Personally I don't see why I'd want to retire at 50 to move away from my family, kids, friends, etc and start over.
They aren't staying put either. My father came from Maine. None of his siblings, nieces, and nephews live in Maine any more. Most of his friends don't either. There wasn't much point to him staying put because so many had left, and so he didn't way back when.
Working until 65, having $3 million instead of $1.2 (without contributing another cent to my savings - so living a lot more luxuriously) and then staying near all the people in my life sounds a lot better to me.
I grant that working like a dog to 50 and then suddenly stopping can be lethal healthwise. Working much lighter hours for another 15 years or more would probably be a good transition to just about any retirement as well as building up funds more. But $1.2 million is a fair bit of money that a couple can retire on.
Well, everything doesn't happen. Another Carrington Event which didn't happen, let us note, during the time in question, would still be less than everything and would be something that they could deal with, even if it did cause an outage.
Hmm, how much does use of a different word in their advertising in Germany rate in terms of impact to me?
Stupid people might take that the wrong way and think it's ok to mug you simply because it's not much impact to them what happens to you. So I think I should have the power to stop you from saying that. For your own good.
And funny how you have yet to give a reason for why Tesla should change that name.
merely that hate symbols have no redeeming features whatsoever.
Aside from being an easy way to self-identify as a dick. Oh look, my interviewee has a Nazi swastika tattooed on their forehead, Guess who just told me they a) don't want the job and b) would be a pain in the ass, if I did hire them. Hurray for efficient communication!
Turns out US workers as about as productive per hour as the best of European countries - with the notable exception of Norway which kicks everyone's ass in productivity per hour. So it sure does look like the US is that 20% or so more productive due to those extra hours.
which is impossible to test by the way so it's safe to assume NOBODY intends them any OTHER way
Anything impossible to test is something which is impossible for me to care about. The more you talk, silentcoder, the more you demonstrate that you neither understand your supposed hate speech or have anything relevant to say about it.
No it's not, because everbody KNOWS the first one really means the second one. The term for that is 'dog whistles' - when you say words that incite violence and disguise it *just enough* that you'll be hard to convict in a court while making damn sure nobody is mistaken about what you meant.
Hard to convict is not the same as impossible. I don't want it to be possible to convict someone for a dog whistle that wasn't actually there due to hate speech laws.
the extremely high mortality adolescence that transgender people experience
So now, it's we need to ban bad words among adults because schools can't be bothered to do anything about extreme bullying. As I noted earlier, when the rule of law is abandoned, you have worse problems than people saying bad things.
Exactly. That is not nearly enough to live decently in a place like for example silicon valley or the bay area. Your paid off house still pays property taxes that go up every year, not to mention insurance. Your $1.2M invested "in the bank" at the Fed-generous rate of 1% gets you $12K in income, not enough to pay your utilities, food, and incentives for global warming. But maybe you were clever, and invested in Yahoo and Myspace? Or, you can spend it on Teslas until you run out of money, sell your house, and then live on the street.
Wow. One doesn't merely retire or even live in Silicon Valley, but then, one doesn't need to. There are plenty of places in the US vastly cheaper.
Similarly, why put your money in the bank at 1%, when you can put it in the stock market for far better return even when conservatively invested?
Fortunately, anyone who has figured out how to accumulate $1.2 million by age 50, isn't going to destroy their lives by taking your advice.
No hate speech law ever written has excluded "things somebody doesn't like". They only exclude "hings that are likely to lead to people getting murdered".
The obvious rebuttal is all hate speech law is precisely about excluding speech that one doesn't like. And once again, one can't be murdered with speech.
With what we now know about neuroscience - like that a persistent pattern of abusive words can cause permanent, physical brain damage (which is physical harm in case you didn't know)- it ought to be expanded to cover words commonly used in such patterns.
Since these two categories however, comprise pretty much the exact same words, you won't even notice the expansion.
A persistent pattern of abusive words is harassment or even torture which can be made illegal. Or when it's not these things, you can just choose not to listen and thus, choose not to inflict this alleged brain damage on yourself.
