Why is it on Apple to try to fix a political situation that they didn't cause?
They can either help try to fix it or surrender to it and be a victim of whatever happens.
Also what are the Chinese manufacturers suppose to do other than blanket lower their prices unilaterally as Apple is not the only company affected. The companies that make Apple stuff makes stuff for many American and international companies.
Chinese manufacturers might want to suggest to the government that they negotiate a deal.
And? Cut taxes $100, raise them $10. Net taxes, $90 lower.
Response to cuts: complaints about cuts — "people will die because taxes were cut!!!!”
Response to increases: complaints about increases.
Response to anything: complain about it, seek political advantage by spreading negativity and trying to divide people. (Then freak out when one of the groups you divided people into has more electoral votes than you expected.)
Well, if you want to walk down a path that's killed a hundred million people over simple ideology,
Nah, I'll take an imperfectly good free market system over that. But only because I want people to be better off more than I want to steal from my neighbors paychecks.
The argument against capitalism is that it sometimes doesn't work out good for some people. The argument for socialism is that it sometimes doesn't work out badly for some people.
Why wouldn't we choose not as bad as everyone says over not as good as everyone says?
The other big issue is that the Open Source community doesn't necessarily agree on politics...
The modern response to that is to bully people into agreeing or keeping quiet (and voting for Trump because he stands up to people who try to bully him).
Pretending to care and making political noise isn't caring. Actually, genuinely helping individual people is caring.
Trying to effect political change will help more people than trying to help one or two individually. Also, claiming that any sentiment you don't like is posturing (or "virtue signalling" in newspeak) is not an argument, it's just an out of hand dismissal.
No it won't. You're just fantasizing . Because actually helping an individual costs you time or your own money, but fantasies don't cost you anything. You've helped no one, while declaring yourself a hero for having an emotion and waving a flag (and keeping your time and your money -- the things that genuinely help actual, individual people -- all to yourself).
You don't know which stories are true or false or 40% true/60% false.
Claiming that the truth is unknowable because all media lies all the time is a standard post-truth tactic to avoid criticism and generate apathy by making misdeeds easier to ignore.
Nevertheless, you still don't know.
Because we're pretending laws might somehow change?
It didn't even take a change in the law for ICE to start separating children from their parents, and it didn't take a chance in the law to stop it either. You argue that trying for political change is ineffective, when clearly it was effective in that case.
And you're encouraging people to keep walking children across the desert at night to be used as bargaining chips. So that parents can raise them up outside of the rules of a society -- forever preventing them from having a nation they can call home. And subjecting them to be deported later, back to a country where they were born but not raised, where they don't have friends or a job. Congrats.
Also, directly to the point, voting wasn't a factor.
No. I hear it's bad. I also hear it's good. So I don't know whether it's bad or good.
I can guess though: It's a human institution, so it can't be perfect. It's a government-run institution with a limited budget, so it has to be subject to distinct tradeoffs -- meaning you might get what you need, eventually, but you probably won't get exactly what you want. Canada's government seems less incompetent and corrupt than US governments, so that likely helps.
Once you get your Canadian passport, you can come to the US and buy health care if you can afford it. Or go to Costa Rica or somewhere else.
Not sure I get your meaning here. Isn't caring about other people a pretty fundamental and important part of humanity? In fact people who really don't care about others are called psychopaths.
Pretending to care and making political noise isn't caring. Actually, genuinely helping individual people is caring. You have caring confused with posing and pretending.
Surely that's not what you meant, but I feel like caring about the activities of ICE is important and a good thing.
You don't know about "the activities of ICE". You only know stories. You don't know which stories are true or false or 40% true/60% false. You don't know all the stories the news media decided not to tell you -- to hide them from you.
Especially when your actions at the voting booth directly lead to those actions and their effect on other people's lives.
Not really. How do they? Because we're pretending laws might somehow change? Because we're fantasizing that open borders might someday be a thing?
In a non-fantasy, non-pretend world, voting isn't going to make sneaking across the border work out for people. Living a life without following the basic rules of a society is never going to have a high probability of a good outcome -- not in the US or anywhere else.
Telling people otherwise is the opposite of caring.
Caring doesn't require surrendering yourself to become the news media's tool.
If you genuinely care, why don't you specifically help someone? Rather than posing or posturing or pretending political noise solves anything, why not donate your time or money to a charity that genuinely helps individuals who need help?
Us immigrants spent a lot of time and effort to never run afoul of ICE, not sure why some people have such trouble with them.
1. Mostly, they don't. If one event happens and the story is retold 10,000 times, it's still one event, not 10,000 of them. Specific activist groups are making noise to advance a political agenda. They want power. And claiming victimhood has been a route to power.
