They say they don't have enough US labor. So they have to import it with the H1B visa program.
The politicians have responded by saying "okay but we need to correct that so how do we improve IT education so you don't have to do this".
The companies say "well, here are some things you can do"... mostly teaching women to code apparently because that is the endless windging whine out of the media these days.
And then the companies follow that one up with firing huge portions of their US labor pool.
Getting warmer...
And then they literally have the staff train the H1B replacements... which is actually more than a smoking gun. That's video evidence of the act.
Troubling?
I really really really want Obama to not be an idiot. I really really do. He's president of my country. I want him to make good decisions, be intelligent, have good judgment. But... I have to question that because he does so many bafflingly stupid things on a regular basis.
The Iran deal... My god... please make that not be as stupid as it looks. Because Obama is possibly setting himself up to be the worst president since Jimmy Carter... and that failed peanut farmer shouldn't have been let anywhere near the white house.
Please have some master plan, Obama... please be so f'ing smart that everything you're doing just appears to be retarded. Please please.
Look at their graph and compare the first year with the last year. They're so f'ing similar.
Beyond that, consider they're not showing you how many illnesses anyone had... just hospital visits. Thus they could be going to the hospitals because idiots in the media scared them and it is causing a clearly very small uptick in hypochondria.
If I had a super power... it would be to urinate in the faces of people that push this shit.
Please contradict me. I would love to be wrong. I really would be... No really. this garbage depresses me with how dumb it is and if I just made stupid mistakes then that would be on me. I'd much prefer that. No really.
Until that happens... I'm going to be exposing myself to gamma rays and letting odd radioactive insects bite me on the off chance that I'll get the super power the world both needs and deserves.
Independent presumes that they're not all under the same organization's control. ALL the datasets they use in this study are directly controlled by the NOAA. They are each adjusted and calibrated... by the NOAA...
So you can say four datasets if you like but you can't say independent. They're literally not independent.
What is more, most datasets SOURCE their data from a master dataset which is also controlled by the NOAA.
so whether they're even four datasets is arguable.
Here are his credentials: ""John Kennedy is a senior scientist at the Met Office developing data sets for applications in climate research and climate monitoring. He also monitors global climate putting recent changes into their long term context. The current focus of his work is understanding systematic errors in different types of historical sea surface temperature measurements and evaluating the associated uncertainties. He is also interested in the statistical techniques used to reconstruct climatological fields from incomplete observations.""
And that was posted on the site of the Royal Statistical Society which is also associated with the American Statistical Association.
I've seen estimations on the probability from the NOAA itself that get as low as 38 percent and that is using their own study. There are citations all over the internet with that figure. Most of the estimations are in the 30s. Not the 40s.
And my bias is that there is a tendency to overstate things from political organizations... and the GW stuff has gotten very political. The IPCC for example when they make a correction it is always in the direction of showing LESS global warming... never more. And that is because their bias is to suggest higher numbers and thus if they do make an error it will be on that side of the line.
That being the case... I just have to take their predictions with a grain of salt and correct them down a little bit on the assumption that figures are going to be a little inflated.
I do this with all government organizations that have shown an ability and will to tamper with statistics. The unemployment numbers are higher than is reported. The inflation numbers are higher than is reported.... really a very long list of things. And it varies depending on country what is inflated or not. Japan for example under reports their murder rate. A fair number of their suicides and accidental deaths are actually just murders. Their policy is that if they can't solve a case in X time they declare it accidental or suicide.
You find this all over the world which is why you can't trust government numbers without understanding how they were collected, the culture of the bureaucracy, and ideally you want to get some independent factors.
A really funny statistic is the US National Debt... apparently that hasn't gone up by a PENNY since the last battle over the issue in congress months ago. How likely is that? Obviously totally impossible. And there are a lot of stats like that.
Only because the issue is a political talking point. It has no utility or meaning outside of that. The people pushing this mostly just see advantage in it.
And everyone else... for whom I presume to speak is just tired of being subjected to endless progressive horseshit.
If the progressives want to destroy the tech industry on the west coast US... that's fine.
They can do that. And then it will just relocate somewhere else. Go ahead. Make more Detroits. Make a new rust belt. I double dog dare them.
When they're done the primary industry in California will be tourism.
Every move I've ever seen by the EU has had a couple layers to it. I wouldn't be surprised if there is an exception in it that allows business as usual.
I'm not claiming the US is superior... we love our loopholes as well. In the most absurd cases the loophole is merely a lack of enforcement.
We have that with quite a few laws where things are completely illegal but... if it isn't enforced then its not really against the law unless the government makes an exception randomly at any time it chooses.
And in the most pathetic incidents... say government corruption... they simply refuse to prosecute themselves. Only they are allowed to bring the case... and they simply decline to do so. Boom. Blank check to do what they want.
When you get into spying and stuff... how do you even know what they're doing?
The Europeans knew the NSA was operating in their countries because part of the deal was that the NSA would pass collected intelligence on to them. THus they got the benefit of spying on their people while not technically personally doing it. The Americans would do it for them.... and they'd get plausible deniability.
That was the old arrangement pre-Snowden.
Now of course the politicians are all pretending to have not known.
When that cools down... I doubt anything will change.
