At this point, even if Trump won, Hillary would just decapitate him live during his commencement speech and put on his head like a hat, but not be charged anything for the action.
Indeed, the secret Service would likely honour her decapitation proficiency with a great many discharges, which would render legal charges unnecessary... Not that that would stop the House Republicans from demanding at least 5 separate public inquiries into her actions.
Again, most likely because she was the Secretary of State. Has any Secretary of State in the history of the United States ever been jailed for mishandling secret documents?
Then vote for Gary Johnson. I know he's a (*gasp*) Libertarian. But, hell, it's time to overlook any of the relatively small issues that you may have with (*gasp*) Libertarians and start promoting someone who is not Hillary or Trump. He's the only candidate with even a small chance to save this election for everybody.
Are you aware that the only reason you gave to vote for Gary Johnson is that he's not Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Despite their respective flaws, there are actually a lot of people who are worse than both of them.
Indeed, the "people who've been caught doing exactly the same thing as she did" were Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell and I haven't heard of anyone asking for them to prosecuted for these "crimes".
I once hired for a job that required a security clearance and some deep TCP/IP packet skills. In a year I found -zero- qualified applicants at any price. Hundreds of applicants. Three folks who might have had the necessary TCP/IP skill but no clearance. Plenty with clearances but not the skill. One guy I hired for a different position which didn't require the depth of TCP/IP skill. But none for the job I needed to fill.
This sounds very similar to the common American hiring problem: "We want to hire people are already doing the exact job we want to hire for, but we want to pay them below market rates and we don't understand why only the worst applicants are willing to accept a pay cut to come work for us."
While I also believe that many of these agencies need to be scaled back, yours is an extremely simplistic view that ignores most of what these agencies actually do.
Indeed, he reminds me of some famous words:
For every problem, there is a solution which is simple, obvious and wrong.
Also, every time you leave a job, they can contact you and see if you want to report any pirate activity at your former place of work and receive a share of any collected fines... It's genius!
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Donald Trump, presidential announcement speech, June 16, 2015
“What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”
Donald Trump, statement about his June 16 comments, July 6, 2015
So Trump didn't call Mexican immigrants "murderers" but he definitely said they rapists at least twice. On the one hand the evidence indicates that excluding the crime of illegal immigration, first generation immigrants have actually commit fewer crimes per capita than native born Americans. On the other the hand, the implied statement that the Mexican government is sending criminals to the U.S. instead of putting them in jail, seems to be the real bat-shit crazy part of his statements. In a broader context, these comments display blatant xenophobia and encourage intolerance of immigration and a baseless fear of immigrants.
I suspect these are just bullshit things that Trump says to drum up far right votes, but I also think it's more than a little evil to encourage and validate the crazies for your own personal benefit.
For the lazy, there is no real difference between a stipend and welfare. You have this strange romanticized notion of the poor.
The difference isn't for the lazy, they're already on welfare and not doing anything, so things will continue for them exactly as they are now. The difference is for the somewhat smart people who realize that if their welfare payments are going to be reduced by the amount that they earn from a job, then they have no incentive to work any job that doesn't pay significantly more than welfare. The problem is that they are probably unqualified to hold any job that pays enough to actually give them an incentive to work. It's the welfare trap. The UBI, because it is not clawed back by earned wages lowers the barrier to entry for people who want to work. Additionally, it allows the elimination of minimum wage laws because the UBI can be the minimum wage. Employers would be free to pay their employees nothing, assuming they can convince the employees that it's worthwhile for them to work for nothing. In some cases hourly wages will drop because minimum wage laws have been pushing them up, in some cases hourly wages will go up because the job is unpleasant and only people desperate for a job would work at the current rate.
The difference will also be for the middle class people who are laid off or otherwise lose a job, they would have a hassle free minimum amount of money they would earn while unemployed. It will stretch out their savings and hopefully when another recession like 2008 comes along, there will be fewer formerly middle-class people who end up homeless.
It looks like the Adidas CEO thinks the robots are cheaper than hiring at $1 per hour*.
