Well...actually yes. These 10s computers are mandated to be down tight with zero options for going outside of Microsoft's excruciatingly painfully bad app store, while being forced to use a web browser and/or web rendering engine that Microsoft's own engineers can't even get to work correctly on their own product demo so they had to install chrome.
And while chrome OS can be locked down just as much by IT admins, it's not mandatory and you can install from third parties, and yes, you can run competing web browsers as a native app and even configure it as the default browser.
Windows 10s is just a terrible attempt to clone iOS, only it has no apps and it runs on a laptop.
I think you're confused because you think a reply means my intent is arguing against your core point, even though it was anything but that.
The intent is to expand on that core point with a historical context in light of numerous posts already made that seem to think the US was somehow meant to be a direct democracy, only it couldn't because of a mix of rednecks and/or lack of technology, which is just false.
Probably because a $300,000 heist is far more likely to be part of an organized crime ring and/or terrorism funding operation than a $300 bike.
This is the same reason why the FBI doesn't care if you paid $1000 to a Nigerian scammer, but does care if you took out a $100,000 second mortgage to pay a Nigerian scammer.
The electoral college has always been and will always be bullshit. At best it was a hack to make the thing work when the tech didn't support direct voting.
It was never intended to have people vote directly for the president, or even for congress. In fact, in many states, nobody voted in federal elections at all. In New York for example, you only voted for the state government. Your state government would then decide who they wanted to send to Washington with specific instructions of which president to vote for, and they would also send their chosen representatives and senators.
While every state had elections, the constitution allowed the states to set their own rules about who could and couldn't vote, and the right to vote itself was not (and technically still isn't) enshrined into the US constitution until much later, and even then, it is described as being more of a privilege with conditions for revocation (one being if you participated in a rebellion -- which kept confederate sympathizing politicians out of office after the civil war.) In fact the bill of rights itself didn't apply to you, rather it simply placed restrictions on the federal government. States still could just ignore any of those amendments, and they did exactly that until the incorporation doctrine, which is really just a judicial interpretation of the 14th amendment.
The founding fathers were well cognizant of the fact that the majority can and do become tyrannical, which is why our constitution was crafted the way it was (that is also the idea behind the electoral college.) While I myself am not happy with the electoral college, I think there is wisdom in making some votes weigh less than others, though to what degree and why is difficult to determine fairly.
Measures to counterbalance the voting power of a large echo chamber, especially when that echo chamber has the mentality of a lynch mob, are a good idea and we have many in place. Consider for example UC Berkeley students who believe that they should have the right to vote for binding limits to free speech on a publicly funded campus simply because they have a majority.
You can argue, to a large extent, that dense urban populations can form similar echo chambers. This is significant because without the electoral college, you may eventually see presidential nominees simply campaign to the whims of the largest metro areas and largely disregard everybody else. It would only make sense since it would greatly reduce cost of campaigning.
Notice Trump campaigned virtually all throughout, while Hillary just campaigned to her base and sort of disregarded the rest, and then wondered why she lost to a guy who probably wasn't even trying to win to begin with. Not that I wanted a Trump win, but he does seem to be pursuing what he said he would on behalf of those constituents, including trying to keep us on coal, which won him a state that went to Obama twice and was already presumed to vote for whatever democrat came next.
As for New California, it would largely be an agricultural and natural resources state, while the science, technology, business, arts, shipping, R&D, tourism, and transportation would all be in the left-wing, high-growth, profitable "old" California.
You're overlooking a pretty big gaping hole here. If something like this happened, Calexit would happen first, and these counties would simply opt to remain in the US a la West Virginia. This is significant because one of every three people living in poverty in the US currently reside in what you'd later call old California:
Let that sink in for a second: Your old California now has an insanely high per capita poverty rate while at the same time shedding many of those in the middle. These poverty stricken people, by the way, are the same ones who work all day and night to serve lunch and carry out the garbage for Hollywood celebrities and Facebook employees...you know, the most outspoken of self-labeled progressives who claim to represent them...while being hopelessly dependent upon California's welfare system which works under the assumption that you solve poverty by giving more and more money to the poor, in spite of the fact that the local poverty rate just keeps growing every time this happens.
