Are people making a big deal out of this because even though the majority of Crimerians voted to merge with Russia, they believe that vote was coerced under the threat of violence ( Russian troops massing on the border )?
No, people are making a big deal out of this because Russia marched troops and mobile armor into Ukraine, allowed (some would say encouraged) armed mobs of fanatical ethnic Russians to run amok, surrounded Ukrainian bases in Crimea, and then decided there should be a hastily organized vote on whether Crimea should join Russia immediately or become independent and let its leadership vote on whether to join Russia (no options to remain part of Ukraine). Ethnic Russians make up about 51% of Crimea. Since Crimea was handed to Ukraine some 60 years ago, younger generations of ethnic Russians have grown up as Ukrainians and largely self-identify as Ukrainian. About 15% of the population there are ethnic Tatars, who were brutalized and murdered by Russia until Crimea came under control of Ukraine. The rest is mostly ethnic Ukrainian.
So with Russian tanks and armed troops parked outside peoples' homes and armed mobs of fanatical pro-Russia groups roaming the streets uninhibited, a vote took place in which 97% of votes cast were to join Russia. 97%, despite the fact that at least 15% of the population would essentially be like Jews voting to have their homes fall under the control of the Nazis. The Russians claim this is somehow a legitimate vote and that the people of Crimea have the right to simply vote themselves part of any country they choose (so long as that country is Russia).
Why are some Crimerians fighting and not others? Different ethnic groups being for and against the merger?
There's very little fighting going on. Much of the violence you're seeing in Crimea is from pro-Russian fanatics who've formed armed mobs supported by the Russian military. They've killed or wounded a small number of Ukrainian soldiers stationed at Ukrainian bases in Crimea and they're generally running amok because nobody's stopping them. The Ukrainian troops in Crimea aren't shooting because if they did, the Russians would just murder them (bombing from the air, rockets from helicopters, shelling from artillery; the Russians have a lot of options against small numbers in tight quarters armed only with small arms). As it turns out, about half the Ukrainian military on the ground in Crimea are joining Russian forces, likely because they don't want to be on the losing end of a potential slaughter and/or due to personal or familial Russian self-identification issues.
Amazing how the percentage keeps going up. Every decent source I've seen says 51% ethnic Russians. A poster here named etash claims it's 60%. You're claiming 65%.
Well I'm now claiming it's 104%! 104% of Crimea is ethnic Russians! 110% of them voted to join Russia! Vote is complete! It is fair and reasonable!
Yes, some of Tatars don't like Russians too much, but your generalization is, well...
Given that it all happened over half a century ago, it's like saying all Jews who ran from Hitler still hate and/or distrust Germans. Most of Tatars living there now only know about all of this from books.
You'd need to adjust your analogy to assume the Nazis stayed in power (being that Putin is "ex" KGB and is running the place like the Soviet Union of old). So it would be like saying that if the Nazis who exterminated Jews still controlled the German government, all Jews who ran from Hitler would still hate/distrust Germans.
Even Russia doesn't claim that. I don't know if you're drinking Putin's Kool-Aid or if he's drinking your's.
There is no dispute that Crimea was part of Ukraine a month ago. Seriously, not even Putin has ever claimed any differently. The area belonged to Ukraine. The argument Putin has made is that the people there didn't want to be part of Ukraine anymore; they wanted to have Crimea be part of Russia again, and that the right of self-determination makes it all legal. But that's a far cry from claiming it was always Russian land.
Also, it isn't 60% Russian. It's about 51% ethnic Russian. Of those, the younger generations grew up only ever knowing it as part of Ukraine. Therefore, even among ethnic Russians, some percentage would self-identify as Ukrainian. Then you have the roughly 15% Tatars who've had nothing but persecution under Russian rule (the reason so many of them are there is that Russia got tired of beating the Hell out of them and expelled them from Russia... to Ukraine). Between the ethnic Ukrainians, Tatars, and the younger generation of ethnic Russians who self-identify as Ukrainian, a fair vote would likely be something like 45% join Russia 55% not (some mix between becoming independent and staying with Ukraine).
The fact that it was 97% shows just what a Saddam Hussein style "vote" it really was.
I do vmware workstation for linux and website testing. I need lots of cores!
As someone who manages a decent sized VMware vSphere environment, I can tell you that core counts are not so important as you may think. My AMD-based ESXi servers have triple and quadruple the cores of my Intel-based ESXi servers, yet they experience chronic problems with CPU Ready Time at far lower over-subscription rates and even sometimes while under-subscribed if some oversized VMs are present. It's one of the reasons I'm pushing through a complete shift away from high-core count Opterons (24 and 32 core hosts) and moving toward lower core count (mostly 8 core) Xeon hosts.
And that deeply pains me as someone who's used AMD CPUs since the K6-2 days. Once Intel fell into the P4 clock speed trap, I thought AMD would finally be able to beat them into submission. Sadly, AMD has sat idly by and allowed Intel to dominate nearly every metric of raw performance. As much as I grew up loving AMD as the plucky underdog, I can't ignore reality and I have to make the smartest decisions from a professional standpoint. When licensing costs get added to the mix, Intel absolutely obliterates AMD from a TCO perspective in the server space. I hate it, but it's true, and I'm left with little choice if I want to be honest.
I think it's just as (un)fair to say that anyone deemed particularly susceptible to a particular disease (inability to get vaccinated, immunocompromised individuals, etc) have to be quarantined. No, the answer is to say that it's a wise idea to get vaccinated, just as it's a wise idea to wear your seat belt and a wise idea to eat lots of fruits and veggies every day and to get plenty of exercise. Those choosing to do otherwise? They're fine; leave them alone.
No they don't. They aren't threatening you at all. Just stop that absurd notion.
Disease is part of nature. Choosing to allow nature to run its course is every single human being's right. You have no fundamental right to beat natural selection. You certainly have no right to violate the integrity of anyone else's body by forcing drugs into their bodies.
