I wish I could be more agreeable, but if you actually consider the impact of the issues, the D's almost always have a big lead over R's. Net neutrality is a big deal, and R's are for big businesses even though it will hurt the whole industry - almost everyone. Clinton's email server, I'm sorry, was not a big deal compared to this. Poisoning Flint's water supply hurt everyone in an entire city, Bill Clinton got a BJ and "ruined" one young lady's life (granted she was able to sell her story and made $ off it). The Iraq War and related conflict has killed over 1 million people (thousands of Americans) the neocon R's lied to the country to get us into that. In Benghazi a few Americans died, and if Hillary personally shot them it'd still be _absolutely_ nothing compared to Iraq. I know, Obama continued it but by then the decision really was a lose-lose. Obama did increase the drones and they've still killed some tiny % of the million+ overall picture, and few (or none? idk) were American.
I have actually donated to causes that fight superpacs and money in politics in general, so trust me, I'm with you on #thankscorporateamericaandyoursuperpacs. But the organizations that fight it always seem to have more D's (ask watchers of Colbert and Oliver), while the R's do stuff like Citizen's United - wait, does that have anything to do with what you care about - who pushed that one?
If '#thanksobama' was a thing, can we start saying #thanksrepublicans? 99% of this entire net neutrality issue debacle has been brought to you by republicans, so this isn't even really tongue-in-cheek.
I voted for Bernie, but then Hillary in the general because she would have been better than Trump, who proves me right every. single. week. The Hillary-hate just doesn't hold any water for me as Trump keeps taking us closer to an authoritarian regime.
It did fire up certain people. They ran around making baseless accusations about Trump being racist because he didn't hand down condemnation quickly enough.
Then, people like me had another reason to not want to be associated with people like you, so we voted third party or abstained.
The point you missed (one of many I'm sure): I didn't accuse Trump of being racist. I'm not sure if/how racist he is, but from what I know about him, he did play the card to pick up the votes, knowing that the backlash would be outweighed by the benefit. Hence, "he intentionally represented racism".
1. pay attention
2. vote
Try to not get defensive. Think about it. You're the problem.
The right disbelieves global warming, the left disbelieves GMO and nuclear safety...
Almost all left-leaning people I talk to believe in GMO and nuclear safety, and the few that don't are always open to listening to my persistent arguments for them. I'm open to hearing who I should be talking to, I'm just sharing that it's hard for me to see these people being powerful voices based on my admittedly anecdotal experiences. Hrm, maybe it's because I live in Texas?
"White supremacist"?... I seem to recall Obama mocking Romney over his concern of the Russians and all the democrats laughed...
As a Democrat, I didn't laugh when Obama used that line to hit Romney, I knew and told people that was wrong.
But I did also recognize that it was a political white-glove-face-slap, in response to Romney's - which was accusing Obama of being soft on Russia. That wasn't true either, Obama did his best to work both with and against the US's geopolitical foe, just like every other president, including our present one (granted, I have a lot of questions about his financial interests and effectiveness).
The other issue brought up was race. When one candidate intentionally chooses to represent racism (temporarily refusing to condemn a known leader of the KKK), then I have to question everyone that votes for that candidate. I'm not saying you're so racist that you secretly own slaves, but you're racist enough to vote for a candidate that represents racism.
I'm sure some will answer with, "But that didn't make him racist! Nobody knew who David Duke was, right?" That's willful ignorance. If you round up every American billionaire over 50, I would bet money that 100% of them knew that David Duke was a racist politician, and most of them knew more details than that. Combined with Trump's obvious media savy, it's obvious he knew how that would look, that it would fire up so many people with racist feelings. And it looks like it actually worked.
So if the current administration wants to characterize funding as helping "go to Mars", I'm glad to live with it given the scientific work that will be generated because of it.
Your logic sounds good. My counter is that shooting yourself in the foot makes buying new running shoes irrelevant. He is defunding research on climate change and other issues that affect us directly and immediately. How much does it cost to go to Mars? How much will ignoring climate change cost us? The good money says 44 trillion:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/18...
