On the flip side I know a CA shyster, one of his most lucrative fields is 'uncopping' a cop. If you have high five figures to spend, he will just go at the cop administratively and legally until his is unbondable (claiming he is working 'pro bono' for all people that fill out a complaint against said cop).
Then his employer will fire him and he will be a mall cop. Then whichever rich person this cop helped convict gets a new trial. All during this process the cop doesn't even know who is paying the bills to end his fun.
As corrupt as that process is, it's about the only check left on cops power.
Corruption is never a check on corruption, it just yields yet more corruption. This is not a check on a cops power, it's a way for the rick to buy their way out.
California is trading a middle class that is leaving to the tune of 150k/yr for a larger number of illegal immigrants that they plan on giving free healthcare to. If you think that's a good trade then please stay in California.
The US gov and mil hired random contractors to watch over each other as the do sensitive tasks.
Every contractor has a larger file on them covering their education, friends, computer use, politics, movements, new friends, spending.
The systems to detect personality problems that make a contractor talk to the media are in place.
Contractors are collected on at work, in other nations while they work for the USA and at back in the USA at home.
The spending on the buddy system, more contractors and experts will discover any personality with the change in personality that results in the need to talk to the media.
A lot of work was done to find the how, why and when of media contact.
Anyone in the media is also watched for new contacts within the US gov, mil.
So the cost of doing anything just doubled, one worker to work and a second worker to snoop on the actual worker. That does indeed sound like government. Specifically the paranoid type that fell in the late 80's.
Overall, are you aware that some things that seem perfectly normal and sensible today will inevitably become unpardonable moral sins in a generation, but there's no telling which things. What do you want in your permanent record, to be used by a government or employer that does not have your best interests in mind, 20 years from now?
So true. I know that/. is full of left wing types but the reality is that for decades the biggest abusers of these *has* been the left. SJWs embrace the following concepts:
Seriously, it's amazing that the left hasn't pushed for re-education camps (yet). Despite this they have the gall to say that the real danger is from the right. Amazing.
And as a government agency, it would most certainly answer to someone: us. We would want to make sure our taxes and our premiums (if we have them) are being spent correctly.
If you think that government bureaucracy answers to the people then you're not paying attention. When I think government I think people who do as little as possible for ~35 years (only 25 if you're part of the police state) then retire with lush benefits that are almost always unfunded. That sadly will cost more than the profit layers you remove. Oh, and the people that they employ will have to be from protected classes in excess of their actual qualifications or representation because it's the government. When government became more about rewarding protected classes and government employees who vote themselves more benefits and less about merit it lost my support completely.
You work 40 hours. You trade that labor for things. You can get a limited amount of stuff in trade--that's purchasing power.
Food. Housing. Clothing. Your car. High-speed Internet. Healthcare. These are things for which you need buying power.
Lowering the cost of goods and services means your purchasing power extends further: instead of choosing between a car and healthcare, you can have both.
Literally nothing else is standard-of-living except what you can buy for your time worked.
You forgot to mention that while some goods can be bought more cheaply you also see your wages fail to keep pace as has been the case since the 70's. It's a race to the bottom wage wise so it's not nearly as rosy a picture as you paint. Moreover economists agree that they duped us and the impact was far worse than estimated. Opps, their bad but our loss.
Simple, enact policies to keep population static domestically. Invest heavily in economic development programs abroad that encourage and provide birth control as well. Earth is overloaded as it is. Perpetual growth is an illness, not the solution.
Investing in a wall would do the most to keep the population static domestically. Without immigration the US population is slightly dropping over time. Mass immigration is the ultimate example of socializing the losses as our schools, infrastructure, and cost of housing all work against the 99%.
So what you are saying is that because Hillary is corrupt it's OK for your guy (who ran on a platform of cleaning up political corruption) to be a corrupt scumbag too? Interesting point of view.
Not at all. Hang them both as traitors. The notion of letting "our person" get away with things is silly. There is *so* much corruption that we could have public bi-partisan hangings, or firing squads if you prefer, for years. Indeed we should. By keeping it bi-partisan there's an element of fairness to it and both parties have *many* examples of corruption. Still starting with both Clintons, Trump, and one more R (perhaps Orin Hatch for pushing copyright absurdity).
Then why quote snopes? That's very 90's as they have been extremely left leaning for a long while. They are the type that likes to split hairs when it suits them while other times conflating immigrant with illegal immigrant all the while pretending that they are above board and honest.
