Per wikipedia. he has a degree in Mechanical Engineering, took an astronomy course from Carl Sagan, and got a couple patents while working in aerospace. Please don't compare him to a flat-Earther just because he doesn't believe in a six-day creation or Exxon's scientists.
Media consolidation is bad. The government's use of antitrust law to hamstring media is worse. If true, and traceable to the Cheeto Caligula, it will be mentioned in the articles of impeachment.
Affirmative action is, by definition, a deliberate act.
But it gave us W and it gave us Trump: so if you are worried about who will tank the country and who takes more in tax money than they produce, pick a red state and leave the Dreamers alone.
Also, you really misunderstand the Constitution if you think it was designed to keep the states "mostly sovereign." Under the Constitution, states cannot coin money, or regulate trade across their boundaries, or tax the Federal Government, or declare war, must give full faith and credit to sister state's judicial processes, etc. They tried "mostly sovereign" with the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, it did not work well, and (despite the word Perpetual) was quickly replaced with the Constitution; the Electoral College and the Senate were thrown in to make the small states (and states with smallish White populations) comfortable with giving away so much of their sovereignty.
Akhil Amar has an interesting idea for reforming the Electoral College, and he provides a good deal of history along with it http://scholarlycommons.law.no....
Democrats got 1.5 million fewer votes for Congress, Gerrymandering turned this 0.9% Republicans advantage to an 80-seat House majority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Democrat got 2.8 million more votes for President, but lost because of affirmative action for small states (aka the Electoral College).
You are correct that Dems had trouble in the last election, but the current voting population was about 1% of the problem.
A lot of people see the United States as a city on a hill, others see it as an amusement park or country club. Hopefully the right 1% of people change their mind before the next election.
However there's also the rule of law question as the law was in some sense a form of immigration amnesty to people who broke the immigration laws.
"The law is the law, good, bad, or indifferent" is a hell of a way to run a country. The the Dreamer status is an executive forbearance, rather than amnesty and citizenship, and was undertaken because Congress has been gerrymandered into a rightwing nuthouse unwilling to take yes for an answer. Obama deported more people than any previous President, and they claimed he was committing treason by not enforcing the law strictly enough. In this climate, Obama decided exercise the prosecutorial discretion of the Executive Branch to achieve goals that both GHW Bush and St. Ronnie would approve of https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (and which many Republican congressmen support now that it is threatened).
People who break criminal laws are criminals. Dreamers, almost by definition, have not broken any criminal laws—which is how they were allowed to become Dreamers to begin with.
Your ethnic argument is telling, but not persuasive. In the first place, these are not criminal proceedings, in the second place, it is not their ethnicity that would allow them to stay, but rather that they came here at a young age, have obeyed the criminal laws of this country, and are not high school drop outs.
These people are culturally American, and there is nothing unfair to Americans in letting them stay.
Tech workers are one of the few labor pools where employers have been caught colluding to keep wages down, and yet they are typically against unions because it cuts against their libertarian tendencies and a significant percentage of them fall prey to the Dunning Kruger effect which keeps them from recognizing their mediocrity. So when they get passed over for a promotion, or someone else's project gets greenlighted, they blame diversity efforts, or office politics rather than a union.
So life is not fair, and you're going to blame somenody.
It is commendable that your dad thought doing a good job was more important than getting maxing out his work/pay ratio. But the company he worked for was almost certainly trading as little pay as possible for as much work as possible, and union or no, (if I'm not in management there) I'm not going to hold it against workers for approaching that trade with the same level of self-interest.
The only reason conspiracy theories exist is because no plausible story exists to answer all the questions.
This is obviously false. Everything about the moon landing is extremely well understood and well documented: the technology, the physics, the fact that it was broadcast live, and samples were brought back, etc. And yet a cottage-industry of conspiracies has grown up around it because people are too dumb to understand the truth or because they do not want to believe the truth.
I don't know anything about you, or which category you fall under, but the questions you are "just asking" (in conspiracy parlance) are are either predicated on falsehoods or trivially answered:
1) reason that individual could buy and bring up 400lb of gear: He could buy it because this is America; nobody noticed because it was a large hotel in Las Vegas over the course of a couple days.
2) break the window on a high riser and disable the security alarms all without getting noticed: He broke the window with a sledgehammer, and my understanding is that the alarms were going off.
3) they killed instead of capture him: The official account (which you have completely ignored even though it was one of the first things reported) is that he killed himself; if this turns out to be false, people will certainly ask questions about that. But nobody (except you, maybe) will wonder why police didn't attempt to capture a heavily armed man with a high perch and a demonstrated willingness to shoot innocent bystanders.