* I'm guessing at the actual wages, apparently $0.50 is average for shoe making work in Indonesia, another article cites up to $160 a month (including overtime) for an Adidas factory in Cambodia.
But the low-paid workers in China had a job. Now they don't.
Actually they still do. They won't have a job some time in the future, if the robotic factory works out.
Hooray for the SJW campaign against exploiting low-paid workers! No longer are those poor souls being exploited! Rejoice that the SJW elite's enlightened ways have scored a victory against capitalist exploitation of developing countries!
The has nothing to do with American politics, and everything to do with Asia's economic development. Companies like Adidas are simply running out of extremely low pay, exploitable workforces. The children of the people who have been working in sneaker sweatshops for the past 20 years are getting educations and aspiring to better jobs, better pay and better lives. Laying this at the feet of SJWs just makes you look unhinged, because this is one of the expected results of the exploitation of low wage jurisdictions; eventually, wages rise to an equivalent level to every other jurisdiction.
So how are those people expected to feed themselves and their families now?
Here's a hint: wages are rising because employers are competing for workers, so they'll probably go work somewhere else, most likely at similar wages, unless the jobs removed when Adidas shut down it's factories represent a large enough percentage of total employment to have a significant impact on the labour market.
True, but there is something he needs besides money to do that, a large number of people with valid claims against Gawker. If these were frivolous lawsuits and people were losing, leaving Gawker to try to recoup legal fees from those who don't have them you might have an argument. But they aren't, these people have valid cases and are winning those cases.
Actually, that's doesn't seem to be an accurate summary. Thiel seems to be funding anyone who's case seems likely to cost Gawker significant money, that's why he's also funding a guy who suing them for saying he didn't invent email. So yes, he's funded at least one valid lawsuit, and would probably fund others if he could find them, but it seems he's also funding frivolous law suits that will likely harm Gawker.
There isn't anything un-libertarian about suing someone for libel/slander/defamation.
Except, it wasn't libel, slander or defamation. It was a tape of Hogan having an extra-marital affair, and as long as the tape is real, it can't be libel, slander or defamation because those require that the allegation be untrue. Furthermore, as far as I understand it, most Libertarians don't support a right to privacy, especially when it can be used to trump free speech rights.
Men are the ones doing this. We are talking about what men do.
Would it help you, if I explicitly wrote "Woosh"?
To say "Oh, well, they're not REALLY men because REAL MEN don't do this" is just a transparent attempt by Jeff to distance himself from these men, and serves to distract from the larger point (the behavior of men vs women).
Except that's not what Jeff was doing, just look at the last sentence of his post:
None of these nuts are men, though some are very old males who never matured into men.
That underscores that he's not actually pulling a no-true-scotsman. He explicitly acklowedges that they are "very old males" (ie. men). Therefore Jeff is not actually pretending that it's not men doing those things, rather he's crafting an elaborate, and in my opinion humourous, insult and claiming this type of behaviour is childish. Frankly, he's doing the opposite of what you claim he's doing, mostly because you don't seem to even understand what he's doing.
Now, hopefully the reason that you didn't get the higher level meaning from that post was because English is your second or third language. If that's not the case, then you really should try to slow down and appreciate that things are not always what they appear to be at first glance.
But they didn't "hammer" it -- the average rating was 5.8. That's good, that's above average. They enjoyed it, just didn't think it was one of the greats. The kind of show I willingly watch with someone else who loves it -- no horrible coercion required, because I'm glad to share the experience. If my rating was, like, 3, then I'd pass.
Actually the average rating for a show is 7.3. By comparison, 5.8 is pretty low.
You didn't understand gamergate. It started with the exposing of corrupt and biased favorable gaming reviews.
Actually, I think you don't understand Gamergate because it started with a jilted and angry ex-boyfriend's complaints about his game designer girlfriend's cheating ways. There was an accusation of sex traded for reviews, but there was never any evidence to support the accusation, not even superficially, since there was no such review. The accused reviewer actually had mentioned the game that he supposedly reviewed, in passing, months prior to the start of his eventual relationship with the game designer but somehow that one mention months ahead of time seems to morph again and again into sex for reviews with no regard whatsoever for the truth.
