overhead".
There are people for quality assurance. This is "overhead".
There are system engineers.
There are people who manage the process.
There are managers at the project level.
There are managers at the mission level.
Personnel managers.
Facility managers.
Security.
Independent reviews.
Do you really want to be known as the one who cut one of these pieces when a rocket carrying people blows up? I'm not saying that the private industry can't handle this. I'm sure they will some day. But to assume they won't be exponentially more expensive???
Look people. Space X saved millions of dollars by borrowing decades old lessons and in some cases even algorithms and hardware from what NASA accomplished. Maybe private is the future, but how can we be so arrogant as to assume that our current success is unrelated to the hard work of people for the better part of a century?
Step five: inflammatory news piece to get your name out there.
Careful... you'll find that slashdot has a heavy supply of deniers on this subject. Despite how easy it is to find reports on exactly what you said.
And if you want to get a job at Google, then sure, do the side work. By why should someone have to do it to get any reasonable job? Isn't the point that appropriately motivated people not finding jobs is an issue?
I still haven't really heard a valid reason that everyone should go to college. When we graduate high school, we're supposed to be filled with tons of information in different areas of study, having done arithmetic, read Shakespeare, learned countries and history, etc. If everyone's supposed to go to college, then why do we have to get in debt to do it? And why does the Federal gov't. need to make money in the process? Not to mention the obvious motivations for privately owned institutions.
People out of college would be most likely to spend money and stimulate the economy. Why put the heavy debt burden on them? If we distributed it, it would make a lot more sense. I'm just saying, the only two logical paths seem to be, not everyone needs "College" (see: trade school), or everyone does so run it at a state level with some private options.
disclaimer: I am not a communist.
I think the valid argument is, why complete a degree if it doesn't help you stand out? If you should have to do internships and open source projects to stand out, why pay $100,000 and waste 4+ years for a degree.
It's not even close to equal. At least, not with the information we have. One was illegal and risked national security on a multitude of clearance levels, the other was boneheaded but dangerous for national security? Not likely.
I don't blame you for thinking it's the same. This is what happens when people who aren't trained in a subject report on it anyway.
I like the thought behind this. However, I haven't owned a piece of code I've written since college. Not something I'd be proud of, anyway.
Non-Americans understand you believe that, but we also understand that you're wrong.
Good news everyone, gun control debate over!
Politico lost their integrity for me this year and as such I won't recognize any story as legitimate, especially one so obviously trying to start something where there is nothing. The story here isn't Twitter's denial, but another example of how Politico has an agenda. News shouldn't have an agenda.
3. Why are Trump supporters so nervous of investigations and recounts? It almost seems like they think there's something to hide.
If the result they got was the result they wanted, then they would be justifiably nervous to find it invalidated. Not to burst a bubble or anything, but this is not a way that Trump supporters are crazy, this is common sense. Hillary supporters tended to get nervous of investigations as well.
"usually White, Male and Lower to Lower Middle-Class, likes to indulge in now and again."
It's funny because those who aren't belligerent Americans are usually white, male, and there were no shortage of those who were lower-middle class that didn't vote for Trump. Your narrative is racist and sexist...but in a good way!
I like how providing evidence of wrongdoing is swaying an election. If U.S. media reported it would they have been swaying the election?