the reason they're not conservative is they're not in favor of maintaining the status quo, which is the definition of "conservative". They support massive society sweeping change, which makes them very much _not_ conservative. I'd be more likely to call them Radical Regressives than anything else.
it never starts like this. It always starts with a big economic collapse that takes food from peoples mouths and makes them desperate enough to kill. Everything else comes after that as an excuse for the killing. Food and work shortages have _always_ been the problem.
As for your little spat against Political Correctness (it's really what you're getting at) I'll just leave this here.
and only social issues. So is the rest of the "left wing" media. When it comes to money they keep their damn mouths shut and do what they're told by their corporate masters. Christ, even HuffPo is kinda quiet on money issues. So yeah, for gays and abortion we have a "liberal" media. For anything else that matters (including drug policy and war policy) they're right of center or just plain far right.
because it's so nonsensical. The same people who tell me minimum wage only applies to teenagers also tell me the U.S. economy would collapse if we raised minimum wage. So which is it? Are these largely unnecessary service industry jobs or the backbone of our country? Can't really have it both ways.
that's how Obama won the last two elections. When the shenanigans in Florida started ( closed polling places, understaffing, ballots not being delivered) his campaign paid for over 1000 lawyers to shut it all down. It prevented McCain and later Rhomney from stealing the election like Bush jr did.
It'll run find on an 8320 and a $150 gpu. The only reason you can't run it on an i3 is they're dual core and it uses the actual core. I could play doom 3 on $500 worth of hardware. Or just play it on the PS4 for $300. And give it a year after launch after it's been optimized and I'll be it'll run on my 4 year old 5800k and 2 year old 660 gtx.
my brother just took an Uber and both folks were recently laid off. Also, I hate to be rude but were you not listening? Uber doesn't pay enough to pay for the wear and tear you're putting on your car. You're making well under minimum wage when you factor in the actual costs. And that's before we talk about the risk of driving professionally without commercial insurance (which again, Uber doesn't pay enough for).
Uber was, is and always will be only viable so long as they can externalize their costs. That's why every single one of these "sharing" economy companies shut down the moment they were made to stop doing that. Remember that company that did the same thing with Maid services? As soon as the local government demanded they pay minimum wage by reimbursing the workers for mileage and supplies they shut down. Completely. Hell, they couldn't survive paying _minimum wage let alone a living wage. Neither could Uber.
graduating from schools was going to play out. As college costs crept up and profit motive took over the schools were cranking out law graduates because it's dirt cheap to make a lawyer compared to a doctor. Pretty soon we were going to have far more trained lawyers than we needed. Think of it: millions of young, well trained law school grads with $80k+ in debt and no job prospects whatsoever. They were bound to go after corporate America in a massive frenzy of class action lawsuits.
The solution: Arbitration. Congress past a law which the SCOTUS upheld (they kinda had to, the law is pretty clear and there's nothing in the constitution to bar it). We're all forced to sign away our rights in exchange for employment and essential services. But that hasn't solved the problem of too many lawyers. I wonder what the next stop on their whirlwind tour of fun will be.
I'm guessing they'll turn on the public at large. A buddy of mine got caught without car insurance and got in a wreck (he was paying his premiums with money orders and one of the drones at the payment processing center stole his last money order. Being already a high risk driver his insurance company took that opportunity to cancel his plan without notice). Ten years ago it would have been a loss to the insurance company. Now? A lawyer sued, one a default judgement and my buddy's screwed for the next 20-30 years. But they'll run out of easy targets like my poor shlob of a friend soon. It's gonna get real nasty real fast.
because they're already short drivers. Uber doesn't pay enough to cover rent let alone the wear and tear on a vehicle. I know the popular belief is that their drivers are college kids out for beer money but in my experience it's mostly desperate people. A lot of those are ex-cons who can't get any other work in an increasingly bad economy. Why hire an ex-con when you've got 100 guys with clean records to choose from? A lot of Uber drivers won't pass the checks. That'll mean Uber will have to pay better to get more drivers. e.g. more surge pricing. That'll eliminate their competitive advantage over taxis.