So, in your view, Typhoid Mary should have been allowed to continue working as a cook and making people sick because working was her right and who cares if she gets anyone sick/kills anyone? This is essentially what you are advocating.
No, it isn't. There's a difference between someone who's potentially more vulnerable to a disease because their immune system hasn't been trained to recognize it and someone who's a known, active carrier of a specific disease who is knowingly infecting other people. So no, that isn't at all what I am advocating.
In fact, you are essentially committing your own "self-infecting with Bubonic Plague then strolling through an airport coughing on people" example. By not vaccinating, you are making yourself a potential infection vector.
If you can't see the difference between "I refuse to utilize man-made means to boost my immune system" and "I'm going to purposely infect myself with this weaponized biological agent so I can infect others", then there just isn't any hope for you as you lack basic logic and critical thinking skills necessary for the comprehension of this discussion. If you actually believe what you're saying here - and you're not just doing it for effect because you want to make your case or make a point - then let's just stop right now because there's no rationalizing with an irrational person. If you're just trying to make your point, then you should do so in a way which makes sense as it'll carry more weight.
You are reducing herd immunity and making people get sick and die.
Reducing herd immunity? Not measurably. "Making people get sick and die"? That's patently absurd. No one is making anyone get sick and die. You wouldn't say that an AIDS patient who cannot tolerate vaccinations against diseases is "making people get sick and die", would you? They're compromising herd immunity exactly as much as someone who merely chooses not to get vaccinated. The effect is the same: one less person out of the whole of the "herd" has a potentially better prepared immune system. And in any event, unless the particular individual is actively infected, contagious, and is knowingly interacting with the public under those conditions, there's no case to be made that they're making anyone sick. A healthy person unvaccinated against Influenza who is not infected with Influenza or who is not interacting with other people while they have and are contagious with Influenza is not making ANYONE sick. Get real.
This isn't just hypothetical.
No, it really is. We're talking about a hypothetical person refusing a hypothetical vaccine which may or may not provide any immune system boost for said hypothetical person against said hypothetical disease. That's hypothetical. Even if you reference a specific, real person, a vaccine will only provide a chance of improved immune system response to specific strains of a specific type of pathogen. There's no magic shield that envelopes a vaccinated individual; they simply have a better chance of their immune system being able to quickly respond to and destroy that pathogen upon infection. If their immune system doesn't respond as expected, or if that response is later counteracted by some other factor, or even the slightest of genetic mutations takes place in the pathogen, there's little help from the vaccine. Doesn't mean vaccines are anything less than a godsend for humanity in the fight against pandemics, but there's no guarantee of any level of actual protection or contribution to herd immunity at an individual level. To claim there is is purely speculative and, as previously stated, entirely hypothetical.
There are outbreaks of diseases that were all but wiped out in the United States and other countries because groups of people (who didn't grow up with them - thanks to vaccines - and thus don't know abo
If you're right, then every court has not only the power and authority, but in fact a duty and an obligation to ensure no parent ever does or fails to do anything which might in any way result in a child's lack of safety. Put your kid in the wrong (unsafe) school? State takes them. Give your kid candy or soda - even once? State takes them. Yell at your kid for running out into the street? State takes them. Let them ride their bicycle without full body protective gear? State takes them. And you go to prison for child abuse.
I don't like that, and I'm not going to allow that. That's why I work on the local, state, and Federal level to keep stupid, idiotic shit like that from happening. I hope it does happen to you, because it's the only way you're going to understand what a dangerous and scary road you're trying to take us down. Parents do not own their children as property, but they do have a biological claim to them and to make decisions as to how best to raise, protect, and care for their own child without the interference of busy-bodies like you or heavily armed agents of the government.
Leave people the fuck alone. Mind your own goddamn business and just leave other people alone. Live your own goddamn life rather than engaging in self-righteous, pompous, arrogant crusades telling everyone else how to live their's. You keep sticking your nose in other peoples' business and eventually you're going to lose that nose. And I'll bet you won't like that very much either.
All based on the premise that disease is a man-made method of inflicting harm upon others.
Sorry friend, nature's been killing people with disease since the first species we'd recognize as "people" stood upright and breathed. Unless someone is deliberately using a disease as a weapon (e.g. self-infecting with Bubonic Plague then strolling through an airport coughing on people), the spread of disease is an act of nature. You don't have the right to force drugs into my bloodstream because you think it might help you survive slightly longer. That's the most offensively invasive trampling of the rights of a human being ever conceived. Any individual of sound mind who finds themselves being strapped to a gurney to have drugs forced into their system is under attack and has every natural born right to defend themselves by any means necessary.
If that's not clear enough, let me make it just a little bit clearer: anyone trying to do this to a sane individual deserves to have that individual end them right then and there. That solves your stupid disease problem, doesn't it.
Giving them anything other than organically grown fruits, veggies, legumes, and water is endangering your kids. You don't own them; the state does. And the state will repossess its kids from you the moment you offer them a soda.
They aren't; those courts are run by fascist pigs.
Doing harm to your child through harmful actions is abuse. Allowing life to happen to you and/or your kids is not. Life is a terminal condition. Covering the Earth in foam padding will not change that. Is it unfortunate that - through the inaction of their parents, who may be totally well intentioned - some unlucky kids will suffer? Yes, just as it's unfortunate whenever anyone suffers. Is that part of life? Yes. Life is too short and too precious to have busy-bodies dictating how everyone else must live their's.
Or we could take the money from those PSAs and use it to work on developing vaccines more people can tolerate. Then we can stand by and let people make their own decisions and live their own lives.