But that doesn't stop the rather progressive elite politicians, hollywood actors, and silicon valley billionaires from advocating UBI and increased minimum wages as if it will somehow work. No siree, because we can somehow solve homelessness and poverty by making sure that there is more money to go around, in spite of the fact that there simply isn't enough housing for them all to begin with. So who cares that rent is already the highest CPI line item, and who cares that rent nearly beats all of the other line items combined! (Except in California, where it exceeds all of the others combined.)
After all, the science, technology, business, arts, shipping, R&D, tourism, and transportation in the left-wing, high-growth, profitable "old" California has plenty of money that it can throw their way, so the fact that they all have to outbid one another for the same finite housing to perpetually keep raising rent prices doesn't matter! Hence, California's progressive elite, who represent these poor and downtrodden, can safely continue to refuse to make more housing available time and time again whenever the issue comes up.
But who needs those middle income no-good rednecks and their sparsely populated red counties? Old California sure doesn't!
That all aside, in all likelihood, no splits will happen. Nonetheless, I personally believe that California is currently in an unsustainable position in at least three major metro areas. By sheer necessity, the minimum wage will keep increasing, the welfare benefits will keep growing, hence the local money supply will grow along with it for quite some time, but only until the costs necessary to sustain those with low incomes exceeds that of the money brought in by the multi-billion dollar companies that reside there. This is when the homelessness problem starts looking more like a struggling to survive problem. At that point, people and companies just begin to leave, which begins a period of chronic negative growth and urban decay. We've seen this happen before in fact.
Splitting California's electoral votes is a right wing wet dream. Makes you wonder if it's the Koch family or the Mercers behind this push. Or some combination of billionaires and Russian foreign intelligence.
Ah yes, the ol' formulaic "I don't like this, therefore it must be right wing, and therefore must be koch involved" line of thinking. I think if the right were concerned about electoral votes, they would simply allow a real (as opposed to imagined conspiracy theory) left wing movement funded by an actual billionaire happen:
And if it did, you can guarantee that California won't take all of its counties along with it; see West Virginia. The "right" doesn't need to do anything. Though California WILL keep its overwhelming poverty since it is all concentrated into the counties that would participate in a calexit:
The apple store in that picture would easily pass as a very cultish church. All you have to do is replace the apple logo with a church of scientology logo.
Pichai said that the decision to fire Damore was about ensuring women at Google felt like the company was committed to creating a welcoming environment.
They don't have to track your phone unless you dial 911. This is baseless FUD.
Well before you grab your pitchforks and torches against the pro-privacy crowd because you're just thinking about the children, consider the mechanism with which uber (and other apps) get location data vs how e911 does (as per fcc rules.) E911 stipulates that the carrier (using A-GPS) and the handset itself provide the GPS data they have to 911. This normally comes from the baseband that operates separately from the phone OS. Smartphones like Android (and as of recently, Apple as well) get more accurate data by keeping big private databases of WiFI AP's locations, and then they look at the relative signal strength of these APs to get a faster, more accurate fix than A-GPS and GPS combined.
THAT is how uber finds you, and 911 doesn't. This creates a few stipulations:
- Smartphone OSes without the sheer number of devices in the field recording this data are SOL - Rural users with few APs are SOL - If the OS has to start injecting location data into the baseband, that opens a can of worms (think carriers are ALREADY bad about slowing updates? Now imagine if the FCC has to stick their hands in it as well -- say goodbye to rooting and roms for good while you're at it.) - Some people may not like the government knowing where their wifi AP is (and yes, there are a few ways to opt out, some easy but not foolprooof, and some very foolproof and very technical) so does this mean that not only do Google and Apple have to turn over this data to the public so that everybody gets equal access, but your WIFI AP location is now a matter of public record, and doing anything to stop it from being so becomes illegal?
Better solution, IMO, is to upgrade GPS (at least within the US) to be more suitable to this application that it was never designed for in the first place. Since GPS is run by the DoD, just put it in the defense budget.
But either way, it's not unreasonable to be hesitant about providing a quick fix for this just because "think of the children!"
