how do I not have a right to sell it? If Disney sells me a license, how do I not have a right to resell that license? And if I don't have that right then we're not even pretending to be a free market anymore, are we?
in case you haven't paid any attention to what's coming out India already and what is rapidly coming out of the Philippians. But it's _never_ cheap enough. Ever. At least not until you're able to wake them up at midnight with nothing more than tea and a buscuit
that's really all there is to it. There is zero reason for "Computer Science" to be a graduation requirement. The math they cover is already more than sufficient. Anything more is a just a specialty branch of mathematics or just teaching people a trade. And there is zero reasons for computer focused trade schools. Between outsourcing and H1-Bs it's a dead end career. Sending someone off to computer themed trade schools is worse than cruel. It's a completely waste of everyone's time and money that only serves to devalue the wages of the few who've managed to eek out a meager living doing what's left of IT work in the States.
in America "The College Board" is the company that makes the standardized testing for college here (the SAT). My guess is they'd like to add CS to their test having determined that doing so would be profitable. They're another one of those "non-Profits" who makes hefty profits for it's owners. Like Goodwill if you've heard of them.
first, what the *bleep* is wrong with you. Second, I don't think it'll happen this time. A while ago Pakistan ignored an impending terrorist attack on India and pretty much let it go forward. The attack was against a major building in their capital city. The attack went off as planned. Normally this kind of stuff starts wars, but unlike an America/Iraq war this one (India/Pakistan) would be bad for business. The mega corps said no, and so there was no war.
You'll see brush fires here and there to keep the Military Industrial Complex going and to make sure folks like Saddam & Ghadaffi know their place and don't try to cut the mega corps out of the picture, but you'll never see another major world war again. The people who make those decisions are not tied to any one country anymore. They're global. They own property through the world. A world war would just be blowing up their own stuff. Wars are organized theft. They're one country trying to take what another country has by force. If you already own everything there's no reason to fire off a war. Not a real one.
Wars to control population are over. Come up with a better solution or let the world descend into dystopia. That's your choice.
the 70s. Around that time the manufacturing base was shipped overseas and with it the power of Unions dwindled. Also political wedge issues (abortion, guns, identity politics) divided the working class into easily manageable voting blocks who could be made to vote against their immediate and long term economic interests.
there were decades of unemployment, social strife and wars following the industrial revolutions. They don't teach this in school unless you get to the 200+ level history courses in college. They kinda just gloss over it.
It takes a long time for other tech to catch up and replace the jobs automated by an industrial revolution. That shouldn't come as a surprise. It's much easier to automate an existing process than to create entirely new lines of work.
It's also _hard_ to retrain existing workers. Those workers are older, so they learn slower, they're typically working full time to support the families they had before their better paying jobs were automated and above all nobody wants to pay high taxes so somebody can get a free ride to college in their 30s or 40s
Automation fueled unemployment is a complex problem. To suggest otherwise is childishly naive. Let me put it this way: When in your life has the best (or even a good) solution to a complex problem been to ignore it and hope it sorts itself out?
the Civil rights movement has nothing to do with the shootings _directly_.
Before the civil rights movement guys like Nikolas Cruz used to have pre approved targets that they could commit wanton acts of violence against. Again, this isn't idle speculation. There's reams and reams of evidence on widespread terrorism style tactics used against black people following the civil war. They could do this with impunity secure in the knowledge that no local jury would convict them.
There were limits of course. If their bloodthirst was of a higher level we had wars to send them off to.
Then the Civil Rights Movement happened and the feds moved in and these people got prosecuted and jailed. Their crimes brought into the light. Meanwhile they couldn't just go overseas to commit atrocities because they'd eventually be court martialed when the media picked the story up.
The bullied nerd was always a powder keg waiting to go off. It's just we used to let them go off so long as they picked the right target. About 50 years ago we stopped doing that. But they're still a powder keg and they still go off. It's just now they go off at random instead of on the targets we tacitly agreed to. That's put us in a spot where we might actually have to do something about it. Either that or pick a target that it's OK for them to go after. That would work too.
We had widespread terrorism before the feds came in and cracked down. No shit, look it up. There was a time when there was a perfect and (quasi) legal outlet for these kinds of nut cases in the form of the KKK. Their anger and frustration would be directed at black folk (and occasionally jews). We also had wars for these kids to fight. Many of them went to 'Nam, and you saw how that turned out.
