Ah, yes, Item #23 on the progressive party program: "We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press." You really do your political party justice.
To quote you: "...the US government has brought down entire governments through media manipulation." That is EXACTLY why it is a big deal.
The only way we can prevent our government from being destroyed is by not giving in to totalitarian impulses: restrictions on free speech, free markets, individual liberties. But that is exactly what Democrats are advocating in response to Russian meddling, instead of standing up for fundamental American values and liberties.
So we speak out on it, and tell you what is happening.,
Are you fucking kidding? This has been going on for nearly a century, with Russians usually pushing leftist causes in the US. And in 2016, Democrats discover this as a cause? You don't need to "tell me what's happening", you need to explain how you can have been so fucking stupid for all your life.
Mysteriously, you are indifferent,
What makes you think I'm "indifferent" to it? I counter Russian propaganda (which historically has mostly consisted of race baiting and attacks on capitalism) when it occurs. The question is why you and most Democrats have been indifferent to it all your life.
Next you will realise it's actually illegal in the US
I'm sorry you misunderstood. Yes, it is illegal. I'm saying it shouldn't be and such restrictions are inconsistent with the First Amendment. In fact, I have consistently said that there should be no restrictions on political speech or campaign contributions, domestic or foreign.
The fact that you're a little slow to pick up on this and need to go through the various stages you list in coming to understand what I have been saying is your problem, not mine.
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday released about 3,400 Facebook ads purchased by Russian agents around the 2016 presidential election on issues from immigration to gun control, a reminder of the complexity of the manipulation
Russians bought ads in the US to push an agenda and sow discontent. So what?
The First Amendment doesn't just protect the right of Americans to speak, it protects the right of Americans to hear all views and propaganda, including that of foreigners. This is also not new. Russia has been trying to sow discontent and anger (including using race as an issue) in the US since the Russian revolution. Conversely, the US has been trying to manipulate public opinion and political systems abroad for a long time. Voice of America is one of the more benign examples; the US government has brought down entire governments through media manipulation.
The US clearly in the past has stood by the principle that broadcasting and distributing political propaganda internationally is legitimate and protected. Censorship of foreign broadcasts is wrong and harmful for the same reason that censorship of domestic broadcasts is wrong and harmful. And that's a principle we should continue to stand by.
I like to be confronted with my self-deceptions, I can learn from that, but you do have to be specific about what you think I'm deceiving myself about.
Then you might try to actually address the question I'm raising, namely why you think it is OK to forcibly extract money from people to keep alive vicious mass murderers.
Sigh. The average teacher working time in the US per year is 1900 hours per the OECD; which yields an hourly rate of $32. Facts are a pesky thing.
Statutory working time for teachers in the US is 1600 hours according to the OECD, not 1900 hours, yielding an hourly salary of $37.50 (that's slightly less than you get from the number of working days). However, it is unclear whether teachers even reach that, since they don't even reach statutory in class hours.
and must concur with your statement that you and your family have "the lowest test scores and lowest IQs."
Reading and reasoning aren't your strength apparently. You're confusing averages and individual performance. On average education majors have some of the lowest IQs among college majors, which is why on average they earn less and why the Brookings study is bullshit. Furthermore, those statistics apply to US degrees and are another symptom of America's broken education system; they don't apply to my family.
I can see why you are bitter.
I'm not bitter, I'm angry, there is a difference. I'm angry that people like you promote screwing over both American kids and American tax payers. And don't try to fool people: you have a personal stake in this, whether you admit it or not.
Sigh, I don't know if you are deliberately being obtuse or simply fail to understand simple economics and prefer to ignore facts that don't fit your narrative.
Let me state it again clearly: at $60000/year, a high school teacher makes an hourly salary of $40, while a regular industry worker makes an hourly salary of $32, for the simple reason that the high school teacher is contracted to work far fewer hours. On top of that are massive benefits that workers in private industry don't get.
The Brookings study goes out of its way to push a political agenda, and it is a testament to lying with statistics. Their main argument is based on a comparison between teachers and "similarly educated workers". But if you have an education degree, you are not "similarly educated" to people with other degrees; an education degree is the bottom of the barrel degree that people with the lowest test scores and lowest IQs go into. And like you, we have to assume that Brookings erroneously uses annual salary data instead of hourly or monthly data in their comparisons and neglects benefits.
