"First and foremost, not mentioning something is not the same as deliberately withholding or hiding information."
Correct but in this case, in my judgement, it most certainly is a deliberate call. Add to that more than one article and interview in which organizations say that they don't want to release information for just such a reason.
One of the latest (not CNN but an example of deliberate information withholding)
BART Withholding Surveillance Videos Of Crime To Avoid...
sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/.../bart-withholding-surveillance-videos-of-crime-to-avoid-...
Jul 9, 2017 - ALSO READ: BART Completes Installation Of Security Cameras On... at least one of the people arrested for the April 22 attack is 19 years old.
If the KKK was doing this - you know it would be on 24/7
Because this sort of behavior ought not be covered up by the mainstream media. Does it make sense to you to NOT report news because it may cast a negative light on a group of people?
If the KKK was throwing acid on black women's faces wouldn't you find it outrageous if it was not reported by the NYTs?
Wouldn't a rational person read / watch CNN, NYT, Breitbart, HuffPost, Reason, Zero Hedge, Mother Jones, Infowars, Final Call, etc...
Scary when Alex Jones says there were mass rapes and gropes on New Years in Germany and the NYTs (which you read daily) doesn't mention anything. You dismiss it as Alex Jones hysteria - and then months later it comes out that Alex Jones was right and the NYTs hid something horrible.
The moral of the story is read a little bit of everything and not get locked into a self-referencing echo chamber.
What are you a racist European with that "Lazy Fat fuck american" line?
Regarding obesity you do realize that the US is not in the TOP 10 list of the most obese countries, second countries like China are climbing up that "obesity" ladder real quick, and third obesity is measured by BMI which makes basically everyone who lifts weights "overweight".
Interesting issue. So if you sign with a head hunting firm the do-no-compete clause may prevent you from taking positions offered by one of their competitors?
I worked for company X doing UX and front-end development. (You have heard of the company.) My signing the non-compete clause did not stop me from getting my next job. In what circumstance would I be hurt from so signing?
I can see, perhaps, if the non-compete clause was written overly broad and that they went after me because I went into a similar field. But I understand why I couldn't be directly hired to work for a competitor. (example: work for Uber and go to Lyft). But not if you go from Uber to Amazon or to Goldman Sachs.
That's not the definition of non-compete. If you come up with a great idea and hire people to spec it out - BAs, UX, PMs, DBAs, developers, graphic designers you don't want them to walk with your idea.
It's not as if the BAs, developers, and designers can't go and work elsewhere - only that they cannot compete with you regarding your company plan. I've signed many non-compete contracts and it never stopped me from getting my next position.
Nice, (In case it matters I'm a big fan of the humanities but I don't think others ought to pay for one's joy of learning. Not to mention that it's gone off the rails in the last few years. We're seeing a (fairly) violent-free reenactment of the Red Guard / French Revolution. It's starting to eat itself from the inside.
It's difficult enough to prevent corruption with incentives in one country (The military Industrial Complex) but now we're supposed to competently manage it in India, Pakistan, China, Turkey and other places as well? Nah. Don't think so.
And, as a Libertarian - no I don't think that government incentives help in the long run; not unless you're a fan of crony capitalism in which case it works just fine.
Yeah. Well then I'm an idiot. Because giving money to India and China is not what I would call a good investment for anything but the politically connected few.
STEM is more than STEM degrees. A business person would be better off learning how to write macros than taking another literature course.
Having some idea about chemistry (not saying becoming a chemist) is a good thing. For instance we still need coal to make steel and it has nothing to do with generating heat.
In days gone by people needed to be able to read the weather, know different trees and plants. That is less important for daily survival - but math and tech skills. Now, that's more important than it used to be.
Knowing that 10^9*10^5 = 10^14 shouldn't be considered "brainy". It should be "duhh."
And yet there are attorneys and other reasonably educated people out there for whom that is "advanced" math.
And that's not to mention something as simple as logs.
Is knowing history important? Yes it is. Is Shakespeare important? Yes. But so are "basic" math skills - especially in a day and age when digital privacy is of great importance.
That's not the point. Income transfer is not the way to do it. It will not solve the problem. All it will do is enrich a politically connected few and impoverish millions of tax payers.
You want to do something. Waste less. Invest in companies that are working on the solution. Have college free for STEM studies but "Baskweaving as an Anti-Imperialist TransGender Affirmation" classes must be paid in full by the student.
So. Not wanting to give away billions of dollars of taxpayer money to China, India, Pakistan, Turkey and elsewhere is what makes Trump and his supporters anti-science?
But you give the gender studies, intersectionalist a$$holes a pass?
Complaining about tribalism - look to the universities humanities departments.first.