Also, the media didn't used to report mass shooting from fear of copy cats. That changed after Columbine. I think that was the right thing to do. There weren't any concerted efforts to stop bullying until after Columbine. I'm an actual nerd and so are my friends. Many of us were bullied not just by students but by teachers (who justified it as 'tough love' when it was really just them being dicks). I'm sure many reading this right now experienced the same. Post Columbine at least the teachers backed off.
So yeah, stuff changed. We stopped letting these folks loose on minorities and made up enemies and we started reporting it when they took out their rage against inappropriate targets. But the violence was always there.
If they took him in based on the posts he could argue that his first and second amendment rights were being violated. I know we can't shout fire in a theater but I also know that you can say some pretty awful things and as long as it passes the "No right thinking person" test it's not illegal.
What I'm saying is this: If we start locking folks up for saying they're going to do violent things we're going to lock up a _lot_ of people. I'd say a good 5% of the population. And if we're not going to charge them with a crime and proceed with criminal prosecution then what right do we have to take away their guns?
I suppose we could build a completely new criminal justice system that allows suspension of 2nd amendment rights while not charging someone with a specific crime. We could also make certain misdemeanors punishable by losing your gun ownership rights. But do you think that's politically viable? If not then the FBI and police simply do not have the tools to deal with these sorts of people. Find another way.
College is un-affordable, school shootings on the rise, we're at 8 wars an counting and AI is going to decimate the job market in the next 20 years... and they pick mobile device addiction to worry about.
We're not going to regulate guns like we do cars. There's just no stomach for it. Even without the NRA money you've got millions of single issue voters.
I don't think folks have thought much about what an effective universal background check would look like. We can't just look at their criminal record. Most (all?) of these shooters didn't have one. We'd have to start looking at their mental health records (which would discourage anyone who likes guns from seeking help) and their social media posting. If we're going to go that far that means we have to have someone make decisions about who's allowed to have guns and who isn't. Are we going to do jury trials for every failed background check? Or are we going to have judges or maybe appointees (aka un-elected bureaucrats) make those decisions? How do I restore my gun rights after I've (effectively) lost them?
When you read that 97% of Americans support background checks nobody realizes there's a lot of variations in what a "background check" entails...
I believe it's classified as rifle ammo and would most likely fire in his (legally bought) AR-15. I could be wrong though. But if the ammo was purchased illegally why isn't the dealer in prison? Laws don't really matter if they're not enforced...
the Dems are chock full of right wing Corporate "Blue Dog" Dems (Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, etc, etc). It's a consequence of the crap Bill Clinton did to forge an alliance of socially liberal, economically right wing people to win the presidency (and pass the "Sheldon Primary"). They need to be purged from positions of power and replaced by the Justice Democrat wing of the party if we want to see traction on these kinds of policies.
So my point is that this clap trap about SJWs is a smoke screen promoted by the Republican party to distract white working class males from the real cause of their economic problems (to wit: Right Wing economic policies that destroy middle class jobs and wages while dividing the working class).
Your response to that point isn't to attack it on it's merits, but to say that my point is irrelevant because there might be a conspiracy by Google to fund lawsuits against themselves as a false flag operation to discredit further criticism of their diversity policies
Seriously, read what you wrote and think about the absurdity of it. Also, if you're going to attack my post do it by attacking the content of my post, not by engaging against random attacks on Google. I realize the latter is much, much easier (nobody likes Google right now because everybody hates SJWs), but you're not helping what should be your actual cause (e.g. helping white working class males address the issues confronting them).
Is this going to change how anyone votes? Will you be voting against a candidate because of this? Will you vote in a party primary? Will you vote in other elections you otherwise wouldn't (like mid terms) or be voting for the first time in years?
a). It's click bait. I predict 300+ comments on this post if not more.
b). These lawsuits are being funded by the Republican party. This is a major political issue for the Republican party. It's part of a larger narrative they're building that white males are under assault.
Now, the fact is white males are... by declining wages due to outsourcing, H1-Bs, economic crashes caused by widespread deregulation, vulture capital firms killing off their jobs, etc, etc); but they're no more so than any other member of the working class. It's basically the right wing version of identity politics. Something to distract from the broader issues and keep the various groups of working class people at each other's throats. A caste system.
they're working on automated weapons platforms for just such a scenario. Also they're building up our caste systems so the working class will continue to fight among themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
how do I not have a right to sell it? If Disney sells me a license, how do I not have a right to resell that license? And if I don't have that right then we're not even pretending to be a free market anymore, are we?