I think it's worse than that. Manning did what he did purely out of spite. He had no fucking idea the contents of what he was leaking, he just wanted to leak it, even if it meant putting people's lives at risk, simply because he hated being in the Army. He had no political goal other than that, just pure spite. He has an established history of not giving a shit about anybody but himself.
A "free market" includes so much more than a lack of price controls. For instance, it requires free movement of labor, goods, and capital.
Duh...and these are all a part of that...it's like you just said "For instance, this cow has bones in it" as if just mentioning the cow wasn't good enough. Restricting movement IS a form of price control, tariffs being an obvious example.
It's also a completely abstract idea that does not exist in the real world
It's a social behavior that has been observed and was given a name long, long before capitalism was given one (and capitalism existed a few thousand years before Karl Marx coined it and began using it as a derogatory word, and THAT is when economic ideologies began.)
There's nothing abstract about that; you'd be better off arguing that economics doesn't exist in the real world. Nobody just "invented" the concept, and like all social behaviors with a name, a free market is amoral and without ideology, and yes, it most certainly exists in the real world. Sure, nobody agrees about just how free a market should be to be considered free, but nobody can agree on pizza toppings either.
which is that by creating an artificial entity that shields individual owners from the consequences of their actions
Suppose you run a pizzeria, and you hire a delivery guy who has a 5 year spotless driving record. One day on a delivery, he misses a stop sign and kills somebody. Because he was working for you, you are liable for 100% of it, your insurance doesn't cover enough, you get a judgement against you, and the homestead exemption doesn't protect enough of your house's equity, so you lose that, along with your business.
Guess what? This happens. That is what an LLC is meant to protect you from; a lender can only claim your business assets. However, it does NOT protect you from willfully breaking the law.
Tivo made a big mistake of marrying themselves to the cable industry to begin with, so it doesn't really matter anyways since cable is dying. That, and they've tried to become more of an IP troll over the last 6 years as their relevance has slid away. I have little sympathy to begin with; they sold boxes with many hardware defects while only offering a 90 day warranty. The most common problem with S1 units was that their modems would easily break, which effectively rendered it useless.
An immediate halt to manipulating public opinion about climate change is more like it.
If manipulating public opinion was against any laws, especially when it is for the worse, then Greenpeace should have been sued out of existence long ago for the EXACT same reason, namely in that they're actively lobbying in favor of environmentally deleterious positions (and unlike the oil companies, they're actually winning.)
Besides, it's free speech. If you want to state an opinion, then you're allowed to do so. If you disagree, then go lobby your congresscritter to repeal the first amendment because it makes you feel safer knowing that people can no longer say things that you don't like.
Soo... what do you expect then? An immediate halt to the world's oil supply? That would be the overnight death of NYC. And if we never had it to begin with, we'd all be shitting in outhouses right now while the rest of the world modernized, while New York is stuffed with 5 tons of horse shit per 10 square feet.
That's just a lawsuit that will never be won. Nonetheless, how much will their legal team cost?
Free market has nothing to do with that. Free market just means there are no artificial price restrictions on the part of the government, in other words, prices are set by the forces of supply and demand.
It does not mean no regulation Regulation is actually completely necessary for capitalism to work, otherwise people could potentially scam you in some ways that are legal without regulation, which is bad if you're trying to encourage market stability and investment. The stipulation is that regulation can't be so burdensome that it discourages growth and doesn't pick any favorites.
If we always tied it to inflation, it would be about $4.75 an hour right now. That fact alone is ALL the proof you need that we are in fact pricing laborers out of the market, which means we have to find alternative means of production, including automation.
Where as in the US you pretend you can have a minimum wage below the poverty line then spend lots of tax dollars propping those people up with food stamps, etc, or just paying indirectly with theft and other criminal behaviour.
And the reason poverty keeps rising is because we keep moving the goalpost. I lived in poverty until 2 years ago and I still had my own car and food on my table, and I still saved money. Being in poverty really wasn't a big deal, you just can't decide to live beyond your means, which is true on any income level. Having a higher income doesn't mean you won't ever live paycheck to paycheck. Living beyond your means is what makes you live paycheck to paycheck. This is exactly why I've always chosen to live between 50% and 60% below my means, meanwhile my investments are growing at an insanely high rate, especially with the cannabis ETFs I own.