The message you're misstating is actually not that feminists had no business reviewing games, but they had no business trying to enforce their values on game developers as a whole. See the overblown Overwatch "scandal" about Tracer's victory pose.
In practice, that seems to be the same thing, in that most of the GameGaters that I've seen go ballistic over anyone saying anything even the slightest bit negative about their favourite games.
You do realize that deregulation doesn't mean do whatever you want don't you. Nor does deregulation mean anarchy.
Technically true.
It refers to getting rid of laws that may have had validity at one point but no longer.
Technically false.
Getting rid of blue laws (which prevented some stores from being open on Sunday) is an example of deregulation.
True.
The problem with your comments is that de-regulation simply means getting rid of laws. The whole "no-longer valid" part is just what we hope will happen. In practice, deregulation is almost always the removal of laws that are either controversial (ex: gay marriage amendments), unpopular (ex: sunday shopping laws, prohibition) or that a campaign sponsor wants to see removed for their own benefit (ex: environmental regulations). It's very rare to see any significant deregulation efforts targeting no-longer-relevant laws because the risk that you underestimated the opposition to removing the law is too high for an effort which effectively has no reward.
Well, this is how I see it as a US citizen, and NOT taking into account what left and right are in the rest of the world, but ONLY as it is perceived in the US.
Americans keep saying that, but I don't think it's actually good idea to calibrate your politics that way.
I'd put Fox News on the right to far right. CNN is just left of center for the most part I think, they used to be a bit further left, but of late they seem to have move very slightly towards center left. MSNBC is far left. I'd say the main network news (ABC, NBC, CBS) are all middle left for the most part.
Amusingly, because of the way you calibrate your political compass, the farther Fox News moves to the right, the more "left wing" the rest of the media becomes, even if they don't change at all. In fact, depending on how fast Fox moves to the right, everyone else could be slowly moving to the right according to the world compass, and still become "more left" on the American compass.
That being said, you are certainly free to deceive yourself however you like to.
They must be cheating badly on food, because food prices have gone up by some 20-30% in the last decade.
An increase of 20-30% over a decade equates to between 2% to 2.7% annual inflation.
Rents have also gone up at least 10% over that same time, at least in places where people want to live.
An increase of 10% equates to 1% annual inflation.
The official U.S. rate has bounced around between 0.1% (2009) and 4.1% (2008) over the last 10 years, with an effective rate of 21.4% from 2005 to 2015. That puts the effective rate in line at the low end of your anecdotal observations for food. Given that it's averaged with other things like rent, which you have anecdotally observed to be well below the average rate, the numbers seem reasonable.
What, you like Putin? That will take some explaining.
Well, all of the Russian media says he's the best thing to happen to Russia since vodka... And, clearly, they wouldn't lie about something like that...
If it wasn't for Jules Verne, you would think that there wasn't any science fiction outside the anglophonic world, and if you substract H.G.Wells, science fiction seems to be an U.S. only phenomenon.
Hmm, Peter F. Hamilton, Robert J. Sawyer, and Alastair Reynolds are a few non-Americans I can name off the top of my head. But I can see your point about non-English works, but I'm not sure it's terribly valid, a list of the best literary works is going to focus on works in the language the list was written in, because very few people are actually multi-lingual (as in can easily read books in more than 2 different languages).
Also, Arthur C. Clarke was British and you pretty much can't have a list of "Best Science Fiction" without him.
Most of the U.S. science fiction I've read so far I would put into the 'meh' category. It's mostly well known plotlines, just with lasers and star ships.
Slashdot Mirror
At this point, even if Trump won, Hillary would just decapitate him live during his commencement speech and put on his head like a hat, but not be charged anything for the action.