(It won't work this time because voters probably can't be persuaded that a foreign national who snuck in or overstayed a visa matters more than all the people who didn't. Who knows though.)
2. People mainly have trouble because they decided to sneak across the border rather than follow the rules like you do. That mentality of sneaking around and not even trying to follow a society's rules leads to having trouble with law enforcement.
Rather than coming here, why didn't they go somewhere with no ICE and none of these rules? I suggest Canada.
Letting yourself get emotionally manipulated by so-called news media is never wise. Their stories are just stories. They aren't about you. Don't be a tool -- don't let the news media control your life, or your actions, or whether you're happy or sad. They haven't earned it. They don't care about you. They won't be there for you when you need help. Your life means nothing to them.
Yes, by all means, let's add "mass shooters" to the list of people being oppressed by government.
I'm telling you, just read the pro-gun comments here to see just how sick gun culture really is.
Gun owners aren't guilty of mass shootings, just like Muslims aren't guilty of terrorist attacks and gays aren't guilty of molesting children. Blaming innocent members of a minority culture for the crimes of others is probably the most common argument bigots make. You should stop blaming innocent people for others' crimes like that.
Under the 'corruption' people were making a living wage. Now those people are comitting suicide as teenagers do their jobs. The teenagers in the meantime used to make better wages at fast food restaurants. I'll take that corruption any day of the week.
Note how you don't care about the public at all. That's why Uber wins, because you guys think the public exists to provide someone with "a living wage" rather than ride services existing to serve the public at a market wage. The public decided they wanted to ride, not be ridden.
You could make the case that taxicab rent seeking created an environment where the public was very poorly served. And that was the social phenomenon that led to Uber. But then every business opportunity caused by incumbent businesses offering poor service fits the pattern and we are back to this theory predicting everything.
That was their business model and why they succeeded where others were driven out of business by the taxi cartels and corrupt local governments. But that’s not a broad social phenomenon.
The technology enabled the service. Defeating corruption kept it from being destroyed by rent seekers.
What social phenomenon preceded Uber that enabled it? Unemployment? If that's the answer, then this pattern predicts everything and thereby predicts nothing.
This is an example of learning too much from history. Pick one or two examples that fit nicely into a theory, declare it a law or principle, and then use it to judge or predict other events. Other events may or may not fit the pattern, so it's still a crap shoot whether you can use this to predict or understand anything else.
Uber was enabled by technology, not by some sort of social pattern.
Add it to the list of minority cultures that government targets for oppression and bullying.
I'd like to think bullying and oppressing minority cultures would be universally frowned upon, but instead many people cheerlead for bullying and oppression when they identify a particular culture as "the other".
Some of us would like the bullying and oppression of "out group" cultures to end.
The defense is pretty easy though: Trump will say he hired a lawyer to keep him out of legal trouble. He will say he trusted Cohen. It's the opposite of conspiracy to commit a crime, it's a conspiracy to avoid committing a crime. Cohen misled him. Unless there's a document or a tape where Cohen said "This is against the law" and Trump said "Do it anyway", then reasonable doubt is more than satisfied. With no hard evidence, prosecutors seem to have a very weak case.
...enough to give reasonable believe privilege doesn't apply.
That's an argument for judges to decide, not Cohen. For everyone's sake, I hope judges don't go with the "nevermind the 6th Amendment" attitude.
Votes for Impeachment (conviction, technically). I, personally, don't care. I'm more interested in 1/21/2020 -- the day Trump leaves office
If he's impeached (over something that's only technically illegal -- as opposed to something that's actually wrong because there's a victim) and then not convicted, 1/21/2024 becomes a lot more likely.
I don't care what happens to Trump after he leaves office in 2020 or 2024. It would be better if the justice system was actually just rather than arbitrary though -- or a system that plays favorites based on elite sensibilities, like we have see lately.
follow what the FEC says. If you disagree, you PAY then take it to court/arbitration, you don't refuse to pay and wait to get charged/sued. This is how disputes with landlords and other contracts work, too.
Agreed. If the FEC rules on the payments to Stormy Daniels, Trump should abide by the ruling, just like other candidates.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it on Apple to try to fix a political situation that they didn't cause?
They can either help try to fix it or surrender to it and be a victim of whatever happens.
Also what are the Chinese manufacturers suppose to do other than blanket lower their prices unilaterally as Apple is not the only company affected. The companies that make Apple stuff makes stuff for many American and international companies.
Chinese manufacturers might want to suggest to the government that they negotiate a deal.
And? Cut taxes $100, raise them $10. Net taxes, $90 lower.
Response to cuts: complaints about cuts — "people will die because taxes were cut!!!!”