Outside of little communities like this one... no one cares.
No they don't run their campaigns on that basis. Look, it is already horribly obvious that you actually don't know what you're talking about in this matter.
The judges literally tell the voters almost nothing. To the extent they tell us anything it is "Guy's name for Judge".
that's literally what we see. They have little plastic signs made with metal spikes on them and they either personally or have friends go around neighborhoods and ask people if they can put the signs on their lawn. Most people say no. Some say yes.
During election season you'll see these little plastic signs stuck all over the place. Some people say yes to everything which means they get one sign from everyone which is very confusing while some take positions.
You don't know anything about the elections of judges in the US.
Your credibility on that point is utterly gone. Don't bring it up again. You've crossed the line from talking out of your ass to lying.
I have a very low tolerance for lying. I live in the US. I see the elections for judges. They do no such thing.
Show me a citation. Show me an example. In my entire life I have not seen that ONCE.
If it ever did happen it is very unusual.
As to grand juries, an investigation or deliberation you don't need to have the accused informed. The police don't need to tell you they suspect you of a crime or are building a case against you. That is in large part the point of a grand jury. For the police to query community leaders... which are the members of the grand jury...as to whether something or other should be pursued more deeply... and if so... how.
The police + the grand jury is powerful because if you go into a formal trial with the full backing of the political leadership which is something grand juries abstract to to some extent you're coming down on the accused with the full weight and conviction of the state.
That's why if you go through examples of when grand juries are held it tends to involve something very serious, something sensitive, or something the police don't want to take responsibility for doing.
The grand jury gives it their blessing and then the prosecution and the police and come down like the hammer of god on whomever.
Or... the grand jury can say "no... back off."
Or the grand jury can say "you need this to go forward."
Again, this is primarily how they are used. I agree with you to the extent that this is the ONLY way they should be used. However, in this capacity they are entirely legitimate and of no risk to the rights of the people.
... I'm quite clearly making the argument that had the germans not been disarmed, then the brown shirts wouldn't have been as threatening and that thus Hitler would not have been given dictatorial powers.
As to judical elections, you don't know what they do actually... I can tell because you're running on a theory that is unmoored from experience.
I live in the US and I see judical elections every few years. They're generally utterly ignored by everyone.
Its something of a joke actually. People go to the ballot box and they see all these names and no one knows who they are... I mean you see elections for school superintendents, county accountants, and really a baffling list of people that are not actually covered in the media at all.
When I was growing up, my dad had a tradition of taking the provisional ballot he was sent out and showing it to everyone and going through the list. These are the test ballots that they issue voters so you can make up your mind what you're going to do before you go to the ballot box... just copy what you wrote into the test ballot into the actual one.
Anyway, he'd go through the whole thing every time he got one. So there was stuff that was easy to follow such as the governor or the congressman or the senators... then you had propositions to change state or city law, then you had bond inititives, and then there was all this crap about chiefs of police, fire marshals, judges, etc.
And the thing is that it is really hard to know anything about these people. Who knows if chief of police X is going to be better than chief of police Y? Most people aren't going to know anything about them.
So people often leave these portions of ballots blank.Some people will vote for someone randomly or based on whether they like their name.
The best you could do for a really long time was just see who endorsed whom. And that would give you an idea of who was allies with whom politically and you could sort of guess that if X scumbag likes Y judge that Y judge is possibly also a scumbag. That was literally about as good as you could do.
And in the end, the establishment pick tends to win these regardless.
Your notion that people win these elections based on how many people they throw in jail or something is not accurate.
Its more pathetic than that. They actually win based on whether they have the political backing of the local city or state establishment because no one else really cares.
That's the truth and its sad. But people don't care in large part because they're not given enough information to form an opinion. Its getting better though.
If you take your test ballot and do an internet search on each name you can find out a lot of information about them. That requires a proactive step on the part of the voter which is not reliable. But it is POSSIBLE for a voter to figure it out where as before it wasn't practical.
As to the grand jury system... I agree it needs to be reformed. That is a sound point. I would say that the concept of it is fine. I think they just need to shift from being a legal body to being something of an investigatory body where evidence found by the jury could be later submitted for general trial.
I don't mind the secrecy IN THAT CONTEXT. And I would point out that this is precisely how grand juries normally operate. They are very rarely tasked with actually sentencing someone. They're more used to see whether a trial should be had in the first place or to collect evidence in a very organized way so that when the trial happens it is all ready to go.
So, I agree grand juries should not be sentencing people but should be used as a mechanism for the government to determine whether it should bring trial against people or organizations in certain circumstances. given that they would not be sentenced in those proceedings they do not need to be informed they are under investigation. The police don't need to tell you if they suspect you of something. The grand jury is effectively supposed an adjunct of that concept.
As to the notion that you don't use plea bargaining in that way, I don't believe you. I did a little research and found that they are doing it in Canada and England in precisely that way.
From 1918 to 1920, with the defeat of Germany in World War I, the nation was forced to accept a series of devastating reparations after signing the Treaty of Versailles. The defeated Weimar government agreed to payments it did not have the ability to make, which would eventually lead to the 1920s inflationary depression. The treaty had stipulations to disarm the government. Fearing inability to hold the state together during the depression, the German government adopted a sweeping series of gun confiscation legislation against the citizens prior to completely disarming the German military. Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles explicitly targeted the state: "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."[3]
In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately."[4] Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.
