Google was fined because they're an American company. I can't imagine Europeans treating their own like that. It was a gigantic fuck you to America in general and Trump in particular. They sent a message, loud and clear.
You're right! What we need to do is jump to conclusions without any evidence, just the word of the FBI. They never do things like frame innocent people! Oh wait they have a track record of doing exactly that. Anyone remember the 1960s?
The whole Trump is a Nazi thing is so played out. And yet there is no shortage of people willing to beat that drum. Obama started this tradition of ruling by decree instead of democratically, and yet we never heard a peep out of you then.
You had one paragraph about Finnish saunas, and then in the next paragraph you start virtue signalling about how great you are because you don't have a homeless problem? WTF? How do those two go together? Everyone, read the two paragraphs again and note the total lack of any kind of relationship.
But by engaging in region lockout, DRM, and other bullshit, they make slightly more money than they would otherwise. Plus, it is satisfying to the executives involved to exercise control over the consumer and force them to jump through hoops. Don't discount that feeling of control - it is intoxicating to a certain species of vile human.
Yeah, it's easy to have nice things when you have a country that smaller than American big cities. Greater Chicago is 10 million people. Let's give you an avalanche of immigration from poor countries and see how well you do.
You know you've gone off the deep end when you can't tell the difference between a living being and a machine. It is possible to be too educated in a topic when you are led to faulty conclusions and yet lack the wisdom to realize it. It happens to a lot of educated people. They get too inside what they study and can't see outside of it.
It's not a "someone". It's a robot. An unliving machine. It doesn't die. You can turn it on and off at will. It's the same level of childish thinking that says the air conditioner dies if you turn it off.
Because there's no free market in operation. In a free market, Verizon would quickly go out of business. To prevent this, they bribe legislators to enact barriers to entry for competitors. It's win-win for everyone. Verizon wins, legislators win. The people lose, but who gives a crap about the deplorables?
That anonymity you argue for was abused by Russians to put their puppet Trump in office. The disaster will be far reaching and the damage will go on for decades.
When I talk about Socialism, I am talking about the government taxing the populace in order to fund services that the government provides.
In the words of the immortal Inigo Montoya, "you keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Taxing the population to fund services is NOT socialism. Socialism is government control of the means of production. Quick sanity check: is Denmark socialist? If you answer this question wrong then you need to change your thinking. Here's the definitive answer from Denmark's PM himself.
Yeah, not gonna happen seeing that the Left considers ordinary Americans as deplorable. It's not a "both sides do it" thing. Who else continually punches down and laughs at the powerless? Have you heard of the new Borat show?
Whaa? Investment from the government is not socialism. Socialism is government control of the means of production. The internet was started so that US right wingers could nuke the Soviet Union and survive the retaliatory strike. That's not even close to socialism.
What's a good example of socialism? Venezuela, for one. Jeremy Corbyn said: "Chavez... showed us that there is a different, and a better way of doing things. Itâ(TM)s called socialism".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You're going to tell me Jeremy Corbyn doesn't know socialism when he sees it?
Tourists flock not to the beaches, but the slums to see '21st-century socialism'
From a trickle a few years ago there are now thousands, travelling individually and on package tours, exploring a leftwing mecca which promises to build social justice in the form of "21st century socialism". https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
Socialism, as practiced, has been almost entirely connected to anti-democratic and illiberal governments. While there are rare, short-lived exceptions (while the 1950s Labour government in the UK threatened illiberal actions, it never took them... But it also didn't even last a decade.), if you look at socialist parties that were able to meaningfully take control of the means of production, you will find universally that they were authoritarian or at least deeply-illiberal in nature.
This is because ideologically, socialism places its economic agenda before any other agenda, and as "democratic" socialists begin their reforms, they create huge public resistance and the socialist parties either choose to quash that dissent or simply remove any political restrictions on their power so that they can ignore dissent. Or, sometimes, they just lose power and never accomplish socialism at all. The problem is inherent. No democracy can accomplish socialism because socialism runs in direct opposition to a pluralistic society.
Now, because the tools that the CIA developed to put a Russian fingerprint on any hack were leaked to hackers and rogue agents, anyone else can too, because the CIA was so utterly lax with their security. Any fingerprint is evidence of absolutely nothing, thanks to these leaks.
The CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group. Yup, that's what they're called. But don't trust me, check it out yourself: https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/...
You are incorrect; there is no such obligation to be objective. I think the change to the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) code of ethics 22 years ago figures importantly. It removed objectivity and unleashed advocacy journalism. (I think most laypeople still think journalists have an ethical responsibility to be objective.) Though itÂ's not my argument journalists can be truly objective, the ethical requirement had them explore ideas that challenged their biases. They learnt stuff. Expanding their knowledge made them more competent, and it even improved their allies' arguments because they had to answer questions.
Today, they simply toss softball questions to their allies - this is practicing "good allyship", and the journalist also faces social and professional peer pressure to conform. Advocacy journalism makes the journalist a spokesperson, a public relations agent.
Hillary was the pro-war candidate who was going to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria that would lead us to direct military confrontation with a nuclear power. She bragged about this in the debates, remember? She was receiving public and financial support from various war-mongering neocons. You hate neocons, right? So why did the media endorse her regardless? It's totally possible for them to decline to endorse either candidate and it certainly happens. Or they could endorse Jill Stein.
Fascism don't believe in the individual and divide society into warring camps that must struggle with one another for dominance. Individuals have no meaning other than to serve the state. Gun control is a high priority. Now of all the factions in American politics today, who does this best describe?
They didn't GIVE free coverage to Trump. The Democrats ORDERED them to do so! And they obeyed! That's so harmful to our democracy. We have hard proof in the Wikileaks.
These would be the same "real journalists" who cheerleaded the invasion of Iraq? And took the mask off and became full throated partisans for Hillary Clinton, the most corrupt candidate to ever run for president? Look at all these newspapers: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4...
You joking? The mainstream media that we know for a fact was colluding with the Democrats to throw the election for Hillary? We have hard proof; Wikileaks confirms. Freedom of the Press does not imply Honesty of the Press. The media tells only the story that confirms its own view, that in the end it was incapable of seeing an alternative outcome and of making a true risk assessment of the political variables - reaffirming the Hillary Clinton camp's own political myopia. This defines the parallel realities in which liberals, in their view of themselves, represent a morally superior character.
On June 16, 2014, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank published a column alleging that a peaceful Muslim was nearly verbally lynched by violent Islamophobes at a Heritage Foundation-hosted panel. What Milbank described was despicable. Unfortunately for Milbank and the Washington Post's credibility, someone filmed the event and posted the film on YouTube. Panel discussants, including Frank Gaffney and Brigitte Gabriel, made important points in a courteous manner. Saba Ahmed, the peaceful Muslim, is a "family friend" of a bombing plotter who expressed a specific desire to murder children. It soon became clear that Milbank was, as one blogger put it, "making stuff up."
Journalists don't want the media to stop being partisans, they just want them to be *more effective* partisans! To be more effective at beating Trump.
The assumptions and goals are the same - Trump is evil, he should be destroyed.
It never occurs to the media or their "critics" that the media is not supposed to have any skin in the game...you can only "lose" if you are fighting an opponent...and THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
What bothers me the most about the media is that not only are they horribly prejudiced - they don't even seem to be able to recognize their prejudice. That's so bad.
What are we even doing in Syria? What's so vitally important there that it's worth risking war with a nuclear power? You realize the USA allied itself with Islamist headchoppers in Syria? What is the important prize in Syria that is worth this awful, horrifically expensive conduct?
Slashdot Mirror
Google was fined because they're an American company. I can't imagine Europeans treating their own like that. It was a gigantic fuck you to America in general and Trump in particular. They sent a message, loud and clear.
You're right! What we need to do is jump to conclusions without any evidence, just the word of the FBI. They never do things like frame innocent people! Oh wait they have a track record of doing exactly that. Anyone remember the 1960s?
The whole Trump is a Nazi thing is so played out. And yet there is no shortage of people willing to beat that drum. Obama started this tradition of ruling by decree instead of democratically, and yet we never heard a peep out of you then.
You had one paragraph about Finnish saunas, and then in the next paragraph you start virtue signalling about how great you are because you don't have a homeless problem? WTF? How do those two go together? Everyone, read the two paragraphs again and note the total lack of any kind of relationship.