I get what you're saying, but I don't entirely agree with it. I think the ubiquitous presence of all things anti-bacterial is screwing us up pretty badly, but exposing someone to weakened or dead disease causing agents is doing no harm to their immune system; it's helping it build without damaging the rest of the body. That said, I 100% support your right to make those kinds of decisions for your own kids regardless of how I personally judge those decisions and I'll gladly stand against the crusading fascists who'd happily employ agents of the government to bust down your door, strap your kids to a gurney, and jam needles full of drugs into their arms.
That kind of thinking has killed tens of millions more than any lack of vaccination.
You actually believe it's right for government agents to bust down peoples' doors, strap their kids to a gurney, jam a needle in their arms, and pump them full of drugs to achieve a theoretical reduction of risk for some other kids who nature made differently? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?!
Life is a terminal condition. Quit trying to cover the Earth in foam padding and justifying your self-righteous jackboot promoting crusades into how other people live their lives by claiming it's for the benefit of others. Your ideas were bullshit in 1930s Germany and they're bullshit today.
What's the solution for those kids who nature doesn't allow to receive vaccines in their current form? Do what every other person who's ever lived on this planet has done and roll the fucking dice! Nobody's forcing them to "live in a bubble" as you put it, except maybe you so you can tell them it's for their own good. They can live perfectly normal lives and they're at no higher risk than anyone else who isn't vaccinated. If you really want to help them, invest your own goddamn time, energy, and money to make a better vaccine that they can tolerate. You aren't helping them by constructing a fascist regime of forced drug-taking.
Every time enough people who think like you get together in the same place, millions of people die violently and horribly. Are there any vaccines available against people who think like you? Because I'd love to take all I can get. Your self-righteous indignation leading to fascist crusading sickens me.
Now that's a solution: employ jackboot wearing thugs to bust down peoples' doors, strap their kids to gurneys, and jam needles in their arms so they can be pumped full of drugs. Hey, the 1930s called. They're speaking in German and they'd like their ideas back.
Life is a terminal condition and it's pretty damn short. Quit spending your life trying to run everyone else's and pretending that your self-righteous crusades are justified because of some higher morality. You eat, breathe, and shit just like everyone else. Step back and let other people live their own damn lives and quit running around trying to cover the world in foam padding.
When a new employee comes on board and needs their access set up, who does that? When someone needs their access expanded, who handles that? How do you control their access?
From what I understand, that was the problem with Snowden and the credentials he had/obtained access to: they had essentially superuser access over the system. In any system, you need people at the top who can manage it. If those people decide to betray trust, you're SOL.
bloodninja: Baby, I been havin a tough night so treat me nice aight? BritneySpears14: Aight. bloodninja: Slip out of those pants baby, yeah. BritneySpears14: I slip out of my pants, just for you, bloodninja. bloodninja: Oh yeah, aight. Aight, I put on my robe and wizard hat. BritneySpears14: Oh, I like to play dress up. bloodninja: Me too baby. BritneySpears14: I kiss you softly on your chest. bloodninja: I cast Lvl. 3 Eroticism. You turn into a real beautiful woman. BritneySpears14: Hey... bloodninja: I meditate to regain my mana, before casting Lvl. 8 chicken of the Infinite. BritneySpears14: Funny I still don't see it. bloodninja: I spend my mana reserves to cast Mighty F*ck of the Beyondness. BritneySpears14: You are the worst cyber partner ever. This is ridiculous. bloodninja: Don't f*ck with me bitch, I'm the mightiest sorcerer of the lands. bloodninja: I steal yo soul and cast Lightning Lvl. 1,000,000 Your body explodes into a fine bloody mist, because you are only a Lvl. 2 Druid. BritneySpears14: Don't ever message me again you piece of ****. bloodninja: Robots are trying to drill my brain but my lightning shield inflicts DOA attack, leaving the robots as flaming piles of metal. bloodninja: King Arthur congratulates me for destroying Dr. Robotnik's evil army of Robot Socialist Republics. The cold war ends. Reagan steals my accomplishments and makes like it was cause of him. bloodninja: You still there baby? I think it's getting hard now. bloodninja: Baby? -------------- BritneySpears14: Ok, are you ready? eminemBNJA: Aight, yeah I'm ready. BritneySpears14: I like your music Em... Tee hee. eminemBNJA: huh huh, yeah, I make it for the ladies. BritneySpears14: Mmm, we like it a lot. Let me show you. BritneySpears14: I take off your pants, slowly, and massage your muscular physique. eminemBNJA: Oh I like that Baby. I put on my robe and wizard hat. BritneySpears14: What the f*ck, I told you not to message me again. eminemBNJA: Oh **** BritneySpears14: I swear if you do it one more time I'm gonna report your ISP and say you were sending me kiddie porn you f*ck up. eminemBNJA: Oh **** eminemBNJA: damn I gotta write down your names or something
Not everyone can afford to buy. That isn't a problem; it's an economic reality likely to persist as long as property exists as we know it. If a bunch of new people move into an area without construction to compensate (and the Bay area has been notorious for not allowing much of any new construction), classic supply and demand forces prices to rise. Those who cannot or choose not to buy rather than rent will inevitably feel the increase in prices. They can either fight to allow more construction (i.e. housing supply) to absorb the influx of people or they can wait until their rent becomes so high they can't afford to stay there any longer. Even if they do the former, the latter may come to be. There's nothing unjust about it as a rental agreement doesn't provide one rights beyond the end of the agreement's term. If you rent for 12 months, you don't get to stay there 13, 14, 16 months. If you've signed 20 one-year leases, that doesn't give you some special entitlement to stay there in year 21.
Anyone who's renting should recognize that rents can change with market conditions. If the place you're living in becomes the hot new place to be, your rent is going up. If you're renting in Detroit (aka Gentrification-free-ville), your rent is going down (or should be - talk with your landlord about that or just move to any one of a hundred places nearby). Those moving into the Bay area have exactly as much right to be there as anyone else. If they're paying their rent/mortgage, nobody has any right to be upset with them. They have done nothing wrong. And anyone who thinks they have should go where their imagined problem (gentrification) doesn't exist (Detroit).
