Furthermore, the Russians colluded with Julian Assange and Glenn Greenwald to get him there. The Snowden operation was a carefully-planned premedidated attack by the Russians on Western intelligence, in preparation for the 2016 act of war that elevated Trump to power.
Yawn. Keep screeching about the racists under the bed, maybe somebody will care, someday. Until then, you've blown your wad and nobody will believe you when you knee-jerkedly accuse someone, whose only crime was to disagree with you, of being a racist.
If you don't like being called a racist, maybe don't be so racist. Can you cite an example of someone being accused of racism, when they were not in fact being racist?
Lots of christian and conservative sites I visit don't autocomplete anymore.
Yeah, Christians are just so silenced in this country. Isn't Christmas a national holiday? Isn't Good Friday a market holiday? Don't Christians make up 75% of the population? Aren't most elected officials Christian? Wow, how do you guys deal with it?
It turns out the video he posted is not only misleading, but also contains what appears to be a fake screenshot of the Google homepage on the day in question.
LOL, and where does the fake news come from, again?
Not always. I have faith that certain journalists, none of whom work for Fox, will always put their journalistic integrity first. Not blind faith, mind you, but faith. It takes some effort to build that and tends to evaporate instantly if shaken. At least for a person with a functioning brain.
Wow, Russian shitmodders are everywhere.
Do you always respond to your own posts as though you are someone else, or did you just forget to log out?
He has done more to undermine public faith in journalism than ANY Western leader in history.
.
The public is CORRECT not to TRUST journalism.
Faith is a very poor choice of word. Faith is believing in things for which there is no concrete proof. Journalism does not work on a principle of faith, you fucking imbecile.
Journalism is nearly all slanted propaganda, whether it is slanted to the left or the right, and if you think it is worthy of trust, you are incredibly naive.
You just want to continue your childish tantrum about Trump and any excuse will do. Why don't you off yourself and quit subjecting the world to your miserable existence.
And where do you get your information about the world outside of your own experience? You are correct that journalism can often be biased. The remedy for that is to use multiple, disparate sources. But to throw into question the entire field of journalism, just because it isn't perfect, is misleading and irresponsible.
I voted for Trump after voting for Obama twice. And given an identical scenario I'd do it again.
I considered Trump the lesser of two evils when Hillary was the other option. And I still do. Aside from that, I get tremendous pleasure from seeing and hearing how upset people are that Trump is president, despite the reality that their lives would be no different if Hillary had been elected, because the life of a prole remains miserable regardless of who is in office. I know that truth will be uncomfortable for you snowflakes, but you know what ?
I don't care.
The Democrats should have presented a more acceptable candidate than Clinton. I am far from the only person who thinks this : many Democrats
think so too. Clinton lost her own election. Trump inherited the win because Clinton was such a terrible choice of candidate. This is what the Democrats get for allowing the Clinton machine to manipulate them.
I really don't get how you can think Clinton was the greater evil. Without question she was a flawed candidate with years of baggage to overcome. But Trump is so clearly not up to the job. His intellect, temperament and diligence are severely lacking. He meets with foreign leaders without any preparation or coordinated policy. He tweets like a child at 3:00 in the morning. He has no policy besides kicking Latino immigrants out of the country.
You think Americans lives are no different than they would have been under a Clinton administration? Would Clinton have started a trade war with China and the EU, affecting people's livelihoods? Would Clinton have questioned the citizenship of Latinos when they try to renew their passports or reenter the country? Would Clinton have separated refugee children form their parents with no plan to reunite them? The answer to these questions is "No", and they have dramatically affected people's lives.
I agree that Clinton was not the best candidate. But if it was not blatantly obvious to you that Trump is unfit to be President, I really have to question your criteria for the decision.
Never mind driving in bad weather; it is painful enough clearing your normal vehicle of snow in the morning. Who is going to want to climb on top in a snow storm and pick every chunk of ice off the lenses and then use lens cleaner on them?
And then keep them clean and clear while driving! In heavy snow it can be hard enough to keep the windshield clear with a heater and wipers.
Think about it, what value is there to a right to be armed if you cannot assemble as a Militia?
