2. The FCC has been enforcing/trying to enforce some form of NN since the early 2000s. The latest effort, a few years ago, was a response to a court ruling saying they were doing it illegally, not a sudden interest in NN.
It's hard for me to believe that there are that many Slashdot readers left that are unaware of either of these things, especially the first, given the amount of articles posted here about the conflict between Netflix and Comcast, just to name a high profile example.
Conservatives aren't pro-anything any more, just anti-liberal. If doing something appears to "owns the libs" in their own weird skewed model about what liberals are, they'll do it. Solar energy is a good thing (non polluting, helps reduce greenhouse emissions by offsetting sources of energy, etc), hence liberals are for it, hence conservatives oppose it.
This has never been about helping businesses. The Overton Window shifted right enough during the mid-nineties that "liberals" are for all that shit, in general, too, now even at the expense of workers. All conservatives have left is bashing "liberals".
Obama and Romney had access to the same information and was obtained consensually. The information Trump's CA obtained was obtained under false pretenses. They're not in the same ballpark.
Hate - never seen anyone use your definition. You literally made that up.
Diversity - again, you made that up.
Black - again, you made that up.
Fascism - this is what conservatives keep telling themselves, but every time I've heard a liberal call someone fascist or Nazi, it was for specific reasons that relate to that ideology. Your comment, suggesting it only applies to members of two political parties in history, is truly bizarre. Even most of those upset by the idea that white supremacist groups might legitimately be called Nazi would name several groups that fall under the fascism umbrella that aren't Mussolini's or Hitler's.
Gender - that's literally what it means you numbskull. Why do you think we have the word when we have the word "sex" to describe the biology? It exists to describe the psychological and social side of the social divisions normally associated with the reproductive process. YOU are the one trying to redefine it.
Race - never seen anyone use your definition. You literally made that up.
History - now you're not even pointing at definitions, you're just having a rant against a straw man.
Science - ditto.
One thing that consistently drives down wages is cheap imported labor
There's your problem, you think that one thing that consistently drives down wages is cheap imported labor.
It never has, never will. Countries have royally screwed up their economies assuming it does. The problem is that the "imported labor" needs feeding, and quickly learns it needs the same salaries everyone else does.
Britain tried to increase immigration in the 1950s because it thought the same thing. Wages did not come down. H1Bs are not driving wages down in the US either.
Ah, I can tell you work at Radio Shack! Now what premium $50 USB-C cable do you want to sell me today?
(This conversation actually happened to me, except I was trying to buy an S-Video cable. The RS employee told me with a straight face that they don't sell cables cheaper than the $35 cable he was trying to get me to buy because "they kept catching fire". I made it very clear I was... less than convinced...)
Yeah, but Apple is the only entity that still controls platforms based upon it. The only other entity I'm even aware of that uses Objective C is the GNUstep project, which is trying to replicate Apple's APIs.
So the GP is right. Nobody claimed Apple developed it, the claim is that it's essentially a technology that, if you use, you'll be locked into Apple's ecosystem.
That said... I don't know that this is the purpose of Swift. The language itself is fairly open, and it came about at about the same time as Rust and Go and others were being taken seriously. I think Apple developed it at a time they didn't feel there were any strong alternatives.
The 25x ratio is pertinent because of the discrepancy in Government spending on violence against women as compared to suicide prevention.
I'm struggling to come up with any justification for pretending that violence against non-consenting women is somehow less important than people taking their own lives.
Suicide is a sad thing, but let's not pretend for a second that (1) suicide prevention isn't 100% about making people who aren't suicidal feel less bad and (2) suicide prevention isn't about preventing someone from making a choice that is rightly their's and no other's.
Complaining the levels spent on suicide prevention are out of whack with that spent on preventing men killing women is like complaining the amount of money spent on safety features for a motorcycle is out of whack with that spent on the safety of a school bus.
The People voted and it's their right to reject science.
The states voted. The people didn't vote for Trump, Trump was elected because of majorities in a majority of states, but most people voted against him across the country as a whole.
The electoral college is often defended as being a defense against unqualified idiots with no cross country support from being elected. It failed spectacularly in 2016. We need to get rid of it. Whether that's replacement with a simple electoral majority, or a requirement that someone wins both the popular vote and state vote, I don't really care. But it doesn't do what it's supporters justify it as doing, and only does what it really is intended to do but shouldn't - gerrymandering the election to amplify the voices of those in rural areas and southern states.