Those are people not being caught. No doubt you do see some of them pulled over from time to time, just not all of them because there are so many. The difference is that a cop or a politician can do it while they're the only car on a road lined on both sides with cops running speed traps. I find that inherently wrong.
"Fast forward to the present and Levandowski has bought a house for his wife and children near College and Ashby. In addition to this cozy two-story affair, Levandowski has also purchased a property on the corner of Dwight and Fulton, just one block from Shattuck Avenue."
"Preparing for the action, we watched Levandowski step out of his front door. He had Google Glasses over his eyes, carried his baby in his arm, and held a tablet with his free hand. As he descended the stairs with the baby, his eyes were on the tablet through the prism of his Google Glasses, not on the life against his chest. He appeared in this moment like the robot he admits that he is."
"As long as capitalism functions, everything it is connected to will be poisoned with its sickness. People like Levandowski are gentrifying neighborhoods, fl ooding the market with noxious commodities, and creating the infrastructure for an unimaginable totalitarianism. This is the evil that we stake our lives against."
"Defend the land. Use your position in society—whether as a felon, a barista, an immigrant or whatever your experience—as your starting point for your revolt against it. Have courage. Find others who feel the same way and block a tech bus. Steal from the techies you babysit for. Take down surveillance cameras. Go hard: The time is now."
They're stalking this man and his family, tracking his movements and his financial workings. They're calling him evil - the kind of evil they "stake [their] lives against". They're already advocating theft and violence against property. They're borderline advocating violence against this engineer. That's just from their flyer. Here's some more details from new stories:
"At around 7:00 a.m. a group of activists say they went to the street where Google employee Anthony Levandowski lives in Berkeley to stage a demonstration outside his home. According to the activists, they rang Levandowski’s doorbell, then stood outside the house for about 45 minutes holding a banner that read “Google’s Future Stops Here.” They then watched Levandowski leave his home.
The anonymous protesters then placed flyers under the windshields of cars in the neighborhood. The fliers include a photo of Levandowski’s home and a lengthy statement that describes the Google staffer as bringing evil into the world. The headline reads: “Anthony Levandowski is building an unconscionable world of surveillance, control and automation. He is also your neighbor.”"
From a later statement from the group, "All of you other tech companies, all of you other developers and everyone else building the new surveillance state--We're coming for you next." Other news articles describe these protestors blocking the man's driveway for 45 minutes, effectively trapping him in his own home.
Now put yourself in his shoes. You wouldn't feel threatened at all? I think most people would; especially with a family. They targeted him specifically, tracked down his home address, printed up flyers with his name and a bunch of other information about him, showed up at his house, rang his doorbell, blocked his driveway, and stated that he's the type of evil they'll stake their lives against. This isn't why we have a first amendment. This isn't stating an unpopular opinion or speaking truth to power. This is about terrorizing a family. They're hoping to terrorize him and other tech workers into quitting their jobs and staying home, hiding from the mobs of angry people threatening them and their families. This is sick, and these people should be stopped.
SF still has a few bad cheap neighborhoods, but they're under attack, building by building. The 6th Street corridor is still a druggie and flophouse area. But go a hundred feet off 6th and there are luxury lofts. The area of Market Street around 6th to 8th was also a big druggie/homeless area. Then Twitter HQ moved in there. As that area gets gentrified, the 6th St. corridor will be cut off from the Tenderloin across Market. We'll know that's happened when the last strip club there closes.
Dear God! What will San Francisco's good and decent law-abiding citizens do without crackhouses, whores, and the homeless?! Oh the humanity!
Sorry, protest and assembly are protected by the 1st amendment. Any law that prevents this is de facto unconstitutional and would [hopefully] be SCOTUS'ed the fuck out of existence as soon as someone gets inconvenienced enough to actually go to SCOTUS over this.
Wonder how you'd feel about that if it were your home being picketed and you and your family being stalked and terrorized by a group of extremists accusing you of being a robot that's part of a massive conspiracy to enslave humans around the world.
People have the right to assemble peacefully, to voice political opinions - peacefully - and to petition their government for change. What they do not have the right to do is stalk and terrorize people; especially those who are doing a perfectly lawful job at a lawful company.
At a minimum, people's lives are being upended due to no fault of their own and it's quite clear where they should direct their energy.
Toward getting better skills, better jobs, or finding more affordable places to live if the first two don't work out?
Talk about fault, what fault is there with Google or its employees? The process you describe will happen regardless of where Google goes (since it can only go where supporting infrastructure exists). So Google and other high paying companies are terrible, evil companies regardless of where they go? How about their employees? Are they only allowed to live in their own offices at work? Since apparently they aren't allowed to choose where to live based on the location, rents, etc.
Sorry, but paying rent today (or for however long) does not entitle one to continue paying that same rent tomorrow and forever into the future. What you're entitled to is what's in your lease. If your lease says you can pay rent for the next 12 months at $1,000, there's absolutely nothing there saying you can pay that (or anything near that) 13 months from now. If you want the security of staying where you are, BUY; renting doesn't give you that and it shouldn't. This whole concept of some people being somehow entitled to continue residing in the same place simply because they've been there for a given period is patently absurd.
Gentrification is a net positive for an area. It makes the area nicer, increases the tax base without altering the individual tax burden, reduces crime for that area, and helps stamp out poverty. It won't be a net positive for every resident and that's fine. No change ever makes everyone happy all the time and it doesn't have to to be a net positive. How many crime-ridden ghettos of NYC have been completely turned around by gentrification?
Want to see a place without gentrification? Look at Detroit.
Slashdot Mirror
Are people making a big deal out of this because even though the majority of Crimerians voted to merge with Russia, they believe that vote was coerced under the threat of violence ( Russian troops massing on the border )?
