Democrats sold the unions down river after Hoffa steered the AFL/CIO republican in 1972.
the democrats are run by the new left, and while they take union money, they actively work to stop their influence in the party as a whole, and actively work within the unions to keep party lackeys in charge who don't press too hard for workers rights at the expense of profits.
Your typical democrat would never argue against illegal imigration
see the problem is there is no competition on cabling infastructure is there is no real choice. Its not feasable for more than one company to run more lines
A good analogy for what they are doing is if the phone companies started charging more for dial up connections to known ISPs, or blocked them altogether back in the day.
we tend to work OK with the majority of roads being public, I think we could do OK with public infastructure for electricity, gas, water, and now internet. Not to say that the.
As for so called "unregulated". it will be very regulated alright, just by whatever company owns the infastructure. I am very much for a free market, and I like the idea that more competition reduces problems. But in some areas, private ownership won't breed competition, and cannot be voted upon.
I don't think there is much of a diffrence except rhetoric.
Dems outsource American jobs via giving them to illegals making 3 dollars an hour Repubs - oursource American jobs via NAFTA giving them to dirrectly to people working in other countries making 3 dollars an hour
niether wants to pay people what they are worth. Niether wants to hire Americans. Both are good at passing the buck.
Both favor strong social controls, just so long as they are not aimed at their core constiuency Dems - unheathy foods, cigarettes, big trucks, booze, etc... repubs - drugs, sex, "alternative" music and cultures, etc...
Both groups have called for the censoring of their critics.
I agree with you on the last part on foreign policy. dems - work with other leaders running the same scams repubs - be the only ones left on the block
Just who is this Grainne Kirwan, and how did they get to be an "online psychology expert". We've been hearing from these goons for 20-30 years now and its never anything insightful or constructive. Always some vauge insult, gross stereotype aimed at reducing freedoms online, persecuting engineers, or general intimidation of such. Either that or enforcing outdated social standards at the behest of the larger society on the internet were they are unwelcome and unwanted. All agains the types who make the internet happen in the first place.
They seem like a brand of two bit hacks either looking for funding research, or notoriaty for their own careers. The internet does not need them. The internet does not need outsiders telling us who we should or should not be. The internet has not use for soft minded soft sceince types making decisions about its usage.
this argument again. Back when we HAD a draft, the rich, powerful, or even connected got out of the draft, verry easily. Either by going to college, or hiring a lawyer to fight it in court(a good chancing of winning).
a draft would only get poor people. We saw this tact used by the democrats in the 2004 presidental elections to rally votes by threatening to start the draft again, then blame it on the republicans.
Also, draftees make very poor soliders. It would wreck the army.
"If everyone in an army is making decisions then they aren't as likely to engage in risky behavior or unnecessary violence." untrue. very untrue.
you miss the point. The article is hinting that specialists won't be needed because of advances in technology and information by the common man. The point is in it will become technologically feasible,
daunting prospect given that this happened in factories at the beginning of the industrial revolution, and sank the market for skilled labor, leading to lower wages accross the board and social unrest.
Hitler and Mousolinni supported Franco's spain with military backing. The allies sat and watched spain with a thumb up their ass "its not our problem".
"Because there is no distinction. Alternative medicine is quackery. If there was evidence and research to show that it was effective, it would be called MEDICINE."
lets be fair, I doubt many of these people have the money to buy the evidence they need.
the FDA's approval proccess is closed, expensive, and ensures that research and evidence is only presented to things that have high profit margins.
just a reminder libreoffice runs docx too. Unless you use an INSANE amount of formating, or have really special needs, libreoffice runs faster and works better.
SOPA/PIPA is just one example. Its been well documented that the big media is firmly in the pockets of the democratic party. I'm no republican either though. I think most mainstream politicians are sponsored by corporations, and the democrat/republican diffrence is which corporations support who.
They both attack eachothers sponsors, and actively cover up their own.
So when the mainstream news does an expose on an industry, they really don't give a damn about facts or changing anything, they are just shaking down a few companies to come up with protection money in the form of hired PR staff(same industry, friends).
FOX news just caters to the republican point of view, instead of the usual democrat. It also makes the democrat sponsored media look sane.
the rest of thew news and media industry flat out supports the democratic party. If not as obviously, but by censoring and presenting the news, and other media in their favor.
This is in response for the democrats watching the industry's back as a whole in congress, allowing and even enforcing their monopolies with such issues as radio spectrum usage, and copyright laws. It was former democratic senator and powerhouse Chris Dodd drives my point home as he took the charge lobbying for SOPA and PIPA not far after leaving office.