Does this imply that there is no value in gun ownership outside membership in a militia? From your wording , it sounds that way. The vast, vast majority of gun owners are not members of a militia. Since militias have since been replaced by a standing army, is private gun ownership obviated by the US military?
Yea those shitty unions everyone on slashdot bitches about. They actually stood tall and helped usher in better working conditions.
And what thanks do they get? They get called the mob. My dad was IBEW for over 30 years, and whenever he needed help from the union they had his back. Labor dispute- the union helped, hurt on the job- the union was there from start to finish. Unsafe work conditions-union stepped in and made things right. Disputes between management and workers or workers vs workers-the union took care of it. When my dad retired the union had HR sit down with him and plan out his retirement. Did the company help? Nope. Did the company send my dad a thank you note and a gift for 30 years of survice? Nope. Did the union send my dad a gift and a thank you note? You bet your ass they did. Did his work CALL him and congratulate him on his retirement? Nope. Did the union? Yep they even threw a party for em.
Unions have a purpose. And when you find a good one and join them, you usually are a member for LIFE. Because believe it or not, they are workers to, they are in the field with the little man working. They know the struggle. And I'm happy that SOME places have unions still around to help employees with any problems that arise. Because do you think a corporation is going to look out for you? Or themselves? Yea thought so. But most unions, note I say most, WORK FOR THE WORKER.
Yes, indeed. I am pro-union. To be fair, organized crime did move into the unions in some cases. But that is a problem to be fixed, not a reason to eliminate unions. There is all kinds of crime that happens within corporations as well, but no one suggests eliminating them. Unions are needed more than ever, to balance the power that employers have.
Who died as a result of capitalism in and of itself? Sure, some starve when they can't afford food, but that wasn't introduced by capitalism, and when compared against parallel socialist economies, the socialists starved the most.
Many people died in mills and factories during the industrial revolution. People worked long days and weeks, under unsafe working conditions. This is just the first thing I found from a Google search, but it provides an outline: https://www.historyonthenet.co...
We take things like weekends and vacations, and workers compensation, and safety regulations for granted these days. But they were actually fought for by people who had to do the work under the Capitalist system. It was not always this way, and the exploitation of workers by business owners is fairly well documented. Capitalism can be great, but the greed and power of owners must be dealt with, or abuses happen.
No, we simply need to execute all Democrats/Progressives.
Once that's done, you'll just find someone else to blame. You think the Republicans/Conservatives don't want to take away your rights? Some of them want to ban contraception FFS.
A flat tax is insanely regressive. What we really need is a VAT on types of goods. You can hide income, you can't hide that Lear jet or Maybach that easily.
Even VAT is regressive, though it may still be a good idea. The wealthy spend a much lower percentage of their income, and thus would have less of it subject to VAT.
Good attempt at a Democratic troll. Unfortunately, as usually, you're trying to hide the ugly truth.
It is, after all, the Democrats, not the Republicans, that keep us from adopting a simple flat tax without exemptions. And the Democrats do that because their billionaire donors, doctors, and lawyers like the system the way it is: high taxes for regular employees, lots of loopholes for themselves.
The Republicans control all three branches of government right now. They just passed a big tax bill. And yet, they didn't implement a flat tax when they did so. How does that square with your analysis?
Stupid people deserve to be separated from their money. For example, star citizen backers.
No, of course they don't. Fraud and deception are not okay, even against easy marks.
Are Star Citizens those people who want to be citizens of a satellite and have it recognized by the UN? There are all kinds of wacky people in this world, eh?
Normalization of censorship - done by the big tech mega corp.
Sort of. But publishing companies and newspapers have always decided what they want to publish and what they don't. Internet comment boards have often had moderators that delete posts that violate the site's rules. In American media in general, you won't find too many stories that are more than mildly critical of the United States and its policies. They get on board with the program, and people like Phil Donahue lose their jobs. Stories that make big advertisers look bad often get spiked. It has always been thus; it started long before Facebook.
