This is nothing new. Whenever the FBI puts a wiretap on some new technology, they try to argue that they can do it basically anywhere with no judicial oversight because those people they are snooping on don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
They tried to pull this kind of funny business all the way back in 1967, Katz v. United States -- same shit, different decade.
If I'm having a conversation on my cell phone out on the sidewalk, and I am discussing something private, I am very aware of how loud I am talking and who is or is not listening to me. It's completely reasonable to expect that the government isn't going to wiretap your fucking phone and record all of your texts and conversations just because you're using it outside of your home. ESPECIALLY text messages -- people on the sidewalk can't read my fucking texts, I write private things on there all the time that nobody sees!
"Talking about your sex life," to me, implies that you are talking about the specific details of what you do in the bedroom with someone. Talking about your partner, or what kind of people you like to date, is not talking about your sex life, no matter how much you want it to be.
And nobody would have a press conference to say that they were heterosexual because being heterosexual is not punishable by death anywhere in the world... homosexuality is still punishable by death in some countries.
The problem with this line of thinking is that if you say something like, "I went to the beach with my Wife this weekend," nobody says that you are talking about your sex life in public. If you say something like, "I went to the beach with my Husband this weekend" all of a sudden a bunch of bigots like you are throwing a hissy fit. If he says that he's gay, that is not "talking about his sex life." Moron.
What a bunch of fucking morons. They're eliminating a huge number of potential candidates who would otherwise be qualified for the job. I just... I don't even have the words to describe how ridiculous this is.
Of course, if all they want are upper middle-class drones who follow every rule that has ever been made, just because it's a rule, then I suppose this is effective.
It said he made "about half of 1 percent of the value of all the share transactions done by individuals on the Tokyo Stock Exchange." That's not the same thing.
No, that's a terrible idea. With income tax, you can lighten the tax burden on those most affected by using tax rates that scale with your income. If everyone just pays a flat sales tax rate, the poor bear most of the economic burden. Plus, if we eliminate income tax, we have to raise sales tax to cover the deficit, so pretty soon we'll all be paying 20% (or higher) sales tax.
Think of it this way; if you make $24,000 a year, a 20% tax that reduces your income to $18,000 a year is a much greater burden than it is to someone who makes $200,000 a year and has their income reduced to $150,000 a year.
What if the police got to the scene of a crime after the victim (a black man) managed to turn the tables on the attacker (a white woman) and the only thing the camera saw was the victim (a black man) attacking the attacker (a white woman) in a panicked frenzy? Camera and the police says the victim (a black man) is the attacker, therefore the victim (a black man) gets arrested. Investigation? Why conduct one when the police (partly) caught a black man beating a white woman on camera?
How is this any different from the current situation? Currently, said officer will simply testify in court, "I arrived at the scene and the only thing I saw was a black man attacking a white woman in a panicked frenzy."
At least, with the camera solution, we can be 100% sure that the officer isn't telling a flat-out lie when they say something like that in court.
I'm 26. I started driving when I was 17, and my Dad gave me a used car when I moved out at 18. By the time I was 19, I sold the car. In the past 7 years, I've relied almost exclusively on public transportation, and only operated vehicles on a couple of different occasions; these were rental vehicles that I used to move my furniture from one apartment to another.
That analogy doesn't work, at all. Immigration reform has nothing to do with the social construct of property ownership. I have no objections to the concept of property ownership. I just think that all of this anxiety about letting people into the country is completely illogical and rooted in irrational fear more than it is rooted in an actual understanding of economics and national policy.
Most H1B workers I have met would prefer to immigrate to this country and become permanent residents, but unfortunately an H1B visa was their only option.
What? Dude, no. Government censorship is a huge human rights issue. Any research or investigative journalism that uncovers more details about it in any context is a good thing.
I'm pretty sure that doesn't make any sense. How, exactly, will allowing foreign nationals to move to the United States and seek employment cause harm?
Ultimately, these arguments usually come down to something like this: if people from less developed nations move into the United States and seek employment, the increased supply of labor will reduce the average cost of labor within the country and increase the burden on our public services. This is bad for the people who already live in the United States, so those people should stay in their less-developed nation, where they will have a lower quality of life but they won't reduce our own quality of life.
