Twitter would be less beholden to meeting Wall Street's often brutal expectations.
The economic problem Twitter faces is that it is not beholden enough to the expectations of Wall Street, and instead tries to cater to particular political and ideological sensitivities.
Nevertheless, I think having Twitter be owned collectively would be a solution to that problem, probably in the sense that death is a solution to the problem of illness.
Again, no. 1987 the SCOTUS found that there was no rehabilitation component of federal incarceration
I believe SCOTUS found that there was no constitutional right to rehabilitation; that doesn't mean that the federal government never rehabilitates. But if there's a point you're trying to make, please cite the actual decision you're referring to.
Some people believe that RDAP is an attempt to reintroduce rehabilitation. When they talk to people who go through the program they stop thinking that.
And what does that have to do with your statement that "the Nordic countries are doing it right"? I don't think the Nordic countries are doing it right. And I don't think the Nordic system could function in the US.
In other words, it would be bad if the candidate who got more votes to win because you disagree with her politically.
Not quite. What I'm saying is that it would be bad if the candidate who got more vote automatically wins because that's not the way a free society can operate. The fact that candidates like Clinton lose is simply a consequence of a system that is doing its job as intended.
If the election were held again today, there'd be campaigning leading up to it. It wouldn't happen in a vacuum. The poll results are not definitive.
Good you realize that campaigning for certain goals affects outcomes. Now apply the same logic to your "popular vote" argument.
You can travel with something like an Intel NUC Skull Canyon or a Compute Stick and just plug it into the hotel TV's HDMI port. No laptop battery, no fire hazard, etc. Or you can simply use your phone as a computer and plug it into an HDMI port.
You can carry sensitive data on a separate micro-SD card, which, realistically, airport security or passport control won't look for or find unless you're already on a terrorist watch list, in which case a laptop ban is the least of your worries.
Yes, but not a private, for-profit company with the kind of financial risk and liability that entails.
Private entities, for profit or not-for profit, that are granted monopolies or are strongly regulated by the government are probably the worst possible choice for delivering services: they are not accountable to markets and they are not easily accountable to politicians either.
The best way of delivering services is in a free market. The second best way of delivering services is in a well-run all public system. The worst way of delivering services is through combinations of the public and private sector, because it provides endless opportunities for moral hazards and corruption.
This issue will grow more and more important, the law professor argues, since there's now proprietary analytics software that also predicts "the chances that any given person will be mentally ill, a bad employee, a failing student, a criminal, or a terrorist."
Government needs to be able to explain its decisions about citizens to the public. Private organizations don't.
So, proprietary analytical software that cannot justify its decisions is not acceptable for courts of any kind, for policing, for awarding government contracts, for public schools, etc.
It is acceptable for businesses, medical providers, employee evaluations, private schools, etc.
Remember, a prison is supposed to be about rehab, not outright punishment.
Prisons have multiple functions: they protect society by physically separating criminals, they serve as punishment, they serve as deterrent, and they may also rehabilitate. If you say that their purpose ought to be only rehabilitation, well, you're probably largely on your own.
Furthermore, it's not like the US isn't trying. The US has prisons similar to Norway's and we imprison and rehabilitate low risk prisoners there. However, the US has a much more diverse population, and hence we have a much larger number of people who are difficult to rehabilitate.
Ah, what you mean is the GOP incites a belief that it is people on welfare, especially minorities, who are condemned as not having the proper attitudes
Democrats and progressives keep talking about fairness and blame. The rest of us recognize that life isn't fair, and that people who pretend they can make it fair are con men and frauds.
The link is about the Dixiecrats. The parties swapped and have swapped multiple times since the 1st Continental Congress.
The people who pushed for segregation, eugenics, anti-miscegenation, and other racist and discriminatory policies were progressives in the modern sense. They wanted minimum wage, government control over business, price controls, free education, and tons of other mainstays of progressivism. Modern progressives still admire these people and their accomplishments: Woodrow Wilson, the Roosevelts, John Maynard Keynes, Margaret Sanger, William James, and Oliver Wendell Holmes.