Chances are high the US will continue to meet the Paris Treaty standards without giving away billions in tax payer dollars.
Libertarians do not want a power vacuum. What we don't want is a continued usurpation of individual rights by governments.
If you decide whether or not to have relations with a person of the same gender does that lead to a power vacuum?
How about if you decide whether or not to ingest an intoxicating substance?
Or how about it you decide whether or not wear seat belts?
The US administration exchanged weapons to release hostages.
Oliver North was acting in his capacity in the Reagan Administration.
The discussion has nothing to do regarding policy - only the statement that Oliver North was a gun runner. And it started before that because you said that Second Amendment supporters were spurred on by Oliver North into thinking that having guns gave them a 9 foot dick (or something like that - not going to reread the thread).
The Obama administration gave money to Iran. Does that mean that the Obama administration supported and aided Iran and Hezbollah? If it turns out that the money is used poorly (by Iran) would you consider the underlings that facilitated the transfer of money be guilty of money laundering or illegal transfer of funds?
No. Of course not. Now apply the same reasoning to Oliver North.
Oh. I wasn't supporting the OP. I was pointing out to him that disruptions such as this have occurred numerous times.
I am slightly concerned about the disruption coming from automated cars, trucks and warehouses.
We have millions of taxi drivers, truck drivers, bus drivers, and stock clerks. These jobs will go the way of the horse shoe. Long term that's good. Short term. There may be issues.
World population may be on downward slope regarding births. It's still going upward as far as absolute numbers are concerned.
As far as the US is concerned - our population is exploding. At the current pace we'll be at about three quarters of a billion people at the turn of the century.
We were at
130 million in 1940 and
200 million in 1970 and
310 million in 2010
Form 1970 to 2010 (40 years) we had a 50% increase in population.
At that rate it will be at about 450 million in 2050 and 700 in 2090.
Slashdot Mirror
"First and foremost, not mentioning something is not the same as deliberately withholding or hiding information."
... ... at least one of the people arrested for the April 22 attack is 19 years old.
Correct but in this case, in my judgement, it most certainly is a deliberate call. Add to that more than one article and interview in which organizations say that they don't want to release information for just such a reason.
One of the latest (not CNN but an example of deliberate information withholding)
BART Withholding Surveillance Videos Of Crime To Avoid
sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/.../bart-withholding-surveillance-videos-of-crime-to-avoid-...
Jul 9, 2017 - ALSO READ: BART Completes Installation Of Security Cameras On
If the KKK was doing this - you know it would be on 24/7
I can see that it's a fine line. But where would you put it? It needs to be somewhere.
Because this sort of behavior ought not be covered up by the mainstream media. Does it make sense to you to NOT report news because it may cast a negative light on a group of people?
If the KKK was throwing acid on black women's faces wouldn't you find it outrageous if it was not reported by the NYTs?
Mass rapes and sexual assaults by muslim immigrants means nothing to you?
OK.
What would be several good left wing sources?
Where's that?
And is Breitbart worse than CNN?
Wouldn't a rational person read / watch CNN, NYT, Breitbart, HuffPost, Reason, Zero Hedge, Mother Jones, Infowars, Final Call, etc...
Scary when Alex Jones says there were mass rapes and gropes on New Years in Germany and the NYTs (which you read daily) doesn't mention anything. You dismiss it as Alex Jones hysteria - and then months later it comes out that Alex Jones was right and the NYTs hid something horrible.
The moral of the story is read a little bit of everything and not get locked into a self-referencing echo chamber.
Really? You're quickly losing the right of free speech. And blasphemy laws are just around the corner.
Are you going to stand up for Freedom of Speech? or quietly acquiesce to the new norm?
The new coal mines are for the manufacture of steel. Please tell me how to make steel without coal.
What are you a racist European with that "Lazy Fat fuck american" line?
Regarding obesity you do realize that the US is not in the TOP 10 list of the most obese countries, second countries like China are climbing up that "obesity" ladder real quick, and third obesity is measured by BMI which makes basically everyone who lifts weights "overweight".
Bus drivers in NYC make $75,000 + not counting benefits.
awesome. Wish I had mod points.
Interesting issue. So if you sign with a head hunting firm the do-no-compete clause may prevent you from taking positions offered by one of their competitors?
Now. That is truly f**ked up.
How, would I, be inconvenienced by a non-compete?
I'm asking. Not trolling.
I worked for company X doing UX and front-end development. (You have heard of the company.) My signing the non-compete clause did not stop me from getting my next job. In what circumstance would I be hurt from so signing?