So they're not allowed to do any research if the conclusion is supportive of gun control. Which is something they won't know until they start the research. So... under what circumstances do you think the CDC can actually do research given there's a non-zero chance that if they do it, they might accidentally violate the law if it turns out it shows that gun control is positive in some way?
Really, seriously, think about what you're saying before posting. The the fact that the CDC doesn't do any research into gun violence, and that this is a direct result of virtually every sane person's reading of the Dickey Amendment, is well known.
As for your two examples, congrats. One is a meta article about possibly being able to study gun violence in some ways. The other is an article that that doesn't research gun violence, but instead is oriented towards determining whether some predetermined "solutions" that aren't gun control, because that would be illegal, might also help solve gun violence.
I'm not exactly itching to see a waste of space like the AWB re-introduced, but even I can see that arguing the CDC has the ability to research gun violence has been crippled to the point of uselessness by the mandate forbidding it effectively know the answers aren't gun control before it asks the questions. If we can't have a sane conversation about gun control that involves good, unbiased, information, then we can't have a sane conversation about gun violence.
Sorry, but you'll have to forgive him, he was typing through a quantum gateway to our universe using some scavenged together computer parts that somehow survived the EMP after Iran and North Korea started WW-III and nuked America in 2009..
If you look back through his netbook's webcam, you can see SuperKendall waving his fist in the air, as he screams into the sky: Thanks Obama!
Because the taxman gets their cut anyway. The fact the production company made a loss didn't mean the studio didn't. The fact the studio did didn't mean the director didn't. Whatever entity made out like a bandit gets taxed.
Making the movie make a paper loss isn't about hiding things from the taxman. It's usually not even about hiding anything anyway - production companies aren't supposed to make money, they're supposed to produce. It's occasionally about ripping people off who negotiated a salary that was a cut of the film's profits, but that's about as seedy as it gets.
I'm not so bothered about the fact they're bringing two bills to the floor as I am in this question: how will the politicians spin both bills? With the same quantum spin number, or something else?
That's a really stupid comment, you're essentially saying that all sales clerks should be fired for their own good.
But in any case, there's a more obvious solution: sell the tickets on the train. Then the only problem you're left with is reservations, which can be done by phone.
The article clearly treats this as an issue that affects both men and women. I'd say serviscope_minor is right to call the original poster a liar, and I think you're out of line both by pretending the complaint is about the OP's assertion that men make up a majority of suicides, and by implying that the article doesn't treat this as an issue that affects both men and women.
Most of Europe started a stimulus but then almost immediately went for extreme austerity - the latter pretty much killed the nascent recoveries that had been apparent. So, yeah, you'd expect Europe to take longer.
No because the proposal is that the tax would be used to fund the removal of CO2 from the air. You'd still need other taxes to fund the things those taxes fund.
Indeed, an economy reliant upon sales taxes may have to put up taxes as the cost of living may well rise if a CO2 tax were introduced. People, including government employees, would be paying more for goods that are manufactured in a CO2 producing way and so would need higher wages. Infrastructure would cost more too, manufacturing a ton of concrete puts, IIRC, a ton of CO2 into the air.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, in the end I'd hope that it would shift consumption to products and services that are more carbon neutral. There are things we haven't done for decades that we might start doing again - in the city I live, for example, there's a railroad bridge dating back to the 19th Century that's made up in substantial part of wood. But it's definitely not something that would reduce existing taxes.
Pretty much. I'd hope that on Slashdot, of all places, people do not think Trump is being held to a different standard here, there was regular outrage about the Obama administration's treatment of whistleblowing and journalism built upon whistleblowing. That Trump, who has shown no signs of being more liberal than his predecessor, is continuing the policy shouldn't be a surprised, but like a lot of things, it would have been nice if the previous administration hadn't built the framework for a lot of government abuse to rest upon.
It's hard to imagine someone feeling depressed enough to kill themselves simply because they're poorer than their parents. And BTW, that has been going on since Generation X, it didn't just start in 1999.