I said it makes society less free over-all - that statement does not even slightly contradict it. Very frequently society gets more free on average if we reduce the liberty of some individuals. Because we don't all have equal power or equal means to excercise our rights, restricting some actions for a few can actually make the rest of society more free. If we tell employers they aren't allowed to refuse to hire people for forming a union - then individuals with little negotiating power have the option to combine their negotiating power and form a union. An action that reduced the liberty of a small number (the employers) have made a large number (the workers) more free by allowing them to do something they could not previously do.
I notice you don't support your claim even a little with this verbiage. The obvious rebuttal is the absence of hate speech laws means we're more free to say whatever we want. You mention nothing that would support your assertion that any freedom is lost with that extra freedom gained.
And you are just plain wrong about this. But then, you always are in every post you've ever put here - facts have no influence on your thinking and you believe whatever you make up to be the same as facts.
And now we descend into complete bullshit with yet again absolutely no evidence to support your position. Just the usual effeminate bleat that I have to be plain wrong about this somehow.
In the real world, words don't kill people, murderers with weapons kill people whether it be Nazi Sturmabteilung brutally killing Jews in the streets or paramilitaries chopping down innocent Rwandans with machetes in churches. You will notice in these two cases that society had degenerated to the point where murder wasn't illegal. That didn't happen because people said naughty things. That happened because the rule of law falls apart. When you don't have rule of law, hate speech is far from the top of the list of your worries.
Just keep murder illegal and enforce those laws and you eliminate the primary supposed drawback of hate speech.
What is utterly unjustifiable is the idea that anybody should ever be subjected to hate speech.
You aren't. Don't like it? Then don't listen. It's time to grow up and recognize that people are routinely going to say things you don't like.
It serves no useful purpose, it does not advance democracy, it makes society less free over-all and it kills people.
Actually, you are wrong on two counts. First, it does make people more free because they are free to say what they think. Second, it doesn't kill people contrary to your assertion.
Because, if you try to answer *their* bad speech with good speech they usually answer you with guns. The only answer then is to bring your own gun - and it's better then if those guns are the government's guns because street-warfare tends to be bad for everybody.
Which we already do. Last I checked, it's still illegal to just shoot people because they say things you don't like. There's still no justification for hate speech laws.
It's worth noting here that this was the most important lie of all, because it was a key promise by President Obama, the most powerful backer of the PPACA bill. That's what it took to pass the bill. But it took Polifact four years to properly classify it.
Apologize for the bullshit they posted in 2008 and 2009, of course. It should be painfully obvious that you don't rate a promise as "true" when the speaker has yet to deliver on the promise.
Sorry, I still think it's even simply for you and Germany to just not care. The complaint doesn't even seem to be that it is false advertising, but rather that it gives dumb people the wrong impression. So how much should we compromise your life because there are dumb people in the world?
Well let's move this shit and put in in your back yard. I'm sure you won't mind after all it isn't much of a problem.
How much are you offering to pay for waste storage on my property? Pay enough and we'll be able to do this legally rather than in fantasy.
I also can't help but notice that this story is effectively a call to study the problem rather than a call to move the waste to khallow's backyard right this minute.
In the part you missed? They even used the years, so I hardly know how you missed it. In fact, even in the 2009 follow-up, it was explained why they were modifying their determination. It is a bit bogged down by the public option business, which we know didn't happen, but well, you're hardly going to blame Politifact for not knowing the future. Right?
Ok, I did miss a significant part of the 2013 article. But having said that, because they don't know the future perhaps they shouldn't say things are true, until they come to ass as such? OTOH, I note that I knew the "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." promise was going to be bullshit from the first time it was uttered and I didn't need omniscience to figure that out.
I said "apologize" not "acknowledge" (though yes, I did miss the links in the 2013 to earlier weaseling and repositioning by Politifact). There should be some consequence for carrying water for four years for such a lie.
And while there might have been a lot of lies and exaggerations from "right-wing online nuts", it's funny how they (and I for that matter) were able to determine, four years before Polifact, that the promise "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." was going to be a lie.
Here's a clue. Polifact shouldn't say something is true before the promise has been acted on one way or another.
The much simpler solution is for Tesla to change the name.
An even simpler solution is to not care in the first place either by you or the German government. That seems to fix the problem quite nicely when you do that.