But by engaging in region lockout, DRM, and other bullshit, they make slightly more money than they would otherwise. Plus, it is satisfying to the executives involved to exercise control over the consumer and force them to jump through hoops. Don't discount that feeling of control - it is intoxicating to a certain species of vile human.
Yeah, it's easy to have nice things when you have a country that smaller than American big cities. Greater Chicago is 10 million people. Let's give you an avalanche of immigration from poor countries and see how well you do.
You know you've gone off the deep end when you can't tell the difference between a living being and a machine. It is possible to be too educated in a topic when you are led to faulty conclusions and yet lack the wisdom to realize it. It happens to a lot of educated people. They get too inside what they study and can't see outside of it.
It's not a "someone". It's a robot. An unliving machine. It doesn't die. You can turn it on and off at will. It's the same level of childish thinking that says the air conditioner dies if you turn it off.
That's OK, the rest of society doesn't get why you like anime porn so much.
Because there's no free market in operation. In a free market, Verizon would quickly go out of business. To prevent this, they bribe legislators to enact barriers to entry for competitors. It's win-win for everyone. Verizon wins, legislators win. The people lose, but who gives a crap about the deplorables?
That anonymity you argue for was abused by Russians to put their puppet Trump in office. The disaster will be far reaching and the damage will go on for decades.
When I talk about Socialism, I am talking about the government taxing the populace in order to fund services that the government provides.
In the words of the immortal Inigo Montoya, "you keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Taxing the population to fund services is NOT socialism. Socialism is government control of the means of production. Quick sanity check: is Denmark socialist? If you answer this question wrong then you need to change your thinking. Here's the definitive answer from Denmark's PM himself.
Yeah, not gonna happen seeing that the Left considers ordinary Americans as deplorable. It's not a "both sides do it" thing. Who else continually punches down and laughs at the powerless? Have you heard of the new Borat show?
Luckily the workers in San Francisco are the best paid in America and can easily afford a $25 lunch.
So you're arguing with people who don't exist? Grandpa, tone for your medication. You can go outside to shout at a cloud after your nap.
Whaa? Investment from the government is not socialism. Socialism is government control of the means of production. The internet was started so that US right wingers could nuke the Soviet Union and survive the retaliatory strike. That's not even close to socialism.
What's a good example of socialism? Venezuela, for one. Jeremy Corbyn said: "Chavez ... showed us that there is a different, and a better way of doing things. Itâ(TM)s called socialism".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You're going to tell me Jeremy Corbyn doesn't know socialism when he sees it?
Tourists flock not to the beaches, but the slums to see '21st-century socialism' From a trickle a few years ago there are now thousands, travelling individually and on package tours, exploring a leftwing mecca which promises to build social justice in the form of "21st century socialism". https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
Citations needed and provided.
Socialism, as practiced, has been almost entirely connected to anti-democratic and illiberal governments. While there are rare, short-lived exceptions (while the 1950s Labour government in the UK threatened illiberal actions, it never took them... But it also didn't even last a decade.), if you look at socialist parties that were able to meaningfully take control of the means of production, you will find universally that they were authoritarian or at least deeply-illiberal in nature.
This is because ideologically, socialism places its economic agenda before any other agenda, and as "democratic" socialists begin their reforms, they create huge public resistance and the socialist parties either choose to quash that dissent or simply remove any political restrictions on their power so that they can ignore dissent. Or, sometimes, they just lose power and never accomplish socialism at all. The problem is inherent. No democracy can accomplish socialism because socialism runs in direct opposition to a pluralistic society.
Remember the Vault7 exploits that allow the CIA to hack people while making it look like it was Russians? Remember when the CIA claimed Russian hacking due to finding "Russian" malware on infected systems? From Vault 7: CIA can customize the "fingerprints" hacks leave behind and make it look like someone else did it. No, this is not some crazy conspiracy theory nonsense just because I said "CIA". This is for real.
Now, because the tools that the CIA developed to put a Russian fingerprint on any hack were leaked to hackers and rogue agents, anyone else can too, because the CIA was so utterly lax with their security. Any fingerprint is evidence of absolutely nothing, thanks to these leaks.
The CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group. Yup, that's what they're called. But don't trust me, check it out yourself: https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/...
You are incorrect; there is no such obligation to be objective. I think the change to the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) code of ethics 22 years ago figures importantly. It removed objectivity and unleashed advocacy journalism. (I think most laypeople still think journalists have an ethical responsibility to be objective.) Though itÂ's not my argument journalists can be truly objective, the ethical requirement had them explore ideas that challenged their biases. They learnt stuff. Expanding their knowledge made them more competent, and it even improved their allies' arguments because they had to answer questions.
Today, they simply toss softball questions to their allies - this is practicing "good allyship", and the journalist also faces social and professional peer pressure to conform. Advocacy journalism makes the journalist a spokesperson, a public relations agent.
Hillary was the pro-war candidate who was going to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria that would lead us to direct military confrontation with a nuclear power. She bragged about this in the debates, remember? She was receiving public and financial support from various war-mongering neocons. You hate neocons, right? So why did the media endorse her regardless? It's totally possible for them to decline to endorse either candidate and it certainly happens. Or they could endorse Jill Stein.
Fascism don't believe in the individual and divide society into warring camps that must struggle with one another for dominance. Individuals have no meaning other than to serve the state. Gun control is a high priority. Now of all the factions in American politics today, who does this best describe?
Are you joking? Not Invented Here syndrome. In fact, wasn't it NASA (or one of its prime contractors) that *invented* NIH syndrome?
They didn't GIVE free coverage to Trump. The Democrats ORDERED them to do so! And they obeyed! That's so harmful to our democracy. We have hard proof in the Wikileaks.
These would be the same "real journalists" who cheerleaded the invasion of Iraq? And took the mask off and became full throated partisans for Hillary Clinton, the most corrupt candidate to ever run for president? Look at all these newspapers: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4...
You joking? The mainstream media that we know for a fact was colluding with the Democrats to throw the election for Hillary? We have hard proof; Wikileaks confirms. Freedom of the Press does not imply Honesty of the Press. The media tells only the story that confirms its own view, that in the end it was incapable of seeing an alternative outcome and of making a true risk assessment of the political variables - reaffirming the Hillary Clinton camp's own political myopia. This defines the parallel realities in which liberals, in their view of themselves, represent a morally superior character.
Here's CNN getting caught red-handed planting debate questions. http://imgur.com/a/OMD6b#ed8AV...
On June 16, 2014, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank published a column alleging that a peaceful Muslim was nearly verbally lynched by violent Islamophobes at a Heritage Foundation-hosted panel. What Milbank described was despicable. Unfortunately for Milbank and the Washington Post's credibility, someone filmed the event and posted the film on YouTube. Panel discussants, including Frank Gaffney and Brigitte Gabriel, made important points in a courteous manner. Saba Ahmed, the peaceful Muslim, is a "family friend" of a bombing plotter who expressed a specific desire to murder children. It soon became clear that Milbank was, as one blogger put it, "making stuff up."
CNN cuts off congressman when he mentions Wikileaks with Clinton.
Ex-CBS reporter's book reveals how liberal media protects Obama
Compilation of CNN & MSNBC Cutting Guests Mics to Protect Hillary Clinton
The entire media endorsed Hillary.
CBS's John Dickerson: http://www.mediaite.com/online...">Donald Trump Didn't Ruin the Press's Reputation, We Did That Ourselves.
Here's the media changing headlines to attack Trump on dozens of occasions.
Look at all these respected journalists express surprise, dismay, and a total lack of understanding that Hillary lost. They even admit it: "I genuinely do not understand America."
Journalists don't want the media to stop being partisans, they just want them to be *more effective* partisans! To be more effective at beating Trump. The assumptions and goals are the same - Trump is evil, he should be destroyed. It never occurs to the media or their "critics" that the media is not supposed to have any skin in the game...you can only "lose" if you are fighting an opponent...and THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
What bothers me the most about the media is that not only are they horribly prejudiced - they don't even seem to be able to recognize their prejudice. That's so bad.
What are we even doing in Syria? What's so vitally important there that it's worth risking war with a nuclear power? You realize the USA allied itself with Islamist headchoppers in Syria? What is the important prize in Syria that is worth this awful, horrifically expensive conduct?