Uber and really the entire "sharing" economy can't survive without white knuckle desperation. Take those people out, however you do it, and they'll collapse. And that's just what they did in Austin.
I'm not going to generalize about Americans, but I will about the voting public. And the ones who vote make the decisions. Fear of scary gang bangers (read: black people) gets folks to the polls. Fear _always_ gets people to the polls. Concern for human decency otoh does not. To fix this we'd need to make prisons public again. So long as there's a profit motive prisons will be horrifying places (they're not gonna be sunshine and rainbows w/o profit, but it'll help).
The point my rambling is trying to make is that a sizable portion of the population wants to see people suffer for their mistakes. My theory is they've screwed up their lives in one way or another (it's hard not to what with all the competing pressures in day to day life) and if they have to pay for their mistakes why the hell shouldn't everybody else? Regardless if we ever want to fix things we need to take care of that sentiment, switch to a parliamentary system that marginalizes the fear and frustration vote or Mandate voting so everybody goes to the polls. I don't think we'll do the latter two, any ideas on the last?
to put a guard in the room with the two? I know we can't do that with a conjugal visit but I'm guessing we're not doing those over the net unless the prisons have invested in teledildonics.
an the way into work some day. Rush, G Gordon, Glen Beck and the like. It's fairly pervasive. You may not respect the folks who think like this but here's the problem: they vote. American politics isn't about who's right or wrong, it's about who votes. Because we're a two party winner take all system. That's why Trump made it so far and why he might be our next president. My local senator is freaking the hell out because I'm in Arizona and it's possible there might be enough hispanics that make it to the polls to vote against Trump to unseat him. Pay attention to how I wrote that. I didn't say "bother to vote" I said "Make it to the polls" because there's a _lot_ of voter surpression going on. We had 60 polling places in Phoenix, Az this year. We usually have 200. That wasn't an accident...
with the "law on your side". It's basically what Bain capital does. They're clearly buying companies in bad faith and then gutting them for their assets; paying themselves obscene consulting fees while they do it. Everyone knows they do it too. The difference is Romney & Co spent their youth studying law and how to go about it. Romney wasn't screwing around in school like doubleya was. He was studying his ass off to pull the kind of corporate maneuvers needed to rob companies blind.
The sad thing is we Americans are so convinced "Regulation's bad, m'kay" that we let this crap go on and on. The difference between what Bain does & what this guy does is money laundering has been illegal for ages. He broke existing law. Bain put the work in to find something new and novel that wasn't covered by existing laws and with our current political climate nobody's got the cojones to pass a law making it a crime.
Wyoming is boom/bust. Mostly bust. Maybe if I was a mechanical engineer. Plus it's not so easy to up and move. I've got kids in school and roots here. Hell, that's sort of the whole problem with being middle class: I'm local, not global. I don't get to leverage the global market like the rich. All I really get out of it is cheap electronics and cheap oil. I can live without the electronics and I'd kill for real public transportation and a city built around it. I miss clean air.
I pay about 27% Fed & State alone (single male, no house, decent income). Meanwhile they get subsidies, bail outs and a military that protects their overseas factories and investments.
Here in the States our infrastructure is crumbling. Flint, Mi just poisoned their entire city to save a buck on their Water bill. There've been several bridge collapses and we've got dams all over the place in danger. Our roads are clogged with cars because there aren't enough roads. It's a mess, and the rich just fly jets & helicopters over it or drive in their limos. Meanwhile I pay for the airports their private jets use.
So yeah, screw that noise. They're benefiting from civilization they should bloody well chip in. They're not doing that. I say bully for this guy.
because we've got a company selling an addictive substance with little to no actual medical benefit. These guys are _not_ selling nicotine patches. You're not suppose to quit vaping like you quit the patch. It's got nothing to do with culture. The potential for abuse here is staggering. Nicotine is just the most obvious addictive substance. Give a chemist some time and a budge and he'll give you something that's just addictive enough to make the addicts life miserable without breaking them down enough to raise the public ire. That's a horrible thought but damn good business.
because you aren't 100% in control, even if you like to think you are. Nicotine is an addictive substance. And it's not hard to make other addictive substances. If we let companies add addictive substances without regulation they will. Why wouldn't they? They'll be smart enough to draw the line somewhere, but they'll always be pushing up against that line and the boundaries of human decency.