So by the time the Mars project starts getting off the ground, we're going to start getting into more wars and the first thing that will be cut is the Mars project.
If you say "let's do both", then I'd agree. If you say let's only do one, then I'd say there's only one that matters.
Good for all Americans?
1. Jobs for the people building and maintaining the pipeline.
Most of this will be temporary.
2. Tax revenues on their incomes and the incomes of the companies building the pipelines.
See #1
3. Moral for people who are ignored by coastal elites and are told that "they need to be re-educated." Not to mention the inflow of consumer dollars to hard hit communities.
Valid topic, keep reading.
4. Stop sending money to religious fanatics who then send money to radicalize mosques (you, as an educated person, should be quite aware of this).
This, while sounding true, is more blind than short-sighted. Think of the people that stopped investing in horses and shifted to automobiles.
5. Stop sending money (and jobs) to other the middle east and Russia.
Ok, you probably need more information to understand #4. Go read about how Germany made a law guaranteeing a good price for consumers that produced solar energy, back in the 90's. Out of nothing, it created an industry. Companies were born to build and install the panels. The country instantly became a global powerhouse for a growing industry (despite the same amount of sunlight as Seattle), and it led to a stock market boom. The real estate sector grew too - owners with roofs all of a sudden gained unexpected value in their investment. After so decades of profitability, the effects of a policy going too well are starting to set in and they do face issues, like China subsidies have been killing them, and they now have so much power they have to sell it to their neighbors. So they're tweaking a few things with the laws, maybe no more subsidies are needed anyway. But overall, it's been a huge success, and there's even been less power outages (granted, some work went into achieving that). So, moral of the story is that there are UUUGE profits in being the leader of a technology for the world, as long as you're willing to work.
6. Reduce the need to "protect" dangerous areas - hence less military presence, less potential for engagement.
The bad guys would rather blow up a huge oil refinery than a few houses with solar panels, or a couple wind turbines.
7. Money will flow to Canada and Canadian companies (as opposed to Saudi). This is a general plus dovetailed with points 4 and 5.
Rather than set fuel efficiency targets, tax a vehicle's registration based on its fuel consumption. Lets people have the freedom to drive an old, less-efficient vehicle if they wish, as long as they are willing to pay for it.
In the US this is already taking place. It's called a "gasoline tax", and both the feds and the states have their hands in the pockets of those who buy gas. Buy more gas, you pay more in taxes.
You just want another tax to do the same thing, as if one tax isn't enough.
The "one" you refer to is more like "one half". We haven't increased the tax in proportion to increase in price, it was a fixed amount, and we used to up in every couple years, until 1993. And so we have crummy roads because few states have the ability to pay for them.
http://www.npr.org/2014/12/08/...
Even if you don't believe in science, not raising gas taxes to keep up the roads is stupid.
I might agree with the sentiment. I'm sure I'm not the only one, whether people realize it or not. I'm talking about http://science.howstuffworks.c.... But I've never had a conversation about it - is there a way to get rid of DST while still allowing some sun after work?
What do you mean? If you like net neutrality (something that obviously has helped small companies and the internet grow all these years), then you should already know Republicans have always been against it, and you should have been against Trump especially. There should be no surprises here. But it should be a wake up call: Republicans are on track to kill net neutrality soon.
I've seen before that India's version of MIT, IIT, has an acceptance rate at around 2% (vs MIT 8) - in a country of 1,000,000,000 people, and right now they usually want to come work in the US. I'm in IT too, so ya, the feeling & reality of losing out on jobs sucks. But I'm not sure rigging the system to let me win is the answer. Tempting the world to set up shop somewhere outside of America just doesn't sound like a good plan long term. Rising tide lifts all boats, I like being surrounded by top talent, even if I don't get paid the most, because my team wins. Plus I improve myself the most competing with the best.