No, people are making a big deal out of this because Russia marched troops and mobile armor into Ukraine, allowed (some would say encouraged) armed mobs of fanatical ethnic Russians to run amok, surrounded Ukrainian bases in Crimea, and then decided there should be a hastily organized vote on whether Crimea should join Russia immediately or become independent and let its leadership vote on whether to join Russia (no options to remain part of Ukraine). Ethnic Russians make up about 51% of Crimea. Since Crimea was handed to Ukraine some 60 years ago, younger generations of ethnic Russians have grown up as Ukrainians and largely self-identify as Ukrainian. About 15% of the population there are ethnic Tatars, who were brutalized and murdered by Russia until Crimea came under control of Ukraine. The rest is mostly ethnic Ukrainian.
So with Russian tanks and armed troops parked outside peoples' homes and armed mobs of fanatical pro-Russia groups roaming the streets uninhibited, a vote took place in which 97% of votes cast were to join Russia. 97%, despite the fact that at least 15% of the population would essentially be like Jews voting to have their homes fall under the control of the Nazis. The Russians claim this is somehow a legitimate vote and that the people of Crimea have the right to simply vote themselves part of any country they choose (so long as that country is Russia).
Why are some Crimerians fighting and not others? Different ethnic groups being for and against the merger?
There's very little fighting going on. Much of the violence you're seeing in Crimea is from pro-Russian fanatics who've formed armed mobs supported by the Russian military. They've killed or wounded a small number of Ukrainian soldiers stationed at Ukrainian bases in Crimea and they're generally running amok because nobody's stopping them. The Ukrainian troops in Crimea aren't shooting because if they did, the Russians would just murder them (bombing from the air, rockets from helicopters, shelling from artillery; the Russians have a lot of options against small numbers in tight quarters armed only with small arms). As it turns out, about half the Ukrainian military on the ground in Crimea are joining Russian forces, likely because they don't want to be on the losing end of a potential slaughter and/or due to personal or familial Russian self-identification issues.
Amazing how the percentage keeps going up. Every decent source I've seen says 51% ethnic Russians. A poster here named etash claims it's 60%. You're claiming 65%.
Well I'm now claiming it's 104%! 104% of Crimea is ethnic Russians! 110% of them voted to join Russia! Vote is complete! It is fair and reasonable!
Yes, some of Tatars don't like Russians too much, but your generalization is, well...
Given that it all happened over half a century ago, it's like saying all Jews who ran from Hitler still hate and/or distrust Germans. Most of Tatars living there now only know about all of this from books.
You'd need to adjust your analogy to assume the Nazis stayed in power (being that Putin is "ex" KGB and is running the place like the Soviet Union of old). So it would be like saying that if the Nazis who exterminated Jews still controlled the German government, all Jews who ran from Hitler would still hate/distrust Germans.
And yes, I think that's fair to say.
Even Russia doesn't claim that. I don't know if you're drinking Putin's Kool-Aid or if he's drinking your's.
There is no dispute that Crimea was part of Ukraine a month ago. Seriously, not even Putin has ever claimed any differently. The area belonged to Ukraine. The argument Putin has made is that the people there didn't want to be part of Ukraine anymore; they wanted to have Crimea be part of Russia again, and that the right of self-determination makes it all legal. But that's a far cry from claiming it was always Russian land.
Also, it isn't 60% Russian. It's about 51% ethnic Russian. Of those, the younger generations grew up only ever knowing it as part of Ukraine. Therefore, even among ethnic Russians, some percentage would self-identify as Ukrainian. Then you have the roughly 15% Tatars who've had nothing but persecution under Russian rule (the reason so many of them are there is that Russia got tired of beating the Hell out of them and expelled them from Russia ... to Ukraine). Between the ethnic Ukrainians, Tatars, and the younger generation of ethnic Russians who self-identify as Ukrainian, a fair vote would likely be something like 45% join Russia 55% not (some mix between becoming independent and staying with Ukraine).
The fact that it was 97% shows just what a Saddam Hussein style "vote" it really was.
I do vmware workstation for linux and website testing. I need lots of cores!
As someone who manages a decent sized VMware vSphere environment, I can tell you that core counts are not so important as you may think. My AMD-based ESXi servers have triple and quadruple the cores of my Intel-based ESXi servers, yet they experience chronic problems with CPU Ready Time at far lower over-subscription rates and even sometimes while under-subscribed if some oversized VMs are present. It's one of the reasons I'm pushing through a complete shift away from high-core count Opterons (24 and 32 core hosts) and moving toward lower core count (mostly 8 core) Xeon hosts.
And that deeply pains me as someone who's used AMD CPUs since the K6-2 days. Once Intel fell into the P4 clock speed trap, I thought AMD would finally be able to beat them into submission. Sadly, AMD has sat idly by and allowed Intel to dominate nearly every metric of raw performance. As much as I grew up loving AMD as the plucky underdog, I can't ignore reality and I have to make the smartest decisions from a professional standpoint. When licensing costs get added to the mix, Intel absolutely obliterates AMD from a TCO perspective in the server space. I hate it, but it's true, and I'm left with little choice if I want to be honest.
I think it's just as (un)fair to say that anyone deemed particularly susceptible to a particular disease (inability to get vaccinated, immunocompromised individuals, etc) have to be quarantined. No, the answer is to say that it's a wise idea to get vaccinated, just as it's a wise idea to wear your seat belt and a wise idea to eat lots of fruits and veggies every day and to get plenty of exercise. Those choosing to do otherwise? They're fine; leave them alone.
No they don't. They aren't threatening you at all. Just stop that absurd notion.
Disease is part of nature. Choosing to allow nature to run its course is every single human being's right. You have no fundamental right to beat natural selection. You certainly have no right to violate the integrity of anyone else's body by forcing drugs into their bodies.
