Facebook basically already bans your political posts. I imagine you have probably noticed that you see fewer of them lately. Your political posts are being served to a few select, like minded friends, just to make you think they are not censuring you, but that's it. Basically almost no one is seeing your political posts anymore.
Remember when it was the Mac that was going to threaten Microsoft Windows dominance because they were often found in schools? Yeah. Well, it didn't exactly happen. Macs made some gains, from about 4% to 12% today, but it was more from being good computers not OS addictions.
The major fallacy is that there is more to business computing than just Microsoft Office. In fact, there is a lot more. Most jobs require their employees to learn and utilize a small host of different applications. Many of those are developed in-house. Many, many of those applications simply don't exist on other platforms, or at least not nearly to the same quality. If your software that you use doesn't exist on a rival platform, or you would have to spend lots and lots of money training and migrating over to another program, then why would you do that?
I mean, for gawd sake, companies -lots and lots of companies- are still using Oricle. You think they are going to switch to Chromebooks? You are insane.
There is no chance that alleged programs like this have been "in existence for a while". You know why? Because people would be involved. Lots of people. And sooner or later someone would be talking about their work on making super-weevils on the internet. That's the biggest logical flaw with conspiracy theories. It's not that conspiracies don't exist, but that it's impossible to keep people quiet about them.
If this conspiracy program had existed since the 1980's it would not be a theory. We would know about it.
This would be the dumbest covert assult possible. Why would we do this? If such a virus, or weevil, or mite, or whatever was actually released into the environment there would be a 100% chance that it would eventually find its way to the US farms and kill our crops.
Further, this isn't really America's kind of warfare. We are much more into blowing up stuff using really really really expensive bombs and cruise missiles in a massive display Armageddon d*ck waving, then we are into this kinds of deniable, slow war of attrition.
Seriously. This is literally the same conspiracy theory the Soviets believed the US was doing in the 1980's. It was even a featured story line in the tv show "the Americans".
You are equating class with income and assets. Are you American?
I am American and I'm half equating it with assets, not income. I do equate "rich" and "retired" with assets and investments, but not really the middle class or poor. As I said, I personally define middle class and poor based on "needs". Different geographic locations, States, Cities, Nations, cultures, etc. have different income levels necessary to meet one's needs. For example, apartment rent in California is notably higher than Nebraska. If a person in California can't afford rent then they are still poor -by my definition- regardless the fact that they have a higher income than a guy in Nebraska that can easily pay rent.
Economists and pollsters in the United States generally define "working class" adults as those lacking a college degree,[1] rather than by occupation or income. Many members of the working class, as defined by academic models, are often identified in the vernacular as being middle-class, there is considerable ambiguity over the term's meaning.
My preferred definition alters that a bit. It's more about if a person *could* afford a college education regardless if they want one or not. I do consider higher education a "need" today. So if a person can't get a college education because they can't afford tuition, then they are poor. You can still be "middle class" even if you don't have a college degree, if you could afford one and just choose that you personally don't want one.
That would be just about everybody, so what we call working class, you are including in the middle class? In other developed countries, even the multi-generational welfare dependent underclass can access all those, they just might choose not to.
My bar seems pretty low, I agree. More correctly, I want everyone to not be poor. I absolutely do want everyone on the planet to reach my definition of "middle class". That includes "working class" people, and I don't really care for minor sub-divisions like that. BUT, also not that I include proper elder care. That's a higher bar than most people realize, and many nations generally don't do a good job with that.
I don't care that everyone is "rich". I don't think that's feasibly possible. And it's not even really preferred. Happiness studies show that general happiness doesn't improve with increased wealth beyond that which meets a person's basic needs.
I'm not trying to say one definition is superior to the other. There are lots of "correct" ways to define it.
If you are asking about my preferred definition, I would say it's based on needs and cash flow. If a family can meet all of their needs -eg. can afford a safe home, education for the kids, adequate reliable health care, elder care, food, etc. then they are "middle class". If they can't, then they are poor. If they can do all that and have enough left over to invest in assets, then they are rich. When they have enough assets that their cash flow from their assets alone exceeds their expenses, then they are retired.