On August 7, 1920, rising fears whether or not Germany could have rebellions prompted the government to enact a second gun-regulation law called the Law on the Disarmament of the People. It put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty in regard to the limit on military-type weapons.
In 1928, after a near decade of hyperinflation destroyed the structural fabric of the society, a rapidly expanding three-way political divide between the conservatives, National Socialists, and Communists prompted the rapidly declining conservative majority to enact the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession. Gun regulation of the Third Reich
In Nazi Germany the March 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. But under the new law:[5]:673-674
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition.
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.
The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[6]
Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[6]
Manufacture of arms and ammunition continued to require a permit, with the revisi
The probabilities are based on which dataset you use. The dataset cited outputs that number. There are a couple others and some of them have estimations as low as 30 percent. I was splitting the difference given that the number cited by the NOAA the outlier.
US infant morality rates are not comparable with most other countries because in our statistics we count life at beginning in the delivery room. So children that die in child birth count in our infant mortality statistics. Also we count children that die in the first couple days after birth in those stats.
Most countries don't count the child as even alive in their statistics until they've been alive for a couple weeks.
If you don't understand how statistics work, then you're incompetent to cite them.
What one country means by X is not going to be what another country means by X unless they have a mutually agreed upon definition and that is rarely the case.
In Japan for example, most unsolved murders are recorded in their statistics as accidental deaths or even suicides.
Government statistics from all countries are frequently manipulated to make them look better for sitting politicians. The US for example does this with unemployment numbers and inflation numbers. Both of which are higher than officially reported. If you don't understand how statistics work... then you can't cite them. You're like an illiterate person presuming to cite your favorite novel. Its absurd. And because you're arrogant on top of ignorant... kindly just shut up. You are an internet idiot. If you feel the need to comment... talk to yourself. You have nothing of value to tell anyone in any discussion with more sophistication than children's cartoons.
You don't know what my intended results are, insect. I probably explained why I talk to people like you above... I don't remember... to date no such crawling thing as you has ever been able to understand it. Which is fine... I don't need you to understand to get what I want.
Here is the thing... this shit is "estimated"... there are high levels of uncertainty at EVERY step. There is a lot of guestimation going on and that adds up.
What temperature it even was in a given year has a margin of error of AT LEAST.10 C. Probably higher. And given that the total temperature anomaly is something like.50C... you can see that they can't actually cite a specific year as being the warmest.
What they do know is that 2014 was warm. It was arguable that it was as warm as the last 5 or so hottest years since 1850... keeping in mind that uncertainty and imprecision INCREASE as we go back farther in the record. By around 1920 the imprecision is so bad it is up to whole degrees. That is... today... they're saying they know to within about.10C... but in the 1920s records and older you're looking at imprecision has high as a whole degree and larger. Its an issue with record quality, instrument quality, distribution of data collection, lack of corroborating data, etc.
You asked.
They don't know. It... "could" be the hottest year. They're certain to about 30~40 percent... based on which data sets they use. Of course... their data doesn't really go back to 1850 or so with that level of precision. So... maybe a 30 percent chance of being the hottest year in the last 20~30 years?... sounds about right.
Patients expire. And the free exchange of information and the fact that people are just sharing these designs around already means that you'll be able to build one of these machines yourself or buy one inexpensively.
Higher quality machines could easily be owned by local businesses that like document printers offer up heavy duty systems by the hour.
As to leasing system indefinitely, the issue here is that the technology is not that mysterious and people will be able to produce similar machines that do the same thing. This notion of a permanent monopoly is contrary to our knowledge of how markets operate.
As to the planet's population all sourcing the tech from a few companies... perhaps... but they will only do that if those companies are competitive. You can't enforce an international monopoly across every legal jurisdiction. The only way you retain your market position in that environment is because people literally physically CANNOT produce the thing or cannot produce it as cheaply.
If you are not doing something that is so complex that no one can emulate it OR doing something more cheaply than anyone else... then you cannot sustain a "natural monopoly".
Keep in mind there are two types of monopolies. You have a "natural monopoly" that exists without government backing. And you have a "state backed monopoly" which exists because the government passed a law saying you can't compete.
A natural monopoly can cross legal jurisdictions and impose itself on every market indifferent to the whims of locals. The only counter to a natural monopoly are tariffs where in the price of imported good are artificially inflated to make them less marketable in that market.
Point is... you're saying these 3d printer companies are going to dominate the world despite having unfavorable prices or sales contracts. That's not possible.
No no. Understand what I mean. That literally cannot happen. You'd need a global government to even try to do something like that. No such thing exists or is likely to exist any time soon. So... the only type of monopoly that can cross all those borders will be a natural monopoly. Which means the product either has quality that cannot be matched by any other competitor OR a price that cannot be matched.
Either way... the consumer wins.
As to people tolerating things... well... the Chinese are quite happy to accept a 25% share of the profits from goods "made" in china.
I don't know what you're talking about. You're suggesting this revolt is going to happen. I don't think it is. You tend to only get those under very different circumstances.