He may be a nihilistic Malthusian, but Thanos had a valid point. If one could eliminate 50% of sentient life from a world, the long term benefits would outweigh the immediate negatives. This is already based on historical precedence. After the Black Plague wiped out over 1/3 of Europe's population, the continent experienced a rebirth that became the Renaissance, the church lost much of its power, the continent's economic power strength improved, and the age of the Enlightenment came about which brought new artistic, scientific, and political thinking. One has to wonder what the long term impact would be from reducing the Earth's current human population from 7.6 billion to 3.8 billion (approximately 1970's world population).
So you want to set everything back a couple of generations. In truth if you want to reduce the population instead of going on a global killing spree you could instead focus on bringing economic development to the developing world. Europe, Japan, Korea, and even the US all are doing their part in reducing population vie reduced birth rates. There is an extremely strong link between developing and birth rates.
Well it's either "leftie" science or "rightie"religious dogma... your choice.
Yep, only two extremes with nothing in the middle. Anyone who even casually read the description could see that there was an agenda since different metrics were being used to make the comparison more extreme.
It is more accurate to say they are no worse. At least the harm they cause to humanity is a few steps removed compared to the direct harm caused by Big Oil and Big Pharma.
There is direct harm to humanity - it makes us depressed and angry. There is tons of research and the link is clear.
I think the complaints against facebook are no so much about campaigns doing analysis of data so much as they are about injection of misinformation and stoking divisions. And now that it has been exploited once, even the people that exploited it woudl not want it used against them in the future.
I think the press have a virtual monopoly on stoking divisions by running inflammatory headlines like "white person does XYZ to black person". Oddly when a white person is the victim all racial info is left out. This obvious silliness reaches its peak with the "white privilege" concept.
We are creating a generation of sociopaths, who have inverted their priorities and have no notion of right or wrong.
Well... do you think Presidents, Senators and House Representatives grow on trees?
They don't grow on trees but they should be hung from the branches as traitors in most cases. Just do it in pairs so that it's bipartisan, there are plenty on both sides to keep it up for a long while.
You can't get to 99% if you ditch that stuff, though. And really, people not wanting to be subject to harsher treatment by the police due to the color of their skin doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me.
People have limited bandwidth and all problems cannot be tackled simultaneously. Fixing the problem of the 1% taking all economic gains helps 99% of the people. Fixing any other social issue will help less than 99% of the people. To do the most good start with what benefits the most people.
As long as there is someone willing to trade their life away cheaply the rest of the globe is stuck with those poor conditions. The most clever phrase I ever heard was "We are the 99%". At the end of the day, fairer economics will help people far more than any number of "social issues". You can't get to 99% unless you ditch social issues that fracture it like BLM. That's why social issues get pushed so hard by the media, to keep us from realizing that we've all been conned while we argued over bathrooms and bakers.
I'm sure a lot of people think that getting rid of all the overhead in every industry is a good idea...everything will be super-cheap, no one will pay for expensive middlemen in a transaction, etc. What I think people don't realize is that this overhead they want to get rid of is what's actually holding the economy together.
Especially in banking, both front- and back-office workers make at least a decent middle-class salary, and some make much more than that. If the pace of worker replacement is too fast, all the consumption these workers use their pay for will be removed from the system over a very short time. These workers won't pay taxes, won't buy houses and cars, won't have children, etc. Corporate office work used to be a secure alternative to factory work or the service industries...but it looks like we're in for a big change. What I wonder is what these workers will end up doing...I worked in banking IT earlier in my career and there are legions of people essentially doing manual paperwork processing, even though the paper is computer data these days.
All I'm saying is that if we want AI to take over, we're going to have to rip down the entire work-to-consume economic model, and that is not going away without a major fight.
Exactly. The optimist was hoping for the Jetson's type of leisure. Instead we got everyone replaced / outsourced and those who remain work harder than ever. Race to the bottom is a very accurate summary.
You neglected to mention that wages are largely stagnant and have been for decades in actual dollars and are below where they were in inflation adjusted dollars. So yes we still have jobs, but by removing enough of them the ones that remain get worse and worse since so many people are desperate for them.
Slashdot Mirror
On the flip side I know a CA shyster, one of his most lucrative fields is 'uncopping' a cop. If you have high five figures to spend, he will just go at the cop administratively and legally until his is unbondable (claiming he is working 'pro bono' for all people that fill out a complaint against said cop).
Then his employer will fire him and he will be a mall cop. Then whichever rich person this cop helped convict gets a new trial. All during this process the cop doesn't even know who is paying the bills to end his fun.
As corrupt as that process is, it's about the only check left on cops power.
Corruption is never a check on corruption, it just yields yet more corruption. This is not a check on a cops power, it's a way for the rick to buy their way out.
That's why they are leaving. That's a lie. California continues to grow. http://worldpopulationreview.c...
