Yes. You're right. Every politician before Donald Trump always told the truth. If only Hillary Clinton had won, because like George Washington she never ever told a lie.
There's not one single member of congress who has ever, ever told a bald face lie. Especially not the ones with (D) after their name.
Grow up please. The FTC has full power to stop this. They have it now. They had it when Apple and AT&T pull this same crap over 4G.
Like all federal agencies they have been in the pocket of the industries that they are suppose to regulate for at least a century. This is not a Democratic thing or a Republican thing. It is certainly not a Trump thing.
I fully admit I don't know how to fix this. But I can tell you putting the other group of corrupt politicians in place of the present group of corrupt politicians will make no difference.
There's a reason the extortor only asked for a small amount. No police department is going to expend resources to catch someone who only steals $170. They'll be glad to take a report, and file it. It's probably a misdemeanor because of the low amount of money.
Actually complaining on line is probably more useful than anything. YouTube won't respond to one guys complaint, but is this happens enough and if the media picks it up with the right slant then Alphabet might respond just to stop the bad publicity.
This isn't a problem for the FCC to fix. it's not that Ajit Pai is the problem. Or that it's a Republican problem. The FCC has always been the poster boy for regulatory capture. Before it was the telcoms it was the networks. The next FCC head will just be beholden to another industry, be it big data, steaming companies or the MPAA
This is a problem that needs to be fixed in law, by congress. Good luck with that. They write exemptions for themselves and anyone who throws money at them.
Not being in you contact list is something you can fix. It's what I do. If they're not on my list my phone goes direct to voicemail. They can leave a message. If it's from someone I do business with and expect to talk to again I add it to my contacts. It take literally 30 seconds. Bonus: that means when they call I know who they are before I pick up.
If they won't leave a message that's on them. I've never had a legitimate business contact refuse to leave a message.
I long ago made the decision to send my landline (mostly kept to provide a primary connection for my alarm system) straight to an answering machine. Leave a message and I'll get back to you.
I whitelist my cell phone. If you're in my contact list my phone rings, else you go to voicemail. Leave a message and I'll get back to you.
The problem with VOIP is simple. Change the standard so that number spoofing isn't necessary.
It should be straight out illegal to spoof a caller ID number. Give the user a choice. Tell your real number or flag the ID as private. You can have anonymity and I can refuse your call if you chose not to tell me who you are. That way anonymous whistleblowers and such can hide their identity and everyone else can either tell who they are or expect to be ignored.
The easiest answer for government is a simple do-over. They will simply have the system revert to a an earlier time and wipe out the drain, after securing the exploit of course.
I seem to recall Tom Clancy doing that in one of his Jack Ryan novels. Some kind of exploit was done to basically drain all the assets of all the exchanges and they just wiped out all of the loss by skipping back a day. Some people lost out but the system survives.
The wars in that area of the world will never be finished. They've been fighting there since before the Romans and Persians and they will be fighting there when we're all dead and buried.
If we stay we will never be finished. For the love of Pete we still have bases in places that we finished fighting 70 years ago.
No. If Trump pulls us completely out of the Middle East I'd dance for joy. I'd be glad to see our Navy cut to a hundred ships, mostly littoral,and the other services cut commensurately. Let other countries defend themselves or hire mercs to do it. Who made it our job?
I would say that there are people who believe that securing the border is more important than funding NASA.
I'll come right out and say it. There are people in congress who believe, or say they believe, that all government programs that are not specifically and explicitly mentioned in the Constitution should be cut until the budget is balanced. They have a constituency who believes this too.
Now I don't believe that, but that doesn't prevent some representatives from voting that way. And a good number of citizens, at least enough to get representatives or senators elected.
People ask me how come the Republican didn't pass this stuff when they controlled both houses. One reason is that unless you have 2/3s of the Senate you can't vote on anything if the opposition party filibusterers, but the other is there are Republicans who vote against any law that does not include balancing the budget. People have made a big thing of Ocasio-Cortez voting against reopening government because the bill included funding for ICE. The Republicans have people who vote no for any spending bill which does not balance the budget, which is all of them.
Many people don't give a flying rats ass what non-Americans think of the U.S. They think other countries have taken advantage of U.S. largess for decades and are glad to see them pissed off by what the U.S. does.