And what are you going to do if you do revolt? Tax imports? Negate the patients of the 3d printer companies? What is your grand master plan once you have control?
In the end, if the machines are better then either your economy will make primary use of them for production or your economy will not be competittive on the international market and will be thus poor.
I don't think you appreciate that you're playing a game here that has RULES that can't be negated by pointing guns in people's faces or saying you're angry about something. It doesn't matter.
The rage is impotent. When you argue with the market, it is like arguing with a force of nature. Its like arguing with the Sun or the east wind or a mountain range or the lapping tide.
You can't scare it. You can't reason with it. You can't bribe it.
IT IS.
If you want deal with the Sun then shield yourself from it or use it. it will be what it is whatever you do.
If you want to deal with the east wind then you need to shield yourself from it or use it. It will be what it is and do what it does.
If you want to deal with a mountain range then understand it and either exploit it or avoid it.
If you want to deal with the lapping tide then you can build sea breaks tide generators or whatever you like... but the tides aren't going to stop or change what they do simply because that is inconvenient to you.
... that it is the warmest since 1850 or so. They don't actually know... these are estimates with a big margins of error. Global records of temperature going back that far are not that accurate.
Keep in mind the whole thing is very political with one side hammering the other about the "pause" and the other side either trying to prove the pause doesn't exist, doesn't matter, or stopped pausing.
Both sides have politicians, business interests, lobbying groups, and scientists. Yes... BOTH sides have scientists on them. Equal numbers? That's a political argument. Science isn't a democracy.
What is known is that 2014 WAS a warm year. No question about it. Warmest? Maybe
As to answering your question... rephrase it please... I don't know what you mean.
"" But still, please answer my question about whether you think in 300 years, people will accept inherited ownership of, say 50% of manufacturing means like that. ""
That is unclear to me.
I don't know what you mean by accepting inherited ownership.
Furthermore, when I hear "means of production"... or in this case "production means"... that's signal that I am probably talking to some flavor of communist. Which is fine except that the ideology has no applicability in the economy to come.The whole workers revolution thing didn't happen and the situation it was referring to doesn't exist anymore.
The factory workers are being replace with machines.
People will accept this the same way that they accept that a farmer users a combine. Did the the farmers rise up and force the farmer to give them free wheat because he shifted to industrial methods?
Nope.
Marx didn't understand people, didn't understand culture, didn't understand politics... really didn't understand a lot of things. Any ideology based on a fellow that really had so little knowledge of anything he was talking about... and really has an appalling track record of accurately predicting anything... any ideology based on that is doomed to disappointment.
Let it go. It was the little more than the ramblings of a crack pot that people took too seriously.
Every society has taxes. In our society they tax your money... or increasingly just tax you for being alive whether or not you make money.
And in communism they tax your time.
As to your admission that your argument that nothing changed from the agricultural to industrial revolution...
Fine... by your definition of change nothing can change. It is circular logic.
By my definitions and the ones most commonly used... things have changed.
I'm not going to argue which definition is correct. I'll accept your definition as YOUR definition so long as you appreciate that my definition is distinct and therefore not mutually relevant.
... being right =/= right to an opinion.... right to an opinion =/= being right.
You have a right to believe magical squirrels live up your anus. That does not however make you correct.
Your inability to grasp this elementary distinction fatally undermines your credibility at determining the intelligence, education, or sanity even of anyone in this thread. What you said has earned you this response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You've allowed your fee fees to get in the way of what passes for your brain. Master your animal emotions or you're little more than a monkey that thinks he's a man.
Taxes predate capitalism and are actually so ancient that they predate money.
As to the information revolution eating the industrial revolution...
3d printers (not the shitty plastic ones), cnc machines (been around for awhile but the five and six axis ones are game changers), dynamic desktop refineries, factory robots that can be reprogrammed in minutes without requiring to retool the entire assembly line... really a tediously long list of things that upsets the previous paradigm.
Think of how tractors and harvesting combines effected agriculture.
Your comment is about as silly as saying "just because you're using a harvesting combine instead of 1000 day laborers... nothing has really changed."...
Except everything has changed. And its not going to go back anymore than you're going to go back to the wheat fields. Are you going to harvest wheat? Or are you not going back?
The factories your world view relies upon as a basis for this whole "rights of the workers" concept do not exist anymore. Your entire ideology is dated. Its like looking at those silly pants from the 1970s and wondering what they were thinking.
You're out of fashion.
Disco is dead. Get over it. Only its worse than that because you're channeling nonsense from the 1900-1920s mostly... its about as sad as seeing flappers go around... without irony.
Slashdot Mirror
There are no rights but natural rights. If the government is forbidden to interfere with your rights then your rights are protected.
They say they don't have enough US labor. So they have to import it with the H1B visa program.
The politicians have responded by saying "okay but we need to correct that so how do we improve IT education so you don't have to do this".
The companies say "well, here are some things you can do"... mostly teaching women to code apparently because that is the endless windging whine out of the media these days.
And then the companies follow that one up with firing huge portions of their US labor pool.
Getting warmer...
And then they literally have the staff train the H1B replacements... which is actually more than a smoking gun. That's video evidence of the act.
Troubling?