Ya, I consider myself progressive, and I'd rather him use political clout on global warming than whales. So any progress he gets here feels like he's just trying to keep a promise.
I agree our posture could be way, way better, and I agree the Iraq invasion is by far the worst part of it. Over a million people killed, it's the worst political decision since Vietnam, and in our time, we have Vietnam in our history so we shouldn't have repeated the mistake. But that was all clearly, clearly the Republicans pushing it, lying about it, forcing it through. If you take away the Reps and their influence, I'd defend the US's posture.
Get some perspective. Putin murders and steals far more indiscriminately than any Western leader in living memory.
ORLY? So, what is the bodycount of Putin? More or less than the bodycount of Dubya?
Kudos, lol. I agreed then immediately agreed with the counter-argument.
But this shows the real problem is party not country here. In the last several decades, Reps have caused so much death and waste, I've been turned into a one-party person. Philosophically I'd be against that, but cmon I have no choice.
As to draining the swamp, he's already done this [politico.com].
Thanks for that link, interesting. I have to rebut it a little, from the article:
- This is actually a loosening of his earlier one.
- It's just a promise, which any politician disposes of quickly, and there's already a lot of his transition team members in clear violation of it.
- There's also a similar pledge the Obama administration put in effect (also broken for some new hires), with possibly a more stringent definition in the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and it applied a year in advance instead of 5 years behind.
All in all, I think it's barely an improvement, but congrats, out of ~30 decisions I've seen him make so far, this is the first positive one. Does it make me think he's draining the swamp? Heck no, the other appointments he's made far outweigh this (see other posts for links), and his conflicts of interest do so many times over.
I can understand the hopelessness. I'm getting older and know options feel/are limited. Location matters. I wouldn't intentionally talk down to anyone, all I can say is do your best to get out. If possible move the family to a better state, better city. If possible, keep looking for better work, try to leverage your experience, but look for industries that are guaranteed a future. I've seen a 45yr old office administrator become a seriously well paid CEO before, nothing is impossible.
But be damned sure to put money away for kids' college, and warn everyone you know not to have kids until you can afford to do so. And what should/they/ (and maybe you) be going into? That's easy to Google, you'll probably find STEM careers, which is what I did. I'm tired of hearing how college isn't worth it, from people who don't make much. I don't make as much as I'd like, but the money I do have is from a career that I wouldn't have started without college. I know it's money, it's a risk, but it's a pretty good risk.
Republicans always respond 'pull yourself by your bootstraps' (which I do see it has some truth obviously), but they're also making laws to make it harder to do so, so their corporate buddies can increase profit. No childcare for single parents, no free condoms (probably another reason I can afford a vaca) or other family planning, no healthcare to mitigate that family-financially-devastating-illness. Sorry this turned political, but I'm seeing the hopelessness translate to electing a race-baiting bankruptcy expert fraud as leader of the corporate mega rich party, and I know I have to start saying something. He and they are not working for you. Don't come back with 'neither are the Dems' because I've benefitted from democratic policies and organizations, probably preventing me from being as poor as people who can't afford to go SCUBA diving. I also have had time to read and learn about issues from enough sources to really know which are relatively unbiased.
Thank you for that info, I think it'll change my behavior next time I'm in the ocean. It says at the end:
"But before we ban sunscreens, we must first determine if local ambient concentrations of sunscreens are positively correlated with coral bleaching events."
Danovaro says banning sunscreen won't be necessary, and points out two simple things swimmers can do to reduce their impact on coral: Use sunscreens with physical filters, which reflect instead of absorb ultraviolet radiation; and use eco-friendly chemical sunscreens.
Slashdot Mirror
What are the biggest examples of stuff leaked about Russia that went straight to US press?
