Because if 3 destroyed Death Stars aren't enough, just try, try again...
Oh and thanks for reminding me of how shit that movie was. What the fuck was the Starkiller, a planet converted to a space station, or a space station built to look like a planet? I though it was a planet, but then it wouldn't have any propulsion which makes it pretty stupid. Oh man I better stop before I start a rant... Fucking stupid movie....
See this right here? You just contradicted yourself in a really bad way, ultimately proving my point about not only yourself, but the left as well.
No I didn't, you have just failed to understand the argument.
You see, free speech includes even allowing the speech that we don't like.
No it doesn't, this is the most common myth about free speech.
Sure, you can ignore it if you want to, and even change the channel. Nothing is stopping you from doing that. However when you go out of your way to remove somebody's voice, you're engaging in censorship. It doesn't matter if you have a majority consensus or not, it's still censorship either way. The founding fathers even added protections in the Constitution against the tyranny of the majority for exactly this reason, and in spite of your belief otherwise, it does not fit the American model of democracy.
Thank you, I rest my case.
Thank you for resting your case, but you completely misunderstand what free speech is. It's a common error, perhaps you should Google it and educate yourself. Or perhaps read what the founding fathers actually wrote about the matter since you clearly don't know what it means.
But none of this matters with the original point. Bias is not the same as opinion. Nothing you have said disputes this despite patting yourself on the back for your public demonstration of ineptitude.
That's basically what I said. However you specifically brought up agreement about one's views. An agreement or disagreement is an opinion. There is no way around that.
No, a fact is a fact regardless of what you believe. So disagreeing with facts doesn't relegate those facts an opinion.
Google "stop beck".
Ok from a brief read, my take is that Beck is one of these opinionated mouthpieces that tries to pass his opinion off as fact, and some people don't like that so are protesting to get him off the air. I can't see anything wrong with that, democracy and free speech and all that
In relation to this thread, the GP specifically agreed that AJ was not very biased except on one hot topic which tends to get people frothing. So I believe that it's more likely that AJ still aren't biased, the GP just has an opinion that doesn't align with the facts.
This is completely unlike Fox News, in which no-one anywhere honestly believes they are unbiased.
The risk/reward ratio is sometimes so steep that it makes sense to prepare.
And sometimes it isn't. Had we had this conversation 30 years ago I think you would have a point. But since we are looking back, it turns out your choice was unneeded after all.
I understand NAT perfectly well, and I've worked with it in far more complex scenarios than the common end-user single address NAT overload / PAT. I know it's been going on for long enough that it seems to be how a lot of people expect the Internet to look. Neither of those means I have to like it.
For me NAT worked out as a convenient security barrier, Yeah sure it's not proper solution, but it does a good enough job for end users. Given the choice of NAT and the odd comms issue, or fully routable private networks and relying on all end users to manage their own firewalls, NAT is the least worst option IMO.
Well sure, if you stop further immigration for several centuries. Otherwise by the time the population has become homogenous another group will have come along.
Part of the puzzle is learning how to integrate, so that when the new people come along you know all the likely issues (communications, culture, religion etc) and deal with them appropriately.
Here, we had issues after the WW2 European migrations, then in the 80's with the post Vietnam migrations, now were seeing the same old complaints with the Middle Eastern migrations. There's no new issues, it's not like we had no crime before we had immigrants, it's just that simple people find it easier to blame the others who look different for their problems.
It is economically, because all of our economic models rely on a growing population.
So yeah, under-population works as long as you don't mind being poor, cold and hungry.
Those who cry for more babies are mostly those who'd like to hire more cheaply.
That works out to about 4%. I can't remember the exact numbers, but somewhere around 5% unemployment is considered ideal. Too little and you lack the ability to hire new staff and grow.
So 4% is on the verge of needing more people. And unless you have a whole bunch of teenagers about to enter the workforce, the only other way to get new people is immigration.