Trump is doing exactly what they want to see. They want professional politicians to be unhappy with what he is doing. They want foreign global leaders to be upset, based on the premise that if a globalist doesn't like it it must be good for them. A lot of these people believe that most government workers are lazy and have exploited the system to pull in cushy salaries for doing stuff they consider useless or wasteful.
Don't throw rocks at me. I don't think that. But its not that hard to see what's going on.
Part of it is self interest. A working stiff, who just wants to be able to pay their bills, raise their family, and not get told they're deplorable, doesn't really care about what goes on outside their own city, town, neighborhood. A government shutdown that doesn't directly effect them is effectively ignored. If they think it will save them money or keep them safe they will even support it.
Just remember to most of the U.S. don't care about international balance of power, They don't know who is running Germany, the UK, China of the EU. Most could give a damn about Brexit or any of that.
1/3 of the information on a worldwide information hub was not penned by one man. It's click bait based on a poor understanding of statistics and a logical fallacy. 3 million edits of 5.3 million articles does not equal 1/3 of the information.
Actually there is a large group of liberals in the U.S. And they are getting tired of the radical progressive left, which is why all of these "journalist" are out of work now. Real liberals have discovered what the right has known all along. You can't work with progressives. They are intolerant, they don't compromise, in all ways they eat their young, figuratively speaking. They're bad for the country and holding back real reform in a number of areas
I specifically monitor more than a few real liberal journalists. They quickly pointed out that the Covington kids were set up by people who edited the video and a know liar. They called out the major media who passed the story along and called out the SJW haters that were inciting violence against innocent high schooners.
They were, of course, mostly ignored by mainstream media, until the right wing started to report the same thing. Because when people are getting the same facts from both liberals and conservatives it becomes obvious the MSM is in bed with the progressives and untrustworthy. So people stop going to the progressive sites and MSM for news. They aren't going to go to the right wing media either. So the radical left wing sites are dying and more moderate liberals are creating their own news sites on YouTube and online, where they can find news they can trust to be factual.
The problem with people when they try to imagine the future is that they carry unwarranted assumptions with them when they do it.
For example trades will be difficult to replace. Only true if we continue to build houses they way we do now. Factory built houses can be made by automation and assemble on site using low skill robots. Of course there will still be trades, because rich people will not want to live in a cookie cutter factory built house. That's for the masses. So there will continue to be a small number of trades.
Elementary school teachers will be difficult to replace. Assumes that age segregated group education will be the primary method of education in the future. 3% of children in the U.S. are home schooled. With automation, i.e. computer aided education, a much larger percentage of children could be educated outside of the traditional classroom. Considering the poor outcomes of many public education systems this is likely to result in an economic savings that will push for automation in this area. At the present time there is actually a system in place that is paid for by existing school districts that supports remote learning through computer aided education. It still uses teachers but, does not actually require the teachers to personalty engage with students, one of the reasons more women go into education than men. (Women do people better.) Like wise rich people will continue to hire tutors for their kids or send them to private school, so some jobs will be preserved
I've no problem with News Guard per se, though I don't always agree totally with their ratings, but the very concept of letting a single arbiter be the 'protector' of all that is good is terrifying.
People don't need to be protected from 'fake news'. They need enough information to determine that news is fake and who is promoting it. That includes arbiters such as News Guard and people to verify News Guard remains impartial.
In no case does a monoculture promote anything. Or perhaps you were being sarcastic and forgot the sarcasm tag?
The reason Fox News is the most watched station is because a good percentage of the people can see that collectively the other media CNN, MSNBC, PBS, ABC, CBS, etc. are in the bag for the progressives.
Anyone who is watching can see that these news agencies basically lie about what is happening, and not just on Trump and the Republicans. They lie about anything that doesn't support their world view.
Is Fox News as a channel bias? Absolutely. Is their commentary in the bag for Trump and the conservative world view. Absolutely.
What makes them different than the left leaning everyone else is that their actual news reporting tends to be accurate. Their journalists, as opposed to their commentators, tend to check facts, stick to reporting news which is verified, has actual sources and makes sense. Also they pretty clearly separate news from commentary. For example their prime time fare is commentary, not news. The rest of media? Not so much. When 60 minutes went after George W Bush 20 years ago that was not journalism. It was commentary disguised as journalism. They haven't improved.