I really really really want Obama to not be an idiot. I really really do. He's president of my country. I want him to make good decisions, be intelligent, have good judgment. But... I have to question that because he does so many bafflingly stupid things on a regular basis.
The Iran deal... My god... please make that not be as stupid as it looks. Because Obama is possibly setting himself up to be the worst president since Jimmy Carter... and that failed peanut farmer shouldn't have been let anywhere near the white house.
Please have some master plan, Obama... please be so f'ing smart that everything you're doing just appears to be retarded. Please please.
... I just switched to DuckDuckGo.
http://journals.plos.org/ploso...
Look at their graph and compare the first year with the last year. They're so f'ing similar.
Beyond that, consider they're not showing you how many illnesses anyone had... just hospital visits. Thus they could be going to the hospitals because idiots in the media scared them and it is causing a clearly very small uptick in hypochondria.
If I had a super power... it would be to urinate in the faces of people that push this shit.
Please contradict me. I would love to be wrong. I really would be... No really. this garbage depresses me with how dumb it is and if I just made stupid mistakes then that would be on me. I'd much prefer that. No really.
Until that happens... I'm going to be exposing myself to gamma rays and letting odd radioactive insects bite me on the off chance that I'll get the super power the world both needs and deserves.
Independent presumes that they're not all under the same organization's control. ALL the datasets they use in this study are directly controlled by the NOAA. They are each adjusted and calibrated... by the NOAA...
So you can say four datasets if you like but you can't say independent. They're literally not independent.
What is more, most datasets SOURCE their data from a master dataset which is also controlled by the NOAA.
so whether they're even four datasets is arguable.
As to citations of where I'm getting my information from, I read some stuff from this guy:
http://www.statslife.org.uk/si...
Here are his credentials:
""John Kennedy is a senior scientist at the Met Office developing data sets for applications in climate research and climate monitoring. He also monitors global climate putting recent changes into their long term context. The current focus of his work is understanding systematic errors in different types of historical sea surface temperature measurements and evaluating the associated uncertainties. He is also interested in the statistical techniques used to reconstruct climatological fields from incomplete observations.""
And that was posted on the site of the Royal Statistical Society which is also associated with the American Statistical Association.
I've seen estimations on the probability from the NOAA itself that get as low as 38 percent and that is using their own study. There are citations all over the internet with that figure. Most of the estimations are in the 30s. Not the 40s.
And my bias is that there is a tendency to overstate things from political organizations... and the GW stuff has gotten very political. The IPCC for example when they make a correction it is always in the direction of showing LESS global warming... never more. And that is because their bias is to suggest higher numbers and thus if they do make an error it will be on that side of the line.
That being the case... I just have to take their predictions with a grain of salt and correct them down a little bit on the assumption that figures are going to be a little inflated.
I do this with all government organizations that have shown an ability and will to tamper with statistics. The unemployment numbers are higher than is reported. The inflation numbers are higher than is reported.... really a very long list of things. And it varies depending on country what is inflated or not. Japan for example under reports their murder rate. A fair number of their suicides and accidental deaths are actually just murders. Their policy is that if they can't solve a case in X time they declare it accidental or suicide.
You find this all over the world which is why you can't trust government numbers without understanding how they were collected, the culture of the bureaucracy, and ideally you want to get some independent factors.
A really funny statistic is the US National Debt... apparently that hasn't gone up by a PENNY since the last battle over the issue in congress months ago. How likely is that? Obviously totally impossible. And there are a lot of stats like that.
Only because the issue is a political talking point. It has no utility or meaning outside of that. The people pushing this mostly just see advantage in it.
And everyone else... for whom I presume to speak is just tired of being subjected to endless progressive horseshit.
If the progressives want to destroy the tech industry on the west coast US... that's fine.
They can do that. And then it will just relocate somewhere else. Go ahead. Make more Detroits. Make a new rust belt. I double dog dare them.
When they're done the primary industry in California will be tourism.
Enough of the gender/race baiting nonsense.
Every move I've ever seen by the EU has had a couple layers to it. I wouldn't be surprised if there is an exception in it that allows business as usual.
I'm not claiming the US is superior... we love our loopholes as well. In the most absurd cases the loophole is merely a lack of enforcement.
We have that with quite a few laws where things are completely illegal but... if it isn't enforced then its not really against the law unless the government makes an exception randomly at any time it chooses.
And in the most pathetic incidents... say government corruption... they simply refuse to prosecute themselves. Only they are allowed to bring the case... and they simply decline to do so. Boom. Blank check to do what they want.
When you get into spying and stuff... how do you even know what they're doing?
The Europeans knew the NSA was operating in their countries because part of the deal was that the NSA would pass collected intelligence on to them. THus they got the benefit of spying on their people while not technically personally doing it. The Americans would do it for them.... and they'd get plausible deniability.
That was the old arrangement pre-Snowden.
Now of course the politicians are all pretending to have not known.
When that cools down... I doubt anything will change.
Outside of little communities like this one... no one cares.
No they don't run their campaigns on that basis. Look, it is already horribly obvious that you actually don't know what you're talking about in this matter.
The judges literally tell the voters almost nothing. To the extent they tell us anything it is "Guy's name for Judge".
that's literally what we see. They have little plastic signs made with metal spikes on them and they either personally or have friends go around neighborhoods and ask people if they can put the signs on their lawn. Most people say no. Some say yes.