I would suggest there are more relevant factors, which may or may not have contributed, including:
- Increased financial difficulties for the bottom 98%. Wages haven't kept up with inflation after all, although I don't see the CoL as being much higher today than it was in 2012
- Increased complexity of life causing more stress
- Increased social interactions with people who don't give a shit about you and will be unpleasant because they're not dealing with you face to face, thanks to the Internet, indirectly causing a loss in self esteem
I don't think any one of these by themselves is the cause of anything, but add everything together and a huge number of people are going to find it harder to cope with life, suffering more pressure and having less confidence in themselves to deal with it.
Psychiatrists will argue that all suicide is "caused by" depression which none of the above contribute to. I'd argue they're full of shit, that depression - a condition characterized by lethargy and an unwillingness to take risks - is the brain's way of preventing you (well, discouraging you) from committing suicide, which is why the two are correlated - people who aren't considering killing themselves or otherwise doing something self destructive are in no need of that self defense mechanism.
And I'm inclined to think that this survey underlines that. There's been no massive up take in drugs that cause depression since 1999. Just an increase in things that make life miserable and difficult to cope with.
I'm almost not sure what you're asking. Cities were the original governments, and while efforts have been made to undermine them as governments that cover wider areas have come into being, they've always had these kinds of powers. As long as they're not violating a higher law, and are working within their constitution and the constitutions that indirectly apply to them, they can do pretty much whatever they want.
Which is as it should be. Democracy frequently works best at the local level. If the local population wants to tax underpants, or ban the sale of green socks, then so be it. At least they're not impacting those who aren't part of that city.
This is true, companies out there are always thinking "We'd be so much more popular if only we had names like miguel (all lowercase), LennartPoettering, Linus, or TheoDeRaadt." That's surely what happened here, a company just threw its morals to the wind, thinking "This substack guy is known to everyone, he's a household name, all open source developers are! We must take advantage of his world wide popularity and give our company the same name."
In the mean time, I'm off to the supermarket to buy some of those new BrandonEich frozen meals and some Stallman Cookies. They're probably not legal in Germany, but...
Slashdot Mirror
1. No they weren't.
2. The FCC has been enforcing/trying to enforce some form of NN since the early 2000s. The latest effort, a few years ago, was a response to a court ruling saying they were doing it illegally, not a sudden interest in NN.
It's hard for me to believe that there are that many Slashdot readers left that are unaware of either of these things, especially the first, given the amount of articles posted here about the conflict between Netflix and Comcast, just to name a high profile example.
Conservatives aren't pro-anything any more, just anti-liberal. If doing something appears to "owns the libs" in their own weird skewed model about what liberals are, they'll do it. Solar energy is a good thing (non polluting, helps reduce greenhouse emissions by offsetting sources of energy, etc), hence liberals are for it, hence conservatives oppose it.
This has never been about helping businesses. The Overton Window shifted right enough during the mid-nineties that "liberals" are for all that shit, in general, too, now even at the expense of workers. All conservatives have left is bashing "liberals".
I'm not opposed to this in principle, but isn't it technically a bill of attainer, which, for very good reasons, is unconstitutional?
Obama and Romney had access to the same information and was obtained consensually. The information Trump's CA obtained was obtained under false pretenses. They're not in the same ballpark.
Your position is that they have a duty to not vote. The counter position is that they have a duty to vote, and thus a duty to get informed.
I strongly support the counter position, and find the argument that discourages voting repellent.
Hate - never seen anyone use your definition. You literally made that up.
Diversity - again, you made that up.
Black - again, you made that up.
Fascism - this is what conservatives keep telling themselves, but every time I've heard a liberal call someone fascist or Nazi, it was for specific reasons that relate to that ideology. Your comment, suggesting it only applies to members of two political parties in history, is truly bizarre. Even most of those upset by the idea that white supremacist groups might legitimately be called Nazi would name several groups that fall under the fascism umbrella that aren't Mussolini's or Hitler's.
Gender - that's literally what it means you numbskull. Why do you think we have the word when we have the word "sex" to describe the biology? It exists to describe the psychological and social side of the social divisions normally associated with the reproductive process. YOU are the one trying to redefine it.
Race - never seen anyone use your definition. You literally made that up.
History - now you're not even pointing at definitions, you're just having a rant against a straw man.
Science - ditto.
Zero for eight. You should be embarrassed.
