Those are definitely some excuses. Did Obama voters elect Obama to make excuses?
If you want to accomplish something, perhaps you might notice that name-calling and alienating half the electorate isn't actually helping to accomplish anything.
So obviously no one can count on any deals made with only one side to last long beyond the next election.
You'd think people who actually want to accomplish something instead of throwing shit at people would learn their lesson and act better. No sign of that yet though.
No. America's credibility, like anybody else's, rests first and foremost on America keeping its word.
America never gave its word. The American people and our representatives in government were never consulted about this deal. There's a procedure for that. Rather than following it, President Obama worked around it.
How about we do International agreements as we're supposed to do them - with the advice and consent of the Senate.
To do international agreements that way, you'd have to care what Americans want. Consulting the people's elected representatives was never Obama's style.
Had Obama wanted to get congressional approval he would have needed to negotiate a better arrangement.
And that was always the problem with Obama. When voters sent people to Congress to represent their interests, Obama saw those representatives and the voters as an obstacle to his plans. He actively worked around the will of the voters.
We see now that deals like this and the Paris Climate deal lack the foundational substance that a ratified treaty would have. And both are undone.
You want to make a lasting international deal with the US? You need to deal with the people.
And people in the US with globalist dreams should wake up and realize that you can't project a worldview your citizens don't believe in.
You've got that backwards: Isolationists in the US need to realise that sticking their heads in the sand doesn't make the rest of the world go away.
Globalists politicians who don't care about American citizens and isolationist politicians who don't want to engage with the world are both making the same narrow minded mistakes.
What they cannot fix is the total loss of credibility. Who is going to negotiate with US in good fate when they now that any accord may be gone with the next administration?
That's a lesson other countries would be very wise to learn.
I suggest they learn to solve international problems without US involvement. Learn fast.
US has had a strong influence on the world and steady allies, because of steady policy, generous aid, certain moral high ground, and ideas like free trade and democracy. All this is now gone or on the way out.
Exactly the same thing happened when President Obama abandoned US allies in Iraq and left the place open for ISIS.
No one should take US international commitments seriously until US politics depolarizes.
And people in the US with globalist dreams should wake up and realize that you can't project a worldview your citizens don't believe in.
the next president is reasonably likely to just put a lot of the pieces pretty much back where they were
And then the President after him will just undo (or "correct", depending on which team you are on) it all and put it back to the way Trump has it.
Instead of this, how about if Presidents start actually representing the people of the country? A good start would be not entering into international agreements that intentionally circumvent congressional approval because they could never be ratified by representatives of voters.
Local law enforcement is steadily losing support as violent crime continues to drop to generationally low levels, coupled with more visible police abuses.
Support for DEA is also dropping.
Support for ICE is probably rising because, as the rate of violent crime and other destructive criminal behaviors like drunk driving are dropping among the native born population, it appears that the crime rate for illegal aliens isn't dropping at the same pace.
He didn’t though. Other people leaked it and then lied about what it said.
Damore trusted Google. Google solicited content. He contributed his. Google stabbed him in the back to satisfy a lynch mob,
Google could have said they simply disagreed, and he's not a manager or an executive, and individuals within Google have different perspectives, and it was a reasoned perspective but they disagree with the conclusions. When there's a lunch mob, the right thing to do is not to go along and participate in the lynching.
Where were you indoctrinated to believe that every demographic subgroup of humanity has precisely the same likelihood to possess identical talents at every profession? It must take a truly dogmatic faith to believe something that can be so easily disproven.
Google already collects far too much data on everyone. Why would you want them to know where you are at all times, everything about who you are with, what you say and what you watch and listen to?
James Damore made the mistake of trusting them and they treated him like a heretic. Others have similar stories. They've treated YouTube content authors terribly in many cases. The list of Google misdeeds (or at least questionable actions) grows longer all the time.
It seems dumb to increase your engagement with a company that treats people like Google treats people.