This "the parties swapped" bullshit is what modern Democrats like to feed people like you, people who simply don't know any better. The only thing that has changed between the old Democrats and the new Democrats is that Democrats used to say "blacks are genetically inferior, and therefore need progressives to help them", and now they simply say "blacks have inherited a legacy of slavery, and therefore need progressives to help them".
You're white, aren't you? (Note: That is a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious.)
I'm gay and grew up with massive discrimination and no job prospects because of my sexual orientation. Of course, as a pampered and privileged American, you wouldn't know anything about that.
Eventually, I got lucky and managed to immigrate to the US, where gay people had built communities and businesses without the help or interference of government.
if I could spend literally half my salary on food, I believe I would in fact get skinny. A diet that's pretty much all protein and dietary fiber would do it,
Not only is the diet you want needlessly expensive, you wouldn't be losing weight on it, and you'd probably be hurting yourself.
You do not need to spend a lot of money to lose weight. Pick one of the cheap bulk vegetables (cabbage, cauliflower, carrots, lentils, peas, broccoli, etc.), then add some of the other cheap foods for nutrients and variety.
Oh, and how many miles do you walk/run/bike a day? How often do you go to the gym per week?
But it's very important for me to stay where I grew up
Hundreds of millions of people have to pick up and leave their countries (I did). You have it easy: you have the entire US to move to.
You're 47, obese, and poor. Obviously, whatever you're doing isn't working. Instead of feeling sorry for yourself, do something about it and make changes.
It's not as much about diet as survival at this point now that I am 47. I don't make enough for fresh or healthy food here - that stuff can get expensive,
There are plenty of cheap and nutritious foods: lentils, beans, peas, carrots, beans, peanuts, potatoes, rice, noodles, chicken, etc.
Can they all just decide they don't like serving people "like you"?
They can decide that whether you pass laws or not. But historically, they rarely do.
What happens frequently is that government forces businesses to discriminate. Segregation in the US was mandated by government (mostly progressives and Democrats). That is the real danger and evil.
I seem to recall an idiom like... that applies nicely here.
Read up on the history of racism, segregation, discrimination, and genocide. You should be ashamed of your profound ignorance: it's people like you who are ultimately responsible for those ills.
Get back to me when 'all those businesses that never received taxpayer support' have built their own infrastructure (private roads, not on the power grid, no internet connectivity, self contained septic and water system, etc.).
Businesses pay taxes for that.
The hoops you libertarians will jump through to justify discrimination.
The excuses fascists like you make for their fascist beliefs.
Sounds great until the only place in town that can provide [surgery] you would literally die without decides not to do business with white people.
A surgeon that says "I'd rather let you die than treat you" obviously wants me dead. I think I'm far better off taking my chances driving over to the next town than to have someone who wants me dead cut me open.
In different words, your own example shows the utter folly of your political position.
How many can say they've never done this at all in the company's history.
The vast majority of businesses. Furthermore, such conditions should only apply going forward anyway, since the non-discrimination regulations also weren't backwards looking.
Get rid of any and all compulsory taxpayer funded government support and then we can talk about freedom of association for businesses.
So, we can have freedom of association for all those businesses that never received taxpayer support? Like the vast majority? Great! That was easy!
There's a difference in talking about a personal risk to an individual (diving, motorcycle, etc) and the shared risk of communicable diseases in a society (transfusion, sex, etc).
That argument works for smallpox; it doesn't work for diseases transmitted by transfusions or sex.
who have a right to voice a concern.
Come on, don't hold back: would you like to put me into a prison camp over "your concerns" with my sex life, or would you rather have me shot outright?
It's illegal to sell your own blood, but legal to sell somebody else's! Capitalism! USA! USA!
Under a free market ("capitalism"), it would be legal to sell your own blood and your own organs.
It is various forms of statism, both in the US and in Europe, that make such control over your own body illegal. That is, those restrictions are the antithesis of "capitalism" and free markets.
There is a definite, medical benefit for some of the elderly, at least if the hook up was 24/7. Whether a once a week (or even once a day) blood transfusion will be enough is another question entirely.