No, the companies with the most marketing successes include Apple and Bose. Google isn't much of a marketing company, nor are they anything special when it comes to advertising (Apple and Bose are way ahead of them here.) Google's success is being a master at matching advertisers with their target audience, and they sell a TON of ad space.
Vegans often state that meat is rape... Can't say I see any rational basis behind that. I mean, hunters shoot the animal, not have sex with it. That is something an animal lover would do, and guess who claims to be animal lovers?
Also, statistically speaking, vegans tend to have a lot of mental health issues such as superiority complexes and psychotic behavior... Perhaps that is attributable to the creatine deficiency?
There are no opposites when it comes to political ideologies. Political left and right are not opposites either, rather they're two different views in western politics (also within western politics is fascism and communism, the latter of which was adopted en masse in the East.)
Having said that, liberalism is a bit of a misnomer. In the beginning, liberalism was actually liberal, though those people are now referred to as classical liberals. They would include the founding fathers among their ranks. Today's liberals are rather authoritarian and intolerant in comparison. If you disagree, go pay a visit to most universities, or better yet, Evergreen State. Also try getting a job in Hollywood. If you aren't 100% on board with mainstream liberal thought there, you'll never find work, and/or get fired. If you have a friend or relative who isn't, you may get pressured to do a Scientology style disconnect from them (my sister was told to do this because my mom likes to post comments on Facebook, and my sister has her friended.)
Disclaimer: I don't associate with any particular political ideology, mainly because I don't want my political views to be shaped by somebody else.
Slashdot Mirror
Well...actually yes. These 10s computers are mandated to be down tight with zero options for going outside of Microsoft's excruciatingly painfully bad app store, while being forced to use a web browser and/or web rendering engine that Microsoft's own engineers can't even get to work correctly on their own product demo so they had to install chrome.
https://thenextweb.com/microso...
And while chrome OS can be locked down just as much by IT admins, it's not mandatory and you can install from third parties, and yes, you can run competing web browsers as a native app and even configure it as the default browser.
Windows 10s is just a terrible attempt to clone iOS, only it has no apps and it runs on a laptop.
I think you're confused because you think a reply means my intent is arguing against your core point, even though it was anything but that.
The intent is to expand on that core point with a historical context in light of numerous posts already made that seem to think the US was somehow meant to be a direct democracy, only it couldn't because of a mix of rednecks and/or lack of technology, which is just false.
Probably because a $300,000 heist is far more likely to be part of an organized crime ring and/or terrorism funding operation than a $300 bike.
This is the same reason why the FBI doesn't care if you paid $1000 to a Nigerian scammer, but does care if you took out a $100,000 second mortgage to pay a Nigerian scammer.
The electoral college has always been and will always be bullshit. At best it was a hack to make the thing work when the tech didn't support direct voting.
It was never intended to have people vote directly for the president, or even for congress. In fact, in many states, nobody voted in federal elections at all. In New York for example, you only voted for the state government. Your state government would then decide who they wanted to send to Washington with specific instructions of which president to vote for, and they would also send their chosen representatives and senators.
While every state had elections, the constitution allowed the states to set their own rules about who could and couldn't vote, and the right to vote itself was not (and technically still isn't) enshrined into the US constitution until much later, and even then, it is described as being more of a privilege with conditions for revocation (one being if you participated in a rebellion -- which kept confederate sympathizing politicians out of office after the civil war.) In fact the bill of rights itself didn't apply to you, rather it simply placed restrictions on the federal government. States still could just ignore any of those amendments, and they did exactly that until the incorporation doctrine, which is really just a judicial interpretation of the 14th amendment.
The founding fathers were well cognizant of the fact that the majority can and do become tyrannical, which is why our constitution was crafted the way it was (that is also the idea behind the electoral college.) While I myself am not happy with the electoral college, I think there is wisdom in making some votes weigh less than others, though to what degree and why is difficult to determine fairly.