I think they will be awesome. I don’t think they will be competitive for cargo. By the time Hyperloop is done it will have to compete with robot trucks. Robot trucks don’t have to stop for the driver to rest, and with self driving cars highway speeds can go up. And trucks actually go to the cargo's destination, not the hyperloop cargo terminal.
Cargo generally doesn't mind sitting on a truck an extra day. It rarely complains at all. There are some exceptions, but are there enough to make it worth building a Hyperloop?
The overall nastiness. Completely ignoring the people that use concrete and what they need it for. Those people and their lives don't rate a second of consideration. Barking is a shorthand way of describing a harsh, demanding rant at no one in particular. No one listens to this sort of communication.
You think barking at people because you fear something isn't "sustainable" will persuade them? It won't. You're only talking to yourself. Sorry your audience is so nasty and self-involved.
Why do you propose changes to make everyone's life worse?
Figure out a way for life to actually be better. That's what you did in the 1970s when there was air pollution and water pollution. Air pollution was a problem, not a fear about a possible problem.
Fund some research to create something better than concrete if you want something better than concrete.
Don't ask us to give up living modern lives and mire ourselves in artificial poverty. That's not something Americans or Asians will do. Europeans might.
Creative Commons summit and RightsCon sound like idealogy conferences. Collision Conference sounds like a business conference (for people who want to someday be involved in a genuine business).
Where are they holding conferences for people who know how to do stuff?
Entertainment is "good" only if it entertains an audience, and only to the extent it entertains. Everyone is welcome to try. Only the end product counts, not what the creator of the product looks like.
Slashdot Mirror
Those are definitely some excuses. Did Obama voters elect Obama to make excuses?
If you want to accomplish something, perhaps you might notice that name-calling and alienating half the electorate isn't actually helping to accomplish anything.
It's still wrong and undemocratic to work around them.
So obviously no one can count on any deals made with only one side to last long beyond the next election.
You'd think people who actually want to accomplish something instead of throwing shit at people would learn their lesson and act better. No sign of that yet though.
No. America's credibility, like anybody else's, rests first and foremost on America keeping its word.
America never gave its word. The American people and our representatives in government were never consulted about this deal. There's a procedure for that. Rather than following it, President Obama worked around it.
Yes, a senate that campaigned on making Obama a lame duck president, and it's OBAMA'S fault he didn't work with them... FFS, moron.
The President has a responsibility to work with the voters' representatives. Pouting in the Oval Office isn't in the job description.
And now we see what trying to work around the people accomplishes: a bunch of stuff that gets immediately undone when leadership changes.
How about we do International agreements as we're supposed to do them - with the advice and consent of the Senate.
To do international agreements that way, you'd have to care what Americans want. Consulting the people's elected representatives was never Obama's style.
Had Obama wanted to get congressional approval he would have needed to negotiate a better arrangement.
And that was always the problem with Obama. When voters sent people to Congress to represent their interests, Obama saw those representatives and the voters as an obstacle to his plans. He actively worked around the will of the voters.
We see now that deals like this and the Paris Climate deal lack the foundational substance that a ratified treaty would have. And both are undone.
You want to make a lasting international deal with the US? You need to deal with the people.
And people in the US with globalist dreams should wake up and realize that you can't project a worldview your citizens don't believe in.
You've got that backwards: Isolationists in the US need to realise that sticking their heads in the sand doesn't make the rest of the world go away.
Globalists politicians who don't care about American citizens and isolationist politicians who don't want to engage with the world are both making the same narrow minded mistakes.
What they cannot fix is the total loss of credibility. Who is going to negotiate with US in good fate when they now that any accord may be gone with the next administration?
That's a lesson other countries would be very wise to learn.
I suggest they learn to solve international problems without US involvement. Learn fast.
US has had a strong influence on the world and steady allies, because of steady policy, generous aid, certain moral high ground, and ideas like free trade and democracy. All this is now gone or on the way out.
Exactly the same thing happened when President Obama abandoned US allies in Iraq and left the place open for ISIS.