California is trading a middle class that is leaving to the tune of 150k/yr for a larger number of illegal immigrants that they plan on giving free healthcare to. If you think that's a good trade then please stay in California.
But in a way your are correct, baby boomers are largely responsible for most if not all of this countries problems.
I knew it, damn hippies managed to break everything.
The US gov and mil hired random contractors to watch over each other as the do sensitive tasks. Every contractor has a larger file on them covering their education, friends, computer use, politics, movements, new friends, spending. The systems to detect personality problems that make a contractor talk to the media are in place. Contractors are collected on at work, in other nations while they work for the USA and at back in the USA at home. The spending on the buddy system, more contractors and experts will discover any personality with the change in personality that results in the need to talk to the media. A lot of work was done to find the how, why and when of media contact. Anyone in the media is also watched for new contacts within the US gov, mil.
So the cost of doing anything just doubled, one worker to work and a second worker to snoop on the actual worker. That does indeed sound like government. Specifically the paranoid type that fell in the late 80's.
Exactly. All the evil Stalin did was legal as he made it so himself.
Overall, are you aware that some things that seem perfectly normal and sensible today will inevitably become unpardonable moral sins in a generation, but there's no telling which things. What do you want in your permanent record, to be used by a government or employer that does not have your best interests in mind, 20 years from now?
So true. I know that /. is full of left wing types but the reality is that for decades the biggest abusers of these *has* been the left. SJWs embrace the following concepts:
Hounding people over their politics is acceptable
https://www.reuters.com/articl... https://www.catholicnewsagency...
Violence is OK as long as you're right and "they" are wrong
http://thehill.com/policy/nati...
No, they can't just all get along if they don't follow the correct politics
https://www.theodysseyonline.c... https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Seriously, it's amazing that the left hasn't pushed for re-education camps (yet). Despite this they have the gall to say that the real danger is from the right. Amazing.
And as a government agency, it would most certainly answer to someone: us. We would want to make sure our taxes and our premiums (if we have them) are being spent correctly.
If you think that government bureaucracy answers to the people then you're not paying attention. When I think government I think people who do as little as possible for ~35 years (only 25 if you're part of the police state) then retire with lush benefits that are almost always unfunded. That sadly will cost more than the profit layers you remove. Oh, and the people that they employ will have to be from protected classes in excess of their actual qualifications or representation because it's the government. When government became more about rewarding protected classes and government employees who vote themselves more benefits and less about merit it lost my support completely.
The liberals tend to be the scientists, professors, and artists for some reason.
So ... people who aren't real world and live off the government.
You work 40 hours. You trade that labor for things. You can get a limited amount of stuff in trade--that's purchasing power.
Food. Housing. Clothing. Your car. High-speed Internet. Healthcare. These are things for which you need buying power.
Lowering the cost of goods and services means your purchasing power extends further: instead of choosing between a car and healthcare, you can have both.
Literally nothing else is standard-of-living except what you can buy for your time worked.
You forgot to mention that while some goods can be bought more cheaply you also see your wages fail to keep pace as has been the case since the 70's. It's a race to the bottom wage wise so it's not nearly as rosy a picture as you paint. Moreover economists agree that they duped us and the impact was far worse than estimated. Opps, their bad but our loss.
Citations:
http://prospect.org/article/de... https://www.economist.com/node...
Simple, enact policies to keep population static domestically. Invest heavily in economic development programs abroad that encourage and provide birth control as well. Earth is overloaded as it is. Perpetual growth is an illness, not the solution.
Investing in a wall would do the most to keep the population static domestically. Without immigration the US population is slightly dropping over time. Mass immigration is the ultimate example of socializing the losses as our schools, infrastructure, and cost of housing all work against the 99%.
To the people who live in the now, why exactly should they care if all of these problems will only be an issue when they are dead?
You must be the bastard who devised pension plan funding. Burn in hell
So what you are saying is that because Hillary is corrupt it's OK for your guy (who ran on a platform of cleaning up political corruption) to be a corrupt scumbag too? Interesting point of view.
Not at all. Hang them both as traitors. The notion of letting "our person" get away with things is silly. There is *so* much corruption that we could have public bi-partisan hangings, or firing squads if you prefer, for years. Indeed we should. By keeping it bi-partisan there's an element of fairness to it and both parties have *many* examples of corruption. Still starting with both Clintons, Trump, and one more R (perhaps Orin Hatch for pushing copyright absurdity).
I just prefer facts to conspiracy theories.
Then why quote snopes? That's very 90's as they have been extremely left leaning for a long while. They are the type that likes to split hairs when it suits them while other times conflating immigrant with illegal immigrant all the while pretending that they are above board and honest.