In other words, it's nationalist bullshit that places greater importance on the quality of life for U.S. citizens, simply because they were born in this nation and those other people weren't born in this nation. We're willing to let people outside of our borders starve to death, as long as it means that we won't suffer even the most marginal decline in our own quality of life. It's selfish, and the entire process of thought relies on an "us vs. them" mentality which places a lower value on the life of someone who lives outside the arbitrary borders of this country. Ultimately, allowing people to move more freely between countries will foster a greater emphasis on the importance of global welfare, instead of taking this "us vs. them" mentality that places the utmost importance on the welfare of our own citizens and is indifferent to the suffering of the global population.
I might add that a huge portion of this country used to arbitrarily belong to Mexico, but we conquered that territory in the Mexican-American War, taking over huge sections of territory that weren't even part of the initial dispute over the exact location of the Texan border. Now, in the modern era, immigrants traveling to the United States from Mexico is a huge cause for concern in the U.S., with people concerned that they're going to "take our jerbs", when in reality, those people are just trying to migrate into territory that originally belonged to their nation in the first place, before we took it by force of arms.
Furthermore, all of this anxiety that immigrants are going to ruin our economy is essentially unfounded in the first place, and is repeated ad nauseam by people with little understanding of economics who are making policy arguments that are based on ideologies that have been spoon-fed to them, about issues that they don't know anything about. The National Economic Council, the Domestic Policy Council, the President's Council of Economic Advisers, and the Office of Management and Budget published a joint report in 2013 which explains why immigration reform will ultimately strengthen the economy.
Slashdot Mirror
Way to cherry-pick the one section of that link that supports your views, while ignoring the rest of the article completely.
How many people were killed in the name of Christianity in the past 100 years? last 50? Last 10???
A lot, actually, if you bother to look it up instead of just acting on blind prejudice and assumptions.
Because Christians are so much better?
The problem isn't this religion or that religion, it's religious extremism in general.
you cannot kill as a Christian
That certainly doesn't seem to stop them from doing it anyway
Nazi is literally shorthand for "National Socialism," or "Nationalsozialismus" in German.
This is nothing new. Whenever the FBI puts a wiretap on some new technology, they try to argue that they can do it basically anywhere with no judicial oversight because those people they are snooping on don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
They tried to pull this kind of funny business all the way back in 1967, Katz v. United States -- same shit, different decade.
If I'm having a conversation on my cell phone out on the sidewalk, and I am discussing something private, I am very aware of how loud I am talking and who is or is not listening to me. It's completely reasonable to expect that the government isn't going to wiretap your fucking phone and record all of your texts and conversations just because you're using it outside of your home. ESPECIALLY text messages -- people on the sidewalk can't read my fucking texts, I write private things on there all the time that nobody sees!
"Talking about your sex life," to me, implies that you are talking about the specific details of what you do in the bedroom with someone. Talking about your partner, or what kind of people you like to date, is not talking about your sex life, no matter how much you want it to be.
And nobody would have a press conference to say that they were heterosexual because being heterosexual is not punishable by death anywhere in the world ... homosexuality is still punishable by death in some countries.
Nobody ever tells you that you are a terrible person for being 5'10" or being male, so you have no reason to worry about it. He does.
The problem with this line of thinking is that if you say something like, "I went to the beach with my Wife this weekend," nobody says that you are talking about your sex life in public. If you say something like, "I went to the beach with my Husband this weekend" all of a sudden a bunch of bigots like you are throwing a hissy fit. If he says that he's gay, that is not "talking about his sex life." Moron.
What a bunch of fucking morons. They're eliminating a huge number of potential candidates who would otherwise be qualified for the job. I just ... I don't even have the words to describe how ridiculous this is.
Of course, if all they want are upper middle-class drones who follow every rule that has ever been made, just because it's a rule, then I suppose this is effective.
(their PR department probably scans slashdot)
I suspect that you are overestimating Slashdot's relevance to the general public.
It said he made "about half of 1 percent of the value of all the share transactions done by individuals on the Tokyo Stock Exchange." That's not the same thing.
Gates doesn't even control the company anymore.
This was modded as funny, but I would say that it's actually insightful.