The right to speak does not entail the right to be taken seriously. Slashdot and YouTube do their users a favor when they filter out disinformation and motivated obtuseness. If your post had been downmodded to oblivion, I would have saved myself some time. But hopefully this post is helpful to someone.
Yes. But his travails began with what proved to be a low-stakes case, so I'm not sure why the police are out to get him. Another poster pointed out that the photographer deleted his photos when he learned that there was a search warrant, but that doesn't answer why the prosecutor jumped straight to the warrant rather than take (what the photographer said) was the more ordinary and non-hardass approach.
Since the guy is a "press photographer" he should have little trouble getting a real reporter to lay the facts out.
The quote is attributed to GK Chesterton, who (according to wikipedia) also said: "[The Jew] should know where we are; and he would know where he is, which is in a foreign land." Even with this though, Chesterton seems to have opposed Hitler and eugenics, so it isn't fair to call it a Nazi quote, but it is more fair than your characterization of liberals.
To recap: the author took photos of what might have been the scene of a misdeamanor and told the police that he did not see anything. (I assume it is a misdemeanor because the suspect was convicted and sentenced to less than a year using the author's photographs).
It was around this time that I started noticing police cars everywhere: Parked near my home, pulling up near me in car parks, driving behind me at all times of day. I wondered if they had information that someone connected to the court case was out to get me, and they were making sure I was safe.
The paragraph above makes me think that the author regards his place in the universe with a bit more awe than is warranted.
Not that policing doesn't attract power-hungry assholes, but even granting that the police in question are acting unprofessionally with malice towards the author, his account here and before both seem to omit the "why."
The bottom may fall out soon, because I am the kiss of death and I am thinking about throwing some money in.
It is certainly true that markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent, but they can also remain irrational longer than I am content to be skeptical.
I am willing to bet on our Cheeto Caligula bringing about some sort of crisis that will cause crypto currencies to become an appealing hedge for larger and smarter investors than I am.
That will be the moment when—years later—I will wish I had sold.
What fraction of the people saying "Nice try, too late" donated money or contributed code, or art, or translations, etc? If all they did was say "I don't like the way the project is going" that is fine and somewhat useful input as well, but there is an attitude of entitlement and distain that is unjustified and kind of funny.
FOSS programmer Bob Dylan: "Just because you don't like my stuff doesn't mean I owe you anything."
I get the dislike of Gnome, and Unity, and Metro but at least the FOSS options are easily substituted for one another and free.
No one is making a criminal accusation; there is no innocence or guilt to be presumed.
However, a preponderance of evidence according to the scientific community, and the governments of nearly every country on Earth, is that humans are causing global warming and that it has the potential to do catastrophic harm to civilization.
If you were genuinely interested in the truth on this subject you would have found it out rather than raising spurious, discredited arguments on an internet forum for casual geeks, and thinking that the rhetorical turd you have dropped has an intimidating perfection because people would rather step around it than sweep it up.
You have chosen to be wrong on the internet, and more damning, chosen to be proud of it. You have a great future in politics or the 'chan. But the quality of your future IRL still depends largely on remaining above sea level.
The great recession cost a lot of rich people a lot of money in a very direct way.
But it is tough to prove that someone had criminal intent when they did their job shitily.
C-Suite to underling: make sure slicing and dicing mortgages distributes risk evenly; --> underling to peon: give me more volume; ----> peon to sales team: volume is all that matters.
This can done with or without a nudge and a wink, but the result will be the same.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence will show that Bob Peon had criminal intent when he did a shit job of underwriting mortgages, and as a result, investment firms you've never heard of lost lots of money causing a liquidity crisis that led to the great recession, which de-employed enough of you to show up for jury duty . . . etc."
D.C. police officers channelled hundreds of people into a narrow, blockaded corner, where they carried out mass arrests of everyone in the area. . .
Police also seized more than 100 cell phones from “defendants and other un-indicted arrestees,”
But cracking the cellphone of a bonafide arrestee doesn't bother me at all. The cracking of the encryption would be interesting/troubling, except that only 8 phones have been "decrypted" and six of these seem to have yielded little useful information (ie: the phonenumber).
Hopefully the people suing for false arrest can also get access to this info.
the party is stacked with "Corporate Dems" like Chuck Schumer & the Clintons who are really just Republicans that think pot should be legal, immigration is fine and maybe we should leave the gays alone (but don't let 'em marry, that's icky).