So, in your view, Typhoid Mary should have been allowed to continue working as a cook and making people sick because working was her right and who cares if she gets anyone sick/kills anyone? This is essentially what you are advocating.
No, it isn't. There's a difference between someone who's potentially more vulnerable to a disease because their immune system hasn't been trained to recognize it and someone who's a known, active carrier of a specific disease who is knowingly infecting other people. So no, that isn't at all what I am advocating.
In fact, you are essentially committing your own "self-infecting with Bubonic Plague then strolling through an airport coughing on people" example. By not vaccinating, you are making yourself a potential infection vector.
If you can't see the difference between "I refuse to utilize man-made means to boost my immune system" and "I'm going to purposely infect myself with this weaponized biological agent so I can infect others", then there just isn't any hope for you as you lack basic logic and critical thinking skills necessary for the comprehension of this discussion. If you actually believe what you're saying here - and you're not just doing it for effect because you want to make your case or make a point - then let's just stop right now because there's no rationalizing with an irrational person. If you're just trying to make your point, then you should do so in a way which makes sense as it'll carry more weight.
You are reducing herd immunity and making people get sick and die.
Reducing herd immunity? Not measurably. "Making people get sick and die"? That's patently absurd. No one is making anyone get sick and die. You wouldn't say that an AIDS patient who cannot tolerate vaccinations against diseases is "making people get sick and die", would you? They're compromising herd immunity exactly as much as someone who merely chooses not to get vaccinated. The effect is the same: one less person out of the whole of the "herd" has a potentially better prepared immune system. And in any event, unless the particular individual is actively infected, contagious, and is knowingly interacting with the public under those conditions, there's no case to be made that they're making anyone sick. A healthy person unvaccinated against Influenza who is not infected with Influenza or who is not interacting with other people while they have and are contagious with Influenza is not making ANYONE sick. Get real.
This isn't just hypothetical.
No, it really is. We're talking about a hypothetical person refusing a hypothetical vaccine which may or may not provide any immune system boost for said hypothetical person against said hypothetical disease. That's hypothetical. Even if you reference a specific, real person, a vaccine will only provide a chance of improved immune system response to specific strains of a specific type of pathogen. There's no magic shield that envelopes a vaccinated individual; they simply have a better chance of their immune system being able to quickly respond to and destroy that pathogen upon infection. If their immune system doesn't respond as expected, or if that response is later counteracted by some other factor, or even the slightest of genetic mutations takes place in the pathogen, there's little help from the vaccine. Doesn't mean vaccines are anything less than a godsend for humanity in the fight against pandemics, but there's no guarantee of any level of actual protection or contribution to herd immunity at an individual level. To claim there is is purely speculative and, as previously stated, entirely hypothetical.
There are outbreaks of diseases that were all but wiped out in the United States and other countries because groups of people (who didn't grow up with them - thanks to vaccines - and thus don't know abo
If you're right, then every court has not only the power and authority, but in fact a duty and an obligation to ensure no parent ever does or fails to do anything which might in any way result in a child's lack of safety. Put your kid in the wrong (unsafe) school? State takes them. Give your kid candy or soda - even once? State takes them. Yell at your kid for running out into the street? State takes them. Let them ride their bicycle without full body protective gear? State takes them. And you go to prison for child abuse.
I don't like that, and I'm not going to allow that. That's why I work on the local, state, and Federal level to keep stupid, idiotic shit like that from happening. I hope it does happen to you, because it's the only way you're going to understand what a dangerous and scary road you're trying to take us down. Parents do not own their children as property, but they do have a biological claim to them and to make decisions as to how best to raise, protect, and care for their own child without the interference of busy-bodies like you or heavily armed agents of the government.
Leave people the fuck alone. Mind your own goddamn business and just leave other people alone. Live your own goddamn life rather than engaging in self-righteous, pompous, arrogant crusades telling everyone else how to live their's. You keep sticking your nose in other peoples' business and eventually you're going to lose that nose. And I'll bet you won't like that very much either.
All based on the premise that disease is a man-made method of inflicting harm upon others.
Sorry friend, nature's been killing people with disease since the first species we'd recognize as "people" stood upright and breathed. Unless someone is deliberately using a disease as a weapon (e.g. self-infecting with Bubonic Plague then strolling through an airport coughing on people), the spread of disease is an act of nature. You don't have the right to force drugs into my bloodstream because you think it might help you survive slightly longer. That's the most offensively invasive trampling of the rights of a human being ever conceived. Any individual of sound mind who finds themselves being strapped to a gurney to have drugs forced into their system is under attack and has every natural born right to defend themselves by any means necessary.
If that's not clear enough, let me make it just a little bit clearer: anyone trying to do this to a sane individual deserves to have that individual end them right then and there. That solves your stupid disease problem, doesn't it.
Giving them anything other than organically grown fruits, veggies, legumes, and water is endangering your kids. You don't own them; the state does. And the state will repossess its kids from you the moment you offer them a soda.
On your knees, citizen scum.
They aren't; those courts are run by fascist pigs.
Doing harm to your child through harmful actions is abuse. Allowing life to happen to you and/or your kids is not. Life is a terminal condition. Covering the Earth in foam padding will not change that. Is it unfortunate that - through the inaction of their parents, who may be totally well intentioned - some unlucky kids will suffer? Yes, just as it's unfortunate whenever anyone suffers. Is that part of life? Yes. Life is too short and too precious to have busy-bodies dictating how everyone else must live their's.
Or we could take the money from those PSAs and use it to work on developing vaccines more people can tolerate. Then we can stand by and let people make their own decisions and live their own lives.
I get what you're saying, but I don't entirely agree with it. I think the ubiquitous presence of all things anti-bacterial is screwing us up pretty badly, but exposing someone to weakened or dead disease causing agents is doing no harm to their immune system; it's helping it build without damaging the rest of the body. That said, I 100% support your right to make those kinds of decisions for your own kids regardless of how I personally judge those decisions and I'll gladly stand against the crusading fascists who'd happily employ agents of the government to bust down your door, strap your kids to a gurney, and jam needles full of drugs into their arms.
