But, tech nerds are told by feminists that it doesn't matter if a girl has slept with lots of other guys before you.
That's because it doesn't matter. In fact, I prefer a woman who has some experience. Inexperience is okay in High School, but once you're out of college you should know what you're doing between the sheets.
Capitalism would function fine, without government intervention.
Capitalism wouldn't exist without government intervention. Who but government is going to enforce property rights or contracts? Property ownership is a bedrock component of Capitalism and requires a government to enforce. Otherwise whomever is strongest "owns" all the property.
I'm not suggesting one is better than the other - I don't really care. But you cannot believe in science (or the scientific method, specifically) while believing that some things just can't be questioned. That's at odds with science at its very core.
Everything can be questioned, but there are some questions that science cannot answer definitively. The existence of something as yet undetectable is one of them.
How can you believe in god and science when science clearly, without any doubts whatsoever, establishes that there does not exist any evidence of god?
I think this illustrates the issue I have with some people's view of science. That is, they think science is the only valid method for understanding and gaining knowledge. That's where I think it drifts towards a religion.
The value of science and the scientific method is self-evident. It has enabled us to understand and manipulate the physical world around us. But science is not equipped to deal with questions that are beyond what we can see, touch or measure. The question of a God is a good example. Science has not much to say about the existence of God. The most it can say is no evidence for it has been found. But that doesn't actually say anything about whether or not God exists. Back in the 1400's science had no evidence for germs. But that didn't mean germs didn't exist, only that our detection and testing were not yet sufficiently advanced. The question of the existence of God could be in the same vein; that we are just not sophisticated enough to detect it.
I'm not saying that God does or does not exist. I'm just pointing out that to use science to say that it doesn't exist is not scientific. The scientific answer is, "We don't know, we haven't found evidence for it." But people who think science is the only way to know anything take the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
No, I'm going with "free market" economics as a solution. That means no more "free trade" deals that don't take into account the lack of free movement of labor. I suspect we are aligned more than you think. At no point did I say anything about supply-side, demand-side, trickle-down, or otherwise. Quite the opposite - trying to monkey around with a complex process that we don't understand is going to lead to inefficiencies (i.e. lower economic growth). I think the vanishing middle class is a huge problem and I support efforts to get it back. But xenophobia is not the answer - all it will do is stifle economic growth, ultimately making those on the bottom suffer even more.
The thing is, there is not such thing as a free market. Markets are governed by laws and regulations. So there are always decisions to be made about which laws and regulations are appropriate. Further, I think our experience has shown that laissez-faire economic policy results in wealth being concentrated at the top. Unfettered Capitalism doesn't have a good track record for creating broad-based prosperity.
"Worker power," in the way you fantasize about it, is a part of the problem, not a solution. You're trying to wish away a few billion people living in places where the cost of living, regulatory environment, and tax landscape are far more competitive than in the US.
So having no labor rights, no environmental laws, and government that relies more on kickbacks than legitimate revenue is now being described as "competitive"?
America has been fucked up by the Banksters and their Marxist Shills. Now they fight tooth and nail for the Bankster candidate Clinton. They would like to finish their destructive work.
Wake up folks, your fathers are going to help you, not the internationalist scumbags.
Bankers and their Marxist shills? Have you been reading None Dare Call it Conspiracy?
Nothing changed. That's the point. That level of consumption never was sustainable. Unsustainable refers to usage of resources that cannot be sustained over time. We still have the same pool of resources available to us.
If we can develop interstellar travel and discover another inhabitable planet, this will change.
$60K is way more than a living wage. You don't need the house, you don't need the car, you don't need the wife, you don't need the two kids. Humanity has survived for many, many millennia on far less.
You talk about developing interstellar travel in the same post where you say humanity has lived on far less for millennia. Of course humanity used to live on far less; they weren't developing technology to take them to the stars! I'll agree that consumption is unsustainable for some. But when you talk about what humanity has needed for millennia, you're talking about living like the Native Americans. That's fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. In order to have an advanced society, you need to consume more resources and energy.