You grossly understate the difference between the parties, even while the party that controls all three branches of government plots (in actual secrecy) to strip healthcare from the poorest Americans to give tax cuts to the top 1%.
Hillary's FCC would not be dismantling net neutrality and her Supreme Court nominees would not say that corporations are people, or that forced arbitration terms must be obeyed. And hawkish as she is, it is a safe bet Hillary wouldn't let generals kill as many civilians in 6 months as Obama did in two years.
So if you wanted to see daylight between "corporate" Dems and Repubs there you have it.
Hillary lost because did didn't make the 99% (or bottom 33%) feel that she felt their pain or their resentments. Hillary acknowledged that the Earth is flat for capital and practically parabolic for labor, but she didn't provide a clear and compelling solution so a critically located minority of voters opted for the guy who said he would bring coal back.
Finally, Dems don't keep losing seats: Dems picked up 6 house seats and 2 Senate seats in 2016, and the special elections that Dems lost this year were all in Republican territory. In Georgia the winning Republican candidate said expressly "I do not support a livable wage"; I don't see how tacking left would have helped there.
Collateral damage in the middle of nowhere is one thing. Collateral damage a couple miles from an ostensibly friendly military academy is another . . . especially if you can't find the body.
About 10 years ago a friend with a very rank-and-file job foolishly and truthfully answered "yes" to a prospective employer's question about non-compete agreements; as a result they said they would not hire him until the non-compete period had ended. This is in California, where such agreements are plainly unenforceable—the employer did not want the potential headache (or to piss off a peer-company that served a mostly different market segment).
You are correct, but I would like some liberal activist judges (in the mold of Nixon appointees Harry Blackmun and Warren Burger) to expand the right of privacy to prevent the government from paying too much attention to anyone. The cost of knowing everything about everyone drops a little every day, but the cost of thought has remained the same. So we have great knowledge with great power, and proportionally very little wisdom being applied. In that sense, we have a very different situation than in 1800, when the town constable knew your face, and shopping habits, and vehicle—but they also knew something of you and had a relationship with you that the DHS algorithm will not.
It is worth noting that the facial recognition system does not work as well for certain minorities. So the only successfully automated cognitive function is prejudice.
Slashdot Mirror
Per wikipedia. he has a degree in Mechanical Engineering, took an astronomy course from Carl Sagan, and got a couple patents while working in aerospace. Please don't compare him to a flat-Earther just because he doesn't believe in a six-day creation or Exxon's scientists.
Media consolidation is bad. The government's use of antitrust law to hamstring media is worse. If true, and traceable to the Cheeto Caligula, it will be mentioned in the articles of impeachment.
Affirmative action is, by definition, a deliberate act.
But it gave us W and it gave us Trump: so if you are worried about who will tank the country and who takes more in tax money than they produce, pick a red state and leave the Dreamers alone.
Also, you really misunderstand the Constitution if you think it was designed to keep the states "mostly sovereign." Under the Constitution, states cannot coin money, or regulate trade across their boundaries, or tax the Federal Government, or declare war, must give full faith and credit to sister state's judicial processes, etc. They tried "mostly sovereign" with the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, it did not work well, and (despite the word Perpetual) was quickly replaced with the Constitution; the Electoral College and the Senate were thrown in to make the small states (and states with smallish White populations) comfortable with giving away so much of their sovereignty.
Akhil Amar has an interesting idea for reforming the Electoral College, and he provides a good deal of history along with it http://scholarlycommons.law.no... .
Democrats got 1.5 million fewer votes for Congress, Gerrymandering turned this 0.9% Republicans advantage to an 80-seat House majority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Democrat got 2.8 million more votes for President, but lost because of affirmative action for small states (aka the Electoral College).
You are correct that Dems had trouble in the last election, but the current voting population was about 1% of the problem.
A lot of people see the United States as a city on a hill, others see it as an amusement park or country club. Hopefully the right 1% of people change their mind before the next election.
However there's also the rule of law question as the law was in some sense a form of immigration amnesty to people who broke the immigration laws.
"The law is the law, good, bad, or indifferent" is a hell of a way to run a country. The the Dreamer status is an executive forbearance, rather than amnesty and citizenship, and was undertaken because Congress has been gerrymandered into a rightwing nuthouse unwilling to take yes for an answer. Obama deported more people than any previous President, and they claimed he was committing treason by not enforcing the law strictly enough. In this climate, Obama decided exercise the prosecutorial discretion of the Executive Branch to achieve goals that both GHW Bush and St. Ronnie would approve of https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (and which many Republican congressmen support now that it is threatened).