He may be a nihilistic Malthusian, but Thanos had a valid point. If one could eliminate 50% of sentient life from a world, the long term benefits would outweigh the immediate negatives. This is already based on historical precedence. After the Black Plague wiped out over 1/3 of Europe's population, the continent experienced a rebirth that became the Renaissance, the church lost much of its power, the continent's economic power strength improved, and the age of the Enlightenment came about which brought new artistic, scientific, and political thinking. One has to wonder what the long term impact would be from reducing the Earth's current human population from 7.6 billion to 3.8 billion (approximately 1970's world population).
So you want to set everything back a couple of generations. In truth if you want to reduce the population instead of going on a global killing spree you could instead focus on bringing economic development to the developing world. Europe, Japan, Korea, and even the US all are doing their part in reducing population vie reduced birth rates. There is an extremely strong link between developing and birth rates.
Once you get to "we are all going to die!" there simply isn't much more you can use that's worse....
This just in - we're all going to die painfully. Slowly and painfully in the worst possible way unless we follow their advice exactly.
Well it's either "leftie" science or "rightie"religious dogma... your choice.
Yep, only two extremes with nothing in the middle. Anyone who even casually read the description could see that there was an agenda since different metrics were being used to make the comparison more extreme.
It is more accurate to say they are no worse. At least the harm they cause to humanity is a few steps removed compared to the direct harm caused by Big Oil and Big Pharma.
There is direct harm to humanity - it makes us depressed and angry. There is tons of research and the link is clear.
Citations:
https://www.psychologytoday.co... https://www.independent.co.uk/...
I think the complaints against facebook are no so much about campaigns doing analysis of data so much as they are about injection of misinformation and stoking divisions. And now that it has been exploited once, even the people that exploited it woudl not want it used against them in the future.
I think the press have a virtual monopoly on stoking divisions by running inflammatory headlines like "white person does XYZ to black person". Oddly when a white person is the victim all racial info is left out. This obvious silliness reaches its peak with the "white privilege" concept.
We are creating a generation of sociopaths, who have inverted their priorities and have no notion of right or wrong.
Well... do you think Presidents, Senators and House Representatives grow on trees?
They don't grow on trees but they should be hung from the branches as traitors in most cases. Just do it in pairs so that it's bipartisan, there are plenty on both sides to keep it up for a long while.
Pitch your idea to the pentagon. If it's as good as you seem to think it us you could get yourself a very lucrative contract.
Only if he has a senator on his board of directors.
You can't get to 99% if you ditch that stuff, though. And really, people not wanting to be subject to harsher treatment by the police due to the color of their skin doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me.
People have limited bandwidth and all problems cannot be tackled simultaneously. Fixing the problem of the 1% taking all economic gains helps 99% of the people. Fixing any other social issue will help less than 99% of the people. To do the most good start with what benefits the most people.
Let's eradicate the rats in the various capitals. We need lobbyists with poison checks, that should be the right bait.
As long as there is someone willing to trade their life away cheaply the rest of the globe is stuck with those poor conditions. The most clever phrase I ever heard was "We are the 99%". At the end of the day, fairer economics will help people far more than any number of "social issues". You can't get to 99% unless you ditch social issues that fracture it like BLM. That's why social issues get pushed so hard by the media, to keep us from realizing that we've all been conned while we argued over bathrooms and bakers.
I'm sure a lot of people think that getting rid of all the overhead in every industry is a good idea...everything will be super-cheap, no one will pay for expensive middlemen in a transaction, etc. What I think people don't realize is that this overhead they want to get rid of is what's actually holding the economy together.
Especially in banking, both front- and back-office workers make at least a decent middle-class salary, and some make much more than that. If the pace of worker replacement is too fast, all the consumption these workers use their pay for will be removed from the system over a very short time. These workers won't pay taxes, won't buy houses and cars, won't have children, etc. Corporate office work used to be a secure alternative to factory work or the service industries...but it looks like we're in for a big change. What I wonder is what these workers will end up doing...I worked in banking IT earlier in my career and there are legions of people essentially doing manual paperwork processing, even though the paper is computer data these days.
All I'm saying is that if we want AI to take over, we're going to have to rip down the entire work-to-consume economic model, and that is not going away without a major fight.
Exactly. The optimist was hoping for the Jetson's type of leisure. Instead we got everyone replaced / outsourced and those who remain work harder than ever. Race to the bottom is a very accurate summary.
You neglected to mention that wages are largely stagnant and have been for decades in actual dollars and are below where they were in inflation adjusted dollars. So yes we still have jobs, but by removing enough of them the ones that remain get worse and worse since so many people are desperate for them.