Out of interest, what usually happens if you work just prescribed hours in this crazy silicon valley world?
Reminds me of something my sister told me about working in show business. If you're early, you're on time. If you're on time, you're late. If you're late, you're fired.
Another thing that is NOT established by the constitution. We are a republic, with great deference given to the individual states. The constitution leaves it up to each state to decide how they will choose their electors in the presidential election. If you don't like how your state does it, work on your state legislators. If you don't like how another state does it, move to that state and work on the legislature there.
Doesn't the candidate with the most electoral votes win? How is that not first-past-the-post?
It may not matter in 20 years (possibly less), if the US government is forced to begin defaulting on its debts. That time is coming. That, or it will be scaling back benefits and other promises / government services past the bare minimum.
What are you taking about? The US government can print the currency in which it borrows. It will never default unless it decides it wants to, for some reason. The US government literally has unlimited money. It can spend without taxing or borrowing, and it can print the money to pay its debts. There are consequences to money printing, depending on how its done. But the Fed tripled the money supply (tripled!) after 2008 and we have not had runaway inflation.
So no, the US government will not be forced to default on its debt, or scale back benefits. If either of those things are done it will be for political reasons, not monetary.
"The driver says him and his daughter were trying to locate where sirens were coming from..."
That should be, "The driver says he and his daughter were trying to locate where sirens were coming from..." This has been your grammar Nazi post for the day.
Saying that all warrants are invalid and under no circumstances should be honored removes one of the key tenets of our judicial system.
Indeed. That's probably why no one is making that argument.
If the government was practicing mass surveillance on everyone's electronic communications then you would think at least some of the more violent crimes would not be happening.
How would you know about the violent crimes that are not happening? Maybe they're already not happening!
It's not the government fucking things up it is the governed masses. I guess it is just easier to blame the government for all your ills instead of taking responsibility for your own choices and behavior.
Yeah, those governed masses just don't know how to act or what's good for them! What they need is a strong authority to keep them on the right path.
Sorry, how have my choices and behavior led to the government wanting unconstitutional access to my private communications? How have my choices and behavior led to their abusing the powers they have arrogated to themselves? They haven't.
How hilarious. Market value? Somehow I don't think the NSA cares that their monitoring reduces market value.
Perhaps not. But the powerful people who fund the campaigns of the people who give orders to the NSA do care about market value. Additionally, the US does not control the world, try as they might, and its laws are not applicable outside the country. So international actors may fill the gap.
No... you obviously do not understand socialism. What political ideology is responsible for the death and enslavement of over 160,000,000 people (conservatively)? Socialism. Socialism, according to the leaders of it, always ends in communism. Hitler. Mao. Stalin. Go read an actual book for some real information. Stop getting your ideas from television.
"We are indeed in a dark place when companies put their reputations above the greater good."
If it were truly for the greater good, perhaps they wouldn't be risking their reputations. The thing is, the authorities have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. They define "bad guys" as not only those who wish to harm people, but also those they deem to be threats to the System or the status quo. So while we can all agree that we want to know what's on the phone of a mass murderer, we should be more circumspect about the data belonging to Occupy protesters or the ACLU. Unfortunately, the authorities generally are not. Saying that helping them in all cases, or as a matter of policy, is a matter of the greater good is not a cut and dry as he seems to think.
Law and right are only coincidentally related. You may have the legal power to control the spending of somebody else's money, but you do not have the right.
In this type of case, that's a distinction without a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
No, enough. Amazing once people once did (Boston Teaparty anyone?) over onerous taxes, yet now they just accept them like little sheep.
The Boston Tea Party was about a reduction in taxes, not an increase.
The more you know...
http://www.historynet.com/debunking-boston-tea-party-myths.htm
Oh, it's much weirder than that.
But, tech nerds are told by feminists that it doesn't matter if a girl has slept with lots of other guys before you.
That's because it doesn't matter. In fact, I prefer a woman who has some experience. Inexperience is okay in High School, but once you're out of college you should know what you're doing between the sheets.