People who break criminal laws are criminals. Dreamers, almost by definition, have not broken any criminal laws—which is how they were allowed to become Dreamers to begin with.
Your ethnic argument is telling, but not persuasive. In the first place, these are not criminal proceedings, in the second place, it is not their ethnicity that would allow them to stay, but rather that they came here at a young age, have obeyed the criminal laws of this country, and are not high school drop outs.
These people are culturally American, and there is nothing unfair to Americans in letting them stay.
Tech workers are one of the few labor pools where employers have been caught colluding to keep wages down, and yet they are typically against unions because it cuts against their libertarian tendencies and a significant percentage of them fall prey to the Dunning Kruger effect which keeps them from recognizing their mediocrity. So when they get passed over for a promotion, or someone else's project gets greenlighted, they blame diversity efforts, or office politics rather than a union.
So life is not fair, and you're going to blame somenody.
It is commendable that your dad thought doing a good job was more important than getting maxing out his work/pay ratio. But the company he worked for was almost certainly trading as little pay as possible for as much work as possible, and union or no, (if I'm not in management there) I'm not going to hold it against workers for approaching that trade with the same level of self-interest.
The only reason conspiracy theories exist is because no plausible story exists to answer all the questions.
This is obviously false. Everything about the moon landing is extremely well understood and well documented: the technology, the physics, the fact that it was broadcast live, and samples were brought back, etc. And yet a cottage-industry of conspiracies has grown up around it because people are too dumb to understand the truth or because they do not want to believe the truth.
I don't know anything about you, or which category you fall under, but the questions you are "just asking" (in conspiracy parlance) are are either predicated on falsehoods or trivially answered:
1) reason that individual could buy and bring up 400lb of gear: He could buy it because this is America; nobody noticed because it was a large hotel in Las Vegas over the course of a couple days.
2) break the window on a high riser and disable the security alarms all without getting noticed: He broke the window with a sledgehammer, and my understanding is that the alarms were going off.
3) they killed instead of capture him: The official account (which you have completely ignored even though it was one of the first things reported) is that he killed himself; if this turns out to be false, people will certainly ask questions about that. But nobody (except you, maybe) will wonder why police didn't attempt to capture a heavily armed man with a high perch and a demonstrated willingness to shoot innocent bystanders.
The right to speak does not entail the right to be taken seriously. Slashdot and YouTube do their users a favor when they filter out disinformation and motivated obtuseness. If your post had been downmodded to oblivion, I would have saved myself some time. But hopefully this post is helpful to someone.
Demonetized, or briefly age restricted and then restored—as might happen if there was a coordinated dishonest complaint against the video?
People will be forced to return to the original internet ethos of being an asshole just for fun!
Since the guy is a "press photographer" he should have little trouble getting a real reporter to lay the facts out.
The quote is attributed to GK Chesterton, who (according to wikipedia) also said: "[The Jew] should know where we are; and he would know where he is, which is in a foreign land." Even with this though, Chesterton seems to have opposed Hitler and eugenics, so it isn't fair to call it a Nazi quote, but it is more fair than your characterization of liberals.
To recap: the author took photos of what might have been the scene of a misdeamanor and told the police that he did not see anything. (I assume it is a misdemeanor because the suspect was convicted and sentenced to less than a year using the author's photographs).
It was around this time that I started noticing police cars everywhere: Parked near my home, pulling up near me in car parks, driving behind me at all times of day. I wondered if they had information that someone connected to the court case was out to get me, and they were making sure I was safe.
The paragraph above makes me think that the author regards his place in the universe with a bit more awe than is warranted.
Not that policing doesn't attract power-hungry assholes, but even granting that the police in question are acting unprofessionally with malice towards the author, his account here and before both seem to omit the "why."
The bottom may fall out soon, because I am the kiss of death and I am thinking about throwing some money in.
It is certainly true that markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent, but they can also remain irrational longer than I am content to be skeptical.
I am willing to bet on our Cheeto Caligula bringing about some sort of crisis that will cause crypto currencies to become an appealing hedge for larger and smarter investors than I am.
That will be the moment when—years later—I will wish I had sold.
What fraction of the people saying "Nice try, too late" donated money or contributed code, or art, or translations, etc?
If all they did was say "I don't like the way the project is going" that is fine and somewhat useful input as well, but there is an attitude of entitlement and distain that is unjustified and kind of funny.
FOSS programmer Bob Dylan: "Just because you don't like my stuff doesn't mean I owe you anything."