There's your problem, you think that one thing that consistently drives down wages is cheap imported labor.
It never has, never will. Countries have royally screwed up their economies assuming it does. The problem is that the "imported labor" needs feeding, and quickly learns it needs the same salaries everyone else does.
Britain tried to increase immigration in the 1950s because it thought the same thing. Wages did not come down. H1Bs are not driving wages down in the US either.
Ah, I can tell you work at Radio Shack! Now what premium $50 USB-C cable do you want to sell me today?
(This conversation actually happened to me, except I was trying to buy an S-Video cable. The RS employee told me with a straight face that they don't sell cables cheaper than the $35 cable he was trying to get me to buy because "they kept catching fire". I made it very clear I was... less than convinced...)
"Not if we have anything to do with it!" - Ajit Pai.
Yeah, but Apple is the only entity that still controls platforms based upon it. The only other entity I'm even aware of that uses Objective C is the GNUstep project, which is trying to replicate Apple's APIs.
So the GP is right. Nobody claimed Apple developed it, the claim is that it's essentially a technology that, if you use, you'll be locked into Apple's ecosystem.
That said... I don't know that this is the purpose of Swift. The language itself is fairly open, and it came about at about the same time as Rust and Go and others were being taken seriously. I think Apple developed it at a time they didn't feel there were any strong alternatives.
I'm struggling to come up with any justification for pretending that violence against non-consenting women is somehow less important than people taking their own lives.
Suicide is a sad thing, but let's not pretend for a second that (1) suicide prevention isn't 100% about making people who aren't suicidal feel less bad and (2) suicide prevention isn't about preventing someone from making a choice that is rightly their's and no other's.
Complaining the levels spent on suicide prevention are out of whack with that spent on preventing men killing women is like complaining the amount of money spent on safety features for a motorcycle is out of whack with that spent on the safety of a school bus.
The states voted. The people didn't vote for Trump, Trump was elected because of majorities in a majority of states, but most people voted against him across the country as a whole.
The electoral college is often defended as being a defense against unqualified idiots with no cross country support from being elected. It failed spectacularly in 2016. We need to get rid of it. Whether that's replacement with a simple electoral majority, or a requirement that someone wins both the popular vote and state vote, I don't really care. But it doesn't do what it's supporters justify it as doing, and only does what it really is intended to do but shouldn't - gerrymandering the election to amplify the voices of those in rural areas and southern states.
So they're not allowed to do any research if the conclusion is supportive of gun control. Which is something they won't know until they start the research. So... under what circumstances do you think the CDC can actually do research given there's a non-zero chance that if they do it, they might accidentally violate the law if it turns out it shows that gun control is positive in some way?
Really, seriously, think about what you're saying before posting. The the fact that the CDC doesn't do any research into gun violence, and that this is a direct result of virtually every sane person's reading of the Dickey Amendment, is well known.
As for your two examples, congrats. One is a meta article about possibly being able to study gun violence in some ways. The other is an article that that doesn't research gun violence, but instead is oriented towards determining whether some predetermined "solutions" that aren't gun control, because that would be illegal, might also help solve gun violence.
I'm not exactly itching to see a waste of space like the AWB re-introduced, but even I can see that arguing the CDC has the ability to research gun violence has been crippled to the point of uselessness by the mandate forbidding it effectively know the answers aren't gun control before it asks the questions. If we can't have a sane conversation about gun control that involves good, unbiased, information, then we can't have a sane conversation about gun violence.
Sorry, but you'll have to forgive him, he was typing through a quantum gateway to our universe using some scavenged together computer parts that somehow survived the EMP after Iran and North Korea started WW-III and nuked America in 2009..
If you look back through his netbook's webcam, you can see SuperKendall waving his fist in the air, as he screams into the sky: Thanks Obama!
Because the taxman gets their cut anyway. The fact the production company made a loss didn't mean the studio didn't. The fact the studio did didn't mean the director didn't. Whatever entity made out like a bandit gets taxed.
Making the movie make a paper loss isn't about hiding things from the taxman. It's usually not even about hiding anything anyway - production companies aren't supposed to make money, they're supposed to produce. It's occasionally about ripping people off who negotiated a salary that was a cut of the film's profits, but that's about as seedy as it gets.