They probably counted each spell multiple times, one time for each upgrade ... Fireball 1, Fireball 2, Fireball 3, etc.
No, that's a terrible idea. With income tax, you can lighten the tax burden on those most affected by using tax rates that scale with your income. If everyone just pays a flat sales tax rate, the poor bear most of the economic burden. Plus, if we eliminate income tax, we have to raise sales tax to cover the deficit, so pretty soon we'll all be paying 20% (or higher) sales tax.
Think of it this way; if you make $24,000 a year, a 20% tax that reduces your income to $18,000 a year is a much greater burden than it is to someone who makes $200,000 a year and has their income reduced to $150,000 a year.
It will do bad things to your credit score, though.
I was going to say that unclosed parentheses are what causes high blood pressure.
What if the police got to the scene of a crime after the victim (a black man) managed to turn the tables on the attacker (a white woman) and the only thing the camera saw was the victim (a black man) attacking the attacker (a white woman) in a panicked frenzy? Camera and the police says the victim (a black man) is the attacker, therefore the victim (a black man) gets arrested. Investigation? Why conduct one when the police (partly) caught a black man beating a white woman on camera?
How is this any different from the current situation? Currently, said officer will simply testify in court, "I arrived at the scene and the only thing I saw was a black man attacking a white woman in a panicked frenzy."
At least, with the camera solution, we can be 100% sure that the officer isn't telling a flat-out lie when they say something like that in court.
I'm 26. I started driving when I was 17, and my Dad gave me a used car when I moved out at 18. By the time I was 19, I sold the car. In the past 7 years, I've relied almost exclusively on public transportation, and only operated vehicles on a couple of different occasions; these were rental vehicles that I used to move my furniture from one apartment to another.
That analogy doesn't work, at all. Immigration reform has nothing to do with the social construct of property ownership. I have no objections to the concept of property ownership. I just think that all of this anxiety about letting people into the country is completely illogical and rooted in irrational fear more than it is rooted in an actual understanding of economics and national policy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Most H1B workers I have met would prefer to immigrate to this country and become permanent residents, but unfortunately an H1B visa was their only option.
What? Dude, no. Government censorship is a huge human rights issue. Any research or investigative journalism that uncovers more details about it in any context is a good thing.
I'm pretty sure that doesn't make any sense. How, exactly, will allowing foreign nationals to move to the United States and seek employment cause harm?
Ultimately, these arguments usually come down to something like this: if people from less developed nations move into the United States and seek employment, the increased supply of labor will reduce the average cost of labor within the country and increase the burden on our public services. This is bad for the people who already live in the United States, so those people should stay in their less-developed nation, where they will have a lower quality of life but they won't reduce our own quality of life.
In other words, it's nationalist bullshit that places greater importance on the quality of life for U.S. citizens, simply because they were born in this nation and those other people weren't born in this nation. We're willing to let people outside of our borders starve to death, as long as it means that we won't suffer even the most marginal decline in our own quality of life. It's selfish, and the entire process of thought relies on an "us vs. them" mentality which places a lower value on the life of someone who lives outside the arbitrary borders of this country. Ultimately, allowing people to move more freely between countries will foster a greater emphasis on the importance of global welfare, instead of taking this "us vs. them" mentality that places the utmost importance on the welfare of our own citizens and is indifferent to the suffering of the global population.
I might add that a huge portion of this country used to arbitrarily belong to Mexico, but we conquered that territory in the Mexican-American War, taking over huge sections of territory that weren't even part of the initial dispute over the exact location of the Texan border. Now, in the modern era, immigrants traveling to the United States from Mexico is a huge cause for concern in the U.S., with people concerned that they're going to "take our jerbs", when in reality, those people are just trying to migrate into territory that originally belonged to their nation in the first place, before we took it by force of arms.
Furthermore, all of this anxiety that immigrants are going to ruin our economy is essentially unfounded in the first place, and is repeated ad nauseam by people with little understanding of economics who are making policy arguments that are based on ideologies that have been spoon-fed to them, about issues that they don't know anything about. The National Economic Council, the Domestic Policy Council, the President's Council of Economic Advisers, and the Office of Management and Budget published a joint report in 2013 which explains why immigration reform will ultimately strengthen the economy.