Measures to counterbalance the voting power of a large echo chamber, especially when that echo chamber has the mentality of a lynch mob, are a good idea and we have many in place. Consider for example UC Berkeley students who believe that they should have the right to vote for binding limits to free speech on a publicly funded campus simply because they have a majority.
You can argue, to a large extent, that dense urban populations can form similar echo chambers. This is significant because without the electoral college, you may eventually see presidential nominees simply campaign to the whims of the largest metro areas and largely disregard everybody else. It would only make sense since it would greatly reduce cost of campaigning.
Notice Trump campaigned virtually all throughout, while Hillary just campaigned to her base and sort of disregarded the rest, and then wondered why she lost to a guy who probably wasn't even trying to win to begin with. Not that I wanted a Trump win, but he does seem to be pursuing what he said he would on behalf of those constituents, including trying to keep us on coal, which won him a state that went to Obama twice and was already presumed to vote for whatever democrat came next.
As for New California, it would largely be an agricultural and natural resources state, while the science, technology, business, arts, shipping, R&D, tourism, and transportation would all be in the left-wing, high-growth, profitable "old" California.
You're overlooking a pretty big gaping hole here. If something like this happened, Calexit would happen first, and these counties would simply opt to remain in the US a la West Virginia. This is significant because one of every three people living in poverty in the US currently reside in what you'd later call old California:
http://beta.latimes.com/opinio...
Let that sink in for a second: Your old California now has an insanely high per capita poverty rate while at the same time shedding many of those in the middle. These poverty stricken people, by the way, are the same ones who work all day and night to serve lunch and carry out the garbage for Hollywood celebrities and Facebook employees...you know, the most outspoken of self-labeled progressives who claim to represent them...while being hopelessly dependent upon California's welfare system which works under the assumption that you solve poverty by giving more and more money to the poor, in spite of the fact that the local poverty rate just keeps growing every time this happens.
But that doesn't stop the rather progressive elite politicians, hollywood actors, and silicon valley billionaires from advocating UBI and increased minimum wages as if it will somehow work. No siree, because we can somehow solve homelessness and poverty by making sure that there is more money to go around, in spite of the fact that there simply isn't enough housing for them all to begin with. So who cares that rent is already the highest CPI line item, and who cares that rent nearly beats all of the other line items combined! (Except in California, where it exceeds all of the others combined.)
After all, the science, technology, business, arts, shipping, R&D, tourism, and transportation in the left-wing, high-growth, profitable "old" California has plenty of money that it can throw their way, so the fact that they all have to outbid one another for the same finite housing to perpetually keep raising rent prices doesn't matter! Hence, California's progressive elite, who represent these poor and downtrodden, can safely continue to refuse to make more housing available time and time again whenever the issue comes up.
But who needs those middle income no-good rednecks and their sparsely populated red counties? Old California sure doesn't!
That all aside, in all likelihood, no splits will happen. Nonetheless, I personally believe that California is currently in an unsustainable position in at least three major metro areas. By sheer necessity, the minimum wage will keep increasing, the welfare benefits will keep growing, hence the local money supply will grow along with it for quite some time, but only until the costs necessary to sustain those with low incomes exceeds that of the money brought in by the multi-billion dollar companies that reside there. This is when the homelessness problem starts looking more like a struggling to survive problem. At that point, people and companies just begin to leave, which begins a period of chronic negative growth and urban decay. We've seen this happen before in fact.
Splitting California's electoral votes is a right wing wet dream. Makes you wonder if it's the Koch family or the Mercers behind this push. Or some combination of billionaires and Russian foreign intelligence.
Ah yes, the ol' formulaic "I don't like this, therefore it must be right wing, and therefore must be koch involved" line of thinking. I think if the right were concerned about electoral votes, they would simply allow a real (as opposed to imagined conspiracy theory) left wing movement funded by an actual billionaire happen:
http://www.latimes.com/politic...
And if it did, you can guarantee that California won't take all of its counties along with it; see West Virginia. The "right" doesn't need to do anything. Though California WILL keep its overwhelming poverty since it is all concentrated into the counties that would participate in a calexit:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion...