I'm not so bothered about the fact they're bringing two bills to the floor as I am in this question: how will the politicians spin both bills? With the same quantum spin number, or something else?
That's a really stupid comment, you're essentially saying that all sales clerks should be fired for their own good.
But in any case, there's a more obvious solution: sell the tickets on the train. Then the only problem you're left with is reservations, which can be done by phone.
The article clearly treats this as an issue that affects both men and women. I'd say serviscope_minor is right to call the original poster a liar, and I think you're out of line both by pretending the complaint is about the OP's assertion that men make up a majority of suicides, and by implying that the article doesn't treat this as an issue that affects both men and women.
Most of Europe started a stimulus but then almost immediately went for extreme austerity - the latter pretty much killed the nascent recoveries that had been apparent. So, yeah, you'd expect Europe to take longer.
No because the proposal is that the tax would be used to fund the removal of CO2 from the air. You'd still need other taxes to fund the things those taxes fund.
Indeed, an economy reliant upon sales taxes may have to put up taxes as the cost of living may well rise if a CO2 tax were introduced. People, including government employees, would be paying more for goods that are manufactured in a CO2 producing way and so would need higher wages. Infrastructure would cost more too, manufacturing a ton of concrete puts, IIRC, a ton of CO2 into the air.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, in the end I'd hope that it would shift consumption to products and services that are more carbon neutral. There are things we haven't done for decades that we might start doing again - in the city I live, for example, there's a railroad bridge dating back to the 19th Century that's made up in substantial part of wood. But it's definitely not something that would reduce existing taxes.
Pretty much. I'd hope that on Slashdot, of all places, people do not think Trump is being held to a different standard here, there was regular outrage about the Obama administration's treatment of whistleblowing and journalism built upon whistleblowing. That Trump, who has shown no signs of being more liberal than his predecessor, is continuing the policy shouldn't be a surprised, but like a lot of things, it would have been nice if the previous administration hadn't built the framework for a lot of government abuse to rest upon.
It's hard to imagine someone feeling depressed enough to kill themselves simply because they're poorer than their parents. And BTW, that has been going on since Generation X, it didn't just start in 1999.
I would suggest there are more relevant factors, which may or may not have contributed, including:
- Increased financial difficulties for the bottom 98%. Wages haven't kept up with inflation after all, although I don't see the CoL as being much higher today than it was in 2012
- Increased complexity of life causing more stress
- Increased social interactions with people who don't give a shit about you and will be unpleasant because they're not dealing with you face to face, thanks to the Internet, indirectly causing a loss in self esteem
I don't think any one of these by themselves is the cause of anything, but add everything together and a huge number of people are going to find it harder to cope with life, suffering more pressure and having less confidence in themselves to deal with it.
Psychiatrists will argue that all suicide is "caused by" depression which none of the above contribute to. I'd argue they're full of shit, that depression - a condition characterized by lethargy and an unwillingness to take risks - is the brain's way of preventing you (well, discouraging you) from committing suicide, which is why the two are correlated - people who aren't considering killing themselves or otherwise doing something self destructive are in no need of that self defense mechanism.
And I'm inclined to think that this survey underlines that. There's been no massive up take in drugs that cause depression since 1999. Just an increase in things that make life miserable and difficult to cope with.
I'm almost not sure what you're asking. Cities were the original governments, and while efforts have been made to undermine them as governments that cover wider areas have come into being, they've always had these kinds of powers. As long as they're not violating a higher law, and are working within their constitution and the constitutions that indirectly apply to them, they can do pretty much whatever they want.
Which is as it should be. Democracy frequently works best at the local level. If the local population wants to tax underpants, or ban the sale of green socks, then so be it. At least they're not impacting those who aren't part of that city.
I'm pretty sure it'll end up being called Git File System for Windows 2018 Professional Edition.
This is true, companies out there are always thinking "We'd be so much more popular if only we had names like miguel (all lowercase), LennartPoettering, Linus, or TheoDeRaadt." That's surely what happened here, a company just threw its morals to the wind, thinking "This substack guy is known to everyone, he's a household name, all open source developers are! We must take advantage of his world wide popularity and give our company the same name."
In the mean time, I'm off to the supermarket to buy some of those new BrandonEich frozen meals and some Stallman Cookies. They're probably not legal in Germany, but...