Don't believe me? Check out Tim Pool(https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCG749Dj4V2fKa143f8sE60Q) He is a real grass roots journalist who has excoriated left wing media over their failure to follow good journalistic practices. Pool is most well known for his work on Occupy Wall street and is a Liberal (not progressive) Democrat. He is in the process of reporting on the demise of progressive media. They have no credibility, are not profitable and are bleeding jobs.
Filing clerks didn't go away at all, they're called "data entry specialists" or something now.
No they're not. A file clerks job was to take a piece of paper and put it in a file. At that time everything was recorded on paper and had to be filed. A data entry specialist is someone who takes information on a form printed on paper and enters it into a computer. Very few places use this method to enter data into a system and those that do are rapidly disappearing. In almost every case direct entry of data is done by someone else whose job is not data entry, such as the mechanic who will start to work on you car as soon as he enters your data into the computer.
Secretary is now called either Executive Assistant or Receptionist depending on their level of duties.
An Executive Assistant is not a secretary. High level executives always had Executive Assistants. In the bad old sexist days they were almost always men, while secretaries were almost always women, unless you want to go back to the 19th century. Receptionist have the same job they always had. Previously every mid to high level executive had their own secretary. Her job was to take dictation, i.e. allow the executive to compose correspondence, either letters, memos or in very rare cases contracts verbally. The secretary would then type it up, the executive would sign it and she would mail it out, by sending it to the mail room, which was full of other people who no longer have a job.
Now all but the most high level executives type up their own memos, letters, etc and send most of it by email. The job was not really automated, the skills needed to do it were taught to executives and the work pushed off on them.Software made it easy enough to do that . Specialize knowledge (shorthand & typing) was no longer required.
Telephone switchboard operators and typesetters are better examples because it was a different person doing the work after the change.;)
This is exactly like what happened for your other examples.
Bank tellers are a mediocre example because those are low level jobs where people would eventually get promoted to something else in the bank anyways, so few actual jobs were lost; hiring of tellers went down, but individuals weren't getting laid off.
Bank tellers are a bad example because it's been documented that when ATM machines came along banks that use them actually accumulated so much more business that they generally open new branches. Branches which require even more tellers than they had originally. So the number of tellers working at banks went up.
You're operating on some kind of flawed vision of U.S. politics where partisanship did not exist in the past. The U.S. is no more divided now than it has ever been.
If your view of U.S. history goes no deeper than the highly filtered version taught in the public school system, then you are operating on flawed data. There was a time that things were so contentious in Congress that Preston Smith Brooks of South Carolina beat Charles Sumner of Massachusetts nearly to death on the floor of the senate over a speech he gave. The countries intervention in WWI was controversial, and only draconian and constitutionally illegal activities by the Progressive administration in power at that time prevented greater kickback. It took a direct attack on a U.S. territory to drag the U.S. into WWII, because so many people against the U.S becoming involved. There were literal riots in the streets over policy as short a time as fifty years ago. Twenty years ago a highly partisan congress impeached the president over what was effectively an extramarital affair between consenting adults, no matter how it might have been colored as something else.
The intention of the founding fathers was that the federal government be mostly dysfunctional. It was to only be highly functional in the areas of national defense and international treaty, and both those functions were intended to require cooperation between two of the three branches, with on eye to limited U.S. involvement in foreign wars and international disputes.
We actually would have even more partisanship if we had more than two political parties, since in most cases no one agrees 100% with either party, even their most partisan supporters.
Any real democracy, even a republic, will always have partisanship and disagreement. Only in dictator ships do elected leaders get 90% of the vote.
Actually the status of unlawful combatants is still a contested issue. One side holds that if you are not covered under Article Three of the Geneva Conventions, which covers lawful you should automatically be covered under Article Four, which covers civilians, or more technically persons who "at the given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."
However it is assumed that such persons are not armed. It is a point of contention whether Article Four covers anyone who is an armed participant in a conflict but is not an agent of a recognized government. If Article Four does not cover them, and as already stated Article Three does not cover them, they have no status under the conventions. Persons with no status are not entitled to any protection at all under International Law. So they can be executed out of hand, though most national laws would require they receive some kind of procedure, though it does not necessarily hold that procedure be judicial in nature.
The correct, long term, answer is for the international community to agree upon a new article made to cover this situation. That article does not necessarily have to assigned the same protections as either Article Three or Four, but should certainly institute some level of protections. Article Three generally prohibits prosecuting combat soldiers for acts of war which are agreed to be within the scope of their duties, and delineates how they must be treated, and when they should be released. Article Four allows for the prosecution of civilians who commit crimes. Unlawful combatants are neither.