Fortunately, Americans are getting tired to pay for people like you and are starting to see you for what you are: underperforming, greedy, and mendacious. That is why we need to privatize large portions of our education system and move to vouchers and charter schools. And it is going to happen, whether you want to or not.
Oh, and that cushy retirement plan you think you have? Don't count on getting it.
That's still a questionable condition you refer to as if I "sign" the contract while in Europe then it's under the conditions in Europe I sign it under.
The question isn't where you sign the contract, the question is which jurisdiction enforces the contract, and that's usually the US for a US company. If you don't like the jurisdiction, don't enter the contract.
This also means that purchases of services and goods from outside the EU still falls under EU V.A.T. regulation.
If you are in the EU and order something from a US company, you are responsible for complying with EU import duties and VAT regulations. That's because when you sign the purchase contract, the goods are yours in the US. US companies only have to comply with EU rules if they import into the EU themselves prior to sales.
Because that is the level of your "argumentation" skills
You're absolutely right: I should have realized that this needs to be spelled out much more clearly so that people like you get it.
Keeping irredeemably violent criminals alive is both dangerous and costly. That is, someone needs to guard them, someone needs to feed them, and someone needs to house them, someone needs to entertain them. That entails both personal risks and lots of money.
You are arguing, in effect, that people should be forced, at gunpoint if necessary, to cough up the resources to keep mass murderers and child rapists and killers alive. In my book, that makes you the "caveman".
I feel no malice towards these people on death row; I simply don't want to pay for keeping them alive, and I resent being forced to. I also don't particularly like the state executing people. Hence my proposal to give people a choice: anybody who wants to keep these people alive should be able to do so with their own money and accepting guardianship (including criminal liability).
Faulty analogy, I have paid for the device and if I can't use it then the company commits fraudulent behavior and breaks the laws and purchase agreement.
No, the company says "these are the conditions under which you can use our service". Payment is one condition, but there are others. If you don't or can't live up to all those conditions, then you can't use the service. It doesn't matter whether you paid for it. Furthermore, if you enter the contract knowing full well you can't hold up your side of the commitment, then it is you who has committed fraud, not the company.
Note that French law can invalidate clauses in French contracts, but it can't invalidate clauses in US contracts. That's why a French citizen can ignore clauses requiring him to give up privacy protection in France, but in the US, such clauses are enforceable against a French citizen because French law doesn't apply.
You seem to be unable to understand the simple economic concept that teachers are only paid for the actual time worked (typically 10 months) and do not get paid summer vacations
Teachers also don't get unpaid summer vacations; what teachers get is several months where they can sell their labor to anybody who wants to hire them, often taking advantage of the status, security, and education that their government job confers upon them. That's a sweet deal that almost nobody else gets. At a minimum, you need to add another 25% of salary on top of the teacher's salary to make it comparable to other salaries just to account for the smaller amount of time they work (185 contracted work days vs about 230 for private sector employees). And that's not even taking into account benefits like health insurance and retirement, which keep accruing.
If you look at the OECD, US teachers are paid below the OECD average
That's simply not true even if you look at nominal salaries (the analysis in HuffPo is bogus, just look at their numbers). But HuffPo doesn't tell you the whole picture: you need to add another 25% because of the shorter work year, and then another 25% on top of that for the nice benefits teachers receive. And on top of that, taxes in the US are much lower than elsewhere, and teachers also receive benefits like 403(b) plans that are not available to teachers in other countries. Just the fact that teachers don't have to pay into social security is a huge benefit by itself.
Take it from someone who has known teachers in both the US and several other countries: US teacher are being rewarded lavishly.
Because cavemen. And also lying about it, because "punishment" is something you can walk away from. This is revenge and savagery.
I think we should encourage your kind of thinking and give people the option to take on guardianship, with full liability, for any death row inmate they want (there would still have to be monitoring, of course). If they offend again, you, as the guardian, will receive the punishment. That way, everybody who thinks like you can put their money and life where their mouth is. How about it?
