Finally, "vote for Sanders, he is no worse than the other guys" is hardly a good proposition.
That's not what I said, and not what I meant.
Frankly I like Sanders' policies (not all of them) and see him as a hell of a lot better than the other candidates on both sides. There are over a million people who've donated to Bernie Sanders, and he isn't taking money from any SuperPACs. Like it or not, you have to respect that so many people like what he's saying enough to send him money.
Hillary Clinton is a fascist and a war monger. She voted for the war AND for the PATRIOT act. Sanders voted against both of them. That counts for something with me.
Clinton is a serial liar and a crook, and if she didn't brand herself a "Democrat", you'd swear she was a Republican.
As for the Republicans, the entire Republican field is nothing but an disorganized array of theocratic, right-wing whackos who are begging to suck the dick of every corporate entity from Boston to Barstow, and they aren't even shy about it.
They all want to impose their version of Christian sharia on the country, and many of them talk endlessly about how god "guides their decisions", etc etc etc. Santorum would turn this country back 1,000 years. Huckabee would put every non-believer to the sword of he could, and the rest aren't that much better. Is that what you want?
Don't like Sanders? Then don't vote for him. Spend your vote on whoever you like. I'll be voting for Bernie if I get the chance.
But the country's problems ARE single issue, namely that the government at high levels place the desires of corporations above the rights of the people.
That is far from the only issue facing this country. It's a significant issue and is at the heart of many problems, but it's not the only issue to be considered.
I'm a pretty typical American liberal in the sense that I am pro-choice, pro marriage equality,
Same here, but I'm also a gun owner (and have been for almost 40 years).
I'd bet I'm way more liberal than most people here (including you, probably) but I'm not a single-issue voter like a lot of people.
I vote for whomever I think will do the best job for the country even if it goes against my personal self interests. This time it'll probably be Bernie Sanders regardless of what the media says or how much they smear him.
Do I agree with everything he says? Of course not, but IMHO he's far better than any of the Republicans and far better than Hillary or Biden or whoever the Democrats dig up next.
I've never found an apt description for my political flavor, I suppose it'd be something like a "slightly-conservative-liberal" or "almost-social-democrat" or something like that. I sure as shit don't fit into any of the neat little categories they try to make us all fall into.
Funny, I don't see Republican's going against this new trade deal. Last I checked they have majority in both houses. They could vote no and stop this, but they'll all vote yes. But yeah, it's all Obama's fault right? Republican's just have to vote yes right?
Shhhhhhhh, don't get all "facty" and mess up his "Democrats are bad" narrative.
Looks bad, but why would anyone have their web-admin interface opened up to the internet?
Often because they don't know any better, and sometimes because they can't or don't know how. And sometimes it's because the router (for example) won't let them.
For example, my Frontier router won't let me use a 10-character password (it shipped with a 6-character password). It won't let me use most punctuation characters in the password either, reducing the possible complexity to almost nothing. The fucking thing won't even let me use spaces in the Wifi device name.
The security interface can be used, but 99% of the people that get these things will never know enough to go into the interface and set a real password. And even if they do, the router won't let them use a password long enough to provide any real protection. The Frontier tech who installed the FIOS fiber was not terribly interested in setting up a serious password, and even if they could the password length and allowed characters made any password we used to be pretty weak. This is all by design, not by accident.
A symbolic logic class would be a good idea for all programmers.
I agree. I've said repeatedly that I think learning some of the concepts related to coding would be a good idea, but that's not the same thing as learning to code.
Not everyone will benefit by learning to code, but I think everyone would benefit by learning some of the ideas behind coding, i.e. analyzing problems, breaking problems into discrete tasks, logical thinking, etc
I've said repeatedly that I think learning some of the concepts related to coding would be a good idea, but that's not the same thing as learning to code.
Not everyone will benefit by learning to code, but I think everyone would benefit by learning some of the ideas behind coding, i.e. analyzing problems, breaking problems into discrete tasks, logical thinking, etc.
While I don't think it is *necessary* to learn to code, I think it can only help.
I agree.
So would learning general First Aid. So would how to balance a checkbook or bank account. So would some basic carpentry skills or automotive mechanics. So would familiarization with electrical theory. So would learning some basic cooking skills or "smart" shopping skills.
There are a limitless number of things that would help, but learning everything, even a little bit about everything, would probably not be practical. I agree, learning some of the concepts related to coding would be a good thing, but that's not the same thing as "learning to code".
Essentially, this would trash the computer science/coding curriculum at most schools. Whereas now the classes consist of motivated students who want to learn, this would cram in all the dullards who don't want to be in the class. Thus it would suck the resources away from the students who want to learn.