Except your own link indicates that said journalist did explain their position, namely that the results had changed from it being a right-wing hysteria driven lie, to a face-saving Obama administration lie. Facts and circumstances do change, and what's true today could be false tomorrow.
Where do they say that in the 2013 story?
That said, I think Obama's mistake was not promising to destroy the most harmful impediment to a free-market healthcare system in the US, namely the entrenched hold that the health insurance industry has on the provision of care. They're the ones strangling America under the burden of their support, and they even got to write the new law to suit them. He should have listened to the libertarians and made a genuinely free and honest market, rather than allow fraudster intermediaries to interject themselves into it.
Research led me far afield and I uncovered this gem from PolitiFact in its Pulitzer Prize-winning year of 2008. It rated as TRUE Obama's statement at the October 7, 2008, "If you've got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it."
Five years later, only after Obama was safely elected and re-elected did PolitiFact name that claim the Lie of the Year of 2013 -- even though it dated back to 2008.
Before and after. Same journalist wrote both and no apology for the earlier, "fact check" or the about face on the claim.
My point here is that the higher rate of nitrogen fixing may have been detrimental to survival of the bacteria in the wild. If a colony goes all out and another one cuts back a bit, the latter may be more numerous in the soil when all is said and done.
you actually mean if their priorities agreed with yours.
Obviously, I disagree and Slashdot reaction to this story is an example of why I do. Notice this following quote:
"I think itâ(TM)s very understandable that the Greenland government wants to get some answers on whoâ(TM)s accountable, and who will ultimately bear financial cost of any potential remediation," said Jeff Colgan, a professor of political science at Brown University and an author of the paper that highlighted the problem with Camp Century.
"At the same time, we expect itâ(TM)s a problem that will take decades to resurface," he told me. "The immediate focus should be monitoring and research."
That's not how it's being spun in this discussion. The US made a mess and they need to clean it up, in one case within the month or Greenland should ship the waste to the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I don't see why I'd want to retire at 50 to move away from my family, kids, friends, etc and start over.
They aren't staying put either. My father came from Maine. None of his siblings, nieces, and nephews live in Maine any more. Most of his friends don't either. There wasn't much point to him staying put because so many had left, and so he didn't way back when.
Working until 65, having $3 million instead of $1.2 (without contributing another cent to my savings - so living a lot more luxuriously) and then staying near all the people in my life sounds a lot better to me.
I grant that working like a dog to 50 and then suddenly stopping can be lethal healthwise. Working much lighter hours for another 15 years or more would probably be a good transition to just about any retirement as well as building up funds more. But $1.2 million is a fair bit of money that a couple can retire on.
Well, everything doesn't happen. Another Carrington Event which didn't happen, let us note, during the time in question, would still be less than everything and would be something that they could deal with, even if it did cause an outage.
Hmm, how much does use of a different word in their advertising in Germany rate in terms of impact to me?
Stupid people might take that the wrong way and think it's ok to mug you simply because it's not much impact to them what happens to you. So I think I should have the power to stop you from saying that. For your own good.
And funny how you have yet to give a reason for why Tesla should change that name.
merely that hate symbols have no redeeming features whatsoever.
Aside from being an easy way to self-identify as a dick. Oh look, my interviewee has a Nazi swastika tattooed on their forehead, Guess who just told me they a) don't want the job and b) would be a pain in the ass, if I did hire them. Hurray for efficient communication!
omg how much more evidence of corruption do you need
Don't forget the money, of course! That's $225k per speech. Goldman Sachs paid for three such speeches.
Turns out US workers as about as productive per hour as the best of European countries - with the notable exception of Norway which kicks everyone's ass in productivity per hour. So it sure does look like the US is that 20% or so more productive due to those extra hours.
One would think you'd know how to spell the single largest risk you have in your life.
Because that was totally important.
which is impossible to test by the way so it's safe to assume NOBODY intends them any OTHER way
Anything impossible to test is something which is impossible for me to care about. The more you talk, silentcoder, the more you demonstrate that you neither understand your supposed hate speech or have anything relevant to say about it.
No it's not, because everbody KNOWS the first one really means the second one. The term for that is 'dog whistles' - when you say words that incite violence and disguise it *just enough* that you'll be hard to convict in a court while making damn sure nobody is mistaken about what you meant.