International law is a fiction that strong countries impose on weak countries.
It is passed by no legislature, enforced by no one with law enforcement authority. Like sovereignty it only exists because there is someone with the ability to enforce it and the will to do so. At best it is an agreement, subject to abrogation when inconvenient enough, between the strong to protect the weak as long as their interests are do not threaten the interest of the strong.
It is mostly a modern invention and flows from the formation of the nation state and mutual self interest. It is subject to change at any time the strong players decide to change it.
Not saying I like it, but there are many things about reality I'm not overjoyed with.
I don't know that Google, Facebook or anyone else who mine data actually keep anything in the shadows. It's all very simple. If you are online someone is monitoring you. Someone collects every step you take on line, every link you click, where you are, where you've been. Physically and electronically.
With a great deal of effort you can thin the data a little or help ensure its kept in separate buckets that can't easily be linked together. But make no mistake someone still has it.
Use a VPN? They have to actually know where you are. Good ones don't keep this data beyond the short time they need it, but how can you know?
If you have a cell phone the provider can track you. They must in order to be able to transfer your phone from cell to cell.
They only way to really thin the data is to never go online at all. Never use a cell phone, credit card, computer. Even then you're not safe. If any of your friends is on Facebook chances are they have a shadow account for you. If your friends tag their photos they know what you look like. Do you own a home? The record is online. They know where you live.
There are no shadows. It's all out there. The only thing protecting you is that there are people who's data is more interesting then yours.
YouTube has a model where only a small percentage of creators see any profit. This doesn't prevent the creation of more content than anyone could ever watch. Some of it is dregs, but the same can be said for professionally created media done by the media companies.
Much of the YouTube content is supported by patrons, who freely give money to support creators they like. Indicating the move against large media corporations trying to squeeze out every dime is not Marxist in nature. Instead it goes back to the times before corporations sucked all the value out of others works.
Limit copyright to a reasonable 7 years. Allow the public domain to grow at a reasonable pace.
Media has even been bankrolled through systems like kickstart. The major media's paradigm depends on people being willing to give large amounts of their disposable income to them for what is primarily mediocre product. Try to squeeze every last dime out of your product and you might find people find better things to do.
We will always have poverty. I say that as someone who has worked with people and institution who work with people in poverty.
It's great to think that you can alleviate poverty by giving poor people money but that just doesn't work. Some people just make bad decisions. Give then enough money to live on and they spend it on drugs(include the legal one alcohol) and then don't have it for food or housing. Give them housing they tear it up. Give them money for food (like EBT cards) and they trade on a black market for stuff like cigarettes, booze and drugs.
I'm not saying everyone who is in poverty does this, just that there will always be a percentage that does. The trick is always to determine who can be helped and help them and determine who won't allow themselves to be help and figure out how to make sure they don't die on the streets.
It's not a technology problem. At some level it's not even a social problem, because you really can't force people to save themselves if they don't want to, not without a much more tyrannical government than most people are willing to put up with.
Taking into account inflation $200 is cheap for what your getting. We've just become spoiled.
$200 is $23 in 1960 dollars. In 1970 dollars its $31. In 1980 dollars its $65.
Average wage in 1960 was $4007 so $23 was 6% per month. In 1970 average wage was $6000. Price is the same 6%. By 1980 it had gone down to 4%. For 2018 the average wage was $44,564. Price is 5% of that.
So it looks like to me that price has kept pace with inflation. But lets look deeper. In everywhere but the biggest markets most people were lucky to have 2 or 3 television stations and maybe a dozen radio stations in 1960. By 1970 some areas, typically those outside major venues, started getting cable, which carried mostly OTA channels from other areas. It wasn't until 1972 that HBO was founded to play movies on cable. In the 1980's local live channels started. Still no internet though.
Now for $200 we get hundreds of channels (which I keep hearing no one wants to watch.) For that price I get effectively unlimited data too, which I use way more than cable TV.
Yeah it would be great if I only had to pay $50, but I can't honestly say it's a ripoff. The price is equitable if inflation adjusted.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. You're right. Every politician before Donald Trump always told the truth. If only Hillary Clinton had won, because like George Washington she never ever told a lie.
There's not one single member of congress who has ever, ever told a bald face lie. Especially not the ones with (D) after their name.