That kind of thinking has killed tens of millions more than any lack of vaccination.
You actually believe it's right for government agents to bust down peoples' doors, strap their kids to a gurney, jam a needle in their arms, and pump them full of drugs to achieve a theoretical reduction of risk for some other kids who nature made differently? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?!
Life is a terminal condition. Quit trying to cover the Earth in foam padding and justifying your self-righteous jackboot promoting crusades into how other people live their lives by claiming it's for the benefit of others. Your ideas were bullshit in 1930s Germany and they're bullshit today.
What's the solution for those kids who nature doesn't allow to receive vaccines in their current form? Do what every other person who's ever lived on this planet has done and roll the fucking dice! Nobody's forcing them to "live in a bubble" as you put it, except maybe you so you can tell them it's for their own good. They can live perfectly normal lives and they're at no higher risk than anyone else who isn't vaccinated. If you really want to help them, invest your own goddamn time, energy, and money to make a better vaccine that they can tolerate. You aren't helping them by constructing a fascist regime of forced drug-taking.
Every time enough people who think like you get together in the same place, millions of people die violently and horribly. Are there any vaccines available against people who think like you? Because I'd love to take all I can get. Your self-righteous indignation leading to fascist crusading sickens me.
Now that's a solution: employ jackboot wearing thugs to bust down peoples' doors, strap their kids to gurneys, and jam needles in their arms so they can be pumped full of drugs. Hey, the 1930s called. They're speaking in German and they'd like their ideas back.
Life is a terminal condition and it's pretty damn short. Quit spending your life trying to run everyone else's and pretending that your self-righteous crusades are justified because of some higher morality. You eat, breathe, and shit just like everyone else. Step back and let other people live their own damn lives and quit running around trying to cover the world in foam padding.
When a new employee comes on board and needs their access set up, who does that? When someone needs their access expanded, who handles that? How do you control their access?
From what I understand, that was the problem with Snowden and the credentials he had/obtained access to: they had essentially superuser access over the system. In any system, you need people at the top who can manage it. If those people decide to betray trust, you're SOL.
bloodninja: Baby, I been havin a tough night so treat me nice aight?
BritneySpears14: Aight.
bloodninja: Slip out of those pants baby, yeah.
BritneySpears14: I slip out of my pants, just for you, bloodninja.
bloodninja: Oh yeah, aight. Aight, I put on my robe and wizard hat.
BritneySpears14: Oh, I like to play dress up.
bloodninja: Me too baby.
BritneySpears14: I kiss you softly on your chest.
bloodninja: I cast Lvl. 3 Eroticism. You turn into a real beautiful woman.
BritneySpears14: Hey...
bloodninja: I meditate to regain my mana, before casting Lvl. 8 chicken of the Infinite.
BritneySpears14: Funny I still don't see it.
bloodninja: I spend my mana reserves to cast Mighty F*ck of the Beyondness.
BritneySpears14: You are the worst cyber partner ever. This is ridiculous.
bloodninja: Don't f*ck with me bitch, I'm the mightiest sorcerer of the lands.
bloodninja: I steal yo soul and cast Lightning Lvl. 1,000,000 Your body explodes into a fine bloody mist, because you are only a Lvl. 2 Druid.
BritneySpears14: Don't ever message me again you piece of ****.
bloodninja: Robots are trying to drill my brain but my lightning shield inflicts DOA attack, leaving the robots as flaming piles of metal.
bloodninja: King Arthur congratulates me for destroying Dr. Robotnik's evil army of Robot Socialist Republics. The cold war ends. Reagan steals my accomplishments and makes like it was cause of him.
bloodninja: You still there baby? I think it's getting hard now.
bloodninja: Baby?
--------------
BritneySpears14: Ok, are you ready?
eminemBNJA: Aight, yeah I'm ready.
BritneySpears14: I like your music Em... Tee hee.
eminemBNJA: huh huh, yeah, I make it for the ladies.
BritneySpears14: Mmm, we like it a lot. Let me show you.
BritneySpears14: I take off your pants, slowly, and massage your muscular physique.
eminemBNJA: Oh I like that Baby. I put on my robe and wizard hat.
BritneySpears14: What the f*ck, I told you not to message me again.
eminemBNJA: Oh ****
BritneySpears14: I swear if you do it one more time I'm gonna report your ISP and say you were sending me kiddie porn you f*ck up.
eminemBNJA: Oh ****
eminemBNJA: damn I gotta write down your names or something
Not everyone can afford to buy. That isn't a problem; it's an economic reality likely to persist as long as property exists as we know it. If a bunch of new people move into an area without construction to compensate (and the Bay area has been notorious for not allowing much of any new construction), classic supply and demand forces prices to rise. Those who cannot or choose not to buy rather than rent will inevitably feel the increase in prices. They can either fight to allow more construction (i.e. housing supply) to absorb the influx of people or they can wait until their rent becomes so high they can't afford to stay there any longer. Even if they do the former, the latter may come to be. There's nothing unjust about it as a rental agreement doesn't provide one rights beyond the end of the agreement's term. If you rent for 12 months, you don't get to stay there 13, 14, 16 months. If you've signed 20 one-year leases, that doesn't give you some special entitlement to stay there in year 21.
Anyone who's renting should recognize that rents can change with market conditions. If the place you're living in becomes the hot new place to be, your rent is going up. If you're renting in Detroit (aka Gentrification-free-ville), your rent is going down (or should be - talk with your landlord about that or just move to any one of a hundred places nearby). Those moving into the Bay area have exactly as much right to be there as anyone else. If they're paying their rent/mortgage, nobody has any right to be upset with them. They have done nothing wrong. And anyone who thinks they have should go where their imagined problem (gentrification) doesn't exist (Detroit).