Hard to convict is not the same as impossible. I don't want it to be possible to convict someone for a dog whistle that wasn't actually there due to hate speech laws.
the extremely high mortality adolescence that transgender people experience
So now, it's we need to ban bad words among adults because schools can't be bothered to do anything about extreme bullying. As I noted earlier, when the rule of law is abandoned, you have worse problems than people saying bad things.
Everything is wrong with hate symbols
I can't help but notice that "everything" doesn't encompass much. We're deep in "mountain out of a molehill" territory.
Exactly. That is not nearly enough to live decently in a place like for example silicon valley or the bay area. Your paid off house still pays property taxes that go up every year, not to mention insurance. Your $1.2M invested "in the bank" at the Fed-generous rate of 1% gets you $12K in income, not enough to pay your utilities, food, and incentives for global warming. But maybe you were clever, and invested in Yahoo and Myspace? Or, you can spend it on Teslas until you run out of money, sell your house, and then live on the street.
Wow. One doesn't merely retire or even live in Silicon Valley, but then, one doesn't need to. There are plenty of places in the US vastly cheaper.
Similarly, why put your money in the bank at 1%, when you can put it in the stock market for far better return even when conservatively invested?
Fortunately, anyone who has figured out how to accumulate $1.2 million by age 50, isn't going to destroy their lives by taking your advice.
No hate speech law ever written has excluded "things somebody doesn't like". They only exclude "hings that are likely to lead to people getting murdered".
The obvious rebuttal is all hate speech law is precisely about excluding speech that one doesn't like. And once again, one can't be murdered with speech.
With what we now know about neuroscience - like that a persistent pattern of abusive words can cause permanent, physical brain damage (which is physical harm in case you didn't know)- it ought to be expanded to cover words commonly used in such patterns. Since these two categories however, comprise pretty much the exact same words, you won't even notice the expansion.
A persistent pattern of abusive words is harassment or even torture which can be made illegal. Or when it's not these things, you can just choose not to listen and thus, choose not to inflict this alleged brain damage on yourself.
I said it makes society less free over-all - that statement does not even slightly contradict it. Very frequently society gets more free on average if we reduce the liberty of some individuals. Because we don't all have equal power or equal means to excercise our rights, restricting some actions for a few can actually make the rest of society more free. If we tell employers they aren't allowed to refuse to hire people for forming a union - then individuals with little negotiating power have the option to combine their negotiating power and form a union. An action that reduced the liberty of a small number (the employers) have made a large number (the workers) more free by allowing them to do something they could not previously do.
I notice you don't support your claim even a little with this verbiage. The obvious rebuttal is the absence of hate speech laws means we're more free to say whatever we want. You mention nothing that would support your assertion that any freedom is lost with that extra freedom gained.
And you are just plain wrong about this. But then, you always are in every post you've ever put here - facts have no influence on your thinking and you believe whatever you make up to be the same as facts.
And now we descend into complete bullshit with yet again absolutely no evidence to support your position. Just the usual effeminate bleat that I have to be plain wrong about this somehow.
In the real world, words don't kill people, murderers with weapons kill people whether it be Nazi Sturmabteilung brutally killing Jews in the streets or paramilitaries chopping down innocent Rwandans with machetes in churches. You will notice in these two cases that society had degenerated to the point where murder wasn't illegal. That didn't happen because people said naughty things. That happened because the rule of law falls apart. When you don't have rule of law, hate speech is far from the top of the list of your worries.
Just keep murder illegal and enforce those laws and you eliminate the primary supposed drawback of hate speech.
What is utterly unjustifiable is the idea that anybody should ever be subjected to hate speech.
You aren't. Don't like it? Then don't listen. It's time to grow up and recognize that people are routinely going to say things you don't like.
It serves no useful purpose, it does not advance democracy, it makes society less free over-all and it kills people.
Actually, you are wrong on two counts. First, it does make people more free because they are free to say what they think. Second, it doesn't kill people contrary to your assertion.
Because, if you try to answer *their* bad speech with good speech they usually answer you with guns. The only answer then is to bring your own gun - and it's better then if those guns are the government's guns because street-warfare tends to be bad for everybody.