Indeed, the secret Service would likely honour her decapitation proficiency with a great many discharges, which would render legal charges unnecessary... Not that that would stop the House Republicans from demanding at least 5 separate public inquiries into her actions.
Again, most likely because she was the Secretary of State. Has any Secretary of State in the history of the United States ever been jailed for mishandling secret documents?
Then vote for Gary Johnson. I know he's a (*gasp*) Libertarian. But, hell, it's time to overlook any of the relatively small issues that you may have with (*gasp*) Libertarians and start promoting someone who is not Hillary or Trump. He's the only candidate with even a small chance to save this election for everybody.
Are you aware that the only reason you gave to vote for Gary Johnson is that he's not Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Despite their respective flaws, there are actually a lot of people who are worse than both of them.
Indeed, the "people who've been caught doing exactly the same thing as she did" were Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell and I haven't heard of anyone asking for them to prosecuted for these "crimes".
I once hired for a job that required a security clearance and some deep TCP/IP packet skills. In a year I found -zero- qualified applicants at any price. Hundreds of applicants. Three folks who might have had the necessary TCP/IP skill but no clearance. Plenty with clearances but not the skill. One guy I hired for a different position which didn't require the depth of TCP/IP skill. But none for the job I needed to fill.
This sounds very similar to the common American hiring problem: "We want to hire people are already doing the exact job we want to hire for, but we want to pay them below market rates and we don't understand why only the worst applicants are willing to accept a pay cut to come work for us."
While I also believe that many of these agencies need to be scaled back, yours is an extremely simplistic view that ignores most of what these agencies actually do.
Indeed, he reminds me of some famous words:
Also, every time you leave a job, they can contact you and see if you want to report any pirate activity at your former place of work and receive a share of any collected fines... It's genius!
Donald Trump, presidential announcement speech, June 16, 2015
Donald Trump, statement about his June 16 comments, July 6, 2015
So Trump didn't call Mexican immigrants "murderers" but he definitely said they rapists at least twice. On the one hand the evidence indicates that excluding the crime of illegal immigration, first generation immigrants have actually commit fewer crimes per capita than native born Americans. On the other the hand, the implied statement that the Mexican government is sending criminals to the U.S. instead of putting them in jail, seems to be the real bat-shit crazy part of his statements. In a broader context, these comments display blatant xenophobia and encourage intolerance of immigration and a baseless fear of immigrants.
I suspect these are just bullshit things that Trump says to drum up far right votes, but I also think it's more than a little evil to encourage and validate the crazies for your own personal benefit.
KKK? Isn't that that folklore group that walks with sheets over their heads?
No, no, no. I'm pretty sure they're a detergent company, they keep telling me that my whites need to be whiter...
For the lazy, there is no real difference between a stipend and welfare. You have this strange romanticized notion of the poor.
The difference isn't for the lazy, they're already on welfare and not doing anything, so things will continue for them exactly as they are now. The difference is for the somewhat smart people who realize that if their welfare payments are going to be reduced by the amount that they earn from a job, then they have no incentive to work any job that doesn't pay significantly more than welfare. The problem is that they are probably unqualified to hold any job that pays enough to actually give them an incentive to work. It's the welfare trap. The UBI, because it is not clawed back by earned wages lowers the barrier to entry for people who want to work. Additionally, it allows the elimination of minimum wage laws because the UBI can be the minimum wage. Employers would be free to pay their employees nothing, assuming they can convince the employees that it's worthwhile for them to work for nothing. In some cases hourly wages will drop because minimum wage laws have been pushing them up, in some cases hourly wages will go up because the job is unpleasant and only people desperate for a job would work at the current rate.
The difference will also be for the middle class people who are laid off or otherwise lose a job, they would have a hassle free minimum amount of money they would earn while unemployed. It will stretch out their savings and hopefully when another recession like 2008 comes along, there will be fewer formerly middle-class people who end up homeless.
It looks like the Adidas CEO thinks the robots are cheaper than hiring at $1 per hour*. * I'm guessing at the actual wages, apparently $0.50 is average for shoe making work in Indonesia, another article cites up to $160 a month (including overtime) for an Adidas factory in Cambodia.