All big media took a stand on SOPA and PIPA with absolute silence. If we'd let celebrities or other big media agents/agencies speak for us, SOPA and PIPA would have been passed, and they would have silence dissent from the inside.
if I'd have to guess, the "political bias" was made up polar opposite for Fox News, so partisans of both sides get run by the same RIAA/MPAA sponsered group. Its an illusion of choice or difference.
A friend of mine's brother is in a start up company that does this for money. They call it advertising and they swear its just as legitimate as other types of ads. Not just facebook likes, but trying to farm various sorts of social media in attempt to "make things go viral". He told me he thinks that 60% of all trends are made up this way by some company like his. Oh, there are lots of companies that do this.
For a minuete, take the example given out of the equation and look at the bigger picture. Sex crimes has long been used to stir emotions to get Americans into forgetting all notion of civil liberties. They immediately want us to think this was set up to protect children against pedophiles, but lets be frank, there is a bigger picture.
If Syria, Egypt or libya did this, we'd be up in arms about it. This is nothing more than facebook monitoring users as proxy for the government. Its slightly unsettling. Its a violation of an expectation of privacy.
What happens when that law broken is simple drug use, the so called "unlawful assembly", or other minor crimes used to tar and feather or public humiliate dissedents. Who gets to decide what gets fowarded to the authorities.
Even better, what system is in place to prevent facebook employees using information for their own gain? what about personal gain? what about prying on secrets of competitors for sexual mates? What about revenge?
Slashdot Mirror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_Black_%28comics%29
dystopia is now
amazon actually has a service were if you buy from them, they will de-box and repackage in a more human friendly manner
Democrats sold the unions down river after Hoffa steered the AFL/CIO republican in 1972.
the democrats are run by the new left, and while they take union money, they actively work to stop their influence in the party as a whole, and actively work within the unions to keep party lackeys in charge who don't press too hard for workers rights at the expense of profits.
Your typical democrat would never argue against illegal imigration
As much as I try to never loose my composure.
The only thing I can think of is "haw haw haw". Eat it microsoft.
I hope they loose more and more money. I hope Steve Ballmer gets mad enough throw another chair.
Does anyone else see letting microsoft, sworn enemy of all things linux, contribute to the kernel?
Seriously!
see the problem is there is no competition on cabling infastructure is there is no real choice. Its not feasable for more than one company to run more lines
A good analogy for what they are doing is if the phone companies started charging more for dial up connections to known ISPs, or blocked them altogether back in the day.
we tend to work OK with the majority of roads being public, I think we could do OK with public infastructure for electricity, gas, water, and now internet. Not to say that the.
As for so called "unregulated". it will be very regulated alright, just by whatever company owns the infastructure. I am very much for a free market, and I like the idea that more competition reduces problems. But in some areas, private ownership won't breed competition, and cannot be voted upon.
well, come the fall, a lot more people hopefully.
it could be a great way for dell to re-vitalize the brand, and a great way for linux to get into the home.
funny, thats how I'd describe MS office.
Its also far far far far faster.
FUD anyone?
its funny, because my simple resume I made in MS office years ago looks fine, with tables and bullet points in libre office.
I don't think there is much of a diffrence except rhetoric.
Dems outsource American jobs via giving them to illegals making 3 dollars an hour
Repubs - oursource American jobs via NAFTA giving them to dirrectly to people working in other countries making 3 dollars an hour
niether wants to pay people what they are worth. Niether wants to hire Americans. Both are good at passing the buck.
Both favor strong social controls, just so long as they are not aimed at their core constiuency
Dems - unheathy foods, cigarettes, big trucks, booze, etc...
repubs - drugs, sex, "alternative" music and cultures, etc...
Both groups have called for the censoring of their critics.
I agree with you on the last part on foreign policy.
dems - work with other leaders running the same scams
repubs - be the only ones left on the block
Just who is this Grainne Kirwan, and how did they get to be an "online psychology expert". We've been hearing from these goons for 20-30 years now and its never anything insightful or constructive. Always some vauge insult, gross stereotype aimed at reducing freedoms online, persecuting engineers, or general intimidation of such. Either that or enforcing outdated social standards at the behest of the larger society on the internet were they are unwelcome and unwanted. All agains the types who make the internet happen in the first place.