Grow up please. The FTC has full power to stop this. They have it now. They had it when Apple and AT&T pull this same crap over 4G.
Like all federal agencies they have been in the pocket of the industries that they are suppose to regulate for at least a century. This is not a Democratic thing or a Republican thing. It is certainly not a Trump thing.
I fully admit I don't know how to fix this. But I can tell you putting the other group of corrupt politicians in place of the present group of corrupt politicians will make no difference.
Does anyone really believe that broadcast medias quality can drop any farther?
There's a reason the extortor only asked for a small amount. No police department is going to expend resources to catch someone who only steals $170. They'll be glad to take a report, and file it. It's probably a misdemeanor because of the low amount of money.
Actually complaining on line is probably more useful than anything. YouTube won't respond to one guys complaint, but is this happens enough and if the media picks it up with the right slant then Alphabet might respond just to stop the bad publicity.
This isn't a problem for the FCC to fix. it's not that Ajit Pai is the problem. Or that it's a Republican problem. The FCC has always been the poster boy for regulatory capture. Before it was the telcoms it was the networks. The next FCC head will just be beholden to another industry, be it big data, steaming companies or the MPAA
This is a problem that needs to be fixed in law, by congress. Good luck with that. They write exemptions for themselves and anyone who throws money at them.
Not being in you contact list is something you can fix. It's what I do. If they're not on my list my phone goes direct to voicemail. They can leave a message. If it's from someone I do business with and expect to talk to again I add it to my contacts. It take literally 30 seconds. Bonus: that means when they call I know who they are before I pick up.
If they won't leave a message that's on them. I've never had a legitimate business contact refuse to leave a message.
Easy fix. If the number is from overseas it's a fake and gets dropped.
This breaks your VOIP to your foreign call center? Cry me a river. Get a U.S. exchange. Put your call center in country. I have no sympathy for you.
I long ago made the decision to send my landline (mostly kept to provide a primary connection for my alarm system) straight to an answering machine. Leave a message and I'll get back to you.
I whitelist my cell phone. If you're in my contact list my phone rings, else you go to voicemail. Leave a message and I'll get back to you.
The problem with VOIP is simple. Change the standard so that number spoofing isn't necessary.
It should be straight out illegal to spoof a caller ID number. Give the user a choice. Tell your real number or flag the ID as private. You can have anonymity and I can refuse your call if you chose not to tell me who you are. That way anonymous whistleblowers and such can hide their identity and everyone else can either tell who they are or expect to be ignored.
The easiest answer for government is a simple do-over. They will simply have the system revert to a an earlier time and wipe out the drain, after securing the exploit of course.
I seem to recall Tom Clancy doing that in one of his Jack Ryan novels. Some kind of exploit was done to basically drain all the assets of all the exchanges and they just wiped out all of the loss by skipping back a day. Some people lost out but the system survives.
The wars in that area of the world will never be finished. They've been fighting there since before the Romans and Persians and they will be fighting there when we're all dead and buried.
If we stay we will never be finished. For the love of Pete we still have bases in places that we finished fighting 70 years ago.
No. If Trump pulls us completely out of the Middle East I'd dance for joy. I'd be glad to see our Navy cut to a hundred ships, mostly littoral,and the other services cut commensurately. Let other countries defend themselves or hire mercs to do it. Who made it our job?
I would say that there are people who believe that securing the border is more important than funding NASA.
I'll come right out and say it. There are people in congress who believe, or say they believe, that all government programs that are not specifically and explicitly mentioned in the Constitution should be cut until the budget is balanced. They have a constituency who believes this too.
Now I don't believe that, but that doesn't prevent some representatives from voting that way. And a good number of citizens, at least enough to get representatives or senators elected.
People ask me how come the Republican didn't pass this stuff when they controlled both houses. One reason is that unless you have 2/3s of the Senate you can't vote on anything if the opposition party filibusterers, but the other is there are Republicans who vote against any law that does not include balancing the budget. People have made a big thing of Ocasio-Cortez voting against reopening government because the bill included funding for ICE. The Republicans have people who vote no for any spending bill which does not balance the budget, which is all of them.
Many people don't give a flying rats ass what non-Americans think of the U.S. They think other countries have taken advantage of U.S. largess for decades and are glad to see them pissed off by what the U.S. does.