Go read Fred Pohl's "The Space Merchants" and learn about "The Cycle of Consumption" and then think a little about what responsibility really means.
not a one of them carries commercial drivers insurance and I don't trust Uber to pay up if I ever get in a real wreck and need long term medical treatment. And yeah, my health insurance company will try to weasel out of paying too so...
think Silicon Valley, Seattle, parts of California. Also, what will make it profitable is the 'Sharing' economy. Aka paying people piecemeal with no benefits, no taxes for you (just them) and above all no insurance, training or safety equipment. Just about any stupid idea can be profitable when you're allowed to externalize your expenses onto society at large...
To the cost of the Opera houses of old let alone the pyramids if we did an apples to apples comparison based off current GDP of the society. I remember reading that new Opera houses don't sound as good because you can't get society to throw that much money at something so trivial anymore.
and I say that as a Socialist who voted for Sanders in my primary. Clinton moved the country hard right so that he could form a coalition of voters to get in office. He sold out the American people time and again to get the support of Wallstreet and the money needed to win a national election. I don't say that lightly.
He rolled back mountains of vital securities and investment legistaltion. Most importantly Glass-Steagall which kept risky Wallstreet banking separate from safe mortgage, car and student loans. You can thank the 2008 melt down on him. He destroyed the social safety net but got away with it because the.com boom hid the damage for a time. Finally him and his wife blew our chances at socialized medicine for the next 50 years.
About the only thing good I can say about him is he gave us the Notorious RBG. That and at least he didn't ignore disasters and get us into an oil war in Afghanistan like his successor did.
I'm shocked we managed to get a Tariff through. It's got nothing to do with bad products. 266% is not enough when they treat their workers as disposable and spew poison into the air. If we go back to doing that we could compete too. I think they call it "Race to the Bottom".
Slashdot Mirror
If the could offshore the work. And there are plenty of European countries with strong IT job markets. They also protect their working class.
the reason they're not conservative is they're not in favor of maintaining the status quo, which is the definition of "conservative". They support massive society sweeping change, which makes them very much _not_ conservative. I'd be more likely to call them Radical Regressives than anything else.
it never starts like this. It always starts with a big economic collapse that takes food from peoples mouths and makes them desperate enough to kill. Everything else comes after that as an excuse for the killing. Food and work shortages have _always_ been the problem.
As for your little spat against Political Correctness (it's really what you're getting at) I'll just leave this here.
and only social issues. So is the rest of the "left wing" media. When it comes to money they keep their damn mouths shut and do what they're told by their corporate masters. Christ, even HuffPo is kinda quiet on money issues. So yeah, for gays and abortion we have a "liberal" media. For anything else that matters (including drug policy and war policy) they're right of center or just plain far right.
because it's so nonsensical. The same people who tell me minimum wage only applies to teenagers also tell me the U.S. economy would collapse if we raised minimum wage. So which is it? Are these largely unnecessary service industry jobs or the backbone of our country? Can't really have it both ways.
that's how Obama won the last two elections. When the shenanigans in Florida started ( closed polling places, understaffing, ballots not being delivered) his campaign paid for over 1000 lawyers to shut it all down. It prevented McCain and later Rhomney from stealing the election like Bush jr did.
It'll run find on an 8320 and a $150 gpu. The only reason you can't run it on an i3 is they're dual core and it uses the actual core. I could play doom 3 on $500 worth of hardware. Or just play it on the PS4 for $300. And give it a year after launch after it's been optimized and I'll be it'll run on my 4 year old 5800k and 2 year old 660 gtx.
my brother just took an Uber and both folks were recently laid off. Also, I hate to be rude but were you not listening? Uber doesn't pay enough to pay for the wear and tear you're putting on your car. You're making well under minimum wage when you factor in the actual costs. And that's before we talk about the risk of driving professionally without commercial insurance (which again, Uber doesn't pay enough for).