During election season you'll see these little plastic signs stuck all over the place. Some people say yes to everything which means they get one sign from everyone which is very confusing while some take positions.
You don't know anything about the elections of judges in the US.
Your credibility on that point is utterly gone. Don't bring it up again. You've crossed the line from talking out of your ass to lying.
I have a very low tolerance for lying. I live in the US. I see the elections for judges. They do no such thing.
Show me a citation. Show me an example. In my entire life I have not seen that ONCE.
If it ever did happen it is very unusual.
As to grand juries, an investigation or deliberation you don't need to have the accused informed. The police don't need to tell you they suspect you of a crime or are building a case against you. That is in large part the point of a grand jury. For the police to query community leaders... which are the members of the grand jury...as to whether something or other should be pursued more deeply... and if so... how.
The police + the grand jury is powerful because if you go into a formal trial with the full backing of the political leadership which is something grand juries abstract to to some extent you're coming down on the accused with the full weight and conviction of the state.
That's why if you go through examples of when grand juries are held it tends to involve something very serious, something sensitive, or something the police don't want to take responsibility for doing.
The grand jury gives it their blessing and then the prosecution and the police and come down like the hammer of god on whomever.
Or... the grand jury can say "no... back off."
Or the grand jury can say "you need this to go forward."
Again, this is primarily how they are used. I agree with you to the extent that this is the ONLY way they should be used. However, in this capacity they are entirely legitimate and of no risk to the rights of the people.
... I'm quite clearly making the argument that had the germans not been disarmed, then the brown shirts wouldn't have been as threatening and that thus Hitler would not have been given dictatorial powers.
As to the Nazis having looser gun laws...
*laughs*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Only for their supporters. They only gave guns to people they felt they could trust. For them they gave guns.
Had the previous government been at least that clever... Hitler would have never come to power.
Concede. You lose.
They don't mean anything to me.
Some of the dumbest things said on this site get rated 5 Insightful and some of the cleverest get rated 0 Troll.
You can't take the mod points seriously when there isn't an IQ test or something before someone gets mod points.
As to judical elections, you don't know what they do actually... I can tell because you're running on a theory that is unmoored from experience.
I live in the US and I see judical elections every few years. They're generally utterly ignored by everyone.
Its something of a joke actually. People go to the ballot box and they see all these names and no one knows who they are... I mean you see elections for school superintendents, county accountants, and really a baffling list of people that are not actually covered in the media at all.
When I was growing up, my dad had a tradition of taking the provisional ballot he was sent out and showing it to everyone and going through the list. These are the test ballots that they issue voters so you can make up your mind what you're going to do before you go to the ballot box... just copy what you wrote into the test ballot into the actual one.
Anyway, he'd go through the whole thing every time he got one. So there was stuff that was easy to follow such as the governor or the congressman or the senators... then you had propositions to change state or city law, then you had bond inititives, and then there was all this crap about chiefs of police, fire marshals, judges, etc.
And the thing is that it is really hard to know anything about these people. Who knows if chief of police X is going to be better than chief of police Y? Most people aren't going to know anything about them.
So people often leave these portions of ballots blank.Some people will vote for someone randomly or based on whether they like their name.
The best you could do for a really long time was just see who endorsed whom. And that would give you an idea of who was allies with whom politically and you could sort of guess that if X scumbag likes Y judge that Y judge is possibly also a scumbag. That was literally about as good as you could do.
And in the end, the establishment pick tends to win these regardless.
Your notion that people win these elections based on how many people they throw in jail or something is not accurate.
Its more pathetic than that. They actually win based on whether they have the political backing of the local city or state establishment because no one else really cares.
That's the truth and its sad. But people don't care in large part because they're not given enough information to form an opinion. Its getting better though.
If you take your test ballot and do an internet search on each name you can find out a lot of information about them. That requires a proactive step on the part of the voter which is not reliable. But it is POSSIBLE for a voter to figure it out where as before it wasn't practical.
As to the grand jury system... I agree it needs to be reformed. That is a sound point. I would say that the concept of it is fine. I think they just need to shift from being a legal body to being something of an investigatory body where evidence found by the jury could be later submitted for general trial.
I don't mind the secrecy IN THAT CONTEXT. And I would point out that this is precisely how grand juries normally operate. They are very rarely tasked with actually sentencing someone. They're more used to see whether a trial should be had in the first place or to collect evidence in a very organized way so that when the trial happens it is all ready to go.
So, I agree grand juries should not be sentencing people but should be used as a mechanism for the government to determine whether it should bring trial against people or organizations in certain circumstances. given that they would not be sentenced in those proceedings they do not need to be informed they are under investigation. The police don't need to tell you if they suspect you of something. The grand jury is effectively supposed an adjunct of that concept.
As to the notion that you don't use plea bargaining in that way, I don't believe you. I did a little research and found that they are doing it in Canada and England in precisely that way.
cite specifically what you're using as evidence. I want a brief quote and a page number.