Trump is doing exactly what they want to see. They want professional politicians to be unhappy with what he is doing. They want foreign global leaders to be upset, based on the premise that if a globalist doesn't like it it must be good for them. A lot of these people believe that most government workers are lazy and have exploited the system to pull in cushy salaries for doing stuff they consider useless or wasteful.
Don't throw rocks at me. I don't think that. But its not that hard to see what's going on.
Part of it is self interest. A working stiff, who just wants to be able to pay their bills, raise their family, and not get told they're deplorable, doesn't really care about what goes on outside their own city, town, neighborhood. A government shutdown that doesn't directly effect them is effectively ignored. If they think it will save them money or keep them safe they will even support it.
Just remember to most of the U.S. don't care about international balance of power, They don't know who is running Germany, the UK, China of the EU. Most could give a damn about Brexit or any of that.
1/3 of the information on a worldwide information hub was not penned by one man. It's click bait based on a poor understanding of statistics and a logical fallacy. 3 million edits of 5.3 million articles does not equal 1/3 of the information.
Actually there is a large group of liberals in the U.S. And they are getting tired of the radical progressive left, which is why all of these "journalist" are out of work now. Real liberals have discovered what the right has known all along. You can't work with progressives. They are intolerant, they don't compromise, in all ways they eat their young, figuratively speaking. They're bad for the country and holding back real reform in a number of areas
I specifically monitor more than a few real liberal journalists. They quickly pointed out that the Covington kids were set up by people who edited the video and a know liar. They called out the major media who passed the story along and called out the SJW haters that were inciting violence against innocent high schooners.
They were, of course, mostly ignored by mainstream media, until the right wing started to report the same thing. Because when people are getting the same facts from both liberals and conservatives it becomes obvious the MSM is in bed with the progressives and untrustworthy. So people stop going to the progressive sites and MSM for news. They aren't going to go to the right wing media either. So the radical left wing sites are dying and more moderate liberals are creating their own news sites on YouTube and online, where they can find news they can trust to be factual.
The problem with people when they try to imagine the future is that they carry unwarranted assumptions with them when they do it.
For example trades will be difficult to replace. Only true if we continue to build houses they way we do now. Factory built houses can be made by automation and assemble on site using low skill robots. Of course there will still be trades, because rich people will not want to live in a cookie cutter factory built house. That's for the masses. So there will continue to be a small number of trades.
Elementary school teachers will be difficult to replace. Assumes that age segregated group education will be the primary method of education in the future. 3% of children in the U.S. are home schooled. With automation, i.e. computer aided education, a much larger percentage of children could be educated outside of the traditional classroom. Considering the poor outcomes of many public education systems this is likely to result in an economic savings that will push for automation in this area. At the present time there is actually a system in place that is paid for by existing school districts that supports remote learning through computer aided education. It still uses teachers but, does not actually require the teachers to personalty engage with students, one of the reasons more women go into education than men. (Women do people better.) Like wise rich people will continue to hire tutors for their kids or send them to private school, so some jobs will be preserved
I've no problem with News Guard per se, though I don't always agree totally with their ratings, but the very concept of letting a single arbiter be the 'protector' of all that is good is terrifying.
People don't need to be protected from 'fake news'. They need enough information to determine that news is fake and who is promoting it. That includes arbiters such as News Guard and people to verify News Guard remains impartial.
In no case does a monoculture promote anything. Or perhaps you were being sarcastic and forgot the sarcasm tag?
The reason Fox News is the most watched station is because a good percentage of the people can see that collectively the other media CNN, MSNBC, PBS, ABC, CBS, etc. are in the bag for the progressives.
Anyone who is watching can see that these news agencies basically lie about what is happening, and not just on Trump and the Republicans. They lie about anything that doesn't support their world view.
Is Fox News as a channel bias? Absolutely. Is their commentary in the bag for Trump and the conservative world view. Absolutely.
What makes them different than the left leaning everyone else is that their actual news reporting tends to be accurate. Their journalists, as opposed to their commentators, tend to check facts, stick to reporting news which is verified, has actual sources and makes sense. Also they pretty clearly separate news from commentary. For example their prime time fare is commentary, not news. The rest of media? Not so much. When 60 minutes went after George W Bush 20 years ago that was not journalism. It was commentary disguised as journalism. They haven't improved.
Don't believe me? Check out Tim Pool(https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCG749Dj4V2fKa143f8sE60Q) He is a real grass roots journalist who has excoriated left wing media over their failure to follow good journalistic practices. Pool is most well known for his work on Occupy Wall street and is a Liberal (not progressive) Democrat. He is in the process of reporting on the demise of progressive media. They have no credibility, are not profitable and are bleeding jobs.