I wish I could be more agreeable, but if you actually consider the impact of the issues, the D's almost always have a big lead over R's. Net neutrality is a big deal, and R's are for big businesses even though it will hurt the whole industry - almost everyone. Clinton's email server, I'm sorry, was not a big deal compared to this. Poisoning Flint's water supply hurt everyone in an entire city, Bill Clinton got a BJ and "ruined" one young lady's life (granted she was able to sell her story and made $ off it). The Iraq War and related conflict has killed over 1 million people (thousands of Americans) the neocon R's lied to the country to get us into that. In Benghazi a few Americans died, and if Hillary personally shot them it'd still be _absolutely_ nothing compared to Iraq. I know, Obama continued it but by then the decision really was a lose-lose. Obama did increase the drones and they've still killed some tiny % of the million+ overall picture, and few (or none? idk) were American.
I have actually donated to causes that fight superpacs and money in politics in general, so trust me, I'm with you on #thankscorporateamericaandyoursuperpacs. But the organizations that fight it always seem to have more D's (ask watchers of Colbert and Oliver), while the R's do stuff like Citizen's United - wait, does that have anything to do with what you care about - who pushed that one?
If '#thanksobama' was a thing, can we start saying #thanksrepublicans? 99% of this entire net neutrality issue debacle has been brought to you by republicans, so this isn't even really tongue-in-cheek.
I voted for Bernie, but then Hillary in the general because she would have been better than Trump, who proves me right every. single. week. The Hillary-hate just doesn't hold any water for me as Trump keeps taking us closer to an authoritarian regime.
It did fire up certain people. They ran around making baseless accusations about Trump being racist because he didn't hand down condemnation quickly enough.
Then, people like me had another reason to not want to be associated with people like you, so we voted third party or abstained.
The point you missed (one of many I'm sure): I didn't accuse Trump of being racist. I'm not sure if/how racist he is, but from what I know about him, he did play the card to pick up the votes, knowing that the backlash would be outweighed by the benefit. Hence, "he intentionally represented racism".
1. pay attention
2. vote
Try to not get defensive. Think about it. You're the problem.
Mod parent up. Interesting that few other "developed" countries are even mentioned in the graphic.
The right disbelieves global warming, the left disbelieves GMO and nuclear safety...
Almost all left-leaning people I talk to believe in GMO and nuclear safety, and the few that don't are always open to listening to my persistent arguments for them. I'm open to hearing who I should be talking to, I'm just sharing that it's hard for me to see these people being powerful voices based on my admittedly anecdotal experiences. Hrm, maybe it's because I live in Texas?
"White supremacist"? ... I seem to recall Obama mocking Romney over his concern of the Russians and all the democrats laughed ...
As a Democrat, I didn't laugh when Obama used that line to hit Romney, I knew and told people that was wrong. But I did also recognize that it was a political white-glove-face-slap, in response to Romney's - which was accusing Obama of being soft on Russia. That wasn't true either, Obama did his best to work both with and against the US's geopolitical foe, just like every other president, including our present one (granted, I have a lot of questions about his financial interests and effectiveness).
The other issue brought up was race. When one candidate intentionally chooses to represent racism (temporarily refusing to condemn a known leader of the KKK), then I have to question everyone that votes for that candidate. I'm not saying you're so racist that you secretly own slaves, but you're racist enough to vote for a candidate that represents racism.
I'm sure some will answer with, "But that didn't make him racist! Nobody knew who David Duke was, right?" That's willful ignorance. If you round up every American billionaire over 50, I would bet money that 100% of them knew that David Duke was a racist politician, and most of them knew more details than that. Combined with Trump's obvious media savy, it's obvious he knew how that would look, that it would fire up so many people with racist feelings. And it looks like it actually worked.
So if the current administration wants to characterize funding as helping "go to Mars", I'm glad to live with it given the scientific work that will be generated because of it.
Your logic sounds good. My counter is that shooting yourself in the foot makes buying new running shoes irrelevant. He is defunding research on climate change and other issues that affect us directly and immediately. How much does it cost to go to Mars? How much will ignoring climate change cost us? The good money says 44 trillion: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/18...
So by the time the Mars project starts getting off the ground, we're going to start getting into more wars and the first thing that will be cut is the Mars project.