They seem like a brand of two bit hacks either looking for funding research, or notoriaty for their own careers. The internet does not need them. The internet does not need outsiders telling us who we should or should not be. The internet has not use for soft minded soft sceince types making decisions about its usage.
this argument again. Back when we HAD a draft, the rich, powerful, or even connected got out of the draft, verry easily. Either by going to college, or hiring a lawyer to fight it in court(a good chancing of winning).
a draft would only get poor people. We saw this tact used by the democrats in the 2004 presidental elections to rally votes by threatening to start the draft again, then blame it on the republicans.
Also, draftees make very poor soliders. It would wreck the army.
"If everyone in an army is making decisions then they aren't as likely to engage in risky behavior or unnecessary violence."
untrue. very untrue.
Thats not a real argument. Because there are places worse off than here, it doesn't make us any more democratic.
you miss the point. The article is hinting that specialists won't be needed because of advances in technology and information by the common man. The point is in it will become technologically feasible,
daunting prospect given that this happened in factories at the beginning of the industrial revolution, and sank the market for skilled labor, leading to lower wages accross the board and social unrest.
lets be fair.
Hitler and Mousolinni supported Franco's spain with military backing. The allies sat and watched spain with a thumb up their ass "its not our problem".
Franco also had most of the federal army
"Because there is no distinction. Alternative medicine is quackery. If there was evidence and research to show that it was effective, it would be called MEDICINE."
lets be fair, I doubt many of these people have the money to buy the evidence they need.
the FDA's approval proccess is closed, expensive, and ensures that research and evidence is only presented to things that have high profit margins.
none. This year they put a 12 on it.
just a reminder libreoffice runs docx too. Unless you use an INSANE amount of formating, or have really special needs, libreoffice runs faster and works better.
https://www.libreoffice.org - LibreOffice
SOPA/PIPA is just one example. Its been well documented that the big media is firmly in the pockets of the democratic party. I'm no republican either though. I think most mainstream politicians are sponsored by corporations, and the democrat/republican diffrence is which corporations support who.
They both attack eachothers sponsors, and actively cover up their own.
So when the mainstream news does an expose on an industry, they really don't give a damn about facts or changing anything, they are just shaking down a few companies to come up with protection money in the form of hired PR staff(same industry, friends).
FOX news just caters to the republican point of view, instead of the usual democrat. It also makes the democrat sponsored media look sane.
the rest of thew news and media industry flat out supports the democratic party. If not as obviously, but by censoring and presenting the news, and other media in their favor.
This is in response for the democrats watching the industry's back as a whole in congress, allowing and even enforcing their monopolies with such issues as radio spectrum usage, and copyright laws. It was former democratic senator and powerhouse Chris Dodd drives my point home as he took the charge lobbying for SOPA and PIPA not far after leaving office.
All big media took a stand on SOPA and PIPA with absolute silence. If we'd let celebrities or other big media agents/agencies speak for us, SOPA and PIPA would have been passed, and they would have silence dissent from the inside.
fox news was relavtively liberal before 9/11.
its all a game. TV new's politics is as real as pro-wrestling.
if I'd have to guess, the "political bias" was made up polar opposite for Fox News, so partisans of both sides get run by the same RIAA/MPAA sponsered group. Its an illusion of choice or difference.
yet another irrelivant english major dumb fuck.
http://www.niemanlab.org/author/mgarber/
what the fuck does she know about computers?
most of us nerds have been doing cloud computing with our own *NIX on x86 boxes for years, running home servers with lamp + SSH.
then there is this pogo plug thingy which does the same thing but for newbs who don't want to do the setup, and for cheap.
A friend of mine's brother is in a start up company that does this for money. They call it advertising and they swear its just as legitimate as other types of ads. Not just facebook likes, but trying to farm various sorts of social media in attempt to "make things go viral". He told me he thinks that 60% of all trends are made up this way by some company like his. Oh, there are lots of companies that do this.
For a minuete, take the example given out of the equation and look at the bigger picture. Sex crimes has long been used to stir emotions to get Americans into forgetting all notion of civil liberties. They immediately want us to think this was set up to protect children against pedophiles, but lets be frank, there is a bigger picture.
If Syria, Egypt or libya did this, we'd be up in arms about it. This is nothing more than facebook monitoring users as proxy for the government. Its slightly unsettling. Its a violation of an expectation of privacy.
What happens when that law broken is simple drug use, the so called "unlawful assembly", or other minor crimes used to tar and feather or public humiliate dissedents. Who gets to decide what gets fowarded to the authorities.
Even better, what system is in place to prevent facebook employees using information for their own gain? what about personal gain? what about prying on secrets of competitors for sexual mates? What about revenge?