Which we already do. Last I checked, it's still illegal to just shoot people because they say things you don't like. There's still no justification for hate speech laws.
It's worth noting here that this was the most important lie of all, because it was a key promise by President Obama, the most powerful backer of the PPACA bill. That's what it took to pass the bill. But it took Polifact four years to properly classify it.
Apologize for the bullshit they posted in 2008 and 2009, of course. It should be painfully obvious that you don't rate a promise as "true" when the speaker has yet to deliver on the promise.
Sorry, I still think it's even simply for you and Germany to just not care. The complaint doesn't even seem to be that it is false advertising, but rather that it gives dumb people the wrong impression. So how much should we compromise your life because there are dumb people in the world?
Well let's move this shit and put in in your back yard. I'm sure you won't mind after all it isn't much of a problem.
How much are you offering to pay for waste storage on my property? Pay enough and we'll be able to do this legally rather than in fantasy.
I also can't help but notice that this story is effectively a call to study the problem rather than a call to move the waste to khallow's backyard right this minute.
In the part you missed? They even used the years, so I hardly know how you missed it. In fact, even in the 2009 follow-up, it was explained why they were modifying their determination. It is a bit bogged down by the public option business, which we know didn't happen, but well, you're hardly going to blame Politifact for not knowing the future. Right?
Ok, I did miss a significant part of the 2013 article. But having said that, because they don't know the future perhaps they shouldn't say things are true, until they come to ass as such? OTOH, I note that I knew the "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." promise was going to be bullshit from the first time it was uttered and I didn't need omniscience to figure that out.
I said "apologize" not "acknowledge" (though yes, I did miss the links in the 2013 to earlier weaseling and repositioning by Politifact). There should be some consequence for carrying water for four years for such a lie.
And while there might have been a lot of lies and exaggerations from "right-wing online nuts", it's funny how they (and I for that matter) were able to determine, four years before Polifact, that the promise "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." was going to be a lie.
Here's a clue. Polifact shouldn't say something is true before the promise has been acted on one way or another.
The much simpler solution is for Tesla to change the name.
An even simpler solution is to not care in the first place either by you or the German government. That seems to fix the problem quite nicely when you do that.
Except your own link indicates that said journalist did explain their position, namely that the results had changed from it being a right-wing hysteria driven lie, to a face-saving Obama administration lie. Facts and circumstances do change, and what's true today could be false tomorrow.
Where do they say that in the 2013 story?
That said, I think Obama's mistake was not promising to destroy the most harmful impediment to a free-market healthcare system in the US, namely the entrenched hold that the health insurance industry has on the provision of care. They're the ones strangling America under the burden of their support, and they even got to write the new law to suit them. He should have listened to the libertarians and made a genuinely free and honest market, rather than allow fraudster intermediaries to interject themselves into it.
Because why not lie some more while you're at it?
Research led me far afield and I uncovered this gem from PolitiFact in its Pulitzer Prize-winning year of 2008. It rated as TRUE Obama's statement at the October 7, 2008, "If you've got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it."
Five years later, only after Obama was safely elected and re-elected did PolitiFact name that claim the Lie of the Year of 2013 -- even though it dated back to 2008.
Before and after. Same journalist wrote both and no apology for the earlier, "fact check" or the about face on the claim.
My point here is that the higher rate of nitrogen fixing may have been detrimental to survival of the bacteria in the wild. If a colony goes all out and another one cuts back a bit, the latter may be more numerous in the soil when all is said and done.
you actually mean if their priorities agreed with yours.
Obviously, I disagree and Slashdot reaction to this story is an example of why I do. Notice this following quote:
"I think itâ(TM)s very understandable that the Greenland government wants to get some answers on whoâ(TM)s accountable, and who will ultimately bear financial cost of any potential remediation," said Jeff Colgan, a professor of political science at Brown University and an author of the paper that highlighted the problem with Camp Century.
"At the same time, we expect itâ(TM)s a problem that will take decades to resurface," he told me. "The immediate focus should be monitoring and research."
That's not how it's being spun in this discussion. The US made a mess and they need to clean it up, in one case within the month or Greenland should ship the waste to the US.