Bingo. Or as I like to say, Not this shit again." This is another one of those "everybody needs to learn to code!" ideas that are pure bullshit.
Everyone does not need to learn to code. Period. They might benefit from learning the ideas behind programming, but that's not at all the same thing as "learning to code".
Assuming you mean personal disputes, then I would imagine a team consisting of HR/Legal, dispute resolution person and a couple of peers
No, I mean disputes about workflow, project priorities, who does what, that sort of thing.
Lets face it: most groups need a leader to avoid all the sorts of things that happen when there is no leader. There may be groups or departments that can function without a leader but I think they're far and few between. And groups of more than a dozen or more are going to need someone to manage what goes on.
If bossless offices and groups and companies worked, we'd have seen them arise naturally (or they'd at least be fairly common by now). The fact that we don't see them tends to indicate that it's probably not a practical way to do things.
Most companies would love to get rid of the "boss layer" if only to save the expense of their salaries, but it's not happening anywhere that I can see. Large corporations with many departments seem to need some sort of hierarchical structure to manage things. The same goes for the military. I would not want to see a "bossless" military where any soldier decided for himself what should be done. You'd quickly have the power-mongers running things like warlords in their little fiefdoms.
Sorry, I just don't see it being workable or practical in the vast majority of circumstances.
Slashdot Mirror
When you get right down to it, the bigger issue is why a heart procedure costs 85K at all.
Because the insurance companies in the US want to make money regardless of anything else.
At some point, we might just burn down all the hospitals.
This isn't the fault of the hospitals per se, but of the insurance companies that have driven costs through the roof.
Finally, "vote for Sanders, he is no worse than the other guys" is hardly a good proposition.
That's not what I said, and not what I meant.
Frankly I like Sanders' policies (not all of them) and see him as a hell of a lot better than the other candidates on both sides.
There are over a million people who've donated to Bernie Sanders, and he isn't taking money from any SuperPACs. Like it or not, you have to respect that so many people like what he's saying enough to send him money.
Hillary Clinton is a fascist and a war monger. She voted for the war AND for the PATRIOT act. Sanders voted against both of them. That counts for something with me.
Clinton is a serial liar and a crook, and if she didn't brand herself a "Democrat", you'd swear she was a Republican.
As for the Republicans, the entire Republican field is nothing but an disorganized array of theocratic, right-wing whackos who are begging to suck the dick of every corporate entity from Boston to Barstow, and they aren't even shy about it.
They all want to impose their version of Christian sharia on the country, and many of them talk endlessly about how god "guides their decisions", etc etc etc. Santorum would turn this country back 1,000 years. Huckabee would put every non-believer to the sword of he could, and the rest aren't that much better. Is that what you want?
Don't like Sanders? Then don't vote for him. Spend your vote on whoever you like. I'll be voting for Bernie if I get the chance.
....and nothing of value was lost.
I don't have a dick you insensitive clod.
You mean it's so small it doesn't even count as a dick?
My my, that IS tiny.
And your solution to that is to vote for someone who wants to give the government even more power to screw over the people?
Except that all the other candidates ON BOTH SIDES want this exact same thing.
Anyone who thinks they don't simply hasn't been paying attention.
But the country's problems ARE single issue, namely that the government at high levels place the desires of corporations above the rights of the people.
That is far from the only issue facing this country. It's a significant issue and is at the heart of many problems, but it's not the only issue to be considered.
Because I use an ad blocker I didn't see that craptastic load of marketing wizardry.
If I had seen it I probably would have installed an ad blocker right then and there.
I'm voting Sanders. He's had 30 years of consistent messaging. Finally a third party in the white house.
Same here, and his record of consistency is one of the reasons. He voted against the war AND against the PATRIOT act.
-
I'm excited at that possibility.
Me too...can't wait for it to happen.
I'm a pretty typical American liberal in the sense that I am pro-choice, pro marriage equality,
Same here, but I'm also a gun owner (and have been for almost 40 years).
I'd bet I'm way more liberal than most people here (including you, probably) but I'm not a single-issue voter like a lot of people.
I vote for whomever I think will do the best job for the country even if it goes against my personal self interests. This time it'll probably be Bernie Sanders regardless of what the media says or how much they smear him.
Do I agree with everything he says? Of course not, but IMHO he's far better than any of the Republicans and far better than Hillary or Biden or whoever the Democrats dig up next.
I've never found an apt description for my political flavor, I suppose it'd be something like a "slightly-conservative-liberal" or "almost-social-democrat" or something like that. I sure as shit don't fit into any of the neat little categories they try to make us all fall into.