Because some people are irredeemable: if you release them back into society, they are going to kill again; if you place them in prison, they are going to harm other inmates; if you place them in solitary confinement, that's cruel too.
So, no matter what, the cells live too long, or they don't live long enough, and either immune stimulation is a problem or it's a missing feature. Your thinking is dominated by why things can't work, and how you need really complex and costly solutions, and how risky everything is. I don't blame you: it's traditional, safe, academic thinking. It's what you might have heard from an IBM researcher in the 1960's. It seemed reasonable until, well, personal computers came out in the mid-70's and changed everything.
I think you demonstrated more clearly than I ever could (1) why gene therapy has made such ridiculously slow progress, and (2) that the way to change that is to have outsiders come into the field without preconceptions and take their chances.
It prevents them from seeing the ads. This may or may not hinder them in finding a bondsman, depending on whether the ones that have been advertising are more predatory than the others or not.
Restricting ads most certainly hinders finding a product; ads are crucial to the functioning of markets.
Most, possibly all, advertising providers have restrictions on the ads they will accept.
True, depending on which groups they pander to. Google happens to pander to the progressive billionaire oligarchy running California.
Governments run the public school systems, so governments can reduce inequality. It was done in Minnesota some time ago, although I think it was allowed to lapse back.
So, in short, while they "can" in some hypothetical sense, in practice they are incapable of doing it.
A private school can set tuition, while a public school system can't. Explain to me how an all-private system is supposed to work.
I haven't been advocating an "all private" system. We were discussing your claim that public schools improve equality of opportunity, when, in reality they do the opposite. That's all.
Blood is easy to get, but the stem cells - which are what you'd need to target to treat diseases long-term - are in the bone marrow, and are much harder to get at. Electroporation dramatically increases the risk of an immune response - it's been used in some vaccine development because of that
Short lived differentiated cells combined with an immune stimulant? Lots of possible uses for that combination.
One of the advantages of a clinical trial (at least in gene therapy) is that dose and endpoints are examined in a systematic way.
Yeah, and one of the disadvantages is its enormous cost and lengthy duration, often (though not always) for negligible gains in knowledge or safety.
A EU citizen sitting in Starbucks in the US is equally as protected as if they were sitting in France.
Anubis already demolished this claim.
Furthermore, if the TOS say that you agree not to assert certain rights against the company and your citizenship prevents you from making such a deal, then you simply can't use the service.
Recently I signed a purchase contract for a car and they had an added option that I had to select to commit to paying for the car.
If you can't fulfill your side of a contract, you shouldn't enter it or you are committing fraud.
So, if you are legally prohibited from opting out of data protection laws, then you shouldn't enter into a contract with a US company that requires you to opt out of such laws. If you do anyway, the EULA is null and void, and in particular means that you can't use the service.
This service will not help you because the EU can't touch you in order to enforce GDPR.
That's not entirely true. The EU could find a US company in violation of EU law. The EU can't enforce right now, but they might in the future, for example when an owner or officer of the company travels to Europe, or when the company wants to expand to Europe in the future, or get acquired by a European owner. That's why companies might want to use such a service: they don't want to spend money to comply right now, but they also don't want to close off future options.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, yes, Item #23 on the progressive party program: "We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press." You really do your political party justice.
The only way we can prevent our government from being destroyed is by not giving in to totalitarian impulses: restrictions on free speech, free markets, individual liberties. But that is exactly what Democrats are advocating in response to Russian meddling, instead of standing up for fundamental American values and liberties.
Are you fucking kidding? This has been going on for nearly a century, with Russians usually pushing leftist causes in the US. And in 2016, Democrats discover this as a cause? You don't need to "tell me what's happening", you need to explain how you can have been so fucking stupid for all your life.
What makes you think I'm "indifferent" to it? I counter Russian propaganda (which historically has mostly consisted of race baiting and attacks on capitalism) when it occurs. The question is why you and most Democrats have been indifferent to it all your life.
I'm sorry you misunderstood. Yes, it is illegal. I'm saying it shouldn't be and such restrictions are inconsistent with the First Amendment. In fact, I have consistently said that there should be no restrictions on political speech or campaign contributions, domestic or foreign.