I get the dislike of Gnome, and Unity, and Metro but at least the FOSS options are easily substituted for one another and free.
No one is making a criminal accusation; there is no innocence or guilt to be presumed.
However, a preponderance of evidence according to the scientific community, and the governments of nearly every country on Earth, is that humans are causing global warming and that it has the potential to do catastrophic harm to civilization.
If you were genuinely interested in the truth on this subject you would have found it out rather than raising spurious, discredited arguments on an internet forum for casual geeks, and thinking that the rhetorical turd you have dropped has an intimidating perfection because people would rather step around it than sweep it up.
You have chosen to be wrong on the internet, and more damning, chosen to be proud of it. You have a great future in politics or the 'chan. But the quality of your future IRL still depends largely on remaining above sea level.
The great recession cost a lot of rich people a lot of money in a very direct way.
But it is tough to prove that someone had criminal intent when they did their job shitily.
C-Suite to underling: make sure slicing and dicing mortgages distributes risk evenly;
--> underling to peon: give me more volume;
----> peon to sales team: volume is all that matters.
This can done with or without a nudge and a wink, but the result will be the same.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence will show that Bob Peon had criminal intent when he did a shit job of underwriting mortgages, and as a result, investment firms you've never heard of lost lots of money causing a liquidity crisis that led to the great recession, which de-employed enough of you to show up for jury duty . . . etc."
It's a tough sell
It means booger.
It looks like people are investing money to obtain an interest in an item with no practical use other than as an investment
I am reminded of https://xkcd.com/1494/
D.C. police officers channelled hundreds of people into a narrow, blockaded corner, where they carried out mass arrests of everyone in the area. . . Police also seized more than 100 cell phones from “defendants and other un-indicted arrestees,”
But cracking the cellphone of a bonafide arrestee doesn't bother me at all. The cracking of the encryption would be interesting/troubling, except that only 8 phones have been "decrypted" and six of these seem to have yielded little useful information (ie: the phonenumber).
Hopefully the people suing for false arrest can also get access to this info.
the party is stacked with "Corporate Dems" like Chuck Schumer & the Clintons who are really just Republicans that think pot should be legal, immigration is fine and maybe we should leave the gays alone (but don't let 'em marry, that's icky).
You grossly understate the difference between the parties, even while the party that controls all three branches of government plots (in actual secrecy) to strip healthcare from the poorest Americans to give tax cuts to the top 1%.
Hillary's FCC would not be dismantling net neutrality and her Supreme Court nominees would not say that corporations are people, or that forced arbitration terms must be obeyed. And hawkish as she is, it is a safe bet Hillary wouldn't let generals kill as many civilians in 6 months as Obama did in two years.
So if you wanted to see daylight between "corporate" Dems and Repubs there you have it.
Hillary lost because did didn't make the 99% (or bottom 33%) feel that she felt their pain or their resentments. Hillary acknowledged that the Earth is flat for capital and practically parabolic for labor, but she didn't provide a clear and compelling solution so a critically located minority of voters opted for the guy who said he would bring coal back.
Finally, Dems don't keep losing seats: Dems picked up 6 house seats and 2 Senate seats in 2016, and the special elections that Dems lost this year were all in Republican territory. In Georgia the winning Republican candidate said expressly "I do not support a livable wage"; I don't see how tacking left would have helped there.
Collateral damage in the middle of nowhere is one thing. Collateral damage a couple miles from an ostensibly friendly military academy is another . . . especially if you can't find the body.
At this time of year? At this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely within your kitchen?
May I see it?
About 10 years ago a friend with a very rank-and-file job foolishly and truthfully answered "yes" to a prospective employer's question about non-compete agreements; as a result they said they would not hire him until the non-compete period had ended. This is in California, where such agreements are plainly unenforceable—the employer did not want the potential headache (or to piss off a peer-company that served a mostly different market segment).
More famously, sandwich chain Jimmy Johns made their sandwich artists sign a noncompete. http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblo...
You are correct, but I would like some liberal activist judges (in the mold of Nixon appointees Harry Blackmun and Warren Burger) to expand the right of privacy to prevent the government from paying too much attention to anyone. The cost of knowing everything about everyone drops a little every day, but the cost of thought has remained the same. So we have great knowledge with great power, and proportionally very little wisdom being applied. In that sense, we have a very different situation than in 1800, when the town constable knew your face, and shopping habits, and vehicle—but they also knew something of you and had a relationship with you that the DHS algorithm will not.
It is worth noting that the facial recognition system does not work as well for certain minorities. So the only successfully automated cognitive function is prejudice.