The more people you invite, particularly when it's a richer country inviting poorer people, the more funding is needed for social programs just to keep the status quo.
It's little more complex than that.
The economy is what gives us wealth and nice lifestyles. Do you want to give that up? Most people don't, and since a growing economy needs more people to feed it (increasingly wealthy people choose not to work shit jobs, so you need some poor people somewhere to fill those to keep the economy growing). And where do you get new people from?
So it's not so simple as saying stop inviting poor people. We as rich people (on a global scale) need poor people to stay rich. then we turn around and say we don't like those poor people stinking up the place, get them out of here! Well you can't have it both ways.
Jobs rarely if ever increase by as much as 1:1 for every immigrant. The economy can't grow if the immigration program outpaces any gains
So what are the numbers? Do you know what they are? I have a rough idea and it's in the scale of 'trivial'.
Frankly, the governments these people are fleeing from should be held to a higher standard
And how exactly do you do that? There is one proven method called invasion, but that hasn't worked out so well in the past...
the current migrants in Europe have an ideological reason for migration and by said ideology are raising their children not to integrate because their ideology states that the natives should integrate their customs and religion.
What all of them? Not one single immigrant has ever integrated?
I think you are taking the extremist view, since I personally know quite a few 1st and 2nd gen middle eastern immigrants who behave just like the rest of us.
Sure there's some bad eggs, but there are bad eggs in any group you choose to name.
I think it means, if this trend keeps up, that EU culture, the Germans, the French, etc....will possibly start to disappear, being replaced with the Muslims that are pouring in, staying isolated and not melting into the EU cultures, and they are reproducing at a greater rate.
I guess this is how the long term "revenge" for the crusades will happen. If the Muslim populations get high enough, they can vote in the changes to the laws and the old world cultures will fade.
I always wondered what it would've been like for the Romans to watch their once great civilization fall. In the last 10 years or I so I now think I won't have to wonder much longer...
We've lost Lemmy, Angus Scrimm (The Tall Man from Phantasm), David Bowie, and now Alan Rickman.
Hey wait til you get older and everyone you idolised as a youth is now dead, only to be replaced with the likes of Bieber and the Kardashians. It's a sad and lonely place.
I am learning the hard way why old people were never much fun...
I don't know, Die Hard was one of big films of its era, and it was Rickman's defining role because he made such a great villain. Galaxy Quest was also a great film, for us nerd types, but not so much for the regular people.
Harry Potter was shit, and it felt like he was cast simply to cash in on his Gruber character again.
Sites like slashdot are just republishing news from elsewhere to generate discussion, you can only rely on them for news because the original news sites exist.
The problem is that traditional "News" has now turned into 5% news, 95% opinion (seriously, record your local new bulletin and see that 1 hour broadcast could be easily condensed into 5 minutes of actual information). And since the viral nature of information, I could probably find out that David Bowie died through 6 degrees of separation. Social Media now allows information to spread just as quickly, the only problem is the reliability of that information.
Slashdot Mirror
Because if 3 destroyed Death Stars aren't enough, just try, try again...
Oh and thanks for reminding me of how shit that movie was. What the fuck was the Starkiller, a planet converted to a space station, or a space station built to look like a planet? I though it was a planet, but then it wouldn't have any propulsion which makes it pretty stupid. Oh man I better stop before I start a rant... Fucking stupid movie....
I have been saying that it is the owner and not the animal the whole time.
I know.
Apparently you have a reading comprehension issue
Or maybe you have a writing comprehension issue...
See this right here? You just contradicted yourself in a really bad way, ultimately proving my point about not only yourself, but the left as well.
No I didn't, you have just failed to understand the argument.
You see, free speech includes even allowing the speech that we don't like.
No it doesn't, this is the most common myth about free speech.