Well, fortunately, we have a whole bunch of people who are not just volunteering to be subjects for experiments, but even are willing to pay for it. Let's hope the FDA won't shut this down before we learn more.
Long term, I expect we can replicate any effect using drugs or cultured cells.
I suspect there is a big difference in the quality of blood screening between (1) a government-run single payer system subject to government liability rules, and (2) a private medical provider that charges $8000 per treatment and is fully legally responsible for any damage they cause.
In different words, I'd be reluctant to get a blood transfusion from the Canadian health services; I'd have no problem getting a blood transfusion from the same private company that gives Peter Thiel a blood transfusion.
Slashdot Mirror
People who make personal sacrifices to help others are good people.
People who contend they can "make life more fair" are worthless, self-righteous pricks.
The economic problem Twitter faces is that it is not beholden enough to the expectations of Wall Street, and instead tries to cater to particular political and ideological sensitivities.
Nevertheless, I think having Twitter be owned collectively would be a solution to that problem, probably in the sense that death is a solution to the problem of illness.
It's an HDMI connection, not a network connection. You can't spy on a computer's network connections from an HDMI display.
Whether it's a smart TV is irrelevant when you use it as an HDMI display.
Sure we do. Look under "Minimum Security Prisons":
https://www.bop.gov/about/faci...
I believe SCOTUS found that there was no constitutional right to rehabilitation; that doesn't mean that the federal government never rehabilitates. But if there's a point you're trying to make, please cite the actual decision you're referring to.
And what does that have to do with your statement that "the Nordic countries are doing it right"? I don't think the Nordic countries are doing it right. And I don't think the Nordic system could function in the US.
Not quite. What I'm saying is that it would be bad if the candidate who got more vote automatically wins because that's not the way a free society can operate. The fact that candidates like Clinton lose is simply a consequence of a system that is doing its job as intended.
Good you realize that campaigning for certain goals affects outcomes. Now apply the same logic to your "popular vote" argument.
None of that is relevant to plugging in a phone or compute stick into the HDMI port.
You can travel with something like an Intel NUC Skull Canyon or a Compute Stick and just plug it into the hotel TV's HDMI port. No laptop battery, no fire hazard, etc. Or you can simply use your phone as a computer and plug it into an HDMI port.
You can carry sensitive data on a separate micro-SD card, which, realistically, airport security or passport control won't look for or find unless you're already on a terrorist watch list, in which case a laptop ban is the least of your worries.
Yes, but not a private, for-profit company with the kind of financial risk and liability that entails.
Private entities, for profit or not-for profit, that are granted monopolies or are strongly regulated by the government are probably the worst possible choice for delivering services: they are not accountable to markets and they are not easily accountable to politicians either.
The best way of delivering services is in a free market. The second best way of delivering services is in a well-run all public system. The worst way of delivering services is through combinations of the public and private sector, because it provides endless opportunities for moral hazards and corruption.
Government needs to be able to explain its decisions about citizens to the public. Private organizations don't.
So, proprietary analytical software that cannot justify its decisions is not acceptable for courts of any kind, for policing, for awarding government contracts, for public schools, etc.
It is acceptable for businesses, medical providers, employee evaluations, private schools, etc.
Prisons have multiple functions: they protect society by physically separating criminals, they serve as punishment, they serve as deterrent, and they may also rehabilitate. If you say that their purpose ought to be only rehabilitation, well, you're probably largely on your own.
That's your opinion, not a fact. Many people are offended by Breivik's conditions of imprisonment for example.
Furthermore, it's not like the US isn't trying. The US has prisons similar to Norway's and we imprison and rehabilitate low risk prisoners there. However, the US has a much more diverse population, and hence we have a much larger number of people who are difficult to rehabilitate.
Democrats and progressives keep talking about fairness and blame. The rest of us recognize that life isn't fair, and that people who pretend they can make it fair are con men and frauds.
Oh, my, I have an anonymous stalker. How amusing.