Uber was, is and always will be only viable so long as they can externalize their costs. That's why every single one of these "sharing" economy companies shut down the moment they were made to stop doing that. Remember that company that did the same thing with Maid services? As soon as the local government demanded they pay minimum wage by reimbursing the workers for mileage and supplies they shut down. Completely. Hell, they couldn't survive paying _minimum wage let alone a living wage. Neither could Uber.
graduating from schools was going to play out. As college costs crept up and profit motive took over the schools were cranking out law graduates because it's dirt cheap to make a lawyer compared to a doctor. Pretty soon we were going to have far more trained lawyers than we needed. Think of it: millions of young, well trained law school grads with $80k+ in debt and no job prospects whatsoever. They were bound to go after corporate America in a massive frenzy of class action lawsuits.
The solution: Arbitration. Congress past a law which the SCOTUS upheld (they kinda had to, the law is pretty clear and there's nothing in the constitution to bar it). We're all forced to sign away our rights in exchange for employment and essential services. But that hasn't solved the problem of too many lawyers. I wonder what the next stop on their whirlwind tour of fun will be.
I'm guessing they'll turn on the public at large. A buddy of mine got caught without car insurance and got in a wreck (he was paying his premiums with money orders and one of the drones at the payment processing center stole his last money order. Being already a high risk driver his insurance company took that opportunity to cancel his plan without notice). Ten years ago it would have been a loss to the insurance company. Now? A lawyer sued, one a default judgement and my buddy's screwed for the next 20-30 years. But they'll run out of easy targets like my poor shlob of a friend soon. It's gonna get real nasty real fast.
because they're already short drivers. Uber doesn't pay enough to cover rent let alone the wear and tear on a vehicle. I know the popular belief is that their drivers are college kids out for beer money but in my experience it's mostly desperate people. A lot of those are ex-cons who can't get any other work in an increasingly bad economy. Why hire an ex-con when you've got 100 guys with clean records to choose from? A lot of Uber drivers won't pass the checks. That'll mean Uber will have to pay better to get more drivers. e.g. more surge pricing. That'll eliminate their competitive advantage over taxis.
Uber and really the entire "sharing" economy can't survive without white knuckle desperation. Take those people out, however you do it, and they'll collapse. And that's just what they did in Austin.
I'm not going to generalize about Americans, but I will about the voting public. And the ones who vote make the decisions. Fear of scary gang bangers (read: black people) gets folks to the polls. Fear _always_ gets people to the polls. Concern for human decency otoh does not. To fix this we'd need to make prisons public again. So long as there's a profit motive prisons will be horrifying places (they're not gonna be sunshine and rainbows w/o profit, but it'll help).
The point my rambling is trying to make is that a sizable portion of the population wants to see people suffer for their mistakes. My theory is they've screwed up their lives in one way or another (it's hard not to what with all the competing pressures in day to day life) and if they have to pay for their mistakes why the hell shouldn't everybody else? Regardless if we ever want to fix things we need to take care of that sentiment, switch to a parliamentary system that marginalizes the fear and frustration vote or Mandate voting so everybody goes to the polls. I don't think we'll do the latter two, any ideas on the last?
to put a guard in the room with the two? I know we can't do that with a conjugal visit but I'm guessing we're not doing those over the net unless the prisons have invested in teledildonics.
an the way into work some day. Rush, G Gordon, Glen Beck and the like. It's fairly pervasive. You may not respect the folks who think like this but here's the problem: they vote. American politics isn't about who's right or wrong, it's about who votes. Because we're a two party winner take all system. That's why Trump made it so far and why he might be our next president. My local senator is freaking the hell out because I'm in Arizona and it's possible there might be enough hispanics that make it to the polls to vote against Trump to unseat him. Pay attention to how I wrote that. I didn't say "bother to vote" I said "Make it to the polls" because there's a _lot_ of voter surpression going on. We had 60 polling places in Phoenix, Az this year. We usually have 200. That wasn't an accident...
with the "law on your side". It's basically what Bain capital does. They're clearly buying companies in bad faith and then gutting them for their assets; paying themselves obscene consulting fees while they do it. Everyone knows they do it too. The difference is Romney & Co spent their youth studying law and how to go about it. Romney wasn't screwing around in school like doubleya was. He was studying his ass off to pull the kind of corporate maneuvers needed to rob companies blind.