I can see, perhaps, if the non-compete clause was written overly broad and that they went after me because I went into a similar field. But I understand why I couldn't be directly hired to work for a competitor. (example: work for Uber and go to Lyft). But not if you go from Uber to Amazon or to Goldman Sachs.
That's not the definition of non-compete. If you come up with a great idea and hire people to spec it out - BAs, UX, PMs, DBAs, developers, graphic designers you don't want them to walk with your idea.
It's not as if the BAs, developers, and designers can't go and work elsewhere - only that they cannot compete with you regarding your company plan. I've signed many non-compete contracts and it never stopped me from getting my next position.
:)
Nice, (In case it matters I'm a big fan of the humanities but I don't think others ought to pay for one's joy of learning. Not to mention that it's gone off the rails in the last few years. We're seeing a (fairly) violent-free reenactment of the Red Guard / French Revolution. It's starting to eat itself from the inside.
It's difficult enough to prevent corruption with incentives in one country (The military Industrial Complex) but now we're supposed to competently manage it in India, Pakistan, China, Turkey and other places as well? Nah. Don't think so.
And, as a Libertarian - no I don't think that government incentives help in the long run; not unless you're a fan of crony capitalism in which case it works just fine.
Yeah. Well then I'm an idiot. Because giving money to India and China is not what I would call a good investment for anything but the politically connected few.
But then. I'm an idiot so what do I know.
True.
STEM is more than STEM degrees. A business person would be better off learning how to write macros than taking another literature course.
Having some idea about chemistry (not saying becoming a chemist) is a good thing. For instance we still need coal to make steel and it has nothing to do with generating heat.
In days gone by people needed to be able to read the weather, know different trees and plants. That is less important for daily survival - but math and tech skills. Now, that's more important than it used to be.
Knowing that 10^9*10^5 = 10^14 shouldn't be considered "brainy". It should be "duhh."
And yet there are attorneys and other reasonably educated people out there for whom that is "advanced" math.
And that's not to mention something as simple as logs.
Is knowing history important? Yes it is. Is Shakespeare important? Yes. But so are "basic" math skills - especially in a day and age when digital privacy is of great importance.
That's not the point. Income transfer is not the way to do it. It will not solve the problem. All it will do is enrich a politically connected few and impoverish millions of tax payers.
You want to do something. Waste less. Invest in companies that are working on the solution. Have college free for STEM studies but "Baskweaving as an Anti-Imperialist TransGender Affirmation" classes must be paid in full by the student.
So. Not wanting to give away billions of dollars of taxpayer money to China, India, Pakistan, Turkey and elsewhere is what makes Trump and his supporters anti-science?
But you give the gender studies, intersectionalist a$$holes a pass?
Complaining about tribalism - look to the universities humanities departments.first.
Chances are high the US will continue to meet the Paris Treaty standards without giving away billions in tax payer dollars.
What dream is that?
Barely getting by on handouts? No thanks.
For as long as we're limited to this planet we need less people, not more.
Libertarians do not want a power vacuum. What we don't want is a continued usurpation of individual rights by governments.
If you decide whether or not to have relations with a person of the same gender does that lead to a power vacuum?
How about if you decide whether or not to ingest an intoxicating substance?
Or how about it you decide whether or not wear seat belts?
Do you even read the posts?
The US administration exchanged weapons to release hostages.
Oliver North was acting in his capacity in the Reagan Administration.
The discussion has nothing to do regarding policy - only the statement that Oliver North was a gun runner. And it started before that because you said that Second Amendment supporters were spurred on by Oliver North into thinking that having guns gave them a 9 foot dick (or something like that - not going to reread the thread).
The Obama administration gave money to Iran. Does that mean that the Obama administration supported and aided Iran and Hezbollah? If it turns out that the money is used poorly (by Iran) would you consider the underlings that facilitated the transfer of money be guilty of money laundering or illegal transfer of funds?
No. Of course not. Now apply the same reasoning to Oliver North.
Oh. I wasn't supporting the OP. I was pointing out to him that disruptions such as this have occurred numerous times.
I am slightly concerned about the disruption coming from automated cars, trucks and warehouses.
We have millions of taxi drivers, truck drivers, bus drivers, and stock clerks. These jobs will go the way of the horse shoe. Long term that's good. Short term. There may be issues.
World population may be on downward slope regarding births. It's still going upward as far as absolute numbers are concerned.
As far as the US is concerned - our population is exploding. At the current pace we'll be at about three quarters of a billion people at the turn of the century.
We were at
130 million in 1940 and
200 million in 1970 and
310 million in 2010
Form 1970 to 2010 (40 years) we had a 50% increase in population.
At that rate it will be at about 450 million in 2050 and 700 in 2090.