The apple store in that picture would easily pass as a very cultish church. All you have to do is replace the apple logo with a church of scientology logo.
Pichai said that the decision to fire Damore was about ensuring women at Google felt like the company was committed to creating a welcoming environment.
That is very much a political reason...
Expressing concern about privacy is a conservative thing these days? May as well be, after all it seems free speech has already become one as well.
Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to trigger you.
so do you prefer for ambulances/fire brigades/police not to be able to find your child in an emergency? won't somebody please think of the children!!!
Same argument, different privacy vs safety topic.
They don't have to track your phone unless you dial 911. This is baseless FUD.
Well before you grab your pitchforks and torches against the pro-privacy crowd because you're just thinking about the children, consider the mechanism with which uber (and other apps) get location data vs how e911 does (as per fcc rules.) E911 stipulates that the carrier (using A-GPS) and the handset itself provide the GPS data they have to 911. This normally comes from the baseband that operates separately from the phone OS. Smartphones like Android (and as of recently, Apple as well) get more accurate data by keeping big private databases of WiFI AP's locations, and then they look at the relative signal strength of these APs to get a faster, more accurate fix than A-GPS and GPS combined.
THAT is how uber finds you, and 911 doesn't. This creates a few stipulations:
- Smartphone OSes without the sheer number of devices in the field recording this data are SOL
- Rural users with few APs are SOL
- If the OS has to start injecting location data into the baseband, that opens a can of worms (think carriers are ALREADY bad about slowing updates? Now imagine if the FCC has to stick their hands in it as well -- say goodbye to rooting and roms for good while you're at it.)
- Some people may not like the government knowing where their wifi AP is (and yes, there are a few ways to opt out, some easy but not foolprooof, and some very foolproof and very technical) so does this mean that not only do Google and Apple have to turn over this data to the public so that everybody gets equal access, but your WIFI AP location is now a matter of public record, and doing anything to stop it from being so becomes illegal?
Better solution, IMO, is to upgrade GPS (at least within the US) to be more suitable to this application that it was never designed for in the first place. Since GPS is run by the DoD, just put it in the defense budget.
But either way, it's not unreasonable to be hesitant about providing a quick fix for this just because "think of the children!"
I think it's worse than that. Manning did what he did purely out of spite. He had no fucking idea the contents of what he was leaking, he just wanted to leak it, even if it meant putting people's lives at risk, simply because he hated being in the Army. He had no political goal other than that, just pure spite. He has an established history of not giving a shit about anybody but himself.
http://huwieler.net/2017/01/18...
It's a total travesty that the media has any sympathy for him at all.
A "free market" includes so much more than a lack of price controls. For instance, it requires free movement of labor, goods, and capital.
Duh...and these are all a part of that...it's like you just said "For instance, this cow has bones in it" as if just mentioning the cow wasn't good enough. Restricting movement IS a form of price control, tariffs being an obvious example.
It's also a completely abstract idea that does not exist in the real world
It's a social behavior that has been observed and was given a name long, long before capitalism was given one (and capitalism existed a few thousand years before Karl Marx coined it and began using it as a derogatory word, and THAT is when economic ideologies began.)
There's nothing abstract about that; you'd be better off arguing that economics doesn't exist in the real world. Nobody just "invented" the concept, and like all social behaviors with a name, a free market is amoral and without ideology, and yes, it most certainly exists in the real world. Sure, nobody agrees about just how free a market should be to be considered free, but nobody can agree on pizza toppings either.
which is that by creating an artificial entity that shields individual owners from the consequences of their actions
Suppose you run a pizzeria, and you hire a delivery guy who has a 5 year spotless driving record. One day on a delivery, he misses a stop sign and kills somebody. Because he was working for you, you are liable for 100% of it, your insurance doesn't cover enough, you get a judgement against you, and the homestead exemption doesn't protect enough of your house's equity, so you lose that, along with your business.
Guess what? This happens. That is what an LLC is meant to protect you from; a lender can only claim your business assets. However, it does NOT protect you from willfully breaking the law.