I'll quote this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
""
The 1919 Treaty of Versailles
From 1918 to 1920, with the defeat of Germany in World War I, the nation was forced to accept a series of devastating reparations after signing the Treaty of Versailles. The defeated Weimar government agreed to payments it did not have the ability to make, which would eventually lead to the 1920s inflationary depression. The treaty had stipulations to disarm the government. Fearing inability to hold the state together during the depression, the German government adopted a sweeping series of gun confiscation legislation against the citizens prior to completely disarming the German military. Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles explicitly targeted the state: "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."[3]
In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately."[4] Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.
On August 7, 1920, rising fears whether or not Germany could have rebellions prompted the government to enact a second gun-regulation law called the Law on the Disarmament of the People. It put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty in regard to the limit on military-type weapons.
In 1928, after a near decade of hyperinflation destroyed the structural fabric of the society, a rapidly expanding three-way political divide between the conservatives, National Socialists, and Communists prompted the rapidly declining conservative majority to enact the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.
Gun regulation of the Third Reich
In Nazi Germany the March 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. But under the new law:[5]:673-674
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition.
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.
The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[6]
Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[6]
Manufacture of arms and ammunition continued to require a permit, with the revisi
The probabilities are based on which dataset you use. The dataset cited outputs that number. There are a couple others and some of them have estimations as low as 30 percent. I was splitting the difference given that the number cited by the NOAA the outlier.
US infant morality rates are not comparable with most other countries because in our statistics we count life at beginning in the delivery room. So children that die in child birth count in our infant mortality statistics. Also we count children that die in the first couple days after birth in those stats.
Most countries don't count the child as even alive in their statistics until they've been alive for a couple weeks.
If you don't understand how statistics work, then you're incompetent to cite them.
What one country means by X is not going to be what another country means by X unless they have a mutually agreed upon definition and that is rarely the case.
In Japan for example, most unsolved murders are recorded in their statistics as accidental deaths or even suicides.
Government statistics from all countries are frequently manipulated to make them look better for sitting politicians. The US for example does this with unemployment numbers and inflation numbers. Both of which are higher than officially reported. If you don't understand how statistics work... then you can't cite them. You're like an illiterate person presuming to cite your favorite novel. Its absurd. And because you're arrogant on top of ignorant... kindly just shut up. You are an internet idiot. If you feel the need to comment... talk to yourself. You have nothing of value to tell anyone in any discussion with more sophistication than children's cartoons.
You don't know what my intended results are, insect. I probably explained why I talk to people like you above... I don't remember... to date no such crawling thing as you has ever been able to understand it. Which is fine... I don't need you to understand to get what I want.
Oh... so many places...
First:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...
Just as an interesting appetizer.
to continue:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ha...
Just so you can see where this is starting to come from...
And more:
ftp://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/allD...
And more:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monit...
and more
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
and finally:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...
Here is the thing... this shit is "estimated"... there are high levels of uncertainty at EVERY step. There is a lot of guestimation going on and that adds up.
What temperature it even was in a given year has a margin of error of AT LEAST .10 C. Probably higher. And given that the total temperature anomaly is something like .50C... you can see that they can't actually cite a specific year as being the warmest.
What they do know is that 2014 was warm. It was arguable that it was as warm as the last 5 or so hottest years since 1850... keeping in mind that uncertainty and imprecision INCREASE as we go back farther in the record. By around 1920 the imprecision is so bad it is up to whole degrees. That is... today... they're saying they know to within about .10C... but in the 1920s records and older you're looking at imprecision has high as a whole degree and larger. Its an issue with record quality, instrument quality, distribution of data collection, lack of corroborating data, etc.
You asked.
They don't know. It... "could" be the hottest year. They're certain to about 30~40 percent... based on which data sets they use. Of course... their data doesn't really go back to 1850 or so with that level of precision. So... maybe a 30 percent chance of being the hottest year in the last 20~30 years?... sounds about right.
Patients expire. And the free exchange of information and the fact that people are just sharing these designs around already means that you'll be able to build one of these machines yourself or buy one inexpensively.
Higher quality machines could easily be owned by local businesses that like document printers offer up heavy duty systems by the hour.
As to leasing system indefinitely, the issue here is that the technology is not that mysterious and people will be able to produce similar machines that do the same thing. This notion of a permanent monopoly is contrary to our knowledge of how markets operate.
As to the planet's population all sourcing the tech from a few companies... perhaps... but they will only do that if those companies are competitive. You can't enforce an international monopoly across every legal jurisdiction. The only way you retain your market position in that environment is because people literally physically CANNOT produce the thing or cannot produce it as cheaply.
If you are not doing something that is so complex that no one can emulate it OR doing something more cheaply than anyone else... then you cannot sustain a "natural monopoly".
Keep in mind there are two types of monopolies. You have a "natural monopoly" that exists without government backing. And you have a "state backed monopoly" which exists because the government passed a law saying you can't compete.
A natural monopoly can cross legal jurisdictions and impose itself on every market indifferent to the whims of locals. The only counter to a natural monopoly are tariffs where in the price of imported good are artificially inflated to make them less marketable in that market.
Point is... you're saying these 3d printer companies are going to dominate the world despite having unfavorable prices or sales contracts. That's not possible.
No no. Understand what I mean. That literally cannot happen. You'd need a global government to even try to do something like that. No such thing exists or is likely to exist any time soon. So... the only type of monopoly that can cross all those borders will be a natural monopoly. Which means the product either has quality that cannot be matched by any other competitor OR a price that cannot be matched.