in case you haven't paid any attention to what's coming out India already and what is rapidly coming out of the Philippians. But it's _never_ cheap enough. Ever. At least not until you're able to wake them up at midnight with nothing more than tea and a buscuit
that's really all there is to it. There is zero reason for "Computer Science" to be a graduation requirement. The math they cover is already more than sufficient. Anything more is a just a specialty branch of mathematics or just teaching people a trade. And there is zero reasons for computer focused trade schools. Between outsourcing and H1-Bs it's a dead end career. Sending someone off to computer themed trade schools is worse than cruel. It's a completely waste of everyone's time and money that only serves to devalue the wages of the few who've managed to eek out a meager living doing what's left of IT work in the States.
in America "The College Board" is the company that makes the standardized testing for college here (the SAT). My guess is they'd like to add CS to their test having determined that doing so would be profitable. They're another one of those "non-Profits" who makes hefty profits for it's owners. Like Goodwill if you've heard of them.
my Rep couldn't possibly care less what I think about Whistle blower protections.
right? Supply and demand, right?
first, what the *bleep* is wrong with you. Second, I don't think it'll happen this time. A while ago Pakistan ignored an impending terrorist attack on India and pretty much let it go forward. The attack was against a major building in their capital city. The attack went off as planned. Normally this kind of stuff starts wars, but unlike an America/Iraq war this one (India/Pakistan) would be bad for business. The mega corps said no, and so there was no war.
You'll see brush fires here and there to keep the Military Industrial Complex going and to make sure folks like Saddam & Ghadaffi know their place and don't try to cut the mega corps out of the picture, but you'll never see another major world war again. The people who make those decisions are not tied to any one country anymore. They're global. They own property through the world. A world war would just be blowing up their own stuff. Wars are organized theft. They're one country trying to take what another country has by force. If you already own everything there's no reason to fire off a war. Not a real one.
Wars to control population are over. Come up with a better solution or let the world descend into dystopia. That's your choice.
in our criminal justice system. That's fine so long as you're aware of what you're asking for.
the 70s. Around that time the manufacturing base was shipped overseas and with it the power of Unions dwindled. Also political wedge issues (abortion, guns, identity politics) divided the working class into easily manageable voting blocks who could be made to vote against their immediate and long term economic interests.
there were decades of unemployment, social strife and wars following the industrial revolutions. They don't teach this in school unless you get to the 200+ level history courses in college. They kinda just gloss over it.
It takes a long time for other tech to catch up and replace the jobs automated by an industrial revolution. That shouldn't come as a surprise. It's much easier to automate an existing process than to create entirely new lines of work.
It's also _hard_ to retrain existing workers. Those workers are older, so they learn slower, they're typically working full time to support the families they had before their better paying jobs were automated and above all nobody wants to pay high taxes so somebody can get a free ride to college in their 30s or 40s
Automation fueled unemployment is a complex problem. To suggest otherwise is childishly naive. Let me put it this way: When in your life has the best (or even a good) solution to a complex problem been to ignore it and hope it sorts itself out?
the Civil rights movement has nothing to do with the shootings _directly_.
Before the civil rights movement guys like Nikolas Cruz used to have pre approved targets that they could commit wanton acts of violence against. Again, this isn't idle speculation. There's reams and reams of evidence on widespread terrorism style tactics used against black people following the civil war. They could do this with impunity secure in the knowledge that no local jury would convict them.
There were limits of course. If their bloodthirst was of a higher level we had wars to send them off to.
Then the Civil Rights Movement happened and the feds moved in and these people got prosecuted and jailed. Their crimes brought into the light. Meanwhile they couldn't just go overseas to commit atrocities because they'd eventually be court martialed when the media picked the story up.
The bullied nerd was always a powder keg waiting to go off. It's just we used to let them go off so long as they picked the right target. About 50 years ago we stopped doing that. But they're still a powder keg and they still go off. It's just now they go off at random instead of on the targets we tacitly agreed to. That's put us in a spot where we might actually have to do something about it. Either that or pick a target that it's OK for them to go after. That would work too.
We had widespread terrorism before the feds came in and cracked down. No shit, look it up. There was a time when there was a perfect and (quasi) legal outlet for these kinds of nut cases in the form of the KKK. Their anger and frustration would be directed at black folk (and occasionally jews). We also had wars for these kids to fight. Many of them went to 'Nam, and you saw how that turned out.
Also, the media didn't used to report mass shooting from fear of copy cats. That changed after Columbine. I think that was the right thing to do. There weren't any concerted efforts to stop bullying until after Columbine. I'm an actual nerd and so are my friends. Many of us were bullied not just by students but by teachers (who justified it as 'tough love' when it was really just them being dicks). I'm sure many reading this right now experienced the same. Post Columbine at least the teachers backed off.