Orange juice is a corrosive liquid. Soda is a corrosive liquid. Coffee is a corrosive liquid.
Filing clerks didn't go away at all, they're called "data entry specialists" or something now.
No they're not. A file clerks job was to take a piece of paper and put it in a file. At that time everything was recorded on paper and had to be filed. A data entry specialist is someone who takes information on a form printed on paper and enters it into a computer. Very few places use this method to enter data into a system and those that do are rapidly disappearing. In almost every case direct entry of data is done by someone else whose job is not data entry, such as the mechanic who will start to work on you car as soon as he enters your data into the computer.
Secretary is now called either Executive Assistant or Receptionist depending on their level of duties.
An Executive Assistant is not a secretary. High level executives always had Executive Assistants. In the bad old sexist days they were almost always men, while secretaries were almost always women, unless you want to go back to the 19th century. Receptionist have the same job they always had. Previously every mid to high level executive had their own secretary. Her job was to take dictation, i.e. allow the executive to compose correspondence, either letters, memos or in very rare cases contracts verbally. The secretary would then type it up, the executive would sign it and she would mail it out, by sending it to the mail room, which was full of other people who no longer have a job.
Now all but the most high level executives type up their own memos, letters, etc and send most of it by email. The job was not really automated, the skills needed to do it were taught to executives and the work pushed off on them.Software made it easy enough to do that . Specialize knowledge (shorthand & typing) was no longer required.
Telephone switchboard operators and typesetters are better examples because it was a different person doing the work after the change. ;)
This is exactly like what happened for your other examples.
Bank tellers are a mediocre example because those are low level jobs where people would eventually get promoted to something else in the bank anyways, so few actual jobs were lost; hiring of tellers went down, but individuals weren't getting laid off.
Bank tellers are a bad example because it's been documented that when ATM machines came along banks that use them actually accumulated so much more business that they generally open new branches. Branches which require even more tellers than they had originally. So the number of tellers working at banks went up.
No you're missing the big picture.
You're operating on some kind of flawed vision of U.S. politics where partisanship did not exist in the past. The U.S. is no more divided now than it has ever been.
If your view of U.S. history goes no deeper than the highly filtered version taught in the public school system, then you are operating on flawed data. There was a time that things were so contentious in Congress that Preston Smith Brooks of South Carolina beat Charles Sumner of Massachusetts nearly to death on the floor of the senate over a speech he gave. The countries intervention in WWI was controversial, and only draconian and constitutionally illegal activities by the Progressive administration in power at that time prevented greater kickback. It took a direct attack on a U.S. territory to drag the U.S. into WWII, because so many people against the U.S becoming involved. There were literal riots in the streets over policy as short a time as fifty years ago. Twenty years ago a highly partisan congress impeached the president over what was effectively an extramarital affair between consenting adults, no matter how it might have been colored as something else.
The intention of the founding fathers was that the federal government be mostly dysfunctional. It was to only be highly functional in the areas of national defense and international treaty, and both those functions were intended to require cooperation between two of the three branches, with on eye to limited U.S. involvement in foreign wars and international disputes.
We actually would have even more partisanship if we had more than two political parties, since in most cases no one agrees 100% with either party, even their most partisan supporters.
Any real democracy, even a republic, will always have partisanship and disagreement. Only in dictator ships do elected leaders get 90% of the vote.
Actually the status of unlawful combatants is still a contested issue. One side holds that if you are not covered under Article Three of the Geneva Conventions, which covers lawful you should automatically be covered under Article Four, which covers civilians, or more technically persons who "at the given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."
However it is assumed that such persons are not armed. It is a point of contention whether Article Four covers anyone who is an armed participant in a conflict but is not an agent of a recognized government. If Article Four does not cover them, and as already stated Article Three does not cover them, they have no status under the conventions. Persons with no status are not entitled to any protection at all under International Law. So they can be executed out of hand, though most national laws would require they receive some kind of procedure, though it does not necessarily hold that procedure be judicial in nature.