Capitalism would function fine, without government intervention.
Capitalism wouldn't exist without government intervention. Who but government is going to enforce property rights or contracts? Property ownership is a bedrock component of Capitalism and requires a government to enforce. Otherwise whomever is strongest "owns" all the property.
I'm not suggesting one is better than the other - I don't really care. But you cannot believe in science (or the scientific method, specifically) while believing that some things just can't be questioned. That's at odds with science at its very core.
Everything can be questioned, but there are some questions that science cannot answer definitively. The existence of something as yet undetectable is one of them.
How can you believe in god and science when science clearly, without any doubts whatsoever, establishes that there does not exist any evidence of god?
I think this illustrates the issue I have with some people's view of science. That is, they think science is the only valid method for understanding and gaining knowledge. That's where I think it drifts towards a religion.
The value of science and the scientific method is self-evident. It has enabled us to understand and manipulate the physical world around us. But science is not equipped to deal with questions that are beyond what we can see, touch or measure. The question of a God is a good example. Science has not much to say about the existence of God. The most it can say is no evidence for it has been found. But that doesn't actually say anything about whether or not God exists. Back in the 1400's science had no evidence for germs. But that didn't mean germs didn't exist, only that our detection and testing were not yet sufficiently advanced. The question of the existence of God could be in the same vein; that we are just not sophisticated enough to detect it.
I'm not saying that God does or does not exist. I'm just pointing out that to use science to say that it doesn't exist is not scientific. The scientific answer is, "We don't know, we haven't found evidence for it." But people who think science is the only way to know anything take the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
No, I'm going with "free market" economics as a solution. That means no more "free trade" deals that don't take into account the lack of free movement of labor. I suspect we are aligned more than you think. At no point did I say anything about supply-side, demand-side, trickle-down, or otherwise. Quite the opposite - trying to monkey around with a complex process that we don't understand is going to lead to inefficiencies (i.e. lower economic growth). I think the vanishing middle class is a huge problem and I support efforts to get it back. But xenophobia is not the answer - all it will do is stifle economic growth, ultimately making those on the bottom suffer even more.
The thing is, there is not such thing as a free market. Markets are governed by laws and regulations. So there are always decisions to be made about which laws and regulations are appropriate. Further, I think our experience has shown that laissez-faire economic policy results in wealth being concentrated at the top. Unfettered Capitalism doesn't have a good track record for creating broad-based prosperity.
"Worker power," in the way you fantasize about it, is a part of the problem, not a solution. You're trying to wish away a few billion people living in places where the cost of living, regulatory environment, and tax landscape are far more competitive than in the US.
So having no labor rights, no environmental laws, and government that relies more on kickbacks than legitimate revenue is now being described as "competitive"?
Everyone in the world has a right to live the American Dream. This is only motivated by pure racism. Plain and simple.
A right? Everyone in the world? That has to be the stupidest thing I've heard this year, and Donald trump is a Presidential candidate.
This is such a wasteful attitude.
Time you enjoy wasting, is not wasted time.
America has been fucked up by the Banksters and their Marxist Shills. Now they fight tooth and nail for the Bankster candidate Clinton. They would like to finish their destructive work.
Wake up folks, your fathers are going to help you, not the internationalist scumbags.
Bankers and their Marxist shills? Have you been reading None Dare Call it Conspiracy?
Nothing changed. That's the point. That level of consumption never was sustainable. Unsustainable refers to usage of resources that cannot be sustained over time. We still have the same pool of resources available to us.
If we can develop interstellar travel and discover another inhabitable planet, this will change.
$60K is way more than a living wage. You don't need the house, you don't need the car, you don't need the wife, you don't need the two kids. Humanity has survived for many, many millennia on far less.
You talk about developing interstellar travel in the same post where you say humanity has lived on far less for millennia. Of course humanity used to live on far less; they weren't developing technology to take them to the stars! I'll agree that consumption is unsustainable for some. But when you talk about what humanity has needed for millennia, you're talking about living like the Native Americans. That's fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. In order to have an advanced society, you need to consume more resources and energy.