Sure, you can ignore it if you want to, and even change the channel. Nothing is stopping you from doing that. However when you go out of your way to remove somebody's voice, you're engaging in censorship. It doesn't matter if you have a majority consensus or not, it's still censorship either way. The founding fathers even added protections in the Constitution against the tyranny of the majority for exactly this reason, and in spite of your belief otherwise, it does not fit the American model of democracy.
Thank you, I rest my case.
Thank you for resting your case, but you completely misunderstand what free speech is. It's a common error, perhaps you should Google it and educate yourself. Or perhaps read what the founding fathers actually wrote about the matter since you clearly don't know what it means.
But none of this matters with the original point. Bias is not the same as opinion. Nothing you have said disputes this despite patting yourself on the back for your public demonstration of ineptitude.
That's basically what I said. However you specifically brought up agreement about one's views. An agreement or disagreement is an opinion. There is no way around that.
No, a fact is a fact regardless of what you believe. So disagreeing with facts doesn't relegate those facts an opinion.
Google "stop beck".
Ok from a brief read, my take is that Beck is one of these opinionated mouthpieces that tries to pass his opinion off as fact, and some people don't like that so are protesting to get him off the air. I can't see anything wrong with that, democracy and free speech and all that
In relation to this thread, the GP specifically agreed that AJ was not very biased except on one hot topic which tends to get people frothing. So I believe that it's more likely that AJ still aren't biased, the GP just has an opinion that doesn't align with the facts.
This is completely unlike Fox News, in which no-one anywhere honestly believes they are unbiased.
The risk/reward ratio is sometimes so steep that it makes sense to prepare.
And sometimes it isn't. Had we had this conversation 30 years ago I think you would have a point. But since we are looking back, it turns out your choice was unneeded after all.
You mean just like European colonialism 200 years ago?
I understand NAT perfectly well, and I've worked with it in far more complex scenarios than the common end-user single address NAT overload / PAT. I know it's been going on for long enough that it seems to be how a lot of people expect the Internet to look. Neither of those means I have to like it.
For me NAT worked out as a convenient security barrier, Yeah sure it's not proper solution, but it does a good enough job for end users. Given the choice of NAT and the odd comms issue, or fully routable private networks and relying on all end users to manage their own firewalls, NAT is the least worst option IMO.
Exactly, I mean sure we'll just have to let those thousands of girls who get raped, people assaulted by groups,
Because there was no crime in Europe before the immigrants came...
Well sure, if you stop further immigration for several centuries. Otherwise by the time the population has become homogenous another group will have come along.
Part of the puzzle is learning how to integrate, so that when the new people come along you know all the likely issues (communications, culture, religion etc) and deal with them appropriately.
Here, we had issues after the WW2 European migrations, then in the 80's with the post Vietnam migrations, now were seeing the same old complaints with the Middle Eastern migrations. There's no new issues, it's not like we had no crime before we had immigrants, it's just that simple people find it easier to blame the others who look different for their problems.
It is economically, because all of our economic models rely on a growing population.
So yeah, under-population works as long as you don't mind being poor, cold and hungry.
Those who cry for more babies are mostly those who'd like to hire more cheaply.
That works out to about 4%. I can't remember the exact numbers, but somewhere around 5% unemployment is considered ideal. Too little and you lack the ability to hire new staff and grow.
So 4% is on the verge of needing more people. And unless you have a whole bunch of teenagers about to enter the workforce, the only other way to get new people is immigration.
If "responsibility" leads to extinction or submission, I'll take the opposite.
Well it doesn't so you don't have to worry. 'Responsibility' is very closely tied to 'Sustainability' as concepts.
Not all trends continue forever.
In fact I'd go so far as to say none ever do. (outside of pure maths).
But that will never stop the hype or fear mongers...
The more people you invite, particularly when it's a richer country inviting poorer people, the more funding is needed for social programs just to keep the status quo.
It's little more complex than that.