Response to increases: complaints about increases.
Response to anything: complain about it, seek political advantage by spreading negativity and trying to divide people. (Then freak out when one of the groups you divided people into has more electoral votes than you expected.)
Apple would be better off talking to Chinese officials about the need for a trade deal. Or Apple will have to shift some production out of a China.
Apple customers won't be freaking out and calling their congressman about paying an extra $10 to cover tariffs.
Well, if you want to walk down a path that's killed a hundred million people over simple ideology,
Nah, I'll take an imperfectly good free market system over that. But only because I want people to be better off more than I want to steal from my neighbors paychecks.
Is Capitalism perfect? Of course not.
The argument against capitalism is that it sometimes doesn't work out good for some people. The argument for socialism is that it sometimes doesn't work out badly for some people.
Why wouldn't we choose not as bad as everyone says over not as good as everyone says?
Congratulations on being manipulated like a puppet to advance someone's political agenda to wield power over others.
The other big issue is that the Open Source community doesn't necessarily agree on politics...
The modern response to that is to bully people into agreeing or keeping quiet (and voting for Trump because he stands up to people who try to bully him).
Pretending to care and making political noise isn't caring. Actually, genuinely helping individual people is caring.
Trying to effect political change will help more people than trying to help one or two individually. Also, claiming that any sentiment you don't like is posturing (or "virtue signalling" in newspeak) is not an argument, it's just an out of hand dismissal.
No it won't. You're just fantasizing . Because actually helping an individual costs you time or your own money, but fantasies don't cost you anything. You've helped no one, while declaring yourself a hero for having an emotion and waving a flag (and keeping your time and your money -- the things that genuinely help actual, individual people -- all to yourself).
You don't know which stories are true or false or 40% true/60% false.
Claiming that the truth is unknowable because all media lies all the time is a standard post-truth tactic to avoid criticism and generate apathy by making misdeeds easier to ignore.
Nevertheless, you still don't know.
Because we're pretending laws might somehow change?
It didn't even take a change in the law for ICE to start separating children from their parents, and it didn't take a chance in the law to stop it either. You argue that trying for political change is ineffective, when clearly it was effective in that case.
And you're encouraging people to keep walking children across the desert at night to be used as bargaining chips. So that parents can raise them up outside of the rules of a society -- forever preventing them from having a nation they can call home. And subjecting them to be deported later, back to a country where they were born but not raised, where they don't have friends or a job. Congrats.
Also, directly to the point, voting wasn't a factor.
Ever tried getting healthcare in Canada?
No. I hear it's bad. I also hear it's good. So I don't know whether it's bad or good.
I can guess though: It's a human institution, so it can't be perfect. It's a government-run institution with a limited budget, so it has to be subject to distinct tradeoffs -- meaning you might get what you need, eventually, but you probably won't get exactly what you want. Canada's government seems less incompetent and corrupt than US governments, so that likely helps.
Once you get your Canadian passport, you can come to the US and buy health care if you can afford it. Or go to Costa Rica or somewhere else.
Not sure I get your meaning here. Isn't caring about other people a pretty fundamental and important part of humanity? In fact people who really don't care about others are called psychopaths.
Pretending to care and making political noise isn't caring. Actually, genuinely helping individual people is caring. You have caring confused with posing and pretending.
Surely that's not what you meant, but I feel like caring about the activities of ICE is important and a good thing.
You don't know about "the activities of ICE". You only know stories. You don't know which stories are true or false or 40% true/60% false. You don't know all the stories the news media decided not to tell you -- to hide them from you.
Especially when your actions at the voting booth directly lead to those actions and their effect on other people's lives.
Not really. How do they? Because we're pretending laws might somehow change? Because we're fantasizing that open borders might someday be a thing?
In a non-fantasy, non-pretend world, voting isn't going to make sneaking across the border work out for people. Living a life without following the basic rules of a society is never going to have a high probability of a good outcome -- not in the US or anywhere else.
Telling people otherwise is the opposite of caring.
Caring doesn't require surrendering yourself to become the news media's tool.
If you genuinely care, why don't you specifically help someone? Rather than posing or posturing or pretending political noise solves anything, why not donate your time or money to a charity that genuinely helps individuals who need help?
Us immigrants spent a lot of time and effort to never run afoul of ICE, not sure why some people have such trouble with them.
1. Mostly, they don't. If one event happens and the story is retold 10,000 times, it's still one event, not 10,000 of them. Specific activist groups are making noise to advance a political agenda. They want power. And claiming victimhood has been a route to power.
(It won't work this time because voters probably can't be persuaded that a foreign national who snuck in or overstayed a visa matters more than all the people who didn't. Who knows though.)