So yeah, stuff changed. We stopped letting these folks loose on minorities and made up enemies and we started reporting it when they took out their rage against inappropriate targets. But the violence was always there.
Elections have consequences..
to driving. Heck, a lot of them don't have those rights to social services.
Moreover, Americans don't want the folks at the DMV in charge of whether they can own guns or not.
If they took him in based on the posts he could argue that his first and second amendment rights were being violated. I know we can't shout fire in a theater but I also know that you can say some pretty awful things and as long as it passes the "No right thinking person" test it's not illegal.
What I'm saying is this: If we start locking folks up for saying they're going to do violent things we're going to lock up a _lot_ of people. I'd say a good 5% of the population. And if we're not going to charge them with a crime and proceed with criminal prosecution then what right do we have to take away their guns?
I suppose we could build a completely new criminal justice system that allows suspension of 2nd amendment rights while not charging someone with a specific crime. We could also make certain misdemeanors punishable by losing your gun ownership rights. But do you think that's politically viable? If not then the FBI and police simply do not have the tools to deal with these sorts of people. Find another way.
College is un-affordable, school shootings on the rise, we're at 8 wars an counting and AI is going to decimate the job market in the next 20 years... and they pick mobile device addiction to worry about.
We're not going to regulate guns like we do cars. There's just no stomach for it. Even without the NRA money you've got millions of single issue voters.
I don't think folks have thought much about what an effective universal background check would look like. We can't just look at their criminal record. Most (all?) of these shooters didn't have one. We'd have to start looking at their mental health records (which would discourage anyone who likes guns from seeking help) and their social media posting. If we're going to go that far that means we have to have someone make decisions about who's allowed to have guns and who isn't. Are we going to do jury trials for every failed background check? Or are we going to have judges or maybe appointees (aka un-elected bureaucrats) make those decisions? How do I restore my gun rights after I've (effectively) lost them?
When you read that 97% of Americans support background checks nobody realizes there's a lot of variations in what a "background check" entails...
Cabelas lists .223 ammo as rifle ammo, so this is all a moot point.
I believe it's classified as rifle ammo and would most likely fire in his (legally bought) AR-15. I could be wrong though. But if the ammo was purchased illegally why isn't the dealer in prison? Laws don't really matter if they're not enforced...
I've been on this site for 20 years and seen this happening in realtime.
the Dems are chock full of right wing Corporate "Blue Dog" Dems (Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, etc, etc). It's a consequence of the crap Bill Clinton did to forge an alliance of socially liberal, economically right wing people to win the presidency (and pass the "Sheldon Primary"). They need to be purged from positions of power and replaced by the Justice Democrat wing of the party if we want to see traction on these kinds of policies.
So my point is that this clap trap about SJWs is a smoke screen promoted by the Republican party to distract white working class males from the real cause of their economic problems (to wit: Right Wing economic policies that destroy middle class jobs and wages while dividing the working class).
Your response to that point isn't to attack it on it's merits, but to say that my point is irrelevant because there might be a conspiracy by Google to fund lawsuits against themselves as a false flag operation to discredit further criticism of their diversity policies
Seriously, read what you wrote and think about the absurdity of it. Also, if you're going to attack my post do it by attacking the content of my post, not by engaging against random attacks on Google. I realize the latter is much, much easier (nobody likes Google right now because everybody hates SJWs), but you're not helping what should be your actual cause (e.g. helping white working class males address the issues confronting them).
Is this going to change how anyone votes? Will you be voting against a candidate because of this? Will you vote in a party primary? Will you vote in other elections you otherwise wouldn't (like mid terms) or be voting for the first time in years?
this is getting magnified by two thing:
a). It's click bait. I predict 300+ comments on this post if not more.
b). These lawsuits are being funded by the Republican party. This is a major political issue for the Republican party. It's part of a larger narrative they're building that white males are under assault.
Now, the fact is white males are... by declining wages due to outsourcing, H1-Bs, economic crashes caused by widespread deregulation, vulture capital firms killing off their jobs, etc, etc); but they're no more so than any other member of the working class. It's basically the right wing version of identity politics. Something to distract from the broader issues and keep the various groups of working class people at each other's throats. A caste system.
they're working on automated weapons platforms for just such a scenario. Also they're building up our caste systems so the working class will continue to fight among themselves.