Facebook has an interest in keeping its site clean and hospitable. It's about money, as are so many things in our society. Therefore, assholes and charlatans get bounced. If they get too heavy handed, and start censoring views or opinions that are expressed civilly but that management doesn't agree with, people are likely to leave the platform. That is also not in their interest. Facebook is under a lot of pressure these days, what with their platform being used for propaganda and social manipulation (manipulation other than the kind Facebook itself engages in), so they are trying to strike a new balance. Personally, though I do have an account, I don't use Facebook much at all. I understand their business model (the Cambridge Analytica business was not at all surprising to me) and don't want to give them much information about myself.
easy to solve, employ all drivers for exactly legal minimal wage and not a cent more,
don't employ them in Uber directly instead employ them in small companies containing each 9 workers or so that provide "driving service" to Uber itself so that all those overhead laws regarding ADA, healthcare, pension... do not get fully activated (something similar to "virtual franchise" i guess, i don't know what are laws like in USA but i'm sure good team of lawyers will find holes in letter of law needed, intent of law is not really that important),
employ each worker for exactly 29 hours so full time and other laws don't get activated ( like target and other big stores do)
provide each driver with company car and company gas card so that those "54.5 per mile laws" for using personal vehicle don't get activated
require workers to come and work on EXACT hours/schedule during exact days where "surge service" is most needed so that most value for company is extracted from each employee's 29 hours per week limit instead of letting them decide when to work, remember you can legally require employees to come exactly when you need them instead of when they would like unlike contractors
if need for workers is reduced just fire few "franchises" by not renewing their contracts, no need to fire each employee separately, also this way no need to pay any severance, franchise that should pay severance will simply go bankrupt and unable to pay for severance, you might not even have to pay last salary this way (remember those cars are rented from "real Uber" not owned by "franchises" so you will not loose them, you can even save by doing self-insurance on them)
im sure Uber can actually save a lot of money compared to right now, and even increase profits a lot using this simple tricks, they should really hire me to give them ideas, and i will work cheap, salary in my country is $500/month so if they offer $700 per month i will switch immediately...
all that is needed is few good lawyers and few good tax specialists to find ways to go around intent of law and stay 100% legal
So, if Uber changed everything about the company, then? They can't even make a profit now, but you expect them to with this Rube Goldberg structure you cooked up?
Once you add Uber's profit, their charges will need to be pretty close to the $2.50 per mile that "regular" cabs charge.
Uber's what? Half the reason they have been so successful is they sell rides way below cost. It has been said they subsidize $.40 of every dollar charged to riders. It's no wonder taxis can't compete with a company that loses money on every ride.
I'm really curious to see what happens with Uber over the next 5 to 10 years. They burn through cash at an historic rate. Their CEO recently claimed that is by choice, which may be the case. But considering they already pay their drivers a pittance, and autonomous cars are still many years away, it seems they will have to raise their prices quite a bit in order to turn a profit, as you point out.
Most of you don't know what shorting security means. Is not a short term investment.
Shorting a security means borrowing shares now and selling them at a high price, hoping the price will come down by the time you have to pay for the shares you borrowed, so you can net the difference. Does that sound right? While this does not have to be a short-term investment, it usually is, because there is a set time by which you have to cover the shares you borrowed.
Nonsense comments like this is why no one takes cryptocurrency fanboys seriously.
I could try to explain what money is and how it works but it would just be lost on you.
Under the US system, money is debt. It's that simple. We put up real property and our labor to borrow made-up money, which is owed back to the bank anyway.
If the park requires you to sign a clearly explained document that any money you have on you (and that you're welcome to put your money safely in a bank before you enter if you don't want to bring any) is forfeit the minute you enter the park, your example is exactly like stocks. Well, assuming the muggers ask nicely and the person capitulates, because you don't often hear about people beating each other up over a stock certificate.
So, are we now openly acknowledging that Wall Street is full of criminals and frauds? I mean, I'm cool with that; it means I don't have to tiptoe around the issue anymore. But I'm not sure everyone knows that you should expect to be fleeced when you invest your money. Quite a market we have, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
He defected.
Furthermore, the Russians colluded with Julian Assange and Glenn Greenwald to get him there. The Snowden operation was a carefully-planned premedidated attack by the Russians on Western intelligence, in preparation for the 2016 act of war that elevated Trump to power.
And you know this how?
Hence the massive propaganda campaign to disarm the people.