But the low-paid workers in China had a job. Now they don't.
Actually they still do. They won't have a job some time in the future, if the robotic factory works out.
Hooray for the SJW campaign against exploiting low-paid workers! No longer are those poor souls being exploited! Rejoice that the SJW elite's enlightened ways have scored a victory against capitalist exploitation of developing countries!
The has nothing to do with American politics, and everything to do with Asia's economic development. Companies like Adidas are simply running out of extremely low pay, exploitable workforces. The children of the people who have been working in sneaker sweatshops for the past 20 years are getting educations and aspiring to better jobs, better pay and better lives. Laying this at the feet of SJWs just makes you look unhinged, because this is one of the expected results of the exploitation of low wage jurisdictions; eventually, wages rise to an equivalent level to every other jurisdiction.
So how are those people expected to feed themselves and their families now?
Here's a hint: wages are rising because employers are competing for workers, so they'll probably go work somewhere else, most likely at similar wages, unless the jobs removed when Adidas shut down it's factories represent a large enough percentage of total employment to have a significant impact on the labour market.
You forgot to link why Bernie is actually winning.
True, but there is something he needs besides money to do that, a large number of people with valid claims against Gawker. If these were frivolous lawsuits and people were losing, leaving Gawker to try to recoup legal fees from those who don't have them you might have an argument. But they aren't, these people have valid cases and are winning those cases.
Actually, that's doesn't seem to be an accurate summary. Thiel seems to be funding anyone who's case seems likely to cost Gawker significant money, that's why he's also funding a guy who suing them for saying he didn't invent email. So yes, he's funded at least one valid lawsuit, and would probably fund others if he could find them, but it seems he's also funding frivolous law suits that will likely harm Gawker.
There isn't anything un-libertarian about suing someone for libel/slander/defamation.
Except, it wasn't libel, slander or defamation. It was a tape of Hogan having an extra-marital affair, and as long as the tape is real, it can't be libel, slander or defamation because those require that the allegation be untrue. Furthermore, as far as I understand it, most Libertarians don't support a right to privacy, especially when it can be used to trump free speech rights.
Poe's Law
Men are the ones doing this. We are talking about what men do.
Would it help you, if I explicitly wrote "Woosh"?
To say "Oh, well, they're not REALLY men because REAL MEN don't do this" is just a transparent attempt by Jeff to distance himself from these men, and serves to distract from the larger point (the behavior of men vs women).
Except that's not what Jeff was doing, just look at the last sentence of his post:
None of these nuts are men, though some are very old males who never matured into men.
That underscores that he's not actually pulling a no-true-scotsman. He explicitly acklowedges that they are "very old males" (ie. men). Therefore Jeff is not actually pretending that it's not men doing those things, rather he's crafting an elaborate, and in my opinion humourous, insult and claiming this type of behaviour is childish. Frankly, he's doing the opposite of what you claim he's doing, mostly because you don't seem to even understand what he's doing.
Now, hopefully the reason that you didn't get the higher level meaning from that post was because English is your second or third language. If that's not the case, then you really should try to slow down and appreciate that things are not always what they appear to be at first glance.
But they didn't "hammer" it -- the average rating was 5.8. That's good, that's above average. They enjoyed it, just didn't think it was one of the greats. The kind of show I willingly watch with someone else who loves it -- no horrible coercion required, because I'm glad to share the experience. If my rating was, like, 3, then I'd pass.
Actually the average rating for a show is 7.3. By comparison, 5.8 is pretty low.
Right, "No True Scotsman" = "Insightful" here on slashdot.
If that's what you think Jeff wrote, you have failed to actually understand him.
You didn't understand gamergate. It started with the exposing of corrupt and biased favorable gaming reviews.