Funny, I don't see Republican's going against this new trade deal. Last I checked they have majority in both houses. They could vote no and stop this, but they'll all vote yes. But yeah, it's all Obama's fault right? Republican's just have to vote yes right?
Shhhhhhhh, don't get all "facty" and mess up his "Democrats are bad" narrative.
Looks bad, but why would anyone have their web-admin interface opened up to the internet?
Often because they don't know any better, and sometimes because they can't or don't know how. And sometimes it's because the router (for example) won't let them.
For example, my Frontier router won't let me use a 10-character password (it shipped with a 6-character password). It won't let me use most punctuation characters in the password either, reducing the possible complexity to almost nothing. The fucking thing won't even let me use spaces in the Wifi device name.
The security interface can be used, but 99% of the people that get these things will never know enough to go into the interface and set a real password. And even if they do, the router won't let them use a password long enough to provide any real protection. The Frontier tech who installed the FIOS fiber was not terribly interested in setting up a serious password, and even if they could the password length and allowed characters made any password we used to be pretty weak. This is all by design, not by accident.
So that's why Verizon got James Earl Jones to do their commercials.
It all makes sense now....
A symbolic logic class would be a good idea for all programmers.
I agree. I've said repeatedly that I think learning some of the concepts related to coding would be a good idea, but that's not the same thing as learning to code.
Not everyone will benefit by learning to code, but I think everyone would benefit by learning some of the ideas behind coding, i.e. analyzing problems, breaking problems into discrete tasks, logical thinking, etc
I've said repeatedly that I think learning some of the concepts related to coding would be a good idea, but that's not the same thing as learning to code.
Not everyone will benefit by learning to code, but I think everyone would benefit by learning some of the ideas behind coding, i.e. analyzing problems, breaking problems into discrete tasks, logical thinking, etc.
While I don't think it is *necessary* to learn to code, I think it can only help.
I agree.
So would learning general First Aid.
So would how to balance a checkbook or bank account.
So would some basic carpentry skills or automotive mechanics.
So would familiarization with electrical theory.
So would learning some basic cooking skills or "smart" shopping skills.
There are a limitless number of things that would help, but learning everything, even a little bit about everything, would probably not be practical. I agree, learning some of the concepts related to coding would be a good thing, but that's not the same thing as "learning to code".
Essentially, this would trash the computer science/coding curriculum at most schools. Whereas now the classes consist of motivated students who want to learn, this would cram in all the dullards who don't want to be in the class. Thus it would suck the resources away from the students who want to learn.
Bingo. Or as I like to say, Not this shit again." This is another one of those "everybody needs to learn to code!" ideas that are pure bullshit.
Everyone does not need to learn to code. Period. They might benefit from learning the ideas behind programming, but that's not at all the same thing as "learning to code".
Having a company that collects passwords now marrying a company that handles remote logins. Hmmm... What could go wrong?
Nothing, absolutely nothing could possibly go wrong.
Now ALL your passwords can be compromised in one hack.
Say "hello" to progress!
Who manages disputes?
Assuming you mean personal disputes, then I would imagine a team consisting of HR/Legal, dispute resolution person and a couple of peers
No, I mean disputes about workflow, project priorities, who does what, that sort of thing.
Lets face it: most groups need a leader to avoid all the sorts of things that happen when there is no leader. There may be groups or departments that can function without a leader but I think they're far and few between. And groups of more than a dozen or more are going to need someone to manage what goes on.
If bossless offices and groups and companies worked, we'd have seen them arise naturally (or they'd at least be fairly common by now). The fact that we don't see them tends to indicate that it's probably not a practical way to do things.
Most companies would love to get rid of the "boss layer" if only to save the expense of their salaries, but it's not happening anywhere that I can see. Large corporations with many departments seem to need some sort of hierarchical structure to manage things. The same goes for the military. I would not want to see a "bossless" military where any soldier decided for himself what should be done. You'd quickly have the power-mongers running things like warlords in their little fiefdoms.
Sorry, I just don't see it being workable or practical in the vast majority of circumstances.
You OK?
Perfectly fine, thanks for asking.
The VW boss recently said "It's the decision of a couple of software engineers, not the board members."
Yep, anyone that believe this has brain damage.
A "couple of software engineers", my ass.
Darth Vader: "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
Verizon: "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
Kind of hard to tell them apart if you ask me.
I love your bizzarro rants and will be compiling them into book form for sale on Amazon.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that most if not all vehicle manufacturers are doing this.
I don't think they all are, but would I be shocked to find out they are? Nope.
"No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up." - Lily Tomlin
I smell a rat
Yes....but is it a real rat, or a simulated one?