If you say "let's do both", then I'd agree. If you say let's only do one, then I'd say there's only one that matters.
Good for all Americans? 1. Jobs for the people building and maintaining the pipeline.
Most of this will be temporary.
2. Tax revenues on their incomes and the incomes of the companies building the pipelines.
See #1
3. Moral for people who are ignored by coastal elites and are told that "they need to be re-educated." Not to mention the inflow of consumer dollars to hard hit communities.
Valid topic, keep reading.
4. Stop sending money to religious fanatics who then send money to radicalize mosques (you, as an educated person, should be quite aware of this).
This, while sounding true, is more blind than short-sighted. Think of the people that stopped investing in horses and shifted to automobiles.
5. Stop sending money (and jobs) to other the middle east and Russia.
Ok, you probably need more information to understand #4. Go read about how Germany made a law guaranteeing a good price for consumers that produced solar energy, back in the 90's. Out of nothing, it created an industry. Companies were born to build and install the panels. The country instantly became a global powerhouse for a growing industry (despite the same amount of sunlight as Seattle), and it led to a stock market boom. The real estate sector grew too - owners with roofs all of a sudden gained unexpected value in their investment. After so decades of profitability, the effects of a policy going too well are starting to set in and they do face issues, like China subsidies have been killing them, and they now have so much power they have to sell it to their neighbors. So they're tweaking a few things with the laws, maybe no more subsidies are needed anyway. But overall, it's been a huge success, and there's even been less power outages (granted, some work went into achieving that). So, moral of the story is that there are UUUGE profits in being the leader of a technology for the world, as long as you're willing to work.
6. Reduce the need to "protect" dangerous areas - hence less military presence, less potential for engagement.
The bad guys would rather blow up a huge oil refinery than a few houses with solar panels, or a couple wind turbines.
7. Money will flow to Canada and Canadian companies (as opposed to Saudi). This is a general plus dovetailed with points 4 and 5.
And at what cost?
Opportunity.
Not environmental.
Yes, environmental too.
Rather than set fuel efficiency targets, tax a vehicle's registration based on its fuel consumption. Lets people have the freedom to drive an old, less-efficient vehicle if they wish, as long as they are willing to pay for it.
In the US this is already taking place. It's called a "gasoline tax", and both the feds and the states have their hands in the pockets of those who buy gas. Buy more gas, you pay more in taxes.
You just want another tax to do the same thing, as if one tax isn't enough.
The "one" you refer to is more like "one half". We haven't increased the tax in proportion to increase in price, it was a fixed amount, and we used to up in every couple years, until 1993. And so we have crummy roads because few states have the ability to pay for them. http://www.npr.org/2014/12/08/...
Even if you don't believe in science, not raising gas taxes to keep up the roads is stupid.
Hacker News flags political posts
Thankyou! I was about to say, if this is an April Fools joke, a lot of people are in on it:
http://www.pcworld.com/article...
https://insidecybersecurity.co...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the...
Either way it's 15 yards and resubmit story so it will dup...
What?
Unless Gates is 2 & Bezos is 3. http://www.businessinsider.com...
I might agree with the sentiment. I'm sure I'm not the only one, whether people realize it or not. I'm talking about http://science.howstuffworks.c.... But I've never had a conversation about it - is there a way to get rid of DST while still allowing some sun after work?
Well, gentleman, we've been sold out.
What do you mean? If you like net neutrality (something that obviously has helped small companies and the internet grow all these years), then you should already know Republicans have always been against it, and you should have been against Trump especially. There should be no surprises here. But it should be a wake up call: Republicans are on track to kill net neutrality soon.
I've seen before that India's version of MIT, IIT, has an acceptance rate at around 2% (vs MIT 8) - in a country of 1,000,000,000 people, and right now they usually want to come work in the US. I'm in IT too, so ya, the feeling & reality of losing out on jobs sucks. But I'm not sure rigging the system to let me win is the answer. Tempting the world to set up shop somewhere outside of America just doesn't sound like a good plan long term. Rising tide lifts all boats, I like being surrounded by top talent, even if I don't get paid the most, because my team wins. Plus I improve myself the most competing with the best.