Actually, I think you don't understand Gamergate because it started with a jilted and angry ex-boyfriend's complaints about his game designer girlfriend's cheating ways. There was an accusation of sex traded for reviews, but there was never any evidence to support the accusation, not even superficially, since there was no such review. The accused reviewer actually had mentioned the game that he supposedly reviewed, in passing, months prior to the start of his eventual relationship with the game designer but somehow that one mention months ahead of time seems to morph again and again into sex for reviews with no regard whatsoever for the truth.
The message you're misstating is actually not that feminists had no business reviewing games, but they had no business trying to enforce their values on game developers as a whole. See the overblown Overwatch "scandal" about Tracer's victory pose.
In practice, that seems to be the same thing, in that most of the GameGaters that I've seen go ballistic over anyone saying anything even the slightest bit negative about their favourite games.
You do realize that deregulation doesn't mean do whatever you want don't you. Nor does deregulation mean anarchy.
Technically true.
It refers to getting rid of laws that may have had validity at one point but no longer.
Technically false.
Getting rid of blue laws (which prevented some stores from being open on Sunday) is an example of deregulation.
True.
The problem with your comments is that de-regulation simply means getting rid of laws. The whole "no-longer valid" part is just what we hope will happen. In practice, deregulation is almost always the removal of laws that are either controversial (ex: gay marriage amendments), unpopular (ex: sunday shopping laws, prohibition) or that a campaign sponsor wants to see removed for their own benefit (ex: environmental regulations). It's very rare to see any significant deregulation efforts targeting no-longer-relevant laws because the risk that you underestimated the opposition to removing the law is too high for an effort which effectively has no reward.
Well, this is how I see it as a US citizen, and NOT taking into account what left and right are in the rest of the world, but ONLY as it is perceived in the US.
Americans keep saying that, but I don't think it's actually good idea to calibrate your politics that way.
I'd put Fox News on the right to far right. CNN is just left of center for the most part I think, they used to be a bit further left, but of late they seem to have move very slightly towards center left. MSNBC is far left. I'd say the main network news (ABC, NBC, CBS) are all middle left for the most part.
Amusingly, because of the way you calibrate your political compass, the farther Fox News moves to the right, the more "left wing" the rest of the media becomes, even if they don't change at all. In fact, depending on how fast Fox moves to the right, everyone else could be slowly moving to the right according to the world compass, and still become "more left" on the American compass.
That being said, you are certainly free to deceive yourself however you like to.
They must be cheating badly on food, because food prices have gone up by some 20-30% in the last decade.
An increase of 20-30% over a decade equates to between 2% to 2.7% annual inflation.
Rents have also gone up at least 10% over that same time, at least in places where people want to live.
An increase of 10% equates to 1% annual inflation.
The official U.S. rate has bounced around between 0.1% (2009) and 4.1% (2008) over the last 10 years, with an effective rate of 21.4% from 2005 to 2015. That puts the effective rate in line at the low end of your anecdotal observations for food. Given that it's averaged with other things like rent, which you have anecdotally observed to be well below the average rate, the numbers seem reasonable.
What, you like Putin? That will take some explaining.
Well, all of the Russian media says he's the best thing to happen to Russia since vodka... And, clearly, they wouldn't lie about something like that...
If it wasn't for Jules Verne, you would think that there wasn't any science fiction outside the anglophonic world, and if you substract H.G.Wells, science fiction seems to be an U.S. only phenomenon.
Hmm, Peter F. Hamilton, Robert J. Sawyer, and Alastair Reynolds are a few non-Americans I can name off the top of my head. But I can see your point about non-English works, but I'm not sure it's terribly valid, a list of the best literary works is going to focus on works in the language the list was written in, because very few people are actually multi-lingual (as in can easily read books in more than 2 different languages).
Also, Arthur C. Clarke was British and you pretty much can't have a list of "Best Science Fiction" without him.
Most of the U.S. science fiction I've read so far I would put into the 'meh' category. It's mostly well known plotlines, just with lasers and star ships.
Some good American science fiction authors: John Scalzi, David Brin, Kim Stanley Robinson, and of course, that's ignoring the classics like Isaac Asimov.