2. People mainly have trouble because they decided to sneak across the border rather than follow the rules like you do. That mentality of sneaking around and not even trying to follow a society's rules leads to having trouble with law enforcement.
Rather than coming here, why didn't they go somewhere with no ICE and none of these rules? I suggest Canada.
Letting yourself get emotionally manipulated by so-called news media is never wise. Their stories are just stories. They aren't about you. Don't be a tool -- don't let the news media control your life, or your actions, or whether you're happy or sad. They haven't earned it. They don't care about you. They won't be there for you when you need help. Your life means nothing to them.
"bitch about having to work day" at Slashdot?
Three whiny stories in a row.
Someone has to work. We can't all (hire a politician to) steal from our neighbors' paycheck.
Cheaper, easier alternatives to driving drunk mean fewer people driving drunk?
We're going to need some carefully designed "studies" to deny something like that.
Many passengers who would have taken a bus or train or walked or biked,
Or just drove home drunk.
now use an Uber.
Yeah, they get to choose instead of corrupt governments choosing for them. That's why Uber wins — by serving the public.
Yes, by all means, let's add "mass shooters" to the list of people being oppressed by government.
I'm telling you, just read the pro-gun comments here to see just how sick gun culture really is.
Gun owners aren't guilty of mass shootings, just like Muslims aren't guilty of terrorist attacks and gays aren't guilty of molesting children. Blaming innocent members of a minority culture for the crimes of others is probably the most common argument bigots make. You should stop blaming innocent people for others' crimes like that.
Under the 'corruption' people were making a living wage. Now those people are comitting suicide as teenagers do their jobs. The teenagers in the meantime used to make better wages at fast food restaurants. I'll take that corruption any day of the week.
Note how you don't care about the public at all. That's why Uber wins, because you guys think the public exists to provide someone with "a living wage" rather than ride services existing to serve the public at a market wage. The public decided they wanted to ride, not be ridden.
You could make the case that taxicab rent seeking created an environment where the public was very poorly served. And that was the social phenomenon that led to Uber. But then every business opportunity caused by incumbent businesses offering poor service fits the pattern and we are back to this theory predicting everything.
That was their business model and why they succeeded where others were driven out of business by the taxi cartels and corrupt local governments. But that’s not a broad social phenomenon.
The technology enabled the service. Defeating corruption kept it from being destroyed by rent seekers.
What social phenomenon preceded Uber that enabled it? Unemployment? If that's the answer, then this pattern predicts everything and thereby predicts nothing.
This is an example of learning too much from history. Pick one or two examples that fit nicely into a theory, declare it a law or principle, and then use it to judge or predict other events. Other events may or may not fit the pattern, so it's still a crap shoot whether you can use this to predict or understand anything else.
Uber was enabled by technology, not by some sort of social pattern.
Gun culture is sick culture.
Add it to the list of minority cultures that government targets for oppression and bullying.
I'd like to think bullying and oppressing minority cultures would be universally frowned upon, but instead many people cheerlead for bullying and oppression when they identify a particular culture as "the other".
Some of us would like the bullying and oppression of "out group" cultures to end.
Either party is free to walk away from the transaction rather than go ahead with it. How is that a problem?
Seems equal and fair to both sides.
The defense is pretty easy though: Trump will say he hired a lawyer to keep him out of legal trouble. He will say he trusted Cohen. It's the opposite of conspiracy to commit a crime, it's a conspiracy to avoid committing a crime. Cohen misled him. Unless there's a document or a tape where Cohen said "This is against the law" and Trump said "Do it anyway", then reasonable doubt is more than satisfied. With no hard evidence, prosecutors seem to have a very weak case.
...enough to give reasonable believe privilege doesn't apply.
That's an argument for judges to decide, not Cohen. For everyone's sake, I hope judges don't go with the "nevermind the 6th Amendment" attitude.
Votes for Impeachment (conviction, technically). I, personally, don't care. I'm more interested in 1/21/2020 -- the day Trump leaves office
If he's impeached (over something that's only technically illegal -- as opposed to something that's actually wrong because there's a victim) and then not convicted, 1/21/2024 becomes a lot more likely.
I don't care what happens to Trump after he leaves office in 2020 or 2024. It would be better if the justice system was actually just rather than arbitrary though -- or a system that plays favorites based on elite sensibilities, like we have see lately.
follow what the FEC says. If you disagree, you PAY then take it to court/arbitration, you don't refuse to pay and wait to get charged/sued. This is how disputes with landlords and other contracts work, too.
Agreed. If the FEC rules on the payments to Stormy Daniels, Trump should abide by the ruling, just like other candidates.