No one should take US international commitments seriously until US politics depolarizes.
And people in the US with globalist dreams should wake up and realize that you can't project a worldview your citizens don't believe in.
the next president is reasonably likely to just put a lot of the pieces pretty much back where they were
And then the President after him will just undo (or "correct", depending on which team you are on) it all and put it back to the way Trump has it.
Instead of this, how about if Presidents start actually representing the people of the country? A good start would be not entering into international agreements that intentionally circumvent congressional approval because they could never be ratified by representatives of voters.
Local law enforcement is steadily losing support as violent crime continues to drop to generationally low levels, coupled with more visible police abuses.
Support for DEA is also dropping.
Support for ICE is probably rising because, as the rate of violent crime and other destructive criminal behaviors like drunk driving are dropping among the native born population, it appears that the crime rate for illegal aliens isn't dropping at the same pace.
He didn’t though. Other people leaked it and then lied about what it said.
Damore trusted Google. Google solicited content. He contributed his. Google stabbed him in the back to satisfy a lynch mob,
Google could have said they simply disagreed, and he's not a manager or an executive, and individuals within Google have different perspectives, and it was a reasoned perspective but they disagree with the conclusions. When there's a lunch mob, the right thing to do is not to go along and participate in the lynching.
Where were you indoctrinated to believe that every demographic subgroup of humanity has precisely the same likelihood to possess identical talents at every profession? It must take a truly dogmatic faith to believe something that can be so easily disproven.
Google already collects far too much data on everyone. Why would you want them to know where you are at all times, everything about who you are with, what you say and what you watch and listen to?
James Damore made the mistake of trusting them and they treated him like a heretic. Others have similar stories. They've treated YouTube content authors terribly in many cases. The list of Google misdeeds (or at least questionable actions) grows longer all the time.
It seems dumb to increase your engagement with a company that treats people like Google treats people.
I think they will be awesome. I don’t think they will be competitive for cargo. By the time Hyperloop is done it will have to compete with robot trucks. Robot trucks don’t have to stop for the driver to rest, and with self driving cars highway speeds can go up. And trucks actually go to the cargo's destination, not the hyperloop cargo terminal.
Providing no external visual reference frame in combination with acceleration is the perfect recipe for inducing nausea.
It would be very easy to display a visual acceleration reference on screens that look like windows, if needed.
Cargo generally doesn't mind sitting on a truck an extra day. It rarely complains at all. There are some exceptions, but are there enough to make it worth building a Hyperloop?
No one listens to people who communicate this way. Hence barking.
Don't you guys ever get tired of shitting on people? It serves no purpose and just makes life worse for everyone. Clearly you're not happy either.
how is this barking?
The overall nastiness. Completely ignoring the people that use concrete and what they need it for. Those people and their lives don't rate a second of consideration. Barking is a shorthand way of describing a harsh, demanding rant at no one in particular. No one listens to this sort of communication.
You think barking at people because you fear something isn't "sustainable" will persuade them? It won't. You're only talking to yourself. Sorry your audience is so nasty and self-involved.
Why do you propose changes to make everyone's life worse?
Figure out a way for life to actually be better. That's what you did in the 1970s when there was air pollution and water pollution. Air pollution was a problem, not a fear about a possible problem.
Fund some research to create something better than concrete if you want something better than concrete.
Don't ask us to give up living modern lives and mire ourselves in artificial poverty. That's not something Americans or Asians will do. Europeans might.
Creative Commons summit and RightsCon sound like idealogy conferences. Collision Conference sounds like a business conference (for people who want to someday be involved in a genuine business).
Where are they holding conferences for people who know how to do stuff?
It's supposed to be April 1st. That's why they call it "April Fools". You can't run this stuff the first of every month. Only April.
Sprint and TMo are saying that Sprint does not have the money to roll out 5G network upgrades without the merger.
Entertainment is "good" only if it entertains an audience, and only to the extent it entertains. Everyone is welcome to try. Only the end product counts, not what the creator of the product looks like.