The fact that you're a little slow to pick up on this and need to go through the various stages you list in coming to understand what I have been saying is your problem, not mine.
Russians bought ads in the US to push an agenda and sow discontent. So what?
The First Amendment doesn't just protect the right of Americans to speak, it protects the right of Americans to hear all views and propaganda, including that of foreigners. This is also not new. Russia has been trying to sow discontent and anger (including using race as an issue) in the US since the Russian revolution. Conversely, the US has been trying to manipulate public opinion and political systems abroad for a long time. Voice of America is one of the more benign examples; the US government has brought down entire governments through media manipulation.
The US clearly in the past has stood by the principle that broadcasting and distributing political propaganda internationally is legitimate and protected. Censorship of foreign broadcasts is wrong and harmful for the same reason that censorship of domestic broadcasts is wrong and harmful. And that's a principle we should continue to stand by.
I like to be confronted with my self-deceptions, I can learn from that, but you do have to be specific about what you think I'm deceiving myself about.
Then you might try to actually address the question I'm raising, namely why you think it is OK to forcibly extract money from people to keep alive vicious mass murderers.
Statutory working time for teachers in the US is 1600 hours according to the OECD, not 1900 hours, yielding an hourly salary of $37.50 (that's slightly less than you get from the number of working days). However, it is unclear whether teachers even reach that, since they don't even reach statutory in class hours.
Reading and reasoning aren't your strength apparently. You're confusing averages and individual performance. On average education majors have some of the lowest IQs among college majors, which is why on average they earn less and why the Brookings study is bullshit. Furthermore, those statistics apply to US degrees and are another symptom of America's broken education system; they don't apply to my family.
I'm not bitter, I'm angry, there is a difference. I'm angry that people like you promote screwing over both American kids and American tax payers. And don't try to fool people: you have a personal stake in this, whether you admit it or not.
Let me state it again clearly: at $60000/year, a high school teacher makes an hourly salary of $40, while a regular industry worker makes an hourly salary of $32, for the simple reason that the high school teacher is contracted to work far fewer hours. On top of that are massive benefits that workers in private industry don't get.
The Brookings study goes out of its way to push a political agenda, and it is a testament to lying with statistics. Their main argument is based on a comparison between teachers and "similarly educated workers". But if you have an education degree, you are not "similarly educated" to people with other degrees; an education degree is the bottom of the barrel degree that people with the lowest test scores and lowest IQs go into. And like you, we have to assume that Brookings erroneously uses annual salary data instead of hourly or monthly data in their comparisons and neglects benefits.
Fortunately, Americans are getting tired to pay for people like you and are starting to see you for what you are: underperforming, greedy, and mendacious. That is why we need to privatize large portions of our education system and move to vouchers and charter schools. And it is going to happen, whether you want to or not.
Oh, and that cushy retirement plan you think you have? Don't count on getting it.
The question isn't where you sign the contract, the question is which jurisdiction enforces the contract, and that's usually the US for a US company. If you don't like the jurisdiction, don't enter the contract.
If you are in the EU and order something from a US company, you are responsible for complying with EU import duties and VAT regulations. That's because when you sign the purchase contract, the goods are yours in the US. US companies only have to comply with EU rules if they import into the EU themselves prior to sales.
You're absolutely right: I should have realized that this needs to be spelled out much more clearly so that people like you get it.
Keeping irredeemably violent criminals alive is both dangerous and costly. That is, someone needs to guard them, someone needs to feed them, and someone needs to house them, someone needs to entertain them. That entails both personal risks and lots of money.
You are arguing, in effect, that people should be forced, at gunpoint if necessary, to cough up the resources to keep mass murderers and child rapists and killers alive. In my book, that makes you the "caveman".
I feel no malice towards these people on death row; I simply don't want to pay for keeping them alive, and I resent being forced to. I also don't particularly like the state executing people. Hence my proposal to give people a choice: anybody who wants to keep these people alive should be able to do so with their own money and accepting guardianship (including criminal liability).
No, the company says "these are the conditions under which you can use our service". Payment is one condition, but there are others. If you don't or can't live up to all those conditions, then you can't use the service. It doesn't matter whether you paid for it. Furthermore, if you enter the contract knowing full well you can't hold up your side of the commitment, then it is you who has committed fraud, not the company.