Ask David Koresh or Randy Weaver about how their armaments helped them defend against the government. Your guns will not save you.
Yawn. Keep screeching about the racists under the bed, maybe somebody will care, someday. Until then, you've blown your wad and nobody will believe you when you knee-jerkedly accuse someone, whose only crime was to disagree with you, of being a racist.
If you don't like being called a racist, maybe don't be so racist. Can you cite an example of someone being accused of racism, when they were not in fact being racist?
Lots of christian and conservative sites I visit don't autocomplete anymore.
Yeah, Christians are just so silenced in this country. Isn't Christmas a national holiday? Isn't Good Friday a market holiday? Don't Christians make up 75% of the population? Aren't most elected officials Christian? Wow, how do you guys deal with it?
It turns out the video he posted is not only misleading, but also contains what appears to be a fake screenshot of the Google homepage on the day in question.
LOL, and where does the fake news come from, again?
"Faith" is the wrong word...
Not always. I have faith that certain journalists, none of whom work for Fox, will always put their journalistic integrity first. Not blind faith, mind you, but faith. It takes some effort to build that and tends to evaporate instantly if shaken. At least for a person with a functioning brain.
Wow, Russian shitmodders are everywhere.
Do you always respond to your own posts as though you are someone else, or did you just forget to log out?
He has done more to undermine public faith in journalism than ANY Western leader in history.
.
The public is CORRECT not to TRUST journalism.
Faith is a very poor choice of word. Faith is believing in things for which there is no concrete proof. Journalism does not work on a principle of faith, you fucking imbecile.
Journalism is nearly all slanted propaganda, whether it is slanted to the left or the right, and if you think it is worthy of trust, you are incredibly naive.
You just want to continue your childish tantrum about Trump and any excuse will do. Why don't you off yourself and quit subjecting the world to your miserable existence.
And where do you get your information about the world outside of your own experience? You are correct that journalism can often be biased. The remedy for that is to use multiple, disparate sources. But to throw into question the entire field of journalism, just because it isn't perfect, is misleading and irresponsible.
I voted for Trump after voting for Obama twice. And given an identical scenario I'd do it again.
I considered Trump the lesser of two evils when Hillary was the other option. And I still do. Aside from that, I get tremendous pleasure from seeing and hearing how upset people are that Trump is president, despite the reality that their lives would be no different if Hillary had been elected, because the life of a prole remains miserable regardless of who is in office. I know that truth will be uncomfortable for you snowflakes, but you know what ? I don't care.
The Democrats should have presented a more acceptable candidate than Clinton. I am far from the only person who thinks this : many Democrats think so too. Clinton lost her own election. Trump inherited the win because Clinton was such a terrible choice of candidate. This is what the Democrats get for allowing the Clinton machine to manipulate them.
I really don't get how you can think Clinton was the greater evil. Without question she was a flawed candidate with years of baggage to overcome. But Trump is so clearly not up to the job. His intellect, temperament and diligence are severely lacking. He meets with foreign leaders without any preparation or coordinated policy. He tweets like a child at 3:00 in the morning. He has no policy besides kicking Latino immigrants out of the country.
You think Americans lives are no different than they would have been under a Clinton administration? Would Clinton have started a trade war with China and the EU, affecting people's livelihoods? Would Clinton have questioned the citizenship of Latinos when they try to renew their passports or reenter the country? Would Clinton have separated refugee children form their parents with no plan to reunite them? The answer to these questions is "No", and they have dramatically affected people's lives.
I agree that Clinton was not the best candidate. But if it was not blatantly obvious to you that Trump is unfit to be President, I really have to question your criteria for the decision.
Never mind driving in bad weather; it is painful enough clearing your normal vehicle of snow in the morning. Who is going to want to climb on top in a snow storm and pick every chunk of ice off the lenses and then use lens cleaner on them?
And then keep them clean and clear while driving! In heavy snow it can be hard enough to keep the windshield clear with a heater and wipers.
Wrong. These cars all have drivers in them. These are not self-driving cars.
So you're saying it's Waymo's drivers who struggle with left turns and merging?
He's saying they still have a human babysitter behind the wheel.
Think about it, what value is there to a right to be armed if you cannot assemble as a Militia?