The correct, long term, answer is for the international community to agree upon a new article made to cover this situation. That article does not necessarily have to assigned the same protections as either Article Three or Four, but should certainly institute some level of protections. Article Three generally prohibits prosecuting combat soldiers for acts of war which are agreed to be within the scope of their duties, and delineates how they must be treated, and when they should be released. Article Four allows for the prosecution of civilians who commit crimes. Unlawful combatants are neither.
International law is a fiction that strong countries impose on weak countries.
It is passed by no legislature, enforced by no one with law enforcement authority. Like sovereignty it only exists because there is someone with the ability to enforce it and the will to do so. At best it is an agreement, subject to abrogation when inconvenient enough, between the strong to protect the weak as long as their interests are do not threaten the interest of the strong.
It is mostly a modern invention and flows from the formation of the nation state and mutual self interest. It is subject to change at any time the strong players decide to change it.
Not saying I like it, but there are many things about reality I'm not overjoyed with.
I don't know that Google, Facebook or anyone else who mine data actually keep anything in the shadows. It's all very simple. If you are online someone is monitoring you. Someone collects every step you take on line, every link you click, where you are, where you've been. Physically and electronically.
With a great deal of effort you can thin the data a little or help ensure its kept in separate buckets that can't easily be linked together. But make no mistake someone still has it.
Use a VPN? They have to actually know where you are. Good ones don't keep this data beyond the short time they need it, but how can you know?
If you have a cell phone the provider can track you. They must in order to be able to transfer your phone from cell to cell.
They only way to really thin the data is to never go online at all. Never use a cell phone, credit card, computer. Even then you're not safe. If any of your friends is on Facebook chances are they have a shadow account for you. If your friends tag their photos they know what you look like. Do you own a home? The record is online. They know where you live.
There are no shadows. It's all out there. The only thing protecting you is that there are people who's data is more interesting then yours.
Already comment on this thread so I can't upmod you. But you've go it right.
Generally speaking
copyright=Good
Perversion of copyright for profit=Bad
YouTube has a model where only a small percentage of creators see any profit. This doesn't prevent the creation of more content than anyone could ever watch. Some of it is dregs, but the same can be said for professionally created media done by the media companies.
Much of the YouTube content is supported by patrons, who freely give money to support creators they like. Indicating the move against large media corporations trying to squeeze out every dime is not Marxist in nature. Instead it goes back to the times before corporations sucked all the value out of others works.
Limit copyright to a reasonable 7 years. Allow the public domain to grow at a reasonable pace.
Media has even been bankrolled through systems like kickstart. The major media's paradigm depends on people being willing to give large amounts of their disposable income to them for what is primarily mediocre product. Try to squeeze every last dime out of your product and you might find people find better things to do.
We will always have poverty. I say that as someone who has worked with people and institution who work with people in poverty.
It's great to think that you can alleviate poverty by giving poor people money but that just doesn't work. Some people just make bad decisions. Give then enough money to live on and they spend it on drugs(include the legal one alcohol) and then don't have it for food or housing. Give them housing they tear it up. Give them money for food (like EBT cards) and they trade on a black market for stuff like cigarettes, booze and drugs.
I'm not saying everyone who is in poverty does this, just that there will always be a percentage that does. The trick is always to determine who can be helped and help them and determine who won't allow themselves to be help and figure out how to make sure they don't die on the streets.
It's not a technology problem. At some level it's not even a social problem, because you really can't force people to save themselves if they don't want to, not without a much more tyrannical government than most people are willing to put up with.
Taking into account inflation $200 is cheap for what your getting. We've just become spoiled.
$200 is $23 in 1960 dollars. In 1970 dollars its $31. In 1980 dollars its $65.
Average wage in 1960 was $4007 so $23 was 6% per month. In 1970 average wage was $6000. Price is the same 6%. By 1980 it had gone down to 4%. For 2018 the average wage was $44,564. Price is 5% of that.
So it looks like to me that price has kept pace with inflation. But lets look deeper. In everywhere but the biggest markets most people were lucky to have 2 or 3 television stations and maybe a dozen radio stations in 1960. By 1970 some areas, typically those outside major venues, started getting cable, which carried mostly OTA channels from other areas. It wasn't until 1972 that HBO was founded to play movies on cable. In the 1980's local live channels started. Still no internet though.
Now for $200 we get hundreds of channels (which I keep hearing no one wants to watch.) For that price I get effectively unlimited data too, which I use way more than cable TV.
Yeah it would be great if I only had to pay $50, but I can't honestly say it's a ripoff. The price is equitable if inflation adjusted.