No. Just clear thinking.
Expecting Sharia law in Germany now passes for clear thinking?
Out of interest, what usually happens if you work just prescribed hours in this crazy silicon valley world?
Reminds me of something my sister told me about working in show business. If you're early, you're on time. If you're on time, you're late. If you're late, you're fired.
That truly is frightening. The FBI doing, you know, like...their job!
Their job is mass surveillance without a warrant? Well, at least we're finally being honest about it.
"The FBI says they're only using the planes to track specific suspects in serious crime investigations"
Somehow, with all we know about how the FBI works, I find this hard to believe.
the first-past-the-post Presidency
Another thing that is NOT established by the constitution. We are a republic, with great deference given to the individual states. The constitution leaves it up to each state to decide how they will choose their electors in the presidential election. If you don't like how your state does it, work on your state legislators. If you don't like how another state does it, move to that state and work on the legislature there.
Doesn't the candidate with the most electoral votes win? How is that not first-past-the-post?
It may not matter in 20 years (possibly less), if the US government is forced to begin defaulting on its debts. That time is coming. That, or it will be scaling back benefits and other promises / government services past the bare minimum.
What are you taking about? The US government can print the currency in which it borrows. It will never default unless it decides it wants to, for some reason. The US government literally has unlimited money. It can spend without taxing or borrowing, and it can print the money to pay its debts. There are consequences to money printing, depending on how its done. But the Fed tripled the money supply (tripled!) after 2008 and we have not had runaway inflation.
So no, the US government will not be forced to default on its debt, or scale back benefits. If either of those things are done it will be for political reasons, not monetary.
I'm worried about when the Bank-IRS nexus is complete and automated audits fuck everyone.
And yet people still talk about a cashless economy like it's a good thing.
That should be, "The driver says he and his daughter were trying to locate where sirens were coming from..." This has been your grammar Nazi post for the day.
Saying that all warrants are invalid and under no circumstances should be honored removes one of the key tenets of our judicial system.
Indeed. That's probably why no one is making that argument.
If the government was practicing mass surveillance on everyone's electronic communications then you would think at least some of the more violent crimes would not be happening.
How would you know about the violent crimes that are not happening? Maybe they're already not happening!
It's not the government fucking things up it is the governed masses. I guess it is just easier to blame the government for all your ills instead of taking responsibility for your own choices and behavior.
Yeah, those governed masses just don't know how to act or what's good for them! What they need is a strong authority to keep them on the right path.
Sorry, how have my choices and behavior led to the government wanting unconstitutional access to my private communications? How have my choices and behavior led to their abusing the powers they have arrogated to themselves? They haven't.
How hilarious. Market value? Somehow I don't think the NSA cares that their monitoring reduces market value.
Perhaps not. But the powerful people who fund the campaigns of the people who give orders to the NSA do care about market value. Additionally, the US does not control the world, try as they might, and its laws are not applicable outside the country. So international actors may fill the gap.
No... you obviously do not understand socialism. What political ideology is responsible for the death and enslavement of over 160,000,000 people (conservatively)? Socialism. Socialism, according to the leaders of it, always ends in communism. Hitler. Mao. Stalin. Go read an actual book for some real information. Stop getting your ideas from television.
I'm wondering what books you've been reading.
If it were truly for the greater good, perhaps they wouldn't be risking their reputations. The thing is, the authorities have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. They define "bad guys" as not only those who wish to harm people, but also those they deem to be threats to the System or the status quo. So while we can all agree that we want to know what's on the phone of a mass murderer, we should be more circumspect about the data belonging to Occupy protesters or the ACLU. Unfortunately, the authorities generally are not. Saying that helping them in all cases, or as a matter of policy, is a matter of the greater good is not a cut and dry as he seems to think.
Law and right are only coincidentally related. You may have the legal power to control the spending of somebody else's money, but you do not have the right.
In this type of case, that's a distinction without a difference.