Does this imply that there is no value in gun ownership outside membership in a militia? From your wording , it sounds that way. The vast, vast majority of gun owners are not members of a militia. Since militias have since been replaced by a standing army, is private gun ownership obviated by the US military?
Yea those shitty unions everyone on slashdot bitches about. They actually stood tall and helped usher in better working conditions.
And what thanks do they get? They get called the mob. My dad was IBEW for over 30 years, and whenever he needed help from the union they had his back. Labor dispute- the union helped, hurt on the job- the union was there from start to finish. Unsafe work conditions-union stepped in and made things right. Disputes between management and workers or workers vs workers-the union took care of it. When my dad retired the union had HR sit down with him and plan out his retirement. Did the company help? Nope. Did the company send my dad a thank you note and a gift for 30 years of survice? Nope. Did the union send my dad a gift and a thank you note? You bet your ass they did. Did his work CALL him and congratulate him on his retirement? Nope. Did the union? Yep they even threw a party for em.
Unions have a purpose. And when you find a good one and join them, you usually are a member for LIFE. Because believe it or not, they are workers to, they are in the field with the little man working. They know the struggle. And I'm happy that SOME places have unions still around to help employees with any problems that arise. Because do you think a corporation is going to look out for you? Or themselves? Yea thought so. But most unions, note I say most, WORK FOR THE WORKER.
Yes, indeed. I am pro-union. To be fair, organized crime did move into the unions in some cases. But that is a problem to be fixed, not a reason to eliminate unions. There is all kinds of crime that happens within corporations as well, but no one suggests eliminating them. Unions are needed more than ever, to balance the power that employers have.
Who died as a result of capitalism in and of itself? Sure, some starve when they can't afford food, but that wasn't introduced by capitalism, and when compared against parallel socialist economies, the socialists starved the most.
Many people died in mills and factories during the industrial revolution. People worked long days and weeks, under unsafe working conditions. This is just the first thing I found from a Google search, but it provides an outline: https://www.historyonthenet.co...
We take things like weekends and vacations, and workers compensation, and safety regulations for granted these days. But they were actually fought for by people who had to do the work under the Capitalist system. It was not always this way, and the exploitation of workers by business owners is fairly well documented. Capitalism can be great, but the greed and power of owners must be dealt with, or abuses happen.
No, we simply need to execute all Democrats/Progressives.
Once that's done, you'll just find someone else to blame. You think the Republicans/Conservatives don't want to take away your rights? Some of them want to ban contraception FFS.
A flat tax is insanely regressive. What we really need is a VAT on types of goods. You can hide income, you can't hide that Lear jet or Maybach that easily.
Even VAT is regressive, though it may still be a good idea. The wealthy spend a much lower percentage of their income, and thus would have less of it subject to VAT.
Good attempt at a Democratic troll. Unfortunately, as usually, you're trying to hide the ugly truth.
It is, after all, the Democrats, not the Republicans, that keep us from adopting a simple flat tax without exemptions. And the Democrats do that because their billionaire donors, doctors, and lawyers like the system the way it is: high taxes for regular employees, lots of loopholes for themselves.
The Republicans control all three branches of government right now. They just passed a big tax bill. And yet, they didn't implement a flat tax when they did so. How does that square with your analysis?
...they sure do edit and moderate a lot of the content. Weird.
That's a good point.
Stupid people deserve to be separated from their money. For example, star citizen backers.
No, of course they don't. Fraud and deception are not okay, even against easy marks.
Are Star Citizens those people who want to be citizens of a satellite and have it recognized by the UN? There are all kinds of wacky people in this world, eh?
Normalization of censorship - done by the big tech mega corp.
Sort of. But publishing companies and newspapers have always decided what they want to publish and what they don't. Internet comment boards have often had moderators that delete posts that violate the site's rules. In American media in general, you won't find too many stories that are more than mildly critical of the United States and its policies. They get on board with the program, and people like Phil Donahue lose their jobs. Stories that make big advertisers look bad often get spiked. It has always been thus; it started long before Facebook.