The economy is what gives us wealth and nice lifestyles. Do you want to give that up? Most people don't, and since a growing economy needs more people to feed it (increasingly wealthy people choose not to work shit jobs, so you need some poor people somewhere to fill those to keep the economy growing). And where do you get new people from?
So it's not so simple as saying stop inviting poor people. We as rich people (on a global scale) need poor people to stay rich. then we turn around and say we don't like those poor people stinking up the place, get them out of here! Well you can't have it both ways.
Jobs rarely if ever increase by as much as 1:1 for every immigrant. The economy can't grow if the immigration program outpaces any gains
So what are the numbers? Do you know what they are? I have a rough idea and it's in the scale of 'trivial'.
Frankly, the governments these people are fleeing from should be held to a higher standard
And how exactly do you do that? There is one proven method called invasion, but that hasn't worked out so well in the past...
So no, not revenge. Just a series of efforts by the Muslim world to expand rather violently.
Is there any other way to expand? I mean that is why we speak English right?
you don't know which culture is "better"? you may be a victim of political correctness. i'm not so let me help you a bit.
the one that doesn't believe in killing and raping the infidels is better.
Saudi Arabia and Iran both have lower murder rates than the US
the one that believes woman are equal to men is better.
Pakistan, Turkey and Indonesia, among the most populous Muslim nations have all had Female political leaders, unlike the US.
the one that believes in not killing homo sexuals is better.
the list goes on, but it always comes back to western culture is better!
Only if you watch too much TV and believe what your local talking head feeds you...
They were christians integrating into a christian culture.
You must be too young to remember the phrase "sectarian violence". It was in the news every week when I was kid.
The Irish spoke English.
The muslims are totally different.
Yeah because Muslim is like, a totally different language man...
the current migrants in Europe have an ideological reason for migration and by said ideology are raising their children not to integrate because their ideology states that the natives should integrate their customs and religion.
What all of them? Not one single immigrant has ever integrated?
I think you are taking the extremist view, since I personally know quite a few 1st and 2nd gen middle eastern immigrants who behave just like the rest of us.
Sure there's some bad eggs, but there are bad eggs in any group you choose to name.
The melting pot concept is stupid, it just doesn't work to expect immigrants to...
It works, just over longer time frames than you are expecting.
I think it means, if this trend keeps up, that EU culture, the Germans, the French, etc....will possibly start to disappear, being replaced with the Muslims that are pouring in, staying isolated and not melting into the EU cultures, and they are reproducing at a greater rate.
I guess this is how the long term "revenge" for the crusades will happen. If the Muslim populations get high enough, they can vote in the changes to the laws and the old world cultures will fade.
I always wondered what it would've been like for the Romans to watch their once great civilization fall. In the last 10 years or I so I now think I won't have to wonder much longer...
We've lost Lemmy, Angus Scrimm (The Tall Man from Phantasm), David Bowie, and now Alan Rickman.
Hey wait til you get older and everyone you idolised as a youth is now dead, only to be replaced with the likes of Bieber and the Kardashians. It's a sad and lonely place.
I am learning the hard way why old people were never much fun...
And his American accent. Robin Hood just isn't Robin Hood unless he's American...
I don't know, Die Hard was one of big films of its era, and it was Rickman's defining role because he made such a great villain. Galaxy Quest was also a great film, for us nerd types, but not so much for the regular people.
Harry Potter was shit, and it felt like he was cast simply to cash in on his Gruber character again.
You're already at +5 so no point modding you up again. It all seems like a piss in the ocean doesn't it?
Sites like slashdot are just republishing news from elsewhere to generate discussion, you can only rely on them for news because the original news sites exist.
The problem is that traditional "News" has now turned into 5% news, 95% opinion (seriously, record your local new bulletin and see that 1 hour broadcast could be easily condensed into 5 minutes of actual information). And since the viral nature of information, I could probably find out that David Bowie died through 6 degrees of separation. Social Media now allows information to spread just as quickly, the only problem is the reliability of that information.