Tivo made a big mistake of marrying themselves to the cable industry to begin with, so it doesn't really matter anyways since cable is dying. That, and they've tried to become more of an IP troll over the last 6 years as their relevance has slid away. I have little sympathy to begin with; they sold boxes with many hardware defects while only offering a 90 day warranty. The most common problem with S1 units was that their modems would easily break, which effectively rendered it useless.
That isn't what this is about.
An immediate halt to manipulating public opinion about climate change is more like it.
If manipulating public opinion was against any laws, especially when it is for the worse, then Greenpeace should have been sued out of existence long ago for the EXACT same reason, namely in that they're actively lobbying in favor of environmentally deleterious positions (and unlike the oil companies, they're actually winning.)
Besides, it's free speech. If you want to state an opinion, then you're allowed to do so. If you disagree, then go lobby your congresscritter to repeal the first amendment because it makes you feel safer knowing that people can no longer say things that you don't like.
Canada? You mean the land of the wildlings?
Soo... what do you expect then? An immediate halt to the world's oil supply? That would be the overnight death of NYC. And if we never had it to begin with, we'd all be shitting in outhouses right now while the rest of the world modernized, while New York is stuffed with 5 tons of horse shit per 10 square feet.
That's just a lawsuit that will never be won. Nonetheless, how much will their legal team cost?
Free market has nothing to do with that. Free market just means there are no artificial price restrictions on the part of the government, in other words, prices are set by the forces of supply and demand.
It does not mean no regulation Regulation is actually completely necessary for capitalism to work, otherwise people could potentially scam you in some ways that are legal without regulation, which is bad if you're trying to encourage market stability and investment. The stipulation is that regulation can't be so burdensome that it discourages growth and doesn't pick any favorites.
If we always tied it to inflation, it would be about $4.75 an hour right now. That fact alone is ALL the proof you need that we are in fact pricing laborers out of the market, which means we have to find alternative means of production, including automation.
Where as in the US you pretend you can have a minimum wage below the poverty line then spend lots of tax dollars propping those people up with food stamps, etc, or just paying indirectly with theft and other criminal behaviour.
And the reason poverty keeps rising is because we keep moving the goalpost. I lived in poverty until 2 years ago and I still had my own car and food on my table, and I still saved money. Being in poverty really wasn't a big deal, you just can't decide to live beyond your means, which is true on any income level. Having a higher income doesn't mean you won't ever live paycheck to paycheck. Living beyond your means is what makes you live paycheck to paycheck. This is exactly why I've always chosen to live between 50% and 60% below my means, meanwhile my investments are growing at an insanely high rate, especially with the cannabis ETFs I own.
Being poor is making me rich.
You bet your ass it does! So how many can I put you down for?
No, the companies with the most marketing successes include Apple and Bose. Google isn't much of a marketing company, nor are they anything special when it comes to advertising (Apple and Bose are way ahead of them here.) Google's success is being a master at matching advertisers with their target audience, and they sell a TON of ad space.
Vegans often state that meat is rape... Can't say I see any rational basis behind that. I mean, hunters shoot the animal, not have sex with it. That is something an animal lover would do, and guess who claims to be animal lovers?
Also, statistically speaking, vegans tend to have a lot of mental health issues such as superiority complexes and psychotic behavior... Perhaps that is attributable to the creatine deficiency?
There are no opposites when it comes to political ideologies. Political left and right are not opposites either, rather they're two different views in western politics (also within western politics is fascism and communism, the latter of which was adopted en masse in the East.)
Having said that, liberalism is a bit of a misnomer. In the beginning, liberalism was actually liberal, though those people are now referred to as classical liberals. They would include the founding fathers among their ranks. Today's liberals are rather authoritarian and intolerant in comparison. If you disagree, go pay a visit to most universities, or better yet, Evergreen State. Also try getting a job in Hollywood. If you aren't 100% on board with mainstream liberal thought there, you'll never find work, and/or get fired. If you have a friend or relative who isn't, you may get pressured to do a Scientology style disconnect from them (my sister was told to do this because my mom likes to post comments on Facebook, and my sister has her friended.)
Disclaimer: I don't associate with any particular political ideology, mainly because I don't want my political views to be shaped by somebody else.