I like that definition because it's fixed and doesn't pretend to rely on a dollar salary amount or bell curve people or compare people's values against each other. Everyone on the planet should be "middle class" by my preferred definition.
Sure, that works really well and is very useful information if you are in wine or beer sales. How you are defining "middle class" says more about the person doing the defining.
Not really. At Lake Wobegon EVERY kid is above average. That doesn't work. You can have *almost* every kid above average, so long as there is at least one really, really dumb kid to pull down the mean.
That's not a snarky question. That's the whole crux of the debate.
Do you define "middle class" as:... having X amount of assets?... being able to buy X luxuries?... having a salary of at least X?... being X sigma from the mean?
How you answer that question changes your perception of the growth of the middle class?
I swear, for all my straight-middle-class-Christian-white-male-ness, I really honestly do not know why so many of us in this category are so unreasonably threatened by those who aren't in the category.
Whoo Hoo! Great to hear that USB 3 and HDMI are going to be open source now. They would have to be right. I mean, no one would buy a computer of any kind without a few USB 3 and HDMI ports, so obviously they are going to have to be open sourced, with all their patents released to the commons. I mean, I'm sure that's what they meant by "OpenSource hardware", right?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh the amounts of money 21st century rich people will spend on an endless effort to prove they aren't religious.
Facebook basically already bans your political posts. I imagine you have probably noticed that you see fewer of them lately. Your political posts are being served to a few select, like minded friends, just to make you think they are not censuring you, but that's it. Basically almost no one is seeing your political posts anymore.
yum!
It blocks those awful billiards? Where can I buy a roll?
Don't put your coffee cup on it. You might crack the screen and ruin the resale value to flip to some other sucker with kids they need to shut up.
iPads aren't good for anything except going kids to shut up and watch Netflix.
Remember when it was the Mac that was going to threaten Microsoft Windows dominance because they were often found in schools? Yeah. Well, it didn't exactly happen. Macs made some gains, from about 4% to 12% today, but it was more from being good computers not OS addictions.
The major fallacy is that there is more to business computing than just Microsoft Office. In fact, there is a lot more. Most jobs require their employees to learn and utilize a small host of different applications. Many of those are developed in-house. Many, many of those applications simply don't exist on other platforms, or at least not nearly to the same quality. If your software that you use doesn't exist on a rival platform, or you would have to spend lots and lots of money training and migrating over to another program, then why would you do that?
I mean, for gawd sake, companies -lots and lots of companies- are still using Oricle. You think they are going to switch to Chromebooks? You are insane.
There is no chance that alleged programs like this have been "in existence for a while". You know why? Because people would be involved. Lots of people. And sooner or later someone would be talking about their work on making super-weevils on the internet. That's the biggest logical flaw with conspiracy theories. It's not that conspiracies don't exist, but that it's impossible to keep people quiet about them.
If this conspiracy program had existed since the 1980's it would not be a theory. We would know about it.
This would be the dumbest covert assult possible. Why would we do this? If such a virus, or weevil, or mite, or whatever was actually released into the environment there would be a 100% chance that it would eventually find its way to the US farms and kill our crops.
Further, this isn't really America's kind of warfare. We are much more into blowing up stuff using really really really expensive bombs and cruise missiles in a massive display Armageddon d*ck waving, then we are into this kinds of deniable, slow war of attrition.
Is this a headline from the 1980's?
Seriously. This is literally the same conspiracy theory the Soviets believed the US was doing in the 1980's. It was even a featured story line in the tv show "the Americans".
You are equating class with income and assets. Are you American?
I am American and I'm half equating it with assets, not income. I do equate "rich" and "retired" with assets and investments, but not really the middle class or poor. As I said, I personally define middle class and poor based on "needs". Different geographic locations, States, Cities, Nations, cultures, etc. have different income levels necessary to meet one's needs. For example, apartment rent in California is notably higher than Nebraska. If a person in California can't afford rent then they are still poor -by my definition- regardless the fact that they have a higher income than a guy in Nebraska that can easily pay rent.