And the first stat I looked up, internet speeds, shows we're not even in the top 10 http://www.xconomy.com/boston/...
Ya, I consider myself progressive, and I'd rather him use political clout on global warming than whales. So any progress he gets here feels like he's just trying to keep a promise.
I agree our posture could be way, way better, and I agree the Iraq invasion is by far the worst part of it. Over a million people killed, it's the worst political decision since Vietnam, and in our time, we have Vietnam in our history so we shouldn't have repeated the mistake. But that was all clearly, clearly the Republicans pushing it, lying about it, forcing it through. If you take away the Reps and their influence, I'd defend the US's posture.
Get some perspective. Putin murders and steals far more indiscriminately than any Western leader in living memory.
ORLY? So, what is the bodycount of Putin? More or less than the bodycount of Dubya?
Kudos, lol. I agreed then immediately agreed with the counter-argument.
But this shows the real problem is party not country here. In the last several decades, Reps have caused so much death and waste, I've been turned into a one-party person. Philosophically I'd be against that, but cmon I have no choice.
As to draining the swamp, he's already done this [politico.com].
Thanks for that link, interesting. I have to rebut it a little, from the article:
- This is actually a loosening of his earlier one.
- It's just a promise, which any politician disposes of quickly, and there's already a lot of his transition team members in clear violation of it.
- There's also a similar pledge the Obama administration put in effect (also broken for some new hires), with possibly a more stringent definition in the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and it applied a year in advance instead of 5 years behind.
All in all, I think it's barely an improvement, but congrats, out of ~30 decisions I've seen him make so far, this is the first positive one. Does it make me think he's draining the swamp? Heck no, the other appointments he's made far outweigh this (see other posts for links), and his conflicts of interest do so many times over.
Use NoScript and forbid scripts globally and this will mitigate the exploit.
Or I think uMatrix will work? (howto)
I can understand the hopelessness. I'm getting older and know options feel/are limited. Location matters. I wouldn't intentionally talk down to anyone, all I can say is do your best to get out. If possible move the family to a better state, better city. If possible, keep looking for better work, try to leverage your experience, but look for industries that are guaranteed a future. I've seen a 45yr old office administrator become a seriously well paid CEO before, nothing is impossible.
/they/ (and maybe you) be going into? That's easy to Google, you'll probably find STEM careers, which is what I did. I'm tired of hearing how college isn't worth it, from people who don't make much. I don't make as much as I'd like, but the money I do have is from a career that I wouldn't have started without college. I know it's money, it's a risk, but it's a pretty good risk.
But be damned sure to put money away for kids' college, and warn everyone you know not to have kids until you can afford to do so. And what should
Republicans always respond 'pull yourself by your bootstraps' (which I do see it has some truth obviously), but they're also making laws to make it harder to do so, so their corporate buddies can increase profit. No childcare for single parents, no free condoms (probably another reason I can afford a vaca) or other family planning, no healthcare to mitigate that family-financially-devastating-illness. Sorry this turned political, but I'm seeing the hopelessness translate to electing a race-baiting bankruptcy expert fraud as leader of the corporate mega rich party, and I know I have to start saying something. He and they are not working for you. Don't come back with 'neither are the Dems' because I've benefitted from democratic policies and organizations, probably preventing me from being as poor as people who can't afford to go SCUBA diving. I also have had time to read and learn about issues from enough sources to really know which are relatively unbiased.
"But before we ban sunscreens, we must first determine if local ambient concentrations of sunscreens are positively correlated with coral bleaching events." Danovaro says banning sunscreen won't be necessary, and points out two simple things swimmers can do to reduce their impact on coral: Use sunscreens with physical filters, which reflect instead of absorb ultraviolet radiation; and use eco-friendly chemical sunscreens.