Either way... the consumer wins.
As to people tolerating things... well... the Chinese are quite happy to accept a 25% share of the profits from goods "made" in china.
I don't know what you're talking about. You're suggesting this revolt is going to happen. I don't think it is. You tend to only get those under very different circumstances.
And what are you going to do if you do revolt? Tax imports? Negate the patients of the 3d printer companies? What is your grand master plan once you have control?
In the end, if the machines are better then either your economy will make primary use of them for production or your economy will not be competittive on the international market and will be thus poor.
I don't think you appreciate that you're playing a game here that has RULES that can't be negated by pointing guns in people's faces or saying you're angry about something. It doesn't matter.
The rage is impotent. When you argue with the market, it is like arguing with a force of nature. Its like arguing with the Sun or the east wind or a mountain range or the lapping tide.
You can't scare it. You can't reason with it. You can't bribe it.
IT IS.
If you want deal with the Sun then shield yourself from it or use it. it will be what it is whatever you do.
If you want to deal with the east wind then you need to shield yourself from it or use it. It will be what it is and do what it does.
If you want to deal with a mountain range then understand it and either exploit it or avoid it.
If you want to deal with the lapping tide then you can build sea breaks tide generators or whatever you like... but the tides aren't going to stop or change what they do simply because that is inconvenient to you.
On this we can agree.
I've been authentic and forthright throughout. That is obvious.
Thanks for playing.
... that it is the warmest since 1850 or so. They don't actually know... these are estimates with a big margins of error. Global records of temperature going back that far are not that accurate.
Keep in mind the whole thing is very political with one side hammering the other about the "pause" and the other side either trying to prove the pause doesn't exist, doesn't matter, or stopped pausing.
Both sides have politicians, business interests, lobbying groups, and scientists. Yes... BOTH sides have scientists on them. Equal numbers? That's a political argument. Science isn't a democracy.
What is known is that 2014 WAS a warm year. No question about it. Warmest? Maybe
Not yes. Not no.
Maybe.
As to answering your question... rephrase it please... I don't know what you mean.
""
But still, please answer my question about whether you think in 300 years, people will accept inherited ownership of, say 50% of manufacturing means like that.
""
That is unclear to me.
I don't know what you mean by accepting inherited ownership.
Furthermore, when I hear "means of production"... or in this case "production means"... that's signal that I am probably talking to some flavor of communist. Which is fine except that the ideology has no applicability in the economy to come.The whole workers revolution thing didn't happen and the situation it was referring to doesn't exist anymore.
The factory workers are being replace with machines.
People will accept this the same way that they accept that a farmer users a combine. Did the the farmers rise up and force the farmer to give them free wheat because he shifted to industrial methods?
Nope.
Marx didn't understand people, didn't understand culture, didn't understand politics... really didn't understand a lot of things. Any ideology based on a fellow that really had so little knowledge of anything he was talking about... and really has an appalling track record of accurately predicting anything... any ideology based on that is doomed to disappointment.
Let it go. It was the little more than the ramblings of a crack pot that people took too seriously.
Let it go. Its deader than disco.
Every society has taxes. In our society they tax your money... or increasingly just tax you for being alive whether or not you make money.
And in communism they tax your time.
As to your admission that your argument that nothing changed from the agricultural to industrial revolution...
Fine... by your definition of change nothing can change. It is circular logic.
By my definitions and the ones most commonly used... things have changed.
I'm not going to argue which definition is correct. I'll accept your definition as YOUR definition so long as you appreciate that my definition is distinct and therefore not mutually relevant.
Thus... your comment is effectively off topic.
So now you've just curled into a ball while you mumble things?
Pathetic.
... being right =/= right to an opinion. ... right to an opinion =/= being right.
You have a right to believe magical squirrels live up your anus. That does not however make you correct.
Your inability to grasp this elementary distinction fatally undermines your credibility at determining the intelligence, education, or sanity even of anyone in this thread. What you said has earned you this response:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You've allowed your fee fees to get in the way of what passes for your brain. Master your animal emotions or you're little more than a monkey that thinks he's a man.
Taxes predate capitalism and are actually so ancient that they predate money.
As to the information revolution eating the industrial revolution...
3d printers (not the shitty plastic ones), cnc machines (been around for awhile but the five and six axis ones are game changers), dynamic desktop refineries, factory robots that can be reprogrammed in minutes without requiring to retool the entire assembly line... really a tediously long list of things that upsets the previous paradigm.
Think of how tractors and harvesting combines effected agriculture.
Your comment is about as silly as saying "just because you're using a harvesting combine instead of 1000 day laborers... nothing has really changed."...
Except everything has changed. And its not going to go back anymore than you're going to go back to the wheat fields. Are you going to harvest wheat? Or are you not going back?
The factories your world view relies upon as a basis for this whole "rights of the workers" concept do not exist anymore. Your entire ideology is dated. Its like looking at those silly pants from the 1970s and wondering what they were thinking.
You're out of fashion.
Disco is dead. Get over it. Only its worse than that because you're channeling nonsense from the 1900-1920s mostly... its about as sad as seeing flappers go around... without irony.