The people who pushed for segregation, eugenics, anti-miscegenation, and other racist and discriminatory policies were progressives in the modern sense. They wanted minimum wage, government control over business, price controls, free education, and tons of other mainstays of progressivism. Modern progressives still admire these people and their accomplishments: Woodrow Wilson, the Roosevelts, John Maynard Keynes, Margaret Sanger, William James, and Oliver Wendell Holmes.
This "the parties swapped" bullshit is what modern Democrats like to feed people like you, people who simply don't know any better. The only thing that has changed between the old Democrats and the new Democrats is that Democrats used to say "blacks are genetically inferior, and therefore need progressives to help them", and now they simply say "blacks have inherited a legacy of slavery, and therefore need progressives to help them".
I'm gay and grew up with massive discrimination and no job prospects because of my sexual orientation. Of course, as a pampered and privileged American, you wouldn't know anything about that.
Eventually, I got lucky and managed to immigrate to the US, where gay people had built communities and businesses without the help or interference of government.
Not only is the diet you want needlessly expensive, you wouldn't be losing weight on it, and you'd probably be hurting yourself.
You do not need to spend a lot of money to lose weight. Pick one of the cheap bulk vegetables (cabbage, cauliflower, carrots, lentils, peas, broccoli, etc.), then add some of the other cheap foods for nutrients and variety.
Oh, and how many miles do you walk/run/bike a day? How often do you go to the gym per week?
Hundreds of millions of people have to pick up and leave their countries (I did). You have it easy: you have the entire US to move to.
You're 47, obese, and poor. Obviously, whatever you're doing isn't working. Instead of feeling sorry for yourself, do something about it and make changes.
There are plenty of cheap and nutritious foods: lentils, beans, peas, carrots, beans, peanuts, potatoes, rice, noodles, chicken, etc.
There are plenty of online recipes: https://www.google.com/search?...
Well, maybe you should consider moving out of "Silicone Valley" to some a place that matches your capacity for earning a living.
They can decide that whether you pass laws or not. But historically, they rarely do.
What happens frequently is that government forces businesses to discriminate. Segregation in the US was mandated by government (mostly progressives and Democrats). That is the real danger and evil.
Read up on the history of racism, segregation, discrimination, and genocide. You should be ashamed of your profound ignorance: it's people like you who are ultimately responsible for those ills.
Businesses pay taxes for that.
The excuses fascists like you make for their fascist beliefs.
A surgeon that says "I'd rather let you die than treat you" obviously wants me dead. I think I'm far better off taking my chances driving over to the next town than to have someone who wants me dead cut me open.
In different words, your own example shows the utter folly of your political position.
The vast majority of businesses. Furthermore, such conditions should only apply going forward anyway, since the non-discrimination regulations also weren't backwards looking.
So, we can have freedom of association for all those businesses that never received taxpayer support? Like the vast majority? Great! That was easy!
That argument works for smallpox; it doesn't work for diseases transmitted by transfusions or sex.
Come on, don't hold back: would you like to put me into a prison camp over "your concerns" with my sex life, or would you rather have me shot outright?
Not at all. Many societies treat "fraud" as a civil matter.
And where is the "fraud" here anyway? People are getting what they are paying for: an experimental treatment that may or may not work.
Well, and "we" don't care what "scumbags" like you think. You can go to hell.
Under a free market ("capitalism"), it would be legal to sell your own blood and your own organs.
It is various forms of statism, both in the US and in Europe, that make such control over your own body illegal. That is, those restrictions are the antithesis of "capitalism" and free markets.
Well, fortunately, we have a whole bunch of people who are not just volunteering to be subjects for experiments, but even are willing to pay for it. Let's hope the FDA won't shut this down before we learn more.
Long term, I expect we can replicate any effect using drugs or cultured cells.
I suspect there is a big difference in the quality of blood screening between (1) a government-run single payer system subject to government liability rules, and (2) a private medical provider that charges $8000 per treatment and is fully legally responsible for any damage they cause.
In different words, I'd be reluctant to get a blood transfusion from the Canadian health services; I'd have no problem getting a blood transfusion from the same private company that gives Peter Thiel a blood transfusion.