Facebook has an interest in keeping its site clean and hospitable. It's about money, as are so many things in our society. Therefore, assholes and charlatans get bounced. If they get too heavy handed, and start censoring views or opinions that are expressed civilly but that management doesn't agree with, people are likely to leave the platform. That is also not in their interest. Facebook is under a lot of pressure these days, what with their platform being used for propaganda and social manipulation (manipulation other than the kind Facebook itself engages in), so they are trying to strike a new balance. Personally, though I do have an account, I don't use Facebook much at all. I understand their business model (the Cambridge Analytica business was not at all surprising to me) and don't want to give them much information about myself.
easy to solve, employ all drivers for exactly legal minimal wage and not a cent more,
don't employ them in Uber directly instead employ them in small companies containing each 9 workers or so that provide "driving service" to Uber itself so that all those overhead laws regarding ADA, healthcare, pension ... do not get fully activated (something similar to "virtual franchise" i guess, i don't know what are laws like in USA but i'm sure good team of lawyers will find holes in letter of law needed, intent of law is not really that important),
employ each worker for exactly 29 hours so full time and other laws don't get activated ( like target and other big stores do)
provide each driver with company car and company gas card so that those "54.5 per mile laws" for using personal vehicle don't get activated
require workers to come and work on EXACT hours/schedule during exact days where "surge service" is most needed so that most value for company is extracted from each employee's 29 hours per week limit instead of letting them decide when to work, remember you can legally require employees to come exactly when you need them instead of when they would like unlike contractors
if need for workers is reduced just fire few "franchises" by not renewing their contracts, no need to fire each employee separately, also this way no need to pay any severance, franchise that should pay severance will simply go bankrupt and unable to pay for severance, you might not even have to pay last salary this way (remember those cars are rented from "real Uber" not owned by "franchises" so you will not loose them, you can even save by doing self-insurance on them)
im sure Uber can actually save a lot of money compared to right now, and even increase profits a lot using this simple tricks, they should really hire me to give them ideas, and i will work cheap, salary in my country is $500/month so if they offer $700 per month i will switch immediately ...
all that is needed is few good lawyers and few good tax specialists to find ways to go around intent of law and stay 100% legal
So, if Uber changed everything about the company, then? They can't even make a profit now, but you expect them to with this Rube Goldberg structure you cooked up?
Once you add Uber's profit, their charges will need to be pretty close to the $2.50 per mile that "regular" cabs charge.
Uber's what? Half the reason they have been so successful is they sell rides way below cost. It has been said they subsidize $.40 of every dollar charged to riders. It's no wonder taxis can't compete with a company that loses money on every ride.
I'm really curious to see what happens with Uber over the next 5 to 10 years. They burn through cash at an historic rate. Their CEO recently claimed that is by choice, which may be the case. But considering they already pay their drivers a pittance, and autonomous cars are still many years away, it seems they will have to raise their prices quite a bit in order to turn a profit, as you point out.
A market is like anything else in life, jump into the sea without knowing how to swim and you'll drown.
So, yes? Is part of knowing how to swim in this analogy knowing that there are a lot of dishonest people in the investment industry?
Most of you don't know what shorting security means. Is not a short term investment.
Shorting a security means borrowing shares now and selling them at a high price, hoping the price will come down by the time you have to pay for the shares you borrowed, so you can net the difference. Does that sound right? While this does not have to be a short-term investment, it usually is, because there is a set time by which you have to cover the shares you borrowed.
Nonsense comments like this is why no one takes cryptocurrency fanboys seriously.
I could try to explain what money is and how it works but it would just be lost on you.
Under the US system, money is debt. It's that simple. We put up real property and our labor to borrow made-up money, which is owed back to the bank anyway.
If the park requires you to sign a clearly explained document that any money you have on you (and that you're welcome to put your money safely in a bank before you enter if you don't want to bring any) is forfeit the minute you enter the park, your example is exactly like stocks. Well, assuming the muggers ask nicely and the person capitulates, because you don't often hear about people beating each other up over a stock certificate.
So, are we now openly acknowledging that Wall Street is full of criminals and frauds? I mean, I'm cool with that; it means I don't have to tiptoe around the issue anymore. But I'm not sure everyone knows that you should expect to be fleeced when you invest your money. Quite a market we have, eh?