Note that French law can invalidate clauses in French contracts, but it can't invalidate clauses in US contracts. That's why a French citizen can ignore clauses requiring him to give up privacy protection in France, but in the US, such clauses are enforceable against a French citizen because French law doesn't apply.
Teachers also don't get unpaid summer vacations; what teachers get is several months where they can sell their labor to anybody who wants to hire them, often taking advantage of the status, security, and education that their government job confers upon them. That's a sweet deal that almost nobody else gets. At a minimum, you need to add another 25% of salary on top of the teacher's salary to make it comparable to other salaries just to account for the smaller amount of time they work (185 contracted work days vs about 230 for private sector employees). And that's not even taking into account benefits like health insurance and retirement, which keep accruing.
That's simply not true even if you look at nominal salaries (the analysis in HuffPo is bogus, just look at their numbers). But HuffPo doesn't tell you the whole picture: you need to add another 25% because of the shorter work year, and then another 25% on top of that for the nice benefits teachers receive. And on top of that, taxes in the US are much lower than elsewhere, and teachers also receive benefits like 403(b) plans that are not available to teachers in other countries. Just the fact that teachers don't have to pay into social security is a huge benefit by itself.
Take it from someone who has known teachers in both the US and several other countries: US teacher are being rewarded lavishly.
I didn't specify "an approach".
I didn't estimate any times.
You're jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
If you are an "insider" as you claim, it merely shows to what low intellectual standards our field has sunk.
I think we should encourage your kind of thinking and give people the option to take on guardianship, with full liability, for any death row inmate they want (there would still have to be monitoring, of course). If they offend again, you, as the guardian, will receive the punishment. That way, everybody who thinks like you can put their money and life where their mouth is. How about it?
Because some people are irredeemable: if you release them back into society, they are going to kill again; if you place them in prison, they are going to harm other inmates; if you place them in solitary confinement, that's cruel too.
What do you propose to do with them?
So, no matter what, the cells live too long, or they don't live long enough, and either immune stimulation is a problem or it's a missing feature. Your thinking is dominated by why things can't work, and how you need really complex and costly solutions, and how risky everything is. I don't blame you: it's traditional, safe, academic thinking. It's what you might have heard from an IBM researcher in the 1960's. It seemed reasonable until, well, personal computers came out in the mid-70's and changed everything.
I think you demonstrated more clearly than I ever could (1) why gene therapy has made such ridiculously slow progress, and (2) that the way to change that is to have outsiders come into the field without preconceptions and take their chances.
Restricting ads most certainly hinders finding a product; ads are crucial to the functioning of markets.
True, depending on which groups they pander to. Google happens to pander to the progressive billionaire oligarchy running California.
So, in short, while they "can" in some hypothetical sense, in practice they are incapable of doing it.
I haven't been advocating an "all private" system. We were discussing your claim that public schools improve equality of opportunity, when, in reality they do the opposite. That's all.
Short lived differentiated cells combined with an immune stimulant? Lots of possible uses for that combination.
Yeah, and one of the disadvantages is its enormous cost and lengthy duration, often (though not always) for negligible gains in knowledge or safety.
Anubis already demolished this claim.
Furthermore, if the TOS say that you agree not to assert certain rights against the company and your citizenship prevents you from making such a deal, then you simply can't use the service.
And there you identified the real reason for the GDPR: protectionism. It's what the EU is all about.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I don't believe you can actually waive any of those rights (although as a matter of principle, I believe you ought to be able to).
Read it like this:
If you can't fulfill your side of a contract, you shouldn't enter it or you are committing fraud.
So, if you are legally prohibited from opting out of data protection laws, then you shouldn't enter into a contract with a US company that requires you to opt out of such laws. If you do anyway, the EULA is null and void, and in particular means that you can't use the service.
That's not entirely true. The EU could find a US company in violation of EU law. The EU can't enforce right now, but they might in the future, for example when an owner or officer of the company travels to Europe, or when the company wants to expand to Europe in the future, or get acquired by a European owner. That's why companies might want to use such a service: they don't want to spend money to comply right now, but they also don't want to close off future options.
It isn't what?