Economists and pollsters in the United States generally define "working class" adults as those lacking a college degree,[1] rather than by occupation or income. Many members of the working class, as defined by academic models, are often identified in the vernacular as being middle-class, there is considerable ambiguity over the term's meaning.
My preferred definition alters that a bit. It's more about if a person *could* afford a college education regardless if they want one or not. I do consider higher education a "need" today. So if a person can't get a college education because they can't afford tuition, then they are poor. You can still be "middle class" even if you don't have a college degree, if you could afford one and just choose that you personally don't want one.
That would be just about everybody, so what we call working class, you are including in the middle class?
In other developed countries, even the multi-generational welfare dependent underclass can access all those, they just might choose not to.
My bar seems pretty low, I agree. More correctly, I want everyone to not be poor. I absolutely do want everyone on the planet to reach my definition of "middle class". That includes "working class" people, and I don't really care for minor sub-divisions like that. BUT, also not that I include proper elder care. That's a higher bar than most people realize, and many nations generally don't do a good job with that.
I don't care that everyone is "rich". I don't think that's feasibly possible. And it's not even really preferred. Happiness studies show that general happiness doesn't improve with increased wealth beyond that which meets a person's basic needs.
I'm not trying to say one definition is superior to the other. There are lots of "correct" ways to define it.
If you are asking about my preferred definition, I would say it's based on needs and cash flow. If a family can meet all of their needs -eg. can afford a safe home, education for the kids, adequate reliable health care, elder care, food, etc. then they are "middle class". If they can't, then they are poor. If they can do all that and have enough left over to invest in assets, then they are rich. When they have enough assets that their cash flow from their assets alone exceeds their expenses, then they are retired.
I like that definition because it's fixed and doesn't pretend to rely on a dollar salary amount or bell curve people or compare people's values against each other. Everyone on the planet should be "middle class" by my preferred definition.
Turn off the Fox News.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
They can't stop spam robo calls because federal law prevents the states and carriers from discriminating against one call vs. another.
But the state can do whatever they like about the internet, because Net Neutrality failed.
My point exactly. If the boots are in Texas there is nothing California can do about it.
It's completely unenforceable. Even if the State could locate and identify the boots, they can't do anything about it if they aren't in California.
Unless this law allowed them to target the service provider that hosts the bots, like Twitter, nothing will improve.
Sure, that works really well and is very useful information if you are in wine or beer sales. How you are defining "middle class" says more about the person doing the defining.
Not really. At Lake Wobegon EVERY kid is above average. That doesn't work. You can have *almost* every kid above average, so long as there is at least one really, really dumb kid to pull down the mean.
Right. That's another way people tend to define "middle class". By occupation.
There are many more ways, and how you choose to define the term changes your perception of how the world is doing.
That's actually possible. Mean does not mean half. Consider this:
Find the average for the following numbers:
0, 100, 100, 100, 100
Four of those 5 numbers are "above the mean".
That's how math works.
That's not a snarky question. That's the whole crux of the debate.
Do you define "middle class" as: ... having X amount of assets? ... being able to buy X luxuries? ... having a salary of at least X? ... being X sigma from the mean?
How you answer that question changes your perception of the growth of the middle class?
You:
Word salad! Strawman! But yes, they really are trying to get my guns and my freedoms!
You probably think there is a water on Christmas too.
You are insane. Pathological.
I swear, for all my straight-middle-class-Christian-white-male-ness, I really honestly do not know why so many of us in this category are so unreasonably threatened by those who aren't in the category.
It's really weird. It has defies any logic.
Whoo Hoo! Great to hear that USB 3 and HDMI are going to be open source now. They would have to be right. I mean, no one would buy a computer of any kind without a few USB 3 and HDMI ports, so obviously they are going to have to be open sourced, with all their patents released to the commons. I mean, I'm sure that's what they meant by "OpenSource hardware", right?