Those are people not being caught. No doubt you do see some of them pulled over from time to time, just not all of them because there are so many. The difference is that a cop or a politician can do it while they're the only car on a road lined on both sides with cops running speed traps. I find that inherently wrong.
From the flyer:
"Fast forward to the present and Levandowski has bought
a house for his wife and children near College and Ashby. In
addition to this cozy two-story affair, Levandowski has also
purchased a property on the corner of Dwight and Fulton,
just one block from Shattuck Avenue."
"Preparing for the action, we watched Levandowski step
out of his front door. He had Google Glasses over his eyes,
carried his baby in his arm, and held a tablet with his free
hand. As he descended the stairs with the baby, his eyes
were on the tablet through the prism of his Google Glasses,
not on the life against his chest. He appeared in this
moment like the robot he admits that he is."
"As long as capitalism functions, everything it is connected to
will be poisoned with its sickness. People like Levandowski
are gentrifying neighborhoods, fl ooding the market with
noxious commodities, and creating the infrastructure for an
unimaginable totalitarianism. This is the evil that we stake
our lives against."
"Defend the land.
Use your position in society—whether as a felon, a barista,
an immigrant or whatever your experience—as your starting
point for your revolt against it. Have courage. Find others
who feel the same way and block a tech bus. Steal from the
techies you babysit for. Take down surveillance cameras. Go
hard: The time is now."
They're stalking this man and his family, tracking his movements and his financial workings. They're calling him evil - the kind of evil they "stake [their] lives against". They're already advocating theft and violence against property. They're borderline advocating violence against this engineer. That's just from their flyer. Here's some more details from new stories:
"At around 7:00 a.m. a group of activists say they went to the street where Google employee Anthony Levandowski lives in Berkeley to stage a demonstration outside his home. According to the activists, they rang Levandowski’s doorbell, then stood outside the house for about 45 minutes holding a banner that read “Google’s Future Stops Here.” They then watched Levandowski leave his home.
The anonymous protesters then placed flyers under the windshields of cars in the neighborhood. The fliers include a photo of Levandowski’s home and a lengthy statement that describes the Google staffer as bringing evil into the world. The headline reads: “Anthony Levandowski is building an unconscionable world of surveillance, control and automation. He is also your neighbor.”"
From a later statement from the group, "All of you other tech companies, all of you other developers and everyone else building the new surveillance state--We're coming for you next." Other news articles describe these protestors blocking the man's driveway for 45 minutes, effectively trapping him in his own home.
Now put yourself in his shoes. You wouldn't feel threatened at all? I think most people would; especially with a family. They targeted him specifically, tracked down his home address, printed up flyers with his name and a bunch of other information about him, showed up at his house, rang his doorbell, blocked his driveway, and stated that he's the type of evil they'll stake their lives against. This isn't why we have a first amendment. This isn't stating an unpopular opinion or speaking truth to power. This is about terrorizing a family. They're hoping to terrorize him and other tech workers into quitting their jobs and staying home, hiding from the mobs of angry people threatening them and their families. This is sick, and these people should be stopped.
Nobody? Come now... I'm sure exceptions can be made if you're say... a cop or a politician?
SF still has a few bad cheap neighborhoods, but they're under attack, building by building. The 6th Street corridor is still a druggie and flophouse area. But go a hundred feet off 6th and there are luxury lofts. The area of Market Street around 6th to 8th was also a big druggie/homeless area. Then Twitter HQ moved in there. As that area gets gentrified, the 6th St. corridor will be cut off from the Tenderloin across Market. We'll know that's happened when the last strip club there closes.
Dear God! What will San Francisco's good and decent law-abiding citizens do without crackhouses, whores, and the homeless?! Oh the humanity!
Sorry, protest and assembly are protected by the 1st amendment. Any law that prevents this is de facto unconstitutional and would [hopefully] be SCOTUS'ed the fuck out of existence as soon as someone gets inconvenienced enough to actually go to SCOTUS over this.
Wonder how you'd feel about that if it were your home being picketed and you and your family being stalked and terrorized by a group of extremists accusing you of being a robot that's part of a massive conspiracy to enslave humans around the world.
People have the right to assemble peacefully, to voice political opinions - peacefully - and to petition their government for change. What they do not have the right to do is stalk and terrorize people; especially those who are doing a perfectly lawful job at a lawful company.
At a minimum, people's lives are being upended due to no fault of their own and it's quite clear where they should direct their energy.
Toward getting better skills, better jobs, or finding more affordable places to live if the first two don't work out?
Talk about fault, what fault is there with Google or its employees? The process you describe will happen regardless of where Google goes (since it can only go where supporting infrastructure exists). So Google and other high paying companies are terrible, evil companies regardless of where they go? How about their employees? Are they only allowed to live in their own offices at work? Since apparently they aren't allowed to choose where to live based on the location, rents, etc.
Sorry, but paying rent today (or for however long) does not entitle one to continue paying that same rent tomorrow and forever into the future. What you're entitled to is what's in your lease. If your lease says you can pay rent for the next 12 months at $1,000, there's absolutely nothing there saying you can pay that (or anything near that) 13 months from now. If you want the security of staying where you are, BUY; renting doesn't give you that and it shouldn't. This whole concept of some people being somehow entitled to continue residing in the same place simply because they've been there for a given period is patently absurd.
Gentrification is a net positive for an area. It makes the area nicer, increases the tax base without altering the individual tax burden, reduces crime for that area, and helps stamp out poverty. It won't be a net positive for every resident and that's fine. No change ever makes everyone happy all the time and it doesn't have to to be a net positive. How many crime-ridden ghettos of NYC have been completely turned around by gentrification?
Want to see a place without gentrification? Look at Detroit.