The sad thing is we Americans are so convinced "Regulation's bad, m'kay" that we let this crap go on and on. The difference between what Bain does & what this guy does is money laundering has been illegal for ages. He broke existing law. Bain put the work in to find something new and novel that wasn't covered by existing laws and with our current political climate nobody's got the cojones to pass a law making it a crime.
any one of several excellent channels on game design like Extra Credits or Game history like Kim Justice.
Wyoming is boom/bust. Mostly bust. Maybe if I was a mechanical engineer. Plus it's not so easy to up and move. I've got kids in school and roots here. Hell, that's sort of the whole problem with being middle class: I'm local, not global. I don't get to leverage the global market like the rich. All I really get out of it is cheap electronics and cheap oil. I can live without the electronics and I'd kill for real public transportation and a city built around it. I miss clean air.
I pay about 27% Fed & State alone (single male, no house, decent income). Meanwhile they get subsidies, bail outs and a military that protects their overseas factories and investments.
Here in the States our infrastructure is crumbling. Flint, Mi just poisoned their entire city to save a buck on their Water bill. There've been several bridge collapses and we've got dams all over the place in danger. Our roads are clogged with cars because there aren't enough roads. It's a mess, and the rich just fly jets & helicopters over it or drive in their limos. Meanwhile I pay for the airports their private jets use.
So yeah, screw that noise. They're benefiting from civilization they should bloody well chip in. They're not doing that. I say bully for this guy.
because we've got a company selling an addictive substance with little to no actual medical benefit. These guys are _not_ selling nicotine patches. You're not suppose to quit vaping like you quit the patch. It's got nothing to do with culture. The potential for abuse here is staggering. Nicotine is just the most obvious addictive substance. Give a chemist some time and a budge and he'll give you something that's just addictive enough to make the addicts life miserable without breaking them down enough to raise the public ire. That's a horrible thought but damn good business.
because you aren't 100% in control, even if you like to think you are. Nicotine is an addictive substance. And it's not hard to make other addictive substances. If we let companies add addictive substances without regulation they will. Why wouldn't they? They'll be smart enough to draw the line somewhere, but they'll always be pushing up against that line and the boundaries of human decency.
Go read Fred Pohl's "The Space Merchants" and learn about "The Cycle of Consumption" and then think a little about what responsibility really means.
With a company selling a substance whose main appeal is being addictive. Anything else remember the "cycle of consumption" from The Space Merchants?
not a one of them carries commercial drivers insurance and I don't trust Uber to pay up if I ever get in a real wreck and need long term medical treatment. And yeah, my health insurance company will try to weasel out of paying too so...
think Silicon Valley, Seattle, parts of California. Also, what will make it profitable is the 'Sharing' economy. Aka paying people piecemeal with no benefits, no taxes for you (just them) and above all no insurance, training or safety equipment. Just about any stupid idea can be profitable when you're allowed to externalize your expenses onto society at large...
To the cost of the Opera houses of old let alone the pyramids if we did an apples to apples comparison based off current GDP of the society. I remember reading that new Opera houses don't sound as good because you can't get society to throw that much money at something so trivial anymore.
and I say that as a Socialist who voted for Sanders in my primary. Clinton moved the country hard right so that he could form a coalition of voters to get in office. He sold out the American people time and again to get the support of Wallstreet and the money needed to win a national election. I don't say that lightly.
.com boom hid the damage for a time. Finally him and his wife blew our chances at socialized medicine for the next 50 years.
He rolled back mountains of vital securities and investment legistaltion. Most importantly Glass-Steagall which kept risky Wallstreet banking separate from safe mortgage, car and student loans. You can thank the 2008 melt down on him. He destroyed the social safety net but got away with it because the
About the only thing good I can say about him is he gave us the Notorious RBG. That and at least he didn't ignore disasters and get us into an oil war in Afghanistan like his successor did.
I'm shocked we managed to get a Tariff through. It's got nothing to do with bad products. 266% is not enough when they treat their workers as disposable and spew poison into the air. If we go back to doing that we could compete too. I think they call it "Race to the Bottom".